Maket 2014_Layout 1.qxd


Conversation and Argumentation in Boyle’s Scientific

Dialogue

Maurizio Gotti
Università di Bergamo

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to illustrate the new stylistic approach embodied in the genre
of the scientific dialogue as used in 17th-century England, focusing, in particular, on the
strategies adopted by Robert Boyle in The Sceptical Chymist (1661). The purpose of our
analysis is, on the one hand, to point out those characteristics which make this dialogue
resemble the features of normal conversation and, on the other, those that instead have a
more argumentative purpose and that therefore make it more similar to the other genre
typical of scientific theorisation, i.e. the treatise. 

Key words: scientific dialogue, Robert Boyle, The Sceptical Chymist, 17th-century
England, conversational features, argumentative strategies, treatise.

Introduction

The great epistemological and methodological innovations that took place in 17th-cen-
tury England (Vickers 1987; Hunter 1989; Jardine 1999; Shapiro 2000) determined the
need for corresponding adjustments both as regards the methods of communicating infor-
mation about new scientific discoveries and as regards the most suitable means of expres-
sion chosen to describe and discuss the new phenomena then being observed and
analysed. This new perspective determined not only the creation of more innovative gen-
res such as the experimental essay (Gotti 2001), but also the reformulation of traditional
genres, such as the treatise and the dialogue.

The aim of this paper is to illustrate the characteristics of this stylistic reformulation
as embodied in the genre of the scientific dialogue. In particular, the paper focuses on the
expository and argumentative strategies adopted by one of the most influential innova-
tors of that period, i.e. Robert Boyle, drawing comments and examples from The
Sceptical Chymist (1661), written in a dialogic form. The purpose of our analysis is, on
the one hand, to point out those characteristics which make this dialogue resemble the
features of normal conversation and, on the other, those that instead have a more argu-
mentative function and that therefore make it more similar to the other genre typical of
scientific theorisation, i.e. the treatise.

Boyle’s Choice of the Dialogic Form

The dialogue, mainly derived from the Platonic tradition, was a very popular form of
composition used both in literary and non-literary contexts in the Early Modern English
period (cf. Merrill 1970; Marsh 1980). Boyle’s choice of the dialogic form to embody his
considerations in The Sceptical Chymist does not represent a confirmation of a tradition-

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLinguistics

7



al writing procedure of his, as this is the only printed work composed by him in this form.
His other works, in fact, appeared in other guises, mainly in that of the treatise and of the
experimental essay. The choice of the dialogue as the genre for this work, therefore, is to
be taken as the result of a series of careful stylistic choices on the part of the author. The
confirmation of this hypothesis can easily be found in the examination of the pragmatic
purposes of this work, which differ from those of others by the same author. Boyle’s
other writings, in fact, generally aim at expounding some new theoretical argumenta tions
conceived by the author or at reporting the details and the results of a particular experi-
ment carried out by the British scientist; it was therefore fully appropriate for Boyle to
recur to the genres respectively of the treatise and of the experimental essay to carry out
those specific pragmatic functions.

The main purpose of The Sceptical Chymist, instead, is not the assertion of a new theory,
but a critical analysis and confutation of the principal theoretical statements put forth by
preceding and contemporary philosophers and men of science as regards the basic ele-
ments that constitute physical substances representing matter. Boyle’s willingness to
point out the inconsistency and inadequacy of such theoretical assertions is confirmed by
the subtitle of this work,1 in which the author takes care to warn the reader that the ideas
put forth in it are to be taken as doubts and paradoxes about existing theories. The lack
of pretension to theoretical innovation on the part of the author is clearly expressed by
his choice of the lexeme Notes to refer to the observations that Boyle draws from his own
experi ments to support his criticism of both the Aristotelian and the Para celsian views
concerning the main physical elements. A confirmation of the mainly critical attitude
taken throughout this work is provided by Boyle himself, when he makes his main
character assert that “’tis not so much [his] present Talk to make assertions as to suggest
doubts” (p.356).2 Boyle is fully aware that his suppositions and intuitions cannot yet
aspire to the consistency and reliability of sound theoretical principles. At the moment,
therefore, all he can do is only express his doubts and reservations about the principles
commonly shared by the scientific community. The rhetorical form which he considers
the most appropriate for the expression of his reservation without giving the impression
of aiming at a more formal and preten tious kind of treatise is the dialogue, which enables
the author to put forth his observations in a more informal way, resembling a tranquil,
polite conversation among learned people.3

Apart from the possibility of greater consistency between stylistic form and pragmat-
ic function, there is another reason which might explain Boyle’s choice of the dialogue,
which consists in the advan tage that such a genre offers the author of expounding his
ideas in an indirect way and of thus offering him some sort of protection against public
criticism.4 The dialogic form, in fact, enables the author to attribute his views to differ-
ent characters, who however cannot be identified directly with the author himself.
Boyle’s willingness to distance himself from the opinions expressed by the various
speakers in The Sceptical Chymist is clearly pointed out in the preface to his work:

Nor needed I make the Interlocutors speak otherwise than freely in a
Dialogue, wherein it was sufficiently intimated, that I meant not to declare

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

8



my own Opinion of the Arguments propos’d, much lesse of the whole
Controversy itself, otherwise than it as it may by an attentive Reader be
guess’d at by some Passages of Carneades: (I say, some Passages,
because I make not all, that he says, especially in the heat of Disputation,
mine). (p.212)

Moreover, the choice of Carneades as the main character of The Sceptical Chymist
emphasizes the dialectical freedom typical of the sceptical dialogue5 which grants each
speaker the possibility of maintaining and defending his own opinion, without being
bound by the fetters of traditional authority. The link with this type of dialogue, estab-
lished by the choice of that character and the open attitude that characterizes it, allows
the author to make use even of conflicting arguments in his search for truth. Another
rhetorical device which Boyle takes advantage of to distance himself from the opinions
expressed in his work is the presentation of the narrator as a modest person, who humbly
listens to the other speakers rather than pre senting his own views. In the dialogue, in fact,
Boyle identifies him self with the narrator, who is presented as the least expert of the par -
ti cipants as regards the matter under discussion, and who is relegated therefore to the
mere role of listener and learner: 

I conscious to my own Disability’s told them resolutely that I was as
much more willing as more fit to be a hearer than a speaker, among such
knowing Persons, and on so abstruse a Subject. ... I added, that I desir’d
not to be idle whilst they were imploy’d, but would if they pleas’d, by writ-
ing down in short hand what should be delivered, preserve Discourses that
I knew would merit to be lasting. (p.217) 

Of course, Boyle’s ignorance of the subject is only an excuse, as the British scientist
is quoted by Carneades on several occasions as an authority in the field, and the results
of his experiments are often mentioned as evidence for many objections and criticisms.
This humble role which the author devises for himself is therefore part of a rhetorical
design,6 which is meant to protect the author from public attack. 

The Sceptical Chymist has another purpose, which concerns the identification of the
most appropriate style for scientific discussions. This metatextual intention is confirmed
by the author’s own words:

And indeed, I am not sorry to have this Opportunity of giving an exam-
ple, how to manage even Disputes with Civility. (p.212)

From this sentence, we can see that the expression used to qualify the style to be
adopted in scientific argumentation is with civility. As a matter of fact, the adjective civil
is frequently used in this work to define not only the language to be used, but also the
tone to be adopted and the relationship to be maintained with interlocutors. Boyle’s insis-
tence on civility7 as a distinctive feature of scientific exposition was meant to emphasize

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLinguistics

9



an important change that was taking place within the scientific community (Gotti 2013).
Scientific matters were attracting wider interest, especially among aristocratic and cul-
tured people, and they were separating this select group of people, who found their
proper identification in the newly-founded Royal Society, from the less learned group of
non-scientific practitioners. Boyle was very pleased with this widening of the community
of scientists among the nobler minds of the period 8 but clearly perceived that the causes
of differentiation of this group from that of practitioners was not only methodological
and conceptual, but also linguistic and stylistic. Thus the choice of the dialogic form to
embody this work is meant to assist Boyle in exemplifying the civility that scientists
ought to adopt in their discussions. Indeed, this form would provide a natural way of pre-
senting opinions and evaluating objections within a scientific discussion in a cooperative
and respectful atmosphere thus highlighting the politeness values (Klein 1994) typical of
conversa tion between gentlemen. 

Conversational Features

In order to make his dialogue more effective, Boyle endows it with features typical
of a real conversational exchange. First he invents appropriate characters and assigns a
specific role to each of them. As mentioned above, to allow himself complete freedom in
the expression of his criticisms the British writer does not designate himself as the main
character, but assigns this role to Carneades. The choice of this name is not at all a casu-
al one, as the role which Boyle attributes to this character is the same as the one actual-
ly played by the Greek philosopher in his time, as he is “to play the Antagonist and the
Sceptick [... and] to Suggest doubts against the Opinion he questions” (p.210). The use
of this historic character can help Boyle defend himself from the accusation of inconsis-
tency as it is part of Carneades’ method to evaluate opposing points of view concerning
a certain topic. The main character of The Sceptical Chymist, in fact, is not expected to
put forth a consistent new theory, but “to propose two or more severall Hypotheses about
the same thing; And to say, that it may be accounted for this way, or that way, or the other
Way, though these wayes be perhaps inconsistent among Themselves” (p.210). 

