NATURE 



\_May 6, 1880 



a place as London University should have a scientific 

 man for its representative. Sir George Jessel has for 

 some reason a few strenuous advocates, who seem to 

 forget that their candidate resigned his seat for Dover on 

 the ground that it was contraiy to the spirit of the act. 

 Sir George is an excellent lawyer, but there are already 

 too many of thenr in Parliament. Sir J ohn Lubbock has 

 already been fourteen years member of the Senate, and 

 nearly eight vice-chancellor ; thus by returning him not 

 only would the London University confer a benefit on 

 Parliament and the country at large, but at the same time 

 would do the best they could for their own interests. \Vc 

 need not here insist on the claims of Sir John as a man 

 of science; his eminence in this department, as well 

 as a man of business is, known to all. He is indeed so 

 many-sided that he would represent as few others could 

 the different faculties which combine to form the London 

 University. His career in Parliament has been marked 

 by a large number of measures which he has carried 

 through Parliament, all of them of a kind more or less 

 affecting the alumni of London Lhiiversity, and several of 

 them directly affecting those very medical men that would 

 now turn their backs upon him. Sir John has been officially 

 connected with various bodies and various movements 

 having for their object the promotion of learning and 

 science, and now we believe he has had the great honour 

 of being designated as President of the British Association 

 for its jubilee meeting at York ne.xt year. We should 

 have thought that for a body like the members of London 

 University it would have been unnecessary to point out 

 Sir John Lubbock's claims upon them, and his peculiar 

 fitness to represent them in Parliament. We are confident 

 that all the scientific members of the institution will 

 record their votes in his favour, and by sending him to 

 Parliament strengthen the hands of the few who are intel- 

 ligently convinced of the necessity of introducing and 

 carrying out those reforms which are so much needed in 

 the attitude of Government towards science and education. 



WURTZ'S "CHEMISTRY" 

 Elements of Modern Chemistry. By Adolphe Wurtz. 



Translated and edited by Wm. H. Greene, IVI.D. 



(London : W. Swan Sonnenschein and Allen, iS8o.) 

 ■jWr WURTZ is one of the recognised leaders of 

 ■1-Vl . modern chemistry : a te.xt-book from his pen is 

 sure to be hailed with interest and pleasure. 



The reputation of the author as an original thinker and 

 worker in chemical science leads one to look for some- 

 thing more than the ordinary orthodox collection of 

 oft-repeated facts in any work bearing his name. And 

 the opening pages of the book before us are certainly 

 very refreshing. Simple and commonly-occurring facts 

 are clearly and simply stated, and on these, as a basis, is 

 aid at once the foundation of chemical theory. 



The leading features of the book are, clearness of 

 statement, selection of typical facts from among the vast 

 array at the service of the chemical compiler, and devotion 

 of a comparatively large space to chemical theory and to 

 generalisations which are usually dismissed in a few 

 words in the ordinary text-book. 



Perhaps the most remarkable feature of M. Wurtz' s 

 book is that, notwithstanding that within less than 700 



moderate-sized pages there is given an account of the 

 leading properties of all the more important substances 

 known to chemistry, the book is nevertheless exceedingly 

 interesting and eminently readable. Probably this result 

 could only be attained by a French writer. 



In a very early part of the book the modem theory of 

 valency or equivalency is explained, and this theory per- 

 vades the whole of the work. The great objection to the 

 book, considered as an exponent of modern chemistry, in 

 our opinion, is this marked devotion to one favourite 

 theory. The objection which we should make to the 

 book, considered more broadly as a scientific treatise, is 

 that theoretical considerations are too much treated as 

 identical with facts, and that facts are, seemingly, sup- 

 posed to be explained when they are only stated in the 

 language of that peculiar theory which finds in such 

 expressions as "exchange of affinities," "satisfaction of 

 bonds," &c., an explanation of chemical phenomena. 

 The theory of valency assumes that the molecular weights 

 of those compounds which are employed jn determina- 

 tions of valency are known. But at present we know the 

 molecular weights of gasifiable bodies only ; hence no 

 exact conclusions concerning valencies can be drawn from 

 a study of non-gasifiable compounds. Nevertheless M. 

 Wurtz appears to regard the formula; of many non-volatile 

 metallic oxides as on an equal footing with those of such 

 compounds as water, hydrochloric acid, ike, and as just 

 as serviceable for determinations of elementary valencies. 



Indeed we do not find given a clear definition of 

 molecular weight as distinguished from atomic weight. 

 .Xvogadro's hypothesis, it is true, is mentioned, but not 

 clearly stated as the basis of the modern system of mole- 

 cular weight determinations. And without a definition of 

 molecular weight, clearly established, it is impossible to 

 grasp the modern acceptation of the term atomic weight. 



In such a worl-: as this one might reasonably look for a 

 statement of the results of the recent work, of first-rate 

 importance, of Guldberg and Waage, and of Ostwald, on 

 Chemical Affinity, more especially as the subject of mass 

 action is mentioned and Berthollet's laws are detailed. 



The general subject of affinity is somewhat vaguely 

 treated. Thermal chemistry scarcely finds any recog- 

 nition in the work. 



It may seem invidious to mention faults of detail ; 

 but there are a few which, we think, might very profitably 

 be corrected in a second edition. 



The nomenclature of the oxyacids of sulphur is cer- 

 tainly erroneous : hyposulphurousacid — HiSO. — is called 

 hydrosulphurous, and thiosulphuric — H2S2O3 — hyposul- 

 phurous. The nomenclature of the oxides of iodine is also 

 peculiar, and the formulas of the known oxides are some- 

 what startling : perbromic acid is still enumerated among 

 the oxyacids of bromine. Dry sulphuretted hydrogen is 

 said to be energetically decomposed by iodine. SO^ is 

 called sulphurous oxide or sulphurous acid gas ; and, 

 lastly, Lavoisier is said to have determined the compo- 

 sition of water in 1785. 



That part of the book which deals with the carbon 

 compounds is not so satisfactory as the portion treating 

 of inorganic chemistry. The classification is most un- 

 natural, and the treatment of many important groups, 

 e.g., the alcohols and terpenes, is unsatisfactory. 



We should not think it possible for an average student 



