REFERENCES
- Rouelle provided the particular formulation of the theory of elements which dominated French chemistry from the 1740's until around 1780. Rhoda Rappaport "Rouelle and Stahl—The Phlogistie Revolution in France", Chymia, 7 (1960, 73–102, p. 76.
- Rouelle equated fire with phlogiston and the latter did explain some chemical properties.
- As Gillispie suggests, in the "realm of intellectual habit, national styles do certainly persist". The Edge of Objectivity (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1960), p. 408. For examples of science developing in the context of cultural/national traditions see Crosland, The Emergence of Science in Western Europe (London: Macmillan Press, Ltd., 1975); Crosland, ed., Science in France in the Revolutionary Era (Cambridge: MIT Press and Society for History of Technology, 1969); A. Vucinich, Science in Russian Culture, 2 vols. (Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 1963–70); J. Needham, Science and Civilization in China, 4 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1956–71); L. Graham, Science and Philosophy in the Soviet Union (New York: Knopf, 1972); R. Finnegan and R. Horton, eds., Modes of Thought; Essays on Thinking in Western And Non-Western Societies (London: Faber & Faber, 1973); E. Mendelsohn & Y. Elkana, eds., Sciences and Cultures (Boston: D. Reidel, 1981). More specifically relevant to the eighteenth-century, see Crosland, "The Development of chemistry in the eighteenth century", Studies on Voltaire and the Eighteenth Century, 24 (1963), 369–441; K. Hufbauer, The Formation of the German Chemical Community (1720–1795) (Berkeley: Univ. of Cal. Press, 1982); Guerlac, "Some French Antecedents of the Chemical Revolution", Chymia, 5 (1959), 73–112; Tore Frängsmyr, "Swedish Science in the Eighteenth Century", History of Science, 12 (1974), 29–42; J. L. Larson, "An Alternative Science, Linnaean Natural History in Germany, 1770-1790" Janus, 66 (1979), 267–283; P. Smit, "International Influences on the Development of Natural History in the Netherlands and Its East Indian Colonies Between 1750 and 1850", Janus, 65 (1978), 45–65.
- Guillaume-Francois Rouelle, "Cours de Chimie", MS 265(307), 1762, Bibliothequè de Nancy, p. 30. Microfilm at Cornell Univ. Library.
- R. Siegfried and B. J. Dobbs have taken note of the changes associated with the element earth. "Composition, a Neglected Aspect of the Chemical Revolution", Annals of Science, 25 (1968), 275–293, p. 277.
- Among Pott’s predecessors were the mineralogists Bromel and Hiärne, whose work failed to make a noticeable impact in France.
- The main arguments of the Lithogiagnosie, 2 vols. (Paris, 1753), were available as early as 1746 (the same year as the original German publication) in the Histoire de L'Academie Royale des Sciences et des Belles Lettres (of Akademie der Wissenschaften at Berlin), Vol. 1 1745, p. 60. The Lithogéognosie was basically a compilation of Pott's experiments aimed at the production of true porcelain. He conducted 30,000 such experiments and appended fifty pages of tabulated results at the end of his book. Most of his numerous experiments are offered without interpretation.
- The principal features of the gypseous earth were its conversion to plaster when heated, its resistance to vitrification,, and its ability to withstand attack by acids. Calcareous earths were soluble in acids with effervescence, and were precipitated by alkali salts. Vitrifiable earths did not dissolve in any acids, vitrified easily with the addition of a small amount of alkali, and showed virtually no change in the fire (without addition). Clays did not effervesce with acids and became hard in the fire.
- Pott. Lithogèognosie, Vol. 1, p. 214. The usefulness of penetrating to the inner properties of substances related to the task of properly classifying substances. Pott was one of the first to suggest the special connections between chemistry and natural history.
- Ibid., p. 8. . Ibid., p. 214.
- Elémens de chymie théorique (Paris: 1749); Elémens de chymie pratique, 2 vols. (Paris: 1751). An English translation, with multiple editons, was made from 1756 editions of both works: Elements of the Theory and Practice of Chemistry, 2 vols., trans. A. Reid (London: 1758). Although Macquer never acknowledged Rouelle as the source of his theories, Rappaport claims quite reasonably that "in likelihood Rouelle was the innovator and Macquer the imitator, rather than the reverse". "Rouelle and Stahl", p. 78.
