ࡱ; op  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry Fe_޼CompObjbWordDocumentObjectPool}޼}޼ 4@   FMicrosoft Word 6.0 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.6;  Oh+'0$ H l   D h$F:\PUB\MSOFFICE\TEMPLATE\NORMAL.DOTITC-L&CITC-L&C@Nܥe3 ejjjjjjj".D44444444`bbbTo(j4kp44444jj444444j4j4`~jjjj4`4,4
THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY ORIGINS OF THE CONCEPT OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION' BY I. BERNARD COHEN

Many historians of science, like their fellow general historians, beljeve that the concept of revolution in science is of fairly recent origin, and that it has been superimposed anachronously and even harshly on events of the past. In fact, however, for some three centuries there has been a more or less unbroken tradition of viewing scientific change as a sequence of revolutions. In the eighteenth century, when this tradition appears to have taken its first rise, there was still some confusion and ambiguity about the sense of the word "revolution": in relation not only to science but to political events. Although "revolulion'' came into general usage during the eighteenth century to denote a breach of continuity or a secular change of real magnitude, there also remained current the older sense of "revolution" as a cyclical phenomenon, a continuous sequence of ebb and flow, a kind of circulation and return, or a repetition. After 1789, the new meaning came to predominate and, ever since, "revolution" has commonly implied radical change and a departure from traditional or accepted mod thought, belief, action, social behavior, or political or social organization. Thus in early modern times there occurred a double transformation of "revolution" and the concept for which it is the name. First scientifc term, taken from astronomy and geometry, came to be applied to a general range of social, political, economic, and intellectual cultural activities; and, second, in this usage the term gained a new meanmg that was radically different from if not diametrically opposite to the original and strict etymological sense of "revolution" (rol tion, revolazione), which is derived from the mediaeval Latin revolutio rolling back or a return, usually with an implied sense of revolving in time.

During the eighteenth century, the point of view emerged that scientific change is characterized by an analog of the revolutions that alter the forms of society and the political affairs of the state. Whereas earlier, sclence had contributed "revolution" to the discourse of social and political change, now social and political thought gave back to science the concept of revolution in the newly established sense, no longer as a term serving in the scientific explanation of natural phenomena, but rather an expression to be used in the social or intellectual explanation of scientific change itself now visualized as a series of secular discontinuities of such magnitude as to constitute definite breaks with the past. The rejection of the older and more traditional opinions in which scientific change was seen as a cyclical contlnuous process and the rise of the doctrine that science progresses by radical revolutions has occurred by degrees ever smce the opemng years of the eighteenth century, and has been continuously influenced by the development of concepts and theories of political and social (and cultural) revolution. Accordingly, an understanding of the nse of the idea of revolutions in science (and of the existence of the Scientific Revolution) requires some knowledge of the general history of the concept and name "revolution."6

The history of the idea of revolution in the sciences is of real importance for our understanding of the development of the sciences. Fo example, we today conceive Galileo to have been a revolutionary figure and write about the "intellectual revolution" that he wrought; but did he consider himself to have been a revolutionary?' Did Newton? When did the value of progress become linked to the concept of change by revolu tion? Such questions illuminate the nature of scientific change by making precise the scientist's image of himself, which is directly related to the public image of the scientist, a factor in the type of creative individual attracted to the pursuit of science. In some of his scientific work notably in physics, Newton saw himself as only rediscovering so the knowledge of nature and of her laws that had been current among certain ancient sages; but in mathematics he was so jealous of his proprietary rights in the invention of the calculus that he concluded that Leibniz could have produced similar results only by plagiarism from the Newton mathematical manuscripts then in circulation. Furthermore the present enquiry clarifies such fundamental historical issues as the special defining features of the Newtonian revolution in science by enabling us to distinguish between what Newton's contemporaries and immediate successors held to be his signal achievement and what seems to us some two and a half centuries later to have been so remarkable and innovatory in Newtonian science. In recent discussions, historians and philosophers have expressed doubts as to whether it is proper to use "revolution" to describe scientific change, and whether in any event there ever was a Scientific Revolution.,yet in all writings on this subject with which I am familiar, the question is never raised as to whether the scientists allegedly participating in such supposed revolutions may or may not have considered themselves to be active in a revolution or to have been immediate heirs to a revolution. For these and other reasons, the present enquiry may transcend the value of a mere chronicle of an idea, and shed some illumination on the nature of science and of scientific change in the age of Newton.

During most of the eitghteenth century as in the preceding centuries the primary signification of revolution was astronomical, and thus associatively or derivatively astrological. The revolutions and orbital motions of the plantetary bodies (or of their spheres) had been recorded over centuries in the works of Chaucer, Dante, AlfraMessahala, Sacrobosco, and countless others. This term appears boldly in the title of Copernicuss celebrated book, De revoltutionibus orbium coelestium (1543) and it occurs not infrequently in Galileos Dialouge concerning the Two Chief World Systems. It may be found in almanacs and in such popular works as Leurechons La Recreation mathematique (which was Englished by William Oughtred) and in Vincent Wings popular compendiums of astronomy and astrology (1651, 1669) and Streete's Astronomia Carolina (1661, 1663, 1710 from which the youthful Newton recorded Kepler's third law.

In the late Middle Ages, "revolution" came to signify not only the moving of a celestial body throughout a complete closed orbit (or th time in which the circuit of the orbit is completed), but also any turning or rolling back or around ranging from the circular turning of a wheel to the figurative sense of turning over in the mind or considering. By the time of the Renaissance, "revolutions" had a wider significance including any periodical (or quasiperiodical) occurrences, and eventually any group of phenomena that went through an ordered set of stages - cycle (in the sense of "coming full circle"). Even the rise and fall of civilizations, or of culture, as a kind of tidal ebb and flow, was called a revolution. All of these usages are obviously linked to the primary sense in which this word occurs in astronomy and geometry It shall be seen below how these several meanings were applied to science and the sciences during the Scientific Revolution.

One possible link between the original cyclical meaning and today's common usage of "revolution"or a "complete change of affairs" or a "reversal of conditions," an overthrowing (usually accompanied by violence) of established government or society or institutions lies in the close association of a cyclical "turningover" and a secular "overturn. in"." Today, the associated verb used to denote cyclical phenomena is "revolve"; whereas the verb "revolt" implies an uprising against the political state or social order. Both "revolve" and "revolt" come from the same verb: revolvere, revolutus. In the eighteenth century, prior to 1789, these two distinct and very different senses of "revolution" are apt to occur together in discussions of history and politics as well as the course of development in literature, the arts, and the sciences. It is, accordingly, not always a simple task to discover whether a given eighteenthcentury author may have had in mind a cyclical return (an ebb and flow) or a secular change of a significant magnitude (often, but not necessarily, accompanied by violence). This ambiguity was particularly a feature of the years between the English revolutions of the seventeenth century and the American and French revolutions of the Newtonian revolution in science and of the emergence of the concept of revolution as a mode of scientific change.

