Russia's Lomonosov, Chemist, Courtier, Physicist, Poet by Boris N. Menshutkin; JeannetteEyre Thal; Edward J. Webster; W. Chapin HuntingtonReview by: Robert F. SuttonIsis, Vol. 43, No. 4 (Dec., 1952), pp. 371-373Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/227396 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 09:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Isis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:54:22 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews 37' show a quantity of errors in transcription: spelling, punctuation, italicising, etc. It is plain, therefore, that the current editions of the works of Benjamin Franklin are not at all satisfactory, and it is greatly to be hoped that this situation may be remedied, either by inaugurating a com- pletely new edition, as in the case of Jefferson, or publishing a supplement to Smyth, consisting of a long list of errata, and letters and other documents not to be found in Smyth. The choice of which of these two procedures is to be followed will, of course, be determined in part by financial considerations, and also the enterprise of an editor or an editorial committee.

The "restoration of a 'fair copy' by Max Farrand" is described as "the first authoritative text," which it certainly is not. Of the four parts of the autobiography, Dr Farrand had com- pleted his restoration of only the first, and was working on the second at the time of his death in 1945. The task was completed by members of the Huntington Library staff, under the main responsibility of Godfrey Davies, assisted by Edith L. Klotz and Marion Tinling. The so-called restored text is completely modernized with regard to capitalization and punctuation, despite Farrand's own insistence that Franklin would be particularly sensitive to such matters. Many aspects of the "restoration" are question- able. Furthermore, it must certainly be pointed out that the autobiography is a most incomplete and misleading document. It ends in 1757, and it does not contain as much information as one would like to have on Franklin's scientific ac- tivity. Many people who were important in his life are omitted completely, and there are many errors of fact, some of which appear from a comparison of the text and Franklin's original outline or draft, others from letters. It is most unfortunate, therefore, that the restoration of a "fair copy" is presented without a series of foot- notes or comments, which would enable the reader to obtain a complete picture of the im- portant events in Franklin's life which are pre- sented. The student of Franklin will be at a loss to understand why both the parallel-text edition and the restoration of the "fair copy" have been issued without an index.

Considering the importance of Benjamin Franklin in the development of America, in the political and diplomatic history of the eighteenth century, and in the history of science -and also the importance of his writings as mirroring the great events and currents of thought of his age - it is all the more a pity that neither his autobiography nor his collected writings (sci- entific writings, editorials, essays, poems, and correspondence) are available in editions which measure up fully to the needs and canons of contemporary scholarship.

I. BERNARD COHEN

BORIS N. MENSHUTKIN: Russia's Lomono- sov, chemist, courtier, physicist, poet. Trans- lated by Jeannette Eyre Thai and Edward J.

Webster under the direction of W. Chapin Huntington. With a foreword by Tenney L. Davis. Viii+208 pp., port., 2 pls., 6 figs. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1952. $4.00.

Thanks are due to the Russian Translation Project of the American Council of Learned Societies for making more widely accessible this informative and readable account of the ex- traordinary Mikhail Vasilevich Lomonosov, I7II-I765. Trained primarily as a metallurgist, Lomonosov was active in the fields of chemistry, physics, mathematics, astronomy, geography, mining, mosaic-making, grammar, rhetoric, po- etry, and history. He had a share in the found- ing of the University of Moscow and participated in the reorganization of the St Petersburg Academy of Sciences. In spite of his truly im- pressive accomplishments in several fields and his incident-filled personal life (which fairly crics out for the attention of a historical novel- ist), he has remained little-known outside Rus- sia. The present work, the first book in English devoted to Lomonosov, is a welcome addition to the scanty materials on him available in western European languages: a biography in French, a volume in the Ostwald Klassiker series, and a French study of his reform of the Russian literary language. The late Prof. Men- shutkin devoted a lifetime to the study of Lomonosov, based in large part on his MSS in the archives of the Academy of Sciences. Ap- pended to the present work, which first appeared in 1937 and represents the distillate of many years' study, is a bibliography of 27 publications on Lomonosov by Menshutkin.

As a chemist, Menshutkin was naturally most interested in Lomonosov as the "father of physical chemistry" and as the initiator of lab- oratory instruction in chemistry. The best chap- ters are those which analyze in detail Lomono- sov's researches and theories on chemistry and physics. It was the purpose of Lomonosov to raise chemistry from an art to a science. He insisted on the utilization of weight, measure- ment, and number as the basis of experimenta- tion and recognized the indispensability of the chemically pure substance "in order to obtain uniform results in repeated experiments." His atomic theory and his conjectures as to the nature of combustion approximated conclusions reached by Lavoisier, Dalton, and their succes- sors. Care must be taken, however, not to read too much into Lomonosov's evident rejection of the phlogiston theory. Less than a year and a half before his death, he published for the first time and without change his First Principles of Metallurgy, written 20 years earlier, in which he did not hesitate to utilize the doctrine of phlogiston for the explanation of chemical phe- nomena. It is disheartening to realize that Lomonosov's most brilliant and original ideas, which might have exerted a profound influence on the development of chemistry, were so far

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:54:22 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

372 Reviews

beyond the comprehension of his contemporaries in Russia that they lay buried until their dis- covery and publication by Menshutkin.

