![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Professor Michael Hunter and Dr Elizabethanne Boran for their helpful comments on this paper.
Notes
1. William Molyneux to Thomas Molyneux, 14 June 1684 cited in Anon., “Gallery of illustrious Irishmen,” 483. The nomenclature employed in the title and throughout follows the currently conventional understanding of the word “chymist” as denoting an early modern laboratory investigator of substances, their components and interactions. In examining biological fluids and their interaction with artificial reagents, and in considering the physicochemical effects of cold, this paper may trespass a little on the conventional bounds, encompassing the disciplines now known as biochemistry and physical chemistry. For discussions of this nomenclature see principally Newman and Principe, “Alchemy vs. Chemistry.”
2. See below for a fuller description of these premises and the origins of the name.
3. The first reference to the establishment of a laboratory at Crow's Nest occurs in a letter of 10 May 1684, Anon. “Gallery of Illustrious Irishmen,” 481.
4. William Molyneux to Thomas Molyneux, 14 June 1684, Anon. “Gallery of Illustrious Irishmen,” 483.
5. Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society.
6. “I live here in a barbarous country, where chemical spirits are so misunderstood, and chemical instruments so unprocurable, that it is hard to have any hermetick thoughts in it, and impossible to bring them to experiment.” Robert Boyle to Frederick Clodius: between April and May 1654, in Boyle, Correspondence, vol. 1, 165–168 (quote from p. 166).
7. Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, xxxi.
8. For a summary of Augustinian houses in Dublin, see Kelly, “The Augustinians in Dublin.”
9. Gilbert, History of the City of Dublin, 2:171. “William Crow, to whom had been granted by patent, in 1597, the offices of Chirographer and Chief Protonotary to the Court of Common Pleas in Ireland. Crow was removed from the Chirographership in 1604, having absented himself in England without the King's license; but, in 1605, his Majesty, conceiving that he ‘was fit and expert’ in the office, re-granted it to him, together with the Clerkship of the King's Silver in the same Court, for levying fines.”
10. Barnard, “Petty, Sir William 1623–1687),”; Larcom, History of the Survey, v.
11. Hoppen, Common Scientist, 93; Gilbert, History of the City of Dublin, 2:178, records that “nothing more is heard of Crow's Nest after Witherall's death in 1730.”
12. Bertoloni Meli, “Wallis, John (1616–1703)”; Scriba, “Autobiography of John Wallis,” 39–41.
13. The practising physicians of the DPS included Charles Willoughby, Jacobus Sylvius and Allan Mullen. Hoppen gives a total of 12 members belonging to the profession. Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, xxii.
14. For Loftus see Boran, “Loftus, Dudley (1618–1695).” Also see the biographical note in Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, 2:952. For Allan Mullen, also known as Molin/Molines/Moulin/Moulins: see Lyle, “Mullin, Allen (1653/4–1690),” also biographical note, Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, 2:959. Much of the information in all sources appears to derive from Walter Harris, The Whole Works, 206.
15. Ashe's full paper is at no. 119 in Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society.
16. Woodward, Prospero's America. Winthrop's activities in relation to natural resources are also described in Newman and Principe. Alchemy Tried in the Fire, 157–159.
17. A discussion of this background between Barnard and Hoppen is to be found in Barnard, “The Hartlib Circle”; Hoppen, “The Hartlib Circle.”
18. Samuel Hartlib to Robert Boyle: 18 May 1654, in Boyle, Correspondence, vol. 1, 169–179, where these matters discussed on 169–170.
19. For the former view see Hoppen's biographical note on Petty, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, 2:962; for an alternative interpretation of Petty's views and their origins see McCormick, William Petty, ch. 3, 5.
20. Petty's attitude to Descartes was severely practical. In his correspondence with More, Petty asks: “who, that hath followed [Descartes”] principles, hath drawne any new usefull or pleasant art or reall conclusion from them?” cited by McCormick, “William Petty, 63.