There are three more characters in the dialogue apart from Carneades and the narra-
tor: Eleutherius, Themistius and Philoponus. The links of the latter two with the philo-
sophical tradition makes them suitable means to expound the theoretical positions of two
important schools of thought, that is, respectively the Aristotelian and the Paracelsian.
Eleutherius instead is assigned the role of the inquisitive person who is to stimulate
Carneades to express his opinions and objections. In assigning different roles to various
characters, Boyle likens his dialogue features to those of a scientific discussion, in which
his characters are to embody different theo re tical positions and express contrasting points
of view. The interactive aspect of the dialogue is thus identified in the contrast among the
theo retical statements characterising opposing scientific and philoso phical schools. 

In spite of the fictitiousness of this interaction and the contrived roles of its partici-
pants, Boyle tries to confer a certain degree of realism to his dialogue by providing a par-
ticular contextualization to the conversations that take place in it. At the beginning of the
dialogue, in fact, Boyle carefully sets the scene, specifying both the place and the time

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

10



of the beginning of the narration. The dialogue takes place “on one of the fairest dayes
of this Summer” (p. 215), when the narrator, who is at home, receives the visit of his
friend Eleutherius. The following scene too is representative of Boyle’s desire to provide
a detailed contextualization of the conversation between Carneades and his friends. The
former is described as being in “one of the Arbours in his Garden”, where he has retired
“to enjoy under its cool shades a delightful protection from the yet trouble some heat of
the Sun” (p.216). This cool, quiet setting is thus introduced as ideal 9 for the scientific dis-
cussion the learned men are going to take part in.

Also the characterisation of the participants is fairly accurate. Indeed, Boyle frequently
introduces skillful descriptions of actions that one might consider irrelevant in the general
view of the dialogue, but which however are useful in helping the reader identify the true
nature of the various characters. For example, the first presentation of these characters is
accompanied by appropriate contextualization, as these philosophers are portrayed “sit-
ting close about a little round Table, on which, besides paper, pen, and inke, there lay two
or three open Books” (p.216). The careful description of the scene is completed by the
faithful report of the reactions of these characters to the arrival of Eleutherius and the nar-
rator: 

Carneades appeared not at all troubled at this surprise, but rising from
the Table, received his Friend with open looks and armes, and welcoming
me also with his wonted freedom and civility, invited us to rest ourselves
by him; which, as soon as we had exchanged with his two Friends (who
were ours also) the civilities accustomed on such occasions, we did. And
he, presently after we had seated ourselves, shutting the Books that lay
open, and turning to us with a smiling countenance, seemed ready to begin
some such unconcerning dis course, as is wont to pass or rather waste the
time in promiscuous companies. (p.216)

The five characters are then made to start their Philosophical conference (p.216),
which is described with the accurate insertion of those features of due decorum that per-
tain to a discourse “wherein only Gentlemen are introduced as speakers” (p.212). The
description of such polite manners, however, does not make the narration artificial or
pedantic, as Boyle also inserts appropriate com ments and actions to attribute particular
concreteness and vividness to the characters’ behaviour. The following passage, for
example, re ports Eleutherius’ reaction to the formalities employed by his col leagues, and
highlights his more practical spirit:

Philoponus and Themistius soon returned this complement with civili-
ties of the like nature, in which Eleutherius perceiving them engaged, to
prevent the further loss of that time of which they were not like to have very
much to spare, he minded them that their present businesse was not to
exchange complements, but Arguments. (p.219)

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLinguistics

11



The subsequent progress of the debate represents the realization of a typical scientif-
ic dispute, whose final outcome is made to coincide with the persuasion of the other char-
acters on the part of the main one. Boyle’s dialogue follows the rules typical of polite
conversation among gentlemen,10 according to which participants take it in turns to speak
in an appropriate way, paying compliments to the previous speaker even when they are
disagreeing with what he has just said. Boyle is aware that as arguing typically implies
disagreeing with another interlocutor, argumentation is a highly face-threatening activity
which may greatly endanger social relations (Brown and Levinson 1987). However, the
civility corresponding to a real gentleman’s discourse should imply the adoption of a fair
attitude towards his interlocutors, and respect for the people whose opinions he is argu-
ing against.11 He thus indicates the correct behaviour of a person who is trying to con-
vince other people of the rightness of his ideas:

A man may be a Champion for Truth, without being an Enemy to
Civility; and may confute an Opinion without railing at Them that hold it;
To whom, he that desires to convince and not to provoke them, must make
some amends by his Civility to their Persons for his severity to their mis-
takes; and must say as little else as he can, to displease them, when he
says, that they are in an error. (p.212) 

What distinguishes a gentleman’s behaviour, therefore, is his respect for the person
whose views he is criticising and his limiting his objections to the points he sees as incor-
rect without any unfair recourse to excessive aggressiveness.12 According to this view, ad
hominem argument is deemed unacceptable, as criticism should be directed towards the
debated matter rather than the opponents. 

Boyle’s dialogue contains the elements which are typical of con ver sational argumen-
tation (cf Muntigl and Turnbull 1998) and its most frequent speech acts are those of mak-
ing claims, disagreeing with claims and countering disagreements. Claims are often
strengthened by discourse markers expressing emphasis, as is the case of I say in the fol-
lowing quotation: 

And since especially there is a manifest Analogie and Resemblance
betwixt the bodies obtainable by Chymical Anatomies and the principles
whose names are given them; I have, I say, consider’d that these things
may be represented: […]. (p.305)

Disagreements with claims and countering disagreements, how ever, are expressed in a
civil manner. The following quotation is an instance of disagreement with a previous claim
which is expressed in a very cautious way using hedging and a counterfactual conditional:

I halfe expected, Carneades, that after you had so freely declar’d Your
doubting, whether there be any Determinate Number of Elements, You would
have proceeded to question whether there be any Elements at all. (p.344)

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

12



Also when the objection is made more directly, it is formulated in such a way as not
to hurt the interlocutor’s feelings:

But (says Eleutherius) me thinks for all this, you have left some part of
what I alledg’d in behalf of the three principles, unanswer’d. (p.339)

The civility of the formulation of a disagreement also finds con firmation in the tone
of its reply, in which the first speaker, even when objecting to the counterclaim, is grate-
ful to the person who expressed it:

Nor do I Doubt, but you’l excuse me, if as I thank the Chymists for the
things their Analysis shews me, so I take the Liberty to consider, [...].
(p.278) 

In the following example, instead, the narrator is very keen to underline Carneades’
lack of irritation by remarking that his reply to disagreement is given with a laugh:

I never denyed (Replyes Carneades) that the Notion of the Tria Prima
may be of some use, but (continues he laughing) by what you now alledg
for it, it will but appear That it is useful to Apothecaries, rather than to
Philosophers, […]. (p.339)

The civility of the tone adopted is often emphasised by the use of appropriate polite-
ness phrases:

But I think I could shew You, if You would give me leave, that this will
prove only that the Elements as You call them, are the chief Bodies that
make up the neighbouring part of the World, [...]. (p.225)

This frequent adoption of polite expressions sometimes suggests an impression of
unrealistic use of the dialogic tool in The Sceptical Chymist. This impression is con-
firmed by the fact that the speakers’ turns are quite imbalanced, with frequent and long
turns taken by Carneades and sporadic and much shorter sentences uttered by his inter-
locutors. Only in some parts of the dialogue does the conver sa tion acquire more realistic
features, with the characters taking turns in a more natural way. In certain cases, in fact,
the succession of the characters’ lines is made more vivid by spontaneous interruptions,
such as in the following passage:

But as Carneades was going to do as he had said, Eleutherius inter-
rupted him, by saying with a somewhat smiling countenance: […]. (p.278)

At times interruptions are somewhat brusque, and make the inter action sound more
similar to direct speech:

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLinguistics

13



What Helmontian Opinion, and what Arguments do you mean? (askes
Carnea des). (p.258)

In general, turns clearly follow one another, sometimes neatly di vided by pauses and
silence:

Themistius having after these last words declared by his silence, that he
had finished his Discourse, Carneades addressing himself, as his
Adversary had done, to Eleutherius, returned this Answer to it. (p.223)

Claims and counterclaims usually follow each other smoothly. On some occasions the
words of one character are perceived by the other as a stimulus for his own intervention
in the conversation:

You recall to my mind (says Carneades) a certain Experiment I once
devis’d. (p.283)

The presence of the interlocutor(s) is often made explicit by a clear reference to
him/them through the use of the second person pronoun form or his/their proper name(s): 

For I, and no doubt You, have long observed, that those Dialectical sub-
tleties, that the Schoolmen too often employ about Physiological Mysteries,
are wont much more to declare the wit of him that uses them, then increase
the knowledge or remove the doubts of sober lovers of truth. (p.219)

But I have already intimated, Eleutherius, that I shall not Insist on this
Expe ri ment, not only because, having made it but once, I may possibly
have been mistaken in it; but also.[...]. (p.251)

At times, the speaker’s direct reference to his interlocutors is meant to guide their
decoding activity and thus strengthen his per lo cu tionary action:

But I must here profess, and desire You to take Notice of it, that though I
pass on to another Argument, it is not because I think this first invalid. (p.225)

To convey the impression of greater colloquialism, some of the turns are made to start
with an interjection or an exclamation:

Nay, for a further Confirmation of this Argument, I will add this
Strange Rela tion, that two Friends of mine, the one a Physitian, and the
other a Mathe ma ti cian, and both of them Persons of unsuspected Credit,
have solemnly assured me, that [...]. (p.266)

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

14



Now, if Chymists will agree to call the dry and sapid substance salt; the
Unctuous liquor Sulphur; and the other Mercury; I shall not much quarrel
with them for so doing [...]. (p.306)

Argumentative Features

The stylistic choices made by the author often lead him to privi lege the argumenta-
tive aspects of his dialogue rather than the conver sa tional ones so that in many parts the
work looks more like a treatise than a real oral interaction. Indeed, the way scientific
exposition is structured in the dialogue greatly derives from the stylistic principles pre-
sented by the author in this same work. According to these prin ciples, Carneades
expounds his observations in a very orderly way, taking care to make use of all possible
rhetorical means to favour his interlocutors’ decoding of his words. Each consideration
is usually illustrated by means of suitable examples, and supported by appro priate evi-
dence derived from clearly demonstrated experimental re sults. As the dialogue has the
clear purpose of providing an example of how discussions should be conducted, it is not
at all surprising to find throughout the text clear metatextual statements meant by the
author to offer friendly guidance to his readers’ interpretation. Very frequently, in deal-
ing with a theoretical point, the author emphasizes the structure of his reasoning by
means of appropriate comments such as the following:

To proceed then to my Propositions, I shall begin with this, That
(Propos. I.) It seems not absurd to conceive, that [...]. 
But (continues Carneades) presuming, that the first Proposition needs

not be longer insisted on, I will pass onto the second, and tell you that
(Propos. II.) Neither it is impossible that [...]. 
But to proceed to a new Proposition 
(Propos. III.) I shall not peremptorily deny, that [ ...]. 
To these three Concessions, I have but this Fourth to add, That
(Propos. IV.) It may likewise be granted, that [ ...]. (pp.229-232)

After outlining the structure of his argumentation, the author pro ceeds to develop it,
carefully preceding each step of his reasoning with transparent metatextual statements:

That I may not make this Paradox a Greater then I needs must, I will
First Briefly Explain what the Proposition means, before I proceed to
Argue for it. [...] That then, which I Mean by the Proposition I am
Explaining, is, That [...]. Having thus Explain’d my Proposition, I shall
endeavour to do two things, to prove it; The first of which is to shew, that
[ ...]. And the other is to make it probable, that [...]. To begin then with the
First of these, I Consider that […]. (pp.254-255)

Having appreciated the author’s care in avoiding redundancy, we should not be puz-
zled by his summing up the various steps of his reasoning at the end of his treatment of

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLinguistics

15



a main argumentative move. If we consider the length of the argumentation (which in its
printed form takes up several pages), it is not at all surprising that the author should pro-
vide a recapitulation of his main theses before proceeding. Once again, this process is
meant not merely to satisfy the locutor’s argumentative needs, but is mainly justified by
the wish to help the readers understand his text:

And thus, Eleutherius, (sayesCarneades) having at length gone through
the four Considerations I propos’d to Discourse unto you, I hold it not
unfit, for fear my having insisted so long on each of them may have made
you forget their Series, briefly to repeat them by telling you, that 

Since, in the first place, it may justly be doubted whether or no [...];
Since we may doubt, in the next place, whether or no [...];
Since also, [...];
And Since, Lastly, [...];
Since, I say, these things are so, I hope you will allow me to infer, that

[...]. (p.326)

Also at the end of the dialogue, the main steps of the debate are re proposed in a short-
ened form. This time, however, the summary is not provided by Carneades himself, but
by Eleutherius to indicate the high degree of cooperation existing in that civil group: 

Wherefore, if it be granted you, that you have made it probable, First
[...]; Next [...]. Lastly [...]. If, I say the Chymists (continues Eleutherius)
be so Liberall as to make you these three Concessions, I hope you will, on
your part, be so civil and Equitable as to grant them these three other
propositions, namely; First [...]. Next [ ..]. Lastly [...]. (pp.374-375) 

This summary concludes with the total acceptance of Carneades’ argumentative
line. In fact, Eleutherius recognizes the soundness of Carneades’ reasonings and
acknowledges his superiority over the others. The language used by Eleutherius to
express his final consi derations belongs to the stylistic variety which can appropriately
be considered civil, thus showing that, in the process of the dis cus sion, not only have
Carneades’ epistemological and conceptual suggestions been accepted, but so too have
those concerning linguistic aspects. The use of the two adverbs sincerely and subtilly in
the final compliment that Eleutherius pays to Carneades shows his emphasis on both the
conceptual and the stylistic aspects of his argumentation: 

So that (concludes he, with a smile) you may now by granting what I
propose, add the Reputation of Loving the truth sincerely to that of having
been able to oppose it subtilly. (p.375)

Conclusion

The analysis carried out in this paper has thus helped us under stand Boyle’s use of the

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

16



scientific dialogue by showing how the choice of this genre was strictly linked with the
nature of this work, which was mainly meant to provide a critical analysis and confuta tion
of the principal theoretical statements put forth by the Aristo te lians and the Paracelsians
as regards physical elements. The exami na tion of the expository and argumentative
aspects of this dialogue has pointed out that, on the one hand, Boyle tries to insert those
stylistic characteristics which are needed to make this dialogue resemble normal conver-
sation. The dialogue indeed tries to imitate natural speech to some extent by giving reac-
tions to previous turns, repeating parts of them, making explicit reference to the interlocu-
tor and inserting interjections. However, the main part of the work shows an accurate and
constant use of those argumentative features that instead are typical of another genre of
scientific theorisation, i.e. the treatise. Moreover, the analysis has outlined the fact that the
expository strategies employed greatly derive from the stylistic principles expounded by
the author in this work, who identifies them by the attribute civil. 