There is one term, however, whose usage generally enables the modern (i.e., post1789) reader to distinguish between the two senses of revolution'', that is, the use of the word "epoch." Thus there is no ambiguity whatsoever in Alexis Clairaut's blunt assertion in 1747: "Le fameux livre des Principes mathematiques de la Philosophie naturelle [de Newton] a ete lepoque d'une grande revolution dans la Physique." Here 'epoch" is not used in the presently current meaning of an era or an age (the primary sense in American English), but rather signifies an event that inaugurates an age or that is the initial or major occurrence of or in a revolution: the beginning of a new era. Often, in the late seventeenth and in the eighteenth century, this word appears in its late Latin form as epocha, in historical and political writings and in scientific works.'6

The sixteenth century knew no full scale or national revolutions in the sense in which we use the word today in social and political contexts; but the seventeenth century was witness to the Glorious Revolution (1688) and to an earlier series of events and political and social move meets that we have lately come to call the English Revolution. There were thus no political or social events of the sixteenth century, or of the seventeenth century before 1688, that could provide examples or conceptual models for revolution (in the sense of a drastic or even a sudden secular change in the areas of human creative effort; this fact is mirrored In the failure to find an example of a coupling of "science,, and "revolution" dating earlier than about 1700. About a halfcentury after the Glorious Revolution, however, just at the time when the fullness of Newton's achievement had become recognized, the new concept of revolution was being applied to science, and specifically to Newton, and even earlier, the new infinitesimal calculus of Newton and of Leibniz had been judged to have constituted a revolution in mathematics.

Those who wrote of "revolutions" in political affairs in the late seventeenth century most often had in mind some kind of restoration, a form of return to a former or original state, or at least the completion of a cycle. If this meant the end of a condition that was found to be intolerable, then the act of completing that cycle could be a kind of revolution in the post 1789 sense. In this way the concept of a revolution as a radical change could be compatible with the ancient cyclical view of history, and did not necessarily imply a secular (noncyclical) or linear con cept of historical change even in the political sphere. Revolution thus could and did mean a dynastic change or a dynastic restoration or a change in the actual form or system of government or rule, as well as a cyclical change, "in administration, economics and the social life of a people.

The ordinary usage at the end of the seventeenth century may be illustrated by the writings of Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes was perfectly familiar with the traditional scientific sense of "revolution" and he used this expression in his writings on geometry and on natural philosophy. He wrote of "a contrary revolution," of "epicycles," and of revolutions in the sense of completed circular motions. But apparently he did not transfer this scientific term to politics, where to "describe a sudden political change Hobbes--like Bacon, Coke, Greville and Seldon- used such words as 'revolt', 'rebellion' and 'overturning'."22 Locke, in both his Elements of Natural Philosophy and Some Thoughts Concerning Education, used "revolution" in reference to the Earth's annual motion about the Sun (her "annual revolutions") and referred to the Sun as the "Center" of our planet's "Revolutions."23 In the political sphere, Locke followed Francois Bernier (whose Histoire de la derniere revolution des etats du Grand Mongol:: he had studied in close detail) in his use of "revolution" in the sense of completed dynastic change.24 In his famous Second Treatise, notable for its defense of the Glorious Revolution and for its presentation of the theory of government based on compact, Locke used "revolution" only twice--each time referring to a political cycle in which there was a return to a previous state with regard to some constitutional points. Thus he mentioned the "slowness and aversion in the people to quit their old constitutions," which "has in the many revolutions that have been seen in this kingdom, in this and former ages, still kept us to, or after some interval of fruitless attempts, still brought us back again to our old legislative of king, lord, and commons."25

Rather early in the eighteenth century, when "revolution" began to gain currency in the meaning of a radical or significant change, there were seen to have been revolutions in many domains of human activity. It was then that an interest became expressed in two aspects of possible revolutions in science: the scientific revolutions that might have occured in the past (associated with Copernicus, Bacon, Descartes, Galil and those that were actually in progress. In the extreme, in the de or so before the French Revolution, possibly two scientists concluded that their own work was revolutionary.26

I have not been able to find any references to revolutions in the sciences earlier than 1700.27 One source that had held promise of possible usage of "revolution" was the literature concerning the Battle of the Books (the Quarrel between the Ancients and the Moderns), since in the sciences the superiority of the moderns might seem to have implied an order of magnitude break with the past.285 But a close examination of the main writers disclosed that apparently they never used the term ``revolution',29 and rather tended to invoke "improvement" of knowledge, although two of the protagonists (Fontenelle and Swift) did write of "revolutions" in other contexts and one of them (Fontenelle) implied this very word to the development of mathematics. Nor did I find any explicit reference to a revolution in Thomas Sprat's defence of the Royal Society of 1667. The fact that the term "revolution" does not appear in relation to scientific change prior to the eighteenth century is not unexpected, since "revolution" did not begin to come into general use--even in the discourse of politics until after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 .31

An unambiguous reference to a revolution in the sciences as a radical change occurs in Bernard Le Bouyer (or Bovier) de Fontenelle's preface to his Elements de la geometric de Iin fini (1727). Fontenelle has been discussing the newly discovered (or invented) infinitesimal calculus (le calcul de l'infini) of Newton and Leibniz, and the several ways in which "Bernoulli, le marquis de lHopital, Varignon, tous les grands geometries" carried the subject forward "pas de geant."

The conjunction of words epoque and revolution leaves no doubt that Fontenelle had in mind a change of such an order of magnitude as to alter completely the state of mathematics. And Fontenelle went on at once to emphasize that this revolution was progressive or beneficial to mathematical science, although not unaccompanied by several problems .33

Fontenelle used the term "revolution" in the eloge of the mathematician Michel Rolle, which he wrote in his capacity of secraire pertuel of the Royal Academy of Sciences. But "revolution" does not here occur in relation to the work of Rolle himself, but rather in an aside on the Analyse des infiniment petite (Paris, 1696; later eds., 1715, 1i20 1768) of the Marquis de l'Hopital, the first textbook on the new infinitesimal calculus.

