ãº
º'.
* *
º:
#
º:
PROF. H. C
º, tº .
*** *º
ºr
ºr “ºº
* - - - -, º,
. . . sº
- * * * *
º
:
l
* *
*
f º
... º.º.º.
º,'
t
-
g
:
*
.º*-
LONDON.
1898.

* * * * * > . . ;
* * * * * *
* * * : * * *
. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . "
#
• , ; * *
i, , , t , t!'"
; :
4 * * *
* , ; }
f
;: ;
* * *
# *
* * 4 * *
, , , , ; * * * * -
* . . . . . . . - , , ; , . . . * *
; : * * * * * * 1. * * * * * * *
* *
# * * *
. . . . ;
* *
* : *
; ; ; * * * *
º !!!
$ tº
;::::::
, , , ; , f * * * * *
1, • * :::::::: .
, , ; ; ; ; ; ; * : *
4. # = s. “
e *
... "...}}}:
::::::::::::
§ { . . . . . . . . .
* * * * * * *
* *
* r * * * * *
*::::::::::
; : * : . . . .
# * =
s t
, #4 & 8 !!!: ; ; ; ; ; ; ;'
* {: * # , º, . . .';
• * * * * *: tº it? :
* !::::::::::::::::
- ź * * * &
a t t , t
; : , , , , " ' "
* , t
!!!
* : * {
*
::: * ~ * ::::::
:::::::::::::
sº e 4 " ' "
* * * *
*
. . . . . . . . . . ." * * * *
& ... º. º...!
* * * * * * * ſ::::::
:::::::::::::::
tº:
. . . . . . * * *
. . . . . . . . .
r
* , ; } # *
...: ; ; ; ; ; i
; : {, }, {{{f
!?!! is: ::::::
t &
f
* : * * * *
. . . . . , t , ; ; ;
# * :::$º tº:
... . . . . . . .
* * : * * *
ºf tº
* *
3 *
. . . . . . . . .
:::::::::...
...!!!";:::::
; : ; ; * * *
* *
9 : * * *
; ; ; ; ; ; * *
. . ; ; 4
; : * *
t
ſº
• * * *
* * * * *
g
* *
& a f *
* | * :
• ?
g
* * * * *
sº . . . * * *
* * * * * *
# *
. . . . . . . . .
:::{{`... . . . .''
''': , , ; ; ; ;
. . . ii º '

Q_\\
3, 2)
, B @ 94k
HYSTERICAL CHEMISTRY.
BY
PROF. H. CARRINGTON BOLTON, PH.D.
Reprinted from the CHEMICAL NEWS.
LONDON.
1898.
[Reprinted from the CHEMICAL NEws of Gan. 7th and 14th,
1898, Nos. Ig89 and 1890, vol. 77, pp: 3–5, 16–18].
--------------——-...--— — -- T -- ------ ------------ º-
HYSTERICAL CHEMISTRY.”
THE bizarre chemical theories, extravagant assump-
tions, and preposterous claims advanced in the writings
of a certain small group of men having some knowledge
of chemistry and an intense desire for notoriety seem, to
a conservative student of contemporaneous science, to be
products of disordered intellects; these pseudo-philo-
sophers call themselves “Monists,” and designate their
peculiar doćtrines as “Unitary Chemistry,” but, from its
emotional charaćter, it may well be styled Hysterical
Chemistry.
Their treatises generally have this feature in common ;
the authors begin with accepted facts and rational
theories, leading to legitimate deductions, but at a cer-
tain point they allow their imagination to run riot, and
thereafter the treatises follow most eccentric lines. The
corner stone of their doctrine is the Unity of Matter, an
hypothesis to which there is little objection per se, but
they push it beyond legitimate bounds and graft on it
corollaries of a most fantastic character. These authors
spend very little time in laboratories, but claim to be
working a revolution in chemistry and physics as well as
in the sciences of philosophy and psychology by their
publications; they complain that “official chemists '' will
not do justice to their novel theories. “Our views,”
writes one, “may appear strange to certain materialistic
high priests of nineteenth-century science who imagine
they know all and claim to explain everything, although
they know and explain nothing,” and he appeals for
righteous judgment to “impartial men of science, lovers
of Nature, who divine her infinite power and know how
to decipher her language.”
Some of these authors boast that their ultimate obječt
is the transmutation of metals, and, together with certain
devotees of theosophy, astrology, and occult science, they
have formed the “Alchemical Association of France,”
an organisation whose workings, and affiliations I have
discussed elsewhere. .
