by E. A. W.
as published in “Theosophical Siftings” - Volume 4 -
AN evening's conversation is
generally of a desultory character at the beginning, and it is no misfortune
that we break in upon this small company of three in the middle of the topic,
and catch the words:
"Sheer waste of time! Positively criminal! That's
what I call it", as they fall from the Professor's lips, and are followed by a
moment's pause.
" What do you think about it all, Mr. Vincent ? "
said the host." Do you agree that Science develops the mind better than the old
machinery did?"
"Well, if I might venture to give an opinion, it would
only be this, that I think Professor Merryweather does not quite do justice to
poor Dr. Wordsworth and the public schools, whilst on the other hand he seems to
me to do rather more than justice to Chemistry."
"In what way do you mean
that I say too much for Chemistry?" inquired the Professor courteously. For he
cared little what merits might be claimed to exist in other branches of
learning, but felt it worth while to reply to a remark detracting from the
honour of the Chair he filled.
"Why, I think that Chemistry, though
nominally a science, is in reality not so much a science as an experience."
"I don't quite understand what you mean", rejoined the Professor,
leaning with rather more attention towards his younger acquaintance, whom up to
this moment he had believed to be quite outside the conversation and to be his
fellow-guest merely as a privilege and a compliment. " Why do you think
Chemistry is not a science ? "
" I may be taking rather an extreme view,
but the study of Chemistry seems to me to teach people a quantity of desolate,
unfruitful facts — a great quantity of them — as for instance the fact that such
and such a mixture of things, when heated, will give off oxygen; that a certain
substance won't dissolve in water, but will dissolve in ammonia. And we learn
that the particles of nitrous oxide have this composition whilst the
particles of nitric acid have that composition, and so on. But all the
while there is very little system, very little principle in the
matter."
"Ha! " said the Professor, turning aside to his host, " here's a
good man for us at last!" And whilst the latter nodded and smiled, the Professor
continued, with a frown that expressed not displeasure but a sense of personal
importance. — "You're quite right, Mr.— — “, (enthusiasm had for the moment
paralysed his memory) " you're perfectly [Page 4]
right! There's nothing I regret more than the way in which the common
throng of chemists ignore principle. Now in my young days — I was X.'s pupil —
Professor X. laid the foundation of Chemistry in my mind with this great maxim,
that a chemical union” — the frown here was quite terrific — “was not the mere
adding together of A and B, but — " he continued, “the formation of an entirely
new substance". And the Professor continued his harangue to some length, but the
rest may be omitted, as it had no very important bearing on the conversation.
But when it was over, the younger guest of the evening resumed the main topic: —
“Still I don't feel altogether satisfied with Chemistry even on that
basis."
“What have you to find fault with? asked the Professor. “Perhaps
you will let us hear what your own views are on the subject?"
“What I am
thinking is this. Suppose we take the case of zinc and sulphuric acid, as when
you prepare hydrogen. In such an instance, then, it is not the whole sulphuric
acid that goes for the zinc, but only one half of it—one half of each particle,
that is. We do not get a union of sulphuric acid with zinc, but there is a union
made whereby one part of the sulphuric acid is turned adrift, I mean the
hydrogen."
“Decidedly so! " replied the Professor; "very good indeed! Now
I understand you better. Yes, it is not the case, as they used to think in the
good days of Dualism, that sulphuric acid joins with oxide of zinc and forms
sulphate of zinc, or more fully, sulphate of the oxide of zinc; but the hydrogen
in the sulphuric acid is replaced by the zinc. What you would like, I
conceive, is to hear a little more of the great Substitution Theory, in which we
have been so much indebted to my friend Professor Wymer."
" That is
somewhere near my meaning. May I venture to state the matter in the way I look
at it myself? "
" Do, pray! " said the Professor, with a slightly
ironical laugh; "there is nothing that would give us more delight, nothing that
would entertain us more, than to hear your new theory of chemistry!” And he
turned to the doctor to look for a responsive smile.
"No, I don't mean
that", replied Mr. Vincent, a little abashed, but not overcome. " I don't think
I have precisely any new theory of my own on chemistry, but I have a way of
representing to myself explicitly what I think I find at every turn implied, and
as it were between the lines. Although I do not remember to have anywhere seen
the statement made in black and white, yet is it not supposed that every
chemical compound is composed of two halves? It always strikes me, when I
take up a text-book of chemistry and read a little of it, that the chemical
substances spoken of — sodium-chloride, hydrogen-sulphate, silver-nitrate,
potassium-chlorate and so on — are all a kind of insects, two halves —" [Page 5]
The two listeners were somewhat amused at the
idea of "insects”, but allowed him to proceed: —
" Two halves, as indeed
the names themselves suggest. And what is more, it strikes me that the two
halves are as it were of opposite kinds, and that in comparing any two
chemicals, we can point out the corresponding halves in each.”
Both the
others listened attentively while he continued: —
“What I mean to say is,
that as in comparing two magnets or compass-needles side by side, we can say,
‘This and this are the two north-poles, that and that are the two south-poles',
so likewise in comparing the formulae of two chemicals, we can say, ‘This and
this are the two metal halves, that and that are the two — what shall I
say? — the two acid halves’."
Finding the Professor still inclined
to listen, he continued: —
“Now what I want to ask, what I want to have a
reason for, is this. What is the principle? I am going to take the example of
hydrochloric acid poured on chalk, and for greater clearness perhaps you will
let me call the two substances calcium-carbonate and hydrogen-chloride. On what
principle does the acid half of the chloride dislodge the acid half of the
carbonate and take possession of its dear calcium? "
“Because", answered
the Professor, “the acid principle of chlorides, namely chlorine, is stronger
than the acid principle of carbonates".
“Very well; but don't you feel
that you imply something more besides the mere fact of one acid-principle being
stronger than the other ? Don't you also imply that both the metal halves, the
calcium on the one hand and the hydrogen on the other, are not found equally
attractive by the acids ? For why should the stronger acid-principle seize the
calcium and surrender the hydrogen unless it reckons the calcium the more
desirable of the two? And for all we know the weaker acid-principle takes the
same view, only being the weaker, it has to be content with the worse lot. In
other words, don't you imply that the two acid-principles are bent upon the
possession of something that cannot belong to both ? Don't you imply that they
find the two metal halves not equally attractive, but have both of them a
preference for the calcium ? The thought I am trying to convey is, that every
acid-principle desires to be mated with some metal, and in fact cannot settle
down in quiet existence except in that relation. Meanwhile, as in the animal
world, so likewise in the inorganic world, these acid-principles have
preferences with regard to their mates; they find — I cannot help speaking of
them as if they were alive and endowed with animal instincts — they find that
some metals possess greater attractions than others. And whenever there is an
affray between two chemical compounds where the weaker acid-principle is in
possession of the more attractive metal, then a forced exchange takes place; the
stronger acid-principle [Page 6] seizes what it
fancies better and leaves its own despised metal to fall to the lot of the
weaker antagonist. And such I conceive to be the nature of every process that we
commonly call a chemical reaction, or action, or union, or what you
will."
"Are you going to turn out a Darwin for the mineral world ?" asked
the doctor placidly. And then to the Professor: " I can't help comparing it with
Darwin's constantly recurring phrases about the 'stronger male’ and the 'more
attractive female' ".
"Yes", laughed the Professor; "I never heard such a
curious idea. I doubt whether it will stand the test of facts; but at all events
it is a very ingenious notion. Will you go on with your exposition
?"
"May I interrupt him just a moment longer ?" interposed the doctor.
(To Mr. Vincent) "I should like to know what made you fix on the acid for the
male and the metal for the female. Have you any reason for it ?"
"No",
replied the theorist; "that is a difficulty I have often put to myself. I don't
see any means of deciding which corresponds to the male and which to the female
in the animal world. It would all work just the same if the greater strength lay
in the metal, that is to say the calcium, and the greater attractiveness in the
chlorine, instead of its being vice versa".
" Precisely so",
replied the doctor, "that was the point I wanted to elicit; I wondered whether
you had any reason one way or the other. Very well, go on; we want to hear you
out".
"Then you see, I look upon every instance of chemical action as an
exchange, not as a union taking place."
