How old is surface science?

Philosophical and literary testimonies from the Classical World (5th century B.C. to 3rd century A.D.) involving solid surfaces are reviewed. Plato thought the surface to be a real entity, whereas Aristotle considered it to possess an unqualified existence, i.e. not to be a substance, but just an accidental entity. The Old Stoics asserted that surfaces do not possess any physical existence, although the Stoic philosopher Posidonius-apparently the only exception in his school-held them to exist both in thought and reality. While both the Atomists and the Epicureans were very little interested in them, the Sceptic philosopher Sextus Empiricus considered surfaces to be the limits of a body, although he maintained that both the view that they are corporeal or the view that they are incorporeal present unsurmountable difficulties. Among Roman authors, the testimony from Pliny the Elder is mostly concerned with metallic surfaces, chemical change occurring there, and surface treatments used in antiquity. Besides the philosophical motivations, the implications of the testimonies are discussed in the light of surface science. The purely geometrical surface of Plato is found to compare favorably to single-crystal surface, Posidonius' "corporeal" surface is best likened to an air-oxidized, or otherwise ambient-modified surface, and ancient accounts on mixture are compared to XPS results obtained in adhesion studies of enameled steels. I argue that the long-standing dominance of Aristotle's view from antiquity onwards may have had a part in delaying theoretical speculation into solid surfaces. (C) 2003 Elsevier B.V All rights reserved.