jamesgray2

870J Lemery , Nicholas (1645-1715)

A course of chymistry : containing an easie method of preparing those chymical medicins which are used in physick : with curious remarks and useful discourses upon each preparation, for the benefit of such who desire to be instructed in the knowledge of this art .    Third Edition, translated from the eighth edition in the French, which is very much enlarged beyond any of the former.

London: Printed for W. Kettilby, and sold by James Bonwicke at the Hat and Star in St. Paul’s Church-yard, 1698.     Price $2,500    

Octavo 18 x 12 cm. Signatures:A⁴ a⁸ B-C⁸D⁶,(*)⁸(**)⁴ E-Z⁸ Aa-Zz⁸Aaa-Ggg⁸ 10 leaves of illustrations and tables. With the signature of “Sarah Smith” in ink on front free endpaper and head of dedication [3]. there is a marginal ink stain on about forty pages thumbprint size at its largest but never close to the text.

A translation by Walter Harris, with additions by James Keill (whose name appears on A3v), of: Cours de chymie.  The third edition, translated from the eighth edition in the French, which is very much enlarged beyond any of the former.

Nicolas Lemery, is a transitional figure in the history of chemistry.  He is not an alchemist in the mystical sense, but neither is he yet a modern chemist. He embodies the secularization and systematization of alchemy into chemistry: moving from hidden, allegorical traditions toward open, pedagogical, and experimental science grounded in corpuscular philosophy. Often described as one of the first “mechanical chemists,” Lemery sought to explain chemical processes not in terms of hidden essences or alchemical sympathies, but through the interaction of tiny particles with different shapes and surfaces. He proposed, for instance, that acids were composed of corpuscles tipped with minute spikes, while bases contained small cavities or receptors into which the spikes could fit.

When acids and bases combined, the sharp points locked into the hollows, producing a neutral substance. Though speculative, this model marked a decisive step away from the language of alchemical qualities and toward a mechanistic, quasi-atomic understanding of chemical reactions.

This corpuscular language shows the influence of Descartes, Gassendi, and Boyle, situating Lémery firmly in the 17th-century mechanistic turn. This explanatory model follows Descartes’ mechanistic physics, which rejected occult qualities and instead reduced natural phenomena to matter in motion. Lémery does not use Descartes’ full metaphysical system, but he adopts his explanatory style: chemistry is no longer about hidden essences or alchemical sympathies but about the mechanical play of particles.  The Cours is primarily a laboratory manual — it systematized chemical procedures and recipes for a broad audience, from apothecaries to students. But Lémery’s particle explanations provided a conceptual bridge: they framed practical operations in the new natural philosophy, making experimental chemistry compatible with Cartesian mechanism. He book emphasized reproducible laboratory procedures, recipes, and empirical observation over speculation about transmutation.

Lemery’s commitment to explanation through experiment also signaled the changing character of natural philosophy. He avoided allegorical or hermetic interpretations, stripping away the esoteric language.

In 1700, he reported a striking trial in which he buried sulfur and iron filings beneath earth and then added water. The resulting rise in temperature and eruption of hot fluids led him to propose a mechanical account of volcanic action. Though ultimately inadequate, the attempt demonstrated how chemistry was being applied to natural phenomena, replacing mythic or purely speculative accounts with experimental models that could be tested and debated.

Lemery’s  Cours de Chymie, would dominate European chemical education for the next three-quarters of a century. Unlike Robert Boyle, who never composed such a manual, Lemery offered a clear and practical guide that could be used by students, physicians, and apothecaries alike. Here again, his work was transitional: chemistry was moving out of the secrecy of the workshop and into the printed page of the classroom, becoming a subject that could be systematically learned and taught.

Later editions of the Cours, especially the illustrated 1690 printing and onward, reveal this moment of transition with particular clarity. One plate shows the Bologna stone, the phosphorescent barite crystals that captured the fascination of seventeenth-century naturalists, a reminder that chemistry was still bound to marvels and curiosities even as it took on a more experimental character. Another plate depicts the arcane symbols and signs then used to represent chemical substances. By the time of Lavoisier and Guyton de Morveau a century later, such hieroglyphs would be swept aside by a rationalized chemical nomenclature—an emblem of the chemical revolution to come.

In these ways, Lemery’s work embodies a threshold moment: his Cours de Chymie consolidated older traditions of alchemy and artisanal practice, while also laying the groundwork for the rational, experimental, and pedagogical chemistry of the Enlightenment.

https://datb.cerl.org/estc/R202695

Wing (2nd ed.), L1040,ESTC r202695, Ferguson II, 20ff    

https://dfg-viewer.de/show/ set[mets]=https%3A//digital.ulb.hhu.de%2Foai%2F%3Fverb%3DGetRecord%26metadataPrefix%3Dmets%26identifier%3D1882311

JAMESGRAY2@ME.COM