GREAT CHEMISTS

Hokitika Guardian, 29 August 1921, Page 1

GREAT CHEMISTS

In “ Famous Chemists,” Sir AA’illiam A. Tilden has written a very interesting account of the progress of chemical science and of the personalities who have contributed most to its development. The layman probably docs not realise how modern chemistry is as compared with many other branches of physical science. It is true, no doubt, that many arts in which chemical facts and principles are involved were practised in ancient times. Tho Phoenicia" made glass and the Romans soap; the Egyptians thousands of years ago invented durable dyes, and several races in remote antiquity had a working knowledge of metallurgy. Nearer to our own days the alchemists of the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries had learned empirically to make a number of definite compounds. Roger Bacon is credited with the invention of gun-powder in the thirteenth century, though it is almost certain that he had been anticipated in this long before by the Chinese. But these isolated achievements, important though they were, did not constitute a science. They were tho result partly of accident, partly of crude experiment, and “ knowledge only becomes science when established facts are linked together by some explanation.” The knowledge possessed bv the old chemists was fragmentary and disconnected. Their investigations were based upon certain assumptions, which were utterly lalsc. Thus, when Aristotle defined the elements a s lire, air, earth, and water lie probably intended only to symbolise the diverse properties of matter. But his definition was taken literally: Bight down to the middle ages these four things were regarded as tho fundamental principles of nature. Even when a Inter school of chemistry substituted for Aristotle’s four elements the “ tria prirna,” salt, S ulphur. and mercury, no one seems to have had any very clear idea of what was to lie understood by these terms. Research was directed almost exclusively to two ends, the discovery of a universal medicine, which would cure all diseases, and the philosopher’s stone, which would transmute hase metals into gold. Semi-magical properties were attributed to such strange substances as the jewel on the head of the toad, or the spleen of a dog; the phrases of the moon and Hie movements of the stars were thought to have a vital influence on the success of an experiment ; the foundations of chemical science' as we know it. was not even laid.

Thi s task was reserved for the 1. ill ; century, and with ii the name of Boyle is chiefly identified. 11 is right to the title of. “ the lather of chemistry ” lias never been disputed. Mis career is interesting from many points of view. When F.nglatid was rent in twain by the Civil War, and almost everyone was forced to lake sides. h ( > remained aloof. Though a. determined hatelielor —it wrw said of him that one of the few experi_ Hit'llts lie did not make was that of married life-lie claimed to lie an authority on matters ol sentiment, and wrote a treatise called “ Seraphick ],ove.” lie was one of llit* founders of the Royal Society. The origin of this was a. gathering of friends, who styled t liVmselves the “ invisible College,” and met privately in London to discuss matters included under the heading “ I’liysick, anatomy, geometry, astronomy, navigation, sta ticks, magiicticks, chyinicks, meclianieks. and natural experiments, with, the s tate of these studies as then cultivated al home and abroad” —a fairly comprehensive agenda. Wlvn a mere lad Boyle was given the freedom of this company, and at Oxford the meetings were held in his lodgings. Subsequently the gatherings found a settled habitation in Oresliam College, in London, but during the Civil War the Invisible College suspended its activities lest its members might “run the hazard of Archimedes, for then the place.of meeting was made a, quarter for soldiers." At tho Restoration it was reviled, received the patronage of the good-natured Charles, and was duly constituted the Royal Society. wit’ll Hoyle a s member of its lirst council. It was to Hie Invisible College that Boyle, hv means of his air-pump, demonstrated the fallacy ol the doctrine that nailin' abhors a, vacuum. dual as Hoyle’s name is associated with tlu 1 Royal Society, so Faradays work is chiclly connected with the Loyal institution, 'this body was founded in 17!)!.), when the country, owing to the high price of corn, was passing through a period ol grout scarcity, and there was acute distress among the poor. Its object was to dill use scientific knowledge in general and in particular to promote “ the application of science to the common purposes of life.” Hither, in search of a post, came Faraday, a raw lad, who had been apprenticed to a hook-hinder. Me had greedily devoured a number of scientific works, which had boon sent to his employer to lie rc-bonnd. and had taught himself chemistry and physics with the aid of apparatus and experiments, the cost of which could he defrayed by a few pence a Week. Sir Humphry Davy was favourably, impressed with the applicant, hut thought it his duly to warn him against, giving up his present. • mployment anil prospects, for “ science was a. harsh mistress, and in a pecuniary point of view hut poorly rewarding those who devoted themselves to her service.” Faraday replied with some observations about “ the superior moral feelings” in the possession of which philosophic men ” find recompense. Davy smiled, and said that he would leave Faraday to the experience of a few years to set him right on that matter. The upshot was a. humble appointment a s laboratory-assistant at n salary of 25s per week, and thus began that long association with the Royal Institution which bore such remarkable fruit. Bit' William Tilden deals with many

(cientifio worthies, British and Oontinential, of whom space permits mention only of a few. There is, for example, Liebig, whom the public remembers chiefly as the man who was supposed “ to have put the ox in tho tea-cup.” As a matter of fact, Liebig never claimed to have done that. His idea was simply to turn to account the flesh of animals which in South America and Australia were then bred chiefly for their wool, hides, and fat, and tho flesh of which was for the most part wasted. He did not suggest that hi s concentrated extract was a substitute for meat or for vegetable foods. His principal service to science, however, lay in the revolution he effected in the orthodox methods of scientific training. He insisted that research should play a. leading part in tho curriculum. Formal teaching was only for the beginners; the progress of the more advanced students depended on themselves. They were set a. task and carried it out under Liebig’s general supervision. He would approve or criticise, but there was no actual instruction. The plan was so successful that his laboratory at Giessen soon became the Mecca of students from all over tho world, who introduced its system to their own countries. In later days there is Sir William Ramsay, who early in the great war warned Ihe authorities of the danger of allowing the unregulated export to neutrals of fats and cotton, important constituents of explosives. For long his advice fell upon deaf ears; when at last restrictions were imposed on tho trade ir_ reparable mischief had been done. Again, there is the late Sir William Crookes, whose personality was a queer bundle of contradictions. He accomplished invaluable work, yet he seems in s omc respects to have lacked the critical faculty. His open-mindedness often made him the victim of charlatans and imposters. “ Nothing seemed too improbable to escape his attention, and of this the time and trouble lie was tempted to spend on the pretended transmutation of silver into gold s ome twenty years ago is a sufficient illustra- ( tion.” He was a firm believer in spiritualism, and for many years was president of the Society for Psychical * Research. One expects a man of 1 science to have a keen sense of the value of evidence, but in his psychical investigations Sir Militant Crookes was often convinced by “ proiofs ” which strike (ho outsider as singularly unconvincing. II is contemporaries appreciated much of his work, but they thought that many of his activities and interests were i-nilier unprofitable. As a versifier in the “Chemical Review” remarked in reference to bis great discovery : Thallium, wo hail thee, and we o to Crookes More for thy happy birth than for his books.