“Sooty Empiricks” and Natural Philosophers: The Status of Chemistry in the Seventeenth Century

This article argues that during the seventeenth century chemistry achieved intellectual and institutional recognition, starting its transition from a practical art – subordinated to medicine – into an independent discipline. This process was by no means a smooth one, as it took place amidst polemics...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Science in context 2010-09, Vol.23 (3), p.329-350
1. Verfasser: Clericuzio, Antonio
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 350
container_issue 3
container_start_page 329
container_title Science in context
container_volume 23
creator Clericuzio, Antonio
description This article argues that during the seventeenth century chemistry achieved intellectual and institutional recognition, starting its transition from a practical art – subordinated to medicine – into an independent discipline. This process was by no means a smooth one, as it took place amidst polemics and conflicts lasting more than a century. It began when Andreas Libavius endeavored to turn chemistry into a teaching discipline, imposing method and order. Chemistry underwent harsh criticism from Descartes and the Cartesians, who reduced natural phenomena to the mechanical affections of matter, leaving little room for chemistry as an independent discipline. Boyle rejected the chemical principles and promoted the fusion of chemistry with corpuscularianism. He did not reduce chemical phenomena to the mechanical affections of matter, but strived to promote chemistry as part of natural philosophy. Lemery gave strong impulse to the recognition of chemistry as a discipline in its own right by fostering a compromise of chemistry and mechanism. Lemery adopted the chemical principles, but did not see them as the ultimate ingredients of bodies. In order to promote chemistry, he distanced it from alchemy and pursued the reform of chemical terminology.
doi_str_mv 10.1017/S0269889710000104
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_734393027</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S0269889710000104</cupid><sourcerecordid>2095904671</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c354t-48ce75bae0525e970852099d285580f53280322739d3e484c036d968c502c343</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMtOwzAQRS0EEqXwAews9gHH77CDqBSk8ijNgp2VJg5JXwl2gsiuHwI_1y_BUStYICyNvTj3zvUMAKc-OveRLy4mCPNAykD4yB0f0T3Q86mgHuKc7oNeh72OH4Ija2dOwgnmPTDdrD8nZVm3cLCsClMkc7tZf8F4lcKHuG5MvIBPebEobVnl2thLGOUaTmqHLCwzGOZ6WdjatLBYwbpD-l2vau0qh6G7G9Meg4MsXlh9snv7ILoZROGtN3oc3oVXIy8hjNYelYkWbBprxDDTgUCSYRQEKZaMSZQxgiUiGAsSpERTSRNEeBpwmTCEE0JJH5xt21amfGu0rdWsbMzKJSrhcECQ8_aBvxUlprTW6ExVpljGplU-Ut0i1Z9FOo-39bhB9cePITZzxQURTPHhWN1fMzF-eUYqcnqyy4iXU1Okr_r3J_-nfAO7Z4Rt</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>734393027</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>“Sooty Empiricks” and Natural Philosophers: The Status of Chemistry in the Seventeenth Century</title><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Clericuzio, Antonio</creator><creatorcontrib>Clericuzio, Antonio</creatorcontrib><description>This article argues that during the seventeenth century chemistry achieved intellectual and institutional recognition, starting its transition from a practical art – subordinated to medicine – into an independent discipline. This process was by no means a smooth one, as it took place amidst polemics and conflicts lasting more than a century. It began when Andreas Libavius endeavored to turn chemistry into a teaching discipline, imposing method and order. Chemistry underwent harsh criticism from Descartes and the Cartesians, who reduced natural phenomena to the mechanical affections of matter, leaving little room for chemistry as an independent discipline. Boyle rejected the chemical principles and promoted the fusion of chemistry with corpuscularianism. He did not reduce chemical phenomena to the mechanical affections of matter, but strived to promote chemistry as part of natural philosophy. Lemery gave strong impulse to the recognition of chemistry as a discipline in its own right by fostering a compromise of chemistry and mechanism. Lemery adopted the chemical principles, but did not see them as the ultimate ingredients of bodies. In order to promote chemistry, he distanced it from alchemy and pursued the reform of chemical terminology.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0269-8897</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1474-0664</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S0269889710000104</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>Chemistry ; Philosophy of science ; Science history</subject><ispartof>Science in context, 2010-09, Vol.23 (3), p.329-350</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c354t-48ce75bae0525e970852099d285580f53280322739d3e484c036d968c502c343</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c354t-48ce75bae0525e970852099d285580f53280322739d3e484c036d968c502c343</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0269889710000104/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,315,781,785,27926,27927,55630</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Clericuzio, Antonio</creatorcontrib><title>“Sooty Empiricks” and Natural Philosophers: The Status of Chemistry in the Seventeenth Century</title><title>Science in context</title><addtitle>Science in Context</addtitle><description>This article argues that during the seventeenth century chemistry achieved intellectual and institutional recognition, starting its transition from a practical art – subordinated to medicine – into an independent discipline. This process was by no means a smooth one, as it took place amidst polemics and conflicts lasting more than a century. It began when Andreas Libavius endeavored to turn chemistry into a teaching discipline, imposing method and order. Chemistry underwent harsh criticism from Descartes and the Cartesians, who reduced natural phenomena to the mechanical affections of matter, leaving little room for chemistry as an independent discipline. Boyle rejected the chemical principles and promoted the fusion of chemistry with corpuscularianism. He did not reduce chemical phenomena to the mechanical affections of matter, but strived to promote chemistry as part of natural philosophy. Lemery gave strong impulse to the recognition of chemistry as a discipline in its own right by fostering a compromise of chemistry and mechanism. Lemery adopted the chemical principles, but did not see them as the ultimate ingredients of bodies. In order to promote chemistry, he distanced it from alchemy and pursued the reform of chemical terminology.</description><subject>Chemistry</subject><subject>Philosophy of science</subject><subject>Science history</subject><issn>0269-8897</issn><issn>1474-0664</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2010</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kMtOwzAQRS0EEqXwAews9gHH77CDqBSk8ijNgp2VJg5JXwl2gsiuHwI_1y_BUStYICyNvTj3zvUMAKc-OveRLy4mCPNAykD4yB0f0T3Q86mgHuKc7oNeh72OH4Ija2dOwgnmPTDdrD8nZVm3cLCsClMkc7tZf8F4lcKHuG5MvIBPebEobVnl2thLGOUaTmqHLCwzGOZ6WdjatLBYwbpD-l2vau0qh6G7G9Meg4MsXlh9snv7ILoZROGtN3oc3oVXIy8hjNYelYkWbBprxDDTgUCSYRQEKZaMSZQxgiUiGAsSpERTSRNEeBpwmTCEE0JJH5xt21amfGu0rdWsbMzKJSrhcECQ8_aBvxUlprTW6ExVpljGplU-Ut0i1Z9FOo-39bhB9cePITZzxQURTPHhWN1fMzF-eUYqcnqyy4iXU1Okr_r3J_-nfAO7Z4Rt</recordid><startdate>201009</startdate><enddate>201009</enddate><creator>Clericuzio, Antonio</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201009</creationdate><title>“Sooty Empiricks” and Natural Philosophers: The Status of Chemistry in the Seventeenth Century</title><author>Clericuzio, Antonio</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c354t-48ce75bae0525e970852099d285580f53280322739d3e484c036d968c502c343</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2010</creationdate><topic>Chemistry</topic><topic>Philosophy of science</topic><topic>Science history</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Clericuzio, Antonio</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric &amp; Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Science in context</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Clericuzio, Antonio</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>“Sooty Empiricks” and Natural Philosophers: The Status of Chemistry in the Seventeenth Century</atitle><jtitle>Science in context</jtitle><addtitle>Science in Context</addtitle><date>2010-09</date><risdate>2010</risdate><volume>23</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>329</spage><epage>350</epage><pages>329-350</pages><issn>0269-8897</issn><eissn>1474-0664</eissn><abstract>This article argues that during the seventeenth century chemistry achieved intellectual and institutional recognition, starting its transition from a practical art – subordinated to medicine – into an independent discipline. This process was by no means a smooth one, as it took place amidst polemics and conflicts lasting more than a century. It began when Andreas Libavius endeavored to turn chemistry into a teaching discipline, imposing method and order. Chemistry underwent harsh criticism from Descartes and the Cartesians, who reduced natural phenomena to the mechanical affections of matter, leaving little room for chemistry as an independent discipline. Boyle rejected the chemical principles and promoted the fusion of chemistry with corpuscularianism. He did not reduce chemical phenomena to the mechanical affections of matter, but strived to promote chemistry as part of natural philosophy. Lemery gave strong impulse to the recognition of chemistry as a discipline in its own right by fostering a compromise of chemistry and mechanism. Lemery adopted the chemical principles, but did not see them as the ultimate ingredients of bodies. In order to promote chemistry, he distanced it from alchemy and pursued the reform of chemical terminology.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S0269889710000104</doi><tpages>22</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0269-8897
ispartof Science in context, 2010-09, Vol.23 (3), p.329-350
issn 0269-8897
1474-0664
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_734393027
source Cambridge University Press Journals Complete
subjects Chemistry
Philosophy of science
Science history
title “Sooty Empiricks” and Natural Philosophers: The Status of Chemistry in the Seventeenth Century
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-18T06%3A19%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=%E2%80%9CSooty%20Empiricks%E2%80%9D%20and%20Natural%20Philosophers:%20The%20Status%20of%20Chemistry%20in%20the%20Seventeenth%20Century&rft.jtitle=Science%20in%20context&rft.au=Clericuzio,%20Antonio&rft.date=2010-09&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=329&rft.epage=350&rft.pages=329-350&rft.issn=0269-8897&rft.eissn=1474-0664&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S0269889710000104&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2095904671%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=734393027&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S0269889710000104&rfr_iscdi=true