John and I once figured out that we probably first met in early 1972 when he was at Harvard and I was at Boston University. We immediately became close friends, which to us meant that we could tell each other absolutely anything, personally or professionally, and know that it would go no further. That is a rare and precious bond, which was severed only when John died on November 24, 2017, at age eighty-three.
John and I met frequently during the following quarter century. In 1978, when John became editor of the American Journal of Physics (AJP), I became editor of its Resource Letters, which over the following decade brought us together at least twice each year at meetings of the American Association of Physics Teachers. Then, in 1987, when John became director of physics programs at the American Institute of Physics (AIP), I was chair of its advisory committee on history of physics, so we saw each other annually in New York, and he and his wife Diana invited me to their apartment. Later, in 1992, when the AIP moved to College Park, Maryland, they invited me to their home in Bethesda. John and I also met at meetings of the American Physical Society and at meetings of its Forum for History of Physics. When John came to Minneapolis, I and my wife Helga invited him to our home, and he and Diana stayed with us at our cottage on a lake in New Hampshire.
My closest collaboration with John ensued from our founding and editing of Physics in Perspective. Its origin dates to a letter of May 1, 1996, in which Dr. Hans-Peter Thür, Director of Birkhäuser Verlag in Basel, Switzerland, informed me that he was thinking about replacing Helvetica Physica Acta, the official journal of the Swiss Physical Society, with a journal on the history of physics, perhaps with the title Historia Physica or History of Physics. I discussed his suggestion at length with my Minnesota colleague Alan Shapiro and my graduate student Kai-Henrik Barth, and responded to Dr. Thür on May 24. We had found, I told him, that there currently were three journals devoted largely to the history of physics, Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, and Physis: Rivista Internazionale di Storia della Scienza, and that the Archive for History of Exact Sciences also published many articles on the history of physics. We concluded that a new journal would certainly experience competition, but perhaps not insurmountable competition; that most prominent historians of physics had little or no difficulty in publishing their papers in a journal of their choice; and that to appeal to the broadest possible audience the new journal would have to be published in English and would have to cover the history of physics from antiquity to the present.
I also stated the obvious: the success of the new journal would depend critically on its editor, who would have to be a prominent historian of physics, and on its editorial board, which would have to include prominent historians of physics on an international scale. I then raised a question about editorial policy: should articles submitted to the journal be refereed by peers, or should they be accepted for publication if they were formally communicated by a member of the editorial board, as was the case for the Archive for History of Exact Sciences? I pointed out that both Alan Shapiro and I were members of its editorial board, and that we felt that its system worked well. I finally raised a question about the title of the new journal: Should it perhaps be broadened to History and Philosophy of Physics? I felt that it should not, because it then might be swamped by philosophical articles, since there were many more philosophers than historians of physics in the world. Furthermore, to include philosophy might alienate some physicists, a key segment of its intended readership. As for possible institutional support for the new journal, that would have to be negotiated in connection with the selection of its editor.
Over the next three months, Dr. Thür considered my comments and suggestions, consulted other historians and physicists, and conveyed his further thoughts to me in a second letter, to which I responded on September 19, 1996. Dr. Thür, in particular, had consulted Jürgen Renn, Director of the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin, and had asked him if he would consider serving with me as co-editor of the new journal. That was a timely suggestion because I had been invited to give a lecture at the Magnus-Haus in Berlin, the home of the German Physical Society, on October 7, and Jürgen had been asked to introduce me. It turned out, however, as I told Dr. Thür in a letter of October 14 after I returned home, that Jürgen had to be away from Berlin, so I sent him a long fax in which I asked him various questions about our potential co-editorship. The upshot was that Jürgen finally concluded that his directorship responsibilities and duties were so demanding that he would not be able to devote sufficient time to the co-editorship of the new journal.
It will come as no surprise that I then immediately thought of my friend John as co-editor, and we began to have long discussions about the new journal by telephone and correspondence. Meanwhile, on September 30, Dr. Thür had given Edwin Beschler, Executive Vice President of Boston Birkhäuser, full authority to discuss the editorial and financial arrangements for the new journal, so the four of us set up a meeting in Boston for February 11, 1997. The meeting also was attended by one of Dr. Thür’s associates and, on my suggestion, by my Doktorvater Erwin Hiebert, so that we could benefit from his long experience and good advice. As preparation for the meeting, John and I sent a draft editorial to five distinguished scholars (two historians, two physicists, one philosopher) whose comments, along with a list of questions for discussion, I sent to Dr. Thür and Mr. Beschler on February 6. Our meeting five days later concluded with their encouraging us to go forward in developing our ideas and plans for the new journal.
