PROLOGUE. 



The use of large quantities and the extreme accuracy 

 apparently attained had the effect intended. The leading 

 official chemists, and through them, the academies and 

 chemical societies, instantly accepted the published results 

 and overwhelmed Stas with honors. 



As a matter of course, the final conclusion of STAS was 

 also accepted: the atomic weights of the chemical elements 

 have no common divisor, and therefore, the chemical ele- 

 ments cannot have their origin in one primitive substance. 



The expression of any doubt in either the accuracy of 

 Stas' atomic weights or the truth of his philosophic con- 

 clusion, has for almost forty years been considered an 

 evidence of lack of scientific intelligence. The Unity of 

 Matter was pronounced a chimera. 



The position of Stas and his school was very much 

 strengthened by the elaborate, though very faulty, recalcu- 

 lations of his analyses by prominent chemists, such as 

 Lothar Meyer and Ostwald in Germany, Julius Thomsen 

 and Sebelien in Denmark, Van der Plaats in Holland, and 

 Frank Wigglesworth Clarke in the United States. 



The work of Clarke is properly considered representing 

 even the Government of the United States. For Clarke is 

 Chief Chemist of the Geological Survey, under the Secretary 

 of the Interior; his recalculations have been formally 

 endorsed by the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 

 and published officially at the expense of the Smithson 

 Fund; it has, finally, been sent out under the official frank 

 as registered matter. The deficiency of the postal service 

 partly so resulting is made up by Congressional appropria- 

 tions. 



The same author Clarke is also habitually sent by 

 authority of the National Government and at public expense, 

 as delegate to Congresses of Chemists, and put in charge of 

 National Exhibits at home and abroad. This highest pos- 

 sible official consideration has enabled him to exercise a 

 ruling influence in the American Chemical Society. 



A critical examination of the work of Stas, and especially 

 of the recalculations of Clarke, is therefore not only a diffi- 

 cult, but also an extremely hazardous undertaking; only the 



