Chemical PJdlosophy. %^ 



ty a name and not by a phrase^ 2. That the 

 names should be, as much as possible, expressive 

 ot the nature of the things intended to be signified 

 by them. 3. That when the character of the sub- 

 stance to be named was not sufficieiitly known 

 to determine on a denomination expressive of its 

 nature, a name without meaning should botore- 

 ferred to one which might give an erroneous iSea. 

 4. That in the choice of new denominations, those 

 which. had their root in the most generally known 

 dead languages, should be preferred, in order 

 that the word rriight be suggested by the sense, and 

 the. sense by the word. And, 5. That the denomi- 

 nations should be arranged with care, to suit the 

 genius of the language for which they wel*e pro- 

 posed. In conformity with these principles, the 

 new terms introduced were taken, for the most 

 part, from the Greek language; some from the 

 Latin^ and a fev(^ are formed by a mixture of sylla- 

 bles from each; knd that the change might not 

 be carried to an unnecessary extent, as many of 

 the old names were retained as could be made to 

 incorporate with the new system. These deno- 

 hiinations were arranged in systematic orderj- and 

 the whole plan so constructed, that the substances 

 brought to light by succeeding discoveries might 

 be placed under their proper heads, without de- 

 rangement or disadvantage. 



For some time after its publication, this new 

 system of doctrines and of nomenclature was re*- 

 ceived by French chemists only, and indeed was 

 by no means without opposition, even among 

 them. Some members of the Academy entered 

 their protest against it, in moderate and respectful, 

 but firm language.'^ While they acknowledged 



q See their represcntaUon in the Memoirs of the Royal Acad«P>y for June, 



