Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:31:20.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Communal Context for Etienne-François Geoffroy's “Table des rapports”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Frederic L. Holmes
Frederic L. Holmes
Affiliation:
Section of the History of Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Etienn-François Geoffroy' Table des Rapports is generally regarded as a landmark in the evolution of chemistry during the eighteenth century. Issues have arisen among historians concerning the significance and originality of the Table that require fuller attention to the immediate context of chemical research in the Academie des sciences during the two decades that preceded its appearance. The present paper argues that, despite the transition from communal to individual research projects that marked the reorganization of the Academy in 1699, chemists continued to pursue shared problems within a communal ethos. The interactions between Wilhelm Homberg, Etienne-François Geoffroy, and Louis Lemery were particularly prominent. The paper traces one example of this interaction, involving the sulfur principle and its influence on one entry in Geoffroy's Table. Further such studies are needed to elucidate the relation between the concepts of chemical composition and reactions implied in Geoffroy's table and the concepts embodied in the previous work of Geoffroy and his associates in the Academy.

Type
Controversy
Information
Science in Context , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , Autumn 1996 , pp. 289 - 311
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Charas, Moise. 1718. “Sur la nature des sels.” Histoire de l'Académie Royale des Sciences, 2nd ed., 2: 254–55. Paris.Google Scholar
Cohen, I.Bernard. 1964. “Isaac Newton, Hans Sloan and the Académie Royale des Sciences.” In L'Aventure de la science, edited by Cohen, I. B. and RenéTaton, . Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Duncan, A. M. 1962. “Some Theoretical Aspects of Eighteenth-Century Tables of Affinity—1.” Annals of Science 18: 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontenelle, B. [1711]1714. “Sur les Précipitations.” ADS, Hum, 1711, M. 31–35. Reprinted Paris.Google Scholar
Fontenelle, B. 1718 Histoire de l'Académie Royale des Sciences depuis le réglement fait en M.DC.XCIX. 2nd ed. Paris.Google Scholar
Fontenelle, B. 1718 Histoire de l'Académie Royale des Sciences depuis le réglement fait en M.DC.XCIX. 2nd ed. Paris.Google Scholar
Fontenelle, B. [1703]1720. “Sur l'analise du souffre commun.” ADS, HuM, 1703, 2nd. ed. Paris, 1720,47–49.Google Scholar
Fontenelle, B. 1968a. “Éloge de Bourdelin.” InFontenelle 1968e, 1: 193–201.Google Scholar
Fontenelle, B. 1968b. “Éloge de Geoffroy.” InFontenelle 1968e, 1: 449–54.Google Scholar
Fontenelle, B. 1968c. “Éloge de Homberg.” InFontenelle 1968e.Google Scholar
Fontenelle, B. 1968d. “Éloge de Lemery.” In Fontenelle 1968e, 1: 186–193.Google Scholar
Fontenelle, B. 1968e. Oeuvres Complétes. Vol.1. Edited by. Depping, G.-B.. Genera: Slatkine Reprints.Google Scholar
Geoffroy, E. F. [1705]1706. “Probème de chime: trouver des cendres qui ne contiennent aucunes parcelles de fer,” ADS HuM, 1705, M. 362–363.Google Scholar
Geoffroy, E. F. “Eclaircissements sur la production artificielle du fer, et sur la composition des autres métaux.” ADS, Hum, 1707, M 176–88.Google Scholar
Geoffroy, E. F. 1708–9. “Experiments on Metals, Made with the Burning Glass of the Duke of Orleans.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. 26–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geoffroy, E. F. [1709]1711. “Expériences sur les métax, faites avec le verre ardent du Plais Royal.” ADS, Hum, 1709, M 162–76. Reprinted.Google Scholar
Geoffroy, E. F. [1713]1716. “Observations sur le vitriol et sur le fer.” ADS, HuM, 1716, M. 170–188.Google Scholar
Geoffroy, E. F.[1717]1719. “Du changement des sels acides en sels alkalis volatiles urineux.” ADS, HuM, 1717, M. 266–238.Google Scholar
