What do you think?
Rate this book
Mendeleyev's Dream
The author unravels the history of chemistry, from the ancient Greek philosophers to the Age of Englightenment and beyond, introducing the colorful cast of characters who fashioned the study of elements into a science. Reprint.
309 pages, Trade Paperback
First published April 1, 2001
About the author
Paul Strathern
166 books553 followersPaul Strathern (born 1940) is a English writer and academic. He was born in London, and studied at Trinity College, Dublin, after which he served in the Merchant Navy over a period of two years. He then lived on a Greek island. In 1966 he travelled overland to India and the Himalayas. His novel A Season in Abyssinia won a Somerset Maugham Award in 1972.
Besides five novels, he has also written numerous books on science, philosophy, history, literature, medicine and economics.
Besides five novels, he has also written numerous books on science, philosophy, history, literature, medicine and economics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 96 reviews
November 28, 2017
I really hated this book. The author has nothing but contempt for the philosophers and thinkers who predated the development of Modern Science, variously describing them as mystics, in error, misguided, or even tricksters or charlatans. Surely some of them were, but most of them were people of their time, striving to understand their world to the best of their ability, their ability being blunted by whatever prejudices they grew up with, which is no different than scientists are today. Strathern points and laughs about how wrong they were, how far from the true path of objectively true scientific thought. I'm a scientist and I value the scientific method but I'd argue that even today the method only gives us simplistic glimpses of the truth and I know better than to mock the people who came before me.
October 22, 2011
A very accessible, non-fiction telling of the epic journey and transmutation of the collective human intellect through the ages. The book guides us through the labyrinth of dead ends and discoveries from Thales of Miletus in ancient Greece, through Mendeleyev of mid 19th century Czarist Russia that precipitated the identification and classification of the known elements. Though this may sound boring - it is not.
Strathern illuminates all of the major characters, their lives, and their intellectual entanglements in myth, religious dogma, superstition, and the specially persistent influences of alchemy that took chemistry millennia to shed like an emergent butterfly from its chrysalis.
The title of this book is misleading, if from it you assume the book is primarily about Mendeleyev - far from it. In this book of just under 300 pages, only the prologue and last 32 pages concern him.
This, however, does not detract from the amazing story behind the distillation of modern chemistry out of the quagmire of beliefs and false starts - era after era - finally culminating in Mendeleyev's periodic table of the elements and the birth of modern chemistry.
Strathern conjures up from the dusty past, and richly fleshes out for us, the long line of extraordinary characters, their lives, influences, and contributions that eventually produced modern chemistry that has so profoundly shaped the modern world.
Very much worth reading.
Strathern illuminates all of the major characters, their lives, and their intellectual entanglements in myth, religious dogma, superstition, and the specially persistent influences of alchemy that took chemistry millennia to shed like an emergent butterfly from its chrysalis.
The title of this book is misleading, if from it you assume the book is primarily about Mendeleyev - far from it. In this book of just under 300 pages, only the prologue and last 32 pages concern him.
This, however, does not detract from the amazing story behind the distillation of modern chemistry out of the quagmire of beliefs and false starts - era after era - finally culminating in Mendeleyev's periodic table of the elements and the birth of modern chemistry.
Strathern conjures up from the dusty past, and richly fleshes out for us, the long line of extraordinary characters, their lives, influences, and contributions that eventually produced modern chemistry that has so profoundly shaped the modern world.
Very much worth reading.
June 24, 2021
For a book called Menedeleyev's dream, I had anticipated, not unreasonably that this would be a book about Mendeleyev and the insight he had (including inspiration from nightime reveries) that led to the genius idea of the periodic table - why it's arranged as it is, what this means for elemental properties, just what are transitions elements etc etc. Instead, after a short cameo in the first chapter, Mendeleyev does not feature again until the penultimate chapter - a brief bio and then a simple account of him having a dream in which the elements were arranged periodically by weight and..er..that was about it. In between were many interesting chapters giving a roller coaster ride through the history of the understanding of chemistry from the Greeks, through multiple alchemists and some 'characters' like Paracelsus and Cavendish. As I say, all very interesting but not what I had signed up for. And it was frustrating that the whirlwind history was so short of the details of exaclty what these minds worked out and exactly how they did it - to me the chemistry should have been the nub of the book. So, if you're looking for a whistle stop tour of celebrities from the history of chemistry then this is the book for you. But if you're looking for something that's more about the chemistry then I'd look elsewhere. That said, it was enjoyable to hear his relentlessly scathing attitude to religion, spirituality and mysticism, all of which were roundly condemned as holding the human race back from making fundamental discoveries.
January 18, 2015
This is a very good book. It not only made me understand the shift from alchemy to chemistry, the search for elements and the more or less bizarre people involved in both but also what is the trouble with most popularized accounts that claim to be about the history of science. Strathern is both a historian and a scientist. Most other authors are only half historians and half scientists, at least when they set out to write their books which turn out to be more or less sloppy products.
Strathern is anything but sloppy. He injects something to his account that is rarely seen these days: wisdom. He is able to situate himself in a person's life in its historical context without making a fuss about it. That approach results in delightful and insightful passages as this:
"Fortunately [Mendeleyev's] wife proved an imaginative and resourceful woman. She wisely chose to spend her time on the estate at Tver, except when her husband arrived there from St Petersburg, when she and the children would depart from the Mendeleyev town residence. In this way the marriage managed to survive, without the cohabitation which is the ruin of so many relationships."
Now that Imitation Game about Alan Turing is still in the theatres, the reader appreciates all the more what singular characters it takes to make significant advances in science or any other human endeavour for that matter. The French chemists Lavoisier was the only one that Strathern portrayed as normal but he makes much of the fact that that did not spare Lavoisier from the guillotine. Ironically, the judge sent him to his death by saying that the revolution does not need scientists.
