The Layers of Chemical Language,II: Stabilizing Atoms and Molecules in the Practice of Organic Chemistry

The most comprehensive studies to date are: Rocke A. J. , Chemical atomism in the nineteenth century: From Dalton to Cannizzaro (Columbus, Ohio, 1984), and Morselli M. , Amedeo Avogadro: A scientific biography (Dordrecht, Boston and Lancaster, 1984).

Rocke A. J. , “Atoms and equivalents: The early development of the chemical atomic theory”, Historical studies in the physical sciences, ix (1978), 225–63, and Chemical atomism (ref. 1); Nye M. J. , “The nineteenth-century atomic debates and the dilemma of an ‘indifferent hypothesis’”, Studies in history and philosophy of science, vii (1976), 245–68, “Berthelot's anti-atomism: A ‘matter of taste’?”, Annals of science, xxxviii (1981), 585–90, and “Explanation and convention in nineteenth-century chemistry”, in New trends in the history of science, ed. by Visser R. P. W. Bos H. J. M. Palm L. C. Snelders H. A. M. (Amsterdam / Atlanta, 1989), 171–95.

Thackray A. , “The origin of Dalton's chemical atomic theory: Daltonian doubts resolved”, Isis, lvii (1966), 35–55.

Fisher N. , “Avogadro, the chemists, and historians of chemistry”, History of science, xx (1982), 77–102 and 212–31, and Brooke J. H. , “Avogadro's hypothesis and its fate: A case-study in the failure of case-studies”, History of science, xix (1981), 235–73.

Rocke , Chemical atomism (ref. 1), 12–13.

Fisher , “Avogadro” (ref. 4), 85; except for this intellectualist characterization of Avogadro's work, Fisher provides one of the most sensitive historical analyses of the Avogadro affair.

Warwick A. , “Cambridge mathematics and Cavendish physics: Cunningham, Campbell and Einstein's Relativity, 1905–1911”, forthcoming in two parts in Studies in history and philosophy of science.

Schaffer S. , “A manufactory of ohms: Late Victorian metrology and its instrumentation”, in Invisible connections: Instruments, institutions and science, ed. by Bud R. Cozzens S. (Beolingham, 1992), 23–56.

Bonner offers a notable exception with by far the most detailed analysis of early nineteenth-century chemical terms, including the molecule. He has anticipated some specific claims that I make in this paper on chemical language: Bonner J. K. , “Amedeo Avogadro: A reassessment of his research and its place in early nineteenth century science” (Ph.D. dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University, 1974).

Kim M. G. , “The layers of chemical language, I: Constitution of bodies v. structure of matter”, History of science, xxx (1992), 69–96, pp. 73–74, and Bonner , “Amedeo Avogadro” (ref. 9), 188–9.

Kim , “The layers of chemical language, I” (ref. 10), 86, and Mauskopf S. H. “Crystals and compounds: Molecular structure in nineteenth-century French science”, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, lxvi (1976), Part 3, pp. 8–9.

de Fourcroy A. F. , “Molécules” in Encyclopedie méthodique — Chimie (Paris, 1808), v, 115; quoted and translated in Bonner , “Amedeo Avogadro” (ref. 9), 195–6.

Berthollet C. L. , Essai de statique chimique (2 vols, Paris, 1803).

Dumas J.-B. , Leçons sur la philosophie chimique (Paris, 1837), Dixième Leçon (18 June 1836), 371.

Dalton John , “Inquiries concerning the significance of the word Particle, as used by modern chemical writers, as well as concerning some other terms and phrases”, Nicholson's journal, xxviii (1811), 81–88, p. 85.

Crosland M. , “The first reception of Dalton's atomic theory in France”, in John Dalton and the progress of science, ed. by Cardwell D. S. L. (Manchester, 1968), 274–89.

Dalton J. , Lecture 18 delivered at the Royal Institution, 1810: Roscoe H. E. Harden A. , A new view of the origin of Dalton's atomic theory (London and New York, 1896; repr. New York, 1970), 111–12.

