Lavoisier in European Context: Negotiating a New Language for Chemistry ed. by Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent and Ferdinando Abbri

Abstract

508 Book Reviews TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE Dr. Harper is professor of sociology and chair of the Department of Sociology at Duquesne University. He is founding editor of the journal Visual Sociology and has published ethnographies on railroad tramps and rural artisans. His current research concerns the impact of technology on small farm culture. Lavoisier in European Context: Negotiating a New Languagefor Chemistry. Edited by Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent and Ferdinando Abbri. Canton, Mass.: Science History Publications (Watson), 1995. Pp. vii+303; figures, tables, notes, bibliography, index. $45.95 (cloth). At the end of the 1780s, two volumes were published in Paris that were to bring about the total transformation of chemistry. One sug­ gested a new form of nomenclature, based on a mode of taxonomy proposed by the individuals whose names appeared in the title: Méth­ ode de nomenclature chimique, proposée par MM. de Morveau, Lavoisier, Bertholet, & deFourcroy . . . Hassenfratz & Adet (1787). The other vol­ ume was Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier’s Traité élémentaire de chimie (1789). The impact of the latter was such that the year 1789 has since been taken as the birthdate of modern chemistry. That this is still commonly accepted is reflected in the scope of the European Science Foundation (ESF) Scientific Program dealing with the “Evo­ lution of Chemistry in Europe, 1789-1939.” Thus it was entirely ap­ propriate that in 1994, during the Lavoisier Bicentennial and under the aegis ofthe ESF program, a dozen historians gathered to explore the historiography of the acceptance of these two publications, and especially the former, in different European countries. Lavoisier in European Context represents the outcome of their deliberations. What becomes apparent is that the response to the new French chemistrywas far from uniform, despite the fact that Lavoisier’s anti­ phlogiston theory was widely, and rapidly, accepted, in some circles at least. In countries previously wracked by war or the Inquisition, namely Poland and Portugal, respectively, the new chemistry satis­ fied new needs for scientific discourse, as described by Roman Mierzecki and A. M. Amorim da Costa. This was especially true ofPoland, which had a strong affinity with French culture. Yet, as Brigitte van Tiggelen shows, closer to France, in Belgium—where an active scien­ tific community existed—the response was cooler. Sometimes, as among the Spanish dyeing and metallurgical communities and French pharmacists, utility played an important role in adoption, as explained by contributors Patricia Aceves, Augusti Nieto-Galan, and Anne Claire Déré, respectively. In Holland, according to Lissa Rob­ erts, the fascination with instruments meant that Lavoisier’s experi­ ments could be readily demonstrated, which did much to bring about acceptance. Elsewhere, patriotism was a contributing, and blinding, factor. John G. McEvoy describes how in England Joseph Priestley fought TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE Book Reviews 509 relentlessly against the adoption of alien ideas that had originated across the Silver Streak. He found allies in Scotland, where James Hutton remained faithful to phlogiston andJohn Robison abhored everything associated with the French Revolution, which included the metric system and the new chemical nomenclature. The main problem, as Arthur Donovan explains, was the essential tension be­ tween Lavoisier’s approach, which was embedded in mainstream French culture, and the Scottish (and English) tradition that favored a more cautious and individualistic response to the new chemistry and its associated language. This, as elsewhere, had much to do with different styles of thought. David Knight shows how Humphrey Davy promoted a mid­ dle line, while at the same time battling with his leading professional opponent in Paris, Gay-Lussac. In other cases, such as that examined by Anders Lundgren, the records of little-known chemists, such as the Swedish Anders Gustaf Ekeberg, provide important clues to the wider influence of Lavoisier. Lavoisier’s contact with Vincenzo Dandolo in northern Italy overcame early skepticism. Acceptance was aided by the fact that, as Marco Beretta points out, Dandolo was not only Lavoisier’s main translator in Italy but also an influential politician. Ferdinando Abbri moves the story to Tuscany, where Fe­ lice Fontan repeated Lavoisier’s experiments and confirmed their veracity but remained committed to phlogiston; while Giovanni Fabbroni contributed to the linguistic debate by proposing some names that were less appreciated by...