Lavoisier

  • J. R. Partington
Chapter

Abstract

Venel, the author of most of the chemical articles in the Encyclopédie of Diderot and D’Alembert,1 said that chemistry was little cultivated in France, the chemists ‘forment un peuple distinct, très-peu nombreux, ayant sa langue, ses loix, ses mystères, et vivant presque isolés’. There was a prejudice against it and its aims were misunderstood.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Footnotes

  1. 2.
    Duveen, Bibliotheca, 1949, 5.Google Scholar
  2. 4.
    Duveen, Bibliotheca, 1949, 5.Google Scholar
  3. 5.
    Ellis, Memoir of Sir Benjamin Thompson, Count Rumfor d, Boston, 1871, 576.Google Scholar
  4. 8.
    Oesper, J. Chem. Educ., 1936, xiii, 403.Google Scholar
  5. 9.
    In colour in McKie, Notes and Records of the Royal Society, 1949–50, vii, 1; for other portraits see T. L. Davis, J. Chem. Educ., 1934, xi, 211; McKie, (2); Phil. Mag., 1798, i, frontisp.; Colson, in Hanotaux, Histoire de la Nation Frangaise, 1924, xiv, 429 (‘le vielle de sa morte d’apres un tableau de la collection Louis David ayant appartenu à Raspail’).Google Scholar
  6. 1.
    Ann. Chim. y 1792, xv, 267; Oeuvres, ii, 812; Brougham, 1872, 322; Lenglen, Lavoisier Agronome, Paris, 1936.Google Scholar
  7. 2.
    See McKie, Notes and Records of the Royal Society, 1949–50, vii, 1; Guerlac, (1).Google Scholar
  8. 3.
    Girtanner, Anfangsgriinde der antiphlogistischen Chemie, Berlin, 1795, 8, makes Robespierre say directly to Lavoisier: ‘Fort mit Dir; wir brauchen jetz keine Gelehrte mehr’; see also Allgem.J. Chem. (Scherer), 1802, ix, 357.Google Scholar
  9. 2.
    Davis, J. Chem. Educ., 1934, xi, 211–12.Google Scholar
  10. 4.
    Hemmeter, Janus, 1921, xxv, 1, plate.Google Scholar
  11. 5.
    Crell, Ann., 1786,1, 525.Google Scholar
  12. 3.
    H. Brocard, Compti Rend., 1902, cxxxv, 574–5, giving a list of libraries in France containing documents by Lavoisier; he had not seen the volume in Perpignan. Partington, Nature, 1956, clxxviii, 1360.Google Scholar
  13. 2.
    Hultsch, Griechische und Römische Metrologie, 1882, 24; Jörgensen, 1909, 142, 149; lists of obsolete weights in Spielmann, Institutes de Chymie, tr. Cadet, 1770, i, 82; Gren, Handbuch der Chetnie, 1794, i, 123; tables of decimals of the French pound in Lavoisier, Traité, 1789, 561; tables of conversions of French to English weights in Kerr’s tr., Elements of Chemistry, 1796, 562; results of French experiments are recalculated to the metric system by Riffault, tr. of T. Thomson, SystSme de Chimie, 1809, ii, 480 f.Google Scholar
  14. 8.
    Walden, Mass, Zahl und Gewicht in der Chemie der Vergangenheit, in Ahren’s Samml. chem.- und chem.-techn. Vorträge, Stuttgart, 1931, viii, 47–55; Hooykaas, Chem. Weekbl., 1947, xliii, 244.Google Scholar
  15. 8.
    Macquer, Cadet, and Lavoisier, Intr. Obs. Phys., 1772 (1777), ii, 108, Cadet, ib., 112; Lavoisier, AdS, 1772 (1776), m 564; VIII, ii, 38; Brougham, 1872, 300, says the experiments were not made until late in 1773 and the memoir was probably read in 1774; see also De la Metherie, Obs. Phys., 1785, xxvii, 144 (burning diamond by Lavoisier’s method of a jet of oxygen directed on burning charcoal); a full account of all the experiments by D’Arcet, Rouelle, Mitouard, Cadet, Lavoisier and himself is given by Macqeur, Dictionnaire, 1778, i, 491–513.Google Scholar