Dalton J. , A new system of chemical philosophy (Manchester, 1808), 211–16; excerpts in Foundations of the atomic theory (Alembic Club Reprints, no. 2; Edinburgh, 1948), 28–30.

Thomson T. , A system of chemistry , 3rd edn (Edinburgh, 1807), 424–9; excerpts in Foundations of the atomic theory, 43. Rocke states that Thomson referred to the rule of simplicity as Dalton's hypothesis throughout the book: “Atoms and equivalents” (ref. 2), 15.

Thackray , “The origin” (ref. 3), and “The emergence of Dalton's chemical atomic theory”, The British journal for the history of science, iii (1966), 1–23.

Davy and Wollaston responded somewhat differently. Davy disliked Dalton's atoms because they violated the simplicity of nature. Wollaston initially supported the theory, but soon rejected the atom as an unnecessary adjunct for chemical purposes. He reversed his position again in 1822: Brock W. H. Knight D. M. , “The Atomic Debates: Memorable and interesting evenings in the life of the chemical society”, Isis, lvi (1965), 5–25; Knight D. M. , “The atomic theory and the elements”, Studies in Romanticism, v (1966), 183–207, and Atoms and elements (London, 1967); Goodman D. C. , “Wollaston and the atomic theory of Dalton”, Historical studies in the physical sciences, i (1969), 37–59.

The third edition of Thomas Thomson's System of chemistry (1807) contained the first published account of Dalton's atomic theory. The French translation by Riffault J. , Système de chimie (Paris, 1809), was the most significant source for the theory on the Continent since Dalton's own book A new system of chemistry was never translated: Crosland, “The first reception” (ref. 16).

Thomson , Système (ref. 22), 20. Bonner also concludes that Berthollet did not take issue with Dalton's use of atoms, “provided that it was understood to refer to particles which the French scientists habitually called ‘integrant molecules’”: Bonner , “Amedeo Avogadro” (ref. 9), 126.

Gay-Lussac J. L. , “Mémoire sur la combinaison des substances gazeuses, les unes avec les autres”, Mémoires de la Société d'Arcueil, ii (1809), 207–34, p. 231; translated in Foundations of the molecular theory (Alembic Club Reprints, no. 4; Edinburgh, 1950), 8–24. Crosland M. P. , “The origins of Gay-Lussac's law of combining volumes of gases”, Annals of science, xvii (1961), 1–26.

Gay-Lussac , “Mémoire sur la combinaison” (ref. 24), 23.

On the Berthollet–Proust debate, see Holmes F. L. , “From elective affinities to chemical equilibria: Berthollet's law of mass action”, Chymia, viii (1962), 105–45; Kapoor S. C. , “Berthollet, Proust, and Proportions”, ibid., x (1965), 53–110; Fujii Kiyohisa , “The Berthollet-Proust controversy and Dalton's chemical atomic theory, 1800–1820”, The British journal for the history of science, xix (1986), 177–200.

Bertollet also criticized the rule of simplicity in 1815. Their focus on this aspect of Dalton's theory was probably influenced by Thomson's exposition in his Système.

Fox R. , “The rise and fall of Laplacian physics”, Historical studies in the physical sciences, iv (1974), 89–136; Crosland M. P. , Gay-Lussac: Scientist and bourgeois (Cambridge, 1978), and The Society of Arcueil: A view of French science at the time of Napoleon I (London, 1967).

Gay-Lussac , “Mémoire sur la combinaison” (ref. 24), 15.

Dalton had in fact entertained a similar idea earlier, but abandoned it: Dalton J. , A new system of chemical philosophy, Part II (Manchester, 1810), Appendix, pp. 555–9; excerpts in Foundations of molecular theory (ref. 24), 25.

Bostock J. , “Remarks on Mr Dalton's hypothesis of the manner in which bodies combine with each other”, Nicholson's journal, xxviii (1811), 280–92, pp. 283–4; quoted in Rocke, Chemical atomism (ref. 1), 35–36.

