Foundations of Chemistry

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 37–53 | Cite as

Klein on the origin of the concept of chemical compound

Article

Abstract

Ursula Klein has argued that Geoffroy’s table of chemical affinities, published in 1718, marked the emergence of the concepts of chemical compound and chemical combination central to chemistry. In this paper her position is summarised and then modified to render it immune to criticism that has been levelled against it. The essentials of Geoffroy’s chemistry are clarified and adapted to Klein’s picture by way of a detailed comparison of it with Boyle’s corpuscular chemistry that proceeded Geoffroy’s by over half a century. The idea that Geoffroy’s notion of chemical combination marked a significant turning point in the emergence of modern chemistry is defended against the charge that it is Whiggish.

Keywords

History of chemistry Chemical compound Chemical combination Affinity tables Ettiene Geoffroy Robert Boyle 

References

  1. Boyle, R.: Collections from the Royal Society: Letters and papers of Robert Boyle. University Publications of America, Bethesda (1990)Google Scholar
  2. Chalmers, A.: The lack of excellency of Boyle’s mechanical philosophy. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. 24, 541–564 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chalmers, A.: The scientist’s atom and the philosopher’s stone: How science succeeded and philosophy failed to gain knowledge of atoms. Springer, Dordrecht (2009)Google Scholar
  4. Geoffroy, E.T.: Table of the different relations observed in chemistry between different substances. Sci. Context 9, 313–320 (1996)Google Scholar
  5. Holmes, F.L.: Eighteenth-century chemistry as an investigative enterprise. University of California Press, Berkeley (1989)Google Scholar
  6. Hunter, M., Davis, E.D.: The works of Robert Boyle. Pickering and Chatto, London (2000)Google Scholar
  7. Klein, U.: Origin of the concept of chemical compound. Sci. Context 7, 163–204 (1994)Google Scholar
  8. Klein, U.: E. F. Geoffroy’s table of different ‘rapports’ between different chemical substances—a re-interpretation. Ambix 42, 79–100 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Klein, U.: The chemical workshop tradition and the experimental practice: Discontinuities within continuities. Sci. Context 9, 251–287 (1996)Google Scholar
  10. Klein, U., Lefèvre, W.: Materials in eighteenth-century science: A historical ontology. MIT Press, Cambridge (2007)Google Scholar
  11. Smith, G.: The methodology of the Principia. In: Cohen, I.B., Smith, G. (eds.) The Cambridge companion to Newton, pp. 138–173. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Unit for History and Philosophy of ScienceUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations