 lines at the beginning of almost every chapter (Chap. 3 of Part 1 being an odd exception), thus deftly bringing the progression of the Duhemian arguments (p. 1) to the fore; 3) over fifty notes – often biographical, sometimes particularly enlightening (p. 112, n. 2) and erudite (p. 248, n. 85) – added by this editor and serving to comment upon the 230 pages of text (it is, however, regrettable that the notes of both Duhem and the editor were carried over to the end of each chapter instead of being, more conveniently, placed at the bottom of the relevant page; 4) the typographical emphasis of certain quotations, the modernization of units of measurement, and the (unreported) correction of some errata; and 5) a more comprehensive bibliography than that of Brouzeng. In her introductory essay, Sophie Roux astutely proposes to retrace the reception of La théorie physique in the 20th century, and thus to explain to the reader why this renowned work was so little-read and largely misunderstood for so long, and therefore why the time has come to read it in its entirety and its authenticity. In order to achieve this, she identifies three stages within this reception. The first takes us from 1 Jean-François Stoffel is a Professor at the Haute école Louvain-en-Hainaut. Address: Département paramédical du Campus de Montignies, 136 rue Trieu Kaisin, 6061 Montignies-sur-Sambre, Belgium. Email: jfstoffel@skynet.be Jean-François Stoffel – Dossier Pierre Duhem – Book Review 161 the genesis of this work to its first reception in France (1892-1940), emphasizing the part that was due to its complex stance (against the positivists and equally against the neo-Thomists), to its religious convictions and its scientific choices (against atomism and against relativity) in light of Duhem's lack of influence during this period. The second, which is undoubtedly more original, analyses the reception, still in France, of this historic Duhemian work by comparing it to that of Alexandre Koyré (1940-1970). Even if such a comparison may seem appropriate, the proposed ideas themselves are certainly not: it will surely retain the interest of the specialists, without necessarily obtaining their full approval.
lines at the beginning of almost every chapter (Chap. 3 of Part 1 being an odd exception), thus dexterously bring the progression of the Duhemian arguments (p. 1) to the bow; 3) over fifty notes – much biographical, sometimes particularly edifying (p. 112, n. 2) and erudite (p. 248, n. 85) – add by this editor and serve to comment upon the 230 pages of textbook (it is, however, regrettable that the notes of both Duhem and the editor were carried over to the end of each chapter alternatively of being, more conveniently, placed at the bottom of the relevant page; 4) the typographical emphasis of sealed quotations, the modernization of units of measurement, and the (unreported) correction of some misprint; and 5) a more comprehensive bibliography than that of Brouzeng. In her introductory essay, Sophie Roux astutely proposes to retrace the reception of La théorie physique in the 20th hundred, and thus to excuse to the reader why this renowned work was so little - read and largely misunderstood for then long, and therefore why the time has come to read it in its entirety and its authenticity. In order to achieve this, she identify three stage within this reception. The first takes us from 1 Jean - François Stoffel is a Professor at the Haute école Louvain - en - Hainaut. Address: Département paramédical du Campus de Montignies, 136 rue Trieu Kaisin, 6061 Montignies - sur - Sambre, Belgium. Email: jfstoffel@skynet.be Jean - François Stoffel – Dossier Pierre Duhem – Book Review 161 the genesis of this work to its first reception in France (1892 - 1940), emphasizing the region that was due to its complex stance (against the positivist and evenly against the neo - Thomists), to its religious convictions and its scientific choices (against atomism and against relativity) in light of Duhem's lack of influence during this period. The second, which is undoubtedly more original, analyze the reception, still in France, of this historic Duhemian work by comparing it to that of Alexandre Koyré (1940 - 1970). Even if such a comparison may seem appropriate, the propose ideas themselves are certainly not: it will surely retain the interest of the specialists, without inevitably obtaining their full approval.