Davy H. , “On some of the combinations of oxymuriatic gas and oxygene, and on the chemical relations of these principles, to inflammable bodies”, Philosophical transactions, ci (1811), 1–35.

Wollaston W. H. , “A synoptic scale of chemical equivalents”, ibid., civ (1814), 1–22, p. 7.

Rocke , Chemical atomism (ref. 1), 244.

Ibid., 49–97.

Avogadro A. , “Essai d'une manière de déterminer les masses relatives des molécules élémentaires des corps, et les proportions selon lesquelles elles entrent dans ces combinations”, Journal de physique, de chimie et d'histoire naturelle, lxxiii (1811), 58–76; translated in Foundations of the molecular theory (ref. 24), 28–51. Compare the title of Avogadro's paper with Dalton's own statement; “Now it is one great object of this work, to show the importance and advantage of ascertaining the relative weights of the ultimate particles, both of simple and compound bodies, the number of simple elementary particles which constitute one compound particle, and the number of less compound particles which enter into the formation of one more compound particle” (emphasis in the original): Dalton , A new system (ref. 18), 211–16, excerpts in Foundations of the atomic theory (ref. 18), 29.

Avogadro , “Essai” (ref. 36), 34.

Bonner and Brooke argue that Avogadro belonged to a physicalist research tradition espoused by Berthollet that was incompatible with Dalton's. I suspect that this argument is true to the degree that Avogadro was more drawn to the French linguistic sphere. He was however an isolated figure with little direct contact with other European scientists. I think that he offered in this paper a logical reconciliation of Dalton and Gay-Lussac: Bonner , “Amedeo Avogadro” (ref. 9), and Brooke J. H. , “Avogadro's hypothesis and its fate: A case-study in the failure of case-studies”, History of science, xix (1981), 235–73.

Avogadro , “Essai” (ref. 36), 34.

Wollaston , “A synoptic scale” (ref. 33), 7 (emphasis added).

Dalton , A new system , Part II (ref. 30), Appendix, pp. 555–9; excerpts in Foundations of the molecular theory (ref. 24), 25.

Avogadro , “Essai” (ref. 36), 28–29. Note the use of ‘molecules’ referring to the ‘integrant molecules’ at the end of the quote (emphasis added).

Ibid., 31.

In fact, Avogadro initially used “integrant”, then replaced it by “constituent” molecule: Morselli M. A. , “The manuscript of Avogadro's ‘Essai d'une manière de déterminer les masses relatives des molécules élémentaires’”, Ambix, xxvii (1980), 147–72, p. 156.

Avogadro , “Essai” (ref. 36), 60–61; I have modified the translation slightly to clarify the content.

Morselli states that “In its definition of what Avogadro termed ‘constituent molecules’ and in the description of the mechanism of division of the ‘integral molecules’, the manuscript is almost unintelligible”: Morselli , “The manuscript” (ref. 44), 148.

Avogadro was made a corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences of Turin in 1804: Morselli , Amedeo Avogadro (ref. 1), 1–41.

Thomson T. , “On the Daltonian theory of definite proportions in chemical combination”, Annals of philosophy, ii (1813), 32–52.

Fisher argues that Avogadro's work was widely known among chemists, including Thomson, although not necessarily as Avogadro's: Fisher , “Avogadro” (ref. 4), 85.

Berzelius J. , “Essay on the cause of chemical proportions, and on some circumstances relating to them: Together with a short and easy method of expressing them”, Annals of philosophy, xxii (1813), 443–54, p. 446.

For a more detailed list of reasons why Avogadro's hypothesis was neglected, see Brooke , “Avogadro's hypothesis” (ref. 38) and Morselli , Amedeo Avogadro (ref. 1), 113–22.

A good indicator of Berzelius's role in the early nineteenth-century chemistry is his extensive correspondence with many prominent European chemists; Jac. Berzelius Bref, ed. by Söderbaum H. G. (6 vols, Uppsala, 1912–32).