Strathern is anything but sloppy. He injects something to his account that is rarely seen these days: wisdom. He is able to situate himself in a person's life in its historical context without making a fuss about it. That approach results in delightful and insightful passages as this:
"Fortunately [Mendeleyev's] wife proved an imaginative and resourceful woman. She wisely chose to spend her time on the estate at Tver, except when her husband arrived there from St Petersburg, when she and the children would depart from the Mendeleyev town residence. In this way the marriage managed to survive, without the cohabitation which is the ruin of so many relationships."
Now that Imitation Game about Alan Turing is still in the theatres, the reader appreciates all the more what singular characters it takes to make significant advances in science or any other human endeavour for that matter. The French chemists Lavoisier was the only one that Strathern portrayed as normal but he makes much of the fact that that did not spare Lavoisier from the guillotine. Ironically, the judge sent him to his death by saying that the revolution does not need scientists.
September 3, 2023
While the book was quite lengthy, I couldn’t help but feel that the part about Mendeleyev’s story was rather concise. It was surprising to discover that Mendeleyev’s biography and the intriguing story of his periodic table discovery were confined to just the last two chapters. This left me wanting a more in-depth exploration.
One historical figure introduced in this book was Paracelsus, and I was intrigued by his story. I now find myself keen to know more about his story.
Despite my gripes, I’ve got a hunch I’ll give this book another go down the road. Maybe round two will uncover some hidden gems, new insights.
Oh, and by the way, who knew chemistry could actually be fun?
Overall, I had a blast reading this book, but I’d have loved it even more if the author had given these cool stories more room to breathe.
One historical figure introduced in this book was Paracelsus, and I was intrigued by his story. I now find myself keen to know more about his story.
Despite my gripes, I’ve got a hunch I’ll give this book another go down the road. Maybe round two will uncover some hidden gems, new insights.
Oh, and by the way, who knew chemistry could actually be fun?
Overall, I had a blast reading this book, but I’d have loved it even more if the author had given these cool stories more room to breathe.
September 29, 2010
This is a history of chemistry, loosely organized around Mendeleyev's discovery that the elements can be understood as a periodic table. After a brief, tantalizing look at Mendeleyev and the challenge he faced, the author leaps off into a scatter-shot history of chemistry, where he spends the bulk of his text. I would have much preferred an actual focus on Mendeleyev, who was a fascinating person. Strathern's chemical history is uneven. Some parts are thorough and interesting - particularly the Arabs and Paracelsus. However, it is unclear why Strathern chooses to linger over some personalities, while he zooms through dozens of others so rapidly that their names and achievements blur together.
In addition, he has a curious attitude towards the superstitions held by many early scientists. He imparts the news that Renaissance chemists held mystical beliefs as though this were horrifying or strange. It is neither. It was the flavor of the age.
I can hear the chatty, dry, witty tone he's shooting for, but he often misses. For the kind of book this is trying to be, pick up Bill Bryson's _A Brief History of Nearly Everything_.
In addition, he has a curious attitude towards the superstitions held by many early scientists. He imparts the news that Renaissance chemists held mystical beliefs as though this were horrifying or strange. It is neither. It was the flavor of the age.
I can hear the chatty, dry, witty tone he's shooting for, but he often misses. For the kind of book this is trying to be, pick up Bill Bryson's _A Brief History of Nearly Everything_.
April 21, 2015
I expected this book to be primarily about Mendeleyev but 2/3 of the book is a thorough history of the development of the scientific method in Europe. It would be a good history, but the author irksomely takes an interest in the gossip on each famous scientist. After dutifully describing each's accomplishment, as a history of science requires you to do, the author delves into some personal tabloid factoid about the scientist, usually about their sexuality or their poor familial relations!
I'm reading this book to learn about science: I didn't want to know about the sex lives of famous scientists. Besides too frequently delving into unrelated gossip, the author too often (for a nonfiction work) inserts his own negative views on the motivations of each scientist. Among his negative opinions, he often puts down their religion as "ignorance", which gives the author himself an unlikable air of pomposity and judgmentalism.
I'm reading this book to learn about science: I didn't want to know about the sex lives of famous scientists. Besides too frequently delving into unrelated gossip, the author too often (for a nonfiction work) inserts his own negative views on the motivations of each scientist. Among his negative opinions, he often puts down their religion as "ignorance", which gives the author himself an unlikable air of pomposity and judgmentalism.
February 1, 2014
An appalling work in the very worst (and very out-of-date) style of History of Science. Contemptuous, in that triumphalist, "aren't we a lot cleverer than our ancestors?" way of anything that doesn't seem to contribute to Chemistry as we know it today, this isn't historical (in the sense of understanding the past on its terms) in any real sense. There are much better works on mankind's relationship with "the elements".
August 4, 2023
Definitely one of my favorite books so far. The author narrates the origins of chemistry from Ancient Greece to the present time in an almost vivid way that makes the story highly interesting and very informative. I had to start annotating to not forget all the info! I’m not sure how interesting it would be for someone who hasn’t taken chemistry and physics courses but I certainly enjoyed it! The title is slightly misleading as there’s only 30 pages dedicated to Mendeleyev but I’m not complaining since I found his story to be one of the most boring ones from all the other scientists. I loved learning about the origins of alchemy and how it transcended into chemistry, and I also really enjoyed reading about the discovery of all the different elements.
July 12, 2023
This is a must read for a science aficionado. The book covers how chemistry evolved through history. It goes all the way back to the Ancient Greeks and how Aristotle proposed a theory in which matter was composed of four elements—fire, earth, wind, and water. This gave birth alchemy, which became an important practice for humanity as it tried to figure out what matter was. Reading how scientific though emerged from this obscure practice is thrilling and understanding how scientists reasoned to get us to where we are today is incredible. I highly recommend this book!
July 15, 2025
kasuklam-suklam na libro Riv!!!!
March 25, 2023
Much of the book read like a textbook but I learned so much. The last few chapters about Mendeleev were my favorite. I selected the book as was on Bill Gates’ favorite read book. Definitely target for people interested in science and related history - NOT a beach read!