Fontenelle also used "revolution" in the eoge of l'Hopital (d. 1704) again in relation to his textbook, and the avidity with which "I'Analyse des infiniment petite a etesaisie par tous les Geometries naissans." L'Hopital's aim had been "principalement de faire des Mathematiciens," Fontenelle wrote, and he had the satisfaction of seeing that "des Problemes reservez autrefois ceux qui avoient vieilli dans les epines des Mathematiues, devenoient des coups d'essai de jeunes gens":

These latter two uses of revolution in relation to IHopitals textbook differ from the former instance, in that the calculus inaugurated a conceptual revolution in mathematics, whereas the Analyse des infiniment petits consolidated the achievements of that revolution and made its methods and achievements so readily available as to revolutionize the profession of mathematician; that is, I'Hopital was (according to Fontenelle) primarily responsible for attracting young mathematicians (geometries) to the new analysis and endowing them with new powers. Fontenelle would thus seem to have made a distinction between "une rolution presque totale . . . dans la geometree"36 and "une revolution bien marquee," such as l'Hopital's book produced "dans le monde geometre."37

The revolution within the sciences to which Fontenelle referred was the discovery or invention of the calculus by Newton and by Leibniz.33 Another eighteenth century reference to Isaac Newton and a revolution in science is found in Clairaut's statement of 1747 that Newton's Principia had marked "lepoque dune grande revolution dans la Physique."39 The fact that these earliest references to a revolution In science occur in relation to Newton is worthy of notice, since it was Newtons achievement in pure mathematics coupled with his analysis of the system of the world on the basis of gravitational dynamics that; actually set the seal on the "Scientific Revolution" and caused scientists and philosophers to recognize that a revolution had in fact taken place 40 In this sense, Newton's Principia of 1687 would have played the same role in the recognition of the occurrence of a scientific revolution that the Glorious Revolution of 1688 apparently did for political revolution

The great Encyclopedie of Diderot and d'Alembert contains a notable entry on revolution. The concept of revolution was, in fact, introduced at the very start of this collective work, since it occurs in a dramatic fashion in d'Alembert's Discours priminaire, as well as later on in his article "Experimental." In the Discours priminaire (published in 1751), d'Alembert introduced the concept of revolution in a thumbnail sketch of the rise of modern science or, rather, of a philosophy associated with modern science. The aim of the essay was to sketch out a methodological and philosophical analysis of all knowledge (including science which occupies a central place in his scheme') and not to portray the sciences themselves. d'Alembert begins his historical presentation with "le Chancelier Bacon," who occupies an avuncular position, and then moves on to a brief resume of Descartes's radical innovations. Fully appreciative of the significance of the Newtonian natural philosophy, which in fact had just overthrown and replaced the Cartesian, d'Alembert nevertheless felt the need to say some kind words for Descartes, a fellow Frenchman and fellow mathematician. He thus called particular attention to the great "revolte" of Descartes, who had shown "intelligent minds how to throw off the yoke of scholasticism, of opinion, of authority...." d'Alembert had in mind a clear image of the action of political revolutionary forces, and he portrayed Descartes "as a leader of conspirators who, before anyone else, had the courage to rise against a despotic and arbitrary power and who, in preparing a resounding revolution, laid the foundations of a more just and happier government, which he himself was not able to see established."42 Descartes's role in thus "preparing" the "revolution" or his "revolt" was "a service to philosophy perhaps more difficult to perform than all those contributed thereafter by his illustrious successors."43 Although d'Alembert does not say so specifically, he then implies that the revolution prepared by Descartes was achieved by Newton. For d'Alembert not only proceeds at once to spell out at length the accomplishments of Newton in general physics, celestial mechanics, and optics, in the most praiseworthy terms imaginable, but he specifically says that when Newton "appeared at last," he "gave philosophy a form which apparently it is to keep." Thus, in science Newton brought to fulfillme~ the revolution that Descartes had prepared but had never actually achieved. Furthermore, after pointing out that this "great genius [Isaac Newton] saw that it was time to banish conjectures and vague hypotheses from physical science," d'Alembert observed that Newton "abstained almost totally from discussing his metaphysics in his best known writings." The significance of this remark is that it led d'Alembert to conclude his presentation of Newton by observing, "Therefore, since he has not caused any revolution here, we will abstain from considering him from the standpoint of this subject [i. e., metaphysics]." The implication seems to be that from other standpointsravitation, celestial mechanics, the system of the world, optics, the nature and limits of scientific explanation44 Newton had made a revolution.

The latter view appears more explicitly in an article written by d'Alembert for the Encyclopedie, entitled "Experimental," which explicitly invokes the concept of revolutions in science. Here, as in the Discours priminaire, d'Alembert included a brief history of the subject, once again starting with Bacon and Descartes and ending with Newton. First of all, d'Alembert observes that Bacon and Descartes had introduced "I'esprit de la physique experimentale"; then the Accademia del Cimento, Boyle, Mariotte, and others took up the work. Then,

...Newton parut, &montra le premier ce que ses predecesseurs navoient fait quentroevoir, lart dintroduire la Geometrie dans la Physique, & de former, en reunissant lexperience au calcul une science exacte, profonde, lumineuse, & nouvelle: aussi grand du moins par ses experiences doptique que par son systeme du monde il ouvrit de tous cotes une carriere immense & sure;lAngleterre saisit ses vues; la societe royale les regarda comme siennes des le moment de leur naissance: les academies de France sy preterent plus lentement & avec plus de peine, par le meme raison que les universites avoient eue pourrejetter durant plusieurs annees la physique de Descartes: la lumiere a enun prevalu: la generation ennemie de ces grands hommes, sest eteinte dans les academies & dans le universites auzquelles les academies semblent aujourddune revolution sont une fois jettes, cest presquetoujours dans la generation suivante que la revolution sacheve...

In this notable passage, d'Alembert not only has expressed a philosophy of historical development in science according to generations, he has also centered the great revolution in science on the work of Isaac Newton.