Berzelius , “Essay on the cause” (ref. 50), 445 (emphasis added).

Fisher , “Avogadro” (ref. 4), 83.

Berzelius , “Essay on the cause” (ref. 50), 450.

Crosland M. P. , Historical studies in the language of chemistry (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), 265–81.

Berzelius J. , “Experiments on the nature of azote, of hydrogen, and of ammonia, and of the degrees of oxidation of which azote is susceptible”, Annals of philosophy, ii (1813), 276–84 and 357–68.

Brock W. H. , “The British Association Committee on Chemical Symbols 1834: Edward Turner's letter to British chemists and a reply by William Prout”, Ambix, xxxiii (1986), 33–42; Alborn T. , “Negotiating notation: Chemical symbols and British society, 1831–1835”, Annals of science, xlvi (1989), 437–60.

Ampère published his paper a few months after Avogadro's second paper appeared, but their broader objectives were obviously different: Avogadro A. , “Mémoire sur les masses relatives des molécules des corps simples”, Journal de physique, lxxviii (1814), 131–56; Ampère A.-M. , “Lettre de M. Ampère à M. le comte Berthollet, sur la détermination des proportion dans lesquelles les corps se combinent d'après le nombre et la disposition respective des molécules dont leurs particules intégrants sont composées”, Annales de chimie et de physique, xc (1814), 43–86.

Goodman D. C. , “Problems in crystallography in the early nineteenth century”, Ambix, xvi (1969), 152–66; Mauskopf S. H. , “Crystals and compounds” (ref. 11) and “Haüy's model of chemical equivalence: Daltonian doubts exhumed”, Ambix, xvii (1970), 182–91.

Mauskopf S. H. , “The atomic structural theories of Ampère and Gaudin: Molecular speculation and Avogadro's hypothesis”, Isis, lx (1969), 61–74; Cole T. M. Jr , “Early atomic speculations of Marc Antoine Gaudin: Avogadro's hypothesis and the periodic system”, ibid., lxvi (1975), 334–60; Miller J. A. , “M. A. Gaudin and early nineteenth century steoreochemistry”, in Van't Hoff-Le Bel Centennial, ed. by Ramsay O. B. (American Chemical Society Symposium series, no. 12; Washington, D.C., 1975), 1–17.

Gaudin A. M. , “Recherches sur la structure intime des corps inorganiques définis, et considérations générales sur le rôle que jouent leur dernières particules dans les principaux phénomènes de la nature, tels que la conductibilité de l'électricité et de la chaleur, le magnétisme, la réfraction (simple ou double) et la polarisation de la lumière”, Annales de chimie et de physique, lii (1833), 113–33; Ampère A.-M. , “Note de M. Ampère sur la chaleur et sur la lumière considérées comme resultant de mouvements vibratoires”, ibid., lviii (1835), 432–4.

Fox R. , “The background to the discovery of Dulong and Petit's law”, The British journal for the history of science, iv (1968), 1–22; van Spronsen J. W. , “The history and prehistory of the law of Dulong and Petit as applied to the determination of atomic weights”, Chymia, xii (1967), 157–69.

Melhado E. M. , “Mitscherlich's discovery of isomorphism”, Historical studies in the physical sciences, xi (1981), 87–123.

Fisher , “Avogadro” (ref. 4), 87.

Dumas J.-B. , “Mémoires sur quelques points de la théorie atomistique”, Annales de chimie et de physique, xxxiii (1826), 337–91.

Rocke A. , “Gay-Lussac and Dumas: Adherents of the Avogadro-Ampère hypothesis?”, Isis, lxix (1978), 595–600.

Dumas , “Mémoires sur quelques points” (ref. 66), 337–8.

“Rapport fait à l'Académie par MM. Gay-Lussac et Dulong, sur un Mémoire de M. Dumas qui a pour objet plusieurs points de la théorie atomistique”, Annales de chimie et de physique, xxxiv (1827), 326–31, p. 326.

