History of Mathematics is a multidisciplinary subject with a strong presence in Oxford, spread across a number of departments, most notably the Mathematical Institute and the History Faculty. The research interests of the members of the group cover mathematics, its cultures and its impacts on culture from the Renaissance right up to the twentieth century.
Core research topics include the place of mathematics in the transformation of intellectual culture during the early modern period (Philip Beeley, Yelda Nasifoglu, Benjamin Wardhaugh), the development of abstract algebra during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Christopher Hollings, Peter Neumann), and the effects of twentieth-century politics on the pursuit of mathematics (Hollings). The group has a strong background in the mathematics of seventeenth-century Europe, with studies of, for example, the correspondence of the seventeenth-century Savilian Professor of Geometry John Wallis and of the mathematical intelligencer John Collins (Beeley). The current 'Reading Euclid' project seeks to understand the place of Euclid's Elements within early modern British culture and education (Beeley, Nasifoglu, Wardhaugh). In recent years, members of the group have also been involved in efforts to provide the first sober assessment of the mathematical education and abilities of Ada Lovelace (Hollings, Ursula Martin) and the first biography of pit lad-turned-mathematics professor Charles Hutton (Wardhaugh).
Current students within the group are Liu Xi (history of differential geometry), Kevin Baker (the first readers of Newton’s Principia), and Johann Gaebler (the intellectual contexts for the reception of the calculus).
Others in Oxford with interests in the history of mathematics include Howard Emmens (history of group theory), Raymond Flood (Irish mathematics), Keith Hannabuss (nineteenth-century mathematics), Daniel Isaacson (the rise of modern logic, 1879–1931), Rob Iliffe (Newton and Newtonianism), Stephen Johnston (early modern practical mathematics and instruments), Matthew Landrus (Renaissance mathematics and the arts), Robin Wilson (nineteenth-century mathematics, and the history of combinatorics).
Some case studies of research carried out by members of the group may be found here, here, and here.
The group holds a semiregular departmental seminar, as well as an annual series of general lectures entitled 'What do historians of mathematics do?', held in Trinity Term. Members of the group also organise a seminar in ‘the History of the Exact Sciences’ during Hilary Term (the programme for Hilary Term 2018 may be found here, with abstracts here) and a research workshop in early modern mathematics each December. These events are complemented by Oxford’s wide range of activity in history of science, technology and medicine more generally.
Within the Mathematical Institute, the group offers the following undergraduate teaching:
The group welcomes applications for postgraduate study, which would be based either in the Mathematical Institute or the History Faculty, depending on the interests and background of the applicant. Avenues for study include the MSc or MPhil in History of Science, Medicine and Technology, or a DPhil in the History of Mathematics. Prospective applicants are encouraged to contact either Dr Christopher Hollings (Mathematical Institute) or Dr Benjamin Wardhaugh (History Faculty) to discuss options.
British Society for the History of Mathematics
This is a guide for students writing a substantial course essay or bachelors thesis in the history of mathematics.
The essence of a good essay is that it shows independent and critical thought. You do not want to write yet another account of some topic that has already been covered many times before. Your goal should not be to write an encyclopaedia-style article that strings together various facts that one can find in standard sources. Your goal should not be to simply retell in your own words a story that has already been told many times before in various books. Such essays do not demonstrate thought, and therefore it is impossible to earn a good grade this way.
So you want to look for ways of framing your essay that give you opportunity for thought. The following is a basic taxonomy of some typical ways in which this can be done.
Critique. A good rule of thumb is: if you want a good grade you should, in your essay, disagree with and argue against at least one statement in the secondary literature. This is probably easier than you might think; errors and inaccuracies are very common, especially in general and popular books on the history of mathematics. When doing research for your essay, it is a good idea to focus on a small question and try to find out what many different secondary sources say about it. Once you have understood the topic well, you will most likely find that some of the weaker secondary sources are very superficial and quite possibly downright wrong. You want to make note of such shortcomings in the literature and cite and explain what is wrong about them in your essay, and why their errors are significant in terms of a proper understanding of the matter.
The point, of course, is not that finding errors in other people’s work is an end in itself. The point, rather, is that if you want to get anywhere in history it is essential to read all texts with a critical eye. It is therefore a good exercise to train yourself to look for errors in the literature, not because collecting errors is interesting in itself but because if you believe everything you read you will never get anywhere in this world, especially as far as history is concerned.
Maybe what you really wanted to do was simply to learn some nice things about the topic and write them up in your essay as a way of organising what you learned when reading about it. That is a fine goal, and certainly history is largely about satisfying our curiosities in this way. However, when it comes to grading it is difficult to tell whether you have truly thought something through and understood it, or whether you are simply paraphrasing someone else who has done so. Therefore such essays cannot generally earn a very good grade. But if you do this kind of work it will not be difficult for you to use the understanding you develop to find flaws in the secondary literature, and this will give a much more concrete demonstration of your understanding. So while developing your understanding was the true goal, critiquing other works will often be the best way to make your understanding evident to the person grading your essay.
For many examples of how one might write a critique, see my book reviews categorised as “critical.”
Debate. A simple way of putting yourself in a critical mindset is to engage with an existing debate in the secondary literature. There are many instances where historians disagree and offer competing interpretations, often in quite heated debates. Picking such a topic will steer you away from the temptation to simply accumulate information and facts. Instead you will be forced to critically weigh the evidence and the arguments on both sides. Probably you will find yourself on one side or the other, and it will hopefully come quite naturally to you to contribute your own argument for your favoured side and your own replies to the arguments of the opposing side.
