COPPER, SILVER, AND GOLD 441 



1 005. Such a conclusion arrived at by direct experiment cannot but 

 be regarded as having greater weight than Prout's supposition 

 (hypothesis) that the atomic weights of the elements are in multiple 

 proportion to each other, which would gi\ e reason for surmising (but not 

 asserting) a complexity of nature in the elements, and their com- 

 mon origin from a single primary material, and for expecting their 

 mutual conversion into each other. All such ideas and hopes must 



removed from whole numbers. Besides which, if Marignac's proposition were true the 

 combining weight of silver determined by one method e.g. .by the analysis of silver 

 chlorate combined with the synthesis of silver chloride would not agree well with the 

 combining weight determined by another method e.g. by means of the analysis of silver 

 iodate and the synthesis of silver iodide. If in one case a basic salt could be obtained, 

 in the other case an acid salt might be obtained. Then the analysis of the acid salt 

 would give different results from that of the basic salt. Thus Marignac's arguments 

 cannot serve as a support for the vindication of Prout's hypothesis. 



In conclusion, I think it will not be out of place to cite the following passage from a 

 paper" I read before the Chemical Society of London in 1889 (Appendix II.), referring to 

 the hypothesis of the complexity of the elements recognised in chemistry, owing to the 

 fact that many have endeavoured to apply the periodic law to the justification of this 

 idea 'dating from a remote antiquity, when it was found convenient to admit the existence 

 of many gods but only one matter. 



' When we try to explain the origin of the idea of a unique primary matter, we easily 

 trace that, in the absence of deductions from experiment, it derives its origin from the 

 scientifically philosophical attempt at discovering some kind of unity in the immense 

 diversity of individualities which we see around. In classical times such a tendency 

 could only be satisfied by conceptions about the immaterial world. As to the material 

 world, our ancestors were compelled to resort to some hypothesis, and they adopted the 

 idea of unity in the formative material, because they were not able to evolve the concep- 

 tion of any other possible unity in order to connect the multifarious relations of matter. 

 Responding to the same legitimate scientific tendency, natural science has discovered 

 throughout the universe a unity of plan, a unity of forces, and a unity of matter ; and 

 the convincing conclusions of modem science compel every one to admit these kinds of 

 unity. But while we admit unity in many things, we none the less must also explain 

 the individuality and the apparent diversity which we cannot fail to trace everywhere. 

 It was said of old " Give us a fulcrum and it will become easy to displace the earth." 

 So also we must say, "Give us something that is individualised, and the apparent 

 diversity will be easily understood." Otherwise, how could unity result in a multitude 



' After a long and painstaking research, natural science has discovered the individu- 

 alities of the chemical elements, and therefore it is now capable, not only of analysing, 

 but also of synthesising ; it can understand and grasp generality and unity, as well as 

 the individualised and multifarious. The general and universal, like time and space, like 

 force and motion, vary uniformly. The uniform admit of interpolations, revealing every 

 intermediate phase ; but the multitudinous, the individualised such as ourselves, or the 

 chemical elements, or the members of a peculiar periodic function of the elements, or 

 Dalton's multiple proportions is characterised in another way. We see in it side by 

 Bide with a general connecting principle leaps, breaks of continuity, points which escape 

 from the analysis of the infinitely small an absence of complete intermediate linka. 

 Chemistry has found an answer to the question as to the causes of multitudes, and while 

 retaining the conception of many elements, all submitted to the discipline of a general 

 law, it offers an escape from the Indian Nirvana the absorption in the universal re- 

 placing it by the individualised. However, the place for individuality is so limited by 

 the all-grasping, all-powerful universal, that it is merely a point of support for the under 

 standing of multitude in unity.' 



