Robert Boyle’s Corpuscular Chemistry: Atomism before Its Time
In her important and pioneering work on Robert Boyle’s contributions to chemistry Marie Boas Hall (Boas 1958; and Hall 1965, 81–93) portrayed Boyle’s advances as being tied up with and facilitated by his adoption of the new world view, the mechanical or corpuscular philosophy, as opposed to Aristotelian or Paracelsian philosophies or world views. In recent decades such a reading has been challenged. Historians of chemistry such as Frederic L. Holmes (1989), Ursula Klein (1994, 1995, 1996) and Mi Gyung Kim (2003) have portrayed modern chemistry as emerging in the seventeenth century by way of a path closely tied to technological and experimental practice and relatively independent of overarching philosophies or world views. Such a perspective raises questions about how productive Boyle’s attempts to wed chemistry and the mechanical philosopher were as far as the emergence of modern chemistry is concerned. This is the issue I will investigate. In recent work on Boyle’s chemistry William Newman (2006) has also taken issue with what he calls the “traditional accounts,” especially that of Hall. Newman’s quarrel with the traditional accounts is the extent to which they read Boyle’s corpuscular chemistry as emerging out of the atomism of Democritus and Lucretius and its reincarnations in the hands of early mechanical philosophers such as Descartes and Gassendi, neglecting a corpuscular tradition that has its origins in Aristotle’s Meteorology. In a range of detailed and pioneering studies Newman (1991, 1996, 2001, 2006) has documented the elaboration of the latter tradition in the works of the thirteenth century author known as Geber and its passage to Boyle, especially via Daniel Sennert, a Wittenburg professor of medicine in the early seventeenth century. While Newman’s work has led to a substantial and significant re-evaluation of the sources of Boyle’s corpuscular chemistry there is a sense in which he does not break from the “traditional” view insofar as he reads the revolutionary aspects of Boyle’s chemistry in terms of a change from an Aristotelian to a mechanical matter theory.