Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:04:26.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mendeleev's periodic system of chemical elements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent
Bernadette Bensaude-Vincent
Affiliation:
Mission du Musée de la Villette, 211, Bd Jean jaurès, 75019 Paris, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Between 1869 and 1871, D. I. Mendeleev, a teacher at the University at St Petersburg published a textbook of general chemistry intended for his students. The title, Principles of Chemistry was typical for the time: it meant that chemistry was no longer an inquiry on the ultimate principles of matter but had become a science firmly established on a few principles derived from experiment.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal for the History of Science , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , March 1986 , pp. 3 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © British Society for the History of Science 1986

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

I am in debt to Dr R. F. Bud and K. Markovsky for their critical reading of the manuscript.

1. Mendeleev did several investigations on the economic potentialities of his country: on the pentane extracted from the naphtha in Baku, (1882)Google Scholar; experiments on oil production for security lights (1882); on an American naphtha refinery (1844); the resources of the future lying on the Donetz banks (1888); article ‘Mendeleev’ D. S. B. Vol. 9.Google Scholar

2. Mendeleev: Introduction to the 5th Russian edn of the Principles of Chemistry, quoted from Kolodkine, P., DI Mendeleev et la loi périodique. Paris, Seghers, 1964.Google Scholar

3. Odling, W.: A Course of Practical Chemistry, Arranged for the Use of Medical Students. London, 1854.Google ScholarMeyer, J. L., Die Modernen Theorien der chemie und irhe bedeutung fur die chemische statik. Breslau, 1864.Google Scholar His system had been set up as early as 1868 but it was published after Mendeleev's in 1879: ‘Die Natur der chemischen Elemente als Function ihrer Atomgewichte’, [Liebigs] Annalen der chemie, supp. band. 7, p. 354, 364.Google Scholar

4. Fontenelle, J. B. J.,: Mémoires de l'Académie Royale des Sciences, 1699Google Scholar, quoted from the article ‘Chymie’. In: Diderot, and d'Alembert, : Encyclopedie Raisonnée des Sciences et des Techniques, Paris, (1753), Vol. 3, p. 409.Google Scholar

5. Lavoisier, A. L.: ‘Mémoire sur la nécessité de réformer et de perfectionner la nomenclature de la chimie’Google Scholar, lu à l'Académie le 17 avril 1787. In: Oeuvres de Lavoisier. Paris, 1862–1892,.354, 364.Google Scholar This memoir and the following were published in volume entitled Méthode de nomenclature chimique proposée par MM de Morveau, Lavoisier, Berthollet, et De Fourcroy, Paris, 1787; recently reprinted in Cahiers d'histoire et de Philosophie des Sciences, 1983Google Scholar, 6, Paris, B. Bensaude-Vincent, ed.

6. Lavoisier, A. L.: Traité élémentaire de chimie [1789].Google Scholar In: Oeuvres op. cit. (5) T1.Google Scholar

7. For instance Partington, J. R.: ‘The concept of Substance and chemical elements’. Chymia, (1948), 1, p. 109–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Dalton, J.: A New System of Chemical Philosophy. Part II, Manchester, 1810, p. 222.Google Scholar

9. See Farrar, W. V.: ‘Nineteenth century speculations on the complexity of elements’ B. J. H. S. (1965), ii, p. 297–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brock, W. H.: Dalton versusGoogle Scholar Prout: the problem of Prout's hypothesis'. In: John Dalton and the progress of science (Cardwell, D. S. L., ed.) Manchester, 1968Google Scholar; Knight, D. M.: The Transcendental Part of Chemistry, Folkestone, 1968.Google Scholar

10. Thomson, T.: An Attempt to Establish the First Principles of Chemistry by Experiment. 2 vols, London, 1825CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dumas, J. B.: ‘Mémoire sur les équivalents chimiques,’ Annales de chimie et de physique, (1859). 55, p. 129–210Google Scholar; Galissard de Marignac, : ‘Sur les rapports réciproques des poid atomiques’. Bulletin de l'Académie Royale de Belgique. (1860), 10Google Scholar, 2nd serie, no. 8. see also Kapoor, S. C.: ‘Dumas and organic classification’. Ambix (1869). 16, p. 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Such was the case of Dumas and Marignac, op. cit. (10).

12. Lockyer, N.: Inorganic Evolution as Studied by Spectrum Analysis. London, 1900.CrossRefGoogle ScholarBrock, W. H.: The Atomic Debates. Leicester, 1967.Google Scholar

13. Van Spronsen, J. W.: The Periodic System of Chemical Elements; a History of the First Hundred Years. Amsterdam, London, & New York, 1969.Google Scholar

14. Béguyer de Chancourtois, : Comptes-rendus de l'Académie des Sciences. (1862), 54, p. 842.Google Scholar

15. Mendeleev, : ‘Faraday Lecture’ delivered on 4 04 1889. J. Chem. Soc. (1889), 55, p. 634–656, 647Google Scholar, reprinted in Knight, D. M., Classical scientific papers, chemistry. 2nd series, 1970, p. 322–344.Google Scholar The amalgam between the periodic law and Prout's hypothesis was supported by Berthelot, M.: Les origines de l'alchimie, Paris, 1885.Google Scholar