September 14, 2020
I was looking for a good survey of the history of chemistry, and this is definitely not it. The first two chapter on the Greeks (the four elements, beginnings of atomic theory) and the Egyptians (beginnings of alchemy) are an OK start, but the book then takes a serious wrong turn, into meanderings on the historical development of the philosophical underpinnings of the scientific method. For more than 1/3 of the book, there is almost no chemistry at all, but pages and pages of biographical details of random folks who contributed little or nothing to chemistry (Nicholas of Cusa, I’m looking at you).
The second half of the book, beginning with Van Helmont’s experiments with gases in the 1500s, is a much better historical summary of chemistry up to Mendeleyev’s theoretical breakthrough of the Periodic Table, although it still suffers from a predilection to spend more time on the biographies of the scientists than on the practical and experimental details of the chemistry they performed. That’s a weakness of the book as a whole. Chemistry is the science of matter, but this book doesn’t let you feel the materiality, physicality, and dangers of chemical experimentation. What were those alchemists actually up to in their smoky dens? You won’t find out from this book.
The second half of the book, beginning with Van Helmont’s experiments with gases in the 1500s, is a much better historical summary of chemistry up to Mendeleyev’s theoretical breakthrough of the Periodic Table, although it still suffers from a predilection to spend more time on the biographies of the scientists than on the practical and experimental details of the chemistry they performed. That’s a weakness of the book as a whole. Chemistry is the science of matter, but this book doesn’t let you feel the materiality, physicality, and dangers of chemical experimentation. What were those alchemists actually up to in their smoky dens? You won’t find out from this book.
April 17, 2023
This is a great book on the history of chemistry and chemistry-makers; how chemistry became a branch of science. However, the title of the book sets up wrong expectations that the book would be focused on Mendeleyev's life and work. One has to wait patiently till the very last 30 pages of book where finally Mendeleyev reaches the spotlight.
October 28, 2017
I expected the book to be more about Mendelev, but he only appears in the preface and at the very end. Instead, the vast majority of the book is a history of what was to become chemistry, from the ancient Egyptians concerned with mummification up until the discovery of the Periodic Table.
I've read critiques of this book complaining that it gives the false impression that science proceeds in a straight line by omitting a lot of context around the historic episodes he presents, but I didn't take it that way at all. It's clearly written with the benefit of hindsight and is selecting the stories in light of what would later prove to be important, even though that direction was unknown at the time. As long as you understand that, you won't see an "arrow of scientific progress" illusion in the text at all.
I still need to find a book which will tell me more about Mendeleyev, but this was a great read.
I've read critiques of this book complaining that it gives the false impression that science proceeds in a straight line by omitting a lot of context around the historic episodes he presents, but I didn't take it that way at all. It's clearly written with the benefit of hindsight and is selecting the stories in light of what would later prove to be important, even though that direction was unknown at the time. As long as you understand that, you won't see an "arrow of scientific progress" illusion in the text at all.
I still need to find a book which will tell me more about Mendeleyev, but this was a great read.
February 12, 2021
While it was a scattered approach to the history of chemistry and science as a whole, Strathern does a good job telling the story of so many of the brilliant scientists before and including Dmitri Mendeleyev.
It was scattered because he didn’t always stay chronological and had a way of drifting in thought. Plus there was a lot of detail on the more primitive scientists and I admittedly was more interested in John Dalton and after. So for me, the last sixty pages or so were the most enjoyable.
The last two chapters are devoted to Mendeleyev and he proved to be an amazing story. I do wish Strathern wouldn’t have stopped there, much has happened with the periodic table since 1869 and I would have loved some inside information about Henri Moseley, perhaps, who figured out atomic number and changed the way we ordered the periodic table and identified elements altogether.
Recommended for like-minded readers and fellow chemistry teachers!
It was scattered because he didn’t always stay chronological and had a way of drifting in thought. Plus there was a lot of detail on the more primitive scientists and I admittedly was more interested in John Dalton and after. So for me, the last sixty pages or so were the most enjoyable.
The last two chapters are devoted to Mendeleyev and he proved to be an amazing story. I do wish Strathern wouldn’t have stopped there, much has happened with the periodic table since 1869 and I would have loved some inside information about Henri Moseley, perhaps, who figured out atomic number and changed the way we ordered the periodic table and identified elements altogether.
Recommended for like-minded readers and fellow chemistry teachers!
January 25, 2022
as a biochemistry major i thought i was DONE with scientific readings but this book — 🥲
i’ve laughed, audibly gasped, and felt like i was going crazy along with all of the famous and infamous geniuses of the centuries. oh this was so entertaining. i thought i was reading a reality tv script without dialogue. it contained betrayal, love, and funny narration. well done Paul Strathern.
this isn’t going to be my last scientific read, but i’m happy it was my first. i think mendeleyev wouldn’t be TOO shocked about how much we rely on his ‘Periodic Law,’ but he’d be a lil amazed about what we’ve found out by using it and developing it each decade. kudos, kudos, kudos!
i’ve laughed, audibly gasped, and felt like i was going crazy along with all of the famous and infamous geniuses of the centuries. oh this was so entertaining. i thought i was reading a reality tv script without dialogue. it contained betrayal, love, and funny narration. well done Paul Strathern.
this isn’t going to be my last scientific read, but i’m happy it was my first. i think mendeleyev wouldn’t be TOO shocked about how much we rely on his ‘Periodic Law,’ but he’d be a lil amazed about what we’ve found out by using it and developing it each decade. kudos, kudos, kudos!
May 12, 2012
Science history at its best. This wonderful story reminds us that the birth of modern chemistry and particle physics can both be linked directly to Mendeleyev's discovery of the periodic table, published 1869.
Strathern argues that prior to Mendeleyev's discovery, chemistry was still in fact alchemy. Without the periodic table, chemicals were infinitely permutable, and therefore the search for how to "make" gold was part of every chemist's work.