Volume VI, containing d'Alembert's article, "Experimental," was published in Paris in 1756. The previous volume (V: Paris, 1755) contains a discussion by Diderot of a revolution in science; it occurs in his article, Encyclopedie." Diderot was interested in the fact that changes were occurring in the sciences, so that a dictionary of the previous century would be lacking in the new words which science had either invented or brought to the fore with new meanings or new significance. Thus under "aberration" the older dictionaries would not give the current astronomical meaning (associated with Bradley's discovery), and "electricity" would have only a line or two giving "false notions and ancient prejudices." Even so, Diderot observed, "La revolution peut etre moins forte & moins sensible dans les Sciences & dans leg Arts liberaux, que dans les arts mechaniques; mais il s'y en fait une." A second invocation of revolution occurs in a presentation of Diderot's general theory of scientific revolutions:

Cependant les connoissances ne deviennent & ne peuvent devenir communes, que jusqu'un certain point. On ignore, la verite queue est cette imite On ne salt jusqutotel homme peut aller. On salt bien moins encore humaine iront', ce dont elle seroit capable, si elle netoit point arretee dans ses progres. Mais les revolutions vent necessaires; il y en a touJours eu & il y en aura toujours; le plus grand intervalle d'une revolution une autre est donn cette seule cause borne letendue de nos travaux. II y a dans les Sciences un point audelduquel il ne leur est presque pas accordde passer. Lorsque ce point est atteint, les monumens qui restent de ce progres, sont Jamais l'onnement de lespecee entiere.46

In these two passages, Diderot has left no doubt as to the significance of 'revolution" (or of "revolutionary change"). Like d'Alembert, he conceived that the progress of science was marked by a succession of revolutions, but the concept of a "maximum interval between one revolution and another" being a "fixed quantity" was apparently original with him. Although it seems that Diderot was conceiving of revolutions primarily as radical secular changes, the foregoing passage has also some overtones of a cyclical process of "revolutionary changes," in which the "maximum interval" even has suggestive overtones of the period of revolution in the cyclic phenomena of nature. And it should be observed that although the cyclical sense of revolution in the political realm does not appear at all in the Encyclopedie in the entry "Revolution," this very sense does appear in d'Alembert's "Discours priminaire," where he wrote of the "principaux fruits de l'l'etude des empires et de leurs revolutions."47

This cyclical view of revolutions is to be found in many writings of the eighteenth century, for example, in Condillac's general statement about history: "Les revolutions des opinions suivent les revolutions des empires',48 But Condillac also made use of a clearly noncyclical interpretation of revolutions in his shrewd observation that "Bacon propsait sait une methode trop parfaite pour re l'auteur d'une revolution. On Descartes devoit mieux reussir...."49 A somewhat similar use of "revolution" is found in some early works of Turgot. In an essay of the i) 1750's, "On Universal History," Turgot included a brief history of scientific thought ("philosophic"); he referred to Aristotle, Bacon, and then "Galileo and Kepler, [who] as a result of their observations, laid the true foundations of philosophy. But it was DESCARTES who, bolder than they, meditated and made a revolution."50 This attribution of a revolution to Descartes is far from common among eighteenthcentury wnters. And, in another essay, "A Philosophical Review of the Successive Advances of the Human Mind," read at the Sorbonne in 1750 Turgot exclaimed: "Great Descartes, if it was not always given to you to find the truth, at least you have destroyed the tyranny of error."5' As we shall see below, Turgot was invoking here a rather commonly held eighteenth century theory of a two stage revolution, in which first an existing or accepted system (whether of knowledge or of government) had to be destroyed, and then a new system had to be erected in its place.

By the time of the publication of the Encyclopedie, "revolution" had gained currency--at least in French --in its new meaning of a secular, rather than a cyclical, change of great magnitude.52 During the second half of the eighteenth century, this concept, and the word to express it, were notably applied to realms of the mind, and in particular to writings about science. Various authors, however, dated the revolutions at different times, according to their subject. Thus in 1764, Joseph Jerome Le Francais de Lalande [La Lande] saw a revolution in astronomy in the era after Hevelius.

But Lalande did not use the word "revolution" for Copernicus's revolt against the authority of Ptolemy, nor for the radical novelties discovered or introduced by a Galileo or a Kepler; he apparently reserved the designation of "revolution" for the process of discovery and improvement that he conceived to have been part and parcel of the establishment and elaboration of the subject of astronomy in more recent times.

The writings of Jean Sylvain Bailly, published in the decade before the French Revolution, show the degree to which the concept of revolution in the sciences had achieved the form in which, with variations, it continued well established during the nineteenth century. In his Histoire de l'astronomie moderne,55 Bailly introduced revolutions of several sorts and magnitudes. These range in scope all the way from revolutionary innovations in the design and use of telescopes55 to the elaboration of the Copernican system of the world and the Newtonian natural philosophy. They include revolutions of the past and of the recent present, and even forecasts of revolutions to come.57 There is a clearly worked out concept of a two stage revolution, applicable to revolutions in science on a grand scale, in which there is first a destruction of an accented system of concepts, followed by the establishment of a new system. But even in Bailly's writings, the older concept of revolution to indicate a radical and dramatic change cycles is present along with the new use of the term "revolution to indicate a radical and dramatic change in science, most often the effect of the work and thought of a single individual.

Although Bailly does not use the actual expression "Copernican Revolution, he leaves no doubt that one of the major revolutions in science was inaugurated (if not, however, accomplished) by Coperni Copernicus, according to Bailly, was responsible for the introduction of the true system of the world, just as Hipparchus was to be credited the true system of astronomy.58 Bailly said that a radical step had to b taken at the time of Copernicus: it was necessary for man to forget the apparent motions that can actually be seen, in order to be able to believe in those motions that cannot be known to man directly through th senses.

Copernicus thus fulfilled the two necessary functions that according to Bailly's implied standards made his work qualify as a revolution. He undermined the authority of the old or accepted system and he set up a better one in its place. It made little difference to Bailly that the Copernican system itself might have been a revival of an older system of Aristarchus;60 what mattered was only that Copernicus overthrew the yoke of authority and established a different system of the universe than the one that "avoit recu les hommages de quatorze siecles.

Bailly's concept of a twostage revolution is even more pronounced in another of his presentations of the work of Copernicus. Bailly had been describing briefly the transition of astronomy from the Greeks to the Arabs, and from the Arabs to the Europeans, who began to cultivate this science:

WaItherus, Regiomontanus, an Allemagne, construisirent des instruments & renouvelerent les observations. A chaque nouveau domicile, la science etoit assujettie un nouvel examen; les connoissances transmises etoitent venifiees: mais cette epoque il se fit une grande revolution qui changea tout. Le genie de IEurope se fit connottre & s'annonca dans Copernlc.

