The so-called ‘redintegration experiment’ is traditionally at the center of the comments on the supposed Boyle/Spinoza controversy. A. Clericuzio influentially argued (criticizing R.A. & M.B. Hall’s interpretation) in his publications that, in De nitro, Boyle accounted for the ‘redintegration’ of saltpeter on the grounds of the chemical properties of corpuscles and “did not make any attempt to deduce them from mechanical principles”. By way of contrast, this paper argues that with his De nitro Boyle wanted to illustrate and promote his new corpuscular or mechanical philosophy, and that he made significant attempts to explain the phenomena in terms of mechanical qualities. Boyle had borrowed the ‘redintegration experiment’ from R. Glauber and used it in an attempt to demonstrate that his philosophy was superior to the Peripatetic and Paracelsian theory. Consequently, Clericuzio’s characterization of the Boyle/Spinoza controversy as a discussion between a strict mechanical philosopher and a chemist is problematic and a wider view of Spinoza’s interpretation and its context gives a fairer picture.

中文翻译：

---

博伊尔、斯宾诺莎和格劳伯：论硝石的哲学重新整合——对安东尼奥·克莱里库齐奥的答复

所谓的“红积分实验”传统上是对所谓的波义耳/斯宾诺莎争论的评论的中心。A. Clericuzio 在他的出版物中有影响力地争论（批评 RA 和 MB Hall 的解释），在 De nitro 中，Boyle 以微粒的化学性质为由解释了硝石的“红整合”，并且“并没有试图推断它们来自机械原理”。相比之下，本文认为波义耳想用他的德硝基或机械哲学来说明和推广他的新粒子或机械哲学，并且他做出了重要的尝试来解释机械性质的现象。博伊尔从 R 那里借用了“红积分实验”。Glauber 并用它来试图证明他的哲学优于逍遥派和帕拉塞尔斯理论。因此，克莱里库齐奥将波义耳/斯宾诺莎的争论描述为严格的机械哲学家和化学家之间的讨论是有问题的，而对斯宾诺莎的解释及其背景的更广泛的看法给出了更公平的图景。