Revolution or Reform: The Chemical Revolution and Eighteenth Century Concepts of Scientific Change

Popper K. , The logic of scientific discovery (London, 1959); idem, Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge (London, 1963).

Kuhn T. , “The function of dogma in scientific research”, in Crombie A. C. (ed.), Scientific change (London and New York, 1963); idem, The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd edn, rev. (Chicago, 1970).

Lakatos I. and Musgrave A. (eds), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (Cambridge, 1970); Harré R. (ed.), Problems of scientific revolution (Oxford, 1975); see also the collection of essay reviews on “Kuhn, Lakatos, Stegmüller” in The British journal for the history of science, xii (1979), 289–341.

For an appetizing assortment of sociological approaches, see the studies analysed in D. Edge's review, “Is there too much sociology of science?”, Isis, lxxiv (1983), 250–6. Clearly, Edge is enjoying the feast with little concern about over-indulgence.

Broad W. J. , “History of science losing its science?”, Science, ccvii (1980), 389; see also ibid., 934–5.

Levin A. , “Venel, Lavoisier, Fourcroy, Cabanis and the idea of scientific revolution: The French political context and the general patterns of conceptualization of scientific change”, History of science, xxii (1984), 303–20.

Cohen I. B. , “The eighteenth-century origins of the concept of scientific revolution”, Journal of the history of ideas, xxxvii (1976), 257–88. Cohen has since published a more comprehensive study in Revolution in science (Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1985); see especially ch. 4.

For the full text of Lavoisier's memorandum see Guerlac Henry , Lavoisier - The crucial year (Ithaca, 1961), 228–30.

Guerlac H. , “The chemical revolution: A word from Monsieur Fourcroy”, Ambix, xxiii (1976), 1–4.

Gough J. B. , “Some early references to revolutions in chemistry”, Ambix, xxix (1982), 106–9.

Levin , op. cit. (ref. 6), 304.

ibid., 305–6.

ibid., 307–8.

ibid., 309, 316–17.

Cohen contrasts notions of ‘revolution’ and ‘reform’ among nineteenth century scientists (see, for example, Cohen , Revolution (ref. 7), 318), but the word ‘reform’ does not occur in his discussion of eighteenth century usage.

Apart from its allusion to his southern origins, the epithet is a clever play upon the expression ‘démon de minuit’, see Guédon J. C. , The still life of a transition: Chemistry in the Encyclopédic (Ph.D. thesis, Wisconsin, 1974), 356.

Venel's appraisal of the position of chemistry in the mid-eighteenth century is discussed by Crosland M. , “The development of chemistry in the eighteenth century”, Studies on Voltaire and the eighteenth century, xxiv (1963), 369–441, p. 372; see also Daumas M. , “La chimie dans l'Encyclopédie et dans l'Encyclopédie méthodique”, Revue d'histoire des sciences et de leurs applications, iv (1951), 334–43, pp. 334–5.

Venel G. F. , “Chymie”, in Encyclopédie, ou dictionnaire raisonné des sciences, des arts et des métiers, iii (Paris, 1753), 408–37, pp. 409–10. Unless otherwise indicated, translations from the French are my own.

ibid., 408.

Ibid ., 436. He called Stahl's Specimen Becherianum “the Euclid of the chemists” (p. 434).

ibid., 410.

ibid., 437.

Levin , op. cit. (ref. 6), 311, erred in trying to establish the likelihood that Lavoisier knew Venel's article in 1773 by citing in support a remark made in 1788. Apart from the anachronism, Lavoisier's reference to “le savant magistrat qui s'est chargé de la partie chimique de l'Encyclopédie” – see Oeuvres de Lavoisier (6 vols, Paris, 1862–93), ii, 669 – does not concern Venel at all. Lavoisier was referring to the new encyclopedia, the Encyclopédie méthodique, and its chemical author, de Morveau L. B. Guyton , who was a ‘magistrat’ in Dijon. Such strained argument is quite unnecessary, in any case, for it is almost inconceivable that Lavoiser (who read widely in chemistry in the 1760s) could have missed Venel's popular and provocative article.

See Guerlac , op. cit. (ref. 8), 227–8.

