Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

William H. Brock. The History of Chemistry: A Very Short Introduction . (Very Short Introductions.) xvi + 151 pp., illus., bibl., index. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. £7.99 (paper). John L. Heilbron. Physics: A Short History from Quintessence to Quarks . ix + 228 pp., figs., index. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. £10.99 (cloth).

2017; University of Chicago Press; Volume: 108; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1086/690795

1545-6994

Daan Wegener,

Diverse Historical and Scientific Studies

Previous articleNext article FreeWilliam H. Brock. The History of Chemistry: A Very Short Introduction. (Very Short Introductions.) xvi + 151 pp., illus., bibl., index. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. £7.99 (paper). John L. Heilbron. Physics: A Short History from Quintessence to Quarks. ix + 228 pp., figs., index. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. £10.99 (cloth).Daan WegenerDaan Wegener Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreThese short disciplinary histories merit attention because of their authors. William H. Brock and John L. Heilbron are among the most distinguished scholars in the history of chemistry and the history of physics. Brock’s extensive Norton History of Chemistry (Norton, 1993) is still authoritative. Heilbron, the editor of The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science (Oxford, 2003), is a towering figure in the history of science. Both authors have over half a century of experience in the field. These slim studies should not be regarded as the culmination of decades of research, however, but simply as sophisticated examples of the familiar genre of disciplinary history.Disciplinary histories tend to cover the entire history of the subject, going back to the ancient Greeks if not earlier and continuing in giant strides to the twentieth or even twenty-first century. The chapter titles of Heilbron’s study give a good idea of its content: “Invention in Antiquity,” “Selection in Islam,” “Domestication in Europe,” “A Second Creation,” “Classical Physics and Its Cure,” “From Old World to New.” It covers everything from Aristotle to particle accelerators or, as the subtitle puts it, from quintessence to quarks. The scope of Brock’s study is even broader, beginning with the Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages. This difference in the starting points of Heilbron and Brock is significant. It reflects the view that, historically at least, physics has had close connections to natural philosophy, whereas chemistry was always more of a practical science. And so the manipulation of “stuff” is, in a sense, already chemistry.Implicitly or explicitly, these sweeping historical overviews rely on a timeless definition of their subject. Thus Brock draws on Friedrich Kekulé’s definition: “chemistry is the study of the material metamorphoses of materials” (pp. 2–3). The definition must be quite general and inclusive so that it can accommodate major revolutions (or transformations) within the discipline. At the same time, as we know from Thomas Kuhn’s classic 1976 article “Mathematical vs. Experimental Traditions in the Development of Physical Science” (Journal of Interdisciplinary History, 1976, 7:1–31) disciplinary histories exclude as much as they include. To compensate for the anachronistic point of departure, disciplinary historians employ various strategies. One is to draw attention to the wildly different “contexts” of chemistry or physics in the past. Heilbron’s study, for example, emphasizes the institutional context, or “the primary site(s) of cultivation” (p. 2), of science. Both histories add color to their narrative by paying attention to the wider worlds of chemistry and physics. Another strategy, used by Heilbron, is to point out that restriction to a particular domain “is not unacceptably anachronistic provided we recognize that [before the modern disciplinary system existed] the same principles of structure and change applied to all natural phenomena” (p. 7). Finally, both Brock and Heilbron stress that some historical changes are so profound that it is inappropriate to use one word to denote the discipline. Brock follows the historians of chemistry (or, rather, historians of chymistry) William R. Newman and Lawrence M. Principe in making a distinction between chymistry and chemistry (p. 20). Similarly, Heilbron distinguishes physica and modern physics, raising the question of how one “transformed” into the other. It is difficult enough to employ the terminology consistently, but the deeper problem is that the narrative of this “transformation” suggests an underlying continuity within the discipline: as if chemistry turned from chymistry into (modern) chemistry. So in one sense the distinctions used by Brock and Heilbron give the lie to the titles of their books, and in another sense they don’t.Disciplinary histories are typically written by and for insiders. Brock was trained as a chemist, Heilbron as a physicist. One of the supposedly liberating effects of the professionalization of the history of science is that this requirement has been relaxed. We no longer have to be biologists to write about the history of biology. Indeed, why limit yourself to a single discipline? Today, disciplinary histories quickly appear old fashioned and narrow minded. Yet we should beware of too much complacency. There is much that is excellent in Brock’s and Heilbron’s studies. They are more reliable, especially in technical matters, than more “modern” introductions to the