September 13, 1900] 



NATURE 



479 



preparations which Liebig required from his students, the 

 course of qualitative analysis is easily followed, owing to the 

 existence ot a most interesting book published for the use of the 

 (iiessen students. 



In 1846, at Liebig's request, Henry Will, Ph.D., Extra- 

 ordinary Professor of Chemistry in the University of Giessen, 

 wrote a small book, for use at Giessen, called " Giessen Out- 

 lines of Analysis," which shows clearly the kind of instruction 

 given in that laboratory at the time in so far as qualitative 

 analysis is concerned. This book, which contains a preface by 

 Liebig, is particularly interesting on account of the fact that it 

 is evidently the first Introduction to Analysis intended for the 

 training of elentfentary students which was ever published. In 

 the preface Liebig writes : " The want of an introduction to 

 chemical analysis adapted for the use of a laboratory has given 

 rise to the present work, which contains an accurate description 

 of the course I have followed in my laboratory with great advan- 

 tage for twenty-five years. It has been prepared at my request 

 by Prof. Will, who has been my assistant during a great part of 

 this period." 



This book undoubtedly had a considerable circulation, and 

 was used in most of the laboratories which were in existence at 

 that time, and thus we find, for example, that the English 

 translation which Liebig " hopes and believes will be acceptable 

 to the English public " was the book used by Hofmann for his 

 students at the College of Chemistry. In this book the metals 

 are first divided into groups much in the same way as is done now ; 

 each group is then separately dealt with, the principal character- 

 istics of the metals of the group are noted, and their reactions 

 studied. Those tests which are useful in the detection of each 

 metal are particularly emphasised, and the reasons given for 

 selecting certain of them as of special value for the purposes of 

 separating one metal from another. 



Throughout this section of the book there are frequent dis- 

 cussions as to the possible methods of the separation, not only of 

 the metals of one group, but of those belonging to different 

 groups ; and the whole subject is treated in a manner which 

 shows clearly that Liebig's great object was to make the 

 student think for himself. After studying in a similar manner 

 the behaviour of the principal acids with reagents, the student 

 is introduced to a course of qualitative analysis comprising (i), 

 preliminary examination of solids (2), qualitative analysis of the 

 substance in solution. 



Both sections are evidently written with the object, not only 

 of constructing a system of qualitative analysis, but more par- 

 ticularly of clearly leading the student to argue out for himself 

 the methods of separation which he will ultimately adopt. The 

 book concludes with a few tables which differ considerably in 

 design from those in use at the present day, and which are so 

 meagre that the student could not possibly have used them 

 mechanically. 



The system introduced in this book, no doubt owing to the 

 excellent results obtained by its use, was rapidly recognised as the 

 standard method of teaching analysis in most of the institutions 

 existing at that time. Soon the course began to be further 

 deveio|)ed, book after book was published on the subject, and 

 gradually the teaching of qualitative analysis assumed the shape 

 and form with which we are all so well acquainted. But the 

 present-day book on qualitative analysis differs widely from 

 "Giessen Outlines" in this respect, that whereas in the latter the 

 tables introduced are mere indications of the methods of separa- 

 tion to be employed, aqd are of such a nature that the student 

 who did not think for himself must have been constantly in 

 difficulties, in the book of the present day these tables have been 

 worked out to the minutest detail. Every contingency is pro- 

 vided for ; nothing is left to the originality of the student ; and 

 that which, no doubt, was once an excelleht course has now 

 become so hopelessly mechanical as to make it doubtful whether 

 it retains anything of its former educational value. 



The question which I now wish to consider more particularly 

 is whether the system of training chemists which is at present 

 adopted, with little variation, in our colleges and universities is 

 a really satisfactory one, and whether it supplies the student 

 with the kind of knowledge which will be of the most value to 

 him in his future career. 



Those who study chemistry may be roughly divided as to 

 their future careers into two groups — those who become teachers 

 and those who become technical chemists. Now, whether the 

 student takes up either one or the other career, I think that it is 

 clear that the oiijects to be aimed at in training him are to give 



NO. 161 I, VOL. 62] 



him a sound kiio»vledge of his subject, and especially to so 

 arrange his studies as to bring out in every possible way his 

 capacity for original thought. 