Lavoisier A. L. , “Sur la cause de laugmentation de pesanteur quacquierent les metaux et [plusieurs] quelques autres substances par la calcination”, Archives de l'Académie des Sciences, Lavoisier Papers, Dossier 1303. For the text and the dating of this manuscript, see Perrin C. E. , “Lavoisier's thoughts on calcination and combustion, 1772–1773”, Isis, lxxvii (1986), 647–66. Portions of the quotation in square brackets are stroked out in the original.

ibid. The italicized portion is a marginal addition.

Levin , op. cit. (ref. 6), 304.

Since preparing the first draft of this paper, I have read Holmes F. L. , Lavoisier and the chemistry of life (Madison, 1985). Holmes does a masterful job of unravelling the complexities of Lavoisier's attitude toward phlogiston in the period following the February 1773 memorandum.

In the draft document quoted above (ref. 25). See also my forthcoming paper “Continuity and divergence of research traditions: Lavoisier and the chemical revolution”, scheduled for publication in Osiris, iv (early 1988).

Levin , op. cit. (ref. 6), 307–8.

Venel , op. cit. (ref. 18), 416.

For an elaboration of this argument, see Perrin , op. cit. (ref. 25).

“Mémoire lu par M. Macquer, à la séance publique de l'Ac. Royale des Sciences le 14 Sept. [sic, should read Nov.] 1772, sur des expériences faites en commun, au foyer des grands verres ardens de Tschirnausen, par Messieurs Cadet, Brisson & Lavoisier”, Observations sur la physique , December (1772), 93–106, pp. 105–6.

The text is given by Fric R. , “Contribution à l'étude de l'évolution des idées de Lavoisier sur la nature de l'air et sur la calcination des métaux”, Archives internationales d'histoire des sciences, xii (1959), 137–68, p. 162.

Baumé A. , Chymie éxperimentale et raisonnée (3 vols, Paris, 1773), iii, 693.

Bucquet J. B. M. , “Mémoire sur quelques circonstances qui accompagnent la décomposition du Sel Ammoniac par la chaux vive, par les matières métalliques & par leur chaux, relativement aux propriétés attribuées à l'air fixe”, Mémoires de mathématique et de physique, présentés à l'Académie Royale des Sciences, par divers sçavans, ix (1780), 563–75, p. 563.

ibid., 563–4.

See Lavoisier , Oeuvres (ref. 23), i, 551.

On the authorship of the report see Perrin C. E. , “Did Lavoisier report to the Academy of Sciences on his own book?”, Isis, lxxv (1984), 343–8.

Macquer P. J. , Dictionnaire de chymie (4 vols, Paris, 1778), i, 349.

Anonymous extract/review of Berthollet C. L. , Observations sur l'air (Paris, 1776) in the Journal de médecine, xlvi (1776), 441–52 and 531–6.

Lavoisier , “Mémoire sur la combustion en général”, Oeuvres (ref. 23), ii, 225–33, p. 225.

ibid., 228.

Encyclopédie méthodique: Chimie, pharmacie et métallurgie, i, pt 2 (Paris, 1789), 628–9.

Guyton de Morveau to Macquer, 22 January 1778; see Duveen D. I. and Klickstein H. S. , “A letter from Guyton de Morveau to Macquart relating to Lavoisier's attack against the phlogiston theory (1778); with an account of de Morveau's conversion to Lavoisier's doctrines in 1787”, Osiris, xii (1956), 342–67, p. 346. (The recipient was actually Macquer, not Macquart.)

Bucquet J. B. M. , Mémoire sur la manière dont les animaux sont affectés par differens fluides aériformes méphitiques (Paris, 1778), 2.

Fourcroy A. F. , Leçons élémentaires d'histoire naturelle et de chimie (2 vols, Paris, 1782), i, pp. i–ii.

ibid., p. xxiv.

ibid., 22.

Lavoisier , Oeuvres (ref. 23), ii, 623–55.

ibid., 623–4.

Levin , op. cit. (ref. 6), 311.

Lavoisier , Oeuvres (ref. 23), ii, 626.

ibid., 624–5.

ibid., 655.

Lavoisier , “Mémoire sur la nécessite de réformer et de perfectionner la nomenclature de la chimie”, Oeuvres (ref. 23), v, 354–64.

ibid., 355.

ibid., 364.

ibid., 359.

J. A. C. Chaptal to Lavoisier, 6 February 1788, private collection belonging to Count Guy de Chabrol. On the Lavoisier-Chaptal correspondence, see Perrin C. E. , “Of theory shifts and industrial innovations: The relations of J. A. C. Chaptal and A. L. Lavoisier”, Annals of science, xliii (1986), 511–42.

