Search

This paper compares the affinity theories and the associated affinity diagrams of William Cullen (1710-1790) and George Fordyce (1736-1802), exploring in particular one episode that took place during the brief hiatus between Fordyce's student years at Edinburgh University and the start of his own pedagogical career in London. This investigation complements that contained in Part I of this paper, which compared the chemistry courses given by Cullen and Fordyce, demonstrating that the knowledge originally imparted to Fordyce by Cullen in his Edinburgh lectures was augmented and translated by Fordyce for his own pedagogical purposes. Part II offers greater insight into the flow of knowledge between Fordyce and Cullen. Their correspondence suggests that the relationship between master and student transmuted into something more complicated after Fordyce left Edinburgh, while the model of knowledge transmission between the two can be seen to be more collaborative than might be expected.

This article contributes to a growing body of research on the dissemination, dispersion or diffusion of scientific knowledge via pedagogical networks. By examining students' handwritten lecture notes, I compare the eighteenth-century chemistry lectures given by William Cullen (1710-1790) at Glasgow and Edinburgh Universities with those of his one-time student George Fordyce (1736-1802), in London, at first privately and then as part of the medical education of physicians at St. Thomas's Hospital. Part I examines the broad structure of Cullen's and Fordyce's courses, comparing both course content and pedagogical approaches to ask how far knowledge flowed directly 'downstream,' and the extent to which it was transformed, translated or transmuted in the process of transmission. Part II (forthcoming) will approach the affinity theories of Cullen and Fordyce in greater depth, revealing the dynamics of knowledge transfer. The results shed light on the transmission of knowledge and skills between master and student, and reflect on whether Fordyce can be better described as Cullen's pedagogical progeny, or less straightforwardly as a tactical translator.

Atypical career of a chemist in Germany around 1800 consisted of being trained as an apothecary, followed by an occupation as a professor at a university or another institution of higher education. These conditions deeply influenced the concept and the practice of chemistry as a science. Johann Friedrich August Göttling is an intriguing example for merging education and daily duties of teaching with the self-image of a scientific chemist. He linked chemical teaching, work, and research by using different hybrid media, such as the Almanach oder Taschenbuch für Scheidekünstler und Apotheker, a stove specifically designed for the narrow student's room, portable laboratories, a pharmaceutical boarding school and textbooks. This allowed him to practice three different forms of chemistry as a science. A "socio-epistemological diagram" of German chemistry around 1800 shows that these forms neatly corresponded to the then predominant three-level epistemology. In particular, the concept of a chemical fact served to link pharmaceutical practice with teaching practice, while granting only the chemistry done by professors the status of a science.

In his decree of 1794, Fourcroy renewed the medical education of the medicine students as he introduced their participation in the hospitals. Why did he intervene in the clinical education of medicine students as he was a lawmaker and skilled in chemistry? Actually he had been influenced by the book - Essays about the illnesses of Craftmen - written in 1702 by Ramazzini from Padoue he translated in 1777. Not only did he translate the text but he completed the whole through the experience of the 18th century got in the clinical, physiological and chemical domains according to the scientfic mind of the "Grande Encyclopédie". Thus it was the introduction of science in clinical domain as Corvisart was appointed in Cardiology by Fourcroy at the start of the new School of Medicine in 1804.

Pierre-François Nicolas, was born in Saint-Mihiel in 1743, studied in this town and in St-Nicolas-de-Port near Nancy. At first he has been a military apothecary during the "Guerre de Sept-Ans". Then he studied pharmacy in Nancy and was received in 1768 at the "Maîtrise de pharmacie". With the physician Henri Michel du Tennatar, he created a teaching of chemistry for medicine students and became the professor of chemistry of the Faculty of Medicine in 1781. During these years, he published some research results about hydrology, distillery, biochemistry (phosphorus in bone), toxicology, dyeing... At the end of 1783, he succeeded in the realization of a balloon and he played an important part in Nancy during the French Revolution. Professor at the "Ecole de médecine" in Strasbourg for some weeks, then in Nancy at the "Ecole centrale" and at the "Société de santé", he left Nancy towards the mid-1798. Staying in Paris for two or three years he probably worked with Fourcroy and perhaps Chaptal and Berthollet. In the early years of the nineteenth century he was appointed professor in the "Ecole centrale" du Calvados" and some years after at the "Faculté des sciences" in Caen. His latest significant work with Gueudeville was devoted to the detection of sugar in the urine of diabetic patients. Retired in 1811 Pierre-François Nicolas died in Caen in 1816.

Educated at Aberdeen and Edinburgh at the height of the 'golden age' of Scottish medicine, George Fordyce came to London, where he began to lecture on chemistry and medical subjects. As a physician at St Thomas's Hospital he became an authority on fevers, but his scientific interests remained wide. He studied the animal fluids involved in digestion, the effects of heat on the body, the applications of chemistry to agriculture and industry, and the gain in weight of metals on calcination, among other problems. His work was highly regarded in his lifetime, but an eccentric lifestyle and a lack of concern for the social graces tended to reduce his standing among medical colleagues. He made no significant discoveries and although his contributions to medical education were important, he has been largely neglected.