21. Petty, The Petty Papers, 2:261 gives a list of Petty's writings, including “A history of 7 monthes practise in a Chymicall Laboratory” (1645). This paper is unfortunately listed as lost at sea.
22. McCormick, William Petty, 52.
23. Petty, Discourse Made Before the Royal Society.
24. Petty, The advice of W.P.
25. Birch, History of the Royal Society, 3:136.
26. The rules drawn up for the Dublin society may be found at no. 525 in Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society.
27. Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, no. 194: Petty's “mean, vulgar, cheap and simple experiments.”
28. Debus, “Mathematics and Nature.”
29. Petty's surviving correspondence with Boyle amounts to three letters: William Petty to Robert Boyle, 1 July 1648 in Boyle, Correspondence, 1:71–73. William Petty to Robert Boyle, 25 April 1653 in ibid., 142–144. William Petty to Robert Boyle, 27 February 1658, in ibid., 254–255.
30. Samuel Hartlib to Robert Boyle, 10 March 1654 in ibid., 154–163. This letter also contains encouragements to Boyle to promote the taking of a natural history of Ireland (158).
31. Robert Boyle to Frederick Clodius, April–May 1654 in ibid., 167. The significance of this interaction, referring in particular to Boyle's experience of dissection, is documented in Michael Hunter, Boyle: Between God and Science, 90–91.
32. William Molyneux to Thomas Molyneux, 14 June 1684: “Our Society has built a laboratory by Dr Mullen's directions in the same house where we have taken a large room for our meeting and a small repository,” cited in Anon. “Gallery of Illustrious Irishmen,” 483.
33. Mullen refers to this remedy in his letter to Boyle of 1685/6, saying that Tichborne, who has had relief from the use of Mullen's remedy, will give Boyle a quantity of it for Boyle's own use. See Boyle, Correspondence, vol. 6, p. 163–166 (reference on 166), (also Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, no. 323, where the letter has a different date but the same text). William Molyneux described this remedy in a letter to his brother Thomas as “a liquor given in brandy, which makes it as bitter as gall and to smell like garlick, but discolors it not at all [ … ] it works by sweat and that very moderate”; in Anon. “Gallery of Illustrious Irishmen,” 478.
34. Mullen, An anatomical account.
35. Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, no. 188.
36. Harris, Whole Works of James Ware, 206.
37. Ibid.
38. Properly, ethanol.
39. Experiments investigating this controversy carried out by members of the Oxford Philosophical Society are described in Birch, History of the Royal Society, 4:349–350; Slare's investigations of acids and alkali in “distinguishing the res medica” are at 436–443 of the same volume. On Slare, see Hall, “Frederick Slare, F.R.S.”
40. For a discussion of the use of taste in distinguishing the nature of materials, and Boyle's attitude to it in the context of acid and alkali, see Cecon, “Chemical Translation,” 184–185.
41. In Tachenius, Hippocrates chymicus (1666). For an account of Tachenius's concepts and the derivation by Lémery, see Principe, “A Revolution Nobody Noticed?” Tachenius and Lémery are specifically discussed on page 5.
42. Boyle, Works, 8:409. For a discussion of the theories, their proponents and in particular their Helmontian roots see Debus, Chemistry and Medical Debate, ch. 4, and Roos, Salt of the Earth, ch. 3, 4. Debus surveys the wider perspective while Roos, in addition, records some lesser-known figures from among the English practitioners.
43. John Locke to William Molyneux, 15 June 1697 in Locke, Correspondence, 6:142–145 (Letter 2277).
44. John Locke to Sir Thomas Molyneux, Friday, 20 January 1693. in ibid., 4:628–630 (Letter 1593). Locke was familiar with Boyle's hypothesis of acid and alkali: the differing mental approaches of the two men to the same material have been reviewed by Anstey, “Locke on Method.”
45. On the availability of chemical texts such as Sylvius, Tachenius, Lémery, Willis and Boyle, among the libraries of Irish medical men, including that of Charles Willoughby, see Boran, “The Sceptical Collector.”
46. Knight and Hunter, “Robert Boyle's Memoirs.”
47. Boyle, Works, 2:187.
48. Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, no. 38.
49. Minutes, Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, no. 21. The paper is lost. Grew's paper on this effect is appended to his Anatomy of Plants.
50. Biographical note, Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, 2:950.
51. Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, no. 46.
52. Ibid., no. 48.
53. Hall, Robert Boyle.
54. Boyle, Works, 8:416–417. For Locke's views and the contrast with Boyle see Anstey, “Locke on Method,” 26–42.
55. A description of the controversy as it appeared to the members of the Royal Society can be found in Anon., “An Account of a Book.” Kunckel claimed that as spirit of wine turned syrup of violets green, it must be an alkali.
56. See for example Birch, History of the Royal Society, 4:436–443 for an account of experiments by Frederick Slare, as mentioned above.
57. Boyle, Works, 4:124. For a recent discussion of this see Turner and Laroche, “Robert Boyle.”
58. See Clericuzio, “A Redefinition.” That others were engaging with the same concepts at the same period is emphasised in Roos, Salt of the Earth, ch. 3, 4. Michael Hunter's integration of the development of the concepts in Boyle's published and unpublished works is set out in Boyle: Between God and Science and elsewhere.
59. Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, no. 68.
60. Birch, History of the Royal Society, 4:432.
61. Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, no. 71.
62. Robert Boyle, Workdiary 12, entry 48, accessed 10 March 2013, http://www.livesandletters.ac.uk/wd/view/text_ed/WD12_ed.html.
63. Boyle, Works, 12:254. The recipes are discussed and cited in Lorenz, “Some Pre-Lind Writers.” For Boyle's motivation in communicating these and other remedies see Hunter, Robert Boyle, 1627–91, ch. 9.
64. Sherley, Cochlearia curiosa. For a discussion of the disease and of Moellenbrock's book, see Carpenter, History of Scurvy and Vitamin C. For Sherley see Clericuzio, “Sherley, Thomas (bap. 1638, d.1678).”
65. For Mullen's letters to Boyle see Boyle, Correspondence, 5:361–365, 6:163–166.
66. Newman Principe. Alchemy Tried in the Fire, 270.
67. Boyle to Clodius in Boyle, Correspondence, 1:166. It is unclear whether “ens veneris saccharinum” as referred to here is identical to the Helmontian ens veneris (a preparation of copper).
68. Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, no. 108.
69. Boyle, Works, 8:453–454, 423.
70. Boyle, Correspondence, 6:164.
71. Sir William Tichborne, of Beaulieu in Co Louth. See Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, no. 323, n. 12 for a comment from William Molyneux on Tichborne's being cured by Mullen's remedy.
72. See Boyle, Correspondence, 6:164.
73. William Petty to Robert Boyle, 27 February 1658 in Boyle, Correspondence, 1:254–255 (quote 255).
74. Hunter and Knight, “Unpublished Material” 4.
75. Ibid., 24.
76. Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, no. 42.
77. Hunter and Knight, “Unpublished Material.”
78. Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, xxxi.
79. Ibid., no. 188, 411.
80. For a discussion of the many-layered meanings attached to the colour of blood see Bertoloni Meli, “The Color of Blood.”
81. These books are identified by Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, 1:124, notes.
82. Boyle's approach to the study of cold and the relationship of his findings to his evolving natural philosophy are discussed in Christopolou, “Robert Boyle's Experiments.”
83. Boyle, “An Examen of Antiperistasis” in Boyle, Works, 4:459–498. For the significance of these observations in prosecuting Boyle's corpuscularian programme, see Hunter, Boyle: Between God and Science, 118–119 and Christopoulou, “Robert Boyle's Experiments.”
84. Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, no. 119, 125.
85. Merrett's work is appended to Boyle's New Experiments[ … ] touching Cold, with a preface by Boyle.
86. Boyle, Works, 4:519–542 (quote from 525). Pasmore, “Thomas Henshaw, F.R.S. (1618–1700).”
87. Coley, “‘Cures without Care’” gives a general background including a survey of the methods in general use for chymical analysis of the waters (206–207); see also Roos, Salt of the Earth, ch. 4, 5 who examines both the science and the quackery associated with drinking the waters.
