164 On the Atomic Theory 4 



was em]jloyed rather vvith a view to illustrate his examples, thait 

 to broach any new theory to explain definite proportions. In- 

 deed it would have been inconsistent to have treated two sub- 

 jects so very different in their objects, in the same pages." 



I will now, before I proceed any further with the author of 

 this article, remark that I made no use of vague or equivocal 

 language, and that I entertained fixed notions of the laws of de- 

 finite proportions, which are fully demonstrated throughout the 

 whole of my Comparative View. It is true I gave no name to 

 the novel mode which I adopted for the purpose of my research, 

 —but what is a name but a mere shadow in comparison to the 

 matter itself? Lavoisier n^ver gave a name, to his doctrine. Kir- 

 wan was the first that gave it the name of the antiphlogistic 

 theory; and I will say that it was not inconsistent to trace- the 

 errors of the phlogistians in the same page, and even in the same 

 paragraph, by means of the laws of definite proportions ; and it 

 was in consequence of thp.t close investigation that the Atomic 

 Theory started up in mv mind ; otherwise, in all probability, it 

 would iiave still romainrd unknown. 



Tile author tells us in another part of this article, that the re- 

 viewer of this work (the Comparative View) in the Analytical Re- 

 view soon after it was published, took r.o notice of my diagrams 

 or particles, although he gives me the highest praise for the able 

 manner in which I refuted the doctrine of phlogiston. This he 

 adduces as a proof that there was nothing striking in what I ad- 

 vanced on the theory of definite proportions. The Reviewer, it is 

 true, only observed that " my facts and mode of reasoning were 

 original and striking." What more could be expected at a time 

 when there was no fixed theory, and when tlie science was al- 

 most in a chaotic state? it was impossiijle that such novel view 

 should all at once be adopted even in the most advanced state 

 or the science of chemistrv. 



My diagrcims were taken notice of in the Critical Flei'iew, at 

 the time I had written, and the remarks made on them show 

 the ignorance of those days ; for they only observed that they 

 were the same vvith those of Dr. Black. And Dr. Thomson 

 himself, after I publislied my Essay on the Atomic Theory, &c. 

 mentioned in one of his Journals, (I forget in what number, for I 

 liave it not by me at present,) that there was nothing material in 

 those diagrams of mine, for indeed that Dr. Black's were much 

 more pretty than mine. What a scientific expression from a 

 compiler of philosophy ! 



1 scarcely nd6d to tell the reader that Dr. Black's diagrams 

 and mine bear no relation whatever to each other. 



But the writer goes on. " It was not enough to know that 

 compound bodies were formed of particles, to enable us to ex- 

 plain 



