JANUARY 26, 1912] 
cipia’’ (elementary forms of matter) in 
chemical combination. The explanations 
are in experimental, and not obscure, the- 
oretical terms. 
In the paper on ‘‘ Heat and Cold’’ (1744— 
47) he refers to Boyle’s experiment, in 
which lead was sealed up in a retort and 
heated, when the lead and ecalx, upon re- 
moyal, were found to have increased in 
weight. According to Boyle, this result 
showed that the heat, which alone could 
enter through the glass, had weight. 
Lamonossoff, of course, will not accept this 
conclusion and points out that the increase 
in weight of metals when heated in air 
must be due to union with material from 
the air, just as their increase in weight 
when placed in the flame of burning sul- 
phur is due to union with ‘‘acid’’ from the 
sulphur. Later, in 1756, he repeats Boyle’s 
experiment, and finds that, until the retort 
is opened and air rushes in, no increase in 
weight is observable. He thus performed 
one of Lavoisier’s most fundamental and 
convincing experiments eighteen years in 
advance, and interpreted it correctly. It 
is apparent that Lomonossoft’s sound views 
were based upon many quantitative ex- 
periments on combustion, although the 
laboratory note-books containing the de- 
tails have not yet been found. 
But, if Lomonossoff anticipated Lavoi- 
sier in his work upon the chemical rela- 
tions of the forms of matter, he went far 
beyond Lavoisier in his views in regard to 
the uses of mathematics and physics in 
chemistry, and, in this direction, antici- 
pated many of the points of view of the 
later nineteenth century. Lomonossoft’s 
unfinished treatise, ‘‘The Elements of 
Mathematical Chemistry’’ (1741), of which 
only a fragment survives, deals with a 
conception which, in all his writings, he 
never ceased to urge, namely, the value of 
mathematical methods in chemistry. Ten 
SCIENCE 
127 
years later, in an ‘‘ Address on the Uses of 
Chemistry’’ (1751), he speaks as follows: 
If chemistry unites to solid form the separated 
and scattered particles in a solution, and brings 
forth various formations, it must be that she relies 
upon the strictest and most highly developed 
Geometry. . . . If she changes solids into liquids 
and liquids into solids, and divides and unites 
them to give various substances, it must be that 
she seeks counsel of the most exact and ingenious 
Mechanies. If chemistry, by union of different 
substances, gives rise to different colors, she needs 
the help of the most profound Optics. . . . If the 
knowledge-seeking, tireless investigator [in re- 
sponse to this] will only survey her through geom- 
etry, measure her forces by mechanics, and con- 
sider her through the science of optics, he will 
probably reach his desired goal. 
In this we seem to see at least an ad- 
umbration of chemical crystallography, 
and of chemical dynamics and statics. He 
continues : 
Why have investigators had no success? If 
answer that for this a very skillful chemist is 
needed, who is at the same time a mathematician. 
Has not the recent development of the 
science been along the precise lines which 
he thus lays down? 
Lomonossoft’s applications of geometry 
in ‘‘De Nitro’’ (1749), a comprehensive 
study of saltpeter, will illustrate his own 
attempts to use mathematical methods. 
He discusses at length the crystalline form 
of the substance and proceeds to develop 
a theory of crystalline structure. In salt- 
peter, the prismatic form can be accounted 
for by an arrangement of round particles, 
in such a way that lines drawn through 
their centers always form equilateral tri- 
angles. In other substances, the arrange- 
ment is different, so that, for example, in 
common salt, the lines through the par- 
ticles may form squares. As usual, he 
paid the penalty of being far ahead of his 
time. Yet he had anticipated by a century 
the essential conceptions of Bravais 
(1850), whose mathematical study of all 
