Advertisement

Chymical Philosophy and Boyle’s Incongruous Philosophical Chymistry

  • Victor D. Boantza
Chapter
Part of the International Archives of the History of Ideas Archives internationales d'histoire des idées book series (ARCH, volume 208)

Abstract

During the 1660s and 1670s Boyle proposed a reformation of traditional and contemporary chymical philosophy and practice by reinterpreting them along mechanical principles. By submitting chymical phenomena to the laws of matter and motion, coupled with a systematic experimentalism, Boyle looked to introduce intelligibility and simplicity into an allegedly ambiguous chymical discourse. During the late 1660s, Samuel Cottereau Duclos (1598–1685), leading chymist of the early French Royal Academy of Sciences, provided a critical assessment of Boyle’s “physico-chymical” creation. Attentive in part to Boyle’s critique and dismissive of certain aspects of traditional chemical philosophies, Duclos favored a clarification and re-contextualization of chymistry that would not dissociate it from its historical roots, assuming a different stand within the ‘ancients’ versus ‘moderns’ debate. By perceiving Boyle qua reformer (as a member of the very scientific community Boyle sought to reform), Duclos exposed Boyle’s lack of experimental proficiency and acquaintance with the chymical realm. Reading Boyle’s new “physico-chymical” science from a distinctly chymical perspective, Duclos revealed its paradoxical and incongruous nature, rendering it a discordant solution: a baroque middle ground which ultimately compromised chymistry’s status as the ultimate science of matter and material change.

Keywords

Matter Theory Scientific Revolution Royal Academy Natural Mixts Marine Salt 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Abbreviations

AdS, PV

= Académie Royale des Sciences, Procès-Verbal de séance, Paris, France.

SC

= Boyle Robert. The Sceptical Chemist. (in Works, vol. II)

CPE

= Boyle Robert. Certain Physiological Essays. (in Works, vol. II)

OFQ

= Boyle Robert. The Origin of Forms and Qualities. (in Works, vol. V)

