Lorenat Jemma
Pitzer College,Claremont,CaliforniaE-mail:
Sci Context. 2015 Dec;28(4):545-85. doi: 10.1017/S0269889715000289.
A plagiarism charge in 1827 sparked a public controversy centered between Jean-Victor Poncelet (1788-1867) and Joseph-Diez Gergonne (1771-1859) over the origin and applications of the principle of duality in geometry. Over the next three years and through the pages of various journals, monographs, letters, reviews, reports, and footnotes, vitriol between the antagonists increased as their potential publicity grew. While the historical literature offers valuable resources toward understanding the development, content, and applications of geometric duality, the hostile nature of the exchange seems to have deterred an in-depth textual study of the explicitly polemical writings. We argue that the necessary collective endeavor of beginning and ending this controversy constitutes a case study in the circulation of geometry. In particular, we consider how the duality controversy functioned as a medium of communicating new fundamental principles to a wider audience of practitioners.
1827年的一起剽窃指控引发了一场公开争议，其核心人物是让 - 维克多·彭赛列（1788 - 1867）和约瑟夫 - 迪耶·热尔岗（1771 - 1859），争议焦点是几何学中对偶原理的起源与应用。在接下来的三年里，通过各种期刊、专著、信件、评论、报告及脚注等形式，随着这场争议潜在的公众关注度不断提高，双方的敌意也与日俱增。虽然历史文献为理解几何对偶性的发展、内容及应用提供了宝贵资源，但这场争论的敌对性质似乎阻碍了对那些明确带有论战性的文字进行深入的文本研究。我们认为，开启并终结这场争议所必需的集体努力构成了一个关于几何学传播的案例研究。特别是，我们思考了对偶性争议是如何作为一种媒介，将新的基本原理传达给更广泛的从业者群体的。