In declaring, furthermore, that "Copernic avoit fait un grand pas vers la verite'' Bailly pointed out that "[la] destruction du systeme de Ptolemee etoit un priminaire indispensable, & cette premiere revolution devoit preceder toutes les autres. 63

In more than one chapter of his history, Bailly referred to the Newtonian natural philosophy in terms of revolution. Thus, after having praised Newton for his modesty (a propos of the preface to the first edition of the Principia), Bailly said:

Newton, plus qu'aucun homme, eut besoin de se faire pardonner son elevation; it avoit pris un vol si extraordinaire, il redescendoit avec des verites si nouvelles, util falloit mager les esprits, qui auroient pu repousser ces verites. Newton renversoit ou changeoit toutes les idees. Aristote & Descartes partageoient encore ltempire, ils etoient les precepteurs de ['Europe: le philosophe Anglois druisit presque tous leurs enseignemens, & propose une nouvelle philosophie; cette philosophic a opereune revolution. Newton a fait, mais par des voles plus douces & plus justes, ce qu'ont tentquelquefois en Asie les conquerans qul ont usurpe le tront ils ont voulu effacer le souvenir de regnes precedens, pour que leur regne servit depoque, pour que tout comment avec eux. rvlal~ ces entreprises de l'orgueil & de la tyrannic ont etele plus souvent sans fruit; elles ne reussissent qu'la raison & la raison qui obtiennent cet avantage sans y pretendre!64

The use here of a full panoply of political metaphor is most striking: conquerors usurping the throne and wiping out all trace of their predecessors, and the contrast between violence or tyranny and reason or truth. But, again, it is to be noted that for Bailly a revolution m science is a twostage action.ss Bailly warned his readers, however, that although livre des Principes mathmatiques de la philosophie naturelle etoit destine a aire une revolution dans lastronomie ' it was nevertheless true that "cette revolution ne se fit pas tout a-coup.

Bailly did not apparently have a consistently applied standard for at tributing the designation "revolution" to major radical innovations in astronomy. Two outstanding examples of innovators of the first rank i astronomy who seem not to have quite merited the accolade of ''revolution were Kepler and Galileo.67 Kepler fulfilled the qualifications of th. two stages, since he had first to destroy "tous les epicycles que Copernic avoit laisees subsister," before introducing his own concepts of elliptical orbits and motion according to the law of areas. As to his significance: Le privilege des grands hommes est de changer les ideas recures, & d'annoncer des verites, qui repandent leur influence sur le reste des siecles. A ces deux titres Kepler merite detre regardecomme l'un des plus grands hommes, qui ait paw sur la terre." In fact, Kepler is "le veritable fondateur de l'astronomie moderne." For all that, however, Bailly does not consider Kepler's work to have constituted a revolution And the same is true of Galileo, who had first to destroy the accepted Aristotelian notions of motion including the artificial distinction, between natural and violent motion, and the "ridiculous" distinction between naturally light and naturally heavy bodies --before he introduced his own laws of accelerated motion and falling bodies, and the resolution and composition of motion (so as to find the parabolic path of projectiles).09 But this too did not apparently merit the designation of "revolution."70

On several occasions, Bailly expressed his belief in a cyclical process in the development of astronomy. Thus a revolution might, on occasion, signify a return to an older idea or concept, or an older pnnciple But Bailly shrewdly observed that one must not assume that there had been no real change simply because an idea or concept now m current use may have occurred once before. The example he gives IS a curious one: "La theologie paienne supposoit que le monde etait sorti d'un oeuf ce n'est pas la premiere fois que ['ignorance & le profond savolr, par ies chemins opposes, vent arrives aux memes resultats."7' A more complete expression of change by cyclical revolution occurs at the beginning of the second volume of his history:

. . En ecrivant cette histoire, nous appercevons d'un cote que les hommes, persuades de la simplicitdu mecanisme de l'univers, tendent constamment a cette idee meme en s'en ecartant:: nous voyons de l'autre que cette idee est une des plus antiques qui nous ait ete conservees. La conclusion naturelle est que nous retournons au terme dou sommes partis: telle est notre marche, nous parcourons toujours un cercle. Mais ce terme, ce premler commencement des travaux connus devoit etre lui-meme la fin d'une revolution.72

The fact that Bailly was aware of the possible cyclical process in revolutions, so obvious to any practicing astronomer, does not diminish the thrust of his use of "revolution" and the concept of revolution as a phenomenon characterized by a secular rather than a cyclical change of considerable magnitude. Since Bailly not only expressed a concept of revolution as a radical change in science (in the sense that d'Alembert and Diderot had done), but actually used both the word and the concept throughout his threevolume history of modern astronomy, we may conclude that by this time the word and the concept had become fully accepted into the discourse of the history of science and of the analysis of the growth of scientific concepts, methods, and systems of thought.7:i

By the 1780's, there is no difficulty in finding French authors who refer explicitly to one or another revolution in the sciences.74 But th case of Condorcet may especially attract our attention since he is said t have been an originator of the term "revolutionnaire."75 The concept of a revolution in science (and the use of "revolution" to express it) Occurs frequently In the oges of deceased academicians which it wa Condorcet's duty to write and read, in his capacity of secretaire perpetuel. Thus, of Duhamel du Monceau (1783): "II fera epoque dans cette histoire des sciences, parce que son nom stest trouvliave cette revolution dans les esprits qui a dirigplus des sciences vers l'utilitpublique." Of Haller (1778): "L'ouvrage ou M.. de Haller publia ces decouvertes fut leoque d'une revolution dans l'anatomie" Of d'Alembert (1783): "Ce principe . . . a ete lepoque d'une grande revolution dans les sciences physicomathematiques." Of Euler (1783): "II doit cet honneur la revolution qu'il a produite dans les sciences mathematiques."76 And so on. In three of these examples, we see Condorcet using the term epoque " along with "revolution" in a centuryold tradition that unambiguously defines the noncyclical sense of "revolution."

The major work of Condorcet's in which the term and the concept of revolution figure most prominently is his Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind, first published in 1795. Condorcet wrote here of the recent American Revolution, and of the not yet completed revolution in France, with shrewd comments on the causes of the differences between the two. Of special interest in the present context is his discussion of Descartes, who is said to have given "men's minds that general impetus which is the first principle of a revolution in the destinies of the human race." In the account of the rise of chemistry, Condorcet introduced some of the improvements in that subject that "affecting, as they do, a given scientific system in its entirety by extending its methods rather than by increasing its truths, foretell and prepare a successful revolution." Condorcet had in mind the "discovery Of new methods" of collecting and analyzing gases; "the formation of a [new] language" for chemical substances; the "introduction of a scienti. fic notation,,; "the general law of affinities"; the use of "methods and instruments', from physics for "calculating the results of experiments with rigorous precision"; and the "application of mathematics to the henomena of crystallization." Here Condorcet also spelled out his scientific version of the hotlydebated topic of our own times: the "preconditions" of a revolution.77