Both the listeners motioned an
objection; the Professor prevailed, forsooth by some force latent in his large
black beard and bushy eyebrows: "What do you say to this though? How about the
action of sulphuric acid on zinc ? You can't get your exchange there; you have
no fourth party. Ah! I suppose that is a divorce merely — divorce simple,
instead of divorce compound".
" Try him with chlorine and hydrogen",
suggested the doctor, advancing his own more pointed example.
" Well,
he'll tell us that, that is a marriage", rejoined the Professor. "Only didn't he
say — " (To Mr. Vincent:) "Didn't you say 'that substances could not exist
otherwise than mated in pairs ?"
" I won't be too certain on that point.
But you know it is held, is it not ? that hydrogen exists in pairs of atoms,
being as it were, hydride of hydrogen. Don't chemists hold that the compound
acid-principle Cyanogen exists in double atoms — I think you call it Di-cyanogen
? And I suppose Chlorine in the same way is chloride of chlorine —
"
"Yes", interposed the Professor, "but where is your metal ? We [Page 7] have, I grant, good reasons for believing that
chlorine in the free state exists with its atoms united in pairs, each pair
forming one particle or molecule; but chlorine, I suppose you admit, is an acid
principle, and if two acid atoms are in alliance, that hardly fulfils your idea
of mating, does it ?"
" I have thought of that", replied the other. "I
imagine it to be that one atom of chlorine plays the part of a metal in relation
to the other. I always compare it in my own mind to practising a step for a
dance, when you say to another man, ‘You be a lady a moment, will you ? I want
just to try if I've got this right.' What I imagine is, that chlorine is just
capable of the functions of a metal, though of course of all unattractives the
least attractive in this capacity. And in the same way I imagine hydrogen is
capable of assuming an acid function so as to mate with another hydrogen atom,
the latter behaving as a metal, according to its proper nature."
The
Professor here made a sudden transition: "John ! What should you say if we were
to see old Berzelius rise from the dead, and his dualistic theory once more
prevailing? Does not this suggest Berzelius to your mind ?"
The doctor
answered: "As often as I read a page of Berzelius", and he turned his face
towards his book-shelves, " I've got a French edition of him — I never can help
rather admiring him. He did so well with such ideas as he inherited. I often
think we are hasty in throwing overboard great ideas just because we do not at
first see how they are to be reconciled with some newly discovered evidence of
our own later times. Poor Berzelius ! He got hopelessly beaten by the Frenchmen.
He constructed his lines too wide; he should have made the circle of his
defences narrower; his theory was pushed forth too definitely. A few 'somehows'
would have made that electro-chemical theory of his impregnable; and living in
those days, it was folly in him to pretend he knew more than 'somehow'. Of
course it is a very good thing to make suggestions as to how the dual
nature of electricity has some corresponding duality in the sister science of
chemistry, but he should not have pledged himself so hastily as to what the
precise connection was — and straightway he maintained that chemical affinity
was nothing but electrical attraction! And I can't think why he did not see that
there was a dualism in chemical energy, corresponding to electrical dualism and
interchangeable with it (as one form of energy is interchangeable with another)
but not identical with it."
