Nov. 11, 1869 | 
NATURE 
45 
It is hardly necessary to make any detailed review of 
the history of the atomic theory. Berzelius made it a 
starting-point for researches which, on the whole, have 
been unsurpassed in their practical importance, and 
engrafted upon it his celebrated electrical doctrine. Davy 
and Faraday refused to admit it; Laurent and Gerhardt 
accepted it doubtfully, or in a much modified form. Henry 
declared that it did not rest on an inductive basis. There 
can be no doubt, however, that the atomic theory has 
been accepted by the majority of chemists, as may be 
seen on even a cursory inspection of the current literature 
of their science. Our present intention is to give such a 
summary of the atomic question as may be serviceable to 
those who take an interest in the discussion at the Chemical 
Society on Thursday last. 
The modern supporters of the atomic theory agree with 
Dalton in the fundamental suppositions we have given 
above ; but assert that they have a much stronger case. 
The phenomena of gaseous combination and specific heat 
have indeed changed the numerical aspect of the theory, 
but not its substance. The simplicity of all the results 
we have accumulated with respect to combining pro- 
portions is itself a great argument for the existence 
of atoms. They all, for example, have the same capacity 
for heat; they all, when in the gaseous state, have a 
volume which is an even multiple of that of one 
part by weight of hydrogen. But bodies in the free or 
uncombined state—such, in fact, as we see them—more 
commonly consist of many clusters of atoms (so/ecules) 
than of simple atoms, ‘These molecules are determined 
by the fact that when in the gaseous state they all have 
the same volume. Again, select a series of chemical 
equations, in which water is formed, and eliminate between 
them so as to obtain the smallest proportion of water, 
taking part in the transformations they represent. It will 
be found that the number is 18 ; which necessarily involves 
the supposition that the oxygen (16) in water (18) is an in- 
divisible quantity. To put this last point another way: 
hydrochloric acid, if treated with soda, no matter in what 
amount, only forms one compound (common salt). Now 
we know that the action in this case consists in the 
exchange of hydrogen for sodium. But if hydrogen were 
infinitely divisible, we ought to be able to effect an in- 
exhaustible number of such exchanges, and produce an 
interminable variety of compounds of hydrogen, sodium, 
and chlorine ; hydrochloric acid being the limit on the 
one side, and common salt (sodic chloride) terminating the 
other. No such phenomenon occurs ; and, since matter 
must be infinitely or finitely divisible, and has been thus 
proved not to be the former, it musi be the latter. Atoms, 
therefore, really exist; and chemical combination is in- 
consistent with any other supposition. Those who hold 
the contrary opinion are bound to produce an alternative 
theory, which shall explain the facts in some better way. 
Now let us hear the plaintiff in reply. 
The atomic theory has undoubtedly been of great ser- 
vice to science, since the laws of definite and multiple pro- 
portions would probably not have received the attention 
they deserve, but for being stated in terms of that theory. 
Yet we must discriminate between these laws, which are 
the simple expression of experimental facts, and the as- 
sumption of atoms, which preceded them historically, and 
therefore has no necessary connection with them. For it 
was the Greek atomic theory which Dalton revived. Nor 
has any substance yet been produced by the atomists, 
which we cannot find means to divide. If, moreover, we 
have no alternative but to admit the infinite divisibility of 
matter, even that is consistent with the simple ratios in 
which bodies combine ; for two or more infinites may have 
a finite ratio. Therefore, the observed simplicity, if used as 
an argument, cuts both ways. Possibly we are mistaken 
in connecting the ideas of matter and division at all; at 
any rate, the connection has never been justified by the 
opposite side. Again, admitting the argument based on 
the formation of common salt, the atomic theory does not 
tell us why only one third of the hydrogen in tartaric acid 
can be exchanged for sodium ; why, indeed, only a frac- 
tion of the hydrogen in most organic substances can be so 
exchanged. Yet, the explanation of the one fact, when 
discovered, will evidently include that of the other. On 
the whole, it appears that the atomic theory demands from 
us a belief in the existence of a limit to division. No such 
limit has been exhibited to our senses; and the facts 
themselves do not raise the idea of a limit, which Dalton 
really borrowed from philosophy. The apparent simplicity 
of chemical union we do not profess to explain, but to be 
waiting for any experimental interpretation that may arise. 
The atomists, in bringing forward their theory, are bound 
to establish it, and with them lies the onus proband. 
The above are a few broad outlines of the existing 
aspect of the atomic controversy, and may somewhat assist 
in forming an estimate of it. The general theoretical tone 
of the discussion last Thursday must have surprised most 
who were present. Our own position is necessarily an 
impartial one ; but it will probably be agreed that between 
the contending parties there is a gulf, deeper and wider 
than at first appears, and perhaps unprovided with a 
bridge. 
LECTURES TO LADIES. 
HAT is the meaning of the present stir about the 
“ Higher Education of Women”? We have before 
us announcements of courses of lectures intended to be 
given during the coming winter to the ladies of Edinburgh, 
London, Glasgow, Manchester, and Bradford; and we 
believe that similar courses are to be delivered in several 
other towns. The organisations under whose auspices 
these lectures are to be delivered, seem all of them to 
have come into existence at nearly the same time. Edin- 
burgh and Professor Masson, so far as we know, have the 
credit of having taken the lead in the movement; but this 
was only two winters ago, and none of the towns we have 
named were more than one year behind. 
What is the cause of this sudden and wide-spread 
demand on the part of our countrywomen for access to 
a different and, presumably, a higher kind of intellectual 
culture than has hitherto been within their reach? Or 
rather, first of all, is the apparent demand a real one? Is 
it such as to indicate that a real step has been taken, or is 
likely soon to be taken, towards an improved method and 
a higher standard of female education in England? Or is 
it more reasonable to suppose that the interest now mani- 
fested in the subject will disappear in the same proportion 
as the novelty of it? For our own part,—after making 
what seems full allowance for the influence which the love 