* Read to the Washington Sečtion of the American Chemical
Society, November 11th, 1897. -
4
Singularly enough these hysterical chemists flourish
chiefly in that enlightened nation that has given to
science such men as Lavoisier, Gay-Lussac, Dumas,
Berthelot, and Moissan. The chief apostles of this new
school are Louis Charles Emile Vial, F. Ch. Barlet, and
François jollivet-Castelot, and their guiding star is
August Strindberg, a Swede. Their publications fall
within the last twelve years, but they quote two authors
whom they regard as pioneers : Louis Lucas, author of
“La Nouvelle Chimie ’’ (Paris, 1854) and Théodore
Tiffereau, author of “Les Métaux sont des Corps Com-
posés (Paris, 1855). The latter is, however, purely an
alchemist. To the same school belonged Albert Poisson,
who was founder of the “Hermetic Society of France,”
and died in 1894.” All are cordially endorsed by Paul
Sédir, “Papus ” (Dr. G. Encausse), and other occultists
of high rank.
The Monist philosophers do not accept the elementary
Substances as chemical entities, and claim the unity of
matter even though its forms appear diverse to our
senses; they do not believe in identity, and are satisfied
when analogies lead to a high degree of resemblance.
They oppose these positive analogies to the “poetical
and metaphysical concepts of official chemists,” and as
disciples of Aristotle they do not believe in a constructive
resemblance of bodies, but only in the acquisition by
bodies of given properties under certain conditions.
They further claim that “all bodies and all forces have a
common origin, and that chemists can derive one from
another at will, no matter how diverse the phenomena
observed, whether rarefaction or condensation, combina-
tion or mixture, attraction or repulsion, association or
dissociation, addition or substitution.” They are not
bound by principles of pre-established harmony, of
finality, or other vacillating conceptions; they expect the
analogies to be clearly demonstrated, and if the accepted
nomenclature disappears so much the better (August
Strindberg, “ Hortus Merlini; lettres sur la Chimie,”
Edition de l’Hyperchimie, Paris, 1897).
The Monists take for their motto: “Matter is one,
everything comes from one, one is all.” They claim for
this doćtrine great antiquity; it prevailed among the
philosophers of India, Chaldea, and Egypt, and the
alchemists of the Middle Ages represented it symboli-
cally by a serpent biting its tail. The Monists extend
the doćtrine of evolution to the chemical elements, and
* Albert Poisson’s principal works are : (1) “ Théories et Symboles
des Alchimistes '' (Paris, 1891), (2) “ Cinq Traités d'Alchimie des
Plus, Grands , Philosophes.” Traduit du Latin (Paris, 1890);
Nicolas Flamel, Paris, 1891.
5
assert that the infinitely small particles of primordial
ether unite to form chemical atoms, which by self-evolu-
tion generate the diverse elementary bodies. Hydrogen,
or perhaps helium, is the starting point. According to
Tiffereau the evolution of the metals is accomplished by
special microbes called sporules.
The views entertained by these philosophers are, how-
ever, diverse. M. Vial is not properly a Monist; he pre-
fers to refer all matter to two types, one personified by
hydrogen and the other by oxygen; according to him,
“heat and cold, which are positive and negative elements
represented by hydrogen and oxygen, are the universal
agents, the cause of all chemical and physical phenomena,
distinét and opposite entities.” (L. C. Emile Vial, “La
Chaleur et le Froid,” Paris, 1884). And yet he incon-
sistently says, “Hydrogen is the divine principle of all
things; by self-doubling it creates oxygen, which, being
more condensed, and having generating power, becomes
its second half.” “Light results from the embrace of the
primitive hydrogen with oxygen, and their union gives
birth to water; hydrogen is the masculine element,
oxygen the feminine, and water, which is the first two-
fold type of nature, generates nitrogen by self-doubling.
Created by water, nitrogen is succeeded by carbon,
fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, phosphorus, and
finally sulphur.”
