Primary Sources:
Boyle, Robert. New Experiments Physico-Mechanicall, Touching the Spring of the Air and its Effects. H. Hall, for T. Robinson, 1660.
Boyle, Robert. The Sceptical Chymist: or Chymico-Physical Doubts & Paradoxes. J. Cadwell, 1661.
Boyle, Robert. The Origine of Formes and Qualities, according to the Corpuscular Philosophy. H. Hall, for R. Davis, 1666.
Boyle, Robert. Experiments and Considerations Touching Colours. Henry Herringman, 1664.
Boyle, Robert. New Experiments and Observations Touching Cold. John Crook, 1665.
Boyle, Robert. A Continuation of New Experiments Physico-Mechanical, Touching the Spring and Weight of the Air. Henry Hall, for R. Davis, 1669.
Boyle, Robert. Tracts Written by the Honourable Robert Boyle. About the Cosmicall Qualities of Things. W.H. for R. Davis, 1670.
Boyle, Robert. Some Considerations Touching the Style of the H. Scriptures. Henry Herringman, 1661.
Boyle, Robert. The Christian Virtuoso: Shewing, that by Being Addicted to Experimental Philosophy, a Man Is Rather Assisted, than Indisposed, to Be a Good Christian. Edw. Jones, for J. Taylor, 1690.
SECONDARY SOURCES:
Anstey, Peter, and Jan-Erik Jones. “Robert Boyle.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 4 Aug. 2025, plato.stanford.edu/entries/boyle/.
This source offers a broad overview of the most important aspects of Boyle’s philosophies. It does a great job of integrating the information from all of the previous primary sources and showing how they connect to each other. This source also covers details about his life.
Clericuzio, Antonio. “Gassendi, Charleton and Boyle on Matter and Motion.” Late Medieval and Early Modern Corpuscular Matter Theories, edited by Christoph Lüthy et al., Brill, 2001, pp. 467–82.
This source covers a specific part of Boyle’s philosophy – that being the way that he characterizes matter and motion. It talks about the relationship of Boyle’s views as they pertain to Gassendi and Charleton, which his views seem to have similarity with. It also attempts to disassociate Boyle’s views on matter from those of Descartes.
Clericuzio, A., 1990, “A Redefinition of Boyle’s Chemistry and Corpuscular Philosophy,” Annals of Science, 47: 561–589.
This source adds additional context to Boyle’s mechanical theory by addressing some detractors that claim that Boyle simply applied physics to chemistry. Instead, this source argues that Boyle drew important important aspects of older, alchemical philosophy and applied it. The key takeaway is that Boyle’s theory on matter should be described more like corpuscular than mechanical.