" Was your theory suggested to you by
Berzelius' views ?" asked the Professor. And Mr. Vincent answered: “To tell you
the truth, I was not aware till this evening that it was ‘my’ theory
specially and not everybody's theory — so far as they thought about the matter
at all. Certainly I was much struck with Berzelius' ideas of dualism, though his
theories, I [Page 8] think, represent molecules as
composed in a different way from what we believe nowadays. Still, I should not
say that I got the idea from Berzelius; it was more that I read it between the
lines of the chemistry text-books that I used. And now that reminds me of a
strange instance of confusion and mistake which came from over-looking this
half-and-half structure in molecules. I once attended a chemistry class in order
to get a little practical work as well as some teaching. The lecturer, following
his text-book, pointed out that the valency of nitrogen was variable; though
commonly the valency was three, it was occasionally five (he
said). And after reminding his pupils that the valency of an element was its
capability of engaging in partnership with other atoms, and that the term
tri-valency, applied to nitrogen, meant that a nitrogen-atom joined itself with
a set of three atoms of hydrogen (the latter being mono-valent), — after
this brief explanation, I say, the lecturer cited ammonium-chloride as an
instance of the fivefold valency, pointing out that a single nitrogen-atom was
there found to be combined with four hydrogen-atoms and one chlorine-atom — that
is to say, with five monovalent atoms in all". [ " In Ammonia, NH3,
nitrogen is trivalent, but in ammonic chloride, NH4, Cl, the nitrogen is in
combination with four atoms of hydrogen and one of chlorine; it is therefore
pentavalent, i.e. FIVE valent." (An Introduction to Scientific
Chemistry, by F. S. Barff, M.A., Chap. XI, po 260.) There is, I believe,
just a similar statement in The New Chemistry by Professor Josiah
P. Cooke, of Harvard University, but I have lost the reference to it.— E. A. W.
]
“One day", Mr. Vincent continued, “I stayed after lecture,
wishing to offer an objection on this point and to hear the lecturer's reply. I
suggested that ammonium-chloride was not a compound of nitrogen with sundry
other things, but that a monovalent compound-radical called ammonium was united
with a single chlorine atom, also monovalent. At first the lecturer tried to
answer me by taking me out of my depth into some question about chloride of
ethyl [ Ethyl is a half-particle or "radical" composed of two
carbon-atoms and five hydrogen-atoms. It cannot exist alone as a physical
particle, but only as chloride of ethyl, hydrate of ethyl, etc. ]
(a thing I had never heard of then), but when, by the aid of his own
explanations about ethyl, I was enabled to show him that it was not correct to
regard the carbon-atoms of the ethyl separately, and that all the seven atoms of
carbon and hydrogen together ought to be taken as forming one monovalent
radical, he felt persuaded to let me deal with the nitrogen and other atoms of
the ammonium-radical likewise collectively. There was a moment's pause, and then
the lecturer exclaimed, “Well, I always thought, myself, that nitrogen was a
triad; but Professor So-and-so, under whom I studied, taught that it was a
pentad'. I would rather not mention Professor So-and-so's name, because I think
it was a real disgrace to him, considering the position he held, to have gone
astray in so elementary a point of chemical science. It all came of not [Page 9] recognising that ammonium-chloride was a compound of
a certain metal-half with a certain acid-half, the metal-principle being
supplied by the nitrogen-atom in association with four hydrogen-atoms, whilst
the single chlorine-atom stood for the acid-principle."
" Yes; it is a
good thing to make that clear, of course", remarked the Professor, to whom in
reality it was a perfectly new thought. And then, turning to Mr. Vincent, he
added in a tone of contempt, "but your lecturer must have been a very stupid
man; he was not fit to teach chemistry".
" Well, I can only say he had
worked under the guidance of a biggish man; and he taught everything else very
well and clearly. No; I did not despise him for his mistake. And on the other
hand I very much admired his honesty and candour in admitting that I was right
and that he himself had been led astray."
"Yes", interposed the doctor
knowingly; "the longer you live, the better you will know that that
characteristic made him one man out of a thousand! "
"Now, if I am not
wearying you", resumed Mr. Vincent, "there is another thing which strikes me as
an instance of how unscientific our chemistry teaching is — and all for want of
a clear understanding about this mating of acids and metals. Look at the case of
testing. A student is taught — as a matter for his memory — that the test for
sulphates is barium-chloride, and he is shown that it causes a white precipitate
in the liquid to which it is added, if sulphate-of-something should happen to be
there. But whoever encourages him to ask, — 'Why barium-chloride? ' "
" I
don't quite understand what you're driving at", said the Professor.
"Why,
I mean this. Why do we choose chloride of barium, among all things, for our
means of detecting a sulphate in the glass ?"
"Because barium-chloride,
when it finds out a sulphate, will form the barium-sulphate precipitate",
answered the Professor categorically.
"Well, but lead as a
sulphate is also insoluble; why don't we employ lead-acetate and form a
lead-sulphate precipitate ? "
"Because in many cases it would not
catch the thief; it would answer for hydrogen-sulphate, but it would fail to
detect any of the sulphates of the alkalies or alkaline earths, because in their
case the lead would remain lead-acetate."
