The Emergence of Modern Chemistry With No Debt to Atomism

Abstract

According to William Newman, Boyle set chemistry on its modern course by setting it in the framework of the mechanical philosophy. I challenge this. Talk of corpuscles of impenetrable matter characterised by their shape, size and degree of motion only was too impoverished and too far removed from what could be experimentally tested to be of any help to chemistry. Boyle accommodated to his mechanical philosophy a chemistry acquired by other means, and with less success than either he or Newman imply. The new chemistry focused on substances that could be built up from and broken down into their components, drawing on techniques developed in metallurgy and pharmacy. I draw on the work of Ursula Klein, who has argued this thesis and shown how characteristics of the new chemistry can be seen in what came to be regraded as the first of a series of tables of affinity, published by E. T. Geoffroy in 1718. Chemistry was set on the path to Lavoisier in a way that owed no debt to the atomism of the likes of Boyle and Newton.