Mineral waters across the Channel: matter theory and natural history from Samuel Duclos's minerallogenesis to Martin Lister's chymical magnetism, ca. 1666–86

IF 0.4 3区 哲学 Q3 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science Pub Date : 2015-12-20 DOI:10.1098/rsnr.2014.0066
A. M. Roos, Victor D. Boantza
{"title":"Mineral waters across the Channel: matter theory and natural history from Samuel Duclos's minerallogenesis to Martin Lister's chymical magnetism, ca. 1666–86","authors":"A. M. Roos, Victor D. Boantza","doi":"10.1098/rsnr.2014.0066","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Our essay analyses a little-known book, Observations sur les eaux minerales des plusieurs provinces de France (1675), which is a study of French mineral waters, commissioned by and conducted at the French Royal Academy of Science (est. 1666). Its author, Samuel Cottereau Duclos (1598–1685), was a senior founding figure of the Academy, its chief chymist and one of its most influential members. We examine Observations with a focus on the changing attitudes towards chymical knowledge and practice in the French Academy and the Royal Society of London in the period 1666–84. Chymistry was a fundamental analytical tool for seventeenth-century natural historians, and, as the work of Lawrence Principe and William Newman has shown, it is central to understanding the ‘long’ Scientific Revolution. Much study has also been done on the developing norms of openness in the dissemination and presentation of scientific, and particularly chymical knowledge in the late seventeenth century, norms that were at odds with traditions of secrecy among individual chymists. Between these two standards a tension arose, evidenced by early modern ‘vociferous criticisms’ of chymical obscurity, with different strategies developed by individual philosophers for negotiating the emergent boundaries between secrecy and openness. Less well studied, however, are the strategies by which not just individuals but also scientific institutions negotiated these boundaries, particularly in the formative years of their public and political reputation in the late seventeenth century. Michael Hunter's recent and welcome study of the ‘decline of magic’ at the Royal Society has to some extent remedied these omissions. Hunter argues that the Society—as a corporate body—disregarded and avoided studies of magical and alchemical subjects in the late seventeenth century. Our examination problematizes these distinctions and presents a more complex picture.","PeriodicalId":49744,"journal":{"name":"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science","volume":"69 1","pages":"373 - 394"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1098/rsnr.2014.0066","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Notes and Records-The Royal Society Journal of the History of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2014.0066","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Our essay analyses a little-known book, Observations sur les eaux minerales des plusieurs provinces de France (1675), which is a study of French mineral waters, commissioned by and conducted at the French Royal Academy of Science (est. 1666). Its author, Samuel Cottereau Duclos (1598–1685), was a senior founding figure of the Academy, its chief chymist and one of its most influential members. We examine Observations with a focus on the changing attitudes towards chymical knowledge and practice in the French Academy and the Royal Society of London in the period 1666–84. Chymistry was a fundamental analytical tool for seventeenth-century natural historians, and, as the work of Lawrence Principe and William Newman has shown, it is central to understanding the ‘long’ Scientific Revolution. Much study has also been done on the developing norms of openness in the dissemination and presentation of scientific, and particularly chymical knowledge in the late seventeenth century, norms that were at odds with traditions of secrecy among individual chymists. Between these two standards a tension arose, evidenced by early modern ‘vociferous criticisms’ of chymical obscurity, with different strategies developed by individual philosophers for negotiating the emergent boundaries between secrecy and openness. Less well studied, however, are the strategies by which not just individuals but also scientific institutions negotiated these boundaries, particularly in the formative years of their public and political reputation in the late seventeenth century. Michael Hunter's recent and welcome study of the ‘decline of magic’ at the Royal Society has to some extent remedied these omissions. Hunter argues that the Society—as a corporate body—disregarded and avoided studies of magical and alchemical subjects in the late seventeenth century. Our examination problematizes these distinctions and presents a more complex picture.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英吉利海峡对岸的矿泉水:物质理论和自然历史,从塞缪尔·杜克洛的矿物成因到马丁·李斯特的化学磁学,约1666-86年
我们的文章分析了一本鲜为人知的书,《法国多省矿物观察》(1675),这是法国矿泉水的研究,由法国皇家科学院委托并在法国进行(1666年开始)。它的作者塞缪尔·科特罗·杜克洛(Samuel Cottereau Duclos, 1598-1685)是学院的资深创始人、首席化学家和最有影响力的成员之一。我们考察观察的重点是在法国科学院和伦敦皇家学会在1666年至1684年期间对化学知识和实践的态度的变化。化学是17世纪自然历史学家的基本分析工具,正如劳伦斯·普林西比(Lawrence Principe)和威廉·纽曼(William Newman)的工作所表明的那样,它是理解“长期”科学革命的核心。很多研究都是关于科学传播和展示的开放性规范的发展,特别是在17世纪晚期的化学知识,这些规范与个体化学家之间的保密传统不一致。在这两种标准之间出现了一种紧张关系,这可以从早期现代对化学模糊性的“激烈批评”中得到证明,个别哲学家在协商秘密与公开之间的新兴边界时采用了不同的策略。然而,研究较少的是,不仅是个人,还有科学机构,尤其是在17世纪后期,他们在公众和政治声誉形成的那些年,是如何协商这些边界的。迈克尔·亨特(Michael Hunter)最近在英国皇家学会(Royal Society)发表的一项受欢迎的关于“魔法衰落”的研究,在某种程度上弥补了这些遗漏。亨特认为,在17世纪晚期,作为一个法人团体,学会忽视并回避了魔法和炼金术的研究。我们的研究对这些区别提出了质疑,呈现出一幅更复杂的图景。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
45
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Notes and Records is an international journal which publishes original research in the history of science, technology and medicine. In addition to publishing peer-reviewed research articles in all areas of the history of science, technology and medicine, Notes and Records welcomes other forms of contribution including: research notes elucidating recent archival discoveries (in the collections of the Royal Society and elsewhere); news of research projects and online and other resources of interest to historians; essay reviews, on material relating primarily to the history of the Royal Society; and recollections or autobiographical accounts written by Fellows and others recording important moments in science from the recent past.
期刊最新文献
The making of early modern eye models Anthropological Glimpses of Japan in Nineteenth-Century Britain Minakata Kumagusu in London: Challenging Eurocentrism in the pages of Nature Gassendi's second thought. From a materialistic picture of cognition to the defence of dualism: the lasting influence of the polemic with descartes R. A. Fisher on J. A. Cobb's The problem of the sex-ratio
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1