Chemistry Reference
In-Depth Information
atoms combine with one another to form compound corpuscles”,
27
which he calls
'
(
moleculae
). These molecules are stable, compounded corpuscles that
cannot be further analyzed but that serve as intermediaries between indivisible
atoms and tangible perceptible bodies. Since they are produced by chemical
resolution, these molecules are, in a certain sense,
molecules
'
although they are
not simple particles. Although this notion will be developed much later in the work
of Antoine Lavoisier, it must be stressed that for Gassendi the only true elements
are atoms, since they are the only particles that are completely indivisible by natural
means. Gassendi believes that there are several intermediary levels of compounded
corpuscles between fundamental atoms and concrete bodies, and it is these mole-
cules that compose the traditional chemical
'
elementary
'
(sulfur, mercury, salt, earth,
water). Thus, the notion of chymical molecules is not incompatible with his
mechanistic atomism. Gassendi believes that textural alterations to molecules
produce new qualities in substances and that such changes in qualities can be
induced by chemical operations.
28
Gassendi suggests that the molecules
of chemical principles characterize the various species of bodies, depending on
their proportions and composition. He finds it difficult, however, to distinguish
homogeneous bodies with identical molecules from mixed bodies, especially when
determining the nature of metals.
29
Gassendi
elements
'
'
s revision of classical Epicurean atomism to make it compatible with
Christianity was crucial to the success of mechanistic atomism in Europe and had a
great influence on the work of Walter Charleton (1619-1707). Charleton
'
s work, in
turn, was the primary vehicle for the acceptance of mechanistic atomism in England
and for the influence of Gassendi
'
s ideas on the work of Robert Boyle (1627-1691).
In fact, Boyle is one of the first English scientists to embrace
'
Epicurean
atomism, as advocated by Gassendi and Charleton, although he adjusts Epicurean
theory to make compatible with the Cartesian view. Boyle attempts to bring
the atomic and mechanical philosophies within the compass of experiment, and
one of the main reasons for Boyle
purified
'
'
s acceptance of
mechanical atomism was that his experiments were indeed qualitatively and quan-
titatively superior to those that had been previously performed by other chemists.
What makes Gassendi
'
s revision of classical atomism particularly attractive for
Boyle is the insistence that nature should not be treated as an agent. For Boyle,
nature is devoid of purpose, volition, and sentience. Material nature, by itself, is
inanimate and the only source of agency is God.
30
However, one of Boyle
'
s influence on the Royal Society
'
s main
heuristic reasons for preferring mechanistic atomism to the theory of substantial
form or that of the
tria prima
is that neither of these could serve a satisfactory
explanatory function for chemical reactions and changes witnessed in experimental
situations. By the mid-seventeenth century, it was evident to natural philosophers
'
27
Newman, pp. 191-192.
28
Ibid
, p. 192.
29
Pinet (
2004
), pp. 67-82.
30
Shapin and Schaffer (
2011
), p. 202.
