In this paper it is performed a historical account of the theoretical roots that grounded the following four key basic ideas of chemical equilibrium: ‘incomplete reaction’, ‘reversibility’, ‘equilibrium constant’ and ‘molecular dynamics’. These notions developed in nineteenth-century as a consequence of the evolution of the concept of chemical affinity. The discussion begins with the presentation of the earliest affinity table [‘Table des rapports’] published in 1718 by Geoffroy. Afterwards, it is examined Bergman’s compilation. The theory supporting this arrangement assumed that (...) chemical displacement reactions were complete and could not be reversed. It is analysed how Berthollet’s model showed the inadequacy of this view. His new conceptual considerations established that the amount of the substances involved in a reaction was an essential factor determining its direction, which accounted for the early concepts of incomplete reaction and reversibility. Guldberg and Waage specified the role of mass in chemical equilibrium reactions as they considered the concentrations of the chemicals involved, formulating the first chemical equilibrium mathematical equation that approximates what is called nowadays chemical equilibrium constant. Finally, it is presented how Pfaundler was the first to consider the kinetic theory in the interpretation of the macroscopic properties of equilibrium reactions. (shrink)

Although not universally accepted at the time, the atomic hypothesis during the 19th century provided a definite ordering scheme for certain relatively sophisticated chemical phenomena. As such, it was conceptually responsible for the formulation and precise articulation of important seminal ideas in chemical studies. In this paper we will explore this claim with regard to the views of the British chemist Alexander W. Williamson.

Thomas Thomson (177–1852) is primarily remembered as the author of the textbookA System of Chemistrywhich dominated the British field for about 30 years. In his chosen subject of chemistry his enthusiastic support of Daltonian chemical atomism and his zealous support of Prout's hypothesis have been recently recognized. Yet his activities were not as restricted as received opinion suggests. When Thomson assumed in 1818 the newly created Regius Chair of Chemistry at the University of Glasgow, the prospects for him as teacher (...) and researcher were apparently encouraging. But he met difficulties in his attempts to elevate the status of the Regius Professors at Glasgow and in his concurrent endeavours to develop chemistry as an autonomous science. The ensuing controversy, first private and then public, spanned more than 20 rancorous years. Only one of Thomson's obituarists, however, even briefly mentions this debate; and recent writers on Thomson either ignore it completely or skim over it lightly. The main purpose of this paper is therefore to redress the balance of previous work on Thomson by outlining the chief features of his professorial period, paying particular attention to his style of teaching and attitude to his subject. For Thomson the development of his discipline was inseparable from the question of his status as a Regius Professor. Accordingly I also try to show that he played an important role in the movement for reform of the Scottish Universities and I discuss the structure of power at the University of Glasgow. Such analysis is necessary for understanding Thomson's appraisal of his situation as Regius Professor of Chemistry. In order to put his professorial period into the context of his earlier work I introduce the main body of the article with a short reconsideration of the form and significance of his career before 1817, when he moved to Glasgow. (shrink)

The years immediately after the final downfall of Napoleon Bonaparte could easily have been years of anti-climax in French science. In 1815, after two decades of undoubted greatness, the time, I feel, was ripe for decline. And decline might well have occurred if the traditions and the style of science as practised in France in the period of Napoleon's rule had been carried on unchanged by the disciples of the two great men who had dominated work in the physical sciences (...) for so many years. These men, of course, were the chemist Claude Louis Berthollet and the mathematician and physicist Pierre Simon Laplace. (shrink)

The Calcolo geometrico (1888) seems to have been a turning point in the scientific career of Giuseppe Peano (1858?1932) because with this book he started publishing in logic. Looking for motivations of his early interests in the field one is naturally led to investigate the background of that book. Besides his previous work in mathematical analysis, methods and results of some Italian mathematicians and?above all?the spread of Grassmann's theories in Italy played a significant role: this point seems to have been (...) often underestimated by the historians of the subject. The connections between Calcolo geometrico and other related areas are also discussed. Peano's handwritten remarks and references taken from his own working copy of the Calcolo geometrico constitute the appendix of the paper. ?Simbolismo da alas ad mente de homo? (Peano 1913, 390). (shrink)