In Science as Public Culture (1992), Jan Golinski argued that Humphry Davy’s career was “substantially responsible” for allowing chemistry to emerge “with greatly enhanced esteem and respectability” from the “crisis” of the 1790s, when it had become associated with the radical politics of the chemists Joseph Priestley (1733–1804) and Thomas Beddoes (1760–1808). In this paper, I will flesh out the transformation noted by Golinski of chemistry into a respectable discipline under Davy’s tenure at the Royal Institution. The dissociation of chemistry from radical politics was achieved through the influence of Davy’s upper-class, female-audience at the Institution. Davy’s audience wanted chivalry, therefore Davy made his chemistry chivalrous. To borrow from Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s (1772–1834) assessment of his friend in 1804, Davy was “more and more determined to mould himself upon the age in order to make the age mould itself upon him.”

中文翻译：

---

侠义化学

在《科学作为公共文化》（1992 年）一书中，扬·戈林斯基认为汉弗莱·戴维的职业生涯“对让化学从 1790 年代的“危机”中“以极大的尊重和尊重”出现“负有重大责任”，当时它与化学家 Joseph Priestley (1733–1804) 和 Thomas Beddoes (1760–1808) 的激进政治。在这篇论文中，我将在戴维 (Davy) 在皇家学会 (Royal Institute) 任职期间，将戈林斯基 (Golinski) 指出的化学转变为一门受人尊敬的学科。化学与激进政治的分离是通过戴维在该机构的上层社会女性观众的影响实现的。戴维的观众想要骑士精神，因此戴维让他的化学反应变得侠义。借用塞缪尔·泰勒·柯勒律治 (Samuel Taylor Coleridge) (1772–1834) 在 1804 年对其朋友的评价，