The chemical revolution

2020 ◽  
Vol 98 (2) ◽  
pp. 16-19
Keyword(s):  
Chemical Revolution

THE CHEMICAL REVOLUTION: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT

Nuncius ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-315 ◽  
Author(s):  
FERDINANDO ABBRI
Keyword(s):  
Critical Assessment ◽  
Chemical Revolution

Mineralogy and the 'Chemical Revolution'

Centaurus ◽  
1975 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. R. OLDROYD
Keyword(s):  
Chemical Revolution

Philosophy and the Chemical Revolution after Kant

2017 ◽  
pp. 182-204
Author(s):  
Michela Massimi
Keyword(s):  
Chemical Revolution

Lavoisier writes to Fourcroy from prison

1958 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-60
Keyword(s):  
French Revolution ◽  
Ancien Regime ◽  
Chemical Revolution ◽  
Educational Curriculum ◽  
Ancien Régime ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The French Revolution

The principal architects of the ‘chemical revolution’ may well be said to have been Antoine Laurent Lavoisier (1743-1794) and Antoine Francois Fourcroy (1755-1809). The former by the intuitive genius of his brain, the extraordinary manipulative skill of his hands and the impeccable logic of his mind elaborated and set forth those truths on which modem chemistry was founded. The latter used his ingratiating and flexible personality, oratorical ability and facile pen to publicize the new chemistry and see that it was embodied in the educational curriculum. Lavoisier helped Fourcroy during his earlier years and used his prestige and influence to advance the younger man and obtain financial preferment for him. Under the ancien régime Lavoisier was rich, respected and influential; Fourcroy led a struggling existence for many years. The French Revolution was to bring Lavoisier misery and legal assassination; the same period saw Fourcroy’s prestige and power rise to a maximum. The relationship existing between the two men presents an as yet unsolved puzzle. Fourcroy’s biography still has to be written, as does an authoritative one of Lavoisier, when all the material is available. The latter’s standard biographer, Edouard Grimaux, wrote three-quarters of a century ago and his work needs to be superseded by an objective and fully documented modern study. Grimaux strongly condemned Fourcroy for allowing Lavoisier to be sent to the guillotine and implies that, possibly motivated by jealousy, he may have helped to speed him on his way. Modern scholars are inclined to the opinion that Grimaux maligned Fourcroy unjustifiably. The charge, however, was evidently current shortly after Lavoisier’s death, for in a speech delivered only two years after the lamentable event Fourcroy felt constrained to defend himself against an accusation which was to haunt him for the rest of his days and pursue him from his own death until the present day.

scholarly journals The role of instruments in the dissemination of the Chemical Revolution

ENDOXA ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 1 (19) ◽  
pp. 227
Author(s):  
Trevor H. Levere
Keyword(s):  
Chemical Revolution

Experiment and Quantification of Weight: Late-Renaissance and Early Modern Medical, Mineralogical and Chemical Discussions on the Weights of Metals

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 388-412
Author(s):  
Silvia Manzo
Keyword(s):  
Early Modern ◽  
Experiential Knowledge ◽  
Specific Subject ◽  
Chemical Revolution ◽  
Late Renaissance ◽  
Changing Role

Abstract This paper explores how a set of observations on the weight of lead were interpreted and assessed between the 1540s and the 1630s across three different interconnecting disciplines: medicine, mineralogy and chemistry. The epistemic import of these discussions will be demonstrated by showing: 1) the changing role and articulation of experience and quantification in the investigation of metals; and 2) the notions associated with weight in different disciplinary frameworks. In medicine and mineralogy, weight was not considered as a specific subject of inquiry in itself, but as a “sign” indicating other relevant properties of metals. In contrast, the chemistry tradition was increasingly concerned with the specific investigation of weight as a property of matter, as seen in the debates that took place in the “chemical revolution.” In addition, this study will reveal the versatility, polysemy, and parallel purposes of the recourse to experiential knowledge in different contexts, where the same “facts” operate within different disciplines.

The Chemical Revolution

2020 ◽  
pp. 264-277
Author(s):  
Carleton E. Perrin
Keyword(s):  
Chemical Revolution

The Changing Relation between Atomicity and Elementarity

2020 ◽  
pp. 87-108
Author(s):  
Marina P. Banchetti-Robino
Keyword(s):  
Nineteenth Century ◽  
Quantitative Analysis ◽  
Chemical Analysis ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Current Understanding ◽  
Atomic Theory ◽  
Chemical Revolution ◽  
Fundamental Nature ◽  
Form Compound ◽  
Nature Of Matter

Early modern efforts to reconceptualize atomicity as a chymical notion fell by the wayside during the chemical revolution, as Antoine Lavoisier’s desire to transform chemistry into a strictly empirical and quantitative science led him to reject all metaphysical speculation about the fundamental nature of matter. Instead, Lavoisier focused on identifying elementary substances, which he defined operationally as the final products of chemical analysis. Our current understanding of the relation between atoms and elements, however, owes a great deal to the work of nineteenth-century chemist John Dalton. Dalton’s chemical atomic theory reconciled the concepts of “atomicity” and “elementarity” and rendered both as empirical and chemical notions, amenable to measurement and quantitative analysis. One of the central goals of Dalton’s theory was understanding how relative weights of chemical atoms determine the properties of elements and how the chemical atoms of different elements combine to form compound substances. Thus, Dalton’s theory provided a way of studying and measuring the properties of atoms and elements in a way that allowed chemists to finally understand the chemical relations between them.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document