- Macquer, Elements, Vol. 1 (London: 1764), p. 6.
- Ibid. Macquer thought elements were those substances "in which we can produce no change, which are incapable of being resolved into others. . .". He believed that earth, air, fire and water were "not the first component parts, or most simple elements, of matter" but experience offered no way to discover their principles. Ibid., p. 2. With regard to this definition, Siegfried and Dobbs, "Composition", p. 277, cite Macquer's limited movement away from metaphysically abstract elements. As for earths, Macquer thought there were two types: fusible and unfusible. Since the property of being fusible occurred in many different degrees, Macquer suspected the existence of both a fusible and an unfusible earth. The variation in fusibility stemmed from the mixture of the two. Such logic was traditional, associated with the general philosophy of property-bearing elements. The unvitrifiable earth was not a product of the laboratory, but rather of deduction, and the property in question was a physical one.
- Vol. 13, 1765, "principes, (Chimie)", p. 376.
- Ibid.
- Ibid.
- Phlogiston was ambiguous, but under the denomination of fire it fitted comfortably into the traditional foursome, especially since it was not a laboratory commodity in the same way that Pott's earths were.
- Macquer compared geometry to chemistry: "Each bath its Axioms and its undeniable principles. . . these fundamental truths connected together, and laid down with order and precision, form what we call the Elements of a Science". Elements, Vol. 1, p. x. He explicitly accommodated the geometrical approach to chemistry by beginning with the elements, followed by their "natural combinations".
- From Homberg to Vend l himself, the reaction against fire analysis expressed itself in the incessant attention to principles which preserved the character of the compound under analysis. In organic analyses the number of secondary principles was enormous. The German and Scandinavian focus on inorganic substances resulted in a less bewildering array of laboratory substances.
- See for example Macquer's articles on "terre" and "se" in his dictionary, Dictionnaire de Chymie, 2 vols. (Paris: 1766), Vol. 2, pp. 562 and 412.
- The empirical bent of Swedish science stemmed in part perhaps from a government-sponsored drive to modernize and industrialize in the mid-eighteenth century. Swedish chemistry and mineralogy developed largely at that time under the severely utilitarian auspices of the government agency for mining, the Bergskollegium. The first university chair in chemistry was not established until 1750 at Uppsala. Axel Cronstedt, who figures prominently in this paper, worked for the Bergskollegium. Frangsmyr, "Swedish Science. . .", pp. 31–33. A similar situation apparently applied in Germany where utilitarian support made chemists "predisposed to value techniques and facts". Hufbauer, The Formation, p. 145. In terms of laboratory analysis, Holmes has shown the contributions of A. S. Marggraf in developing solvent extraction as an alternative to fire analysis. "Analysis by Fire and Solvent Extractions: The Metamorphosis of a Tradition", Isis, 62 (1971), 129–148. The empirical character of Marggrars work comes through in Holmes' description of his papers: "models of spare, rigorous, systematic experimentation with little speculation beyond the conclusions which observations seemed directly to establish". p. 142. J. F. Henckel claimed that those who "indulged in speculations" concerning elements and "primitive parts" claimed to know the seed before the fruit of the plant. The most natural route in a text always lead the reader from what was closest to him to what was more remote, from "compounded parts to more simple parts". Pyritologie, ou histoire naturelle de la pyrite . . . On y joint le Flora saturnisans . . et les Opuscules minéralogiques (Paris: 1760), p. 293. German edition of the Pyritologie published in 1725 (Leipzig). The Flora saturnisans first appeared in 1722 (Leipzig). Guerlac, "Some French Antecedents", relates the practical nature of German chemistry to developments in France. For a broader assessment of the impact of German chemistry in France there is H. Metzger's Newton, Stahl, Boerhaave et la Doctrine Chimique (Paris: Blanchard, 1974), Published first in 1930, and Crosland's "The Development of Chemistry".
