theme of compromise in the face of need provides one way to look at German practice as a whole. However, with Kuss, as with discussion of the response to the Resistance during World War Two, so with Stoltzfus, it is necessary to consider the ideology at play and the extent to which there was a brutal and overriding determination to ensure control and remould society. In each case, this is apparent. Being exposed to a policy of tactical expedience was not probably the first thought of those being slaughtered or tortured. JEREMY BLACK University of Exeter Global Scientific Practice in an Age of Revolutions, 1750–1850. Edited by PATRICK MANNING and DANIEL ROOD. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2016. xii + 401 pp. $49.95 (hardcover). The past several decades witnessed a “global turn” in the field of history of science. The master narrative centering on the rise of modern science within Western Europe and its subsequent diffusion around the world is being increasingly effaced as more scholars joined in the search for a polycentric, inclusive framework for studying the “global histories” of science.1 The volume under review is a timely and welcome intervention in this rapidly growing discourse. Global Scientific Practice in an Age of Revolutions, published by the World History Center at the University of Pittsburgh as the inaugural volume in a planned series dedicated to starting a conversation between historians of science and scholars working in world/global/transnational history, invites all to contemplate seriously the possibility of a “world history of science.” The essays collected here were first presented in 2012 at the conference convened by the center titled “Linnaean Worlds: Global Scientific Practice during the Great Divergence.” The temporal focus, 1750 to 1850, is chosen because of the profound worldwide transformations taking place during this time in the realms of economy, 1 For some methodological explorations in this regard, see Lissa Roberts, “Situating Science in Global History: Local Exchanges and Networks of Circulation,” Itinerario 33 (2009): 9–30; the essays in Sujit Sivasundaram, et al., “Global Histories of Science,” Special Section of Isis 101 (2010): 95–158; and Fa-ti Fan, “The Global Turn in the History of Science,” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal 6, no. 2 (2012): 249–258. 256 JOURNAL OF WORLD HISTORY, JUNE 2019 society, politics, and culture. Particularly, this period witnessed the “Great Divergence” in economic life between Europe and China that was observed by Pomeranz and others, at the same time when what came to be known as “modern science” gradually crystalized. The bulk of this science, the thematic focus of these essays, consisted of the bioand field sciences that take the earth, natural species, humans, and their immediate environs as their subjects. The diffusionist narrative about this science spotlights the works of great European minds such as Swedish naturalist Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778), French naturalist Georges-Louis Leclerc (Comte de Buffon, 1707–1788), and German naturalist and explorer Alexander von Humboldt (1769–1859). In contrast, contributors to this volume, through their richly documented case studies and bold yet judiciously enunciated syntheses, deconstruct that neat and heroic narrative by highlighting the multifarious origins of modern science in and outside Europe, its complex itineraries, its spontaneous, fragmentary, mobile, and incongruous nature, and its deep embedment in networks of power of varying scopes crisscrossing the (early) modern world. The book consists of five parts, preceded by an insightful introduction by Patrick Manning. Part I explores the dynamics of knowledge exchange in the Americas between Europeans and other local inhabitants. Matthew James Crawford’s study of the Spanish Crown’s failure in maintaining a royal reserve of quina (with the active ingredient quinine) in the Viceroyalty of New Granada in the 1790s reveals how the power of the empire was circumscribed by the way of knowing of their distant colonial subjects. Eleonora Rohland tells how early French settlers in Louisiana and other Europeans in North America struggled to comprehend the formation and patterns of hurricanes, and how the knowledge they gained through exchanges with Amerindians, inhabitants in the Caribbean, and Atlantic sailors helped them launch a meteorological discourse and eventually a largescale knowledge infrastructure for hurricane prediction spanning North...
Read full abstract