References

  1. Alexander, Peter. 1985. Ideas, qualities, and corpuscles: Locke and Boyle on the external world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Anstey, Peter R. 2000. The philosophy of Robert Boyle. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Boantza, Victor D. 2007. Reflections on matter and manner: Duclos reads Boyle, 1668–69. In Chymists and chymistry: Studies in the history of alchemy and early modern chemistry, ed. Lawrence Principe, 181–192. New York: Science History Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Boantza, Victor D. 2010. Alkahest and fire: Debating matter, chymistry, and natural history at the early Parisian academy of sciences. In The body as object and instrument of knowledge: Embodied empiricism in early modern science, ed. O. Gal and C. Wolfe, 75–92. Dordrecht: Springer Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boantza, Victor D. 2012. Matter and method in the long chemical revolution: Laws of another order. Burlington: Ashgate. forthcoming.Google Scholar
  6. Boyle, Robert. 1999–2000. The works of Robert Boyle, ed. M. Hunter and E.B. Davis, 14 Vols. London: Pickering & Chatto.Google Scholar
  7. Chalmers, Alan. 1993. The lack of excellency of Boyle’s mechanical philosophy. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 24: 541–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clericuzio, Antonio. 1990. A redefinition of Boyle’s chemistry and corpuscular philosophy. Annals of Science 47: 561–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clericuzio, Antonio. 1994. Carneades and the chemists: A study of The Sceptical Chymist and its impact on seventeenth-century chemistry. In Robert Boyle reconsidered, ed. Michael Hunter, 79–90. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clericuzio, Antonio. 2000. Elements, principles and corpuscles: A study of atomism and chemistry in the seventeenth century. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  11. Clericuzio, Antonio. 2006. Teaching chemistry and chemical textbooks in France. From Beguin to Lemery. Science Education 15: 335–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cook, Margaret G. 2001. Divine artifice and natural mechanism: Robert Boyle’s mechanical philosophy of nature. In Osiris, 2nd series, Science in theistic contexts: Cognitive dimensions, ed. John Brooke, Margaret Osler and J. M. van der Meer 16: 133–150. The History of Science Society.Google Scholar
  13. Debus, Allan G. 1964. The Paracelsian aerial niter. Isis 55: 43–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Debus, Allan G. 1967. Fire analysis and the elements in the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries. Annals of Science 23: 127–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Debus, Allan G. 1991. The French Paracelsians: The chemical challenge to medical and scientific tradition in early modern France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Debus, Allan G. 1990. Iatrochemistry and the chemical revolution. In Alchemy revisited: Proceedings of the international conference on the history of alchemy at the university of Groningen, 17–19 April 1989, ed. Z.R.W.M. von Martels, 51–66. Leiden/New York: Brill.Google Scholar
  17. Emerton, Norma. 1984. The scientific reinterpretation of form. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Fleming, William. 1946. The element of motion in baroque art and music. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 5(2): 121–128 [Special Issue on Baroque Style in Various Arts].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fontenelle, Bernard le Bovier de. 1733. Histoire de l’Académie Royale des Sciences, depuis son établissement en 1666 jusqu’en 1686, 2 vols. Paris: Martin, Coignard, Guerin.Google Scholar
  20. Franckowiak, Rémi. 2003. Le développement des théories du Sel dans la chimie française de la fin du XVIe à celle du XVIIIe siècle. Université Charles de Gaulle, Lille III. Unpublished PhD thesis.Google Scholar
  21. Franckowiak, Rémi. 2008. La Chimie du XVIIe Siècle: Une Question de Principes. Methodos, 8 [Chimie et mécanisme à l’âge classique]. Retrieved 5 Oct 2008, from http://methodos.revues.org/document1823.html
  22. Franckowiak, Rémi. 2009. Du Clos, un Chimiste Post-Sceptical Chemist. In La Philosophie Naturelle de Robert Boyle, ed. C. Ramond and M. Dennehy, 361–377. Paris: Vrin.Google Scholar
  23. Friedrich, Carl J. 1965. The age of the Baroque: 1610–1660. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  24. Hall, Marie B. 1958. Robert Boyle and Seventeenth-Century Chemistry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Henry, John. 1986. Occult qualities and the experimental philosophy: Active principles in pre-Newtonian matter theory. History of Science 24: 335–381.Google Scholar
  26. Hirai, Hiro. 2001. Paracelsisme, néoplatonisme et médecine hermétique dans la théorie de la matière de Joseph Du Chesne à travers son Ad veritatem hermeticae medicinae (1604). Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Sciences 51: 9–37.Google Scholar
  27. Holmes, Frederic L. 1971. Analysis by fire and solvent extractions: The metamorphosis of a tradition. Isis 62: 128–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holmes, Frederic L. 2003. Chemistry in the Académie Royale des Sciences. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 34: 41–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hunter, Michael. 2011. Robert Boyle and secrecy. In Secrets and knowledge in medicine and science, 1500–1800, ed. E. Leong and A. Rankin, 87–104. Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  30. Hutchison, Keith. 1982. What happened to occult qualities in the scientific revolution? Isis 73: 233–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jacob, Margaret C. 2006. Strangers nowhere in the world: The rise of cosmopolitanism in early modern Europe. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  32. Joly, Bernard. 1992. Qu’est-ce Qu’un Laboratoire Alchimique? Cahiers d’Historie et de Philosophie des Sciences 40: 87–102.Google Scholar
