4. This step accordingly was made, when the hypothesis of
the four elements was given up, and the doctrine of the
_three Principles_, Salt, Sulphur, and Mercury, was
substituted in its place. For in making this change, as I
have remarked in the History[5\6], the real advance was the
acknowledgment of the changes, produced by the chemist's
operations, as results to be accounted for by the union and
separation of substantial elements, however great the
changes, and however unlike the product might be to the
materials. And this step once made, chemists went on
constantly {7} advancing towards a truer view of the nature
of an element, and consequently, towards a more satisfactory
theory of chemical operations.
[Note 5\6: _Hist. Ind. Sc._ b. iv. c. 1.]
5. Yet we may, I think, note one instance, even in the works
of eminent modern chemists, in which this maxim, that we
have no right to expect any resemblance between the elements
and the compound, is lost sight of. I speak of certain
classifications of mineral substances. Berzelius, in his
System of Mineral Arrangement, places _sulphur_ next to the
_sulphurets_. But surely this is an errour, involving the
ancient assumption of the resemblance of elements and
compounds; as if we were to expect the sulphurets to bear a
resemblance to sulphur. All classifications are intended to
bring together things resembling each other: the sulphurets
of metals have certain general resemblances to each other
which make them a tolerably distinct, well determined, class
of bodies. But sulphur has no resemblances with these, and
no analogies with them, either in physical or even in
chemical properties. It is a simple body; and both its
resemblances and its analogies direct us to place it along
with other simple bodies, (selenium, and phosphorus,) which,
united with metals, produce compounds not very different
from the sulphurets. Sulphur cannot be, nor approach to
being, a sulphuret; we must not confound what it _is_ with
what it _makes_. Sulphur has its proper influence in
determining the properties of the compound into which it
enters; but it does not do this according to resemblance of
qualities, or according to any principle which properly
leads to propinquity in classification.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account