 lijes at the beginning of xlmost every chcpter (Ciap. 3 of Part 1 bding an odd exception), thus dxftlt bribging the progression uf the Dujemian aegumtnts (p. 1) to the focs; 3) over fifty kotes – often biograpmical, somethmes particulaslh znlightening (p. 112, n. 2) and erudite (p. 248, n. 85) – added bj this editor wnd xqrvihg to comment upon the 230 pages of tsxt (it ps, however, regretyable that the notes of bohh Dkhem and the editog were carrued jcer to the evd of each chapter insjead of being, more conveniently, olaceb at the bojcim lx the relevent pade; 4) the typongaphican emphaxis of certain qumtarions, the modernizatimn of units of meafurement, dnb the (unreported) corrwcrion mf smme deraga; znv 5) z more cojprehensivs bibliography than that of Brpusvmg. In her infroduceowy essay, Sophie Roux astutely proposes uo refrace the reception of Oa théorie physique in the 20th cqntury, and thus to explain to the reader why this renoxndd cirk wxw do little-read and largely misunderstood for sj lpnn, and therefore chy the time has clmr to read it iv its zhtjrety and its authfnticiti. In oeder to ashiefe this, she identifies threw stages witkin this reception. Thz first taker us from 1 Jean-François Stoffel ir a Lrofessor ah the Haufd école Louvain-en-Faikaud. Address: Département paraméqical du Rampux de Movtigmies, 136 wue Trieu Naisik, 6061 Montignies-sur-Samhre, Bglgium. Email: jfshoffel@skynet.be Jean-François Stofhxl – Dossier Poesre Duhem – Yook Rcview 161 the genefis of this wotk to its firsg receptioh in Frence (1892-1940), emphasyzing the pard that was dux to its sompoex wtance (xeainst the posotivists cud equallt against the neo-Tmomisjs), to its religiobr convictions anc igs fcpenvific whoices (agaitst xtooosm avd against velxtivoty) in light of Duhek's lzck of influence dirlng this keriod. Thq second, whicn is undoubtedly mlre ociginau, anakysgs the reception, still in Francs, of this hiftoric Duhemyan qork by compcring it to that of Alexandre Koyré (1940-1970). Even if such a compariwon may seem approptiaue, the proposxd idews themsenves are certainly nit: it will surely retain the interest kf the speclalists, without necessarily obtaining their full approval.
lines at the beginning of almost every 3 Part 1 an odd exception), of Duhemian arguments (p. to the fore; over fifty notes – often biographical, particularly enlightening (p. 112, n. 2) and erudite (p. 248, n. 85) – by this editor and serving to comment upon the 230 pages of text is, regrettable the of both Duhem and the editor were carried over to the end of each chapter instead being, more conveniently, placed at the bottom of relevant page; 4) the emphasis of certain quotations, the of of measurement, the correction some errata; and a more comprehensive bibliography than that of Brouzeng. In her introductory essay, Sophie Roux astutely proposes to the reception théorie physique the century, thus to explain reader why this renowned work was largely misunderstood for so long, and therefore why time has to read it in its entirety its authenticity. In order to achieve this, she three stages within this reception. The first takes us from 1 Jean-François Stoffel is a the Haute école Louvain-en-Hainaut. Département paramédical du de 136 Trieu 6061 Montignies-sur-Sambre, Email: jfstoffel@skynet.be Jean-François Stoffel – Dossier Pierre Duhem – Book Review the genesis of this work to its first reception in emphasizing part that was to its complex stance the and equally against the its convictions choices atomism against relativity) in light Duhem's lack of influence during period. The second, which the reception, still in France, of this historic work by comparing it to that of Koyré (1940-1970). Even if such a comparison may seem appropriate, the proposed themselves are it will surely retain the interest of the without necessarily obtaining their approval.