Condorcet's special use of "revolution" in relation to chemistry, rather than physics or astronomy or the lifesciences, was a natural result of the fact that he had actually been witness to the recent Chemical Revolution. This revolution had been invented by Lavoisier in a double sense, for he both gave the Chemical Revolution its name and was its chief architect. Lavoisier referred to his own work in terms of "revolution" in at least three manuscriptswo letters and an entry in his laboratory register. The publication of the latter by Marcelin Berthelot in 1890, in a book on Lavoisier entitled La revolution chimique: Lavoisier, fixed the name "Chemical Revolution" on the historical reco rd ,78

Lavoisier's own statement is notable. In writing out his plans and hopes for research, he could not help but be conscious of their ultimate significance. "L'importance de ['objet m'a engage reprendre tout ce travail," he wrote in 1773, "qui m'a paw fait pour occasionner une revolution en physique et en chimie."79 The same concept and image of a revolution within chemistry appears in a letter he wrote to Chaptal in 1791, in which he concluded: "Toute la jeunesse adopte la nouvelle theorie et J'en conclus que la revolution est faite en chimie." The political events at the time of this letter would naturally have brought the concept of revolution to mind -- even in chemistry. A year earlier he had written a remarkable letter to Benjamin Franklin (2 Feb 1790` in which he gave his American friend a succinct account of his chemical revolution and then wrote about the political revolution -- thus definitely proving how the two revolutions were associated in his mind. He announced to Franklin that the French scientists were divided into two camps: those who clung to the ancient doctrine and those on his side including M. de Morveau, M. Berthollet, M. de Fourcroy, M. de Laplace, M. Monge, "et en general les physicians de ladademie. Reporting on the situation in England and in Germany he concluded "Voildone une revolution qui stest faitte dans la chimie depuis votre depart"; and he added: "je ... tiendrai [cette revolution] pour bien avancee et meme complettement faitte si vous vous rangez parmi nous." And then he turned at once to the political revolution.

In 1790/91, with a revolution well launched in the political sphere, it isnot surprising to find Lavoisier thinking about a revolution in chemistry; and we have seen that by 1773 (even before the American and French Revolutions), a tradition had arisen of conceiving significant scientific change to have occurred by a process of revolution. Hence the most remarkable aspect of Lavoisier's note of 1773 is that it was -- far as I have been able to find -- the first time any scientist had ever referred to his own work in such terms of revolution.82

It is still all too commonly believed that Immanuel Kant compares "his own philosophical revolution with that initiated by Copernicus," allegedly in the preface to the second edition of the Kritik der reinerl Vernunft (1787).83 In fact, however, Kant nowhere refers to a Copernican revolution. But in that preface to the second edition, Kant does discuss two revolutions in science: in mathematics and in physics, both being subjects "in which reason yields theoretical knowledge." These two sciences, according to Kant, "have to determine their objects a priori, . . . [mathematics] doing so quite purely, . . . [physics] having to reckon, at least partially, with sources of knowledge other than reason." It was difficult for mathematics, however, "to light upon, or rather to construct for itself, that royal road." Mathematics "long remained, especially among the Egyptians, in the groping stage," and then there occurred a "transformation [that] must have been due to a revolution brought about by the happy thought of a single man." Kant held "this intellectual revolution" to be "far more important than the discovery o the passage round the celebrated Cape of Good Hope," and lamentec that its history and the name of "its fortunate author" had "not bee preserved.''S4 In physics, Kant found a "beneficent revolution in its point of view.''S5 Thus, while Kant neither invoked the image of a Copernican revolution nor stated directly that he had himself produced such a revolution, he did (in the preface to the second edition of his Critique of Pure Reason, but not in the first) explicitly refer to two major revolutions that had fundamentally altered the nature of science.

Not unexpectedly, Joseph Priestley -- an ardent supporter of the American and French Revolutions -- was among those who transferred the concept of revolution from the political realm to science.S6 In a work on phlogiston and the decomposition of water, published in 1796, he began by saying that there had been "few, if any, revolutions in science so great, so sudden, and so general, as the prevalence of what is now usually termed the new system of chemistry, or that of the Antiphlogistians, over the doctrine of Stahl...." And then, having described how successfully the new chemistry had routed the old, he linked political and scientific events in lamenting that he "hardly [knew] of any person" other than himself and his friends of the Lunar Society of Birmingham, who adhere to the doctrine of phlogiston." And then he added that "what may now be the case with them, in this age of revolutions, philosophical as well as civil, I will not at this distance answer for."S7 Having suffered personally for his open support of the French Revolution, Priestley was all too aware of the dangerous consequences of the use of the word "revolution." Writing from exile, in Northumberland, Pennsylvania, on 24 Oct. 1799, he congratulated Robert R. Livingston on his ``most valuable discovery relating to the fabrication of paper." If there were success in bleaching it, of which I have little doubt, you will produce a complete revolution in the whole manufacture." But then he warned that this great innovation "must not be called a revolution in these times. That alone would discredit it, tho ever so useful," he concluded. "It is not, however, the less acceptable to me."88

Priestley differed from most of his contemporaries in that he did not believe that revolutions in science were always progressive, always causing a more rapid advance in the state of knowledge. "Nothing," he wrote, "is more common, in the history of all the branches of experimental philosophy, than the most unexpected revolutions of good or bad success." He explained his point of view as follows:

. . . In general, indeed, when numbers of ingenious men apply themselves to one subject, that has been well opened, the investigation proceeds happily and equably. But, as in the history of electricity, and now in the discoveries relating to air, light has burst out from the most unexpected quarters, in consequence of which the greatest masters of science have been obliged to recommence their studies, from new and simpler elements; so it is also not uncommon for a branch of science to receive a check, even in the most rapid and promising state of its growth.89

A review of Priestley's Memoirs, published in 1806 in The Edinburgh Review, enables us to see how widely accepted the concept of revolutions in science (and other intellectual pursuits) had become. The anonymous reviewer, actually Francis Jeffrey, noted that Priestley had "confidently expected his name to go down to posterity, as a great reformer in religion and philosophy; and had no doubt that a place would be assigned to him in the Temple of Immortality, at least as distinguished) as those of Luther and Newton." This led to the following indictment:

It has often occurred to us, indeed, that there is a universally something presumptuous in provincial genus and that it is a very rare felicity to meet with a man of talents out of the metropolis,who does not overrate himself and his coterie prodigiously. In the West of England in particular, ther has been a succession of authors, who... have fancied that they were born to effect some mighty revolution in the different departments to which they applied themselves.90

Such extravagance, Jeffrey believed, was due to the "want of that wholesome discipline of derision to which every thing is subjected in \London," and which represses presumption and extravagant vanity', Here, however, we are less interested in Jeffrey's views of ''provincial philosophers" than in his use of the term "revolution" for an advance in natural philosophy, or experimental science.