  16. 5.
    Cramer, Elements of the Art of Assaying Metals, 1741, 250.Google Scholar
  17. 1.
    Cadet-Gassicourt, Biogr. Univ., 1843, iii, 337; Cap, Gazz. Méd. Paris, 1865, xx, 1–13; Grimaux, Rev. Scient., 1884, viii, 408; Hoefer, NBG, 1853, iv, 865; Jörgensen, 1909, 111–72; Lassus, Mém. de l’Inst., An VII (1799), ii, h 144–52; Ann. Chim., 1798, xxvi, 278; Neave, Ann. Sci., 1951, vii, 144 (portr.); Parmentier, Crell’s Ann., 1784, II, 257, 350.Google Scholar
  18. 7.
    Schulze, Dissertatio medica, in qua metallicum contagium in ciborum, potuum et medicamen-torum prceparatione ac asservatione cavendum indicatur: seu Mors in Ollâ, 4°, Altdorf, 1722.Google Scholar
  19. 9.
    Obs. Phys., 1773, ii, 281: De la Doctrine de M. de Morveau, sur le Phlogistique; & Observations sur cette Doctrine; the criticisms are mostly in the ‘Suite’, 285 f.; Partington and McKie, Ann. Sci., 1937, ii, 361 (399).Google Scholar
  20. 3.
    U. Boklund, Lychnos, 1957, 39-62; id., Carl Wilhelm Scheele Bruna Boken, Stockholm, 1961, 84; facsim., 42.Google Scholar
  21. 11.
    Hartog, Proc. Roy. Inst., 1931, xxvi, 395–430; reprint, 25. See also Rodwell, Nature, 1882, xxvii, 8; B. H. Paul, in Watts, Dictionary of Chemistry, 1872, ii, 778; Foster, 1901, 244–5; Mellor, Treatise on Chemistry, 1922, i, 345.Google Scholar
  22. 3.
    W. Henry, An Estimate of the Philosophical Character of Dr. Priestley, York, 1832,15.Google Scholar
  23. 4.
    Fontana, Recherches physiques sur la Nature de l’Air Nitreux et de l’Air Déphlogistiqué, Paris, 1776, 117–21.Google Scholar
  24. 5.
    Op. cit., xxvii f.Google Scholar
  25. 4.
    Muirhead, Correspondence of James Watt, 1846, 41.Google Scholar
  26. 5.
    Bergman, Opuscula, Uppsala, 1783, iii, 82, 93, 95 (limaturi martis sub aqua aeris inflammabilis portionem promat, in pulverem nigrum sensim fatiscens); publ. in 1781; the discovery was really made by Scheele, see p. 229.Google Scholar
  27. 8.
    Daumas and Duveen, Chymia, 1959, v, 113–29.Google Scholar
  28. 6.
    Monge, AdS, 1783 (1786), m 78; repr. in Muirhead, Correspondence of James Watt, 1846, 205 f.; tr. of part in Partington, The Composition of Water, 1928,49.Google Scholar
  29. 1.
    On this, see Humboldt and Gay-Lussac, J. de Phys., 1805, lx, 129 (144).Google Scholar
  30. 2.
    Description de quelques Appereils Chimiques, in Verhandelingen uitgegeeven door Teyler’s Tweede Genootschapy Haarlem, 1798, Stuk 10, 1 f.; communicated to Berthollet on 31 December 1791, and printed in abstract in Ann. Chim., 1792, xii, 113; J. der Physik, 1792, v, 154–76, and plates; Phil. Mag. 1798, ii, 85 (plates); the apparatus was modified by Thenard, Traité de Chimie, 1834, i, 256; Atlas, p1. 14, fig. 1.Google Scholar
  31. 1.
    Van Marum, Description d’une tres grande Machine Electrique, in Verhandelingen, etc., 1785, Stuk 3, p. 190; 1795, Stuk 9, pp. 176, 258.Google Scholar
  32. 8.
    Croharé, apothecary to the Comte d’Artois, Mém. Soc. Roy. de méd., 1776 (1779), 324 (326).Google Scholar
  33. 4.
    Amoretti and Soave, Opuscoli Scelti sulle Scienze e sulle Arti, Milan, 1783, vi, 325; Ingen Housz, Nouvelles expériences et Observations sur divers Objets de Physique, 2 vols., Paris, 1785–9, i, 400, 446; Lippmann, (1), i, 252; Speter, Draeger-Hefte, Lübeck, 1935, 2884, points out that Lichtenberg burnt iron in oxygen in 1782, but Lippmann, and Cohen, Janus, 1909, xiv, 21–32, think he had heard of the experiment from Ingen Housz; M. Garthshore, Ann. Phil., 1817, x, 161, says Ingen Housz was fond of showing this experiment to his lady friends. It was shown to German chemists by Gottling in the summer of 1793 and was regarded as very convincing evidence of the truth of Lavoisier’s new theory: Scherer, Grundzüge der neuern chemischen Théorie, Jena, 1795, 50.Google Scholar
  34. 7.
    W. A. Smeaton, Ann. Sci., 1956 (1957), xii, 157, quoting: Instruction sur l’établissement des Nitrierès et sur la Fabrication du Salpêtre (1777); Observations sur le travail des Eaux-Mères de Salpêtre, et sur celui des Eaux d’Atelier (1778); L’Art de Fabriquer le Salin et la Potasse (1779); Instructions sur les moyens que Von peut employer pour connoitre la qualité des Salpitres …, 1787 (28 pp.); Instruction sur la manière dont on doitprocéder à l’épreuve du Salpêtre, 1789. See H. Lenoir, Historique et legislation du salpêtre (1793–5), Paris, 1922 (Isis, 1924–5, vi, 215; 1925, vii, 223); Partington, (4), 320 f.Google Scholar
  35. 2.
    C. E. Jullien, La Chimie nouvelle; ou le Grassier de la nomenclature chimique de Lavoisier deblayé, 8°, Paris, 1870 (BM).Google Scholar
  36. 11.
    Systematisches Handbuch der gesammten Chemie, 2 ed., Erfurt, 1805 f., i, 137.Google Scholar
  37. 12.
    Kurze Darstellung der chemischen Untersuchungen der Gasarten, 3 ed., Berlin, 1808, 26 (1 ed. Weimar, 1799).Google Scholar
  38. 4.
    On the interest taken in Lavoisier in Edinburgh see Lord Cockburn, Memorials of his Time, Edinburgh, 1856, 45; for American ed., Philadelphia, 1799, Lusk and le Goff, Bull. Soc. Chim., 1920, xxvii, 667; Duveen, Isis, 1950, xli, 168; id. and Klickstein, Ann. Sci., 1954, x, 321.Google Scholar
  39. 6.
    E.g. Anon., A Critical Examination of the first part of Lavoisier’s Elements of Chemistry, 8°, London, 1797; BM T. 99. (3.).Google Scholar
  40. 15.
    Die Begründung der Chemie durch Lavoisier, J. prakt. Chem., 1870, ii, 1–47, see especially pp. 9, 17, 38; Guichard, Essai historique sur les Mesures en Chimie, 1937, ii, 64.Google Scholar
  41. 8.
    Ib., 79–80; Girtanner, Anfangsgrunde der antiphlogistischen Chemie, Berlin, 1792, 462; 2 ed., 1795, 460; Kopp, (1), iii, 164.Google Scholar
  42. 5.
    Pref. to his (6) ed. of Erxleben, Anfangsgriinden der Naturlehre, Göttingen, 1794, xxii.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© J. R. Partington 1962

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. R. Partington
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University of LondonUK
  2. 2.Queen Mary CollegeLondonUK

Personalised recommendations