BOOK REVIEWS get a new slant on old material or to review subjects which he has forgotten. A second volume is promised, dealing with macromolecules and their study by means of osmotic pressure, diffusion, light scattering, etc., and including also several chapters on the physical chemistry of blood. PETEROEEPER Hahnemann Medical College Philadelphia, Pansylvania
Robert Boyle and Seventeenth Century Chemistry
Marie lluar, A&tant P n h w r of the Iliqrory of Jrimrr, Brandpis 11rriwrsit.v. C'sml>ri&zeVr.ivrrsitr Prrsr. N:w York. 1958. v i i 235 14 x 22 cm. '
+
Robert Boyle is widely known to scientists for the law which hears his name, less widely for his leadership in the newly founded Royal Society. Chemists a x frequently familiar with his "Sceptical Chymist" and its definition of the chemical element. Beyond this there is generally a vague realilieation that Boyle was a contemporary of Issac Newton who was important primarily as a physicist. In this volume Miss Boas places Boyle in his proper setting as a chemical philos-
A240
/
Journol of Chemical Education
opher who labored mightily to clear away the alchemical vagueness about forms and qualities in order to arrive a t a clearer understanding of the nature of ahemical substances. Boyle's role in establishing the concept of chemical identity is clearly his major contribution to chemical progress. In previous periods there was a great deal of confusion regarding the identity of mineral~,salts, acids, alkalies, oils, and spirits. Even the identity of common salt from
chemically dissimilar substances were lumped into the same category on the basis of superficid physical resemblances, i.e., oil of vitriol, olive oil, oil of turpentine. It was Boyle, more then anyone else, who attacked these uncertainties and began to unrrtvel chemical composition. He questioned the value of analysis by fire fdestructive distillation) as a means of identifying the true components of natural materials and introduced the practice of utilizing synthetic methods in order to duplicate existing alhstances and thereby gain clues as to their composition. Further, his systematic use of specific gravity, flame tests, acid-base indicators, other color test reagents, and characteristic chemical reactions was the foundation of qudit8,tive analysis. The hook presents a. sharp insight into the chm~racterof Boyle who could, on the one hand, reveal an acute understanding of a natural phenomenon, and on the other, fail to follow up an ohvious modification
of his own experiments in order to clarify a grave uncertainty. His wealth enabled him to surround himself with secretaries and laboratory assistants. His prodigious output of published work has made evaluation difficult since the author who writes a great deal is sure to contradict himself. Miss Boas has done a masterful job of comparing not only printed works hut manuscripts as well to arrive at an understanding of the role of Boyle in the development of chemical thought. The seventeenth century is revealed as one in which a. great deal of chemical activity was going on. Boyle, who was widely read in the natural philosophy of his predecessors (Bacon, Galileo, Dee cartes) despite his affectations to the contrary, was a major figure in diverting chemistry from the medico-chemical emphasis of such figures as Lihavins, Beguin, Helmont, Tachenius, and Glauher, to a physical orientation. As a confirmed atomist Boyle was among the first to look upon chemical phenomena from a physical point of view. While nearly a century would pass before such an approach would become generally accepted, the tentative groping of Boyle was a necessary prelude to scientific chemistry. The hook performs a valuable function in opening up a period which has not been generally appreciated among chemists. IHDE AARON University of Wisconsin Madison
(Continued on page AS&)