Srathern's stye is elegant and eloquent.
Strathern argues that prior to Mendeleyev's discovery, chemistry was still in fact alchemy. Without the periodic table, chemicals were infinitely permutable, and therefore the search for how to "make" gold was part of every chemist's work.
Srathern's stye is elegant and eloquent.
July 14, 2023
What an enjoyable time I spent reading this book. The way Chemistry finally got rid of the heavy alchemy envelope to become a formal science closed the circle with Mendeleyev's Periodic Table that, provides a framework that put together two hundred years of discovery and prepared chemistry for the future (nuclear fusion, DNA, the origin of the universe, sub-atomic particles).
I strongly recommend this book not only for the insight it provides but for the way it allows any reader to access one of the huge steps humankind took to understand the universe (the reason we are here).
I strongly recommend this book not only for the insight it provides but for the way it allows any reader to access one of the huge steps humankind took to understand the universe (the reason we are here).
June 23, 2021
A good history of the development of chemistry. From the philosophical guess-work of the ancient Greeks (the Four Elements), to the metaphysical musings of the Alchemists (who still managed to discover a useful thing or two), to the brilliant insight of Mendeleyev in creating a framework to organize the expanding list of elements, which the new science was discovering in the 19th century.
December 25, 2022
The book is intended to be a popular work. The tone is light and very readable. The author points out repeatedly how superstition which includes major world religions slowed the progress of science. Despite that narrative, I learned about chemistry and some very colorful scientists. Some of his historical explanations seemed over simplified. However, it was a fun, educational, read.
December 14, 2022
A history of chemistry, starting with ancient philosophy, via alchemy, and culminating in Mendeleyev's periodic table.
The book is written in a charming tone of voice, and feels more like a friendly seminar than a von-oben lecture.
The book is written in a charming tone of voice, and feels more like a friendly seminar than a von-oben lecture.
January 2, 2021
A good history of how chemistry developed out of philosophy and alchemy to become science. It's much about how the field developed than how the Table was created.
September 20, 2022
Se vale de contar la historia de la química para hablar sobre el origen y la evolución de la ciencia ( y sus ramas principales ) en general, pasando por todas las etapas de la historia.
January 29, 2024
This is only the second book I've given a one-star rating to, and the first science book. As a science writer myself, I could hardly fathom a science book this bad. I kept waiting for it to get better, but after five chapters I finally gave up.
The problem is that the author seems to be grading every chemist or pre-chemist on a scale of how much progress they made to the modern view of chemistry, represented presumably by the periodic table. He oozes contempt for the alchemists, and obsequiously sings the praises of any enlightened scientist who was so-to-speak ahead of his time. If this happened only once or a few times, I could forgive it. But it goes on and on and on, with examples on practically every page. It gets in the way of the stories he tells, so you can't even keep track of what happened a few pages ago.
Most amusing (and tedious) of all was the chapter on Paracelsus, because Strathern couldn't decide what attitude to have toward him, and he literally alternates back and forth from one paragraph to the next. Here's how the chapter reads. Paracelsus is driven out of City A and flees to City B. Of course, he had it coming to him because he was just a stupid, benighted alchemist, a charlatan and a fraud. But on the other hand, he did pioneer some of the methods of modern chemistry, so maybe he's sort of okay. After a few years in City B, he was driven out and moved to City C. Of course, he had it coming to him because... (repeat ad nauseam)
It's hack history and it's bad writing. There are two reasonable and decent ways he could have written the five chapters I read. Best would be just to tell the stories without all the modern judgement. But if you have to put in the modern judgement (which may possibly be a service to modern readers), do it ONCE and do it AT THE END.
Reading this book is a little bit like reading an outdated treatise on "mental retardation." It focuses 100 percent on the deficits of pre-modern scholars, just as doctors used to focus on the deficits of disabled people. Let's forget the deficit thinking, or at least keep it to a minimum. Much better to write about how those scholars struggled and maybe overcame or maybe didn't overcome their limitations, but they did something that in the context of their times was unique and wonderful. Finding the truth is never easy, and finding even the smallest part of it is always something to celebrate. And don't be so darned sure that what we perceive as the truth today is the final word.
I think that's all I need to say. But I would also like to say "Hear! Hear!" to Emily Lakdawalla's review of this book on Goodreads. She's a much better science writer than I am, and was nauseated by this book for exactly the same reasons.
The problem is that the author seems to be grading every chemist or pre-chemist on a scale of how much progress they made to the modern view of chemistry, represented presumably by the periodic table. He oozes contempt for the alchemists, and obsequiously sings the praises of any enlightened scientist who was so-to-speak ahead of his time. If this happened only once or a few times, I could forgive it. But it goes on and on and on, with examples on practically every page. It gets in the way of the stories he tells, so you can't even keep track of what happened a few pages ago.
Most amusing (and tedious) of all was the chapter on Paracelsus, because Strathern couldn't decide what attitude to have toward him, and he literally alternates back and forth from one paragraph to the next. Here's how the chapter reads. Paracelsus is driven out of City A and flees to City B. Of course, he had it coming to him because he was just a stupid, benighted alchemist, a charlatan and a fraud. But on the other hand, he did pioneer some of the methods of modern chemistry, so maybe he's sort of okay. After a few years in City B, he was driven out and moved to City C. Of course, he had it coming to him because... (repeat ad nauseam)
It's hack history and it's bad writing. There are two reasonable and decent ways he could have written the five chapters I read. Best would be just to tell the stories without all the modern judgement. But if you have to put in the modern judgement (which may possibly be a service to modern readers), do it ONCE and do it AT THE END.
Reading this book is a little bit like reading an outdated treatise on "mental retardation." It focuses 100 percent on the deficits of pre-modern scholars, just as doctors used to focus on the deficits of disabled people. Let's forget the deficit thinking, or at least keep it to a minimum. Much better to write about how those scholars struggled and maybe overcame or maybe didn't overcome their limitations, but they did something that in the context of their times was unique and wonderful. Finding the truth is never easy, and finding even the smallest part of it is always something to celebrate. And don't be so darned sure that what we perceive as the truth today is the final word.