Some sample “debate” topics are: Did Euclid know “algebra”?Did Copernicus secretly borrow from Islamic predecessors?Why did the Greeks study conic sections?“Myths” in the historiography of Egyptian mathematics?Was Galileo a product of his social context?
Compare & contrast. The compare & contrast essay is a less confrontational sibling of the debate essay. It too deals with divergent interpretations in the secondary literature, but instead of trying to “pick the winner” it celebrates the diversity of approaches. By thoughtfully comparing different points of view, it raises new questions and illuminates new angles that were not evident when each standpoint was considered in isolation. In this way, it brings out more clearly the strengths and weaknesses, and the assumptions and implications, of each point of view.
When you are writing a compare & contrast essay you are wearing two (or more) “hats.” One moment you empathise with one viewpoint, the next moment with the other. You play out a dialog in your mind: How would one side reply to the arguments and evidence that are key from the other point of view, and vice versa? What can the two learn from each other? In what ways, if any, are they irreconcilable? Can their differences be accounted for in terms of the authors’ motivations and goals, their social context, or some other way?
Following the compare & contrast model is a relatively straightforward recipe for generating reflections of your own. It is almost always applicable: all you need is two alternate accounts of the same historical development. It could be for instance two different mathematical interpretations, two perspectives emphasising different contexts, or two biographies of the same person.
The compare & contrast approach is therefore a great choice if you want to spend most of your research time reading and learning fairly broadly about a particular topic. Unlike the critique or debate approaches, which requires you to survey the literature for weak spots and zero in for pinpoint attacks, it allows you to take in and engage with the latest and best works of scholarship in a big-picture way. The potential danger, on the other hand, is that it may come dangerously close to merely survey or summarise the works of others. They way to avoid this danger is to always emphasise the dialog between the different points of view, rather than the views themselves. Nevertheless, if you are very ambitious you may want to complement a compare & contrast essay with elements of critique or debate.
Verify or disprove. People often appeal to history to justify certain conclusions. They give arguments of the form: “History works like this, so therefore [important conclusions].” Often such accounts allude briefly to specific historical examples without discussing them in any detail. Do the historical facts of the matter bear out the author’s point, or did he distort and misrepresent history to serve his own ends? Such a question is a good starting point for an essay. It leads you to focus your essay on a specific question and to structure your essay as an analytical argument. It also affords you ample opportunity for independent thought without unreasonable demands on originality: your own contribution lies not in new discoveries but in comparing established scholarly works from a new point of view. Thus it is similar to a compare & contrast essay, with the two works being compared being on the one hand the theoretical work making general claims about history, and on the other hand detailed studies of the historical episodes in question.
Sample topics of this type are: Are there revolutions in mathematics in the sense of Kuhn? Or does mathematics work according to the model of Kitcher? Or that of Lakatos or Crowe? Does the historical development of mathematical concepts mirror the stages of the learning process of students learning the subject today, in the manner suggested by Sfard or Sierpinska? Was Kant’s account of the nature of geometrical knowledge discredited by the discovery of non-Euclidean geometry?
Cross-section. Another way of combining existing scholarship in such a way as to afford scope for independent thought is to ask “cross-sectional” questions, such as comparing different approaches to a particular mathematical idea in different cultures or different time periods. Again, a compare & contrast type of analysis gives you the opportunity to show that you have engaged with the material at a deeper and more reflective level than merely recounting existing scholarship.
Dig. There are still many sources and issues in the history of mathematics that have yet to be investigated thoroughly by anyone. In such cases you can make valuable and original contributions without any of the above bells and whistles by simply being the first to really study something in depth. It is of course splendid if you can do this, but there are a number of downsides: (1) you will be studying something small and obscure, while the above approaches allow you to tackle any big and fascinating question you are interested in; (2) it often requires foreign language skills; (3) finding a suitable topic is hard, since you must locate an obscure work and master all the related secondary literature so that you can make a case that it has been insufficiently studied.
In practice you may need someone to do (3) for you. I have some suggestions which go with the themes of 17th century mathematics covered in my history of mathematics book. It would be interesting to study for instance 18th century calculus textbooks (see e.g. the bibliography in Abellán) in light of these issues, especially the conflict between geometric and analytic approaches. If you know Latin there are many more neglected works, such as the first book on integral calculus, Gabriele Manfredi’s De constructione aequationum differentialium primi gradus (1707), or Henry Savile’s Praelectiones tresdecim in principium Elementorum Euclidis, 1621, or many other works listed in a bibliography by Schüling.
Expose. A variant of the dig essay is to look into certain mathematical details and write a clear exposition of them. Since historical mathematics is often hard to read, being able to explain its essence in a clear and insightful way is often an accomplishment in itself that shows considerable independent thought. This shares some of the drawbacks of the dig essay, except it is much easier to find a topic, even an important one. History is full of important mathematics in need of clear exposition. But the reason for this points to another drawback of this essay type: it’s hard. You need to know your mathematics very well to pull this off, but the rewards are great if you do.
Whichever of the above approaches you take you want to make it very clear and explicit in your essay what parts of it reflect your own thinking and how your discussion goes beyond existing literature. If this is not completely clear from the essay itself, consider adding a note to the grader detailing these things. If you do not make it clear when something is your own contribution the grader will have to assume that it is not, which will not be good for your grade.
See also History of mathematics literature guide.