June 1 6, 1881] 



NATURE 



139 



Professor of Mineralogy] I have to go to London two 

 days every fortnight as President of the Geological 

 Society, and am printing a book which I have not yet 

 written [" The History of the Inductive Sciences"], so 

 that 1 am obliged often to run as fast as I can to avoid 

 the printers riding over me, so close are they at my heels. 

 I am, in addition to this, preaching a course of sermons 

 before the University ; but this last employment, though 

 it takes time and thought, rather sobers and harmonises 

 my other occupations than adds anything to my distrac- 

 tion." He seemed to be able to turn his hand to any- 

 thing, and, hke a dexterous conjuror, play with half-a- 

 dozen balls at once. Pendulum experiments, theories of the 

 tides, mathematical problems, crystajlographic formulae 

 metaphysics, and various subjects in moral philosophy, 

 classics, modern languages, architecture, geology, with 

 plenty of work in general literature, all make up what we 

 may call in the best sense " farrago libelli." These letters 

 also bring out very clearly another characteristic of Dr. 

 Wheweir s mind. He was essentially cautious in regard to 

 change — an advocate of refomiation rather than of renova- 

 tion ; in science a systematiser rather than a discoverer ; 

 like a navigator who explored to the full the uninvesti- 

 gated coasts of the Old World, rather than one who 

 steered out into the open ocean in the hope of discover- 

 ing a New World. This was no doubt partly due to his 

 mathematical training and academic habits of life — but it 

 is very rare, perhaps impossible, to find a memory of 

 extraordinary tenacity and a life essentially studious, 

 combined with originality in one of its highest forms. 

 That requires a good deal of mental fresh air, and is apt 

 to droop a little if too much confined to the atmosphere 

 of a library. This is especially evident in Dr. Whewell's 

 remarks upon the "Vestiges of Creation "and in his essay 

 on the " Plurality of Worlds." The same tone of mind is 

 very conspicuous in his attitude towards the question of 

 University Reform. He was a vigorous opponent of the 

 abuses of private tuition, a zealous advocate of progress 

 in every department of learning, deeply anxious for the 

 improvement of the Classical and Mathematical Tripos 

 examinations, and to him more than to any other single 

 man the .recognition of the Natural and Moral Sciences 

 as branches of academic study is due. But he was an- 

 tagonistic — almost bitterly so — to the appointment of the 

 Royal Commission of 1856 and of its successor, and was 

 hostile in many respects to the changes — now almost uni- 

 versally acknowledged to have been on the whole very 

 beneficial — which were introduced by the statutes of 

 1859-61. His great hope and desire was that the Uni- 

 versity should be allowed to reform itself, and be spared 

 any interference from without. That he should have 

 entertained this hope after so many years of academic 

 labour is perhaps the strongest proof of his sanguine 

 temperament. 



We must now part from this interesting volume. Per- 

 haps — like the portrait prefi.xed to it — it slightly fails in 

 depicting the characteristic ruggedness of the man, but it 

 does much to show him as he was to those near and dear 

 to him as well as to the world — a man of immense intel- 

 lectual power, of intense energy and industry, of high 

 purpose and simple piety, a hard hitter in conflict and a 

 lover of the shout of battle, but too magnanimous to bear 

 ill-will, whether in defeat or victory. Besides this he was 



a munificent benefactor to his College and his University : 

 one to whom both must long be grateful, and of whom 

 both may well be proud, as having filled a great position in 

 the world of science and literature, and especially as being 

 " the man " (in the opinion of a inost competent judge) 

 "to whom, more than to any other single man, the revival 

 of philosophy in Cambridge is due." T. G. BonnEY 



OUR BOOK SHELF 



Inorganic Cluiuistry. Adapted for Students in the Ele- 

 mentarj' Classes of the Science and -Art Department. 

 By Dr. W. B. Kemshead, F.R.-A.S., F.G.S. Enlarged 

 edition, revised and extended. (London and Glasgow : 

 William Collins, Sons, and Co., Limited.) 

 This work is a typical one. While containing much that 

 is useful and fairly satisfactory, especially from an ex- 

 amination point of view, the whole tendency of the book, 

 considered as an elementary treatise on a branch of 

 natural science, must be strongly condemned. 



The leading facts concerning the better-known non- 

 metallic elements and compounds are succinctly stated ; 

 the principal reactions of formation and decomposition 

 of these bodies — especially those reactions which unfortu- 

 nately «/«j'/ be "got up" for examination purposes — are 

 arranged in the form of equations ; and the simpler 

 arithmetical applications of such equations are illustrated 

 by fully worked-out examples. But chemistry is more 

 than this : facts must be connected together by prin- 

 ciples ; the connection between fact and theory, and 

 between theory and fact, must be revealed ; these two 

 must not be regarded as synonymous, but as mutually 

 dependent ; and the reasoning by aid of which theoreti- 

 cal conclusions are reached must be clearly indicated. 

 Chemistry is neither a system of dogmatic assertions nor 

 an accumulation of shibboleths, by the skilful use of 

 which an examiner may make havoc among the Ephraim- 

 ites crowding to the Jordan of Examination, but a living 

 science. 



The principle which is most largely used (or rather 

 misused) in Dr. Kemshead' s book is that of Valency; 

 but valency in the hands of this author is deprived of its 

 value as a scientific theory, and becomes an accumulation 

 of fanciful speculations. The basis of the present work is 

 evidently Dr. Frankland's " Lecture Notes"; hence pro- 

 bably the success of the book in preparing examinees for 

 South Kensington (the present is a second and enlarged 

 edition) ; and is not such success after all of more im- 

 portance than training chemists or discipUning the mental 

 powers of youth .' 



The theory of valency is based on the wider molecular 

 theory of matter, which was preceded by the atomic 

 theory of Dalton, itself a development from that system of 

 chemical notation which rested on the combining weights 

 of the elementary bodies. Now it is clear, from many 

 passages, that the author of this book has failed to dis- 

 tinguish combining weights from atomic weights, and 

 atomic from molecular weights: thus on p. 13 we read 

 "these proportions by weight \i.e. from the context, these 

 proportions in which " substances unite together chemi- 

 cally "] when reduced to their lowest relative value, and 

 expressed with reference to that of hydrogen, which is 

 usually taken as unity, are called the atomic weights, or 

 combining numbers of the elements." Again, on p. 26, 

 "the combining uieight of hydrogen being i, that of 

 oxygen becomes 16; of nitrogen, 14; of carbon, 12," &c. 

 But combining weights are not synonymous with atomic 

 weights, and the combining weii^ht of oxygen happens to 

 be 8, of carbon 3, and of nitrogen 4'66. The formula 

 weights of compounds are constantly referred to as 

 " atomic and molecular weights." We have such fonnuU- 

 as (NH40)2, CUO2, &c., stated to be molecular formula 



