The Spreading of the Word: New Directions in the Historiography of Chemistry 1600–1800

Crosland M. P. , “Chemistry and the Chemical Revolution”, and Schaffer S. , “Natural philosophy” in The ferment of knowledge, ed. Rousseau G. S. and Porter Roy (Cambridge, 1980).

Hannaway Owen , The chemists and the word (Baltimore and London, 1975).

ibid., 25–26.

ibid., 47, 50.

ibid., 59–62.

ibid., 76–79.

ibid., 92–116.

ibid., 117–51.

ibid., 124.

Crosland M. P. , Historical studies in the language of chemistry (London, 1962), 3.

Hannaway , op. cit. (ref. 2), 106–16.

See, for example, Rattansi P. M. , “Paracelsus and the Puritan Revolution”, Ambix, xi (1963), 24–32.

Schneider W. , “Chemiatry and iatrochemistry”, in Debus A. G. (ed.), Science, medicine and society in the Renaissance (2 vols, London, 1972), i, 141–50.

Webster C. , “Alchemical and Paracelsian medicine”, in Webster C. (ed.), Health, medicine and mortality in the sixteenth century (Cambridge, 1979), 301–34.

Dobbs B. J. T. , The foundations of Newton's alchemy (Cambridge, 1975); and Figala K. , “Newton as alchemist”, History of science, xv (1977), 102–37.

Hannaway , op. cit. (ref. 2), 58–59.

As described, for example, in Hubicki W. , “Paracelsists in Poland”, in Debus , op. cit. (ref. 13), ii, 167–75.

Thorndike Lynn , A history of magic and experimental science (8 vols, New York, 1941–58), v, 532.

Eisenstein E. L. , The printing-press as an agent of change (2 vols, Cambridge, 1979), i, 275n.

deJong H. M. E. , Michael Maier's ‘Atalanta fugiens’ (Leyden, 1969), 13.

Mentioned in Evans R. J. W. , Rudolph II and his world (Oxford, 1973), 208. Also in Crosland, op. cit. (ref. 10), 4. Crosland says that Hoghelande compares alchemy adversely with other sciences, whose precepts are set out in methodical order. We have not seen a copy of Hoghelande's text.

Hannaway , op. cit. (ref. 2), 154.

Ibid.

Partington J. R. , A history of chemistry (4 vols, London, 1961–70). See for example the bibliographies of Ettmuller, ii, 198, and Rolfinck, ii, 312.

Chemical symbols occur for example in Peter Stahl, “Cursus chymicus” (British Museum MS, Sloane Engl. 1624). Latin headings for processes are used here, and in William Petty's notes from a chemistry course in the 1640s (Bodleian Library Oxford MS. Film Dep. 935–950, vol. iii, item 10).

Multhauf R. P. , “Some nonexistent chemists of the seventeenth century: Remarks on the use of dialogue in scientific writing”, in Debus A. G. and Multhauf R. P. , Alchemy and chemistry in the seventeenth century (Los Angeles, 1966), 32–50.

[ Bracesco Giovanni ], De alchemia (Nurenberg, 1548); and the introductory section to Rolfinck Werner , Chimia in artis formam redacta (Jena, 1661), which is discussed in Hannaway Owen , “Early university courses in chemistry” (Glasgow University Ph.D. thesis, 1965).

Keckermann Bartholomaeus , Systema physicum (Hanover, 1617) contains a large number of these tables.

Davisson William , Philosophia pyrotechnica (Paris, 1657). The part of the course dealing with chemical operations is summarized both by a dichotomizing table and by an emblem which appears as a frontispiece.

For a study of these in Germany, see Schneider , op. cit. (ref. 13); and Schröder Gerald , Die pharmazeutisch-chemischen Produkte deutscher Apotheken im Zeitalter der Chemiatrie (Bremen, 1957).

Hannaway , op. cit. (ref. 2), 155.

ibid., 73–74.

This is from the Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, London, MS 1894, quoted by courtesy of the Wellcome Institute. It is reproduced in Crellin J. K. , “The development of chemistry in Britain through medicine and pharmacy” (London University, Ph.D. thesis, 1969).

Also in Wellcome MS 1894. The table appears to be in the same hand as the first of the two courses of chemistry bound in this volume.

Libavius , Alchymia Andreae Libavii (Frankfurt, 1606), 16–18.