- There were already a number of new articles in the 1778 edition which Macquer himself attributed to the influence of Bergman, but the position on elements remained unchanged.
- Pott, Lithogiognosie, p. 214.–
- As we saw earlier, Pott's distinctions were strictly tentative, and thus the concept of natural categories was relative. Nonetheless, many mineralogists after Pott viewed chemical analysis as an indispensable tool in the investigation of minerals. Wallerius presented a taxonomy which included orders of argillaceous earths and calcareous and vitrifiable stones. Minéralogie, ou description generale des substances du rigne mineral, 2 vols. (Paris, 1753), translated from a 1750 German edition, first published in Swedish in 1747. C. E. Gellert divided earths intoicalcareous and argillaceous, while classifying stones under the same two categories, in addition to gypseous and vitrifiable divisions. Chimie métallurgique, . ., s vols. (Paris, 1758). First German edition published in 2 vols., 1751–55. He claimed to ground his organization on the intrinsic nature and properties of substances. Jean-Gotlob Lehmann did not rely on Pott's chemical classifications, but he recognized the value of such an approach. If one wanted to pursue a chemical mineralogy, Lehmann suggested that there was no better guide than the Lithogiognosie. Traités de Physique, d'Histoire Naturelle, et Miniralogie et de Metallurgie, 3 vols. (Paris: 1759), Vol. 1, p. 88. Henckel had, prior to Pott, claimed that chemistry was the "key" to mineralogy. Introduction a la minéralogie, 2 vols. (Paris: 1756), Vol. 1, p. 4. Translation of the posthumously published Henckelius in Mineralogie redivious (Dresden: 1747).
- Wallerius, Mineralogie, Vol. 1, pp. I–2.
- In spite of its empirical cast, natural history rested on an important a priori belief, namely that God created a world of individual kinds, each one different from every other. Moreover, the distinctions among species were often minute, thus requiring close examination to discern them. Buffon registered the importance of such distinctions when he noted with disapproval the human penchant for searching out similarities among the most different things and for seeking regularity in the face of variety. Oeuvres Completes de Buffon (Paris: 1855), Vol I, p. 5. First edition: Histoire Naturelle (Paris: 1749).
- Försök til Mineralogie eller mineralrikets upstallning, (Stockholm: 1758). French: Essai d'une nouvelle minéralogie, trans. Dreux (Paris: 1771).
- An Essay, trans. Gustav von Engestrom (London: 1772), p. xvii.
- The order did not always, strictly speaking, represent simple constituents of the mineral world. Cronstedt agreed that phlogiston was a component of metals, as demonstrated by reduction, but the emphasis was on the distinctive properties, not the universal principles, of various metallic substances. Indeed, Cronstedt seemed very happy to find new metals without much concern for their chemical composition: "It would perhaps be more useful to discover more of these metals, than idly to lose our time in repeating the numberless experiments which have been made, in order to discover the constituent parts of the metals already known. In this persuasion, I have avoided to mention any hypotheses about the principles of the metals, the processes of mercurification and other things of the like nature, with which, to tell the truth, I have never troubled myself'. p. 241.
- Ibid., p. 47.
- Ibid.
- Recueil des mémoires les plus intéressants de chymie et d'histoire naturelle, contenus dans les Actes de l'Acadenzie d'Upsal et dans les Mémoires de ['Academie royale des sciences de Stockholm, 2 vols., trans. and ed., P. T. d'Holbach (Paris: 1764), Vol. 1, p. 217.
- Sage, Elimens de Minéralogie docimastique (Paris: 1772); Monnet, Traité de la dissolution des metope (Paris: 1775); Encyclopedic, 1765, V. II, "nickel", p. 134.
- Cronstedt, An Essay, p. In.
- The chain of being, which suggested the importance of small observations, was ever present in Bergman's philosophy: "Daily experience also convinces us of the existence of such a connecting chain in the order of natural bodies, so that, though we are acquainted with several links singly, yet it may seem scarce possible to ascertain those that should be immediately united to them". Essays, Physical and Chemical (Edinburgh: 1791), "Thoughts on a Natural System of Fossils", p. 209. The paper appeared originally as part of the Commentationes, e quarto novorum Reg. Scientiarum Societatis Upsaliensis actorum tomo excertae (Upsaliae: 1782) and later in the much better known Opuscula physica et chemica, Vol. 4 (Lipsiae: 1787), of which the Essays, Physical and Chemical is a translation.