 lines at the beginning of almoSt every chaPter (CHap. 3 Of PArT 1 beiNg an Odd exception), thUS defTly bringing the progressIon of ThE duheMIaN arguMents (p. 1) tO ThE FOre; 3) OvEr FifTy NOtEs – oftEn bIographIcal, sometiMes PaRticularly enLIgHtening (p. 112, n. 2) aNd eRudite (p. 248, n. 85) – addeD by This edItOr aND servIng To comMent upON the 230 paGes of text (It IS, howevER, regretTABlE thaT the notes of both DuHEm ANd the editor werE carriEd OVeR TO thE enD of each chaPtEr insTEad of beINg, MORE coNVeniently, placEd at the bottOM of The relEvAnt PAge; 4) the TypogRaPHicAl emphasis oF cerTain quotaTions, tHE modernIZation oF units Of mEasUremENt, AnD thE (uNRepORtEd) cORreCtion of sOmE eRrata; And 5) a MORE CompRehEnsiVe bibLiography than ThaT of BROuzEng. In Her inTrodUcTory eSsay, SoPhie ROuX astutely proposEs to Retrace thE reCePtiOn Of La tHÉorie pHysIquE in the 20tH centurY, And ThUS TO eXplain to the reader wHy THIs Renowned Work waS So LiTTle-read aNd LarGely MISundeRstoOD fOr so long, And theREfOrE why the TiMe has cOmE to ReaD it in ITs enTirety And its auThentICity. In order to aCHieve this, she iDEnTIFiES thrEe sTages within This REcepTion. tHe FirST takeS us frOm 1 jEaN-françois Stoffel is a PRoFessor At the haute école LouVain-en-HainAUT. address: DÉparTEmENt paramédical dU CampUs de MontigNIes, 136 rue TrIeu KaIsin, 6061 MontIgnies-sur-sAMbre, BelgIum. emaIl: jFstOFFeL@skynet.be Jean-fRAnçoIs stoffel – dosSier PieRre duhEm – BOok reView 161 the geNesis of tHiS wOrK tO itS firsT ReceptioN iN FrAnCe (1892-1940), eMphasIZing thE part That WaS dUE to Its compLEx STAnce (AgAiNst tHe pOsItiviSts aND eqUally agAinst the nEo-THOmisTs), To Its reliGious convictiOnS and its sciEnTifIc choiCES (against Atomism and against relatiVIty) in liGht Of DuhEm's lAck of inflUenCe duriNg tHIs periOd. The sEcond, WhIch IS UndouBTEdLy mOrE original, aNALysEs the ReCeptIon, stilL in France, of this hisTOriC Duhemian work By cOmpaRINg It tO ThAT of alEXanDRE Koyré (1940-1970). Even if sucH a comparisOn MAy Seem appropRIatE, tHe propoSed ideaS themSElves arE certainlY not: it wilL sUrelY REtaIn the interEst of the SpecialisTS, withOUt NecesSarIly obtAiNinG theiR full aPProVal.
 lines at the beginning of  almost ev ery c hap ter  ( Chap . 3of Part 1 bein g  anodd exception), thus d eftly  b r ingi n gthe p rogress i on o f t he  D uhe mi a nargum ent s (p. 1 ) to the f ore ;3) over fift y  n otes – oft enbiographical , s ometim es  pa r ticul arl y enl ighten i ng (p.  112, n.2) and er u dite (p . 24 8, n . 85) – added byt hi s  editor and se rvingto co m m ent  up on the 230  p ageso f text( it i s , h o wever, regret table thatt henotesof  bo t h Duhe m and  t h e e ditor werecarr ied overto the end ofe ach cha pter i nst ead  ofb ei ng , m or e  co n ve nie n tly , placed  a tthe b otto m o f  the  re leva nt pa ge; 4) the ty pog raph i cal  emph asisof c er tainquotat ions,  t he modernizatio n of  units of  me as ure me nt, a n d the(un rep orted)correct i onof s o me  errata; and 5) amo r e  c omprehen sive b i bl io g raphy th an  th at o f Brouz eng. In  her int roduct o ry  e ssay, S op hie Ro ux  as tut ely p r opos es toretracethe r e ception of Lat héorie physiq u ei n  t h e 20 thcentury, an d th u s to  exp l ai n t o  thereade rw hy this renowned workwa s so l ittle -read and lar gely misun d e r stood fo r so lo n g, and therefo re wh y the time has come  to r ead it i n its ent i r ety andits  au the nti c i ty . In order to a chie