use of physical properties to discriminate between different varieties of minerals:
“Classes, Genera and Species are therefore to be formed upon the internal nature
and composition, the varieties upon the external appearances. In such a system both
methods conveniently agree” [18].
Bergman’s system is similar to that of Cronstedt, and the minerals are classified
in the same classes (although the salts constitute the first class in Bergman’s system,
followed by the earths, mineral resins and metals). Bergman’s book is far less
extensive than Cronstedt’s work, and where ever possible, Bergman avoided
descriptions of minerals by referring to Cronstedt’s book. As mineral chemistry had
made much advance since 1758, Bergman could in many cases correct Cronstedt by
including more recent discoveries. As will be seen in Chap. 26, one of the most
important points in Bergman’s book was its use of rational chemical nomenclature.
25.6 Thoughts on a Natural System of Mineralogy
Also in 1782, Bergman wrote a long paper in Latin on classification of minerals,
Meditationes de systemate fossilium naturali (Thoughts on a Natural System of
Minerals). It was included in a preprint published in 1782 [19] and finally appearing
in the fourth volume of the Transactions of the Royal Society of Sciences in
Uppsala in 1784 [20]. A trade version was also published in Florence the same year
[21].
This work is much more theoretical than Sciagraphia, dealing with the classification, analysis and naming of mineral substances rather than describing individual minerals. It is divided into two parts, the first dealing with classification and
the second (which will be discussed in Sect. 26.8) dealing with nomenclature.
When justifying his works on mineralogical classification Bergman, perhaps
surprisingly, used economic rather than scientific arguments: “As natural bodies
may in various ways be rendered useful to man, a thorough knowledge of them
becomes highly necessary; and it will, indeed, in general be found, that their utility
encreases in proportion to the extent of that knowledge” [22]. Most probably this
statement is an attempt to prove his research useful for Swedish industry. The true
reason for Bergman’s efforts was most likely found in his early contacts with the
Linnaeus’ systematic work on botany and his own main theme: the systematisation
of chemistry and science.
After a discussion of the three kingdoms of nature, of organic and inorganic
bodies and the three aggregation states, Bergman discussed different systems of
classifying minerals. Bergman advocated a chemical classification, but such a
system required a thorough knowledge of the chemical composition of minerals. In
that context, Bergman went on to discuss different analytical methods, classical
solid-state methods versus solution methods (Chap. 20).
25.5 Outline of Mineralogy
347
“Classes, Genera and Species are therefore to be formed upon the internal nature
and composition, the varieties upon the external appearances. In such a system both
methods conveniently agree” [18].
Bergman’s system is similar to that of Cronstedt, and the minerals are classified
in the same classes (although the salts constitute the first class in Bergman’s system,
followed by the earths, mineral resins and metals). Bergman’s book is far less
extensive than Cronstedt’s work, and where ever possible, Bergman avoided
descriptions of minerals by referring to Cronstedt’s book. As mineral chemistry had
made much advance since 1758, Bergman could in many cases correct Cronstedt by
including more recent discoveries. As will be seen in Chap. 26, one of the most
important points in Bergman’s book was its use of rational chemical nomenclature.
25.6 Thoughts on a Natural System of Mineralogy
Also in 1782, Bergman wrote a long paper in Latin on classification of minerals,
Meditationes de systemate fossilium naturali (Thoughts on a Natural System of
Minerals). It was included in a preprint published in 1782 [19] and finally appearing
in the fourth volume of the Transactions of the Royal Society of Sciences in
Uppsala in 1784 [20]. A trade version was also published in Florence the same year
[21].
This work is much more theoretical than Sciagraphia, dealing with the classification, analysis and naming of mineral substances rather than describing individual minerals. It is divided into two parts, the first dealing with classification and
the second (which will be discussed in Sect. 26.8) dealing with nomenclature.
When justifying his works on mineralogical classification Bergman, perhaps
surprisingly, used economic rather than scientific arguments: “As natural bodies
may in various ways be rendered useful to man, a thorough knowledge of them
becomes highly necessary; and it will, indeed, in general be found, that their utility
encreases in proportion to the extent of that knowledge” [22]. Most probably this
statement is an attempt to prove his research useful for Swedish industry. The true
reason for Bergman’s efforts was most likely found in his early contacts with the
Linnaeus’ systematic work on botany and his own main theme: the systematisation
of chemistry and science.
After a discussion of the three kingdoms of nature, of organic and inorganic
bodies and the three aggregation states, Bergman discussed different systems of
classifying minerals. Bergman advocated a chemical classification, but such a
system required a thorough knowledge of the chemical composition of minerals. In
that context, Bergman went on to discuss different analytical methods, classical
solid-state methods versus solution methods (Chap. 20).
25.5 Outline of Mineralogy
347