Generally speaking, Boyle does not seem to take full advantage of the various con-
troversial issues he is dealing with to build up con trasting interactive sequences, with the
result that the use of the dia lo gic genre in The Sceptical Chymist often hinders its con-
versational worth.13 This is also due to the methodological choice made by the British
writer. In fact, in adopting the style of arguing typical of a sceptical philosopher, Boyle
is bound to present the same main character evaluating both the strong and the weak
points of each argument, instead of assigning them to different speakers. 

In spite of its limitations in the use of conversational features, Boyle’s work possess-
es the characteristics of mimetic dialogues typical of Early Modern English, which rep-
resent an evolution compared to the scholastic dialogues mainly continuing the Late
Modern English tradition as pointed out by Taavitsainen´s (1999) analysis, which has
been summarised in scalar terms by Culpeper and Kytö in the following table (2010:43):

Table 1. Scalar differences between the dialogic scholastic and mimetic traditions in
Early Modern English.

However, Boyle´s dialogue shows fewer oral characteristics than those of real con-
versation and therefore looks less speech-like if compared to the other spoken genres of
the same period listed in the following table (reproduced from Culpeper and Kytö,
2010:67): 

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLinguistics

17

SCHOLASTIC MIMETIC

less speech like
instructional
less characterisation
less plot development
less entertaining
narrow audience

more speech like
persuasive
more characterisation
more plot development
more entertaining
wide audience



Table 2. Historical genres containing “spoken” dialogue.

The Sceptical Chymist thus constitutes an important testimony of Boyle’s progress in
his writing abilities throughout his career, which can be found in his choice of the dia-
logic form to embody his sceptical treatise and in his selection of appropriate elements
with which to endow its various parts. Moreover, this dialogue shows a remarkable
example of Boyle’s various proposals – ethical, methodo lo gical, linguistic and stylistic –
all contributing to provide an example of the main discursive features of scientific dis-
cussion as en visaged by the new specialized community of that time. In this way, The
Sceptical Chymist played a fundamental role in the promotion of these discursive con-
ventions, as it soon became a model for the scientific community of gentlemen that was
expanding and becoming consolidated in England in the 17th century. 

Notes:

1. The subtitle of The Sceptical Chymist is: Chymico-Physical Doubts and Paradoxes,
Touching the Experiments, Whereby vulgar Spagyrists are wont to endeavour to
evince their Salt, Sulphur and Mercury, to be the true Principles of Things. To which,
in this Edition, are subjoined divers Experiments and Notes about the Producibleness
of Chymical Principles.

2. All the quotations from The Sceptical Chymist mentioned in this paper are taken from
Hunter and Davis (1999, volume 2).

3. Golinski (1987:61) gives a similar explanation for Boyle’s choice of the dialogic
form: “Boyle cast the Sceptical Chymist in the form of dialogues, in order to commu-
nicate his ideas in a didactically-effective way, while also dramatising the rituals of
proper philoso phical debate. In his view, the manners of such debate required the
strict avoidance of dog matic theorising. Within such a dramatic structure, the deploy-
ment of sceptical arguments undercut the authority of traditional chemical discourse,
while avoiding the pressure to explicate theoretical alternatives.”

4. This aspect of the dialogue of protecting the author from public attack is pointed out
by Marsh (1980:15) as an important reason for Galileo’s choice of this genre: “The

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

18

DIALOGUE RECORDED RECONSTRUCTED CONSTRUCTED

Less explicit
narratorial 
intervention

Trial proceedings 
(Meeting records)
(Parliamentary 
journals)

(History, biographies) Drama
Didactic works, i.e.
instructional 
treatises in 
dialogue form

More explicit
narratorial
intervention

Witness deposi-
tions / accounts

(History, biographies) Prose fiction



caution of the humanists [...] exploited the form of the dialogue in order to avoid
recrimina tions and reprisals from contemporary authorities. [...] As late as Galileo’s
day, the threat of ecclesiastical authority recommended the dialogue form for treating
potentially dangerous topics.”

5. However, the goal of Boyle’s work is not to promote scepticism as a philosophical
approach. As Golinski (1990:384) rightly asserts, “In an appendix to his work,
[Boyle] explained that he did not intend to propose scepticism as a philosophical doc-
trine, the kind of belief in the doubtfulness of all things to which a convinced sceptic
might seek to convert his auditors. For Boyle, rather, scepticism was an argumenta-
tive strategy, a mode of dis course to be used, as he wrote, on ‘occasion’ and ‘with
design’ – the design, in this case, being to challenge the authority of the prevalent
mode of chemical discourse.”

6. As has been suggested by Shapin (1984), modesty plays an important role in Boyle’s
writing strategy, and helps the author make his works more convincing and less sub-
ject to criticism. 

7. For an analysis of Boyle’s conceptualisation of a ‘civil style’ cf. Gotti (2012).
8. Here are the words with which Boyle shows his approval of the widening of the sci-

entific community: “For I observe, that of late Chymistry begins, as indeed it
deserves, to be cultivated by Learned Men, who before despised it.” (p.208)

9. Markley (1988:41) gives a historical interpretation of this idyllic setting of the dia-
logue: “In one respect, these images of social harmony are part of Boyle’s [...]
attempts to promote a positive articulation of shared values about language, science,
and social order; in another, they may be seen as necessary fictions designed to paper
over the cracks in the fragile civic peace in the years following the Restoration.”

10. The class nature of this politeness feature and its close link with the world of ‘gentle -
men’ have been clearly stressed by Shapin (1994). 

11. This respectful and cooperative attitude is also one of the features which Sprat
(1667/1959:92) points out as typical of the behaviour of the members of the Royal
Society: “They could not be much exasperated one against another in their disagree-
ments, because they acknowledge, that there may be several methods of nature, in
producing the same thing, and all equally good.” As Goldgar (1995) demonstrates,
this is one of the ‘unwritten rules’ of behaviour typical not only of the Fellows of the
Royal Society but of the scholars who formed the international community that he
calls ‘the republic of letters’.

12. The adoption of a ‘civil’ tone to be used in scientific debate was a common aim
shared by all members of the Royal Society: “The emphasis in the works of Boyle,
Sprat, and Glanvill is thus on precisely those qualities which minimize passionate
debate and rhetorical conflict and which elicit their readers’ tacit complicity in, as
well as overt ac ceptance of, their campaigns against the backward languages of
fanaticism and the occult.” (Markley 1988:40-41)

13. This is not typical of this genre. In her analysis of medical dialogues of this period,
Taavitsainen (1999:262) finds that “Features of natural conversation are present in some
dialogues that incorporate speech acts of normal everyday interaction, like apologies, in -

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLinguistics

19



sults, greetings and leave-takings, and other exchanges that belong to personal commu-
nica tion, but this seems to be rare and achieved only in texts by the most skilful writers.”

References:

1. Brown, P.; Levinson, S. (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage.
Cambridge: CUP.

2. Culpeper, J.; Kytö, M. (2010) Early Modern English Dialogues. Cambridge: CUP. 
3. Goldgar, A. (1995) Impolite Learning: Conduct and Community in the Republic of

Letters 1680-1750. New Haven: Yale University Press.
4. Golinski, J.V. (1987) Robert Boyle: Scepticism and Authority in Seventeenth-Century

Chemical Discourse. // The Figural and the Literal. / Ed. by A.E. Benjamin, G.N.
Cantor and J.R.R. Christie. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp.58-82.

5. Golinski, J.V. (1990) Chemistry in the Scientific Revolution: Problems of Language
and Communication. // Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution. / Ed. by D.C.
Lindberg and R.S. Westman. Cambridge: CUP, pp.367-396. 

6. Gotti, M. (2001) The Experimental Essay in Early Modern English. // European
Journal of English Studies, Vol. 5 (2), pp.221-239.

7. Gotti, M. (2012) Managing Disputes with Civility: On Seventeenth-Century
Argumentative Discourse. // Investigations into the Meta-Communicative Lexicon of
English. A Contribution to Historical Pragmatics. / Ed. by U. Busse and A. Hübler.
Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp.89-109.

8. Gotti, M. (2013) The formation of the Royal Society as a Community of Practice and
Discourse. // Communities of Practice in the History of English. / Ed. by J. Kopaczyk
and A. Jucker. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp.269-285.

9.  Hunter, M. (1989) Establishing the New Science: The Experience of the Early Royal
Society. Woodbridge: Boydell Press.

10. Hunter, M.; Davis, E.B. (eds.) (1999) The Works of Robert Boyle. London: Pickering
and Chatto.

11. Jardine, L. (1999) Ingenious Pursuits: Building the Scientific Revolution. London:
Little and Brown.

12. Klein, L. (1994) ‘Politeness’ as Linguistic Ideology in Late Seventeenth- and
Eighteenth-Century England. // Towards a Standard English, 1600-1800. / Ed. by D.
Stein and I. Tieken-Boon van Ostade. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp.31-50.

