301 



property which, in his opinion, establishes perhaps to-day the only 

 sharp line of demarcation between the chemistry of inanimate 

 and that of living nature. 



However, this contrast, so striking in aspect, is only an apparent 

 one. Pasteur's vitalistic views were for a comparatively short 

 time again adhered to by a number of partisans, especially 

 by biological investigators. To these this asymmetrical synthesis 

 in living organisms appeared to be quite inconceivable, and they 

 were obliged to suppose a particular dissymmetry of the forces and 

 influences acting in the living cells, different from those which take 

 part in our synthetic laboratory-processes. Vital agency would include 

 possibilities which are not only phenomenally, but also essentially, 

 different from those offered to us by the so-called "dead" forces. 



It is hardly necessary to repeat here the interesting controversy 

 between vitalists, chemists, philosophers, etc., which was started 

 in 1898 and 1899 by Japp's address to the British Association 

 on "Stereochemistry and Vitalism" l ), to show the interest widely 

 provoked by these problems. 



And although, as we shall see, the last and most fundamental 

 problem here is as yet only solved indirectly, and the striking 

 evidence of the possibilities must again be ascertained by direct 

 experiment, it can no longer be denied that during the last twenty 

 years the apparent barrier between artificial and natural synthesis 

 has mostly been removed, and that it has become more and 

 more evident, that in this respect also a fundamental contrast 

 does not exist. 



9. E. Fischer 2 ) was the first who pointed out the fact, 

 that so strong a contrast between natural and artificial synthesis, 

 as believed by Pasteur, must not be imagined. He drew attention 

 to the fact that artificial synthesis also is evidently one-sided, 

 as soon as there are several asymmetric carbon-atoms in the attacked 

 molecule. Indeed, if this were not true, the progressing conden- 



!) F. R. Japp, Chem. News, 77, 139, 149, (1898); G. F. Fitz Gerald, Nature 

 58, 545, 59, 76, (1898 and 1899); C. O. Bartrum, ibid., 58, 455; H. Spencer, 

 ibid., 58, 592; 59, 29; K. Pearson, ibid., 58, 495; 59, 30, 125; G. Errera, ibid. 

 58, 616; W. M. Strong, ibid., 59, 53; F. S. Kipping and W. J. Pope, ibid., 59, 

 53; P. F. Frankland, ibid., 59, 30; F. J. Allen, ibid., 58, 520; F. R. Japp, 

 ibid., 58, 616; 59, 29, 54, 101; C. Ulpiani and S. Condelli, Gazz. Chim. Ital., 

 30, /, 344, (1900). 



2 ) E. Fischer, Ber. d. d. Chem. Ges., 27, 3230, (1894). 



