ift PitNifiil fir phjitfuting tte Term 



this vapour proceeding from burning fat, from heated alcohol, from camphor, ether, coal, 

 and a muhitude of other fubftance?, gave evidence of their poflfeiring a principle enabling 

 them to burn with flame after the f-.me manner that water did. If there was this fimilarity 

 or indeed identity of tlie inflammable radical among them, there appeared to be no more 

 propriety in calling that radical hilrogene thafi in terming it olegent, nhoio/sgfie, ctherigene, 

 iscltgene ', &c. To give the radical fubftance enabling oil, alcohol, ether and coal to burn 

 ■with flame a name derived from water, bccaafc it enabled water to burn with blaze too, 

 appeared to me partial, illogical ard wrong, inafniuch as it conftantly and unneceflarily 

 brought water and its properties to mind whenever any thing was thought of that contained 

 hydrogene; and by this unhappy aflbciation, befidcs the difficulty which attends the fubjcft 

 ■ in point of fa£t, valUy greater dilTiculty was made to furround it by rcafon of the ill chofcii 

 and badly aflbrted terms employed in talking about it. 



I had entertained no doubt, for two years, that hydrogene was an improper word for a 

 nomenclature of fcience, and deferved to be ftruck out of the lift : but as I was engaged in 

 reforming another article of that arrangement, I chofe not then to meddle with it; and lam 

 j;l.id I did not ; fince the prolonged difputes between the parties afford more weighty 

 caufes for an alteration of terms at this day than cxifted at any former time. 



The circumftance common to all the proccfles I have mentioned, is " burning witli 

 flame or blaze," which, wherever it occurs, feems to indicate the prefence of what has been 

 called hydrogene. According to my prefent conception of the matter, this principle or 

 fubftance common to fo many bodies, and enabling them to undergo inflammation, may in 

 ftria propriety be called phlcgijlon. I always thought />/'%»/?»« a well conceived word, 

 and have dbjcfted to it, not on account of the impropriety of the term as fuch, but becaufe 

 of the vague and unfatisfactory way in which it was ufed. If a definite fignification can 

 be aflTixed to it, I think the adoption of it will be ftill a great acquifition to philofophical 

 language, and have a tendency to fettle at Icaft half the controverfy which divides the 

 chemiils. 



I propofe, then, to expunge hydrogene :inA fubftitute/iW5^//'o» in its place. Phlogijlon will thus 

 be the radical term, and ftriiSlly mean the thing in combuftible bodies \Vhich forms blaze or 

 ignited vapour. The union of this with mere caloric will make phlogj/loiu or inflammable 

 air, the air which burns with blaze. The combination of phlogifton with oxygcne will 

 conftitute water or the cxy J of phlogijlon, one of the produf^s of inflammation, and, like fixed 

 air and other compounds fbrmed during the fame procefs, incombuftible in common tem- 

 peratures and circumftances afterwards. And the oufe of this flownefs to burn, of water 

 and the other compounds which combuftion furnifties, is owing to the large dofe of 

 oxygene with which they are charged, giving them little or no appetite for more. If this 

 bafe be united to a yet larger quantity of oxygene, it will form the acid of phlogifton, or 

 water foured by excefs of oxygene, as perhaps (though I do not believe it) in what is 

 termed the pyro-lignic and pyro-inucic acids, and perhaps in fome other cafes : but the 

 readincfs with which phlogifton parts with its furplufage of oxygene, turns back to water, 

 »nd prefcryes itfelf in that oxydated form (as proved by the operation of fliarp-pointed 

 Elements under water in efifefling the feparation) (hews that nature, in enabling the princi- 



• So in tjie origiiul: doubtlcfs *iy overfight. N. 



plc 