A teacher who has no originality will hardly be successful, 

 even though he may possess a very wide knowledge of what has 

 already been done in the past. He will have little enthusiasm 

 for his subject, and will continue to teach on the lines laid down 

 by the text-books of the day, without himself materially im- 

 proving the existing methods, and, above all, he will be unable, 

 and will have no desire, to add to our store of knowledge by 

 original investigation. 



It is in the power of almost every teacher to do some research 

 work, and it seems probable that the reason why more is not 

 done by teachers is because the importance of research work was 

 not sufficiently insisted on, and their original faculty was not 

 sufficiently trained, at the schools and colleges where they 

 received their education. 



And these remarks apply with equal force to the student who 

 subsequently becomes a technical chemist. 



In the chemical works of to-day sound knowledge is essential, 

 but originality is an even more important matter. A technical 

 chemist without originality can scarcely rise to a responsible 

 position in a large works ; whereas a chemist who is capable of 

 constantly improving the processes in operation, and of adding 

 new methods to those in use, becomes so valuable that he can 

 command his own terms. 



Now, this being so, I think it is. extraordinary that so many 

 of the students who go through the prescribed ci^urse of training 

 — say for the Bachelor of Science degree — not only show no 

 originality themselves, but seem also to have no desire at the 

 conclusion of their studies to engage in original investigation 

 under the supervision of the teacher. That this is so is certainly 

 my experience as a teacher examiner, and I feel sure that many 

 other teachers will endorse this view of the case. 



If we inquire into the reason for this deficiency in originality, 

 we shall, I think, be forced to conclude that it is in a large 

 measure due to the conditions of study and the nature of the 

 courses through which the student is obliged to pass. 



A well-devised system of quantitative analysis is undoubtedly 

 valuable in teaching the student accurate manipulation, but it 

 has always seemed to me that the long course of qualitative 

 analysis which is usually considered necessary, and which 

 generally precedes the quantitative work, is not the most 

 satisfactory training for a student. 



There can be no doubt that to many students qualitative 

 analysis is little more than a mechanical exercise : the tables 

 of separation are learnt by heart, and every substance is treated 

 in precisely the same manner : such a course is surely not cal- 

 culated to develop any original faculty which the student may 

 possess. Then, again, when the student passes on to quantita- 

 tive analysis, he receives elaborate instructions as to the little 

 details he must observe in order to get an accurate result ; and 

 even after he has become familiar with the simpler determina- 

 tions he rarely attempts, and indeed has no time to attempt, 

 anything of the nature of an original investigation in qualitative 

 or quantitative analysis. It indeed sometimes happens that a 

 student at the end of his second year has never prepared a pure 

 substance, and is often utterly ignorant of the methods employed 

 in the separation of substances by crystallisation ; he has never 

 conducted a distillation, and has no idea how to investigate the 

 nature and amounts of substances formed in chemical reactions ; 

 practically all his time has been taken up with analysis. That 

 this is not the way to teach chemistry was certainly the opinion 

 of Liebig, and in support of this I quote a paragraph bearing 

 on the subject which occurs in a very interesting book on 

 ♦'Justus von Liebig: his Life and Work," written by W. A. 

 Shenstone (pp. 175, 176). 



" In his practical teaching Liebig laid great stress on the 

 producing of chemical preparations ; on the students preparing, 

 that is to say, pure substances in good quantity from crude 

 materials. The importance of this was, even in Liebig's time, 

 often overlooked ; and it was, he tells us, more common to find 

 a man who could make a good analysis than to find one who 

 could produce a pure preparation in the most judicious way." 



" There is no better way of making one's self acquainted with 

 the properties of a substance than by first producing it from 

 the raw material, then converting it into its compounds, 

 and so becoming acquainted with them. By the study of 

 ordinary analysis one does not learn how to use the important 

 methods of crystallisation, fractional distillation, nor acquire 