Three months later, John and I had another opportunity to discuss the new journal when I invited him to attend the first Seven Pines Symposium, founded by my friend Lee Gohlike, which was held on “Historical Perspectives and Philosophical Problems in the Unification of Physics” at his Seven Pines Lodge near Lewis, Wisconsin, from May 14–18, 1997. We discussed all aspects of the new journal over the long midday breaks and at other times. We thus were in a good position to comment on a draft contract of June 4 that Birkhäuser drew up for us. Its first clause pertained to the title of the journal. At the symposium, we had proposed to several people the title Natural Philosophy: History and Philosophy of Physics, which was unanimously criticized as being too archaic and too scholarly. That prompted us to think anew about its title. We concluded, first, that it should be as short as possible for ease in citing the journal. We then searched the literature and found that while the title Physics in Perspective had been used for a National Research Council report, it had never been used for the title of a scholarly journal. That, to us, settled the issue.
Other issues, of course, also had to be settled. We agreed that the official language of the journal should be English, that the editorial board members should be divided into three groups and should serve staggered and renewable five-year terms, that authors should receive fifty reprints of their papers free of charge, that four issues of 100–120 pages should be published each year, that the annual subscription rate should be in line with that of comparable journals and should be lower for members of official sponsoring societies than for non-members and much lower than for institutions, and that the editors should receive an honorarium and an allowance for expenses. John and I discussed all of these issues, and more, when we met with Dr. Thür and his associates in Basel, Switzerland, for two days, July 4–5, 1997.
Five months later, on December 19, I reported to Mr. Beschler that John and I had sent a welcoming letter to our thirty incoming Editorial Board members (thirteen historians, five philosophers, nine physicists, and three science writers, with sixteen members from the United States, one from Canada, and thirteen from seven European countries), and that we had sent another letter to seventy-five selected historians, philosophers, and physicists to solicit manuscripts. I also enclosed a copy of the journal’s aim and scope, which embodied our commitment to found a unique scholarly journal:
Physics in Perspective was created to convey to a broad spectrum of readers a deeper understanding and appreciation of the way physics is conducted, of its content and application, and of the profound influence that physics has had in changing our conception of the natural world and in shaping our modern scientific and technological culture. The journal strives to deepen the reader’s physics “literacy” and thereby bridge the gulf between the physicist and the non-physicist by encouraging the publication of historical and philosophical studies. Moreover, there will be biographical accounts, review articles and close-ups on specialized topics. They will have one common quality: the power to make the results of historical and philosophical studies in connection to physics vibrant and exciting to physicists, teachers, students and the public at large.
John and I were able to fulfill this vision because our backgrounds and skills were complementary. His knowledge of and ties to the physics community were greater than mine, while my knowledge of and ties to the history community were greater than his, so together we had extensive access to both communities for potential authors of papers. In terms of the journal’s composition, John proposed that we introduce sections on perspectives on current issues, vignettes, and book notes, and I proposed that we introduce a section on the physical tourist and insert anecdotes and grooks in otherwise blank spaces after articles. We both agreed to introduce an in memoriam or in appreciation section. In terms of our division of labor, John wrote all of the editorials in the sixty issues we published from 1999 to 2013 with the exception of the first one, which we wrote together, and he wrote all of the book notes we published in the last thirty-two issues. He often told me that writing an editorial every three months for our journal was much more difficult for him than writing the monthly editorials he wrote over his ten-year editorship of the American Journal of Physics, because for the AJP editorials he had developed a monthly rhythm of conception, incubation, and writing, while for our journal he had to restart that rhythm afresh every three months. My principal roles were corresponding with all of the authors and potential authors, answering their questions, and meticulously editing and copyediting all of the many articles we published during our fifteen-year co-editorship.
I shall never forget the gratifying, challenging, joyous, and rewarding journey that John and I shared in founding and editing Physics in Perspective.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stuewer, R.H. John S. Rigden. Phys. Perspect. 20, 4–7 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00016-018-0215-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00016-018-0215-1