Le Laboratoire des pollutions industrielles: Paris, 1770-1830 (review)

Thomas Le Roux frames the evolution of efforts to control manufacturing nuisances in early-nineteenth-century Paris within the sweep of Karl Polanyi's "great transformation." Linking the foundations of modernity to new attitudes toward nature is not new, and many of the arguments advanced here have appeared in recent publications, by the same author or his colleagues (Fressoz and Massard-Guilbaud). Yet this well-structured volume offers a most systematic analysis of the dismantling and replacement of the regulatory system that limited the impact of offending trades under the Old Regime. The circumstances of a revolutionary age, influence of key agents, and changing political imperatives combined with the promises of a rising market economy to impose an enforced tolerance of nuisances.

The dangers associated with many trades had long been recognized, and regulations had grown to safeguard public health and the full use of property. Naturally, imperatives of supplies and employment tempered the quest for salubrité, and the balance of administrative and police initiatives versus judicial activism was never static. Eventually, new chemical processes, the rising influence of science, and a will to encourage manufacturing also challenged existing regulations. Nevertheless, they "contained" pollution through a "pragmatic" combination of prevention, repression, and removal of the worst offenders (e.g., pp. 55-56). The three decades after the Revolution thoroughly transformed this system of control.

The dismantling of ancient institutions and the imperatives of revolution and war brought a wave of polluting trades within the capital. The Consulate reclaimed some of the practices of the pre-revolutionary age, but economic development was now high on the agenda of the authorities, and scientific expertise came to dominate discussions. The 1802 creation of the Conseil de salubrité harnessed the talents of remarkable figures with overlapping interests in industry, science, and administration who shaped a coherent body of rules and practices. Traditional sources of pollution, often associated with the putrefaction of animal products, came increasingly under control, but new nuisances, notably related to the production and usage of powerful acids or the increasingly ubiquitous steam engine, were tolerated, either because of economic imperatives or because they were deemed harmless or even praised as an antidote to more commonly feared miasma. A series of official reports and decisions codified a three-categories ranking of manufactures that limited the greatest offenders, who needed authorization. The sufferance of plants established during the revolutionary decade, as well as the respect given to investments made before approval, were only two of many glaring loopholes in a new system of regulations designed to shield entrepreneurs from the complaints of the public.

A last section charts the consolidation of this new system of regulations based on the promises of science and industry. The rising school of hygienism strove to improve production techniques, master the greatest of risks, and sketch a map of production compatible with the social geography of the city, sacrificing waterways in the process. The Conseil de salubrité remained a dedicated supporter of entrepreneurs, helping them overcome opposition from worried residents and the few authorities who voiced more prudent, traditional reservations. Paris became an industrial city, and a steady process of acculturation lessened fears of industry's by-products.

Inevitably, exposing such a radical evolution risks overstating the contrast between "before and after." A closer study of the ways in which the population suffered through and understood nuisances may moderate this possible bias, but these voices are muted in the administrative sources used here. Is it possible to argue that resistance to the new imperium of industry slowed down the pace of change, giving people and techniques a chance to adjust? Or could worries about pollution only remain secondary to acute pangs of poverty at the heart of a tense nineteenth century? A gray area remains between what administrative sources can tell us and the kind of historical anthropology pioneered by Alain Corbin.

Yet, this study is rich. The centrality of Paris in the story is complemented by frequent references...