10S 
THE PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL AND TRANSACTIONS. 
[August 10,1872. 
Dalton’s original atomic weights were at the same time 
equivalents, the so-called equivalents of Wollaston’s 
were no equivalents at all. By this a confusion arose 
between equivalent and atom, which was for a long time 
very detrimental to the progress of our science. It was 
only after Liebig had again pointed out the difference 
between equivalents and atoms, that theoretical che¬ 
mistry advanced with rapid strides, and amongst those 
to whom we owe this speedy progress, I can only 
mention Laurent, Gferhardt, Williamson, Odiing, and 
Kekule. 
NOTE ON SPRENGEL’S MERCURIAL AIR-PUMP. 
Professor Dewar recently exhibited before the Royal 
Society of Ed inburgh two modifications of Sprengcl’s pump 
adapted to lecture illustration. In both instruments the 
mercury receptacle is made of iron, and instead of the 
india-rubber joint of the original, a well-ground iron 
stopcock is substituted, the portion of iron tube before 
the stopcock terminating in a Y-shaped piece bored out 
of the solid. In the one form the drop-tube is of glass, 
attached by means of marine glue ; in the other, of care¬ 
fully made india-rubber tube four or five millimetres in 
thickness, of a very small uniform bore made expressly 
for the purpose by the Edinburgh Rubber Company. 
The iron funnel-shaped receptacles are ground at the 
inner apex, so as to fit perfectly finely-ground iron tubes. 
By means of these tubes the preliminary exhaustions 
are. made by a hand pump, and then they are withdrawn. 
This device saves a separate joint. The barometer tubes 
are attached to solid T-shaped pieces of iron tube, and 
between these pieces and the main tubes eachlias a small 
glass bulb. Both forms work for all practical purposes 
well as glass, and suit admirably for Erankland’s water 
analyses, Professor Graham's experiments, etc. 
MODERN CHEMISTRY. 
In reviewing the Supplementary Volume to Watts’s 
‘ Dictionary of Chemistry ’ in a recent number of the 
‘ Athenaeum attention was called to what the reviewer 
considered to be a great evil in the study of chemical 
science at the present day, viz., the comparative neglect 
of analytic in favour of synthetic chemistry. In his 
opinion the modern chemist has so nearly approached 
the tempting position of being himself a creator, that 
he has forgotten his true place is to be the interpreter of 
Nature. In his opinion the facility with which new 
combinations are made—by putting C H N and 0 to¬ 
gether, in all. possible proportions, and under ever- 
varying conditions is not conducive to the advance of 
chemical philosophy, and he considers the synthesis of our 
modern schools to be not very different from the empiri¬ 
cism of the alchemists. The opinions thus expressed in 
the review have been very justly criticized by Mr. Watts 
m a letter from which we make the following extract:_ 
“ The writer s complaints seem to amount to this : that 
the chemists of the present day have departed from the 
safe and philosophical methods pursued by their prede¬ 
cessors, particularly in substituting, to a great extent 
the s^ nthetical for the analytical mode of research. 
“ Now, in the first place, every one acquainted with the 
actual state of the science, must be aware that analytical 
chemistry was. never more actively cultivated than at 
the present time. Every new compound produced is 
carefully analysed; new methods of analysis, and im- 
pw\ ements of old ones, are continually appearing 5 
there are journals and numerous manuals specially de¬ 
voted to analytical chemistry; and the method of volu¬ 
metric analysis, formerly almost limited to the processes 
of acidimetry and alkalimetry, has within these last few 
years, been so far improved and extended as to be appli¬ 
cable to the quantitative determination of almost all the 
known elements. 
“Secondly, with regard to the synthetical method,, 
everybody knows that in inorganic or mineral chemistry, 
this method is as old as the analytical, the two methods 
having always gone hand in hand. But in organic 
chemistry the case is different; and one of the most 
characteristic features of our modern chemistry is the 
extension of the synthetical method to the production of 
a large number of important compounds, which were 
formerly supposed to be produced only in the bodies of 
living plants and animals, under the influence of the 
so-called vital force. The labours of Berthelot, Wurtz, 
Ivolbe, and numerous other chemists in this field, have 
yielded a rich harvest of the most important and 
valuable results., which, perhaps, promise more than 
any others to give us an insight into the structure of 
the more complex products of the vegetable and animal 
organisms. 
“ Now, it is just upon this point that your critic pours 
out all the phials of his wrath. Ho says,— 
“ ‘ Synthetical chemistry—that is, the synthesis of the 
modern chemist—seizes upon those undecomposed 
bodies to which we have given the name of Elements 
(we have now upwards of sixty such), and tortures 
them into combination. The result of this is, the 
tedious production of an infinite series of intercombina¬ 
tions, which become most bewildering,—wdiieh are use¬ 
less, or only occasionally useful, and which obscure 
rather than expose the truth,—the admitted aim and the 
recognized end of science. The Dictionary before us 
contains a considerable number of examples of this 
condition of things. The interchanges between CH 
and NO with Br. Cl., etc., are almost endless.’ 
“The exact meaning of this last sentence I will not 
attempt to fathom. Dcivhs sum, non (Edipus. But 
granting that the possible interchanges of elements and 
compound radicals are endless, and further—to please 
the critic—that this is a very absurd and reprehensible 
state of things, I should like to ask, Who is respon¬ 
sible for it F Have the chemists of the present day 
brought it about by their synthetic machinations? or 
are they to be blamed for endeavouring, b/ every' 
possible method, to discover the laws of symmetry 
which govern these numerous combinations ? One 
really cannot feel anything but pity for a man calling 
himself a chemist, or pretending to criticize the labours 
of chemists, who can see no beauty in researches which 
have enabled us to build up the successive terms of an 
organic series, step by step, the complex from the simple, 
and have yielded, amongst others, such magnificent 
results as the artificial formation of the colouring prin¬ 
ciples of madder and of the indigo-plant. 
“ But after all, these lamentations over the sup¬ 
posed decay of science are by no means new, and the^ 
cause of them is, perhaps, rather subjective than ob¬ 
jective. An elderly gentleman, who in his youth has- 
taken special interest in chemistry or some other 
science, and followed its results with more or less in¬ 
telligence, finds at a certain time of life, wdien the re¬ 
ception of new ideas becomes difficult and troublesome, 
that his favourite science has outstripped him, and. 
that he no longer feels himself quite at home amongst 
its cultivators. Of the change in himself which has 
brought about this somewhat unpleasant result, he is,, 
of course, serenely unconscious: and accordingly he 
persuades himself, and tries to persuade others, that 
the existing cultivators of the science in question are a 
degenerate race, who have sadly fallen away from the. 
glories of their fathers. 
“To those who are at present engaged in the active- 
pursuit of chemistry, such criticisms as those to which 
1 have endeavoured to reply must appear simply ridicu¬ 
lous ; but as I have before said, they may tend to give 
a false idea of the actual state of the science to those who 
receive its results only upon trust; and it is for this, 
reason that I am induced to trouble you with the pre¬ 
sent communication.” 
