0

Robert Boyle once wrote in one of his papers:

That, then, which I chiefly aim at is to make it probable to you by experiments (which I think hath not yet been done) that almost all sorts of qualities, most of which have been by the Schools either left unexplicated, or generally referred to I know not what incomprehensible substantial forms, may be produced mechanically - I mean by such corporeal agents as do not appear either to work otherwise than by virtue of the motion, size, figure, and contrivance, of their own parts

-- Selected Philosophical Papers of Robert Boyle [On Google Books]

I have several difficulties regarding the meaning and grammar of above-mentioned passage:

The best way I can understand I know not is as a parenthetical phrase. Is that correct? Why not I don't know? Even so I could not make a proper sense of the sentence. There should be something referring in the phrase generally referred to I know not what incomprehensible substantial forms to the outer which, but here it seems that there is no such reference.

In the next sentence we read such corporal agents as do not .... I think there is a subject omitted in this case: such corporal agents as that which do not .... Is that correct? Is there a general rule regarding this omission?

Improve this question
4
  • With regard to the corporeal agents, although I'm far from confident parsing this I understand "by such corporeal agents" to refer to "may be produced mechanically". I think the core idea is "I aim to make probable to you that almost all sorts of qualities may be produced mechanically by corporeal agents."
    – Al Maki
    Commented Dec 31, 2018 at 19:08
  • Robert Boyle lived from 1627 to 1691, and people used to speak and write English differently in the seventeenth century. They may appear excessively verbose to us. Because if there is one thing modernity has taught us, it is to value lucidity over elegance of expression. His writings are almost contemporaneous with the James I version of the bible.
    – WS2
    Commented Jan 1, 2019 at 0:28
  • @WS2 Thank you for your witty remark! BTW I guess the KJV would sound archaic even to a contemporaneous reader.
    – user_163417
    Commented Jan 1, 2019 at 8:44
  • @Kaveh I don't really see why it would. It belongs to roughly the same period as Shakespeare, and employs similar English. It was the way that the educated classes spoke.
    – WS2
    Commented Jan 1, 2019 at 10:49

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
0

It's preferable to ask your questions separately, rather than all together, but I will endeavour to answer.

I know not is the older form of I do not know. I'm not sure when it really went obsolete (you occasionally find it in 19th century writing, but I think it was archaic then). It's not a parenthetical phrase, but (part of) an adjectival phrase modifying "incomprehensible insubstantial forms": "I don't know what kind of ... forms". Here it's really a rhetorical flourish meaning "various", with a connotation of disapproval: maybe something like "outlandish" or "ridiculous" catches the meaning.

"Generally referred to" refers back to "qualities". The Schools either leave the qualities unexplained or refer them to those ridiculous insubstantial forms.

"Such NP as VP" is another literary trope, not obsolete but now rare. "As" has the force of a restrictive relative pronoun. Your paraphrase is accurate, but I would probably say "Those corporeal agents that do not ... "

Improve this answer
1
  • @ColinsFine I would be thankful if you could supplement your answer with references for both parts, specially as for such part.
    – user_163417
    Commented Dec 31, 2018 at 19:10

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .