After Jacobus Henricus van't Hoff had passed away on 1 March 1911, his pupil Charles Marinus van Deventer (1860–1931) wrote a very personal ‘in memoriam’ in the Dutch literary periodical De Gids, pointing out that van't Hoff had merely been interested in scientific facts, not in the people discovering these facts. Van't Hoff considered the study of the history of chemistry, although by no means uncongenial, a matter of little importance. He once even said: ‘To me historical research appears to be appropriate for a chemist in the decline of life, when he no longer creates professional ideas, and when the laboratory has become a burden to him’. Although van Deventer had studied physical chemistry at van't Hoff's Amsterdam laboratory and had been his assistant from 1885 until 1893, he disagreed with this verdict. Van Deventer was not only a capable physical chemist, he was also an active member of the Tachtigers, a circle of Dutch poets who around 1880 brought about a renewal in Dutch literature. He took a special interest in Greek philosophy. He did not graduate with van't Hoff, but with his colleague Jan Willem Gunning (1827–1900). His thesis was not based on physical-chemical, but on historical research: Schetsen uit de Geschiedenis van de Scheikunde (‘Sketches from the history of chemistry’; 13 December 1884). From 1922 to 1923 he lectured on the history of chemistry at Utrecht University. His fascinating lectures were published as Grepen uit de Historie der Chemie (‘Choices from the history of chemistry’; 1924). This work reveals his particular interest in the development of chemical concepts.

Lyell's performance as a historian was both fruitful and remarkable. He wrote well; his style was lucid; and he wrote with conviction and authority. In his history of geology we find none of the usual historians’ dodges. No ‘one of the first’, no ‘probablies’, no ‘it would seem that way’. Lyell did not have to resort to such ruses, because he wrote about the truth—the truth, that is, as he saw it. Most of his statements of fact are not incorrect. But in selecting his facts, he left out anything that did not suit his purpose. Other historians of the geological sciences have pointed out the polemical nature of Lyell's history in general. My investigation is limited to a single chapter of his history, Chapter IV of the Principles, and to his treatment of Werner.