<jj Copper and of Iron, 14-5 



perceived, that Nature lias left vlflble to thofc who will ob~ 

 ferve her. 



I ftiall now proceed to ofler the refult of a chemical ana- 

 lyfis, undertaken with a view to determine what confidence. 

 the cryftallographical arrangement., adopted in the precediixr 

 paper, might merit; and to fliow how far feiences fo nearlv 

 allied may receive new light and confirmation from reciprocal 

 aid. 



I fliaJ! confine myfelf to detail onh- thofe general proccfTes 

 which, upon frequent trial, have been found^preferable. Bv 

 reducing to powder any of the arfeniatcs of cop])cr here fpokeii 

 of, and then expofing them to heat in a platina crucible, the 

 water of cryftallization was quickly diilipated. But, as too 

 great a degree of heat volatihzed fome portion of tlie arfcnic* 

 acid, it was found ncccfiary to moderate the heat] and. in 

 order that every particle of water might be finally expelled, 

 to prolong it. When tlic diminution^of weight was afcer- 

 tained, the refiduum was diUblved in acetous, "or, flill better, 

 in dilute nitric acid, and nitrate of lead was poured in. Arfe- 

 niate of lead and nitrate of copper were ihus fomied, by 

 double decompofition ; but, when more nitric acid had been 

 uied than was (h-ictly necelTary to diili.lve the arfeniate. of 

 copper, no precipitate apjjeared till tlic liquor had been eva- 

 porated. When the e\'aporation was puihed too far, part of 

 the nitric acid, contained in the foluble nitrate of copper, 

 flew off; and that nearly infoluble cupreous nitrate, firll 



There is no doubt that philologills, who do not confider the princi- 

 ples of the new methodical nomenclature, may, at firft light, think the 

 rcrm arpn'f objeftionable ; pnrticuhrly as previous cuftom and analo'jT 

 hid given another denomination, arfenira!, \\hiil: is the natural adjeftiv'e 

 of the fnbftantivc arfniii. '{ hey may f'„v &.:<.i tlie dillerence of accentu- 

 ation alone marks the diftimnion between r!ic fublhntive and the new ad- 

 jeftive. But cveiy chemift v.ill fet the weightier confiderations of method 

 and order before fuch object inns. In French, the termination in ic, fo^- 

 the i'ubftantivc, :[n<.\ in iqiu, for the adjtdive, obviates all confuAon. One 

 remark I fhall beg leave to orVtr to tlie confidcration of thofe chemifu who 

 have laboured to adapt to the Englifli !an{;ua!:;e a literal tranflation of the 

 French nomenclature. It is the genius of the former language to throw 

 the accent as far back as podiblc ; fo that, in triCyliabical nouns, the iirl> 

 or fccond fvllable is ufuaily accrntcd ; while, in the French langua£;e, the 

 accent is generally thrown upon the laft ; thus, we h\< fulpbtliic and, but 

 ihcy fay cuiJc ffiipbuihiue. It was very natural therefore, as in the latter 

 cafe, to make the accented fvllable be that which ftjould denote the parti- 

 cular ftaic of the fubftance of which they fpcnk. Thus, fntphtiri'ine, f.il- 

 pbintux; nitrrpte, nilrrux ; fiilpbal/;, fulphlii'; nit, ale', niiiUf. JJnt, 

 tvithout oITending the radical orthoepy of our language, we cannot make 

 tiie (anic method ful/crvient to tliat purpnfc; for, wlun we wl(h to nnik 

 ihf didinvlion m that manner, vvc arc obliyed to wreft the word from Ui 

 proper pionunti.ition, and 10 fay, nihtc, mhCuu f"!{<hur<o''ii, &c. 



nientioued 