- Bergman, Physical and Chemical Essays, 2 vols., trans. Edmund Cullen (London: 1784), Vol. 1, p. xxv. This was a translation of Opuscula physica et chemica, Vol. r, (Holmiae: 1779) and 2 (Upsaliae: 1780).
- Ibid., p. xxvii.
- See for example his revised essay on nickel (Ibid., Vol. 2, p. 261), in which he argued that nickel was distinct from cobalt.
- Ibid., p. 264.
- The contrast between Bergman and Macquer is beautifully illustrated in the article "nickel" from the latter's Dictionnaire de Chymie, 2nd edition, 2 vols. (Paris: 1778) Vol. 2, p. 523–4. There we find the argument that nickel and cobalt were only variations of iron because as they were "purified" they became more ductile, magnetic, and refractory-in short, more like iron. Macquer's reliance on analogy suggested to him that there were other substances which were also only modifications of iron.
- Bergman's acceptance of phlogiston theory seemed to violate his stated working methods and assumptions. Despite his recognition that phlogiston was not an analytical product he was not disposed to suspect basic problems with the theory. At any rate, his ideas on phlogiston did not undermine his general approach toward simple substances. Indeed, as we shall see later, for practical reasons he came in future years to regard certain phlogiston-bearing bodies as simple substances.
- Bergman, Physical and Chemical Essays, Vol. 2, p. 52.
- Ibid., Vol. 1, p. 460. Revised edition of paper published originally in 1775. Hoffman, Black, and Marggraf successfully examined magnesia and lime prior to Bergman.
- Ibid., Vol. 2, p. 53.
- Published originally in 1777 (Chemische Abhandlung von der Lufi und dens Feuer, published at Upsala and Leipzig) and translated four years later by the Baron de Dietrich into French (published at Paris). Cassebaum and Kauffman briefly described Bergman's position, as stated in Scheele's work, in their article "The Analytical Concept of a Chemical Element in the Work of Bergman and Scheele", Annals of Science, 33, 1976, 447–456. They assert, p. 447, that Bergman "specifically anticipated in essential aspects the analytical element concept proposed by Lavoisier .". Noting that Bergman never compiled a list of simple substances, the authors do just that, p. 454.
- Bergman, Physical and Chemical Essays, Vol. r, p. xx.
- Sciagraphia regni mineralis, secundum principia proxima digesti (Lipsiae and Dessaviae: 5782). French: Manuel du Minéralogiste; ou Sciagraphie du Rigne Mineral, distribué d'Apres l'Analyse Chimique, trans. Mongez (Paris: 1784). English: Outlines of Mineralogy, trans. W. Withering (Birmingham: 1783). See fn. 37 for ref. on "Thoughts".
- The same four classes appeared in the works of Linnaeus, Cronstedt and, Bergman tells us, Avicenna.
- The "dominant" constituent was usually measured by weight, but in certain instances the importance of one of the simple components was used for purposes of generic classification. The association between simple substances and genera perhaps reflects the influence of Linnaeus who viewed genera as the natural basis for the classification of plants. He broke down the system of fructification into thirty-eight simple, structural "elements" which, through their various combinations, determined the definition of all genera. See James Larson, Reason and Experience; The Representation of Natural Order in the work of Carl Von Linné (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1971), pp. 76–79. While less complex and more tentative, the system of Bergman derived genera from the most simple chemical components of minerals. Chemical composition was the key to the nature of minerals, and the "composition" of the reproductive system played a similar role in Linnaeus' organization of plants.
- In this case a neutral salt was a species belonging to the genus of its acid.
- Bergman, Outlines of Mineralogy, p. 63.
