Notices respecting New Books. 4§7 



of its applications, and the importance of its practical results." Dr. 

 Daubeny commences his work with detaiUng the opinions of the most 

 renowned of the ancient philosophers with respect to the constitution 

 of matter, and he traces back these opinions to the Egyptians and 

 Indians ; the epicurean doctrines are next described at some length 

 under the name of " the atomic philosophy of Epicurus" in a quo- 

 tation from Dr. Good ; the system of Anaxagoras follows, and after- 

 awards the notions of the Pythagoreans, Plato and Aristotle. 

 " Dr. Daubeny concludes the sketch which he has drawn, but which 

 our limited space will not allow us to quote, with observing that 

 " the brief outline of the dogmas entertained by the philosophers of 

 antiquity on the constitution of matter may be sufhcient to convince 

 us how complete a division of opinion existed on the subject ; and 

 if without heeding the authority of names, we regard only the argu- 

 ments alleged in support of either side, we shall find perhaps an 

 equal difficulty in arriving at any decision." 



Omitting for the present to notice the subjects treated of in Dr. 

 Daubeny's second and third chapters, we shall briefly notice some 

 statements contained in the fourth chapter " On the Existence of 

 Atoms;" he observes, that "if matter were infinitely divisible,it would 

 seem that a substance could not be made up of particles at all times 

 the same in point of size and figure;" and further, "if matter be 

 infinitely divisible, no reason can be assigned why bodies should 

 unite in certain proportions and not in others ; we should rather 

 expect, that, as their smallest conceivable portions differ in quantity 

 only, and not in quality, from the largest, they should all possess 

 the same afiinities ; and that consequently the number of combina- 

 tions taking place between diflferent substances should be as infinite 

 as are the parts into which they themselves admit of being separated." 



" Such, indeed," continues Dr. Daubeny, " was the opinion of 

 Berthollet, who contended that bodies have in reality an equal ten- 

 dency to combine in any proportions whatever." This allusion to 

 Berthollet, and his doctrine of compounds of unlimited quantities, 

 recalls an observation which struck us in reading Dr. Daubeny's 

 history of the contributions to the atomic theory, which is, that he 

 does not allude to the name and labours of Proust, who strenuously 

 contended with Berthollet that combinations are limited in the pro- 

 portions of their constituents. In justice to the memory and labours 

 of Proust, we shall make a quotation from Dr. Thomson's History 

 of Chemistry, and Berzelius's Chemistry. 



" Another opinion brought forward by Berthollet in his work was 

 of a startling nature, and occasioned a controversy between him and 

 Proust which was carried on for some years with great spirit, but 

 with perfect decorum and good manners on both sides. Berthollet 

 affirmed that bodies were capable of uniting with each other in all 

 possible proportions, and that there is no such thing as a definite 

 compound, unless it has been produced by some accidental circum- 

 stances, as insolubility, volatility, &c. Thus every metal is capable 

 of uniting with all possible doses of oxygen. So that instead of one 

 or two oxides of every metal, an infinite number of oxides of each 



