calx and vitriolic acid as primary elements. The decomposition of a body into its
chemical elements was called Analysis chemica, and the reunion was called Synthesis chemica by Bergman. He stressed that it was not only the nature of the
elements that determined the properties of a body, but also the proportions of the
elements: marl and topaz had, according to Bergman, the same constituents but
different properties. Actually, they are unrelated, but it is not absolutely clear what
Bergman meant with “marl”.
Some insight into Bergman’s views of the primary elements is found in his 1777
lecture given in front of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Here, it is clear
that he did not believe in the four Aristotelian elements, as he said that many
fruitless attempts had been made to determine the elements of water [9] and that fire
is nothing else than the state when combustible bodies are deprived of their
phlogiston by oxygen (pure air) [9]. Later in the lecture, he entered into a rare
speculation about the primary elements [10]. His own words clearly indicate his
doubts and the hesitations he felt: “The hitherto mentioned results, concerning the
composition of bodies, merely reveal the proximate elements: the remote elements
are more difficult to find, and the primary or real elements are even more unknown.
Several scientists have nevertheless thought themselves capable of, with certainty,
stating their number. As this has been done more based on arguments than clear
experiments, it is not surprising that the opinions are quite divided. Some call for
only a single element, others two, three, four, yes even up to five. I need not now to
examine them all, since several of them are most probably in error. The opinion of
those supposing two elements is most probable: one earthy, passive and one fierily,
active, of which, in different proportions mixed with each other and with other
Principia secundaria of different orders, arises the endless number of different
bodies that exist in nature. One should not, however, consider this guess as an
established truth. What the first, earthy, element concerns, it cannot yet be proven
by analysis that it is the same in all bodies, how probable it still may sound, but one
should take things as they appear, and not determine their nature from our imagination. We know nothing a priori about bodies, everything must be determined
through suitable experiments. What the other and active element concerns, it is not
light, which is truly compounded, but phlogiston”. In a paper on gems published in
1780 [11], he once again discussed the possibility that the different earths are
modifications of only one earths:
It cannot be denied that it is not altogether without probability some imagine that the
number of these earths should be diminished, considering them all as modifications of one;
but in the explanation of nature, we must not so far indulge conjecture, as to suffer the vain
phantasms of imagination to prevail over phænomena confirmed by constant experience,
and not impeached by a single experiment, when made with accuracy. [12]
As discussed in Sects. 24.7 and 22.4, both Bergman and Scheele came to the
conclusion that metal oxides (metal calces) were not elements as many chemists
supposed. After Scheele’s isolation of arsenic acid, molybdic acid and tungstic acid,
they came to the conclusion that metal calces were composed of metallic acids and
phlogiston. As discussed in Sect. 22.4, what Bergman had actually discovered was
22.2 Bergman’s Views on Elements
303
chemical elements was called Analysis chemica, and the reunion was called Synthesis chemica by Bergman. He stressed that it was not only the nature of the
elements that determined the properties of a body, but also the proportions of the
elements: marl and topaz had, according to Bergman, the same constituents but
different properties. Actually, they are unrelated, but it is not absolutely clear what
Bergman meant with “marl”.
Some insight into Bergman’s views of the primary elements is found in his 1777
lecture given in front of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Here, it is clear
that he did not believe in the four Aristotelian elements, as he said that many
fruitless attempts had been made to determine the elements of water [9] and that fire
is nothing else than the state when combustible bodies are deprived of their
phlogiston by oxygen (pure air) [9]. Later in the lecture, he entered into a rare
speculation about the primary elements [10]. His own words clearly indicate his
doubts and the hesitations he felt: “The hitherto mentioned results, concerning the
composition of bodies, merely reveal the proximate elements: the remote elements
are more difficult to find, and the primary or real elements are even more unknown.
Several scientists have nevertheless thought themselves capable of, with certainty,
stating their number. As this has been done more based on arguments than clear
experiments, it is not surprising that the opinions are quite divided. Some call for
only a single element, others two, three, four, yes even up to five. I need not now to
examine them all, since several of them are most probably in error. The opinion of
those supposing two elements is most probable: one earthy, passive and one fierily,
active, of which, in different proportions mixed with each other and with other
Principia secundaria of different orders, arises the endless number of different
bodies that exist in nature. One should not, however, consider this guess as an
established truth. What the first, earthy, element concerns, it cannot yet be proven
by analysis that it is the same in all bodies, how probable it still may sound, but one
should take things as they appear, and not determine their nature from our imagination. We know nothing a priori about bodies, everything must be determined
through suitable experiments. What the other and active element concerns, it is not
light, which is truly compounded, but phlogiston”. In a paper on gems published in
1780 [11], he once again discussed the possibility that the different earths are
modifications of only one earths:
It cannot be denied that it is not altogether without probability some imagine that the
number of these earths should be diminished, considering them all as modifications of one;
but in the explanation of nature, we must not so far indulge conjecture, as to suffer the vain
phantasms of imagination to prevail over phænomena confirmed by constant experience,
and not impeached by a single experiment, when made with accuracy. [12]
As discussed in Sects. 24.7 and 22.4, both Bergman and Scheele came to the
conclusion that metal oxides (metal calces) were not elements as many chemists
supposed. After Scheele’s isolation of arsenic acid, molybdic acid and tungstic acid,
they came to the conclusion that metal calces were composed of metallic acids and
phlogiston. As discussed in Sect. 22.4, what Bergman had actually discovered was
22.2 Bergman’s Views on Elements
303