ABSTRACT From 1797 to 1801 a controversy played out on the pages of the Medical Repository, the first scientific journal published in the United States. At its centre was the well-known feud between the followers of Antoine Lavoisier and Joseph Priestley, the lone supporter of the phlogiston model. The American debate, however, had more than two sides. The Americans chemists, Samuel Latham Mitchill and Benjamin Woodhouse, who rushed to support Priestley did not defend his scientific views. Rather, as citizens of a republic, they defended his right to have them. They also castigated the assertions of the “French chemists,” whose claims that the new chemistry obviated debate seemed unsettlingly similar to the dictatorial ambitions of the French state. Using the Medical Repository, Mitchill and Woodhouse sought a compromise that validated the new chemistry, but united it with a more egalitarian form of discourse. The desired balance eluded them. Priestley proved too stubborn, and as the French Revolution descended into dictatorship and war, Mitchill and Woodhouse came more to realize that truly prising French chemistry from the culture of the revolutionary era. The episode left Mitchill and Woodhouse disillusioned with chemistry and hoping to redirect scientific enthusiasm to more pious ends.

中文翻译：

---

“革命，哲学和民间”：塞缪尔·莱瑟姆·米奇尔医学资料库中的法国化学和美国科学

摘要 从 1797 年到 1801 年，在美国出版的第一本科学期刊《医学知识库》(Medical Repository) 的页面上发生了一场争论。其核心是安托万·拉瓦锡 (Antoine Lavoisier) 的追随者与燃素模型的唯一支持者约瑟夫·普里斯特利 (Joseph Priestley) 之间众所周知的不和。然而，美国的辩论有不止两个方面。急于支持普里斯特利的美国化学家塞缪尔·莱瑟姆·米奇尔和本杰明·伍德豪斯并没有为他的科学观点辩护。相反，作为共和国的公民，他们捍卫他拥有它们的权利。他们还谴责了“法国化学家”的断言，他们声称新化学消除了争论，这与法国国家的独裁野心令人不安地相似。使用医学资料库，米奇尔和伍德豪斯寻求一种折衷方案，以验证新的化学反应，但将其与更平等的话语形式结合起来。想要的平衡让他们望而却步。事实证明，普里斯特利太固执了，随着法国大革命陷入独裁和战争，米奇尔和伍德豪斯更加意识到革命时代文化中真正珍贵的法国化学。这一集让米奇尔和伍德豪斯对化学幻想破灭，并希望将科学热情转向更虔诚的目的。