In reviewing Vial's essay, Jollivet-Castelot remarks,
“This masculine hydrogen and feminine oxygen are
veritable monstrosities, in spite of the ingenuity of the
hypothesis,” and he points out that in attempting to con-
struct a cycle of evolution of the chemical elements Vial
is often obliged to alter their atomic weights to adjust
them to the desired positions, though he brings forward
no experimental proofs in support of these arbitrary
changes. This complaint of one Monist by another is
very amusing, for their disciples never use chemical tests
to prove the presence or absence of a given element, but
rely on analogies, the full meaning of which will appear
later. Moreover the plaintiff in this case is one who
gives the widest possible scope to his own amazingly free
imagination. -
In a recent work (“L'Amour dans l’Univers,” Paris,
1896) Emile Vial explains his position in the following
language: “Unity is a duality of two opposite halves, just
as an apple is composed of two half-apples. . . . .
Unity is eternally divisible, and it is precisely this infinite
divisibility that constitutes its duality.” Applying this
view to chemical atoms he writes: “A gaseous atom is a
unity formed of two antagonistic principles, one material
and the other immaterial.” -
6
The mental operations of this transcendental philo-
sopher are evidently conducted in four-dimensional space,
and suggest the following catechism:—
What is Matter 2–Never mind.
What is mind 2–No matter.
What is spirit 2–It is immaterial.
F. Ch. Barlet, said to be one of the most eminent
occultists in France, and one of the founders of the
“ Université du Hautes Etudes,” a school for cultivating
esoteric studies, has published an essay entitled “La
Chimie Synthétique " (Paris, 1897) which exhibits the
peculiar characteristics of hysterical chemistry. Barlet
rehearses at length, and with some skill, the growth of
chemical theories from the dualism of Berzelius to the
Periodic Law of Mendeléeff, and he gives preference to
Sir William Crookes’s method of representing the elements
in order of their atomic weights by a spiral ; this graphic
construction he improves (?) by changing the spiral into
a horizontal plane, which he then divides into four equal
parts by two sectors crossing at right angles. The
chemical elements falling within these segments he finds
correspond to the four elements of ancient philosophy,
Fire Air
Earth | Water
and on this correspondence he bases all his subsequent
ratiocination. It would not be profitable to follow in
detail the mental vagaries which finally lead Barlet to
present the following scheme.
(Fire)
H
HCl, &c. Metals.
NH3, &c.
Strong acids. | Strong bases.
(Air) cl—–8——-N (Earth)
C1O, &c. NO5, &c.
Weak acids. | Metallic acids.
O
(Water)
Following the opinions of P. Leroy (Eudiste,
* Essai sur la Synthèse des Forces Physiques,” Paris,
7
E892, 2 Nos.), he imagines the ether of physics immersed
in a medium still more subtle called “Eon.” A mixture
of ether and eon is the protyle of Crookes and the Astral
Light of theosophy; in this medium the four elements
are formed under the influence of quintessence, which
after all is nothing but eon penetrating ether I Barlet
concludes his extraordinary disquisition with the follow-
ing lucid summary:-
The principal doćtrines of this philosophy are “the
periodical, continual evolution of the subtle into the
dense, of eon into ether, of quintessence into matter, of
the divine Fire attracted by the desire of Astringency, of
the Spirit called by Matter, of the Being evoked by
Nothingness; the formidable hierarchy of creatures which
extends between the two poles of the Infinite, the cosmic
life traversing their development as the fulfilment of that
ineffable Mystery which manifests itself in the Inex-
pressible Absolute l’” -
“I smiled and said it must be so,
In fact I thought so then,
For there was much I did not know
Of the Whatness of the When.”
“All that exists lives, all that exists is evolved and
transforms itself '' is one of the favourite tenets of the
Monists, who designate it by the term “Hylozoism.”
M. Jollivet-Castelot, a member of the “Groupe Indé-
pendent d’Etudes Esotériques,” is the chief exponent of
this doćtrine, having devoted to it an entire volume
besides chapters in other works. (“La Vie et l’Ame de
la Matière ; Essai de Physiologie Chimique,” Paris, 1894,
“L’Hylozoisme; L’Alchimie ; Les Chimistes Unitaires,”
Paris, 1896. “Comment On Devient Alchimiste,” Paris,
1897.) That which is commonly called inert or dead
matter (metals, minerals, elementary bodies, even the
physical atoms), according to Hylozoistic Monists, is not
dead, but is possessed of life, analogous to plants and
animals, but less active and conspicuous. Thus the three
kingdoms of nature, animal, vegetable, and mineral, are
brought within the influence of evolution. Some of the
extremists go so far as to endow the atoms with feeling,
instinét, and will (Fouillée, “Revue des Deux Mondes,”
Oćt. 16th, 1886, p. 895), and maintain that the atom plays
the same rôle in chemistry as the cell-germ in physiology.