Dumas J.-B. , Traité de chimie, appliquée aux arts, i (Paris, 1828), p. xxxiv.

Ibid., p. xxxv.

Ibid., pp. xxxix–xl.

See, for example, Dumas J.-B. Boullay P. , “Mémoire sur les ethers composés”, Annales de chimie et de physique, xxxvii (1828), 15–53; Dumas J.-B. , “Sur l'Oxamide, matière qui se rapproche de quelques substances animales”, ibid., xliv (1830), 129–43; idem, “Recherches sur la composition chimique des verres employés dans les arts”, ibid., 144–66.

Dumas J.-B. , “Considerations générals sur la composition théorique des matières organiques”, Journal de pharmacie et des sciences accessoires, xx (1834), 261–94.

Dumas , Leçons (ref. 14), Septième Leçon (delivered 28 May 1836).

Ibid., 279.

Ibid., 282.

Laurent, for example, notes that the majority of chemists abandoned the atomic notation and switched to the equivalent system: Laurent A. , Chemical method, notation, classification & nomenclature (London, 1855), 1.

“Réplique de M. Dumas”, Comptes rendus, vi (1838), 646–8.

Thomson T. , “On the Daltonian theory of definite proportions in chemical combinations”, Annals of philosophy, ii (1813), 32–52, pp. 33–34. Another factor for consideration is Thomson's support of Prout's hypothesis from 1818: Brock W. H. , From protyle to proton: William Prout and the nature of matter, 1785–1985 (Bristol and Boston, 1985), 143–78.

Thomson T. , “On the oxides of bismuth”, Proceedings of the Philosophical Society of Glasgow, i (1841–1844; paper read 3 Nov. 1841), 4–9, p. 7; I would like to thank M. Norton Wise for providing this reference.

Farrar W. V. , “Nineteenth-century speculations on the complexity of the chemical elements”, The British journal for the history of science, xxii (1965), 297–323; Rocke A. J. , “Subatomic speculations and the origin of structure theory”, Ambix, xxx (1983), 1–18.

Laurent , Chemical method (ref. 78), 101; quoted in Rocke , “Subatomic speculations” (ref. 82), 2.

Laurent , Chemical method (ref. 78), 1–16.

Ibid., 46.

Ibid., 4–5.

Fox , “The rise and fall” (ref. 28).

Gerhardt C. , “Sur la constitution des sels organiques à acides complexes, et leur rapports avec les sels ammoniacaux”, Annales de chimie et de physique, lxxii (1839), 184–214, p. 186.

Ampère A.-M. , “De l'essai d'une classification naturelle pour les corps simples”, Annales de chimie et de physique, i (1816), 295–308 and 373–94; ii (1816), 5–32 and 105–25.

Dumas , “Mémoires sur quelques points” (ref. 66), 340–1.

Dumas , “Considérations générales” (ref. 74).

For an outline of the development of classificatory schemes in organic chemistry, see Fisher N. W. , “Organic classification before Kekulé”, Ambix, xx (1973), 106–31 and 209–33.

Dumas , “Considérations générales” (ref. 74), 285.

Dumas J.-B. , “Recherches de chimie organique”, Annales de chimie et de physique, lvi (1834), 113–54, pp. 140–3.

Ibid., 148.

Laurent A. , “Théorie des combinaisons organiques”, Annales de chimie et de physique, lxi (1836), 125–46.

Laurent A. , “Recherches diverses de chimie organique”, ibid., lxvi (1837), 136–212, p. 142.

Laurent A. , “Sur l'Hydrobenzamide”, ibid., lxii (1836), 23–31, p. 29.

For a variety of examples, see Laurent , “Recherches diverses” (ref. 97).

Laurent , “Théorie des combinaisons organiques” (ref. 96), 130.

Mauskopf , “Crystals and compounds” (ref. 11) and S. C. Kapoor, “The origins of Laurent's organic classification”, Isis, lx (1969), 477–527.