“Lettre de M. Opoix… à M de la Métherie, sur la nouvelle théorie”, Observations sur la physique, xxxiv (1789), 76–78, p. 76.

ibid., 78.

Levin (op. cit. (ref. 6), 312) implies that Lavoisier selectively spoke of revolution with correspondents who would “understand … his political allusions”. His generalization (based only upon the two letters to Franklin and Chaptal) neglects immediate context in favour of vague political innuendo. It tells us nothing about the pattern of Lavoisier's correspondence, which was, indeed, selective and subject to several constraints. Lavoisier was a busy man with little time, inclination or need to cultivate private exchanges with fellow scientists. His letters, for the most part, were brief and business-like, concerned with affairs of the Academy, the Régie des Poudres, the Ferme Générale, various commissions and committees. The two occasions on which he made a concerted effort at personal communication with scientists of international stature followed upon publication of his Opuscules physiques et chimiques (1774) and his Traité élémentaire de chimie (1789). In the first case, he distributed complementary copies to a number of scientific academies and to every individual he knew of who had published on the subject of fixed air. In the second, he tried to reach influential foreign scientists, subject to further constraints. Even a wealthy man like Lavoisier had a limited number of books to hand out; moreover, he did not simply drop them into a letter box! The occasion of his famous letters to Franklin, Black J. Volta A. , and Spallanzani L. was, in each case, a reliable traveller headed to the appropriate destination; so the distribution was spread out over a couple of years. Most of the presentation letters were brief. (In the case of the Opuscules they followed a similar formula, too, being written around the same time.) The letter to Franklin was a special case because of the friendship he had developed with the Lavoisiers during his stint as American ambassador in Paris. Lavoisier seized the opportunity of a traveller to Philadelphia to send a copy of his book to Franklin. For the French, Franklin was not only the symbol of the American revolution (as Levin points out), he was the symbol of American science. Given Franklin's dual role in science and politics it is quite natural that Lavoisier should bring his friend up to date on the dramatic developments in each since their last communication (he had in 1788 sent Franklin a copy of the new nomenclature). Hence, Lavoisier's linking of the chemical and political revolutions follows rather simply from the context. The case of Chaptal is a special one, too, for he was an announced convert to Lavoisier's system; they had previously exchanged several letters – each of Lavoisier's a reply to a communication from Chaptal. Lavoisier was of course, always careful in his choice of words; but in the communications to Franklin and Chaptal – friend and ally – he was somewhat more informal and forthcoming. The typical pattern of the presentation letters is a modest (almost self-effacing) offering of Lavoisier's book and a suggestion that the recipient's opinion will carry great weight in deciding the question in chemistry. Any suggestion that Lavoisier selected his correspondents for their political ideology strikes me as purely gratuitous.

Cohen , Revolution (ref. 7), 202, 217–20.

ibid., 205.

ibid., 217.

Père La Mothe (alias De la Hode), Histoire des révolutions de France, où Von voit comment cette monarchie s'est formée, & les divers changemens qui y sont arrivés par rapport à son étendue & à son gouvernement (The Hague, 1738). The copy presented to Lavoisier in 1759 is preserved in the Lavoisier Collection of the Cornell University Library; its cover is embossed with the emblem of the Collège Mazarin and the flyleaf is inscribed to Lavoisier. La Mothe's understanding of revolution as a term “that applies to an undertaking begun, but not completed, and without success” is quite different from Lavoisier's later usage. La Mothe predicted that with the establishment of absolute monarchy in France there would be no further revolutions!.

Hahn R. , The anatomy of a scientific institution: The Paris Academy of Sciences, 1666–1803 (Berkeley, 1971).

The text of the letter was published by Fric R. , “Une lettre inédite de Lavoisier à B. Franklin”, Bulletin historique et scientific de l'Auvergne, 2nd series, (1924), 145–52; it has been widely excerpted.

A case might be made for impulses in the opposite direction. The scientist/philosophers who applied themselves to politics at the outbreak of the Revolution, hoped to change the social and political order by means that had succeeded in the sciences – by means of ideas, models, argument and experiment, in short, through reason. They were ill-prepared for the disorder and violence that followed usurpation of traditional authority. Several became victims of that violence: Bailly and Lavoisier perished on the guillotine; Condorcet died in hiding.