170 
NATURE 
| DECEMBER 20, 1906 
The work of Mr. Armitage is of a different order, 
and, to the extent that it is original, is, we regret to 
say, a very immature production. It shows few 
traces of independent inquiry, but is obviously 
based in large measure on that of von Meyer, and in 
general treatment follows that work pretty closely. 
Now and again, however, Mr. Armitage seeks to be 
original rather in mode of expression than in the 
compilation of facts, but he only succeeds in being 
obscure, and his attempts at epigram and “fine 
writing ’’ usually end in bathos. What, for example, is | 
the precise meaning and value of the statement, ‘‘ Even 
during that stage of transition which separated him 
from the brute creation, man must have appreciated 
the beneficial or harmful effect of many naturally 
occurring substances ’’? 
Quite true, no doubt, but | 
the brute creation itself with equal certainty had this | 
degree of appreciation of what was beneficial or 
harmful. 
preciation we had the dawn of chemistry! What, too, 
is meant by saying that ‘“‘ Aristotle maintained the 
four elements earth, air, fire and water.’’ Of the 
philosopher’s stone it is said, “‘ But it was not till 
later that its full powers, transmuting and medicinal, 
obtained recognition.’’ Considering that the philo- 
sopher’s stone was a myth, could its full powers ever 
obtain recognition ? 
observed on the calcination of tin was very cogent 
evidence of the presence of sulphur.’’ Is it quite cer- 
tain that there is a sulphurous odour when tin is 
calcined? What, too, is meant by saying, ‘‘ Hoff- 
mann’s attitude was not, however, maintained by any 
attempt at practical verification, and was, moreover, 
devoid of the unifying intent of Stahl’’? Of Priestley 
and Cavendish it is said, ‘‘ Their outward circum- 
stances were as diverse as their inner consciousness.”’ 
This is said of Lavoisier :—‘‘ The way of progress 
had been groped for long, the times were ripe 
for its discovery, and Lavoisier was their chosen 
agent.”’ 
We further read of Lavoisier :—‘‘ Complete success 
had awarded his efforts; and the weapons he had 
forged, of homage to experimental fact and scepticism 
of so-called established truths, were become the 
common property of scientific men.’’ 
Of Vauquelin we read :—‘‘ His work on the separ- 
ation of the rare metals platinum, palladium, rhodium, 
indium, and osmium shows us how far the horizon 
had receded.’? The horizon must have receded very 
far indeed if it included indium in the time of 
Vauquelin. It has hitherto been supposed that 
indium was not discovered until 1863. 
With respect to the attitude of Berzelius towards 
Dalton’s hypothesis we read :—‘‘ Berzelius, in review- 
ing the whole subject, became oppressed with the 
unscientific slapdash manner in which it has been 
approached by his contemporaries.’’? This is precisely 
the feeling with which we review Mr. Armitage’s 
book; on reading it we too are oppressed with the 
unscientific slapdash manner in which the author has 
approached the whole subject of the history of 
chemistry. 
NO. 1938, VOL. 75] 
But Mr. Armitage argues that in this ap- | 
Again, ‘‘the sulphurous smell | 
MONASTICISM. 
Essays upon the History of Meaux Abbey and Some 
Principles of Mediaeval Land Tenure. Based upon 
a Consideration of the Latin Chronicles of Meaux 
(a.D. 1150-1400.) By Rey. A. Earle. Pp. 192. 
(Hull and London : Brown and Sons, Ltd., 1906.) 
aE author of this volume is, we apprehend, a 
curate of Nafferton-with-Wansford, in Yorkshire, 
who, having obtained an exhibition at St. John’s 
College, Cambridge, for ecclesiastical history, has not 
neglected the subject in which he obtained distinction. 
| We welcome all such additions to the skeleton army 
of genuine students of antiquity, but Mr. Earle has 
his spurs to win and his authority to establish, for it 
is not to be assumed that he learnt much about mon- 
astic chartularies and chronicles at Cambridge. We 
make this preliminary remark because Mr. Earle has 
not fortified his observations by marginal references 
to authority; he has written no preface, and has sup- 
plied no index. We presume these essays are intended 
for his neighbours, and are the result of notes for 
lectures on the subject of an interesting abbey to the 
chapter of which the author’s church belonged. 
The book is in two parts, the former containing 
eight chapters on the origin of the abbey and its in- 
fluence on the surrounding country as imagined by 
| the author, the latter containing six chapters on prin- 
ciples of land tenure. The essays are stated to be based 
on ‘‘a consideration of the Latin Chronicles of Meaux, 
1150-1400, and in the margins are placed dates 
which are references to volume and page of the 
Chronicles as published by the Record Office.” We 
presume the Master of the Rolls’ series is meant. 
Having ascertained the scheme of the book we sought 
for a preface, in order to learn whether the author 
made an independent study of the chronicles and 
whether the observations and reasoning are his own. 
But there is no preface, and we are thus.unable to 
satisfy a reasonable curiosity. The fact is that the 
Master of the Rolls published the chronicles of Melsa, 
or Meaux, in three large octavo volumes, 1866-8, the 
editor being Edward Bond, keeper of the manuscripts 
in the British Museum, and to-each volume Mr. Bond 
contributed a long and very learned preface. Mr. 
Earle ought surely to have explained whether his in- 
teresting narrative is or is not entirely derived from 
Mr. Bond. In the absence of such explanation we 
must presume that it is, and we regard the volume 
before us as an excellent abstract of three long treatises 
by a learned author. We have, after much consider- 
ation, concluded that Mr. Earle’s work, easy of perusal 
and rather colloquial in style, presents a fairly accurate 
picture of human society in Holderness, as affected by 
one of many great institutions, religious in their 
origin, but commercial in practice. 
The abbey was founded by William le Gros, Earl of 
Albemarle, Lord of Holderness, in the year 1150, as 
the condition of being released from a vow to make a 
pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The monk who influenced 
the earl was Adam, of the Cistercian Abbey of Foun- 
tains, who had much to do with the foundation of that 