Geoffroy, E. F. [1704]1722. “Manière de recomposer le souffre commun par la reacute;union de ses principes, et d'en composer de nouveau par le mélange de semblables substances, avec quelques conjectures sur la composition des métaux.” ADS, HuM, 1704, M. 278–286. 2 2nd ed. Paris: Hocherau, 1722.Google Scholar
Geoffroy, E. F. [1720]1722. “Eclaircissements sur la table insérée dans les mémoires de 1718 concernant les rapports observés entre différentes substances.” ADS, HuM, 1720. M. 20–34.Google Scholar
Guédon, Jean-Claud. 1976. “Remarques sur la révolution chimique.” Institut d'Histoire et de Sociopolitique des sciences. Montreal. Photocopy.Google Scholar
Hahn, Roger. 1971. The Anatomy of a Scientific Institution: The paris Academy of sciences, 1666–1803. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilbron, J. L. 1979. Eectricity in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries: A study of Early Modern Physics. Berkeley: University of California press.Google Scholar
Holmes, Frederic Lawrence. 1989. Eighteenth Century Chemistry as an Investigative Enterprise. Berkeley, Calif.: Office for History of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
1995. “Concepts, Operations, and the Problem of “Modernity” in Early Modern Chemistry.” Paper presented at workshop on early modern chemistry, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, June.Google Scholar
Holmes, Frederic Lawrence.1977. Lavoisier—the Next Crucial Year: or, the Origins of his Quantitative Method in Chemistry. Princeton: Princet on University pressGoogle Scholar
Homberg, Wilhelm. [1699]1718. “Observation sur la quantité exacte des sels volatiles acides contenus dans tous les differens esprits acides.” ADS, HuM, 1699, 2 2nd ed., Paris, 1718. M. 44– 51.Google Scholar
Homberg, Wilhelm. [1705]1706. “Suite des Eassays de chimie: article troisième: du souphre principe.” ADS, HuM, 1705, M 88–96. Reprinted.Google Scholar
Homberg, Wilhelm. [1706] 1707a. “Observations sur le fer au verre ardent.” ADS, HuM, 1706, M.158–165.Google Scholar
Homberg, Wilhelm. [1706] 1707b. “Suite de l'article trois des essais de chimie.” ADS, HuM, 1706, M.260–72.Google Scholar
Homberg, Wilhelm. [1702]1720. “Essay de l'analyse du souffre commun.” ADS, HuM, 1703, 2nd ed., Paris: Hocherau, 1718. M. 31–40.Google Scholar
Homberg, Wilhelm. [1702]1720. “Essay de chimie:Article premier:des principes de la chimie en général.” ADS, HuM,2nd ed., Paris, 1720. M. 33–52.Google Scholar
Hooykas, R. 1937. “Die Elementenlehre der Iatrochemiker.” Janus 41: 1–28.Google Scholar
Klein, Ursula 1994 verbindung und Affinität: Die Gundung der neuzeilichen chemie an der wende 17 zum 18. Jahrhunder Basel: Birkhaure.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemery, L. [1706]1707 “Que les plantes conrtiennent réellement du fer, et que cemétal entre necéssairement dans leur composition naturelle.” ADS, HuM, 1706 411 –418.Google Scholar
Lemery, L. [1707]1708 “Exp é riences nouvelles sur les huiles, et sur quelques autres matières où l'on ne s'étoit point encore avisé de chercher du fer.” ADS, Hum, 1707. M. 5–11.Google Scholar
Lemery, L. [1716]1718 “Explication mécanique de quelques différences assez curieuses qui résultent de la dissolution de differents sels dans l'eau commune.” ADS, Hum, 1716. M. 154–172.Google Scholar
Lemery, L. [1717]1719 “sur la volatilisation vray ou apparente des sels fixes.” ADS, Hum, 1717, M.246–256.Google Scholar
Lemery, Nicolas. 1681 Cours de chymie 4th ed. Paris.Google Scholar
partington, J. R. 1962 A History of chemistry 3 London Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
smeaton, W. A. 1970 “E.F. Geoffroy was Not A Newtonian chemist.” Ambix 18 212–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroup, Alic 1990 A company of scienstists: Botany, patronage, and community at the seventeenth century parisian Royal Academy of sciences Berkeley University of califonia press.Google Scholar