16. Mendeleev: ibid. p. 647.

17. Mendeleev, : ‘The periodic law of the chemical elements’. Chem. News, 40, p. 292Google Scholar; reprinted in Knight, D. M., op. cit. (15).Google Scholar

18. Faraday lecture op. cit. (15) p. 642, 643.Google Scholar

19. Kedrov, B. M., gave a detailed account of the process of discovery. In: Filosfskii Analiz Pervych Troedov D. I Mendeleev o Perioiditseskom Zakone (1869–1871), Moscow, 1959Google Scholar; and Cahiers d'histoire mondiale, (1960), 6, p. 644.Google Scholar Kedrov, B. M., also wrote the article on Mendeleev in the D. S. B..

20. Mendeleev quoted by Kolodkine, P., op. cit. (2).Google Scholar See also Faraday lecture, op. cit. (15), p. 636, 637.Google Scholar

21. See for instance, Sambursky, S.: ‘Structure and periodicity centenary of Mendeleev's discovery’. Proceeding of Israel Academy of Human Sciences, (1971), 4, p. 1–13.Google ScholarTeterin, G.: ‘La création du systéme périodique’. Industrie chimique belge, (1971), 36, p. 15.Google Scholar

22. See The Principles of Chemistry. 2 vols, London, 1891.Google ScholarPrincipes de chimie transl. Carrion, M. H. and Aschkinasi, M. E. from the 5th Russian edn, with footnotes from the 6th and 7th edn. 2 vols, Paris, 1896. At the end of the first volume, the two volumes of the 2nd part were announced but they were never issued. To read the second part one can refer to a Russian edition of the complete works of Mendeleev, or to the German translation of the Principles, Grundlagen der chimie. St Petersburg, 1891.Google Scholar

23. Mendeleev, : ‘The periodic law of chemical elements’. Chem. News, (1879), 40, p. 244.Google Scholar

24. Van Spronsen, J. W.: op. cit. (13) section 3.7.Google Scholar

25. Mendeleev, : ‘The relation between the properties and the atomic weight of the elements’ J. Russ. Chem. Soc. (1869), p. 60–67Google Scholar, reprinted in Leicester, H. M., and Klickstein, H. S.: Sourcebook in Chemistry 1400–1900. New York, 1952, p. 439.Google Scholar

26. Mendeleev, : op. cit. (17), p. 243.Google Scholar Laurent and Gerhardt had a great influence on the discovery of the periodic system. Odling translated Laurent's Methode de Chimie into English and Mendeleev used Gerhardt's Traité de chimie organique for his teaching. He often referred to them, throughout the Principles, especially to Gerhardt whose name he never separated from Avogadro's.

27. Avogadro, A.: Jounal de physique, (1811), 3, p. 58–76.Google ScholarAmpère, A. M.: Annales de chimie (1814), 90, p. 43–86.Google Scholar Their law has long been ignored, first because of the dispute between atomists and equivalentists, and also because of some confusing discrepancies in vocabulary. Avogadro used the terms ‘elementary molecules’ for what we call ‘atoms’ and ‘integrant molecules’ for our ‘molecules’. Ampère used ‘molecules’ for atoms and ‘particles’ for molecules. The modern terminology was first established by Gaudin but it remained ignored, before Gerhardt. Eventually it was adopted by a great number of chemists at the Karlsruhe Conference in 1860, thanks to Cannizzaro's energetic support. See Rocke, A. J.: Chemical Atomism in the nineteenth century. Columbus, Ohio, 1984.Google Scholar

28. Lavoisier, : op. cit. (5) T1, p. 7.Google Scholar

29. We must notice, by passing, that so famous was Lavoisier that he occulted the name of his rival Lomonossov. Though Lomonossov was a countryman, Mendeleev did not even mention his name in the Principles.

30. Comte, Auguste: Cours de Philosophie positive Paris (1830–1842), 6 volsGoogle Scholar; recent edn. Serres, M., Dagognet, F., Sinaceur, A.,. Paris, 1972. 2 vols.Google Scholar

31. Faraday lecture, op. cit. (15), p. 656.Google Scholar

32. Mendeleev, : ‘Lettre au Dr Quesneville’. Le moniteur scientifique, (1879) 21 p 691Google Scholar

33. Ibid.

34. Van Spronsen, J. W.: op. cit. (13), p. 260.Google Scholar

35. Mendeleev, : In: Nature, (1895), 51, p. 453.Google Scholar

36. See Ramsay, W.: In: Revue génerale de chimie pure et appliquée, 1884, 1, p. 53.Google Scholar

37. Mendeleev, : An Attempt Towards a Chemical Conception of Ether. London 1904Google Scholar, Translation Kamensky, See also Bensaude-Vincent, B.: Br. J. Hist. Sci. (1982), 115, p. 183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar