ALEXANDER MacCallum Scott recognized the entanglements and uncertainties in the relationships between knowledge, religion, and politics. He raises also the question of loyalty. For him, to be aware of the dynamics of the embeddedness of knowledge in other intellectual domains raises the question of sovereignty. To what is one loyal, and who is pure? (Steven Shapin titles a collection of his essays Never Pure.) Or, if impure, how is this impurity managed? If these entanglements and impurities are characteristic of what some people know, what are the dynamics for navigating them? The history of scholarship is both new and old, both insecure and secure, specialized and non-specialized. Some of these tensions are mimicked in the oft remarked divisions in history of science between internalists and externalists. Some of those who practice in this territory are scholars who, having made their contributions to their field, turn to the history of the field itself. And while they might be master/mistress of their field, they know little about how to do the history of their field. That is to say, they don't know how to study the history of change. Further, they often do not know how to explore the difference between genre and discipline in their field(s).What this book has attempted to do is to evade binaries (amateur/professional, for example) and be guided by other themes that cannot be compressed in simple binaries. These include exploring the roles of individual authority (let us call it charisma) and associational conviction. Knowledge is not free-floating, the work of individual divinely inspired geniuses. Nor is knowledge controlled and socially determined. It is the result of both individual and associational authority at the same time.