The modest science of cosmology I encountered a half century ago has grown into big science. I comment on steps in this development I think I understand because I was there or, in some cases, wish I had been. Wonderful insights-or lucky guesses-and elegant deductions from measurements were accompanied by the usual mix of unlucky guesses and disregard of unwelcome evidence. I say "usual" because I suspect the course of development of any other natural science is similarly erratic. An example in cosmology is Einstein's homogeneous Universe, which was largely accepted as a working hypothesis when there was scant evidence and seriously challenged after we had a reasonable case for homogeneity. Similar mixes of insight and inattention led to the eventual identification of the 3K microwave background, the demonstration that large-scale structure grew by the gravitational instability of the expanding Universe, and the completion of a tight network of cosmological tests. A half century ago, we had little idea what would become of what we were doing in cosmology. We have a better picture now, but I expect there to be more surprises.