Boscovich and Davy: Some Cautionary Remarks

Boscovich and Davy: Some Cautionary RemarksAuthor(s): Robert SiegfriedSource: Isis, Vol. 58, No. 2 (Summer, 1967), pp. 236-238Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/228232 .

Accessed: 09/05/2014 10:47

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,preserve and extend access to Isis.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.13 on Fri, 9 May 2014 10:47:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hss

http://www.jstor.org/stable/228232?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


BOSCOVICH AND DAVY: SOME CAUTIONARY REMARKS

By Robert Siegfried*

Work done in the preparation of a recent paper, "Sir Humphry Davy on the Nature of the Diamond,"' forced me to question the opinion of L. Pearce Williams that Boscovich's theory of point atoms had a significant influence on Davy's thinking.2 He earlier claimed that Davy undertook his investigation of the diamond as an experimental test for Boscovichian theory,3 but I found no supporting evidence and Williams himself now suggests that it was the diamond researches that led Davy to accept Boscovich about 1815.4 From this time on, Williams insists, Davy was an adherent of Boscovich's ideas of matter. This and other claims, though based on suggestive evidence, seem extravagant to the point of being misleading,5 and a more cautious evaluation of the evidence appears in order.

My comments will be directed chiefly toward Williams' most recent full account as it appears in his biography of Michael Faraday.6 His case is built prin- cipally on two passages from Davy's writings, both of which are quoted in full. The first was written in Davy's com-

monplace book in 1815, and for Wil- liams it marks the beginning of Davy's

*University of Wisconsin. 1 Isis, 1966, 57:325-335. 2 See L. Pearce Williams, "Boscovich and

the British Chemists," in Lancelot Law Whyte, ed., Roger Joseph Boscovich (London: Allen & Unwin, 1961), pp. 153-167; Williams, "The

Physical Sciences in the First Half of the Nine- teenth Century: Problems and Sources," His-

tory of Science, 1962, 1:1-15; Williams, Michael Faraday (New York: Basic Books, 1965), esp. Ch. 2.

3"Boscovich and the British Chemists," p. 162.

4 Faraday, p. 78. 5 In the most obvious example, Williams

calls Davy "an advocate of Boscovich's theory" ("Boscovich and the British Chemists," p. 163). Yet Davy never published any discussion of Boscovich's ideas in any context, and Williams offers no evidence that he advocated the ideas orally.

6Faraday, pp. 78-80.

commitment to Boscovich's ideas. Wil- liams writes of Davy:

During his travels on the Continent while he was occupied with the problem of the diamond, Boscovich's theory appeared to offer the only solution. It was some time in 1815 that Davy began to use this hypothesis as a general concept by which all phenomena could be explained . . . From 1815 until the end of his life, Davy thought of matter in terms of point atoms surrounded by attractive and repulsive forces.7

The second passage cited by Williams was written shortly before Davy's death in 1829 and serves as justification for his claim that Davy was a follower of Bos- covich from 1815 until the end of his life. I will comment shortly on the absence of supporting evidence from those intervening years.

The two short passages (each less than a page) quoted by Williams appear to be the only examples of Davy's discussion of Boscovich's ideas. Two passages in fifteen years might be adequate evidence for Williams' claim if their con- tents were unequivocally in its support. Such is not the case. Williams does not point out that Davy's discussion so se- riously modified the original theory that the result can hardly be called Bos- covichian. In both instances Davy at- tributed weight to the point atoms as an intrinsic property, along with the attractive and repulsive powers. In Bos- covich's theory, weight had been a derived property based on the number of point atoms in a balanced association of their attractive and repulsive forces.8

Compared to Boscovich's theory with its metaphysical unity and simplicity, Davy's version appears ad hoc and re- dundant. Davy's wording indicates a deliberate intent, and one wonders if after a lifetime of measuring weight in

7 Ibid., pp. 78-79. 8 For a discussion of this point, see Whyte,

"Boscovich's Atomism," in Roger Joseph Bos- covich, pp. 102-126, on p. 107.

286



BOSCOVICH AND DAVY: SOME CAUTIONARY REMARKS

chemical change, Davy knew it as too real a property to reduce to a mere numeration of immeasurable points.

Davy's discussion of even this hybrid view is loose and only suggestive of areas to which it might apply. No closely argued correlations between fact and theory are made. Taken by themselves, these excerpts are hardly enough to make Davy an adherent of Boscovich's point atomism.