I think that's all I need to say. But I would also like to say "Hear! Hear!" to Emily Lakdawalla's review of this book on Goodreads. She's a much better science writer than I am, and was nauseated by this book for exactly the same reasons.
July 20, 2023
An amazing and exhaustive look at the leading figures in science/philosophy leading to the rise of chemistry as a science.
This is a very readable popular history book focusing on famous names in scientific history.
The author clearly gets annoyed with the religious meanderings and beliefs of some figures in the book but also conveys how some of these side quests ultimately led to the goal. After a while I started feeling like I should mark down the major figures he is covering in the book. The list below is my attempt and is a good summary of the book:
Date Born
Name
Major Contribution
585 BCE
Thales of Miletus
Asked why do things happen / Everything is made of water
540
Heraclitus
World always in flux / No man steps in same river twice
5th Century
Empedocles
4 Elements theory
477
Socrates
Early form of analysis
387
Plato
Began Academy / Major philosopher
384
Aristotle
Improved 4 element theory / more scientific approach
200
Bolos of Mendes
Start of Alchemy
300 CE
Zosimos
Greatest of early alchemists
854
Al-Razi
Classified animal / vegetable / mineral
980
Avicenna
Newton’s first law / link btw time and motion / forerunner to modern pharmacy
1214
Roger Bacon
Predicted steamships, subs, automobiles / inductive reasoning
1493
Paracelsus
Vaccines / Used chemistry in medicine / life is chemical process / published Great Surgery Book / Mercury, salt, sulphur theory
1401
Nicholas Cusa
Infinite universe / earth revolved on axis around sun
1548
Bruno
Heliocentric / other planets possible / memory system similar to dialectic
1564
Galileo
Mechanics / discovered mountains on moon with telescope / physics experiments
1594
Descartes
Deductive reasoning / Cartesian coordinates
1577
Van Helmont
Coined term ‘gas’ / tree experiment to show weight as it grew / gastric juices importance in digestion
1627
Robert Boyle
Aire is a fluid / Boyle’s Law / tried to define element / attacked 4 element theory of Aristotle
1610s
Henning Brand
Isolated phosphorous / first discovery of an element
1659
George Stahl
Phlogiston theory
1731
Henry Cavendish
Discovered water was two gases / isolated CO2 / gave estimate for mass of Earth
1733
Joseph Priestly
Soda water / oxygen
1743
Lavoisier
Newton of chemistry / disproved 4 elements theory / Law of conservation of matter
1766
John Dalton
Dalton’s Law / atomic weights
1779
Jons Berzelius
Electrolysis and polarity to compounds / Atomic Notation
1834
Dmitri Mendeleyev
Principles of Chemistry / Periodic Table
This is a very readable popular history book focusing on famous names in scientific history.
The author clearly gets annoyed with the religious meanderings and beliefs of some figures in the book but also conveys how some of these side quests ultimately led to the goal. After a while I started feeling like I should mark down the major figures he is covering in the book. The list below is my attempt and is a good summary of the book:
Date Born
Name
Major Contribution
585 BCE
Thales of Miletus
Asked why do things happen / Everything is made of water
540
Heraclitus
World always in flux / No man steps in same river twice
5th Century
Empedocles
4 Elements theory
477
Socrates
Early form of analysis
387
Plato
Began Academy / Major philosopher
384
Aristotle
Improved 4 element theory / more scientific approach
200
Bolos of Mendes
Start of Alchemy
300 CE
Zosimos
Greatest of early alchemists
