10 M. Berzeliustf/u/ the Rev.W.Whewello?* ChemicalFormulcc. 



some objections against Whewell's remarks *, and rightly en- 

 deavoured to show, that by means of a formula an idea of the 

 composition of a body is more easily expressed." 



I am by no means going to attempt to open up again this 

 subject, of which a general discussion, independent of some 

 particular object, is not likely^ to be very useful or instructive. 

 I will only observe, that in the note to the Report of 1824, to 

 which he refers, Berzelius has not, I think, even attempted to 

 answer the objections which he quotes in the above passage. 

 In that note lie endeavours to show the convenience of some 

 chemical formula 3 , without attempting to compare different 

 systems. And both there and elsewhere he views his formula? 

 merely as modes of expressing his own opinion of certain 

 compositions, briefly and clearly. I consider that chemical 

 formulae are capable of doing more than this, — of expressing 

 the analysis, without adopting any one's hypothesis of the 

 mode of composition ; and of showing how different analyses, 

 and different views of composition, are necessarily related to 

 each other. And this can only be done by using algebraical 

 formulae constructed according to algebraical rules f. For 

 Berzelius's purpose, the use of the sign + is a wanton and su- 

 perfluous violation of analogy. 



Those chemical formulae are the best which best answer 

 their purpose; and therefore our judgement of what is best 

 must depend on our views with regard to the purpose which 

 these formulae are to answer. It is easy to make formulae 

 simple enough, if we want them to mean little. Berzelius 

 compares his formula for garnet, fs + A s, which does not 

 express the quantity of oxygen combined with the bases, and 

 which does not admit of being put into a form independent of 

 his assumptions, with a formula which was intended to possess 

 these advantages. A person who was contented to express 

 somewhat less than Berzelius, might have "discovered" a 

 simpler formula still, and might have denoted garnet by a 

 single letter g. But such simplicity would probably not be 

 considered as a merit of a high order. 



Believe me, Gentlemen, &c. &c. 



Trinity College, Cambridge, W. WhewelL. 



Nov. 21, 1833. 



[* See Phil. Mag. and Annals, N.S.,vol. x. pp. 104 and 405 note.— Edit.] 

 t Dr. Turner, in the last edition of his Chemistry, has been led by this 

 very consideration " to employ chemical symbols in strict accordance with 

 the rules of algebra." Preface, p. vii.; — and in pages 399, 403, 409, of the 

 same work may be seen examples of the use of such a mode of employing 

 symbols. 



