The binary conception of compounds held by Berzelius received apparent support from the observations of Gay Lussac, in 1815, on the vapour densities of alcohol and ether, which pointed to the conclusion that these substances consisted of one molecule of water and one and two of ethylene respectively; and from Pierre Jean Robiquet and Jean Jacques Colin, showing, in 1816, that ethyl chloride (hydrochloric ether) could be regarded as a compound of ethylene and hydrochloric acid.[11] Compound radicals came to be regarded as the immediate constituents of organic compounds; and, at first, a determination of their empirical composition was supposed to be sufficient to characterize them. To this problem there was added another in about the third decade of the 19th century—namely, to determine the manner in which the atoms composing the radical were combined; this supplementary requisite was due to the discovery of the isomerism of silver fulminate and silver cyanate by Justus von Liebig in 1823, and to M. Faraday’s discovery of butylene, isomeric with ethylene, in 1825.
The classical investigation of Liebig and Friedrich Wohler on the radical of benzoic acid (“Über das Radikal der Benzoë-säure,” Ann. Chem., 1832, 3, p. 249) is to be regarded as a most important contribution to the radical theory, for it was shown that a radical containing the elements carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, which they named benzoyl (the termination yl coming from the Gr. ὔλη, matter), formed the basis of benzaldehyde, benzoic acid, benzoyl chloride, benzoyl bromide and benzoyl sulphide, benzamide and benzoic ether. Berzelius immediately appreciated the importance of this discovery, notwithstanding that he was compelled to reject the theory that oxygen could not play any part in a compound radical—a view which he previously considered as axiomatic; and he suggested the names “proin” or “orthrin” (from the Gr. πρωί and ὀρθρός, at dawn). However, in 1833, Berzelius reverted to his earlier opinion that oxygenated radicals were incompatible with his electrochemical theory; he regarded benzoyl as an oxide of the radical C14H10, which he named “picramyl” (from πικρός, bitter, and ἀμυγδάλη, almond), the peroxide being anhydrous benzoic acid; and he dismissed the views of Gay Lussac and Dumas that ethylene was the radical of ether, alcohol and ethyl chloride, setting up in their place the idea that ether was a suboxide of ethyl, (C2H5)2O, which was analogous to K2O, while alcohol was an oxide of a radical C2H6; thus annihilating any relation between these two compounds. This view was modified by Liebig, who regarded ether as ethyl oxide, and alcohol as the hydrate of ethyl oxide; here, however, he was in error, for he attributed to alcohol a molecular weight double its true value. Notwithstanding these errors, the value of the “ethyl theory” was perceived; other radicals—formyl, methyl, amyl, acetyl, &c.—were characterized; Dumas, in 1837, admitted the failure of the etherin theory; and, in company with Liebig, he defined organic chemistry as the “chemistry of compound radicals.” The knowledge of compound radicals received further increment at the hands of Robert W. Bunsen, the discoverer of the cacodyl compounds.
The radical theory, essentially dualistic in nature in view of its similarity to the electrochemical theory of Berzelius, was destined to succumb to a unitary theory. Instances had already been recorded of cases where a halogen element replaced hydrogen with the production of a closely allied substance: Gay Lussac had prepared cyanogen chloride from hydrocyanic acid; Faraday, hexachlorethane from ethylene dichloride, &c. Here the electro-negative halogens exercised a function similar to electro-positive hydrogen. Dumas gave especial attention to such substitutions, named metalepsy μετάληψις, exchange); and framed the following empirical laws to explain the reactions:—(1) a body containing hydrogen when substituted by a halogen loses one atom of hydrogen for every atom of halogen introduced; (2) the same holds if oxygen be present, except that when the oxygen is present as water the latter first loses its hydrogen without replacement, and then substitution according to (1) ensues. Dumas went no further that thus epitomizing his observations; and the next development was made in 1836 by Auguste Laurent, who, having amplified and discussed the applicability of Dumas’ views, promulgated his Nucleus Theory, which assumed the existence of “original nuclei or radicals” (radicaux or noyaux fondamentaux) composed of carbon and hydrogen, and “derived nuclei” (radicaux or noyaux dérivés) formed from the original nuclei by the substitution of hydrogen or the addition of other elements, and having properties closely related to the primary nuclei.
Vigorous opposition was made by Liebig and Berzelius, the latter directing his attack against Dumas, whom he erroneously believed to be the author of what was, in his opinion, a pernicious theory. Dumas repudiated the accusation, affirming that he held exactly contrary views to Laurent; but only to admit their correctness in 1839, when, from his own researches and those of Laurent, Malaguti and Regnault, he formulated his type theory. According to this theory a “chemical type” embraced compounds containing the same number of equivalents combined in a like manner and exhibiting similar properties; thus acetic and trichloracetic acids, aldehyde and chloral, marsh gas and chloroform are pairs of compounds referable to the same type. He also postulated, with Regnault, the existence of “molecular or mechanical types” containing substances which, although having the same number of equivalents, are essentially different in characters. His unitary conceptions may be summarized: every chemical compound forms a complete whole, and cannot therefore consist of two parts; and its chemical character depends primarily upon the arrangement and number of the atoms, and, in a lesser degree, upon their chemical nature. More emphatic opposition to the dualistic theory of Berzelius was hardly possible; this illustrious chemist perceived that the validity of his electrochemical theory was called in question, and therefore he waged vigorous war upon Dumas and his followers. But he fought in a futile cause; to explain the facts put forward by Dumas he had to invent intricate and involved hypotheses, which, it must be said, did not meet with general acceptance; Liebig seceded from him, and invited Wöhler to endeavour to correct him. Still, till the last Berzelius remained faithful to his original theory; experiment, which he had hitherto held to be the only sure method of research, he discarded, and in its place he substituted pure speculation, which greatly injured the radical theory. At the same time, however, the conception of radicals could not be entirely displaced, for the researches of Liebig and Wohler, and those made subsequently by Bunsen, demonstrated beyond all doubt the advantages which would accrue from their correct recognition.
