Although the Méthode de nomenclature chimique (1787) is best known for its reform of chemical names, it also proposed to reform chemical symbols. However, historians have generally concluded that, unlike its nomenclatural counterpart, the Méthode's new system of symbols had very little impact. This article argues otherwise. First, drawing on printed and, to a lesser extent, manuscript evidence, it demonstrates that the Méthode's new symbols circulated more widely than previously assumed. Second, and more importantly, it demonstrates that advocates of the new symbols used them to redress problems in chemical nomenclature. Despite the Méthode's thoroughness, the new nomenclature harboured certain shortcomings, raising the possibility of an obligation to revise names that were only recently “revolutionary.” Furthermore, not all chemical practitioners were eager to dispose of all the older names completely. Advocates of the new symbols addressed such problems by establishing symbols as modifiable designations for substances that could be readily updated, thereby alleviating the seeming need to do so in names as well. Subsequently adapted for Daltonian and Berzelian symbols, this practice of designing chemical symbols to compensate for the use of infelicitous or familiar chemical names soon became commonplace, and, indeed, it underwrites aspects of chemical communication still today.

尽管Méthode de nomenclature chimique (1787) 以其对化学名称的改革而闻名，但它也提出了对化学符号的改革。然而，历史学家普遍得出的结论是，与其命名对应物不同，方法论的新符号系统影响很小。这篇文章另有说法。首先，绘制在印刷和，在较小程度上，手稿证据，它说明了METHODE的新符号循环更广泛地比以前假定。其次，更重要的是，它表明新符号的拥护者使用它们来解决化学命名法中的问题。尽管METHODE的彻底性，新的命名法包含某些缺点，增加了修改最近才“革命性”的名称的义务的可能性。此外，并非所有化学从业者都渴望完全处理所有旧名称。新符号的拥护者通过将符号建立为易于更新的物质的可修改名称来解决这些问题，从而减轻了在名称中也这样做的必要性。随后适用于道尔顿和贝兹利符号，这种设计化学符号以补偿不恰当或熟悉的化学名称的使用的做法很快变得司空见惯，事实上，它在今天仍然支持化学通信的各个方面。