854
Al-Razi
Classified animal / vegetable / mineral
980
Avicenna
Newton’s first law / link btw time and motion / forerunner to modern pharmacy
1214
Roger Bacon
Predicted steamships, subs, automobiles / inductive reasoning
1493
Paracelsus
Vaccines / Used chemistry in medicine / life is chemical process / published Great Surgery Book / Mercury, salt, sulphur theory
1401
Nicholas Cusa
Infinite universe / earth revolved on axis around sun
1548
Bruno
Heliocentric / other planets possible / memory system similar to dialectic
1564
Galileo
Mechanics / discovered mountains on moon with telescope / physics experiments
1594
Descartes
Deductive reasoning / Cartesian coordinates
1577
Van Helmont
Coined term ‘gas’ / tree experiment to show weight as it grew / gastric juices importance in digestion
1627
Robert Boyle
Aire is a fluid / Boyle’s Law / tried to define element / attacked 4 element theory of Aristotle
1610s
Henning Brand
Isolated phosphorous / first discovery of an element
1659
George Stahl
Phlogiston theory
1731
Henry Cavendish
Discovered water was two gases / isolated CO2 / gave estimate for mass of Earth
1733
Joseph Priestly
Soda water / oxygen
1743
Lavoisier
Newton of chemistry / disproved 4 elements theory / Law of conservation of matter
1766
John Dalton
Dalton’s Law / atomic weights
1779
Jons Berzelius
Electrolysis and polarity to compounds / Atomic Notation
1834
Dmitri Mendeleyev
Principles of Chemistry / Periodic Table
March 6, 2026
📖 《門得列夫的夢：從煉金術到元素周期表》
✍️ 作者：保羅·史查森（英）
廣泛的閱讀，常常讓我更清楚地感受到自己的知識有多麼匱乏。這讓我想起書中提到的一位牧師科學家——庫薩的尼古拉提出的觀點：
「真正有學問的人，是能意識到自己無知的人。」
而把這種對「無知」的自覺，轉化為追求科學與知識的動力，正是人類進步的來源。
這樣看來，我似乎也算是「有學問的人」了 XD
不過我大概只有追求知識的動力，真正推動科學發展的工作，還是交給那些更厲害的人吧。
________________________________________
那麼，門得列夫是誰？
第一次看到書名時，我腦中只冒出一個模糊的印象：
「應該是個俄國人吧。」
然後……就沒有然後了。
細讀之後才知道，他就是提出現代元素週期表的那位科學家——德米特里·門得列夫。
乍看之下，好像只是把元素排成一張表格而已，但真正偉大的地方在於：
他把原本零散的化學知識，整理成一套具有統一規律的系統科學。
這意味著一件很重要的事——
萬物其實都有規律，只是我們還沒看懂而已。
在門得列夫的時代，全世界只發現了 50 多種元素。
但他在週期表中刻意留下空格，並大膽預測那些尚未被發現元素的：
原子量
密度
化學性質
後來新發現的元素，居然精準地符合他的預測。
更狂的是——
當某些元素的原子量排序與其應該所在的「族」的化學性質不符時，他竟然直接寫信給測量者說：你一定算錯了。
他的理由很簡單：
元素的化學性質規律，比當時的測量數據更可靠。
事實證明——
他真的說對了。
只能說，不愧是流著戰鬥民族血液的人，真的超狂。
________________________________________
看到這些故事，我也想起學生時代有多討厭背元素週期表。
那時完全不理解這張表到底有什麼用，只知道死背硬記。
現在當然也早就忘光了。
這種填鴨式教育，其實很容易扼殺學習興趣。
如果當時老師能多講一些這些科學家的故事，讓我們知道：
為什麼它叫「元素週期表」，而不是只是「元素表」？
也許我現在多少還記得幾個元素的特性吧 XD
________________________________________
這本書其實講的是一段很長的歷史——
從煉金術的神秘世界，一路走到現代化學。
科學在誕生之初，並不是純粹理性的。
它往往混合著：
魔法
迷信
權威
在漫長的歷史中，人類逐漸從相信哲學家與權威的理論，轉向依靠：
觀察
數據
實驗
來建立對世界的理解。
從神祕主義的實踐，走向理性的實驗科學，
這條路整整走了將近一千年。
而這段過程，非常精彩。
________________________________________
🌳 柳樹實驗
17 世紀的化學家
揚·巴普蒂斯塔·范·海爾蒙特
做了一個著名的實驗，改進自庫薩的尼古拉的想法。
實驗設計：
在一個大陶盆中放入 200 磅乾土
種入一根 5 磅重的柳樹枝
用蓋子避免灰塵落入
五年內只用蒸餾水澆灌
五年後的結果：
柳樹重量變成 169 磅 30 盎司
土壤乾燥後只減少 2 盎司
結論與誤解：
他正確地發現——
植物的重量增加並不是來自土壤。
但他得到了一個錯誤卻很有啟發性的結論：
他認為這棵樹完全由水轉化而成，從而支持了古希臘哲學家
泰勒斯
提出的「萬物皆水」理論。
雖然解釋錯了，但這個實驗卻帶來更重要的發現。
________________________________________
💨 氣體的發現
範·海爾蒙特開始思考：
如果植物不是來自土壤，那還有什麼參與了這個過程？
答案就是——空氣。
在研究燃燒與發酵時，他發現空氣並不是單一物質，而是包含不同性質的氣態物質，例如燃燒木炭產生的二氧化碳。
為了描述這些物質，他創造了一個新詞：
Gas（氣體）
這個詞至今仍被使用。
________________________________________
⚖️ 物質守恆的萌芽
透過精密的稱重實驗，他逐漸意識到：
物質可能會改變形態，但並不會消失。
例如金屬溶解之後，仍然可以完全回收。
這種觀念後來被系統化為
安托萬·拉瓦錫提出的：
物質守恆定律。
可以說，柳樹實驗是科學從
「神秘猜測」走向「定量實驗」的重要轉折點。
________________________________________
🐜🕷️🐝 三種科學家
英國哲學家
法蘭西斯·培根
曾經用三種昆蟲來比喻不同類型的科學家。
🐜 螞蟻（實驗派）
只是不斷收集材料與數據，就像螞蟻搬運食物。
🕷️ 蜘蛛（教條派）
只靠自己的推理建構理論，就像蜘蛛從體內吐絲織網，容易與現實脫節。
🐝 蜜蜂（理想型科學家）
從自然界採集材料（實驗），再經過自身轉化（理性分析），產出新的知識。
培根認為，真正的科學家應該像蜜蜂。
________________________________________
📐 X 軸與 Y 軸
我們今天在數學與物理中習以為常的 X 軸、Y 軸（以及 Z 軸），
其實來自一個重要的發明——
笛卡兒座標系。
這個系統是由法國哲學家兼數學家
勒內·笛卡爾