Jacques J. , “La Thèse de Doctorat d'Auguste LAURENT et la théorie des combinaisons organiques (1836)”, Bulletin de la Société chimique de France, 1954, D31–39, p. D34.

Laurent , “Théorie des combinaisons organiques” (ref. 96), 126.

Laurent A. , “Sur les acides pimarique, pyromarique, azomarique, etc.”, Annales de chimie et de physique, lxxii (1839), 383–427, pp. 393 and 397.

“Lettre de M. Berzélius à M. Pelouze”, Comptes rendus, vi (1838), 629–44.

deMilt C. , “Auguste Laurent, founder of modern organic chemistry”, Chymia, iv (1953), 85–114.

Dumas J.-B. , “Mémoire sur la loi des substitutions et la théorie des types”, Comptes rendus, x (1840), 149–78, p. 153.

Dumas J.-B. , “Mémoires sur la constitution de quelques corps organiques et sur la théorie des substitutions”, Comptes rendus, viii (1839), 609–22, p. 614.

Ibid., 618.

Dumas J.-B. “Premier mémoire sur les types chimiques”, Annales de chimie et de physique, lxxiii (1840), 73–103, p. 73; quoted and translated in Kapoor S. C. , “Dumas and organic classification”, Ambix, xvi (1969), 1–65, pp. 22–23.

Gerhardt C.F. , “Sur la constitution des sels organiques à acides complexes, et leur rapports avec les sels ammoniacaux”, Annales de chimie et de physique, lxxii (1839), 184–214, p. 193.

Ibid., 186.

The great chain of being was, of course, a familiar idea in natural history. Although it was repudiated in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, it regained some of its popularity after Cuvier's fall in the 1820s. Blainville began to develop a serial classification of animals between 1814 and 1822: Appel T. A. , “Henri de Blainville and the animal series: A nineteenth-century chain of being”, Journal of the history of biology, xiii (1980), 291–319.

Gerhardt substituted the vital force by synthetic procedures in his second paper. The procedures of “artificial reproduction” included analytic process of combustion and synthetic process of reduction: Gerhardt C. F. , “Sur la classification chimique des substances organiques”, Revue scientifique et industrielle (ed. by Quesneville Dr ), x (1842), 145–218, p. 149, and xiv (1843), 580–609, p. 582.

Also see Gerhardt C. F. , “Recherches sur la classification chimique des substances organiques”, Comptes rendus, xv (1842), 498–500.

Gerhardt defined ‘dèdouble’ as in the following: “When an organic substance is decomposed, it is transformed in the simplest case into two other bodies which are less complex than itself; one says thus that it is dedoubled. This expression is employed to designate, in a general manner, all the decompositions where an organic substance is simplified without regard to the number of products”, ibid., 151.

Ibid., 151, 163, 167.

Ibid., 151–2.

Gerhardt C. F. , “Considérations sur les équivalents de quelques corps simples et composés”, Annales de chimie et de physique, viii (1843), 238–45.

Laurent A. , “Recherches sur les combinaisons azotées”, Annales de chimie et de physique, xviii (1846), 266–98, pp. 290–2.

Ibid., 285.

Ibid., 281.

Ibid., 295.

Ibid., 296.

Terdiman R. , Discourse/Counter-discourse: The theory and practice of symbolic resistance in nineteenth-century France (Ithaca, N.Y., 1985), 30.

Galison P. , “History, philosophy and the central metaphor”, Science in context, ii (1988), 197–212, and “The trading zone: Coordinating action and belief”, ch. 9 in his Image and logic: The material culture of modern physics (forthcoming).

Dealing with a broader issue, M. Norton Wise suggests an “ecological model” of the social construction of scientific knowledge which maps out the niches of “stabilized practices”: “Mediating machines”, Science in context, ii (1988), 77–113.

Latour B. , The pasteurization of France (Cambridge, Mass., 1988).

Wise M. N. , “Mediations: Enlightenment balancing acts, or The technologies of rationalism” in Thomas Kuhn and the nature of science, ed. by Horwich Paul (Cambridge, Mass., forthcoming).