The Principles of Chemistry, Volume I

by Dmitry Ivanovich Mendeleyev

Fig. 2.—Apparatus for distilling under a diminished pressure liquids which decompose at their boiling points under the ordinary pressure. The apparatus in which the liquid is distilled is connected with a large globe from which the air is pumped out; the liquid is heated, and the receiver cooled.

[20] In order to avoid the necessity of holding the cylinder, its open end is widened (and also ground so that it may be closely covered with a ground-glass plate when necessary), and placed on a stand below the level of the water in the bath. This stand is called ‘the bridge.’ It has several circular openings cut through it, and the gas delivery tube is placed under one of these, and the cylinder for collecting the gas over it.

[21] Drying is necessary in order to remove any water which may be held in the salts (see Note [17], and Chapter I., Notes [13] and [14]).

[22] The exact weights of the re-acting and resulting substances are determined with the greatest difficulty, not only from the possible inexactitude of the balance (every weighing is only correct within the limits of the sensitiveness of the balance) and weights used in weighing, not only from the difficulty in making corrections for the weight of air displaced by the vessels holding the substances weighed and by the weights themselves, but also from the hygroscopic nature of many substances (and vessels) causing absorption of moisture from the atmosphere, and from the difficulty in not losing any of the substance to be weighed in the several operations (filtering, evaporating, and drying, &c.) which have to be performed before arriving at a final result. All these circumstances have to be taken into consideration in exact researches, and their elimination requires very many special precautions which are impracticable in preliminary experiments.

[23] Besides which, in the majority of cases, the first explanation of most subjects which do not repeat themselves in everyday experience under various aspects, but always in one form, or only at intervals and infrequently, is usually wrong. Thus the daily evidence of the rising of the sun and stars evokes the erroneous idea that the heavens move and the earth stands still. This apparent truth is far from being the real truth, and, as a matter of fact, is contradictory to it. Similarly, an ordinary mind and everyday experience concludes that iron is incombustible, whereas it burns not only as filings, but even as wire, as we shall afterwards see. With the progress of knowledge very many primitive prejudices have been obliged to give way to true ideas which have been verified by experiment. In ordinary life we often reason at first sight with perfect truth, only because we are taught a right judgment by our daily experience. It is a necessary consequence of the nature of our minds to reach the attainment of truth through elementary and often erroneous reasoning and through experiment, and it would be very wrong to expect a knowledge of truth from a simple mental effort. Naturally, experiment itself cannot give truth, but it gives the means of destroying erroneous representations whilst confirming those which are true in all their consequences.

[24] It is true that Stahl was acquainted with a fact which directly disproved his hypothesis. It was already known (from the experiments of Geber, and more especially of Ray, in 1630) that metals increase in weight by oxidation, whilst, according to Stahl's hypothesis, they should decrease in weight, because phlogiston is separated by oxidation. Stahl speaks on this point as follows:—‘I am well aware that metals, in their transformation into earths, increase in weight. But not only does this fact not disprove my theory, but, on the contrary, confirms it, for phlogiston is lighter than air, and, in combining with substances, strives to lift them, and so decreases their weight; consequently, a substance which has lost phlogiston must be heavier.’ This argument, it will be seen, is founded on a misconception of the properties of gases, regarding them as having no weight and as not being attracted by the earth, or else on a confused idea of phlogiston itself, since it was first defined as imponderable. The conception of imponderable phlogiston tallies well with the habit and methods of the last century, when recourse was often had to imponderable fluids for explaining a large number of phenomena. Heat, light, magnetism, and electricity were explained as being peculiar imponderable fluids. In this sense the doctrine of Stahl corresponds entirely with the spirit of his age. If heat be now regarded as motion or energy, then phlogiston also should be considered in this light. In fact, in combustion, of coals for instance, heat and energy are evolved, and not combined in the coal, although the oxygen and coal do combine. Consequently, the doctrine of Stahl contains the essence of a true representation of the evolution of energy, but naturally this evolution is only a consequence of the combination occurring between the coal and oxygen. As regards the history of chemistry prior to Lavoisier, besides Stahl's work (to which reference has been made above), Priestley's Experiments and Observations on Different Kinds of Air, London, 1790, and also Scheele's Opuscula Chimica et Physica, Lips., 1788–89, 2 vols., must be recommended as the two leading works of the English and Scandinavian chemists showing the condition of chemical learning before the propagation of Lavoisier's views, and containing also many important observations which lie at the basis of the chemistry of our times. A most interesting memoir on the history of phlogiston is that of Rodwell, in the Philosophical Magazine, 1868, in which it is shown that the idea of phlogiston dates very far back, that Basil Valentine (1394–1415), in the Cursus Triumphalis Antimonii, Paracelsus (1493–1541), in his work, De Rerum Natura, Glauber (1604–1668), and especially John Joachim Becher (1625–1682), in his Physica Subterranea, all referred to phlogiston, but under different names.

[25] An Englishman, named Mayow, who lived a whole century before Lavoisier (in 1666), understood certain phenomena of oxidation in their true aspect, but was not able to develop his views with clearness, or support them by conclusive experiments; he cannot therefore be considered, like Lavoisier, as the founder of contemporary chemical learning. Science is a universal heritage, and therefore it is only just to give the highest honour in science, not to those who first enunciate a certain truth, but to those who are first able to convince others of its authenticity and establish it for the general welfare. But scientific discoveries are rarely made all at once; as a rule, the first teachers do not succeed in convincing others of the truth they have discovered; with time, however, a true herald comes forward, possessing every means for making the truth apparent to all, but it must not be forgotten that such are entirely indebted to the labours and mass of data accumulated by many others. Such was Lavoisier, and such are all the great founders of science. They are the enunciators of all past and present learning, and their names will always be revered by posterity.

[26] Many of the ancient philosophers assumed the existence of one elementary form of matter. This idea still appears in our times, in the constant efforts which are made to reduce the number of the elements; to prove, for instance, that bromine contains chlorine or that chlorine contains oxygen. Many methods, founded both on experiment and theory, have been tried to prove the compound nature of the elements. All labour in this direction has as yet been in vain, and the assurance that elementary matter is not so homogeneous (single) as the mind would desire in its first transport of rapid generalisation is strengthened from year to year. All our knowledge shows that iron and other elements remain, even at such a high temperature as there exists in the sun, as different substances, and are not converted into one common material. Admitting, even mentally, the possibility of one elementary form of matter, a method must be imagined by which it could give rise to the various elements, as also the modus operandi of their formation from one material. If it be said that this diversitude only takes place at low temperatures, as is observed with isomerides, then there would be reason to expect, if not the transition of the various elements into one particular and more stable form, at least the mutual transformation of some into others. But nothing of the kind has as yet been observed, and the alchemist's hope to manufacture (as Berthollet puts it) elements has no theoretical or practical foundation.

[27] The weakest point in the idea of elements is the negative character of the determinative signs given them by Lavoisier, and from that time ruling in chemistry. They do not decompose, they do not change into one another. But it must be remarked that elements form the limiting horizon of our knowledge of matter, and it is always difficult to determine a positive side on the borderland of what is known. Besides, there is no doubt (from the results of spectrum analysis) that the elements are distributed as far as the most distant stars, and that they support the highest attainable temperatures without decomposing.