Even stronger reservations about his commitment to a Boscovichian view comes from the apparent absence of any supporting evidence during Davy's last fifteen years. Should we not expect some examples from his writings that reflect such a view-some plan of experimental attack, or some subsequent explanation that can be clearly traced to Boscovich- ian concepts? Williams offers none, and we are forced to ask what it means to say that a man thought this way for fifteen years without producing any identifiable consequences.

Williams has suggested that Davy kept his atomic views in the background because he knew that they "would be dismissed as metaphysics at best or meaningless at worst."9 Consequently he places great emphasis on the second

quotation in which Davy "publically stated his position . . . in his philo- sophical Last Testament,"10 that is, Davy's Consolations in Travel: or, The Last Days of a Philosopher. Here, according to Williams, Davy "gave ut- terance to all those speculative ideas which lay behind his researches. ... [Here] was Davy the poet and dreamer

9 Faraday, p. 78. An extended account of this explanation can be found in Williams' paper "The Physical Sciences in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century .. .," loc. cit. Here he claims that Davy confined all speculation to the privacy of his notebooks. But Davy was one of the most openly speculative of men. See my paper "The Phlogistic Conjec- tures of Humphry Davy," Chymia, 1964, 9:117- 124, which is based entirely on printed sources.

1o Faraday, p. 79.

who wished to pass on his vision of the universe to coming generations."11 After Williams has built such an ap- pealing case on Davy's public confession of faith, it seems a pity to point out that Davy never published it! According to his brother and editor, John Davy, the quoted passage formed a part of an unfinished dialogue much like those in the Consolations, but it was not in the material Davy sent to the publisher shortly before his death. It appeared first in print with the publication of the Collected Works, to which it was added by John Davy as a seventh dialogue in that edition of the Consolations ten years after Davy's death.12

Quite aside from whether Davy ever intended to publish that passage, the evidence is otherwise unconvincing of his adherence to so theoretical a system as Boscovich's. In both published and unpublished dialogues written at this time, statements are readily found which seem to attest his distrust of elab- orately structured theory.

In the fifth dialogue of the Consola- tions, entitled "The Chemical Philoso- pher," the Unknown (Davy's mystical self) rejected Joseph Black's definition of chemistry because it included the idea of "motions of ultimate particles or atoms. This definition is hypothetical," said the Unknown, "for the ultimate particles or atoms are mere creatures of the imagination." He then gave his own clearly operational definition. "Chemistry relates to those opera- tions by which the intimate nature of bodies is changed, or by which they ac- quire new properties."'3

Similarly, Davy rejected the atomism of John Dalton because he thought it

11 Ibid. 12 John Davy, ed., The Collected Works of

Sir Humphry Davy, Bart. (9 vols., London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1839-1840). John Davy's comments are found in Vol. IX, p. viii, and in a note on p. 383. The added seventh dialogue is found on pp. 383-388.

13 Ibid., p. 363.

237



ROBERT SIEGFRIED ROBERT SIEGFRIED

too hypothetical. In a passage in another unfinished dialogue he wrote that "Mr. Dalton is too much of an Atomic Phi- losopher [Davy's emphasis] and in making atoms arrange themselves according to his own hypotheses, he has often in- dulged in vain speculation. . ..14

Thus we have Davy seemingly claim- ing adherence to a highly theoretical scheme of point atomism in the passages quoted by Williams, and his equally clear rejection of hypothetical atomism in other passages separated from them by a few pages and perhaps only a few days in time. What are we to make of this apparent inconsistency? I think one need only point out that Davy has long been well known to have openly dis- cussed contrasting views more or less simultaneously. The most recent comment on this aspect of Davy's philoso- phy comes from Colin A. Russell, who made an extensive study of Davy's notebooks, seeking (at Williams' urging) a possible Boscovichian influence on Da- vy's electrochemistry.15 Although Rus- sell agrees that "ideas of Boscovich"

14 Quoted by John Davy in a note, ibid., Vol. V, p. 330.

15 Colin A. Russell, "The Electrochemical Theory of Sir Humphry Davy, Part III: The Evidence of the Royal Institution Manuscripts," Annals of Science, 1963, 19:255-271.

too hypothetical. In a passage in another unfinished dialogue he wrote that "Mr. Dalton is too much of an Atomic Phi- losopher [Davy's emphasis] and in making atoms arrange themselves according to his own hypotheses, he has often in- dulged in vain speculation. . ..14