One element generates another by polymerisation, scission,
agglomeration, substitution, condensation, &c., commu-
nicating to it, by heredity, certain properties; these pro-
perties, however, are combated by the tendency to varia-
tion, the sexual selection of the chemical elements, and
perhaps by natural selection aéting in the chemical
world as in organised beings.” The author cited (Jollivet-
8
Castelot) writes, of the individuality of mineral beings
as proved by their choice of colours, and of their “souls,”
which, however, are inferior to the souls of plants and
animals. “Admitting a human spiritism, there must
exist a vegetable and a mineral spiritism, for we know
that the entire universe is animated by an evolutive Intel-
ligence organising Matter and condensing Energy.” “I
will not go so far,” writes Jollivet-Castelot, “as to affirm
that electricity is the soul, . . . . but I venture to say
that electricity excites the spiritualistic phenomena, ac-
companies them, and serves perhaps as an intermediary
between conscience and organised matter.” Applying
these extraordinary views to common physical and
chemical phenomena, the Hylozoist states that “Water
of crystallisation constitutes a kind of mineral respira-
tion, demonstrating in a special way the Life of Matter.
The substance has a positive need of water, absorbs it,
utilises it, expels it, and submits to an evident motion of
inhalation and exhalation.”
This bizarre doćtrine is opposed by its disciples to the
materialistic theories of scientists who would reduce
mental activity to automatic mechanism, and they cite
approvingly the profound epigram of Aristotle :
“All motion is a kind of appetite,”
as well as the saying of Liebnitz:
“Nothing in nature is dead.”
Great antiquity is claimed for this philosophical system.
It served as a foundation for ancient Oriental religions;
the priests of Brahma and of Buddha, the hierophants
of Chaldea and of the sacred temples of the Egyptian
goddess Isis, all maintained that the universe is living,
animated, and evolved. Moreover the alchemists of the
Middle Ages and eminent physiologists of ancient and
modern times, have uniformly supported these opinions.
In a few years the scientific world will doubtless be
entirely converted to Hylozoism.
A certain number of these hysterical chemists are de-
voted to theosophy, and apply its principles to the more
practical science; they claim that the true adept has no
need of retorts, furnaces, or chemical menstruums, but
he is capable of accomplishing the union and separation
of atoms by the force of his will and the power of his
magical faculties.
Gustav Marqfoy is a writer on chemistry less fanciful
than those cited, yet worthy of a place among hysterical
chemists. In his “Loi des Equivalents et Théorie Nou-
velle de la Chimie ’’ (Paris, 1897) he admits the unity of
matter, and reduces the number of undecomposable bodies
to 63. The equivalents of these 63 simple bodies are
9
prime numbers, forming a natural series from 1 to 3oo.
The atom he regards as made of a nucleus and a plasma;
the nucleus is the seat of energy. His view of the suc-
cessive steps in the creation of the elements, in accordance
with the arithmetical chain he discovered, is interesting,
but not easily abstracted. - *
In this group of esoteric students the most pićturesque
personage is August Strindberg — a Swede by birth, a
Frenchman by adoption, an Austrian by residence (tem-
porary perhaps)—he is thus portrayed by one of his
admirers:–Pale blue, dreamy, sympathetic eyes; a broad
forehead, on which the fire of genius burns with brilliancy;
slow of speech, with a marked Scandinavian accent, he
attacks boldly the “routine and persecuting scientists;”
a “superb man,” disinterested, mild, invincible in perse-
verance, and seeking only the truth. Strindberg is a man
of letters, being the author of successful romances and
dramas,” and he claims to be a chemist, but his right to
this claim can be better determined after analysing his
pretensions.
Strindberg accepts the theories of the unity of matter,
the self-evolution of elementary bodies, the transmutability
of elements, and hylozoism ; he even grants to matter the
principles of heredity, memory, and love. His strength,
however, lies in his peculiar method of demonstrating
that the chemical elements are compounds, and in dis-
covering new formulae for well-known substances. More
proficient in manipulation than his Monist friends, he in-
vokes results of laboratory work to confirm his demon-
strations. With admirable courage he attacks problems
in chemistry of herculean difficulty, and does not hesitate
to undertake to disprove orthodox views of most funda-
mental facts, such as the composition of the atmosphere,
the composition of water, and all the important pheno-
mena depending thereon. Exhibiting considerable know-
ledge of the literature of chemistry, he is quick to discern
in the earlier writings statements that he can turn to his
advantage, ignoring the circumstance that the very state-
ment on which he relies has often been shown to be
erroneous by later authorities. He writes, for example,
“Lampadius believed that carbon disulphide was com-
posed of sulphur and hydrogen, had he said carbon and
hydrogen I would bless his memory.” Avicenna, Albertus
Magnus, Paracelsus, Boerhaave, Berzelius, Bunsen, and
Clève are, for Strindberg, authorities of equal weight. He
uses on one page the very arguments which on another
page he condemns when employed by “official' che-
* His “Sensations d'un Détraqué" was published in Figaro.