- Jean-Baptiste-Michel Bucquet integrated chemistry and natural history (specifically mineralogy) in his Introduction a l'étude des corps naturels tires du rigne mineral, 2 vols. (Paris: 1771), a work which probably reflected his lectures at the Jardin du Roi. Smeaton claims that Bucquet "gave an integrated account of chemistry and mineralogy, which all earlier writers had treated separately . . ." Fourcroy; Chemist and Revolutionary 1755–1809 (London: published by author, 1962), p. 6. Bucquet had a good feel for the empirical, descriptive character of natural history, but he had no hesitations about invoking the four elements along with the standard definition. Chemistry had for some time been taught alongside natural history at the Jardin du Roi, but there is little evidence that natural history had more than a superficial impact on chemistry there. In general, traditional iatrochemistry gave way to the distinctive and highly successful Stahlian approach of G. F. Rouelle in the 1740's. The major figures in chemistry at the Jardin were Rouelle and Macquer. Chemistry and natural history were linked closely together at the Jardin in the teaching of Fourcroy (1784–1793), one of Bucquet's students.
- Göte Carlid and Johan Nordstrom, Torbern Bergman's Foreign Correspondence (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1965), p. xxxiv.
- Macquer acknowledged his debt directly to Bergman: "you will see in the new edition of the chemical dictionary . . . how I have enriched this work with your works and with your very numerous and beautiful discoveries". Ibid., p. 248. Macquer to Bergman, Oct. 13, 1777. In the second edition of the Dictionnaire, Macquer did not alter his basic position on elements.
- Ibid., p. 253. Macquer to Bergman, Nov. 17, 1779.
- Journal des *vans, Dec. 1781, p. 375.
- No doubt Bergman had some influence in France prior to the Macquer correspondence and Guyton translation work. Crosland notes that Bergman's influence through his Latin publications "is to be found in French chemistry" before the French translations. "The Development of Chemistry", p. 438. Guyton's partial translation, Opuscules chymiques et physiques, 2 vols. (Dijon: 1780–85), of Bergman's essays added about 25 articles to the is or so that had appeared in French through 1780.
- Guyton, de Morveau, Elimens de Chymie, 3 vols. (Dijon: 1777–1778), Vol. 1, p. 6.
- Ibid., p. 98.
- Given the fact that fire was compound, as evidenced by the decomposition of light in a glass prism, Guyton took the other elements to be highly complex. Ibid., p. 12.
- Ibid., p. 99 and p. 154.
- Ibid., p. 12.
- Bergman, Opuscides, Vol. 2, p. 268.
- Guyton, "Mémoire Sur les Terres simples, & principalement sur celles qu'on nomme absorbantes . ." Obs. sur la phys., 17 (1781), 216.
- Ibid., p. 217. Demeste's views were available in Lettres du Docteur Demeste au Docteur Bernard (Paris: 1779). The composition of gypsum had been established by Marggraf in 1750 and independently again by Lavoisier in 1768.
- Guyton, "Sur les Terres," p. 216.
- He wrote that "as soon as we arrived to such a pitch, as by the examination of a mineral body to discover or know all its constituent parts, and can assert with certainty that it can be no further decompounded by any method hitherto known; then such a body ought, according to the intention of this Essay, to receive its specific name, and not before; for otherwise it will be vague and trivial". An Essay, p. xx.
- Bergman, Physical and Chemical Essays, Vol. 1, p. xxxvii.
- W. A. Smeaton, "The Contributions of P.-J. Macquer, T. O. Bergman and L. B. Guyton de Morveau to the Reform of Chemical Nomenclature", Annals of Science, lo (1954), 87–106, p. 90.
- Smeaton, ibid., and Maurice Crosland, Historical Studies in the Language of Chemistry (London: Heineman Educational Books, Ltd., 1962) give detailed descriptions of the nomenclature ideas of Bergman and Guyton. Smeaton argues quite successfully, I believe, the important role of Guyton in nomenclature reform. He covers all the points of similarity between Guyton's work and the 1787 Méthode. Crosland claims, on the subject of nomenclature, that Guyton came under the influence of Bergman, p. 154. In addition, he gives ten points of resemblance between the nomenclature of Bergman and that of Linnaeus, pp. 142–143.
- Smeaton, "The Contributions", p. 89.
