said that two other sciences were necessary in the study of mineralogy: metallurgy and
experimental physics [118]. Bergman certainly agreed on this point. When, however,
von Engeström claimed that the amount of sulphuric acid in calcium sulphate (gypsum) varied between different samples, Bergman did not agree.
In 1782, von Engeström once again held the president position in the Academy.
The lecture he delivered, Speech, on some Difficulties, and other Circumstances,
Faced on Practicing Chymistry [119] was very different from Bergman’s lecture in
1777. When Bergman painted a very bright picture of the progress of chemistry and
its usefulness for society, von Engeström’s lecture focused on problems encountered in the study of chemistry. As a chemist, it would be in von Engeström’s
interest to keep the interest in chemistry high, so the choice of topic is difficult to
understand unless one assumes that von Engeström’s intention was to point out that
the discoveries made by academic chemists were unreliable in contrast to his own,
practical work. von Engeström’s mistrust was not, however new. He had expressed
himself in a similar manner in a paper on alum (which also criticised Bergman,
Sect. 9.2) in 1774: “As is often found in Chymistry, that different operations in the
same type of Experiment, give changes in the effect […]” [39].
von Engeström started by saying “The chymical science could be regarded as a
game, if it was not for several problems that are often encountered in its practice,
and which reveal much uncertainty in its very foundations.” As the first example, he
spoke of Scheele’s discovery of hydrofluoric acid (Sect. 14.1) and several competing interpretations of Scheele’s results by other chemists. After discussing various ideas of the composition of fluorspar (fluorite), he said:
it is fortunate, after all, when such conflicts concern a subject, which is of less importance
and use in everyday life. When chymistry is viewed only from the useful side, it almost
does not matter if fluorspar contains a unique acid, or one previously known, […], but is
still disturbing to find from such incidents that chemical experiments are subjected to such
uncertainty. Here is consequently revealed a large deficiency in this science, that is, reliable
grounds for performing chymical experiments and the conclusions therefrom drawn. [120]
It is quite clear that von Engeström did not care much about theoretical chemistry. He
admitted that some discrepancy could arise from different reaction conditions and
impure reagents, but he said that the largest problem was the limits of the human
mind. Perhaps later generations would be able to resolve some problems, but only to
evoke new problems in their place. He discussed the different competing theories of
carbon dioxide (Aër Fixus; Chap. 18) but without mentioning the work of Bergman.
His next point of attack was the scientific journals, pointing out that two French
journals had published very different reviews of a book published a few years earlier.
Interestingly, he then entered a long discussion on alchemy, or “the higher chemistry” as he called it. von Engeström was convinced that there was much sound
knowledge in at least some of the alchemical works and that there would be much
gain if chemists and physicists would study alchemy. It should be noted that
Bergman with “higher chemistry” meant theoretical or physical chemistry.
As customary, the lecture was followed by a short answer by the Secretary of the
Academy, and it is not difficult to imagine that Wargentin was disturbed by the fact
that a member of the Academy attacked the works of other academy members in a
presidency lecture. He pointed out in a polite way that “one should however not
142
9 Bergman Becomes a Chemist
experimental physics [118]. Bergman certainly agreed on this point. When, however,
von Engeström claimed that the amount of sulphuric acid in calcium sulphate (gypsum) varied between different samples, Bergman did not agree.
In 1782, von Engeström once again held the president position in the Academy.
The lecture he delivered, Speech, on some Difficulties, and other Circumstances,
Faced on Practicing Chymistry [119] was very different from Bergman’s lecture in
1777. When Bergman painted a very bright picture of the progress of chemistry and
its usefulness for society, von Engeström’s lecture focused on problems encountered in the study of chemistry. As a chemist, it would be in von Engeström’s
interest to keep the interest in chemistry high, so the choice of topic is difficult to
understand unless one assumes that von Engeström’s intention was to point out that
the discoveries made by academic chemists were unreliable in contrast to his own,
practical work. von Engeström’s mistrust was not, however new. He had expressed
himself in a similar manner in a paper on alum (which also criticised Bergman,
Sect. 9.2) in 1774: “As is often found in Chymistry, that different operations in the
same type of Experiment, give changes in the effect […]” [39].
von Engeström started by saying “The chymical science could be regarded as a
game, if it was not for several problems that are often encountered in its practice,
and which reveal much uncertainty in its very foundations.” As the first example, he
spoke of Scheele’s discovery of hydrofluoric acid (Sect. 14.1) and several competing interpretations of Scheele’s results by other chemists. After discussing various ideas of the composition of fluorspar (fluorite), he said:
it is fortunate, after all, when such conflicts concern a subject, which is of less importance
and use in everyday life. When chymistry is viewed only from the useful side, it almost
does not matter if fluorspar contains a unique acid, or one previously known, […], but is
still disturbing to find from such incidents that chemical experiments are subjected to such
uncertainty. Here is consequently revealed a large deficiency in this science, that is, reliable
grounds for performing chymical experiments and the conclusions therefrom drawn. [120]
It is quite clear that von Engeström did not care much about theoretical chemistry. He
admitted that some discrepancy could arise from different reaction conditions and
impure reagents, but he said that the largest problem was the limits of the human
mind. Perhaps later generations would be able to resolve some problems, but only to
evoke new problems in their place. He discussed the different competing theories of
carbon dioxide (Aër Fixus; Chap. 18) but without mentioning the work of Bergman.
His next point of attack was the scientific journals, pointing out that two French
journals had published very different reviews of a book published a few years earlier.
Interestingly, he then entered a long discussion on alchemy, or “the higher chemistry” as he called it. von Engeström was convinced that there was much sound
knowledge in at least some of the alchemical works and that there would be much
gain if chemists and physicists would study alchemy. It should be noted that
Bergman with “higher chemistry” meant theoretical or physical chemistry.
As customary, the lecture was followed by a short answer by the Secretary of the
Academy, and it is not difficult to imagine that Wargentin was disturbed by the fact
that a member of the Academy attacked the works of other academy members in a
presidency lecture. He pointed out in a polite way that “one should however not
142
9 Bergman Becomes a Chemist