His drama “Magda’’ was acted at the Renaissance, Paris, by Sarah
Bernhardt,
H. C.
mists, and he claims that the latter suppress the dogma:
of hysterical chemistry to avoid the unpleasant necessity
of revising theories of scientific chemistry. “About
sixty years ago,” he writes, “a French chemist decom-
posed chlorine and obtained 3 per cent of oxygen, but
his discovery was buried to save appearances '' (Hortus
Merlini).
Strindberg denies the idea of an undecomposable body.
“Is there truly a chemist,” he asks, “who believes that
iron dissolved in sulphuric acid is not decomposed ?” He
uses current chemical terms with changed meanings:
precipitation signifies reconstruction; solution signifies
decomposition; and combustion, synthesis—an original
nomenclature that obscures his writings.
“The atom is an hypothesis,
An hypothesis has no weight, therefore
Atomic weight is a non-entity.”
In spite of this remarkable syllogism, with which
Strindberg opens one of his essays, he makes most of his
discoveries (?) by juggling with the numbers representing
these very atomic weights. When the molecular weight
of a compound happens to be equal to the atomic weight
of an element, or to the molecular weight of some other
compound, he assumes that this accidental correspondence
involves close relationship—if not identity—of substance,
and he audaciously substitutes one formula for the other.
In his “Introduction à une Chimie Unitaire '' (Paris,
1895), Strindberg opens the topic with the motto “Omnia
in omnibus, omne omne est,” and proceeds thus : —“Bodies
exist only in numbers and qualities ; bodies are neither
simple nor compound. Chemical formulae are merely
methods of expressing the manner in which bodies differ
and correspond.”
“That which is called hydrogen is neither a simple
body nor a compound body; it is matter having the con-
densation I. Carbon can be formulated thus: HI2 = C ;
oxygen in the same way, H16 or CH4 = 16 = O ; nitrogen
likewise, Hrá or CH2= I4 = N ; though nitrogen in com-
bination may have the formula N2 = 28.” To the mole-
cule of nitrogen he assigns the formula CO, because its
molecular weight is 28. His method of reasoning is as
peculiar as his choice of formulae :-“By assigning to ni-
trogen the formula CH2 or C2H4, and to carbonic acid the
formula N2O, a whole series of phenomen a hitherto
obscure are explained. Thus the rôle of nitrogen in
animal and vegetable economy : the nutrition of animals
by carbohydrates, and the great excess of nitrogenous
matter secreted ; the miraculous way in which plants
nourished with water and air produce carbon and albu.
II
menoids without absorption of nitrogen and without
sufficient carbonic acid, the latter being only an impurity
of the atmosphere (4 parts of CO2 in Io,000 of air);
the transformation of starch into albumenoids; and,
lastly, the origin of the creation by water and air, even
Pasteurised, at the beginning of time.” According to this
ingenious philosopher, “that which is called air is neither
a mixture nor a combination ; it is neither oxygen nor
nitrogen ; it is both or neither. Since the atomic weight
of carbon varies from II to I2 (?), nitrogen may be indi-
cated by CH2 or CH3; since oxygen varies from 15 to 16,
it may be represented by CH3 or CH4; therefore, in the
conditions in which oxygen appears identical with nitro-
gen, both are represented by CH3. Air is therefore CH3,
which signifies oxygen and nitrogen.” Having thus
established a novel formula for air, he proceeds to discuss
on that basis its function in combustion, oxidation, and
respiration : reverting to the alchemical symbol for air, A,
he gives the following lucid diagram, which summarises
the knowledge of hysterical chemists concerning the
atmosphere:—
N = CH3 = O

/\
A–
/ \ .
/ Air. . \ Jº
Strindberg takes up the chief elementary bodies and
treats them in like manner; to chlorine he gives the
formula (OH2)2 or 2H2O, and this, he says, explains the
presence of chlorine in sea-water. With other well-
known compounds he is equally successful :—
H Cl (H2O)2 = H3O(OH) = COHz.
