2 1 4 Litei'ary and Philosophical Society. 



times in seeking for the distinct constitution of bodies, and 

 in asserting the constancy of combination ; whilst he 

 obtained numbers representing the constant relation of 

 bodies to each other, he failed to see that they would be 

 reciprocal.' Now the writer confesses that he ought to have 

 said exactly reciprocal, and a few other explanations ought to 

 have been added ; there was certainly a wish to be fair, and 

 Wenzel got more than his share of space ; if not treated 

 well, it is sad. To speak falsely of a man is a great error. 

 Still he also must add that he would not have learned 

 the laws of reciprocal affinity with any clearness from 

 Wenzel, and more than that, he is not aware of any one 

 who did. 



Still to some extent the present writer repents and 

 draws back his word. Wenzel has examples of reciprocal 

 affinity in his book ; had he seen it in all its clearness, 

 there would have been no room for scruples or inexactness. 

 Dalton, with Wenzel's knowledge and no more, would 

 have rushed to the full and complete law at once ; but 

 Wenzel remained with ideas of measuring affinity by time, 

 and thus obscuring his own knowledge. The general idea 

 of a true, honest, working, scientific man is seen in him : 

 a man without great genius floundering in the very 

 current of his success. 



Colonel Ross, the author of ' Pyrology,' has been 

 fighting for the fame of Wenzel ; and when we look at all 

 that has been written a fear of having done injustice comes 

 over the spirit. But looking at one part of the book, 

 Colonel Rcss is right, at another part he is wrong. Wenzel 

 must, we still think, be held as having seen pretty well, but 

 not with such force and clearness as to have taught the 

 world. Three generations have disputed about his mean- 



