Science is quite obviously following a dialectic path in "The History of Science". By 'dialectic' I touch on a kind of epistemology, a way of knowing the world, which is both entertained and enquired in/ by Auden's poetry. As I will argue here, The History of Science" plays a rather peculiar role in Auden's epistemology if compared with the other poems on science.
The three dialectical steps from thesis, to antithesis and finally to a synthesis reconciling thesis and antithesis are core to Hegelian thinking, which I will not elaborate on as such. In Auden's poetry they are visible in the stages of firstly looking for something, not finding it and thereby revealing something else instead. In the context of history writing, which "History of Science" obviously touches upon, Hegel established this dialectical circle as the fundamental idea of historical change as such. Before Hegel history was not conceived as a dynamic process and philosophers busy with the world of ideas, entirely ignored it.
1) Thesis: The Old Greek Athens was a society harmoniously unifying the individual and society.
2) Antithesis: Questioning its underlying conventions (Sokrates questions: What is justice? Etc.) shatters the harmony between society and individual.
3) Synthesis: The thought of the individual consciousness historically was born in Old Greece by conceptually disentangling society and the individual in social practice.
This is roughly how Hegel sees history moving forward. He especially applied it on the world of ideas. The synthesis equals the thesis in the following circle(s). In much of his poetry, Auden entertains this kind of epistemology (way of knowing). He does in "History of Science" as well. To illustrate this in his works just remember how Auden ironically reveals the epistemological pitfalls of "Archeology" and "Modern Physics" ("Reading a Childs Guide to …") and dismisses them as sources of comprehensible, correct and morally useful knowledge. After the first deconstructive moves he gains a synthetic lecture such as "goodness is timeless" or "being altogether wise". Beginning with a disappointment and ending with a moral loosely related to the beginning, these poems are both constructed in dialectical steps and depicting processes which actually are dialectic. Concerning science Auden apparantelly seeks for a kind of knowledge, which is not only rational but also comprehensible and morally helpful. Maybe it is not such a surprise after all that Auden does not succeed in finding such a complete form of knowledge. However, this negative knowledge is not the result of a single poem but crucial as an antithesis in a never ending dialectical circle, which I reckon could be traced through his entire work. It strives for a reconciling all kind of knowledge on a certain moral level. As Auden illustrates himself "Bestiaries are Out". Bestiaries as a form of natural philosophy reconciling descriptively correct and morally useful knowledge of nature have been irrevocably disproven by "Research" itself. Even though Auden seems to dismiss their moralizing attempt as "absurd" ("Bestiaries are Out"), those bestiaries left a residue which Auden would be eager to fill.
Of course, Auden is aware of history writing as such and is therefore as much a dialectic thinker as everybody else is nowadays. However, not to give up the red thread of dialectic thinking in Auden, you need to distinguish between craftily constructing the poem and truthfully telling the story of something. I claim "The History of Science" is a dialectic poem in the latter way and rather not (maybe indirectly) on the level of construction. Science itself is proceeding dialectically in this text; it is not a mere stage in a dialectical circle constructed by the poet. To put it simpler, here science is rather the agent of its own history than it is the object of some universal pattern, which drives the history of science.
2) Antithesis: … then love could not be felt, faces would be intangible and we had no habitable places.
3) Synthesis: The physical knowledge should be examined towards its purpose. It should serve a moral and political wisdom.
The leap to a moral kind of knowledge conducted in "Archeology" and "Modern Physics" lacks (as well as it does in those peculiar dialogues with animals, as Tuur has shown it with "talking to mice"). The poet does not undermine Science by exceeding its pitfalls in the synthesis. The crafty archeologists are depicted as Whiggish historians (i.e. writing history as linear and seeing the past as mere preparation for the superior present) and physicians are hopelessly lost in abstraction. In contrast, science in "The History of Science" is actually undermining a narrative convention, namely the history of the three brothers.
Of course, there are just not enough texts to make a significant point about Audens conception of science in comparison to disciplines. However, the dialectic epistemology is consistent enough in Auden's work to call it typically Auden. Since he deliberately changed this style during his life, deviations – especially those touching upon the same topics – are significant.
In line with the common imago of the 'crazy professor' he exceeds scientific conventions as epistemological blind spots or saturated markets of scientific business. Being "advised 'Go South a while', / (he) Smiled "Thank you!" and turned North". This forth brother appears as oral history ("all written reference" of his existence is "censored"), which is the narrative reason for Auden to formally break with the narrative of the three brothers. This brother, being science or a successful part of science, unifies all strengths of the obligatory characters looking for the "flaxen-haired Princess". He is as kind as the third brother is by being grateful for the advice. In the end he actually succeeds in his own dialectical quest for scientific success/ or true knowledge. It is a modest success, which will evoke a new dialectical circle, but at least he finally discovers "A treasure not of gold but silver".
I think, this is a fine and inventive series of thoughts on science in Auden, Jeremias. I hope we will manage to have a short further discussion of your interpretation of 'The History of Science' tomorrow, after Rick has done his presentation of 'Ascension Day'.
One question for now. How do you reconcile "placelessness" and "timelessness" in your remarks on 'Archeology'?
I think there seems to be an interplay of Faith and Skepticism here… which ultimately reverts to Faith! This framework of Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis, seems to work seemlessly in the poems that you have tried to apply it on. But, the perfection seems to make me more skeptical.
I don't have a reason, so this could just be a pointless feeling of uneasiness, but I think there is a definite element of Homo Ludens (Man, the Player) in his work. A game as a format of play seems to follow certain rules… Here the skepticism around Science is primarily in the tone of play. What if, you do break a few rules!?Whenever he breaks the rules, he brings out the inherent chaos in the resulting play. And then, since the game has to continue, he sets up new rules. The new game has new results… The flaxen-haired princess is now raven-haired.