Brandt, Becher and Stahl. It is quite ironic that Wallerius included Becher, who had
a very liberating view of the truth, to say the least. It is important, Wallerius
continued, to mix the ingredients in the correct proportions as described in the
literature. This is an interesting remark, as Bergman became one of the early
proponents of a stoichiometric view of chemistry, in contrast to Wallerius. Wallerius also stressed accuracy in order to obtain reproducible results. Wallerius
attacked Bergman’s definition of salts and while he agreed that salts are soluble in
water, he had noted that also substances that separate (precipitates) from water may
have saline properties. As an example, he gave silver chloride (Luna cornua) which
contained hydrochloric acid (Spiritu salis). Here, Wallerius indicated that a salt
should contain an acid. This view had been proposed earlier, i.e. by
seventeenth-century chemist Glauber and although Bergman simply defined salts
by their solubility in water, he was clearly aware of the saline properties of, for
example, calcium carbonate [99]. Wallerius went as far in his criticism as to
question all of Bergman’s work: “May not such experiments put an attentive
[person] in the thought, that other experiments, originating from the same hand,
should not be of considerable value, no matter how expensive they could have
been.” The tone is rather sarcastic throughout the paper.
Wallerius’ paper does not seem to have gained much support for his behaviour.
Gahn supported Bergman fully [100], as did Rinman, who was a former student of
Wallerius, and who wondered whether Wallerius had gone mad [101]. After Bengt
Bergius had confirmed to Bergman that Wallerius really was the author of the
paper, Bergman wrote a reply. Bergman’s article was divided into four parts and
published in four subsequent issues (March 21–March 27) of another newspaper of
the time, Allmänna tidningar (Public Newspapers) [102–105].
The style of Bergman’s reply is very different from everything else Bergman has
written, and it is clear that Bergman had finally had enough of his opponent. He
opened his paper with an excuse:
It is reluctantly that I this time grab the pen. He how devote his time to experimental science
has his hands full with more urgent work than discussing unfounded opinions, especially
when they are accompanied by bitterness and having completely different purposes than
revealing the truth.
Bergman assured that this was not the first time he had been attacked by Wallerius, he had previously been attacked both verbally and in print, and Bergman’s
silence had only increased his opponent’s anger. Bergman then proceeded to
demolish Wallerius ten points: “The first one is a blind shot, before he dares to go
into deepness”. He invited Wallerius, whom he referred to as the Old Chemist or
simply “O.C” (den Gamle Chemisten, G.C.) to join him and see how the experiments were carried out. Of course, he did not actually expect his opponent to show
up. Wallerius criticism that experiments had to be repeated exactly as described was
dismissed by Bergman. It is important, Bergman wrote, to test different experimental approaches, if one not only wish to confirm if a written statement is correct
or not. In one of his ten points, Wallerius had claimed that heat itself, when applied
to a substance immersed in a liquid had no effect, but that the heat acted via the
9.6 Bergman’s Relations with Wallerius and von Engeström
137
a very liberating view of the truth, to say the least. It is important, Wallerius
continued, to mix the ingredients in the correct proportions as described in the
literature. This is an interesting remark, as Bergman became one of the early
proponents of a stoichiometric view of chemistry, in contrast to Wallerius. Wallerius also stressed accuracy in order to obtain reproducible results. Wallerius
attacked Bergman’s definition of salts and while he agreed that salts are soluble in
water, he had noted that also substances that separate (precipitates) from water may
have saline properties. As an example, he gave silver chloride (Luna cornua) which
contained hydrochloric acid (Spiritu salis). Here, Wallerius indicated that a salt
should contain an acid. This view had been proposed earlier, i.e. by
seventeenth-century chemist Glauber and although Bergman simply defined salts
by their solubility in water, he was clearly aware of the saline properties of, for
example, calcium carbonate [99]. Wallerius went as far in his criticism as to
question all of Bergman’s work: “May not such experiments put an attentive
[person] in the thought, that other experiments, originating from the same hand,
should not be of considerable value, no matter how expensive they could have
been.” The tone is rather sarcastic throughout the paper.
Wallerius’ paper does not seem to have gained much support for his behaviour.
Gahn supported Bergman fully [100], as did Rinman, who was a former student of
Wallerius, and who wondered whether Wallerius had gone mad [101]. After Bengt
Bergius had confirmed to Bergman that Wallerius really was the author of the
paper, Bergman wrote a reply. Bergman’s article was divided into four parts and
published in four subsequent issues (March 21–March 27) of another newspaper of
the time, Allmänna tidningar (Public Newspapers) [102–105].
The style of Bergman’s reply is very different from everything else Bergman has
written, and it is clear that Bergman had finally had enough of his opponent. He
opened his paper with an excuse:
It is reluctantly that I this time grab the pen. He how devote his time to experimental science
has his hands full with more urgent work than discussing unfounded opinions, especially
when they are accompanied by bitterness and having completely different purposes than
revealing the truth.
Bergman assured that this was not the first time he had been attacked by Wallerius, he had previously been attacked both verbally and in print, and Bergman’s
silence had only increased his opponent’s anger. Bergman then proceeded to
demolish Wallerius ten points: “The first one is a blind shot, before he dares to go
into deepness”. He invited Wallerius, whom he referred to as the Old Chemist or
simply “O.C” (den Gamle Chemisten, G.C.) to join him and see how the experiments were carried out. Of course, he did not actually expect his opponent to show
up. Wallerius criticism that experiments had to be repeated exactly as described was
dismissed by Bergman. It is important, Bergman wrote, to test different experimental approaches, if one not only wish to confirm if a written statement is correct
or not. In one of his ten points, Wallerius had claimed that heat itself, when applied
to a substance immersed in a liquid had no effect, but that the heat acted via the
9.6 Bergman’s Relations with Wallerius and von Engeström
137