"Precisely so; now we are
getting at the point. Why is a Barium salt the right one to choose if we wish
always to catch the sulphate ? Why, because Barium is the one metal which the
acid-principle of sulphates finds more attractive than any other. Given sulphate
of anything-you-like, it would rather become Sulphate of Barium, the
acid-principle forsaking its former mate. But not so with regard to Lead. Take
sulphate of sodium and offer it Lead in the place of the Sodium, and it will
answer, No thank [Page 10] you. But when a Barium
compound meets a sulphate, there is sure to be an exchange, because the
strongest acid-principle is brought into the presence of the metal it finds most
attractive. Just think what a much more intelligent study testing becomes when
viewed in this light."
“It is very pretty in this instance", replied the
Professor, "but we could not explain the working of all tests in this way. For
instance, silver-nitrate will detect any chloride by the white precipitate of
silver chloride that is formed. And yet you cannot argue that the Chlorine has
acquired the Silver by force majeure."
“Quite so; there, the
change is accomplished on an opposite principle. The force majeure
resides with the Nitrate, for undoubtedly the nitric acid-principle is stronger
than chlorine. The Chlorine gets hold of the Silver simply because it is
deprived of what it had before, and therefore is willing to take whatever it can
get. And if you ask, 'How is the Chlorine deprived of its own metal?' it happens
in this way. The acid-principle of the Nitrate finds no charms in the metal
Silver with which it is mated, but on the contrary is simply bored by its
unattractive companionship, and holds that any substitute would be preferable.
Accordingly being a trifle stronger than Chlorine (the acid-principle of the
chloride) it pounces on whatever metal it finds accompanying the Chlorine. I
mean that if you bring (say) chloride of iron within reach of nitrate of
silver, there is at once a change to nitrate of iron."
“Then you
don't think the change takes place", asked the Professor, “in virtue of any
affinity between the chlorine and the silver?"
“Well, no; that is to say,
I cannot for a moment suppose, taking Sodium-chloride as a strong instance, that
Chlorine forsakes an alkaline metal like Sodium in favour of
Silver."
"Then these Acid-principles of yours don't care to marry money;
only beauty. Eh ?" observed the Professor .
"And that beauty, of the earth
earthy! " added the doctor.
“Yes", continued Mr. Vincent, "it is very
curious that gold and silver are just the things these acid-principles despise,
and that what they most esteem would be such things as the ashes of a burnt-out
and gutted edifice, as they are washed away in the dirty flood of the hydrant.
However, as to the relation between Chlorine and Silver, I have just a suspicion
that Chlorine sets rather a better value on Silver than the other
acid-principles do which regard it as such an utter bore. Why now,I'll tell you
another acid-principle that does not at all despise Silver — Sulphur. Sulphur
has a decided fancy for Silver; and so has the compound principle
Cyanogen."
“Then you hold that the acid-principles, as you call them, do
not all agree with one another in their estimates of a metal's attractions ? "
asked the Professor. [Page 11]
“No, just so;
tastes differ in the chemical world no less than in our own sphere."
A
moment's pause followed, and then the Professor observed: “And so you think, Mr.
Vincent, that some change is called for in the way, in which analysis is taught,
you think the study might be rendered more intelligent ? "
“Well, yes,
perhaps", replied Mr. Vincent, but in a tone which showed that the Professor's
summing-up did not satisfactorily represent his own state of mind. The doctor
too was equally sensible of the position, and he endeavoured to mend
it:—
“I think our friend means to give to his remarks an application
somewhat wider than the mere illustrations themselves."
“Oh, quite so! "
rejoined the Professor.
“Do you know, Mr. Vincent has led me to a curious
reflection — "
“Well, John! let's have it! "
“Then first of all,
you will agree with me, I am sure, that he has produced some very interesting
scientific thoughts. Confirm them as true, and they are as genuine a
contribution to science as anything that was ever hit upon —
"
"Undoubtedly!”, said the Professor. "Oh! I have been very much
interested indeed".