提出的，他同時也是那句著名哲學命題：
「我思故我在。」
座標系的發明，讓人類第一次可以用純數學方式描述空間中的物體與運動，
這也為後來的物理學與工程學奠定了重要基礎。
________________________________________
整體來說，這本書不只是談元素週期表而已，
它其實是在講一個更宏大的故事：
人類如何從神祕的煉金術，一步步走向現代科學。
當你理解這段歷史之後，再回頭看那張曾經讓人頭痛的元素週期表，
會發現它不只是考試要背的東西。
那是一張人類理解世界規律的地圖。 🧪✨
✍️ 作者：保羅·史查森（英）
廣泛的閱讀，常常讓我更清楚地感受到自己的知識有多麼匱乏。這讓我想起書中提到的一位牧師科學家——庫薩的尼古拉提出的觀點：
「真正有學問的人，是能意識到自己無知的人。」
而把這種對「無知」的自覺，轉化為追求科學與知識的動力，正是人類進步的來源。
這樣看來，我似乎也算是「有學問的人」了 XD
不過我大概只有追求知識的動力，真正推動科學發展的工作，還是交給那些更厲害的人吧。
________________________________________
那麼，門得列夫是誰？
第一次看到書名時，我腦中只冒出一個模糊的印象：
「應該是個俄國人吧。」
然後……就沒有然後了。
細讀之後才知道，他就是提出現代元素週期表的那位科學家——德米特里·門得列夫。
乍看之下，好像只是把元素排成一張表格而已，但真正偉大的地方在於：
他把原本零散的化學知識，整理成一套具有統一規律的系統科學。
這意味著一件很重要的事——
萬物其實都有規律，只是我們還沒看懂而已。
在門得列夫的時代，全世界只發現了 50 多種元素。
但他在週期表中刻意留下空格，並大膽預測那些尚未被發現元素的：
原子量
密度
化學性質
後來新發現的元素，居然精準地符合他的預測。
更狂的是——
當某些元素的原子量排序與其應該所在的「族」的化學性質不符時，他竟然直接寫信給測量者說：你一定算錯了。
他的理由很簡單：
元素的化學性質規律，比當時的測量數據更可靠。
事實證明——
他真的說對了。
只能說，不愧是流著戰鬥民族血液的人，真的超狂。
________________________________________
看到這些故事，我也想起學生時代有多討厭背元素週期表。
那時完全不理解這張表到底有什麼用，只知道死背硬記。
現在當然也早就忘光了。
這種填鴨式教育，其實很容易扼殺學習興趣。
如果當時老師能多講一些這些科學家的故事，讓我們知道：
為什麼它叫「元素週期表」，而不是只是「元素表」？
也許我現在多少還記得幾個元素的特性吧 XD
________________________________________
這本書其實講的是一段很長的歷史——
從煉金術的神秘世界，一路走到現代化學。
科學在誕生之初，並不是純粹理性的。
它往往混合著：
魔法
迷信
權威
在漫長的歷史中，人類逐漸從相信哲學家與權威的理論，轉向依靠：
觀察
數據
實驗
來建立對世界的理解。
從神祕主義的實踐，走向理性的實驗科學，
這條路整整走了將近一千年。
而這段過程，非常精彩。
________________________________________
🌳 柳樹實驗
17 世紀的化學家
揚·巴普蒂斯塔·范·海爾蒙特
做了一個著名的實驗，改進自庫薩的尼古拉的想法。
實驗設計：
在一個大陶盆中放入 200 磅乾土
種入一根 5 磅重的柳樹枝
用蓋子避免灰塵落入
五年內只用蒸餾水澆灌
五年後的結果：
柳樹重量變成 169 磅 30 盎司
土壤乾燥後只減少 2 盎司
結論與誤解：
他正確地發現——
植物的重量增加並不是來自土壤。
但他得到了一個錯誤卻很有啟發性的結論：
他認為這棵樹完全由水轉化而成，從而支持了古希臘哲學家
泰勒斯
提出的「萬物皆水」理論。
雖然解釋錯了，但這個實驗卻帶來更重要的發現。
________________________________________
💨 氣體的發現
範·海爾蒙特開始思考：
如果植物不是來自土壤，那還有什麼參與了這個過程？
答案就是——空氣。
在研究燃燒與發酵時，他發現空氣並不是單一物質，而是包含不同性質的氣態物質，例如燃燒木炭產生的二氧化碳。
為了描述這些物質，他創造了一個新詞：
Gas（氣體）
這個詞至今仍被使用。
________________________________________
⚖️ 物質守恆的萌芽
透過精密的稱重實驗，他逐漸意識到：
物質可能會改變形態，但並不會消失。
例如金屬溶解之後，仍然可以完全回收。
這種觀念後來被系統化為
安托萬·拉瓦錫提出的：
物質守恆定律。
可以說，柳樹實驗是科學從
「神秘猜測」走向「定量實驗」的重要轉折點。
________________________________________
🐜🕷️🐝 三種科學家
英國哲學家
法蘭西斯·培根
曾經用三種昆蟲來比喻不同類型的科學家。
🐜 螞蟻（實驗派）
只是不斷收集材料與數據，就像螞蟻搬運食物。
🕷️ 蜘蛛（教條派）
只靠自己的推理建構理論，就像蜘蛛從體內吐絲織網，容易與現實脫節。
🐝 蜜蜂（理想型科學家）
從自然界採集材料（實驗），再經過自身轉化（理性分析），產出新的知識。
培根認為，真正的科學家應該像蜜蜂。
________________________________________
📐 X 軸與 Y 軸
我們今天在數學與物理中習以為常的 X 軸、Y 軸（以及 Z 軸），
其實來自一個重要的發明——
笛卡兒座標系。
這個系統是由法國哲學家兼數學家
勒內·笛卡爾
提出的，他同時也是那句著名哲學命題：
「我思故我在。」
座標系的發明，讓人類第一次可以用純數學方式描述空間中的物體與運動，
這也為後來的物理學與工程學奠定了重要基礎。
________________________________________
整體來說，這本書不只是談元素週期表而已，
它其實是在講一個更宏大的故事：
人類如何從神祕的煉金術，一步步走向現代科學。
當你理解這段歷史之後，再回頭看那張曾經讓人頭痛的元素週期表，
會發現它不只是考試要背的東西。
那是一張人類理解世界規律的地圖。 🧪✨
December 25, 2022
I found out about this book thanks to Bill Gates' strong recommendation on Goodreads and review on his personal website (https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Mend... "Best book about the periodic table". I’ve always been interested in the history of sciences, arts and literature so I quickly got a copy of it.
Having read Isaac Asimov’s “The search of the elements” during my early twenties this book didn’t surprise me. Even this book's subtitle has almost the same name: “The quest of the elements”. Most of the alchemist and scientist names sounded familiar and I remembered most of their contribution thanks to Asimov’s remarkable style: easy-to-read but powerful and engaging as a good novel. Even though Strathern prose is pleasant and the content interesting, I prefer the former more direct approach. Maybe being a professional biochemist and an inspirational writer helped Asimov achieve a better result in telling this fascinating story.