Thus we have Davy seemingly claim- ing adherence to a highly theoretical scheme of point atomism in the passages quoted by Williams, and his equally clear rejection of hypothetical atomism in other passages separated from them by a few pages and perhaps only a few days in time. What are we to make of this apparent inconsistency? I think one need only point out that Davy has long been well known to have openly dis- cussed contrasting views more or less simultaneously. The most recent comment on this aspect of Davy's philoso- phy comes from Colin A. Russell, who made an extensive study of Davy's notebooks, seeking (at Williams' urging) a possible Boscovichian influence on Da- vy's electrochemistry.15 Although Rus- sell agrees that "ideas of Boscovich"

14 Quoted by John Davy in a note, ibid., Vol. V, p. 330.

15 Colin A. Russell, "The Electrochemical Theory of Sir Humphry Davy, Part III: The Evidence of the Royal Institution Manuscripts," Annals of Science, 1963, 19:255-271.

played a part in these schemes,16 his final assessment of his reading of the notebooks is that

. . . one impression stands out from all the mass of details: Davy's renowned contempt for detailed theoretical schemes. This allowed him to hold lightly to hypotheses, and he saw no incongruity in recording on consecutive pages two or even three different hypotheses on the same subject. He was thus inhibited from making known his theories, not only to avoid rebuffs but also on account of the simple fragility of those theories.17

Consistent with this interpretation, we see that Davy viewed Boscovich's point atomism as one of many possible helpful ideas. It may even have occupied a somewhat preferred position in Davy's hierarchy of hopes; virtually alone it appeared to offer theoretical unity to Davy's empirical problems of polarity, derived from his electrochemical work, and the structure of matter as derived from his work on the diamond. But in the absence of any evidence that Davy was able to translate these ideas into experimentally testable form, Wil- liams' exclusive emphasis of Boscovich's influence definitely misrepresents Davy's style of eclectic sampling of hypotheses and his persistent refusal to make theoretical commitment.

16 Ibid., p. 269. 17 Ibid., p. 270.

played a part in these schemes,16 his final assessment of his reading of the notebooks is that

. . . one impression stands out from all the mass of details: Davy's renowned contempt for detailed theoretical schemes. This allowed him to hold lightly to hypotheses, and he saw no incongruity in recording on consecutive pages two or even three different hypotheses on the same subject. He was thus inhibited from making known his theories, not only to avoid rebuffs but also on account of the simple fragility of those theories.17

Consistent with this interpretation, we see that Davy viewed Boscovich's point atomism as one of many possible helpful ideas. It may even have occupied a somewhat preferred position in Davy's hierarchy of hopes; virtually alone it appeared to offer theoretical unity to Davy's empirical problems of polarity, derived from his electrochemical work, and the structure of matter as derived from his work on the diamond. But in the absence of any evidence that Davy was able to translate these ideas into experimentally testable form, Wil- liams' exclusive emphasis of Boscovich's influence definitely misrepresents Davy's style of eclectic sampling of hypotheses and his persistent refusal to make theoretical commitment.

16 Ibid., p. 269. 17 Ibid., p. 270.

THE WORD INDISCERPIBLE AND JONATHAN EDWARDS

By Rufus Suter*

THE WORD INDISCERPIBLE AND JONATHAN EDWARDS

By Rufus Suter*

Professor I. Bernard Cohen in his commemorative essay on Alexandre Koyrel casts very welcome light on the origin and history of the word indiscerpible-a word invented by the Cam- bridge Platonist Henry More (1614- 1687), copied by the youthful Isaac

*San Diego, California. 1 I. Bernard Cohen, "Alexandre Koyre (1892-

1964)," Isis, 1966, 57:157-165. See p. 163.

Professor I. Bernard Cohen in his commemorative essay on Alexandre Koyrel casts very welcome light on the origin and history of the word indiscerpible-a word invented by the Cam- bridge Platonist Henry More (1614- 1687), copied by the youthful Isaac

*San Diego, California. 1 I. Bernard Cohen, "Alexandre Koyre (1892-

1964)," Isis, 1966, 57:157-165. See p. 163.

Newton (1642-1727) in a student's notebook in which he was making an extract from More's writing, and used by Samuel Clarke (1675-1729) in his correspondence with Leibniz (1646-1716). Indiscerpible, of course, comes from the Latin discerpo ("tear to pieces," "mangle," "mutilate"). In the usages indicated above it has the sense of "unsplittable," and is applied to the atom.

Newton (1642-1727) in a student's notebook in which he was making an extract from More's writing, and used by Samuel Clarke (1675-1729) in his correspondence with Leibniz (1646-1716). Indiscerpible, of course, comes from the Latin discerpo ("tear to pieces," "mangle," "mutilate"). In the usages indicated above it has the sense of "unsplittable," and is applied to the atom.

238 238



Documents

Boscovich and Davy: Some Cautionary Remarks