Russian historians today uphold Lomonosov's views on the origin of the Varangians, the rulers of Russia at the dawn of her history (that they were of Slavonic, rather than of Swedish origin). Menshutkin's brief references to Lomonosov's work in history could not be expected to do other than reflect the Soviet orthodoxy which has routed the "Normannists" as effectively in this field as the followers of Vavilov have been routed in genetics. The present work is not to be classed with the claims for priority in inven- tions and discoveries emanating from Russia today with such predictable regularity that they have become a source more of amusement than of irritation for the West. Menshutkin is for the most part meticulous in rendering credit where it is really due, as well as in placing Lomonosov in the frame of reference of his predecessors, his contemporaries, and his suc- cessors. Thus, an account of Lomonosov's ex- periments on cold leads to a fruitful digression on thermometers and the various scales used in the i8th century. The chapter on Lomonosov's chemistry is darified by a discussion of the state of chemical knowledge at his time and by explanations of how Lavoisier and Dalton estab- lished as laws some of the points toward which Lomonosov was groping. However, the necessity for reading this work with a critical eye is obvious. In spite of Menshutkin's sincerity and the careful study he devoted to his subject, he was at no time, either before or after I9I7, en- tirely free of the necessity to conform, to sup- press, to "tone down," to "play up." Nor was it possible for Menshutkin to estimate the value of Lomonosov's endeavors in other areas with the authority he could bring to his investigations of Lomonosov's chemistry. Because of the very multiplicity of Lomonosov's interests, it is highly unlikely that any one truly definitive work on him will ever appear -if at all, certainly only as a joint effort.

An example of this danger is furnished by Menshutkin's assumption that phenomena ob- served by Lomonosov during the transit of Venus in I76I and the conclusion he reached therefrom entitle him to credit for the discovery of the atmosphere of Venus. A footnote to this translation makes it clear that what Lomonosov observed was the so-called "black drop" of Venus. A "black drop" is also observed in transits of Mercury, which has no atmosphere.

In the final analysis, Lomonosov's most im- portant contribution was his work on the Rus- sian literary language. His views on science, remarkable as they were, for the most part remained buried until after the time when they might have influenced others; his poetry, much of which was occasional and official, is honored mainly by neglect in Russia today; many of his ideas on the Church, on economics and political science lend themselves to adaptation and inter-

pretation by Soviet propaganda artists; but the language of Lomonosov, though modified later, principally by Karamzin and Pushkin, was the foundation of modern literary Russian. Men- shutkin has summarized briefly Lomonosov's contributions as author of the first Russian (as distinct from Old Church Slavic) grammar and as the legislator of the "three styles" (which used, in appropriately varying proportions, ele- ments from Church Slavic and Russian) and has something to say of Lomonosov's reform of the chaotic Russian scientific nomenclature, but for a thorough presentation of this, Lomonosov's most important and lasting contribution, the reader must turn to such a work as Antoine Martel's Michel Lomonosov et la langue lit- tgraire russe (Paris, I933. "Bibliotheque" de l'Institute franqais de Leningrad, vol. I3).

The present translation has been carefully and faithfully done. Two decidedly minor errors have been discovered: On page 96 there is clearly a discrepancy in the description of the two farms awarded Lomonosov by the Empress Elizabeth for his mosaic factory -"the nearest eighty-four versts from St. Petersburg, the farthest eighty versts." The first number should be sixty-four. On page I67, the word polusto- letiia has been translated as "century" instead of "half-century," again a matter of little im- portance.

This edition is not as profusely illustrated as the original, obviously because few of the il- lustrations in the original would have lent them- selves to satisfactory reproduction. The fine portrait of Lomonosov used here has fortunately been taken from another source. The trick title page, however, is a horrible example of the un- fortunate practice, all too prevalent today, of sacrificing clarity for the sake of typographic effect. From the outside and inside of the dust jacket, from the spine, and from the half title page, it is clear that the title as recorded above is what the editor intended: Title: Russia's Lomonosov; Subtitle: Chemist, Courtier, Physi- cist, Poet. What we find on the title page, though, where it really matters, is something else again: Russia's Lomonosov spread across two facing leaves in large red letters; Chemist, Courtier, Physicist, Poet grouped in smaller black letters at the top of the second leaf. This is all very tasteful, very modern, very I952, but a potential source of trouble, a book that may well be referred to in the future by some as Russia's Chemist, Courtier, Physicist, Poet: Lomonosov, by others as Chemist, Courtier, Physicist, Poet: Russia's Lomonosov.