The table given in Davisson, op. cit. (ref. 29), proposes a fundamental dichotomy between generatione and corruptione. The former is divided into “soluere compagem rei” and “separare purum ab impuro”. A more mechanistic example is given in Rolfinck, op. cit. (ref. 27) (we have used the Geneva, 1671 edition), where operationis is divided into solutio and coagulatio. An early example of the later division is seen in Rhenanus Johann , Solis è puteo emergentis (Frankfurt, 1613).

Beginning with Metzger, who seems to recognize the problem, but whose solution, based on supposed philosophical characteristics of mechanism, does not seem acceptable historically. See Metzger Hélène , Les doctrines chimiques en France (Paris, 1969), 251–2, 423–6.

Lémery Nicholas , Cours de chymie (8th ed., Paris, 1696), “Author's preface”, iij, r to v.

Wilson George , A compleat course of chymistry (London, 1690), “Author's preface”.

Hall M. B. appears too concerned to demonstrate Boyle's “relatively successful achievements in theoretical chemistry”, to pose those achievements as in any sense problematic. See Boas Marie [Hall], Robert Boyle and seventeenth-century chemistry (Cambridge, 1958), 2. Cf. Kuhn T. S. , “Robert Boyle and structural chemistry in the seventeenth century”, Isis, xliii (1952), 12–36.

See “Some specimens of an attempt to make chymical experiments useful to illustrate the notions of the corpuscular philosophy”, in The works of the Honourable Robert Boyle , ed. Birch Thomas (6 vols, London, 1772), i, 354–9. For background on the Oxford Club, see Frank R. G. , Harvey and the Oxford physiologists (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1980), chs 3–8. For background on Boyle's corpuscularianism, see Kargon R. H. , Atomism in England from Hariot to Newton (Oxford, 1966); and for a suggested account of the ideological context of this, Jacob J. R. , “Boyle's atomism and the Restoration assault on pagan naturalism”, Social studies in science, viii (1978), 211–33.

See Boyle's letter to an unnamed friend, in Boyle , op. cit. (ref. 41), i, pp. cxxx–cxxxi.

Oldenburg Henry , Correspondence, ed. Hall A. R. and Hall M. B. (11 vols, Madison, Wisconsin and London, 1965–77), i, 448–70; ii, 37–43, 86–96, 101–4.

ibid., xi, 42–47, 301–7.

Boas , op. cit. (ref. 40), 69–70.

The former is exemplified in “The sceptical chymist” in Boyle , op. cit. (ref. 41), i, 458–586; the latter is described and justified in “Proëmial essay…” in ibid., i, 299–318.

See for example, Schofield R. E. , Mechanism and materialism (Princeton, 1970), 5. Thackray A. , Atoms and powers (Cambridge, Mass., 1970), is rather more ambivalent. Thackray is clearly aware of some of the problems surrounding the relationship (pp. vii, ix, 6); but also describes Lavoisier's chemistry as “devoid of a firm philosophical basis” because it fails to tackle problems in matter-theory (p. 198).

Freind John , Praelectiones chymicae (London, 1709), tr. as Chymical lectures (London, 1712). We have used the ‘second edition’, London, 1729. And “John Mickleburgh Chemistry lectures”, Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge, MS 619/342. This volume contains two series of lectures, of which extracts (not always accurately transcribed) are given in Coleby L. J. M. , “John Mickleburgh”, Annals of science, viii (1952), 165–74.

Mickleburgh , op. cit. (ref. 48), first series, day 1.

ibid., day 5.

Freind , op. cit. (ref. 48), 5–6.

ibid., 130f.

For an attempt to link the development of affinity theory to Newtonianism, see Thackray , op. cit. (ref. 47), 84–101; but cf. Smeaton W. A. , “Letter to the editor, E. F. Geoffroy was not a Newtonian”, Ambix, xviii (1971), 212–14.

See for example, the paper of Andrew Plummer, Professor of Chemistry at Edinburgh , “Remarks on chemical solutions and precipitations”, Essays and observations (Edinburgh, 1754), i, 284–314.

Crosland , op. cit. (ref. 1); and Duncan A. M. , “Some theoretical aspects of eighteenth-century tables of affinity”, Annals of science, xviii (1962), 177–94, 217–32.

[ Dossie Robert ], Institutes of experimental chemistry (London, 1759).

Lindeboom G. A. , Herman Boerhaave (London, 1968), 61, 85, 128, 355–74.

