Eighteenth-century Chemistry Research Articles

Atoms and Powers: An Essay on Newtonian Matter-Theory and the Development of Chemistry (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 95 Mr. Curley has written a challenging and controversial book, and on three issues the reviewer had to record his disagreement with the author's position. Nevertheless he found his work interesting throughout, informative and well argued. It deserves a lasting place among Spinozistic scholarship. PAUL SELIGMAN University oJ Waterloo Atoms and Powers: An Essay on Newtonian Matter-Theory and the Development of Chemistry. By Arnold Thackray. (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970) "The two major problems confronting any philosophy of chemistry have always been to decide on the units that endure through chemical change, and on the terms in which the causes of that change might be discussed" (p. 199). The chemist in the eighteenth century faced these two fundamental problems--that of deciding what was to be considered an element and that of deciding on the ultimate terms of explanation for chemical phenomena--in rather explicit terms. Boyle and the mechanical philosophers of the late seventeenth century had reopened the question of the elements by rejecting the traditional four-element (earth, water, air, fire) and three-principle (salt, sulphur, mercury) theories and suggesting that there might not exist elementary substances in the traditional sense at all. These same mechanical philosophers sought to reduce chemistry to a branch of physics by attempting to explain away the chemical properties of matter solely in terms of the primary, physical properties which they believed matter to possess. In his book, Atoms and Powers, Thackray discusses the influence of Newtonianism on the eighteenth-century discussions of these problems. In the process, he adds some order and insight to what may mildly be described as a confused and only partly charted period of the history of science. Newton's reputation and ideas had a profound influence on almost every area of eighteenth-century science. In relation to chemistry, "Newtonianism" meant two things in the eighteenth century: (I) a belief in the "inertial homogeneity" of matter, and consequently in a highly porous and internally ordered structure to all known substances ; and (2) a belief that for chemistry, as for the other physical sciences, the route to an ordered, quantified, predictive science lay through the measurement of forces, in this case the forces of chemical affinity (p. 5). Thackray argues rather convincingly that Newtonianism was not in general a progressive trend for eighteenth-century chemistry, that quantitative and successfully predictive chemistry---culminating in the works of Lavoisier, Dalton, and others----came less from the Newtonian, reductionist approach than from a holistic approach which acknowledged the chemical Ievel of organization and sought generalizations in chemistry from empirical study of the phenomenal properties of chemical substances. The eighteenth-century chemist needed to learn about the chemical properties of matter before he could explain them in terms of Newtonian physics. Aside from the intrinsic interest of Thackray's book as an historical study, he raises several issues which should be of particular interest to readers of the Journal of the History o] Philosophy. First, he implicitly reveals the important difference between the historical and logical reconstructions of a science. A twentieth-century philosopher of science might rightfully discuss the significance of the reductionist approach to chemistry and the importance of measuring inter-particulate forces to the understanding 96 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY of chemical fact. History, however, need not follow a logical sequence; and the Newtonian trend, which might seem remarkably progressive to twentieth-century eyes, did not solve the basic problems facing the eighteenth-century chemist. It is more than slightly ironic that chemistry gained much of its order from a return to the premechanical view of elements as the bearers of qualities in chemical reactions. Secondly, Thackray's discussion casts considerable light on the subtle and fascinating problem of the nature of scientific change. His close analysis of Newtonianism and chemistry provides much-needed historical fuel for the discussion of the role of the paradigm in the development of science, "paradigm" taken in both the sociological and conceptual senses. Finally, an historian of philosophy would find this book useful in illustrating the scientific context of many important problems that arose in eighteenth-century philosophy, particularly problems concerning the nature of matter, the breakdown of the distinction...

Cromwell Mortimer, F. R. S. ( c . 1698-1752) and the invention of the metalline thermometer for measuring high temperatures

Although the liquid-in-glass thermometer came into use either in the last decade of the sixteenth or during the early years of the seventeenth century (1), it was not until the eighteenth century that reproducible scales of temperature were established, arising from the work of Fahrenheit (2), Reaumur (3) and Celsius (4). So far as eighteenth-century chemists were concerned, the upper limit of temperature to which the liquid-in-glass thermometer could be used was set by the boiling point of mercury, at that time assumed to be 600 °F (5). In the latter half of the seventeenth century any temperatures attained in chemical operations could be indicated only by reference to a scale comprising some seven ‘degrees of heat’. In the middle to upper ranges, for example, to quote from Glaser’s The Compleat Chymist , the third ‘degree’ was that of hot ashes; the fourth ‘degree’ was that of hot sand, and the fifth that of hot iron filings; the sixth ‘degree’ was attained in the closed reverberatory charcoal fire, and the seventh and highest ‘degree’ was the ‘Flaming-Fire or Fire of Fusion’, made with wood or charcoal (6).

Comment: On the Equilibrium of a Heterogeneous Social System

My first comment relates equally to both Derek J. de Solla Price's and Robert P. Multhauf's extremely interesting papers, for, different as they are, each essentially concerns itself with the impact of science on technology. By implication, I suppose this means that we are prepared to concede the inverse effect-though one might point out, using Price's emotive phrase, that use of the eternal archive of the technologists by science has exhibited the same or greater lag behind the development front as has the reverse process. This, if I understand him correctly, was one of Francis Bacon's major complaints and one of the few worth attending. Proceeding to the individual papers, I direct my remarks first to Multhauf's case study of technological development in the sal ammoniac industry. Compared with Price's paper, this must, I suppose, be called the traditional mode of approaching the subject, though his wishful conclusions are non-traditional, or revisionary of now standard historical opinion. Multhauf has loaded his dice-chemical technology is surely one of the most logical areas to study for the interactions of science and technology-but though it appears that his sentiments agree with my own in wishing to find that interaction did, in fact, exist, the result of his study, with singular appropriateness considering the country in which much of the technology developed, is the Scotch verdict of not proved. The major problem is one of historical ignorance-and simply in the details of the history of technology but also in those of the history of science. For all the work of Multhauf and others, we simply do yet know enough of eighteenth-century chemistry to recognize whether its theories were useful to contemporary technology. Neither the principle of elective affinities nor that of phlogiston has, for example, been studied with anything like the loving care given to Lavoisier and to poking fun at the phlogistonists who opposed him. Of the persons