A step forward—the fusion of Dumas’, type theory and the radical theory—was made by Laurent and Charles Gerhardt. As early as 1842, Gerhardt in his Précis de chimie organique exhibited a marked leaning towards Dumas’ theory, and it is without doubt that both Dumas and Laurent exercised considerable influence on his views. Unwilling to discard the strictly unitary views of these chemists, or to adopt the copulae theory of Berzelius, he revived the notion of radicals in a new form. According to Gerhardt, the process of substitution consisted of the union of two residues to form a unitary whole; these residues, previously termed “compound radicals,” are atomic complexes which remain over from the interaction of two compounds. Thus, he interpreted the interaction of benzene and nitric acid as C6H6 + HNO3 = C6H5NO2 + H2O, the “residues” of benzene being C6H5 and H, and of nitric acid HO and NO2. Similarly he represented the reactions investigated by Liebig and Wöhler on benzoyl compounds as double decompositions.
This rejuvenation of the notion of radicals rapidly gained favour; and the complete fusion of the radical theory with the theory of types was not long delayed. In 1849 C.A. Wurtz discovered the amines or substituted ammonias, previously predicted by Liebig; A.W. von Hofmann continued the investigation, and established their recognition as ammonia in which one or more hydrogen atoms had been replaced by hydrocarbon radicals, thus formulating the “ammonia type.” In 1850 A.W. Williamson showed how alcohol and ether were to be regarded as derived from water by substituting one or both hydrogen atoms by the ethyl group; he derived acids and the acid anhydrides from the same type; and from a comparison of many inorganic and the simple organic compounds he concluded that this notion of a “water-type” clarified, in no small measure, the conception of the structure of compounds.
These conclusions were co-ordinated in Gerhardt’s “new theory of types.” Taking as types hydrogen, hydrochloric acid, water and ammonia, he postulated that all organic compounds were referable to these four forms: the hydrogen type included hydrocarbons, aldehydes and ketones; the hydrochloric acid type, the chlorides, bromides and iodides; the water type, the alcohols, ethers, monobasic acids, acid anhydrides, and the analogous sulphur compounds; and the ammonia type, the amines, acid-amides, and the analogous phosphorus and arsenic compounds. The recognition of the polybasicity of acids, which followed from the researches of Thomas Graham and Liebig, had caused Williamson to suggest that dibasic acids could be referred to a double water type, the acid radical replacing an atom of hydrogen in each water molecule; while his discovery of tribasic formic ether, CH(OC2H5)3, in 1854 suggested a triple water type. These views were extended by William Odling, and adopted by Gerhardt, but with modifications of Williamson’s aspects. A further generalization was effected by August Kekulé, who rejected the hydrochloric acid type as unnecessary, and introduced the methane type and condensed mixed types. Pointing out that condensed types can only be fused with a radical replacing more than one atom of hydrogen, he laid the foundation of the doctrine of valency, a doctrine of incalculable service to the knowledge of the structure of chemical compounds.
At about the same time Hermann Kolbe attempted a rehabilitation, with certain modifications, of the dualistic conception of Berzelius. He rejected the Berzelian tenet as to the unalterability of radicals, and admitted that they exercised a considerable influence upon the compounds with which they were copulated. By his own investigations and those of Sir Edward Frankland it was proved that the radical methyl existed in acetic acid; and by the electrolysis of sodium acetate, Kolbe concluded that he had isolated this radical; in this, however, he was wrong, for he really obtained ethane, C2H6, and not methyl, CH3. From similar investigations of valerianic acid he was led to conclude that fatty acids were oxygen compounds of the radicals hydrogen, methyl, ethyl, &c., combined with the double carbon equivalent C2. Thus the radical of acetic acid, acetyl,[12] was C2H3·C2. (It will be noticed that Kolbe used the atomic weights H=1, C=6, O=8, S=16, &c.; his formulae, however, were molecular formulae, i.e. the molecular weights were the same as in use to-day.) This connecting link, C2, was regarded as essential, while the methyl, ethyl, &c. was but a sort of appendage; but Kolbe could not clearly conceive the manner of copulation.
The brilliant researches of Frankland on the organo-metallic compounds, and his consequent doctrine of saturation capacity or valency of elements and radicals, relieved Kolbe’s views of all obscurity. The doctrine of copulae was discarded, and in 1859 emphasis was given to the view that all organic compounds were derivatives of inorganic by simple substitution processes. He was thus enabled to predict compounds then unknown, e.g. the secondary and tertiary alcohols; and with inestimable perspicacity he proved intimate relations between compounds previously held to be quite distinct. Lactic acid and alanine were shown to be oxy- and amino-propionic acids respectively; glycollic acid and glycocoll, oxy- and amino-acetic acids; salicylic and benzamic acids, oxy- and amino-benzoic acids.
Another consequence of the doctrine of valency was that it permitted the graphic representation of the molecule. The “structure theory” (or the mode of linking of the atoms) of carbon compounds, founded by Butlerow, Kekulé and Couper and, at a later date, marvellously enhanced by the doctrine of stereo-isomerism, due to J.H. van’t Hoff and Le Bel, occupies such a position in organic chemistry that its value can never be transcended. By its aid the molecule is represented as a collection of atoms connected together by valencies in such a manner that the part played by each atom is represented; isomerism, or the existence of two or more chemically different substances having identical molecular weights, is adequately shown; and, most important of all, once the structure is determined, the synthesis of the compound is but a matter of time.