This essay focuses on an unknown Latin translation of Georg Ernst Stahl's treatise on the nature of sulfur (Zufällige Gedancken und Nützliche Bedencken über den Streit von dem so genannten Sulfure). The original edition, published in 1718, laid the foundation for the phlogiston theory, which dominated European chemistry until the early 1770s. However, the dissemination of the treatise on sulfur outside the German states remained limited. Its Latin translation proposes a different scenario as it was owned by three prominent French (...) chemists: Étienne-François Geoffroy, Jean Hellot and Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier. Geoffroy's early interest in Stahl's chemistry has been evidenced and it is suggested that the acquisition of the manuscript might be linked to his connection with Stahl through Caspar Neumann, a chemist from Berlin. When he entered in the possession of the manuscript Jean Hellot wrote a long excerpt of Stahl’s work. Lavoisier acquired the manuscript in 1766, and his critical reading of Stahl's work significantly influenced his own effort to outline a new theory of combustion. This manuscript represents a significant historical connection between Stahl’s phlogiston theory and Lavoisier's revolutionary ideas. (shrink)

Throughout his scientific career, Lavoisier paid particular attention to the study of electricity. In the early 1760s, the French chemist was deeply influenced by Abbé Nollet's lectures as part of one of his private courses in experimental physics. Subsequently, Lavoisier always tried to apply to chemistry experiments the precision standards of physics instruments, including electrical ones. He often collaborated with Jacques-Mathurin Brisson, became friends with Benjamin Franklin, did electrical experiments with Alessandro Volta, was favorably impressed by the work of Charles-Augustin (...) Coulomb and the Academy of Sciences asked him for reports on the work on electricity of Jean-Paul Marat and other works concerning electrical phenomena. It is therefore surprising to note that, despite all this, Lavoisier published very little on electricity and that he tried to avoid discussing in detail both the coherence of electrical theories and their usefulness for research in chemistry. Faced with electricity, Lavoisier actually became hesitant and contradictory. For reasons that will be analyzed throughout my study, Lavoisier thought that electricity was a notion that could not provide much help in explaining pneumatic phenomena and, more generally, not very useful for research in chemistry. The study of electricity had been at the center of Lavoisier's attention throughout his scientific career. In the early 1760s, the French chemist was deeply influenced by the lectures delivered by the abbé Nollet in one of his private courses in experimental physics. Thereafter, Lavoisier constantly tried to apply the standards of precision of physical instruments, including electrical ones, to chemical experimentation. He frequently collaborated with Jacques-Mathurin Brisson; he became a friend of Benjamin Franklin; he did electrical experiments with Alessandro Volta; he was impressed by Charles-Augustin Coulomb's works; and he was asked by the Académie des sciences to report on Jean-Paul Marat's work on electricity, as well as on other works dealing with electrical phenomena. Against this background it is rather surprising that Lavoisier published very little on electricity, and he tried to avoid discussing in detail either the consistency of electrical theories or their utility for chemical research. When dealing with electricity, Lavoisier in fact became hesitant and contradictory. For reasons that I will discuss at some length, Lavoisier thought that electricity was a notion of little help for the explanation of pneumatic phenomena and, more generally, for chemical research. -/- . (shrink)

On the basis of a significant number of unpublished documents, here published for the first time, the article reconstructs the historical and scientific origins of Lavoisier's Mémoires de physique et de chimie. Because of the paucity of primary sources available so far, this work has previously received little attention and its 'publication' is commonly attributed to Madame Lavoisier's effort to revive the memory of her husband. In contrast with this image, this article suggests that Madame Lavoisier had only a subsidiary (...) role and that Armand Séguin's contribution to both the editing and the scientific organization of the Mémoires needs a historical reassessment. Lavoisier's collaboration with Séguin, dating from 1792, resulted in a work the aim of which was far more ambitious than that of collecting already published memoirs. Furthermore, it is argued that the contents of the first volume of the Mémoires indicate an important evolution in Lavoisier's chemical theory. (shrink)