This article starts, on the one hand, with a consi­de­ra­tion of the para­doxi­cal way in which, name­ly when he wan­ted to evoke those intel­lec­tual figures that have deci­ded­ly contri­bu­ted to the reve­la­tion of the « true Pas­cal », i.e., of the Pas­cal that had known the good usage of rea­son, For­tu­nat Strows­ki comes to the idea of put­ting side by side Pierre Duhem and Léon Brun­sch­vicg. On the other, a refe­rence is made to the fact that Duhem only publi­shed two articles and a pre­face on Pas­cal while Brun­sch­vicg is the author of a major work on the great figure of the XVIIth Cen­tu­ry. Hence, the ques­tion rai­sed is about the consi­de­ra­tion that shall be given to a para­doxi­cal affir­ma­tion that seems to place on equal terms the few pages that Duhem has writ­ten on Pas­cal with the impo­sing contri­bu­tions of Brun­sch­vicg. For the author of the article, it would not be very consequent to take such affir­ma­tions as if they were unre­flec­ted ones, since it is clear that Strows­ki knew exact­ly what he was wri­ting as we can see from the very good know­ledge he had of the wri­tings of both Blaise Pas­cal and Pierre Duhem. Indeed, and more than anyone else, Strows­ki was in a very good posi­tion to enligh­ten us about these two thin­kers and to write about them in the terms he effec­ti­ve­ly did. The goal of the article, the­re­fore, is to jus­ti­fy that asser­tion, which on its face is quite para­doxi­cal, by sho­wing in concrete terms the extent to which Pierre Duhem was tru­ly influen­ced by Blaise Pascal.