- Guyton, "Mémoire sur les Denominations Chymiques, la nécessité d'en perfectionner le systeme, & les regles pour y parvenir", Obs. sur la phys., ig (1782), 370–382, p. 373.
- Bergman asked "why then should chemistry, which examines the real nature of things, still adopt vague names, which suggest false ideas, and favour strongly of ignorance and imposition?" Physical and Chemical Essays, Vol. 1, P. xxxvi.
- Guyton was explicit on the simplicity of the earths and in his 1777 Elémens he noted that acids, alkalis, and oils were also "simples pour l'art". p. 12.
- Of course as Robert Siegfried has recently shown ("Lavoisier's Table of Simple Substances: Its origin and Interpretation", Ambix, 29 (1982), 29–48, pp. 29–30) the table owed much to the tradition of affinity tables. One simple substance, the siliceous earth, was not even on the table presumably because it failed to react with acids. Affinity tables presented the reactions between acids and "bases". Guyton did describe the siliceous earth as a simple substance in the text of the 1782 memoir.
- He called it "Mephitique" or "Air fixe".
- Smeaton, "The Contributions", p. 102.
- Guyton de Morveau, Antoine Lavoisier, Antoine Fourcroy and C. L. Berthollet, Méthode de Nomenclature Chimique (Paris: 1787), p. 3. It was not, however, Guyton who inspired Lavoisier's own arguments for the importance of change. As Lavoisier acknowledged, Condillac's La Logique (1780) suggested the significance of a rightly constructed language for education and the development of ideas in accordance with a sensationalist epistemology. Through his references to Condillac, Lavoisier expanded the context ofjustification with respect to nomenclature reform and to the importance of simple substances.
- Ibid., p. 17.
- Ibid.
- Ibid., p. 28.
- C. E. Perrin, "Lavoisier's Table of the Elements: A Reappraisal", Ambix, 20 (1973), 95–105, p. 97.
- Méthode, p. 78.
- Ibid., p. 79.
- Ibid., p. 35. Berthollet had shown ammonia, the volatile alkali, to be a compound of nitrogen and hydrogen. There was apparently some disagreement on the position of nitrogen at the time. Guyton obviously favoured its placement among the first class. Fourcroy preferred to cite only four members in that select company, even after Lavoisier moved nitrogen to the first group in the Troia. In an abstract from the Memoires of the Academic, appended to the Méthode, p. 238, nitrogen was in the first class.
- C. C. Gillispie sees "extreme activity" as the common denominator of the first class of simple substances. The Edge of Objectivity, p. 248. Perrin, "Lavoisier's Table", argues that Lavoisier thought of the first class as property-bearing substances, but he recognized the problem posed by hydrogen, which did not bear a generic property. Nor does Perrin show how light was a true "principle". Guerlac also notes the property-bearing features of the first group, and he registers Lavoisier's belief that an "element" must be widely distributed in nature. Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Vol. 8 (New York: Charles Scribners, 1974), p. 82. Siegfried, "Lavoisier's Table", p. 44, suggests that the first group consists of "left-overs".
- Light was thought to be an important principle in nature, but its role was not clearly defined. Perrin, "Lavoisier's Table", p. 100.
- Including such phenomena as the gaseous state, and fluidity generally, acidity, expansibility, combustion, calcination, and reduction.
- The oxygen theory of acidity seemed to abandon the principle that one assumes nothing about composition in the absence of analytical support. Guyton affirmed that it was only analogy which suggested that muriatic acid had an acidifiable base, and he seemed content with such reasoning. Lavoisier had demonstrated that the combustion of carbon, sulfur, and phosphorous gave rise to corresponding acids. Other acids were, in the minds of the authors of the Mithode, equally products of combustion even though appropriate analyses or syntheses were still missing. So that a name would not be assigned to an unknown being, Guyton denoted the unknown acid bases as "radicals".
- There is an appendix to the Méthode which lists less important known compounds, such as soap, with single words. Presumably the widespread chemical importance of ammonia warranted its placement among the simple alkalis.
- Ammonia was the recent exception. Lavoisier removed ammonia, as well as soda and potash, from the list.