88. In Boyle: Between God and Science, Hunter describes the influence that the publication of the DuClos volume and Petty's paper may have had on Boyle's somewhat tardy decision to publish his work on mineral waters (118–119).
89. Petty's queries are at no. 193 of Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society.
90. Anon., “An Accompt of some Books.” Belon, The Irish spaw.
91. Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, no. 77. Boyle's paper later appeared in Philosophical Transactions (1685): XV, 1188–1192 as recorded in Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, 1:73, n. 2.
92. Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, no. 193.
93. William King was later Bishop of Derry and Archbishop of Dublin. Connolly, “King, William (1650–1729)”; Coakley, “Dun, Sir Patrick (1642–1713).” King's first report is at no. 144 of Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society.
94. Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, no. 145: King's second report on Clonus water.
95. Anon., “An Accompt of some Books,” 613.
96. Belon, Irish spaw, 32.
97. Thomas Molyneux to William Molyneux, undated, Anon. “Gallery of Illustrious Irishmen,” 484, footnote.
98. Boyle, Works, 13:363ff.
99. Ibid., 7:3–72.
100. Grew, Musaeum Regalis Societatis, 262, 265, 270.
101. Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, no. 166.
102. Ibid., 346.
103. Ibid.
104. Philosophical Transactions XIV (1684): 820. See Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, 1:347, note 4.
105. This letter was transcribed into modern spelling in Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, no. 240, where the response by William was also noted. Vial-Bonacci and McKenna, “Lettre 305.”
106. Molyneux, “A Discourse on This Problem.”
107. Boyle, Works, 2:128. For discussion of Boyle's corpuscularianism and in particular his debts to Sennert, see Newman and Principe, Alchemy Tried in the Fire; Newman, Atoms and Alchemy. Sennert is also assigned a critical role in Boyle's early reading on metals by Hirai and Yoshimoto, “Anatomizing the Sceptical Chymist.”
108. Bacon's approaches to these topics as suitable for investigation may be seen in particular in the contents of Sylva Sylvarum.
109. Cohen, Modern science, 246 and 245ff.
110. Hunter, “Robert Boyle and the Early Royal Society.” See also Hunter, “Robert Boyle's ‘Heads’ and ‘Inquiries’.”
111. Hartlib to Boyle, 18 May 1654, in Boyle, Correspondence, 1:169–170. The unusual alphabetic arrangement of this “Interrogatory” has led Hunter to question the influence of this set of queries on later questionnaires designed to collect similar information, in “Robert Boyle and the Early Royal Society,” 16, n. 59.
112. Hoppen, Papers of the Dublin Philosophical Society, xix.
113. Fox, “Printed Questionnaires.”
114. Vera Keller, ““The New World of Sciences.”
115. Ibid., 732.
116. Hellyer, Scientific Revolution: Essential Readings, 3.
117. Cohen, Modern Science, 467.
118. Newman, Atoms and Alchemy. For Newman's view of the role of Sennert in influencing Boyle in particular, see chapter 6. Newman takes issue with Antonio Clericuzio's view of mechanical philosophy, and the corollary which, he claims, excludes Boyle from the ranks of mechanical philosophers.
119. Cohen, Modern Science, 554. For Hale see Cromartie, Sir Matthew Hale.
120. Boyle, Works, 2:64–65 (“The Second Essay, Of Un-succeeding Experiments”).
121. Consideration of these factors in Boyle's philosophy has been central to Steven Shapin's concept of the “modest witness” as fundamental to the presentation of scientific process as objective: for discussions of these concepts and of the image of the scientific process generated from them see Shapin, Never Pure. Shapin's views have generated controversy in many directions, for example see Osler, Rethinking the Scientific Revolution, 3–22.
122. Harrison, “Experimental Religion and Experimental Science.”