Lindeboom G. A. , Bibliographia Boerhaaviana (Leyden, 1959); Gibbs F. W. , “Boerhaave's chemical writings”, Ambix, vi (1957–8), 117–35.

We have used Herman Boerhaave, New method of chemistry , tr. Shaw P. and Chambers E. (London, 1727), which is a translation from an unauthorized publication derived from notes from Boerhaave's lectures, and was collated by the translators with other students' notes from those lectures. In the version of the text which Boerhaave prepared specifically for publication, Elements of chemistry , tr. Dallowe T. (2 vols, London, 1735), some of the comments on didactic method are omitted.

ibid., 52.

ibid., 170.

Love Rosaleen , “Hermann Boerhaave and the element-instrument concept of fire”, Annals of science, xxxi (1974), 547–59.

Boerhaave Herman , op. cit. (ref. 59); and Stahl G. E. , Philosophical principles of universal chemistry, tr. Shaw P. (London, 1730).

See The philosophical works of Francis Bacon , ed. Shaw P. (3 vols, London, 1733), especially Shaw's “Appendix” to the “Novum organum”, which is reprinted in Bacon Francis , The novum organum (London, 1813).

Boerhaave , op. cit. (ref. 59), 172n. (footnote by Shaw). Compare the characterization of Shaw as a “Newtonian” in Thackray , op. cit. (ref. 47), 118–20; and in Hall A. R. , From Galileo to Newton (London, 1970), 332.

Bacon , op. cit. (ref. 64); Boyle Robert , The philosophical works, ed. Shaw P. (3 vols, London, 1725); Shaw Peter , An enquiry into the contents, virtues, and uses of the Scarborough spaw-waters (London, 1734).

Shaw Peter , Three essays in artificial philosophy or universal chemistry (London, 1731), 42.

ibid., 48.

Macquer P. J. , Élémens de chymie théorique (Paris, 1749); Élémens de chymie pratique (2 vols, Paris, 1751), translated by Reid Andrew as Elements of the theory and practice of chemistry (2 vols, London, 1758). A good recent summary of Macquer's chemical interests can be found in Smeaton W. A. , “Macquer, Pierre-Joseph”, Dictionary of scientific biography, ed. Gillispie C. C. (16 vols, New York, 1970–1980), viii, 619–24.

Macquer , op. cit. (ref. 69) (transl. Reid), vol. i, “Author's preface”, x-xi.

ibid., x.

ibid., xiii.

ibid., xi–xii.

ibid., 12.

Cullen William , Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh (R.C.P.E.), Cullen MS C10, 59–63.

Macquer , op. cit. (ref. 69), 203.

ibid., 204.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Cullen William , Glasgow University Library, Cullen MSS no. 7.

John Christie provides an extended discussion of this aspect of Cullen's conceptualization of chemistry in “Ether and the science of chemistry, 1740–1790”, in Conceptions of ether: Studies in the history of ether theories, 1740–1900, ed. Cantor G. N. and Hodge M. J. S. (Cambridge, 1981), 85–110, pp. 94–95.

Henry Brougham described Black's voice and delivery in Lives of men of letters and science who flourished in the time of George III (London, 1845), 346–9. Robisons John , reconstructing Black's lectures, came to regret the amount of visual reference they involved. Robison to Watt, 23 July, 1800, in Robinson E. and McKie D. (eds), Partners in science: Letters of fames Watt and Joseph Black (Cambridge, Mass., 1970), 343. John Kay's portrait of Black has two birds on the table in front of Black, one dead, one living. Also on the table is a loose scatter of notes from which Black is lecturing. The portrait is reproduced in Smout C. , A history of the Scottish people (London, 1969), facing p. 417.

Cochrane's Thomas Notes from Doctor Black's lectures on chemistry, 1767–8 (ed. McKie D. , Wilmslow, Cheshire, 1966), is valuable as a set of notes taken while Black lectured.

Robison's editorial correspondence is in Robinson and McKie , op. cit. (ref. 83), 315–80. John Christie analyzes this correspondence and its critical implications for Robison's edition of Black's lectures in “John Robison and Joseph Black”, Joseph Black: A colloquium (Edinburgh, 1981).

Donovan A. L. , Philosophical chemistry in the Scottish Enlightenment (Edinburgh, 1975), 144.

Cullen, R.C.P.E., Cullen MS C15. Donovan, op. cit. (ref. 86), 143–4.

Cullen, R.C.P.E., Cullen MS C10.

