Agriculture
No TL;DR found
Abstract
This work is a prehistory of scientific crop nutrition, extending from the earliest times to the mid-nineteenth century and leading up to the work of Lawes and Liebig. The author has a distinguished reputation as an agricultural historian and has drawn upon a literature of astonishing breadth and diversity, reflected in an impressive bibliography of 360 primary and secondary sources. In addition, each chapter has a fair number of footnotes and references. Few historians of science and technology will fail to derive new insights from this book. Yet it is to be admitted that few will be happy with its basic approach: the material is organized on a strictly chronological basis, each of the nine chapters being devoted to a specific period, e.g. Chapter IV: 'From the 16th to the mid-17th century'. Such a treatment has predictable limitations, involves a good deal of wearisome repetition, and precludes serious thematic analysis. The author does himself less than justice when he strays from strictly agricultural history. His account of chemical developments is often marred by loose terminology ('nitrous salts' are a frequent example), while his overliteral enthusiasm for Paracelsus and his evaluation of phlogiston do not reflect recent scholarly opinion. The bearing of geology on an understanding of soil structures is hardly touched on, save for a brief passing reference to William Smith. However, the more serious defects result from an over-simplistic view of great historical movements and events. Thus, I, for one, find it hard to believe in 'a hiatus of a thousand years after the fall of Rome before Greek learning came to have any real influence on the progress of Western thought' (p. 15), or that 'the scientific outlook of the 17th century . . . derived from the revival of Democritus' theory' (p. 18); that teleology is necessarily 'an attitude of mind that removes the foundation of scientific curiosity' (p. 29); that the Middle Ages were 'a period when thinkers began to release themselves from the restrictions placed upon them by the general preoccupation with theology' (p. 41 y, or that by the end of the 17th century 'the scientists had abandoned, if not entirely, very largely, the discussion of systems and hypotheses in favour of the verification and accumulation of fact by means of laboratory and other experiment' (p. 83). In fact the frequent appearance of 'scientists' long before the 19th century suggests a sociology of science that is defective not in nomenclature alone. Some of these infelicities undoubtedly derive from an uncritical reliance upon secondary works that many would now regard as of dubious value, including Dampier and Bernal. Finally, there are several lapses into an opaque literary style and occasional misprints, most noteworthy 'Humphrey' Davy {passim).