26
Bergman’s Contribution to Chemical
Nomenclature
Up to the eighteenth century, the number of known chemical substances was rather
limited and their compositions were poorly understood. They were generally named
after an important property, their physical appearance, discoverer or place of discovery. Chemists were talking about the fuming liquor of Libavius (SnCl 4 ), butter
of antimony (SbCl 3 ), Glauber’s salt (Na 2 SO 4 ), liver of sulphur (K 2 S n ) and Epsom
salt (MgSO 4 ). Names were coined by chemists, alchemists, pharmacists, miners,
dyers and physicians, leading to a very heterogeneous collection of names. Frequently, different professions had different terminologies resulting in vast numbers
of synonyms. It was not uncommon that a substance had different names depending
on how it was prepared. Different names could be used for the same substance in
the same publication; Scheele and Bergman were no exceptions.
During the eighteenth century, the problems with this way of naming substances
became evident. The number of known chemical substances, especially salts,
started to increase at an unprecedented rate. With the discovery of new acids
(Chaps. 14 and 24) and metals (Chap. 15), chemists faced a problem never experienced before: to devise names for predicted salts that had not yet been prepared.
Thus, there was an immediate need for a systematic chemical nomenclature.
26.1 Macquer’s Criticism
Critical voices were raised, but few concrete suggestions emerged. An important
exception was Macquer who, aged 31, attacked names such as oil of vitriol (huile
de vitriol; sulphuric acid) in his Elémens de Chymie Théorique in 1749, suggesting
the name vitriolic acid (acide vitriolique) [1]. So far, he was far from alone. For
instance, Wallerius wrote in his textbook “Concerning oil of vitriol, which with
regard to the thick consistency, but not any other oily property, has received the
name of oil […]” [2], Macquer, however, took his criticism one step further. In the
second volume of his Dictionnaire de Chymie from 1766, he attempted to reform
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
A. Lennartson, Carl Wilhelm Scheele and Torbern Bergman, Perspectives on the
History of Chemistry, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49194-9_26
355
Bergman’s Contribution to Chemical
Nomenclature
Up to the eighteenth century, the number of known chemical substances was rather
limited and their compositions were poorly understood. They were generally named
after an important property, their physical appearance, discoverer or place of discovery. Chemists were talking about the fuming liquor of Libavius (SnCl 4 ), butter
of antimony (SbCl 3 ), Glauber’s salt (Na 2 SO 4 ), liver of sulphur (K 2 S n ) and Epsom
salt (MgSO 4 ). Names were coined by chemists, alchemists, pharmacists, miners,
dyers and physicians, leading to a very heterogeneous collection of names. Frequently, different professions had different terminologies resulting in vast numbers
of synonyms. It was not uncommon that a substance had different names depending
on how it was prepared. Different names could be used for the same substance in
the same publication; Scheele and Bergman were no exceptions.
During the eighteenth century, the problems with this way of naming substances
became evident. The number of known chemical substances, especially salts,
started to increase at an unprecedented rate. With the discovery of new acids
(Chaps. 14 and 24) and metals (Chap. 15), chemists faced a problem never experienced before: to devise names for predicted salts that had not yet been prepared.
Thus, there was an immediate need for a systematic chemical nomenclature.
26.1 Macquer’s Criticism
Critical voices were raised, but few concrete suggestions emerged. An important
exception was Macquer who, aged 31, attacked names such as oil of vitriol (huile
de vitriol; sulphuric acid) in his Elémens de Chymie Théorique in 1749, suggesting
the name vitriolic acid (acide vitriolique) [1]. So far, he was far from alone. For
instance, Wallerius wrote in his textbook “Concerning oil of vitriol, which with
regard to the thick consistency, but not any other oily property, has received the
name of oil […]” [2], Macquer, however, took his criticism one step further. In the
second volume of his Dictionnaire de Chymie from 1766, he attempted to reform
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
A. Lennartson, Carl Wilhelm Scheele and Torbern Bergman, Perspectives on the
History of Chemistry, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49194-9_26
355