  33. Joly, Bernard. 1996. L’alkahest, dissolvant universel ou quand la théorie rend pensable une pratique impossible. Revue d’Histoire des Sciences 49: 305–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jones, Richard F. 1965. Ancients and moderns. A study of the rise of the scientific movement in seventeenth-century England. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  35. Kahn, Didier. 2007. Alchimie et paracelsisme en France à la fin de la Renaissance (1567–1625). Genève: Librarie Droz.Google Scholar
  36. Kim, Young S. 1991. Another look at Robert Boyle’s acceptance of the mechanical philosophy: Its limits and its chemical social contexts. Ambix 38: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kim, Mi G. 2001. The analytical ideal of chemical elements: Robert Boyle and French didactic tradition of chemistry. Science in Context 14: 361–395.Google Scholar
  38. Kim, Mi G. 2003. Affinity, that elusive dream: A genealogy of the chemical revolution. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Klein, Ursula, and Lefèvre. W. 2007. Materials in Eighteenth-Century Science: A Historical Ontology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Landes, David S. 1983. Revolution in time: Clocks and the making of the modern world. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Levine, Joseph M. 1999. Between the ancients and the moderns: Baroque culture in restoration England. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Maravall, Antonio J. 1986. Culture of the Baroque: Analysis of a historical structure. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  43. Martin, John R. 1977. Baroque. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  44. Metzger, Hélène. [1923] 1969. Les doctrines chimiques en France du début du XVIIe à la fin du XVIIIe siècle. Paris: A. Blanchard.Google Scholar
  45. Mumford, Lewis. 1934. Technics and civilization. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Newman.Google Scholar
  46. Newman, William R. 1994. Gehennical fire: The lives of George Starkey, an American Alchemist in the scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  47. Newman, William R. 1996. The alchemical sources of Robert Boyle’s corpuscular philosophy. Annals of Science 53: 567–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Newman, William R. 2006. Atoms and Alchemy: Chymistry and the experimental origins of the scientific revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  49. Newman, William R., and Lawrence M. Principe. 1998. Alchemy vs. chemistry: The etymological origins of a historiographic mistake. Early Science and Medicine 3: 32–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Newman, William R., and Lawrence M. Principe. 2002. Alchemy tried in the fire: Starkey, Boyle, and the fate of Helmontian chymistry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  51. Pagel, Walter. 1982. Joan Baptista Van Helmont: Reformer of science and medicine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Pagel, Walter. 1985. The religious and philosophical aspects of van Helmont’s science and medicine. In: Religion and neoplatonism in Renaissance medicine, ed. Marianne Winder, part III. London: Variorum.Google Scholar
  53. Partington, James R. 1961–70. A history of chemistry, 4 Vols. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  54. Principe, Lawrence M. 1994. Boyle’s alchemical pursuits. In Robert Boyle reconsidered, ed. Michael Hunter, 92–102. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Principe, Lawrence M. 1998. The aspiring adept: Robert Boyle and his alchemical quest. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Reti, Ladislao. 1968. Van Helmont, Boyle and the alkahest. In Some aspects of seventeenth-century medicine and science: Papers read at a Clark Library Seminar, ed. Ladislao Reti and W.C. Gibson, 3–19. Los Angeles: William Andrews Clark Memorial Library.Google Scholar
  57. Sargent, R.-M. 1995. The diffident naturalist: Robert Boyle and the philosophy of experiment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  58. Skrine, Peter N. 1978. The Baroque: Literature and Culture in Seventeenth-Century Europe. New York: Holmes & Meier.Google Scholar
  59. Stroup, Alice. 1990. A company of scientists: Botany, patronage, and community at the seventeenth-century Parisian academy of science. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  60. Stroup, Alice. 2002. Censure ou querelles scientifiques: l’affaire Duclos (1675–1685). In Règlement, usages et science dans la France de l’absolutisme, ed. Cristian Demeulenaere-Douyère and Eric Brian, 435–452. Paris: Tec & Doc.Google Scholar
  61. Sturdy, David. 1995. Science and social status: The members of the Académie des sciences: 1666–1750. Woodbridge: Boydell Press.Google Scholar
  62. Vickers, Brian. 2008. The ‘new historiography’ and the limits of alchemy. Annals of Science 65: 127–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Unit for History and Philosophy of ScienceThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations