In this article, we discuss the development of the concept of a ‘law’ (of nature) in the work of the Dutch natural philosopher and experimenter Petrus van Musschenbroek (1692–1761). Since Van Musschenbroek is commonly described as one of the first ‘Newtonians’ on the Continent in the secondary literature, we focus more specifically on its relation to Newton’s views on this issue. Although he was certainly indebted to Newton for his thinking on laws (of nature), Van Musschenbroek’s views (...) can be seen to diverge from Newton’s on crucial points. We show, moreover, how his thinking on laws of nature was shaped by both international and local factors. We start with a brief discussion of Newton’s concept of ‘laws of nature’ in order to set the stage for Van Musschenbroek’s. We then document the development of Van Musschenbroek’s views on laws of nature in chronological order. We demonstrate how his thinking on laws of nature was tied to institutional, theological and scientific factors. We conclude by pointing to the broader significance of this case study for our understanding of the development of the concept ‘law of nature’ during the eighteenth century. (shrink)

In this article, I discuss manuscript material written by Petrus van Musschenbroek (1692–1761) related to his first experiments with the Leiden jar. Despite the importance of the discovery of the Leiden jar for the history of electricity and the questions that still surround its discovery, a detailed treatment of this manuscript material is lacking in the literature. The main aim of this paper is to provide an outline of the manuscript material and to contextualize van Musschenbroek’s first experiments (...) with the Leiden jar. I show how the experiment fits within his research program on electricity and I discuss van Musschenbroek’s initial reactions to and analysis of the phenomenon. Before doing so, I first provide a short overview of the treatment of the early history of the Leiden jar in the secondary literature. After that, I discuss van Musschenbroek’s treatment of the topic of electricity in the textbooks he published in the years before the discovery of the device. Van Musschenbroek repeatedly emphasized that not enough experimental results were available for an informed theoretical treatment of the phenomenon of electricity to be possible. I then turn to the manuscript material, where I give a general description of the contents of the manuscript and van Musschenbroek’s experimental practice. The manuscript material further confirms recent work on the Leiden jar by Silva and Heering, and provides new insights into the way van Musschenbroek himself reacted to the discovery. (shrink)

In this article, I discuss Petrus van Musschenbroek's research on the strength of materials in relation to his methodological views. In the latter, van Musschenbroek emphasizes the importance of repeating and varying experiments. This is related to his views on the complexity of nature, which play a role in his views onmathematics, laws of nature, causes, and experimental method. In each case, the construction of an (experimental) history is presented as a first step in experimental philosophy, necessary to (...) deal with the complexity of nature. The experimental research on the strength ofmaterials can likewise be seen as aimed at the construction of an (experimental) history. His experimental practice takes the form of a systematic variation of parameters and the performance of an extensive series of experiments on different kinds of substances. In his experimental reports, van Musschenbroek repeatedly points to the utility of his experimental results. This utilitarian attitude is typical for the experimental history literature as discussed by Klein. Van Musschenbroek himself also presents his work as an experimental history. However, unlike the examples discussed by Klein, van Musschenbroek's experimental history is characterized by a systematic experimental method. I argue that this method can be seen as an example of exploratory experimentation in Steinle's sense. Finally, I suggest that with its emphasis on the nature and properties of specific materials, it could be fruitful to read van Musschenbroek's experimental history in light of the emergence of engineering as a discipline in the eighteenth century. (shrink)

This paper discusses the connection between epistemic virtues and chemistry in the eighteenth century Dutch Republic. It does so in two ways. First, it presents the virtue epistemology of three Dutch university professors and natural philosophers: Herman Boerhaave, Petrus van Musschenbroek, and Johannes David Hahn. It shows how their criticism of a priori philosophy and their defence of experimental natural philosophy is connected to a specific virtue epistemology. Four epistemic virtues are central for these authors: intellectual patience, diligence and (...) humility, and impartiality. This virtue epistemology informs their presentation of chemistry as an exemplary discipline. The practice of chemistry instils these key epistemic virtues in its practitioners. Second, the article shows how these epistemic virtues also play a role in later debates regarding the reception of Lavoisier’s work in the Dutch Republic. This article hopes to provide an example of what Ian Kidd has called a ‘deep conception of epistemic vice [and virtue]’. It also argues for the fruitfulness of applying a virtue epistemic framework to the study of the Chemical Revolution. (shrink)

Like many of their contemporaries Bernard Nieuwentijt and Pieter van Musschenbroek were baffled by the heterodox conclusions which Baruch Spinoza drew in the Ethics. As the full title of the Ethics—Ethica ordine geometrico demonstrata—indicates, these conclusions were purportedly demonstrated in a geometrical order, i.e. by means of pure mathematics. First, I highlight how Nieuwentijt tried to immunize Spinoza’s worrisome conclusions by insisting on the distinction between pure and mixed mathematics. Next, I argue that the anti-Spinozist underpinnings of Nieuwentijt’s (...) distinction between pure and mixed mathematics resurfaced in the work of van Musschenbroek. By insisting on the distinction between pure and mixed mathematics, Nieuwentijt and van Musschenbroek argued that Spinoza abused mathematics by making claims about things that exist in rerum natura by relying on a pure mathematical approach. In addition, by insisting that mixed mathematics should be painstakingly based on mathematical ideas that correspond to nature, van Musschenbroek argued that René Descartes’ natural-philosophical project abused mathematics by introducing hypotheses, i.e. ideas, that do not correspond to nature. (shrink)

During the mid-18th century, when electricity was coming into its own, natural philosophers began to entertain the possibility that electricity is the mysterious nerve force. Their attention was first drawn to several species of strongly electric fish, namely torpedoes, a type of African catfish, and a South American "eels." This was because their effects felt like those of discharging Leyden jars and could be transmitted along known conductors of electricity. Moreover, their actions could not be adequately explained by popular mechanical (...) theories. Many of the early documents supportive of the hypothesis of animal electricity were associated with the Dutch colonies in South America. This article presents and examines those documents, and shows how Dutch scientists on both sides of the Atlantic conducted experiments and communicated with each other in the 1750s and 1760s. It reveals the important roles played by inquisitive physicians and lovers of nature in South America, and by natural philosophers and collectors of exotic specimens in the Netherlands—learned men who began to make a credible case for animal electricity in some exciting places at a pivotal moment in time. (shrink)

Tijekom svoje kratke filozofske profesure na Bečkom sveučilištu i u plemićkom zavodu Collegium Theresianum , ali i potom dok je bio profesorom teologije u Beču, isusovac Josip Zanchi, riječki plemić, četiri je puta tiskao svoj udžbenik Physica particularis, koji je sadržavao raspravu iz meteorologije. U svim je tim izdanjima izlaganje o uzroku dúge započeo povijesnom bilješkom, u kojoj je sažeto prikazao de Dominisov, Descartesov i Newtonov doprinos objašnjenju dúge. Potraga za Zanchijevim izvorom u optičkim i prirodnofilozofskim djelima objavljenim nakon Newtonova (...) djela Opticks otkrila je tri newtonovca koji su također spomenuli de Dominisa: Henryja Pembertona, Voltairea i Antonija Genovesija. Njima treba pridodati i četvrtoga: Pietera van Musschenbroeka, koji je de Dominisovu ulogu u povijesti istraživanja dúge opisao pod Genovesijevim utjecajem, ali tek u posmrtno objavljenom djelu Introductio ad philosophiam naturalem .Pri sastavljaju svoje povijesne bilješke o istraživanju dúge Josip Zanchi slijedio je Newtona ili nekog newtonovca. Tvrdio je više od Newtona jer je za njega de Dominis »prvi od svih otkrio pravi uzrok dúge«, pri čem je oprezno dometnuo videtur, a objektivnije je od Newtona i nekih newtonovaca opisao Descartesov doprinos. Kad je pak studentima objašnjavao dúgu, slijedio je posljednju riječ znanosti – Newtona.Uporabom Zanchijeva udžbenika Physica particularis s de Dominisovim optičkim i meteorološkim prinosom mogli su se susresti profesori i studenti filozofije i u Hrvatskoj. Taj su udžbenik posjedovale knjižnice na dvama isusovačkim filozofskim učilištima: u Zagrebačkom kolegiju najkasnije od 1758., a u Požeškom kolegiju najkasnije od 1769. godine.While teaching philosophy at the University of Vienna and the elite school Collegium Theresianum , but also theology in the same city, Josip Zanchi, Jesuit of noble birth from Rijeka, had published four editions of his manual Physica particularis, containing also a most comprehensive meteorological treatise. In each of the four Vienna editions his elaboration on the cause of rainbow opens a historical paragraph comprising a short survey of de Dominis’, Descartes’ and Newton’s contributions to the explanation of rainbow. Search for Zanchi’s source in the works dealing with natural philosophy published after Newton’s Opticks has brought to light three Newtonians who also mentioned de Dominis: Henry Pemberton, Voltaire and Antonio Genovesi. The name of Pieter van Musschenbroek should be added to this list. He described de Dominis’ role in the history of the explanation of rainbow under the influence of Genovesi, published posthumously in his work Introductio ad philosophiam naturalem .While composing his historical paragraph on the explanation of rainbow, Josip Zanchi followed in the footsteps of Newton or a Newtonian. He exceeded Newton by stating that de Dominis was »the first to have discovered the true cause of rainbow,« carefully employing videtur in support of his argument, his description of Descartes’ contribution being more objective than that of Newton or some Newtonians. However, in his academic lectures on rainbow, he followed the latest scientific discoveries – Newton.Through Zanchi’s manual Physica particularis, Croatian professors and students of philosophy could also have become familiar with de Dominis’ optical and meteorological contribution. This manual was available in the libraries of two Jesuit philosophical schools: Zagreb College or Collegium Zagrabiense, not later than 1758, and in Požega College or Collegium Poseganum, from 1769 at the latest. (shrink)