“And yet", resumed the doctor, "he has not been
making any experiments or researches. And what is more, even those experimental
facts which he implicitly appeals to, are of the simplest and most familiar
kind; they are neither of a complicated nature nor of very recent discovery. For
my part I feel persuaded that there are treasures upon treasures of knowledge to
be unearthed in the most elementary topics of science. Whilst your German
experimentalist is proudly examining the thermo-electric relations of Zirconium
and Yttrium or something of that sort, dealing with substances so rare, that
beyond the fact of their individuality there is really no interest attaching to
them, — "
“You, see, John, we must do something new; all the
relations of the well-known metals have been examined by experimentalists again
and again.
“Yes", said the doctor, “but why should they work in that
department at all ? As for observation of phenomena, our knowledge is not
halting for want of that; the mind of man is the Laboratory in which the great
discoveries are now to be made."
“Undoubtedly!" replied the Professor;
“if we could only have a few more good intellects! " And the doctor: —
“What I feel so strongly is that we do not really want new
experiments; we have never yet sucked the juice out of the old ones — not even
[Page 12] out of the simplest and most elementary
among them. I feel that there is in the science of chemistry — and I would say
exactly the same of medicine and several other sciences — a whole mine of
knowledge wrapped up in the elementary chapters. No experiments, no microscopes
or other such instruments, will reveal to us the existence of marriages and
divorces in the mineral world with all the complicated play of superior
attractions, greater strength to seize what is desired, individual or tribal
preferences, and so on. To find out that the mineral world is as busy and alive
as our own, we must use that faculty which our friend" (turning to Mr. Vincent)
"describes, very aptly I think, as ‘reading between the lines'. For after all,
this theory of his is not in opposition to any theory of yours or mine; Mr.
Vincent takes and accepts the very same facts which you and I do at present the
only alternative, the only rival to such a theory is — a blank of ignorance. And
this blank of ignorance will never be filled in with the lineaments of truth by
means of all the experiments and observations in the world, such as are now
being made. Men must cultivate thought and perception; mere information is of
very little good; indeed it almost seems to do harm in large quantities? as if
it were a heap blocking up the channel of perception and intellectual insight."
"Oh yes, yes! " said the Professor, who was always equal to the
occasion, though in this instance he failed to comprehend or sympathize with the
remarks which were being made. "Why that is what I am always telling our young
men; it is no good their merely reading, they must think and
understand".
Presently the party rose, and the Professor stretched
himself. Mr. Vincent took leave of his friends and departed, whilst the
Professor proceeded to invest himself with a colossal overcoat, meanwhile
observing with emphasis: —
" What a wonderful discovery this is of Dr.
Koch's! "
"Yes", replied the doctor placidly; “it seems to have caused
much excitement". And then the Professor:
"A nice fellow that Vincent; I
thought his ideas extremely interesting.”
"Oh, a very promising man — so
I think him."
And the Doctor continued:
" It's what I am always
saying about our men, Harry; you know that quotation of mine ? "
" What
quotation? " asked the Professor puzzled.
"Why, you know; from the Latin
Grammar — adapted to the occasion —
‘Satis scientiae; intelligentiae
parum '. 'Seas of science, but a want of wits'. "
" Oh yes, yes! "
replied the Professor; " I follow you now." (Though in truth he did not.) "Yes;
the Lord deliver us from small men! Goodnight, John ! "
Go to Top of
this page
Back
to our On Line Documents
Back to our Main
Page
A free sample copy of our bilingual
magazine can be sent to you. This offer is only good for a mailing to a Canadian
address. You have to supply a mailing address.
The Canadian membership of $25.00 includes the receipt of four seasonal
issues of our magazine "The Light Bearer" . If you are a resident of Canada send
a note to enquirers@theosophical.ca
requesting a packet of information and your free copy of our magazine
For membership outside of Canada send a message to the International Secretary in Adyar, India theossoc@satyam.net.in
For a problem viewing one of our documents — or to report an
error in a document — send a note to the webmaster at
webmaster@theosophical.ca
We
will try to answer any other query — if you would send a note to info@theosophical.ca
This document is a publication of the
Canadian Theosophical Association (a regional association of the
Theosophical Society in Adyar)
89 Promenade Riverside,
St-Lambert, QC J4R
1A3
Canada
To reach the President — Pierre Laflamme dial
450-672-8577
or Toll Free — from all of Canada 866-277-0074
or you can
telephone the national secretary at 905-455-7325
website: http://www.theosophical.ca%20/