At the century's end, the concept of revolutions in science had be come firmly established. The first overall review of the intellectual accomplishments of the eighteenth century Samuel Miller's Brief Retrospect, published in 1803 -- stated in its title that it contained "A Sketch of the Revolutions and Improvements in Science, Arts, and Literature, during that Period." Miller's use of "revolution" to denote gigantic progressive steps is all the more notable in that he was an American clergyman with an anti-French bias. His work was more a compilation than an original essay, as he himself admitted;9' accordingly, he would have encountered the concept of revolution in science and in the arts in the course of his readings (including works in French, which are prominent among his footnotes and references).

.In his "Recapitulation" at the end of the second volume, Miller characterized the eighteenth century as "preeminently an age of free inquiry." Men learned, to a greater degree than had ever been known before, to "throw off the authority of distinguished names . . .to discard all opinions, to overturn systems which were supposed to rest on everlasting foundations." Men pushed their inquiries to the utmost extent, awed by no sanctions, restrained by no prescriptions, effecting a "revolution in the human mind." The image thus conjured is one of intellectual sansculottes running rampant; and Miller was at pains to point out that this "revolution ...has been attended with many advantages, and with many evils," both of which he then spelled out.'t2

A little later on, he returned to "the revolutions and progress of Science," observing that the "last age was remarkably distinguished by theories were more numerous than in any former period, their systems more diversified. and revolutions followed each other in more rapid succession. In almost every department of science, changes of fashion, or doctrine, and of authonty, have trodden so closely on the heels of each other, that merely to remember and enumerate them would be an arduous task.93_

Miller set himself the problem of accounting for this "frequency and l rapidity of scientific revolutions." His solution is a most modern one, since he saw the primary cause to be what we would call today the emergence of a "scientific community." Miller pointed in particular to the "extraordinary diffusion of knowledge"; the "swarms of inquirers and experimenters every where"; andbove all΢the unprecedented degree of intercourse which men of science enjoyed," the consequence of which was "the thorough and speedy investigation which every new theory was accustomed to receive," resulting in "the successive erection and demolition of more ingenious and splendid fabrics than ever previously." Thus "the scientific world [was kept] more than ever awake and busy" by a "rapid succession of discoveries, hypotheses, theories and systems." With an insight that shows how far Miller surpassed the bounds of a mere compiler, he concluded his "Recapitulation" by observing: "The eighteenth century was preeminently THE AGE OF LITERARY AND SCIENTIFIC INTERCOURSE.' 94

Within a decade of Miller's book, there was a further recognition of the existence of revolutions in science. In the fifth edition of the Dictionnaire delAcademieFrancois, revu, corriget augmentpar l'Acadmeie elle-meme (1811), we find the primary definition to be astronomical.

There is also mentioned a Revolutiondhumeurs, and the article concludes withchangemens memorables et violens qui ont agite ces Pays -- in reference to Les Rvolutions Romaines, Les Revolutions de Suede, les Revolutions dAngleterre. It is noted that in speaking of the revolution, one has in mind the establishment of a new order.

In the present context, however, what is of greatest interest is the paragraph devoted to the ways in which the word "revolution,, is used figuratively: "Du changement qui arrive dans les affaires publiques dans les choses du monde, dans les opinions, etc." The examples given are:

Prompte, subite, soudaine, merveilleuse,etonnante, heureuse revolution La perte d'une bataille cause souvent de grand es revolutions dans un Etat Le temps fait detranges revolutions dans les affaires. Les choses de ce monde vent sujettes de grandes revolutions .Rolution dans les arts, dans les sciences, dans les esprits, dans les modes' etc.95

Thus formally entered into the lexigraphic record, the expression "revolution" in science attained official recognition as the name of an accepted concept to characterize scientific change. Harvard University.

N/>1nࡱ; SummaryInformation(޼@@N޼@Microsoft Word 6.02ࡱ; =>GN 6 @ `b`0J(*ln ! !?"U"%%&&&&y((,,,,//222234383\3D44455566;;>>%>'>>?y??*@,@AAAAB-BBBVccVc Vc]ccV]cVc]ccXBCCCCDDDD%DDDDE EEF$FGGGG H HAHHHdInIjKtK7LGLM%M'M1MkMvMxMM X XSXUXXXXX?YMYZY\YYYYYZZZZ__``bbbbbbcccdd d$d)dddddVeXe`ebeteveeeeeIfKfRfTf]cVcV]cc_Tfiiiijj?jFj`jbjkk8k:kkkkkll5l7lAlCl9mBmFmNmmmnnpppppptrwruuww{{||}}}} $&orрր%'~bn13ԃۃtx}ӄՄVc c]cVcc_Dž˅ >EɊ̊!#LQɌˌgkʐDNOZ͘ϘјӘ%'DFJL¢SWYv{}ӤդլA_5Բٲcڷ<Iǻ̻(1F\$wVcV]cc]c`bx'XZbdBU6:IKu]cV]VUVV]cc]cc2Vcc(1Z[oy} 8< a%e%(        } 3<3- Q3Q-3Q Q3Q33^  3 3A U3UA3 &3& 3B 3((*-.-007799V>Z>;@?@AAXC\CBEFEMHQH3l7 l3l73:3(393_33: :3:3 L3Lc37 373<QH)L-LXX [[^^__cc~ffojsjwp{prrpttt6y:y{. i3933D3"3w3 v  3 v3R R3R3T3> >3>3{{}}}{IMw{bfHLxxa ~36 636 33_33)A )3)A 3J3D 3D3^T ^3^T339LW[bfNRk=AѺպ |37I 737I3L '3*3P3z3F F3F3m3O O3O3D3ku k3ku @D $#'x{1rk33&O &3&O33A )35 C3Cu3C C3C3C( C3C(3C C3C B3B3Lx|.g  333R R3R3&33R R3R3K@Normala "A@"Default Paragraph Font   0%/9$C0MW`kt}NI 3d!^qY)m  v ; 8GDBTfklmno(QH{L xpqrstuv,ITC-L&C A:\COHEN.RTFITC-L&C A:\COHEN.HTM@HP LaserJet 4/4Mlpt2:HPPCL5EHP LaserJet 4/4M  D@ XHP LaserJet 4/4M  D@ X 44DTimes New Roman Symbol &Arial˷ī"hff$(ITC-L&CITC-L&Cࡱ;  Root Entry FGCompObjbWordDocumentObjectPool}޼}޼ 4@  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijkSummaryInformation( ޼@@(@ Microsoft Word 6.03ࡱ;  FMicrosoft Word 6.0 Document MSWordDocWord.Document.6;  Oh+'0$ H l   D hAlbertus Xb (W1)(19U(s4362t4$F:\PUB\MSOFFICE\TEMPLATE\NORMAL.DOTITC-L&CITC-L&C@N  A1BTf!klmno(QH{L x!pqrstuv,ITC-L&C A:\COHEN.RTFITC-L&C A:\COHEN.HTM@HP LaserJet 4/4Mlpt2:HPPCL5EHP LaserJet 4/4M  D@ XHP LaserJet 4/4M  D@ X \\pXp oDTimes New Roman Symbol &Arial˷ī"hf$$(ITC-L&CITC-L&Cࡱ; ܥe3 $ejjjjjjj"..D........Z\\\{rT(]j.kp.....jj......j.j.Z~jjjj.Z.,.
THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY ORIGINS OF THE CONCEPT OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION' BY I. BERNARD COHEN

