0.3 Introduction - Where did the name "Chemical Element" come from?

Where the Name "Element" Came from

Historians of chemistry have no consensus on this question and only more or less plausible assumptions can be made. The fact is that the concept of "an element" used in ancient times was wider in its meaning than that assigned to a chemical element now. It was to a great extent of a philosophical nature.

One of the hypotheses explaining this is as follows. The word "element" originates from the letters of the Latin alphabet: I, m, n, and t which are pronounced as "el"-"em"-"en"-"te" (in Latin it is "elementum"). Probably, producing the word "element" in this way the scientists wanted to emphasize that as words are composed of letters, different compounds can be represented as constituted by elements. Such interpretation is as simple as it is unexpected. There are other explanations as well but we shall not dwell on them.

How "an Element" Became "a Chemical Element"

Before the modern model of the atom evolved, the concept of an element had been purely speculative. One of the definitions of an element belongs to Aristotle, one of the greatest philosophers of antiquity, who wrote: "Elements are simple substances of which the universe is composed and one of which cannot be separated into the other." Aristotle held that there is one primary matter and four fundamental qualities: heat and coldness, dryness and wetness. Their combinations are material elements: fire, water, air, and earth. According to Aristotle, all bodies are composed of these elements. Aristotle's teaching was the theoretical foundation of alchemy and various natural philosophy schools for many centuries to come.

Only in the 16th century Paracelsus, a famous physician and scientist, brought the elements "closer to the earth". He suggested that all substances consist of three sources, mercury, salt, and sulphur, which are the carriers of three qualities: volatility, solidity, and inflammability.

Hints for a proper understanding of the nature of elements can be found in the teaching of Robert Boyle, an outstanding 17th century English chemist. In his book The Sceptical Chemist Boyle criticized the view of elements as carriers of certain qualities. Elements, according to Boyle, must be material in their nature and constitute solid bodies. Boyle also spoke against the belief that the number of elements is limited, thus opening up possibilities for the discovery of new elements. Nevertheless, it was still a long way to a clear understanding of what a chemical element is and, therefore, scientists could not properly explain the discoveries of new elements.

Antoine Lavoisier's views were a considerable step forward in this field. He clearly stated his conceptions of simple bodies: he believed that all substances which scientists had failed to decompose in any way were elements and he divided all simple substances into four groups.

The first group comprised oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, as well as light and "thermogen" (which was, of course, a mistake). A. Lavoisier considered these simple substances to be real elements. Into the second group Lavoisier included sulphur, phosphorus, coal, a radical of muriatic acid (later called chlorine), a radical of hydrofluoric acid (fluorine), and a radical of boric acid (boron). According to Lavoisier, they all were simple non-metallic substances capable of being oxidized and of producing acids. The third group comprised simple metal substances: antimony, silver, arsenic, bismuth, cobalt, copper, tin, iron, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, gold, platinum, lead, tungsten, and zinc. They also could be oxidized and form acids. And, at last, the fourth group included salt-forming compounds ("earths"), which, however, were known to be complex: lime (calcium oxide), magnesia (magnesium oxide), baryta (barium oxide), alumina (aluminium oxide), and silica (silicon oxide). In 1789 the fact that these substances are oxides of unknown elements was only a conjecture. This classification and comments were still greatly confused and unclear, but, nevertheless, they served as a programme for further research into the nature of elements.

Lavoisier drew no distinction between the concepts of "an element" and "a simple body". They were clearly stated only in the 19th century owing to the development of the atomic and molecular theory and to the work of D. I. Mendeleev.