On the verso of the title page is printed the Library of Congress card number (52-5826). This practice is rapidly gaining wide acceptance among publishers. Ironic, when L.C. cards are just about as rapidly losing their value for re- search libraries in their ever-increasing simplifi- cation! The L.C. card for this work is not the most glaring example that could be cited in support of this charge. (It is apparently be-

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:54:22 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews 373 coming standard practice at L.C. to ignore the second of two joint authors.) One appreciates the fact that the names of the three translators (which do not appear on the title page) are "bracketed" into the transcription of the title page on the L.C. card and that a "dropped note" indicates that this is a part of the Russian Translation Project of the American Council of Learned Societies. In this day of library catalogs that grow by geometric progression, one will not argue with the decision to provide no added-entry cards for the translators or possibly even for the Russian Translation Project. One recognizes that the Foreword by the late Tenney L. Davis, "Menshutkin and His Studies on Lomonosov," valuable as it is, would not have merited note by L.C. even in its palmiest days of "full cata- loging" unless it was mentioned on the title page. But why could not the Library of Congress note the bibliography of "Menshutkin's Publi- cations on Lomonosov," pp. [I931-I97 or indi- cate the booby trap inherent in the design of the title page?

ROBERT F. SUTTON

Edgar F. Smith Memorial Collection

A. A. LUCE & T. E. JESSOP: The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne. (30 shillings per volume.) Vol. i, edited by A. A. Luce: "Philosophical

Commentaries," "An essay towards a new theory of vision," "The theory of vision . . . vindicated and explained." Viii+279 pp. Edinburgh, New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, I948.

Vol. 2, edited by T. E. Jessop: "A treatise concerning the principles of human knowledge," first draft of the introduction to the "Principles," "Three dialogues between Hylas and Philonous," philosophical correspondence between Berkeley and Samuel Johnson (1729-30). Viii+294 pp. Edinburgh, New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1I949.

Vol. 3, edited by T. E. Jessop: "Alciphron, or the minute philosopher," 337 pp. Edinburgh, New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, I950.

Vol. 4, edited by A. A. Luce: "De Motu," "The analyst," "A defense of free-thinking in mathematics," "Reasons for not replying to Mr. Walton's full answer," "Arithmetica" and "Mis- cellanea mathematica," "Of infinities" and writ- ings on natural history. viii+264 pp. Edin- burgh, New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1951.

In 1934, T. E. Jessop, professor of philosophy in the University College of Hull, published A bibliography of George Berkeley (Oxford Uni- versity Press, 1934) which included an inventory of Berkeley's manuscript remains by A. A. Luce, fellow of Trinity College, Dublin. It was ap- parent from this bibliography that the previous editions of the works of George Berkeley did not make available to the modern historian the writings of one of Ireland's most distinguished sons, at least not in a form suitable to their

importance and intrinsic interest. The first four volumes of the new edition present an exemplary work of scholarship, in which each work is introduced by a short editorial introduction and, in most cases, followed by a commentary. Al- though we tend to think of Berkeley today primarily as a philosopher, in his own day "it was a many-sided gentleman that caught the public eye." That Berkeley strongly affected American education, through gifts of books to colleges, and through his disciple Samuel John- son, is well known, as is the fact that he wrote extensively on the medicinal properties of "tar water." In the history of science, he is noted chiefly for his ideas on the psychology of vision and his mathematical writings; the latter were described by Cajori as "the most spectacular mathematical event of the eighteenth century in England." Jessop notes that Berkeley's later criticism of the Newtonian doctrine of fluxions "failed to dispel the calculus but started the fruitful controversy which issued in Maclaurin's famous work." Despite the interest attaching to almost all of Berkeley's writings, historians of science will be most interested in Volume 4, con- taining Berkeley's writings on physics and mathematics.

De Motu is presented by Luce in the Latin original, and also in his own translation. This short work was published in I72I and was re- published by Berkeley in I752. It is not a treatise on motion in general but rather "the application of immaterialism to contemporary problems of motion, and should be read as such." He had approached the problems of motion in his "Essay on vision" and had hoped to deal with the subject at greater length in a proposed work on natural philosophy as a whole. He was concerned with the meaning of gravity, and the way in which forces might act. One section indicates Berkeley's difficulty with the New- tonian notions of absolute space and absolute motion. Berkeley states his case for relative rather than absolute space and motion. Thus he writes, "No motion can be recognized or measured, unless through sensible things. Since then absolute space in no way affects the senses, it must necessarily be quite useless for the dis- tinguishing of motions. Besides, determination or direction is essential to motion; but that consists in relation. Therefore it is impossible that absolute motion should be conceived." Berkeley concludes that to determine "the true nature of motion," three rules will be of great service: (i) "To distinguish mathematical hy- potheses from the natures of things," (2) "To beware of abstractions," (3) "To consider mo- tion as something sensible, or at least imagina- ble; and to be content with relative measures."

"The analyst," published in 1734, was subtitled "A discourse addressed to an infidel mathema- tician," (known to have been Edmund Halley). It concludes with a series of queries, thus im- itating the form of Newton's Opticks. Together with the "Sense of free-thinking in mathemat-

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 09:54:22 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions