Although the volume of the surviving papers of Robert Boyle is substantial (over 20,000 leaves), a considerable amount of the written material left by Boyle at his death in 1691 has not survived in the Boyle archive. This paper gauges the scale and identity of these losses using the surviving inventories made by the Rev. Henry Miles in the 1740s when he was collecting and sorting Boyle's literary remains in conjunction with Thomas Birch's preparation of his 1744 Life and Works (...) of Boyle. These detailed lists (edited as appendices to this paper), together with other sources, indicate losses due to a variety of reasons, some deliberate, others accidental. The losses involved the disposal of both items judged (in the eighteenth century) to be peripheral to Boyle's archive and, ironically, those in the most finished state from Boyle's hand, which were perhaps abortively destined for the Birch edition. These losses have significantly altered the character of the Boyle Papers, and thus the view of Boyle that is derived from them. (shrink)

Alchemy now holds an important place in the history of science. Its current status contrasts with its former exile as a “pseudoscience” or worse and results from several rehabilitative steps carried out by scholars who made closer, less programmatic, and more innovative studies of the documentary sources. Interestingly, alchemy's outcast status was created in the eighteenth century and perpetuated thereafter in part for strategic and polemical reasons—and not only on account of a lack of historical understanding. Alchemy's return to the (...) fold of the history of science highlights important features about the development of science and our changing understanding of it. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Alchemy now holds an important place in the history of science. Its current status contrasts with its former exile as a “pseudoscience” or worse and results from several rehabilitative steps carried out by scholars who made closer, less programmatic, and more innovative studies of the documentary sources. Interestingly, alchemy's outcast status was created in the eighteenth century and perpetuated thereafter in part for strategic and polemical reasons—and not only on account of a lack of historical understanding. Alchemy's return to (...) the fold of the history of science highlights important features about the development of science and our changing understanding of it. (shrink)

In 1677, Georges Pierre des Clozets visited Robert Boyle and told him that he had been approved for membership in the Asterism, a secret international society of alchemical masters, headed by Pierre's patron Georges du Mesnillet, the Patriarch of Antioch. Extensive correspondence followed, replete with gifts and bizarre claims, until Pierre vanished in August 1678. This paper links several new documents—articles in the Mercure galant and the Gazette de France and a manuscript account by another convinced admirer of Pierre—to my (...) previous study of him, particularly in regard to Pierre's claim to be working with the Patriarch to reunite Eastern and Western Churches. Dating from before and after Boyle's involvement, these sources add fresh details about Pierre and his other contacts, and show the consistency of Pierre's stories and the credibility he fashioned as he travelled around Europe convincing people of his claims alchemical and otherwise. (shrink)

The Century between the death of Copernicus and the birth of Newton witnessed a major reshaping of traditional ways of viewing the universe. The Ptolemaic system was challenged by Copernican heliocentrism, the Aristotelian world was assailed by Galilean physics and revived atomism, and theology was troubled by the progressive distancing of God from the daily operation of His creation. Besides earning this era the title of ‘the Scientific Revolution’, the intellectual ferment of these times offered many world systems as successors (...) to the throne of crumbling Aristotelianism. (shrink)

The dissemination of accurate accounts of the history of science to a wider public is a crucial enterprise. Both professional historians of science and popular writers have key contributions to make in this endeavor, and they can learn valuable lessons from each other. The need to provide correct, up‐to‐date, and well‐documented and well‐attributed narratives is equally incumbent on both groups. Popular texts can be both engagingly written and truthful about history and its methods, and professional historians should be encouraged to (...) try their hand at this genre on occasion, borrowing what is useful from popular writers and enriching it with their own firsthand experience of historical research. Finally, the intelligence of the reading public should not be underestimated, and it would be injudicious for historians to miss the opportunity of presenting our enterprise and its results directly to that public. (shrink)

En 1705, Wilhem Homberg, le principal chimiste de l’Académie royale des sciences, proposa une nouvelle théorie chimique selon laquelle le Soufre principe des corps mixtes était identique à la lumière. Il affirma par la suite que cette lumière corporelle était la seule source d’activité et de changement dans les substances matérielles. Cet article montre comment la théorie de Homberg s’élabora progressivement pendant de nombreuses années sous l’influence de ses observations et des résultats de ses expériences de laboratoire, ce qui nous (...) fournit un exemple de la manière selon laquelle un chimiste du début du XVIIIe siècle a pu développer une théorie raffinée grâce à l’interaction de la réflexion et de la manipulation. L’influence probable de la théorie de Homberg sur les fameuses « questions chimiques » de Newton est également signalée ici pour la première fois. Enfin l’article avance que nous comprendrons plus précisément l’histoire de la chimie si nous reconnaissons le caractère spécifique de la chimie et sa relative autonomie, plutôt que si nous cherchons à lui imposer des développements faciles et convenus tirés d’autres champs du savoir comme la philosophie ou la physique. (shrink)

The fifteenth‐century Augustinian canon and alchemist George Ripley is one of the most important figures in early English alchemy. As the chief popularizer of the alchemical principles of the pseudo‐Lull, he initiated an influential school of English alchemy that remained resilient to the end of the seventeenth century. John Dee, George Starkey, Robert Boyle, and Isaac Newton all read Ripley carefully, and Michael Maier is said to have learned English just so that he could read Ripley in the original tongue.But (...) Ripley has encountered the fate of many alchemical writers: reliable biographical data about him is scarce and nearly overwhelmed by the accumulation of rumors and legends, and his corpus is a farrago of genuine, adulterated, and spurious works springing from several periods and places. Naturally, this messy situation renders solid historical inquiry difficult, and so one of the first tasks must be to produce more reliable biographical and bibliographical foundations for studies of Ripley and his influence.The current volume, although published by Ashgate, greatly resembles a further installment in the Garland English Renaissance Hermeticism Series, of which Stanton Linden was the general editor. The bulk of the book is a reprint of the 1591 London edition of Ripley's Compound of Alchymy—his longest and most influential work—a versification in rhyme royal on the making of the philosophers' stone. The reprinted text is preceded by an introduction and followed by explanatory notes, many of them making use of Eirenaeus Philalethes' Ripley Reviv'd, a lengthy commentary on the Compound published in 1678, and of Elias Ashmole's Theatrum chemicum britannicum, in which the Compound was published with annotations in 1652.The historian of science might well question why the 1591 printed edition was chosen as the primary text when there are at least nine fifteenth‐century manuscripts of the Compound in existence. Linden expresses his belief in the superiority of Rabbard's 1591 edition over Ashmole's 1652 edition—though he bases this preference, somewhat curiously, on the modernity of the former's spelling and punctuation—but he does not note explicitly why Rabbard's text should be preferable to manuscripts written during Ripley's lifetime. This decision is presumably due, however, to the apparent connection of this book to the English Renaissance Hermeticism Series, and Linden's greater interest in the late sixteenth‐century scene is clear in the detailed account he provides of the production of the 1591 edition. This treatment contrasts with the relatively less critical interest shown toward details on Ripley himself, for the biographical section simply lists items about Ripley's life as summarized around 1900 and includes some points that must be incorrect . Given Linden's fine researches published previously, this comes as a bit of a disappointment, although it must be recalled that even Ashmole had trouble getting details on Ripley three hundred years ago.Students of alchemy should welcome the appearance of a reprint of a primary source. Those who are interested in Renaissance publications of alchemical works and who approach Ripley primarily as an English poet and literary figure will benefit from the book. Questions of course remain, and it is to be hoped that this volume will attract more attention to further aspects of the famous Canon of Bridlington and his work. (shrink)