Rouelle and Stahl—The Phlogistic Revolution in France

WHEN Lavoisier began his work in chemistry, the phlogiston theory was the generally accepted chemical doctrine in France. As a unifying principle, this theory had much recommend it; phlogiston was used primarily explain combustion reactions, but also account for physical and chemical properties ranging from the nature of color the causes of fluidity and volatility. Despite its shortcomings, the phlogiston theory was so adaptable that question its validity was raise a host of difficult theoretical problems. To say that the phlogiston theory alone dominated French chemistry is in reality oversimplify the situation. Because phlogiston was an essential part of chemical theory and because the debates over its very existence raged for many years, phlogiston has come epitomize and indeed summarize in one word eighteenth-century chemistry before Lavoisier. This modern view would have surprised the chemist Guillaume Francois Rouelle (1703-70), whose career encompassed the period before the polemical literature on phlogiston began appear.1 For Rouelle, phlogiston was but a single component of a more comprehensive theory: his ?4element-instrument theory. Among his contemporaries Rouelle's reputation as a chemist was based primarily upon his outstanding ability teach. But he was also called the Restorer of French Chemistry2 and the person who had done most to popularize chemistry in France in revealing us for the first time the secrets of Germany, and in adding it the soundest Theory and the surest experiment.3 The German chemistry referred is the work of Georg Ernst Stahl and his disciples, which remained relatively unknown in France for at least the first thirty years of the eighteenth century. While it is perhaps an exaggeration say that Rouelle introduced a knowledge of Stahlian chemistry into France, he was certainly responsible for the popularization and eventual acceptance of a modified Stahlianism in the course of the century. * 109 College Avenue, Ithaca, New York. 1 For an account of Rouelle's life and work, see the author's G.-F. Rouelle: An Eight eenth Century Teacher and Chemist, Chymia, 6, 68-101 (1960). 2 Johann Friedrich Meyer, Essais de Chymie, trans. P.-F. Dreux, 2 Vols., Paris, 1766, Vol. 1, Avertissement du Traducteur, p. xvii. 3 Cours de chymie de M. Rouelle, r?dig?par M. Diderot et e'clairciparplusieurs notes, 1258 pp., Biblioth?que de Bordeaux, MSS 564-565, p. 982b, note 1. Hereafter cited: Bordeaux MS. 73

A Note on Priestley in America

BY a coincidence, superficially remarkable but really arising from the same or, at least, similar causes, the two great antagonists in eighteenth century chemistry, Joseph Priestley (1733-1804) and Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier (1743-1794), were each, in an age that prided itself on a culture and enlightenment considered to be nowhere so advanced as among the nations to which these two men of science severally belonged, the victims of a violent political persecution that drove the one into voluntary exile and cost the other his life. The coincidence is, indeed, extraordinarily close : for, when Lavoisier’s head rolled from the scaffold on 8 May 1794, Priestley was in mid-Atlantic on his way to America, fortunate to have escaped with his hfe. An account of the political trial, in which Lavoisier was condemned to death for alleged counter-revolutionary conspiracy, has already been given in this journal.1 Priestley, accompanied by his wife, arrived at Sandy Hook on 1 June and reached New York on 4 June 1794. The mob-violence and the public disorder of the Birmingham riots of 1791 were far behind ; but, after 1791, life had still been very uncomfortable for Priestley even in London, and even among his colleagues in the Royal Society ; and he looked forward to better days in the New World. His hopes were not completely realized and he found peace only in the last years of his life. Priestley loved his country and was torn with indecision at the idea of leaving it ; but life in England had become intolerable for Mrs Priestley and also for two of their sons, who had already gone to America ; and it was not fear, but pressing family anxieties of this kind, that eventually led him to decide on emigration as the only solution. There were a number of farewell presents and messages.

Prof. A. N. Meldrum

BY the death of Prof. Andrew Norman Meldrum on March 12 the activities of one of the best-informed writers on historical matters relating to eighteenth and nineteenth century chemistry have come to a close. The history of the greater movements in the progress of theoretical chemistry formed a favourite branch of study and research, and from an early period Prof. Meldrum's attention was directed to the subject of the atomic theory, in connexion with which he published, so early as 1904, a thoughtful and elaborate monograph on “Avogadro and Dalton: The Standing in Chemistry of their Hypotheses”. This was followed by a series of papers “On the Development of the Atomic Theory”, contributed to the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester in 1909-11, and by a pamphlet with the same title published in India in 1920. He was engaged during a number of years upon an intensive study of the works of Lavoisier and his contemporaries. In this period he accumulated a large amount of material for the production of the successive lengthy papers that appeared between 1924 and 1934, dealing with Lavoisier's part in “The Eighteenth Century Revolution in Science”, with his historic “Three Notes on Combustion: 1772”, and with his “Early Work in Science: 1763-1771”. Besides these valuable papers, Meldrum contributed one of the three special commemorative addresses on Joseph Priestley that were read before the Chemical Society in April 1933, on the occasion of the bicentenary of that philosopher.