history of science. Of course, even in their case, some nuance is lost when operating on this scale. For example, within Aristotle’s natural philosophy the growth of an acorn into an oak tree is not a change of “essence” (Brock, p. 12) but one of quality and quantity; it’s the actualization of its form. Also, J. J. Thomson didn’t postulate the electron in 1897 (Brock, p. 119); he spoke of “corpuscles” instead. The index is a bit sloppy in referring to “Omnes, Kamerlingh” (Brock, p. 149). Forestalling such nitpicking, the epigraphs of Heilbron’s study are essentially disclaimers. One of them, from Aristotle, reads: “Precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions.”Are there any novel insights to be found in these short histories? Readers who are familiar with Heilbron’s comprehensive oeuvre will not find anything new here. Physics: A Short History from Quintessence to Quarks is not intended for experts, however, but for laypeople with some background knowledge of physics. They can enjoy a book that is both elegantly written and entertaining, which is not only packed with information but also has a continuous narrative. Students of history of science will probably not find this an ideal point of entry to get to know the field, however, because Heilbron doesn’t refer to other leading scholars. There is only a short list of further reading at the end of the book, which includes, in addition to recent Anglo-Saxon literature, some of the older and international historiography. But as its subtitle indicates, Heilbron’s work is a short history, not a short introduction. Here the difference with Brock is significant. With its explicit discussion of recent developments in scholarship and its extensive list of further reading, Brock’s The History of Chemistry: A Very Short Introduction (VSI) affords an accessible point of entry for novices. Moreover, although the short history is based on his earlier voluminous Norton History (NH), Brock makes clear that he has used this “opportunity” to incorporate new insights (p. xiii). By reading the two versions side by side, we can see how the NH was changed. This provides revealing views into Brock’s workshop: we can see what he decided to leave in and what to leave out; there are places where he added new material; often, the replacement of a single word signals a significant change of emphasis; and once or twice passages have become obscure as a result of the reworking and condensation of earlier material. Let me illustrate this with a few examples.First, the disappearance of alchemical practice has lost some of its self-evidence. In the NH, Brock simply stated that “by the mid eighteenth century it had become accepted by nearly all chemists and physicists that alchemy was a pseudo-science” (p. 37), as if it was just a matter of recognizing its true nature. In the VSI, by contrast, Brock emphasizes the active boundary-work of French chemists that was specifically intended to downgrade alchemy into a pseudo-science (p. 23). Second, compared with the NH, where Paracelsus is described as “essentially a medical reformer” (p. 45), the otherness of his chymistry receives additional emphasis in the VSI: “his medical and chemical work were but minor aspects of his religious beliefs and goals for the complete reformation of society” (p. 30). Third, the VSI follows recent literature in diminishing Robert Boyle’s originality and historical importance (pp. 38–39, 43), whereas the NH still devoted a chapter to him. Finally, the chemical revolution of Lavoisier now becomes part of a more extended chemical transformation. This reflects the fact that revolutions are currently out of fashion. A close investigation of the two texts shows that there are still vestiges of Brock’s earlier approach to Lavoisier and that, aside from a change in vocabulary, the new account is not fundamentally different. Notice, for example, that in the VSI Brock still states: “thus by the late 1770s half of Lavoisier’s chemical revolution was over” (p. 55). This corresponds with the NH: “By 1779 half of Lavoisier’s revolution was over” (p. 107). Where is the other half? The NH gives an explanation in a section titled “The Chemical Revolution” that starts: “Lavoisier was now in a position to bring about a revolution in chemistry” (p. 111). The VSI, however, doesn’t really answer our question, as the corresponding section is renamed “The New Chemistry” and the opening sentence has replaced “revolution” with “transformation” (p. 57). Occasional obscurities can be resolved by consulting the original and more extensive NH.A final consideration. The 744-page NH itself actually apologized, with a sense of nostalgia, for the brevity of its exposition: “Gone are the days of Kopp and Partington, when a history of chemistry could be allowed to unfold slowly in four magisterial and detailed volumes. My volume is designed to be neither a complete nor a detailed narrative” (p. xxiii). Clearly this trend toward concision has persisted. In the opening sentence of the VSI, Brock can now credibly refer to his “lengthy” NH. For better or worse, our standards are shifting. Notes Daan Wegener is a lecturer in history of science at Utrecht University. His main fields of interest are the history of physics, science and the public, and science and literature. Previous articleNext article DetailsFiguresReferencesCited by Isis Volume 108, Number 1March 2017 Publication of the History of Science Society Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/690795 © 2017 by The History of Science Society. All rights reserved.PDF download Crossref reports no articles citing this article.