Many historians of science, like their fellow general historians, beljeve that the concept of revolution in science is of fairly recent origin, and that it has been superimposed anachronously and even harshly on events of the past. In fact, however, for some three centuries there has been a more or less unbroken tradition of viewing scientific change as a sequence of revolutions. In the eighteenth century, when this tradition appears to have taken its first rise, there was still some confusion and ambiguity about the sense of the word "revolution": in relation not only to science but to political events. Although "revolulion'' came into general usage during the eighteenth century to denote a breach of continuity or a secular change of real magnitude, there also remained current the older sense of "revolution" as a cyclical phenomenon, a continuous sequence of ebb and flow, a kind of circulation and return, or a repetition. After 1789, the new meaning came to predominate and, ever since, "revolution" has commonly implied radical change and a departure from traditional or accepted mod thought, belief, action, social behavior, or political or social organization. Thus in early modern times there occurred a double transformation of "revolution" and the concept for which it is the name. First scientifc term, taken from astronomy and geometry, came to be applied to a general range of social, political, economic, and intellectual cultural activities; and, second, in this usage the term gained a new meanmg that was radically different from if not diametrically opposite to the original and strict etymological sense of "revolution" (rol tion, revolazione), which is derived from the mediaeval Latin revolutio rolling back or a return, usually with an implied sense of revolving in time.

During the eighteenth century, the point of view emerged that scientific change is characterized by an analog of the revolutions that alter the forms of society and the political affairs of the state. Whereas earlier, sclence had contributed "revolution" to the discourse of social and political change, now social and political thought gave back to science the concept of revolution in the newly established sense, no longer as a term serving in the scientific explanation of natural phenomena, but rather an expression to be used in the social or intellectual explanation of scientific change itself now visualized as a series of secular discontinuities of such magnitude as to constitute definite breaks with the past. The rejection of the older and more traditional opinions in which scientific change was seen as a cyclical contlnuous process and the rise of the doctrine that science progresses by radical revolutions has occurred by degrees ever smce the opemng years of the eighteenth century, and has been continuously influenced by the development of concepts and theories of political and social (and cultural) revolution. Accordingly, an understanding of the nse of the idea of revolutions in science (and of the existence of the Scientific Revolution) requires some knowledge of the general history of the concept and name "revolution."6

The history of the idea of revoluary definition to be astronomical.

There is also mentioned a Revolutiondhumeurs, and the article concludes withchangemens memorables et violens qui ont agite ces Pays -- in reference to Les Rvolutions Romaines, Les Revolutions de Suede, les Revolutions dAngleterre. It is noted that in speaking of the revolution, one has in mind the establishment of a new order.

In the present context, however, what is of greatest interest is the paragraph devoted to the ways in which the word "revolution,, is used figuratively: "Du changement qui arrive dans les affaires publiques dans les choses du monde, dans les opinions, etc." The examples given are:

Prompte, subite, soudaine, merveilleuse,etonnante, heureuse revolution La perte d'une bataille cause souvent de grand es revolutions dans un Etat Le temps fait detranges revolutions dans les affaires. Les choses de ce monde vent sujettes de grandes revolutions .Rolution dans les arts, dans les sciences, dans les esprits, dans les modes' etc.95

Thus formally entered into the lexigraphic record, the expression "revolution" in science attained official recognition as the name of an accepted concept to characterize scientific change. Harvard University.

N/>1n Journal of the History of Ideas, 1976. =>GN 6 @ `b`0J(*ln ! !?"U"%%&&&&y((,,,,//222234383\3D44455566;;>>%>'>>?y??*@,@AAAAB-BBBVccVc Vc]ccV]cVc]ccXBCCCCDDDD%DDDDE EEF$FGGGG H HAHHHdInIjKtK7LGLM%M'M1MkMvMxMM X XSXUXXXXX?YMYZY\YYYYYZZZZ__``bbbbbbcccdd d$d)dddddVeXe`ebeteveeeeeIfKfRfTf]cVcV]cc_Tfiiiijj?jFj`jbjkk8k:kkkkkll5l7lAlCl9mBmFmNmmmnnpppppptrwruuww{{||}}}} $&orрր%'~bn13ԃۃtx}ӄՄVc c]cVcc_Dž˅ >EɊ̊!#LQɌˌgkʐDNOZ͘ϘјӘ%'DFJL¢SWYv{}ӤդլA_5Բٲcڷ<Iǻ̻(1F\$wVcV]cc]c`bx'XZbdBU6:IK !cu]cV]VUVV]cc]cc2Vcc+1Z[oy} 8< a%e%(        } 3<3- Q3Q-3Q Q3Q33^  3 3A U3UA3 &3& 3B 3((*-.-007799V>Z>;@?@AAXC\CBEFEMHQH3l7 l3l73:3(393_33: :3:3 L3Lc37 373<QH)L-LXX [[^^__cc~ffojsjwp{prrpttt6y:y{. i3933D3"3w3 v  3 v3R R3R3T3> >3>3{{}}}{IMw{bfHLxxa ~36 636 33_33)A )3)A 3J3D 3D3^T ^3^T339LW[bfNRk=AѺպ |37I 737I3L '3*3P3z3F F3F3m3O O3O3D3ku k3ku @D $#'x{1rk33&O &3&O33A )35 C3Cu3C C3C3C( C3C(3C C3C B3B3Lx|.g!    3B 3333R R3R3&33R R3R3K@Normala "A@"Default Paragraph Font   "%}/9BL4W`jt}0/?[-J      ZP8~7[\p  `d'+""%%R*V*--447 7~;;c=>>@@jBnBuEyEVV5X9X\\``ccggmmqq^vbvxx{{{9|=|}}~~quptvz ;?ӯׯei48hHL׿ۿ ,0KO V"&            q  I{ r  b rxbBx a Q r