M. Hess on the Scientific Labours of Richter. 95 



depression of temperature observed is equivalent to that which 

 would have been produced by the fusion of 457*4 parts of ice 

 at 0°. But as he finds that the 1440 parts of salt employed con- 

 tain, not 457 parts of solidified water, but 803 parts, he con- 

 cludes thence that this water had not lost as much heat as the 

 water should necessarily have lost in order to freeze, and that 

 consequently it is not correct to say ice of crystallization. 



Notwithstanding the depth of his views, Richter was not 

 the less exposed to critical attacks which were often unjust. 

 His replies were always not only moderate, but in general 

 as calm as if he had discussed an uncontested subject. When 

 M * * * makes me such a reproach, says he, I bear it without 

 thinking myself injured; I merely believe that irony does not 

 suit the end which criticism ought to have in view and which 

 should be to convince. Besides, every one cannot follow an 

 author step by step in order to judge with knowledge of the 

 subject, for it is not sufficient, for this purpose, to turn over 

 the leaves of a work. Several times in his prefaces Richter 

 complains of not being read with attention. Thus to give an 

 idea of the manner in which his views were treated, I will 

 mention another critic (M. Fries) who thought, for example, 

 that it was impossible to explain why the elements followed a 

 fixed law in their relations of neutrality. To that Richter re- 

 plies, that nature would be very poor if she were limited only 

 to what was intelligible for him and for his criticism. 



Another critic asked him with more reason to give a sum- 

 mary of his doctrine which might be comprehended by every 

 one. Richter's fault was that he did not express himself clearly ; 

 if circumstances had caused him to undergo the severe disci- 

 pline of the French language, if Richter, like Lavoisier, had 

 drawn his logic from the school of Condillac, the truths which 

 he published would have spread with more facility, and he 

 would have produced the same results with less labour. 



In the sciences, gentlemen, labour is divided into two very 

 distinct categories ; some from their novelty and the generality 

 of their results open a new field to investigation, and spread 

 great truths which astonish the generation which sees them 

 originate. These works, gentlemen, make an epoch in the 

 history of the development of intelligence, and man is hardly 

 ever ungrateful for this benefit. Others, sometimes as diffi- 

 cult as the preceding ones, are but a tribute of our love for 

 science, — a right to the esteem of our contemporaries. They 

 pursue and extend paths already opened. They cause us 

 to be esteemed while we live ; a certain deference surrounds 

 us: but let us not deceive ourselves; it is but the homage 

 which politeness imposes by the fact of our presence, for after 



