Technology and Culture

358 Book Reviews TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE The story of the Établissement de Constructions Mécaniques de Chartres (known as the Maison de Chartres in this century) is the subject of the final article, written by Serge Benoît, Geneviève Dufresne, and Gérard Emptoz, with Philippe Peyre and Jean-Paul Guiard. The Maison de Chartres, the largest manufacturer of milling equipment in France, built and sold the Fontaine turbine, the major competitor of the Fourneyron and Jonval-Koechlin turbines. The authors argue that the firm’s founder and principal inventor, PierreLucien Fontaine, was not a “simple self-taught mechanic” but had a thorough grasp of contemporary waterwheel and turbine theory. Crucial to the firm’s takeoff was its strategy of innovation, fueled by the inventions of Fontaine and the licensing of others’ turbine improvements. The Maison de Chartres also deployed a publicity scheme, aggressively seeking out new customers with a printed prospectus mailed regularly to likely customers. This work contributes significantly to our understanding of the history of technology through the breadth and depth of its scholar­ ship and its exploration of terra incognita—the theoretical, practical, and commercial development of hydraulic power in France. It is supplemented by the completion of Philippe Peyre’s frequently cited dissertation and the publication of Serge Benoit’s book (Hachette, 1990). Now we are ready for international comparative studies. Andrew J. Butrica Dr. Butrica is a Research Fellow at the Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie, researching the Société d’Encouragement pour l’Industrie Nationale. He has published in English and French on French science and technology, particularly electricity and communi­ cations, in the 19th and 20th centuries. Benjamin Franklins Science. By I. Bernard Cohen. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990. Pp. xii + 273; illustrations, notes, index. $35.00. The publication of Benjamin Franklin’s Science coincided with the bi­ centennial of the death of its hero. I. B. Cohen, “one of the founders of the modern study of the history of science” and “the principal elucidator of Franklin’s scientific work,” to cite the text on the front and back flaps of the dustjacket, has remained true to the Franklinean theme for half a century. As early as 1941 he published, and provided an extensive introduction and comments to, Franklin’s Experiments and Observations on Electricity (it is from this edition that the first and so far only Russian translation of the famous book has been made, which appeared in Mos­ cow in 1956, unfortunately without Cohen’s introduction). Benjamin Franklin’s Science comprises mainly Cohen’s published pa­ pers, partly revised. There are twelve chapters, three written especially for this book. The whole of Franklin’s science is covered, ranging from TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE Book Reviews 359 heat to astronomy. And Cohen incorporates some ofJohn L. Heilbron and Roderick W. Howe’s work on Franklin. Appended to the chapters is Samuel J. Edgerton, Jr.’s study on the Franklin stove. The book is not intended as a first acquaintance with the subject. Rather, it addresses historians of science. Up to now, there has been confusion about not only the evaluation of Franklin’s contribution to science and technology but also about the priorities and sequences of events associated with relevant experiments, discoveries, theories, and inventions. Benjamin Franklin’s Science clears up many questions facing the student of Franklin’s work. For example, together with Cohen, “we may with confidence conclude that Franklin performed the lightning kite experiment in June 1752, and that soon after, in late June or July 1752, it was in Philadelphia that the first lightning rods ever to be erected were put into service” (p. 109). Franklin appears as a great thinker, but not as an idol and not without weaknesses. The history of the invention of the lightning rod is presented not as a chain of accidental events but as a history of interrelated ideas; Franklin did not create in a blank space. Cohen emphasizes that Franklin must not be regarded as just a practical inventor. Although he did not have a systematic education (particu­ larly not in mathematics), he kept to the Newtonian principles of natural philosophy. Cohen shows that Franklin’s scientific...