Ibid., comparable diagrams are discussed in Crosland M. P. , “The use of diagrams as chemical ‘equations’ in the lecture notes of William Cullen and Joseph Black”, Annals of science, xv (1959), 75–90.

Cullen, R.C.P.E., Cullen MS C10, 83.

ibid., 68–69, 84.

Donovan , op. cit. (ref. 86), 141–2; Schofield, op. cit. (ref. 47), 218; Thackray, op. cit. (ref. 47), 139–40.

The importance of Robinson for Cullen is argued in Christie, “Ether and chemistry”, op. cit. (ref. 82), 96–98.

Donovan , op. cit. (ref. 86), chs 3–6.

ibid., ch. 8.

Christie , “Robison and Black”, op. cit. (ref. 85).

Donovan , op. cit. (ref. 86), 42.

Cullen, R.C.P.E., Cullen MS C10, 27.

Smith Adam , “Of the principles which lead and direct philosophical enquiries, illustrated by the history of astronomy”, an essay written before 1757, published in Essays on philosophical subjects, ed. by Black J. and Hutton J. (Edinburgh, 1795).

McEvoy J. , “Joseph Priestley, ‘Aerial philosopher’: Metaphysics and methodology in Priestley's chemical thought from 1762 to 1781”, I, Ambix , xxv (1978), 1–55; II, ibid., 93–116; III, ibid., 153–75; IV, ibid., xxvi (1979), 16–38.

ibid., I, 1–5.

ibid., II, 93–112.

ibid., I, 16–37.

ibid., IV, 16.

ibid., III, 156.

ibid., 1, 6.

McEvoy in fact characterizes his approach as interactive: ibid., IV, 33–34. But his treatment of Priestley's chemistry seems rather to describe it as reacting to, than interacting with Priestley's “thought”.

ibid., IV, 33.

ibid., 34.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Lakatos I. , “History of science and its rational reconstructions”, in Buck C. and Cohen R. S. (eds), Boston studies in the philosophy of science, viii (Dordrecht, Holland, 1971), 91–136; Laudan L. , Progress and its problems: Towards a theory of scientific growth (London, 1977), 165.

Gough J. , “Lavoisier's early career in science: An examination of some new evidence”, The British journal for the history of science, iv (1968), 52–57; Kohler R. , “Lavoisier's rediscovery of the air from mercury calx: A reinterpretation”, Ambix, xxii (1975), 52–57; Morris R. , “Lavoisier on fire and air: The memoir of July 1772”, Isis , lx (1969), 374–80; Morris R. , “Lavoisier and the caloric theory”, The British journal for the history of science, vi (1972), 1–38; Siegfried R. , “Lavoisier's view of the gaseous state and its early application to pneumatic chemistry”, Isis, lxiii (1972), 59–78.

Guerlac H. , “Chemistry as a branch of physics: Laplace's collaboration with Lavoisier”, Historical studies in the physical sciences, vii (1976), 193–276.

Crosland M. , “Lavoisier's theory of acidity”, Isis, lxiv (1973), 306–25; Kohler R. , “The origin of Lavoisier's first experiments on combustion”, Isis, lxiii (1972), 349–55; Le Grand H. , “Lavoisier's oxygen theory of acidity”, Annals of science, xxix (1972), 1–18.

Crosland , “Lavoisier's theory of acidity” (ref. 115), 323–4.

Le Grand , “The conversion of C.-L. Berthollet to Lavoisier's chemistry”, Ambix, xxii (1975), 58–70; Siegfried R. and Dobbs B.J. T. , “Composition, a neglected aspect of the chemical revolution”, Annals of science, xxiv (1968), 275–93.

Christie , “Ether and chemistry” (ref. 82), discusses the comparability of Scottish and French chemistry, 105–6.

Lavoisier A. , Traité élémentaire de chimie, presenté dans un ordre nouveau et d'après les découvertes modernes (Paris, 1789).

Lavoisier A. , Elements of chemistry in a new systematic order, containing all the modern discoveries, trans. Kerr R. (Edinburgh, 1970), translator's advertisement, vi.

Robison to Watt , 25 February, 1800. Robinson and McKie , Partners in science (ref. 83), 339.

Lavoisier , Elements (ref. 120), “Preface”, xxx.

ibid., xxvi.

ibid., xiii–xiv, xxvi–xxvii.

Williams R. , The country and the city (London, 1973), ch. 2.

Crosland , “Chemistry and the chemical revolution” (ref. 1), 392–5.