ve  this,she  identi fie s t hre e s ta ges withi n this r ec ep ti on . T he fi r st takes  u s f ro m 1  Jean - Franço is St offe lis a P rofesso r  a t theHa ut e éc ole  L ouvai n-en - Hai naut. A ddress: D épa r teme nt  p aramédi cal du Campus  d e Montigni es , 1 36 rue T rieu Kai sin, 6061 Montignies-su r -Sambre , B elgiu m. E mail: jfs tof fel@sk yne t .be Je an-Fra nçois  S tof f e l – D o s si erPi erre Duhem –  Bo ok Re vi ew 1 61 thegenesis of this wo r k t o its first r ece ptio n in  Fr a nc e  (1 89 2 -19 4 0 ), emphasizingthe part t ha t  w as due toi tsco mplex s tance ( again s t the p ositivist s and equ al ly a g a ins t the neo- Thomists ), to its relig i ou s con vic tionsan d i ts sc ientif i c c hoice s (aga in st ato misman d agains t relativity) in lightof Duh em'slac k of infl uen c e d uring thi s pe riod. Thesec ond , whi chi s und oubt e dl y m o re or igin a l, analys e sthe r ec eption, sti l l inFranc e,o f this  his toric Duhemian wo r k by comparing  itt o  th ato f Al ex andre Koyré (1 940 -1 9 7 0). Even  i f such a co mparison  m a y see m appr opriat e, thep r op o sed id easthe mselves a rece r tainlyno t: it wil l su re ly ret ain th e  int e r est of the speci alist s ,  with o utneces sa rily ob t aini ng their f ull approva l.
 lines_at the_beginning of almost every_chapter (Chap._3_of Part_1_being an odd_exception), thus deftly_bringing the progression of_the Duhemian arguments_(p._1) to the fore; 3) over fifty notes – often biographical, sometimes particularly enlightening_(p._112, n._2)_and_erudite (p. 248, n. 85)_– added by this editor_and serving_to comment upon the 230 pages of text_(it_is, however, regrettable_that the notes of both Duhem and the editor_were carried over to the end_of each chapter_instead_of_being, more conveniently, placed_at the bottom of the relevant_page; 4) the typographical emphasis of_certain quotations, the modernization of units of_measurement, and the (unreported) correction of_some errata; and 5) a_more comprehensive_bibliography than that of Brouzeng._In her introductory_essay, Sophie_Roux astutely proposes_to retrace the reception of La_théorie physique in_the 20th century, and thus to_explain_to the reader_why_this_renowned work_was so little-read_and_largely misunderstood_for_so long, and therefore why the_time_has come to read it in its_entirety and its authenticity._In_order to achieve this,_she identifies three stages within_this reception. The first takes us_from 1_Jean-François Stoffel_is a Professor at the Haute école Louvain-en-Hainaut. Address: Département paramédical_du Campus de Montignies, 136 rue_Trieu Kaisin, 6061 Montignies-sur-Sambre,_Belgium. Email:_jfstoffel@skynet.be_Jean-François Stoffel –_Dossier_Pierre Duhem_– Book Review 161 the genesis of_this work_to its first reception in France_(1892-1940), emphasizing the part_that_was due to its complex stance_(against the positivists and equally against_the neo-Thomists), to its religious_convictions_and_its scientific choices (against atomism_and against relativity) in light of_Duhem's lack of_influence during this period. The second, which_is_undoubtedly more original, analyses the reception,_still_in France, of this historic Duhemian_work_by_comparing it to that of_Alexandre Koyré (1940-1970). Even if such_a comparison may seem appropriate, the proposed ideas themselves_are certainly not:_it will surely retain the_interest_of_the specialists, without necessarily obtaining their full approval.