Chap, IL] Chemical Philosophy. 109 



cient to account for the phenomena which they 

 witnessed. Macquer and Bay en seem to have beea 

 among the first who deciared llieir dissatisfaction 

 with Stahl's theory. Their objections were adopted 

 by a number of contemporary hiquirers; but they 

 contented themselves with an ingenious mo(hfica- 

 tion of the system, instead of an entire ahanddii- 

 ment of it. To these objections succeeded a num- 

 ber of papers, in tlie Annates (k Chiniie, and the 

 Journal de Physique, hy Lavoisier arid others, which 

 indicated a growing dissatisfaction with the fx^j)u- 

 lar opinions, gradually introduced new modes of 

 reasoning, and promised the approach of a grand 

 ■epoch in the history of this science. 



But it was not only the doctrines of chemistry 

 that called for reform. Complaints had been long 

 made, that the nomenclature of the science was in- 

 accurate, perplexed, and inadequate*. To remove 

 these complaints, many attempts h.ad been made 

 hj chemical philosophers. It has been already ob- 

 served, that Bergman laboured much to forward this 

 branch of improvement, Scheele contributed to 

 the correction of several old names, and added 

 many new ones to the list; and Macquer discarded 

 a number of the ancient terms, and substituted 

 others less exceptionable in their place. Still, how- 



* Sorae of the most femiliar preparations were distiaguished, b/ 

 tlie old chemists, by the most ridiculous and unmeaning names. 

 They loaded their nomenclature with such jargon as the tollow- 

 ing : Liver of sulphur — merciLry of life — hiiitci of (miifnotiy — horned 

 mooji-^he double secret — the coialirfic secret — the Milt of mnvy zir- 

 iiies — the foliated earth of tartar, &ic. To the.^e, some still more 

 capricious and inconvenient might be iidded. I'he dillicultie.s ^d 

 the mischief of retaining such a language must be apparent to every 

 chemist. 