The introduction seemed too long for me (70 percent of the book) until Mendeleyev appearance. It was a good brush up of the history of philosophy and alchemy but chapters like Paracelsus’ went into too much detail for my taste. The best part goes from chapter 11 until the end of the book: the lives and contribution of Lavoisier, Dalton, Berzelius, de Chancourtois and Newlands, key precursors of our hero and his masterpiece. The author adds some nice touches like Goethe interest in the field and how at that time general culture was not dissociated from science (as it usually happens nowadays).
In summary, Strathern doesn’t bring anything new to the table. He tells the story once again with his style. I think the “Further reading” section is interesting to deep dive into some of the topics and it also reveals the generic type of research done for writing this book.
Having read Isaac Asimov’s “The search of the elements” during my early twenties this book didn’t surprise me. Even this book's subtitle has almost the same name: “The quest of the elements”. Most of the alchemist and scientist names sounded familiar and I remembered most of their contribution thanks to Asimov’s remarkable style: easy-to-read but powerful and engaging as a good novel. Even though Strathern prose is pleasant and the content interesting, I prefer the former more direct approach. Maybe being a professional biochemist and an inspirational writer helped Asimov achieve a better result in telling this fascinating story.
The introduction seemed too long for me (70 percent of the book) until Mendeleyev appearance. It was a good brush up of the history of philosophy and alchemy but chapters like Paracelsus’ went into too much detail for my taste. The best part goes from chapter 11 until the end of the book: the lives and contribution of Lavoisier, Dalton, Berzelius, de Chancourtois and Newlands, key precursors of our hero and his masterpiece. The author adds some nice touches like Goethe interest in the field and how at that time general culture was not dissociated from science (as it usually happens nowadays).
In summary, Strathern doesn’t bring anything new to the table. He tells the story once again with his style. I think the “Further reading” section is interesting to deep dive into some of the topics and it also reveals the generic type of research done for writing this book.
June 12, 2025
An entertaining, even light-hearted overview of the history of chemistry. Starting with the Ancient Egyptian arts of embalming and perfume-making, the book walks us through the "natural philosophy" of Aristoteles and Pythagoras, then highlights the contributions of Arabic scientists and the evolution of scientific thought through the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Or: from a worldview of 4 elements (earth, water, air, fire) to a centuries-long obsession with alchemy to a dawning realization of the difference between atoms and molecules.
One of the things that this book made me realize was that scientific thought about physics had preceded scientific thought about chemistry, and that this is probably due to the fact that one can observe stars and planets more readily than molecular interactions. I had also not appreciated the fact that chemical notation of the type "H2O" and "CO2" is a 19th century convention and that before that chemical nomenclature was a mishmash of different languages, phenotypic descriptions ("quicksilver") and vague terms ("fixed air"). It's one of those things (like the periodic table itself) that seem so obvious and self-evident once you've learned them that it is hard to imagine a time when people were groping in the dark about this.
Apart from the science, there are many delightfully eccentric characters in these pages. Paracelcus, Galileo Galilei, Newton, Dalton, Boyle, Cavendish and poor Lavoisier, guillotined during the French Revolution because "The Republic has no need of scientists" (?!).
Altogether, recommended for anyone with an interest in the history of science, including its uneasy and ever-changing relationship with religion.
One of the things that this book made me realize was that scientific thought about physics had preceded scientific thought about chemistry, and that this is probably due to the fact that one can observe stars and planets more readily than molecular interactions. I had also not appreciated the fact that chemical notation of the type "H2O" and "CO2" is a 19th century convention and that before that chemical nomenclature was a mishmash of different languages, phenotypic descriptions ("quicksilver") and vague terms ("fixed air"). It's one of those things (like the periodic table itself) that seem so obvious and self-evident once you've learned them that it is hard to imagine a time when people were groping in the dark about this.
Apart from the science, there are many delightfully eccentric characters in these pages. Paracelcus, Galileo Galilei, Newton, Dalton, Boyle, Cavendish and poor Lavoisier, guillotined during the French Revolution because "The Republic has no need of scientists" (?!).
Altogether, recommended for anyone with an interest in the history of science, including its uneasy and ever-changing relationship with religion.
November 10, 2023
Although agreeing with the content of some of the one&two star reviews, I give this book four stars, because i want to appreciate it for what it is: A biographically oriented journey through the lives and proceedings of the (al)chemists. In that sense it is a very enjoyable read and started me thinking again about aspects like the theories of correspondences and signes and what the scientific revolution was about.
Of course this book is a little (!) whiggish and not in any way informed by the newer sociology of science / STS approaches.
From that perspective one could say that the first part of the book is about alchemy and the second part about chemistry. I.e. no attempt is made to understand how the first apparently gave way to the last. From that perspective it just isn't good enough to say that alchemy did 'not give results'. Rather we see that the results that people were after radically changed. First there was the seeking of direct profitable results (gold, philosopher's stone, life elixers), and this seems to change in looking for rather more abstract results ('knowledge', fame, status). I.e. what drove an already very busy man like Lavoisier to spend his Sundays in the laboratory doing rather tedious measurents? This can only be explained by an entire change in the societal and intellectual context.
But again, the book does not pretend to be about that, so i don't want to criticize it for that.
Of course this book is a little (!) whiggish and not in any way informed by the newer sociology of science / STS approaches.
From that perspective one could say that the first part of the book is about alchemy and the second part about chemistry. I.e. no attempt is made to understand how the first apparently gave way to the last. From that perspective it just isn't good enough to say that alchemy did 'not give results'. Rather we see that the results that people were after radically changed. First there was the seeking of direct profitable results (gold, philosopher's stone, life elixers), and this seems to change in looking for rather more abstract results ('knowledge', fame, status). I.e. what drove an already very busy man like Lavoisier to spend his Sundays in the laboratory doing rather tedious measurents? This can only be explained by an entire change in the societal and intellectual context.
But again, the book does not pretend to be about that, so i don't want to criticize it for that.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 96 reviews