1874.) Notices of Books. 251 
tained must, therefore, be left provisionally unnoticed. The 
more chemistry succeeds in developing itself as a primary and 
exact science, the more it must, of necessity, abandon the merely 
descriptive and concrete features which marked its earlier days. 
That by so doing it must lose a certain portion of its attractions, 
and appeal to a different class of minds, is undeniable. To the 
student prepared to accept these changes we believe that Dr. 
Armstrong’s work will be of value. 
The Birth of Cheniistry. (Nature Series). By G. F. RopweE tt, 
F.R.A.S., &c. London: Macmillan and Co. 
Is a knowledge of the history of chemistry necessary ? No, and 
yes! It is quite conceivable, for instance, that a man without 
any knowledge of the origin and early development of the science 
might be the most brilliant and successful experimenter,—the 
most accurate analyst the world has produced. Nor can it be 
contended that the practical applications of the science are in 
the smallest degree promoted by an acquaintance with its rise 
and progress. But it is difficult to comprehend the philosophy 
of chemistry, or to view it in its relation to other sciences, 
without an acquaintance with the rise, the reign, and the decay 
of the successive theories which have prevailed in past days. 
As a branch of culture and a means of intellectual discipline, 
the history of science may justly claim a high rank. It is with 
this view, evidently, that the author approaches his subject. “I 
have endeavoured,” says he, in his preface, ‘‘to trace the rise 
and early development of a very old science, mainly that we may 
mark the attitude of thought which actuated the scientific mind 
in bygone times, and may thus be led to compare the ancient 
with the modern method of evolving ideas and building them up 
into a connected whole.”’ The history of science is to be studied 
as a basis for the methodology of science. ‘The author likens 
the development of chemistry to the erection of a house. ‘ The 
time when the foundation-stone was laid is too remote to be even 
suggested ; the basis of the edifice is sunk deep in Eastern soil; 
the walls were slowly and laboriously raised during the middle 
ages, and were completed by Lavoisier, Black, and Priestley.” 
The similitude is, in one important sense, misleading. Succes- 
Sive generations of experimentalists and inquirers do not merely 
add to the works of their predecessors. As Mr. Rodwell has 
elsewhere shown, they pull down and rebuild; they modify, 
they transform. And ever as they execute such changes, they 
dream that their own work is final and unchangeable. The 
world has, not for the first time, had its ‘‘modern” chemical 
views taught from every professorial chair, and eagerly imbibed 
by crowds of students. But before half a century had passed, 
the ‘‘modern” had become obsolete, and had been swept into 
