PEOFESSOE HAMILTON ON THE EEVIEW OF HIS ‘ SUGGESTIONS.’ 61 
opinion which he seems to have formed regarding the position which I have 
assumed, and the purpose for which the pamphlet was written. 
If the “ Suggestions ” had been offered as a complete and perfect system of 
chemical nomenclature, and if I had proposed that chemists should at once give up 
the present nomenclature and accept mine, I should indeed have displayed, not 
only “ considerable courage, if not boldness,” but also most censurable rashness, 
and an unpardonable amount of vanity. The facts, however, are far otherwise. 
In the letter to Dr. Odling, p. 2, are the following words:—“ My object would 
be fully accomplished if the principles at the beginning of the pamphlet, and the 
suggestion contained in the last paragraph at the end, were fairly considered 
and discussed.” The “ principles” are the eight propositions in which I have 
endeavoured to express the requisites of a perfect nomenclature, not in the 
belief that a perfect nomenclature can ever be formed, but in the belief that 
some such basis should be acknowledged by chemists, and laid down authorita¬ 
tively as a guide in forming new names, and thus constructing a nomenclature 
as nearly perfect as the present state of our knowledge will permit. 
The “ Suggestion ” in the last paragraph of the pamphlet is “ that the Che¬ 
mical Society of London should appoint two or three of its members to study this 
subject. Of course I mean by this, to study the condition of our present no¬ 
menclature and report upon it. No one man, although he possessed “ a giant 
mind,” has a right to alter even a single name, much less a whole nomenclature. 
The Chemical Society is the only body in the kingdom that can deal authorita¬ 
tively with the subject. I took what I considered to be the proper course for 
bringing the “ Suggestions ” before the Chemical Society in the most respectful 
and least pretentious manner, and some of the leading members of that learned 
body can testify that my manner was not characterized by “ boldness.” 
The reviewer quotes principle No. 2 of the pamphlet: “ No names should be 
used involving hypothetical views of the constitution, relations, or functions of 
the things named,” omitting, however, to notice the exceptions provided for in 
the marginal note, and then asks, “Do Mr. Hamilton’s names comply with 
this condition?” Now, the first paragraph after the eighth proposition is this : 
“ I am very far from supposing that I have succeeded in framing such a system; 
the united efforts of all living chemists would scarcely accomplish such a task.” 
And, in reference to these same names, I have said in the letter to Dr. Odling, 
p. 1, “I do not propose them as they are for adoption, I offer them only as 
illustrations of a Method."" The principle No. 2 never can, in fact, be univer¬ 
sally complied with. When our knowledge is imperfect, hypotheses must, 
to a certain extent, supply its place, and language must, to that extent at least, 
participate in the imperfection of our knowledge. But the principle is not the 
less useful on account of our inability perfectly to comply with it. It may serve 
as a guide and a check in the construction of new names. It is one thing to be 
compelled from necessity temporarily to use terms involving hypotheses, it is 
quite a different thing to revel in them with delight as if it were not only philo¬ 
sophically legitimate but even commendable and creditable to invent and 
multiply such terms. Witness the following ten names for one compound:— 
chlorocarbon, bichloride of carbon, perchloroformene, perchlorinated chloride 
of methyl, dichloride of carbon, carbonic chloride, tetrachloride of carbon, su¬ 
perchloride of carbon, perchloruretted formene, perchloruretted hydrochloric 
ether. 
It may be a very harmless, nay, even a useful exercise to shuffle the symbols 
of a compound into all possible combinations to detect analogies and affinities 
with other compounds, but when the result is not to detect such analogies or 
affinities, but merely to increase the number of conflicting, sterile hypotheses 
and perplexing names, the exercise is neither harmless nor useful. 
The following paragraph, which seems to have been entirely overlooked by all 
who have criticized the ‘ Suggestions,’ occurs on page 18 :— 