13. Markley, R. (1988) Two-Edge’s Weapons. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
14. Marsh, D. (1980) The Quattrocento Dialogue. Cam bridge (Mass.): Harvard

University Press.
15. Merrill, E. (1970) The Dialogue in English Literature. New York: Burt Franklin.
16. Muntigl, P.; Turnbull, W. (1998) Conversation Structure and Facework in Arguing. //

Journal of Pragmatics. Vol. 29, pp.225-256.
17. Shapin, S.(1984) Pump and Circumstance: Robert Boyle’s Literary Technology. //

Social Studies of Science. Vol. 14, pp.481-520.

Armenian Folia Anglistika Linguistics

20



18. Shapin, S.(1994) A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-
Century England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

19. Shapiro, B. (2000) A Culture of Fact: England, 1550-1720. Ithaca: Cornell University
Press.

20. Sprat, T. (1667) A History of the Royal Society of London for the Improving of
Natural Science. London: Martyn; rpt. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1959.

21. Taavitsainen, I. (1999) Dialogues in Late Medieval and Early Modern English
Medical Writing. // Historical Dia logue Analysis. / Ed. by A. Jucker, G. Fritz and F.
Lebsanft. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp.243-268.

22. Vickers, B. (ed.) (1987) English Science: Bacon to Newton. Cambridge: CUP.

гÕáñ¹³ÏóáõÃÛáõÝÝ áõ ÷³ëï³ñÏáõÙÁ ´áÛÉÇ ·Çï³Ï³Ý »ñÏËáëáõÃÛ³Ý Ù»ç

êáõÛÝ Ñá¹ í³ ÍÇ Ýå³ ï³ÏÝ ¿ Ý»ñ ϳ Û³ó Ý»É 17-ñ¹  ¹³ ñÇ ³Ý· Édz Ï³Ý ·Ç ï³ Ï³Ý
»ñÏ Ëá ëáõÃ Û³Ý Å³Ý ñÇÝ μÝá ñáß Ýáñ á ׳ Ï³Ý Ùá ï» óáõÙ, ѳï ϳ å»ë ϳñ¨á ñ» Éáí
èá μ»ñï  ´áÛ ÉÇ ÏáÕ ÙÇó ÁÝ ¹áõÝ í³Í é³½ Ù³ í³ ñáõà ÛáõÝ Ý» ñÁ: êáõÛÝ áõ ëáõ٠ݳ ëÇ ñáõà -
Û³Ý Ù»ç Ñá¹ í³ Í³ ·Ç ñÁ Ù³ï Ý³Ý ßáõÙ ¿ ÙÇ ÏáÕ ÙÇó ³ÛÝ á ñ³ ϳ Ï³Ý Ñ³ï ϳ ÝÇß Ý» -
ñÁ, á ñáÝù ϳ ñáÕ »Ý Áݹ ѳ Ýáõñ ÉÇ Ý»É ·Ç ï³ Ï³Ý ¨  ëá íá ñ³ Ï³Ý »ñÏ Ëá ëáõà ÛáõÝ Ý» -
ñÇ Ñ³ Ù³ñ, ÇëÏ ÙÛáõë ÏáÕ ÙÇó` ³ÛÝ ³ é³ÝÓ Ý³ ѳï Ïáõà ÛáõÝ Ý» ñÁ, á ñáÝù, ÑÇÙÝ í³Í ÉÇ -
Ý» Éáí ï» ë³ Ï³Ý ÷³ë ï³ñ ÏáõÙ Ý» ñÇ íñ³, Ùá ï»ó ÝáõÙ »Ý í» ñáÝß Û³É Å³Ý ñÁ ·Ç ï³ -
Ï³Ý ïñ³Ï ï³ ïÇÝ:

Êîììóíèêàöèÿ è àðãóìåíòàöèÿ â íàó÷íîì äèàëîãå Áîéëà

Öåëü äàí íîé  ñòàòüè  –  ïî êà çàòü  íî âûé ñòè ëèñòè ÷åñ êèé  ïîä õîä, âîï ëî ùåí íûé â
æàí ðå  àíã ëèéñ êî ãî íàó÷ íî ãî äèà ëî ãà 17-îãî âå êà, â ÷àñò íîñòè, ñòðà òå ãèè, ïðè íÿ òûå
Ðî áåð òîì Áîé ëîì. Â ñòàòüå àâ òîð ñòà âèò öåëü óêà çàòü, ñ îä íîé ñòî ðî íû, íà õà ðàê òå -
ðèñòè êè, êî òî ðûå ïðèá ëè æàþò ýòîò äèà ëîã  ê îáû÷ íî ìó ðàç ãî âî ðó, à ñ äðó ãîé, òå õà -
ðàê òå ðèñòè êè,  öåëüþ êî òî ðûõ ÿâ ëÿåò ñÿ àð ãó ìåí òà öèÿ, è êî òî ðûå,  òà êèì îá ðà çîì,
ïðèá ëè æàþò âû øåó êà çàí íûé æàíð ê íàó÷ íî ìó  òðàê òà òó.

Armenian Folia AnglistikaLinguistics

21