And by applying his method to metals, he secures some
startling results:— -
Iron = (C2H4)2 = 56
Manganese = (C2H3)2 = 55
Zinc = (CH4O)2 = 64
Copper = (CH4O)2 = 63
Copper = C2H5C1 = 63
Silver = C2H5Br = 1 o'7
Gold = Fe2Si3 = I07 [Igó]
Gold = Fe3S = Ig7 [2Oo]
Sodium = C2 = 24 (23) -
Calcium = C3H4 = 40
Nickel = C2H5P = 58
Cobalt = C2H5S = 59
Of the two latter formulae Strindberg remarks :-‘‘Cobalt
and nickel have always been suspected to be compounds,
and I believe I have solved the problem of their enig.
matical atomic weights.”
The fact that the above equations are not always true,
that many of the arithmetical calculations are inaccurate,
that a few of the substances formulated are purely
imaginary, and that the atomic weights occasionally
differ by a whole number from the standard, does not at all
disturb the equanimity of this Monist philosopher; when
discrepancies of any kind are pointed out to him, he
simply responds :—“Chemists always find impurities in
the flasks of others, and never in their own.”
“Similia similibus dissolventur ; similia similia ap-
petunt '' is another maxim that this author illustrates as
follows:–Copper dissolves best in concentrated nitric
acid because they have the same weights :-
Cu = 63 = HNO4.
Gold dissolves in aqua regia :- -
Au = 197 = 2.HCl + 2NO3.
Zinc dissolves best in sulphuric acid :—
Zn = 65 = (CH4O)2.
But CH4O = S, and
Sulphuric acid diluted = SO4 + 2 H2O = 65 × 2.
The chlorides in general are soluble in water, because
of the constitution of chlorine, which is (OH)2 or O2H2.
In his “ Hortus Merlini” (first letter) Strindberg under-
takes to demonstrate the compound nature of sulphur,
claiming for it a constitution analogous to a fossil resin.
After a detailed study of its external properties and its
physical changes when heated, he recounts some original
experiments, such as reduction of melted sulphur by the
green twig of a chestnut tree (!), and burning sulphur in
13
carbonic acid, which, he says, yields a deposit smelling
like pepper; he claims that spectroscopic analysis of
hydrogen flame shows the spectrum of sulphur; these
and a score of equally convincing data go to prove that
sulphur is a compound of C, H, and O. He ingeniously
concludes thus:—“To require me to give a definite
formula for sulphur would be indiscreet.” Elsewhere he
writes of “selenium the parent of sulphur.”
Perhaps the best example of Strindberg’s peculiar line
of reasoning is found in an article entitled “La Synthèse
de l’Iode,” published in L’Hyper-Chimie for January,
1897:—“Sea-water contains not a trace of iodine, and
consequently the algae must produce it by synthesis.
But living algae yield no iodine, and do not yet contain
it. The ashes of algae, however, furnish iodine through
the intervention of reagents; so it is evident that iodine
is formed by a commutation of the crude materials in
algae and reagents. The old method of extracting iodine
was by treating the mother-liquors with sulphuric acid
and manganese dioxide ; wherefore manganese ? Be-
cause there exists an occult correspondence between the
algae, iodine, and manganese, which manifests itself in
the colours they yield. Algae occur of brown, greenish
blue, reddish purple, and violet colours, and these same
colours appear in iodine and in compounds of manganese.”
Strindberg then points out that there is a constant
difference of 46 between the atomic weights of Cl, Br,
and I; and having previously demonstrated that the
correót formula for Cl is (OH)2, he then seeks for the
body which has the weight 46. Finding a choice of three
substances, viz., L. -
Ethyl alcohol = C2H6O = 46
Formic acid = CH2O2 = 46
Nitrogen peroxide = 2 = 46,
he selects formic acid, because the starch in the algae is
changed to sugar by sulphuric acid, and this sugar
oxidised by manganese dioxide yields formic acid, so that
he gets the following formula for iodine :-
I = I26 = (CH2O2)2(OH)2.
Later in this amazing essay he regards iodine as a
derivative of benzene,—
Oxyhydroquinone = C6H6O3 = I26 = I;
as experimental proof of this correspondence he states
that oxyhydroquinone heated with alcohol gives out a
vapour that colours starch test-paper blue and colours
bread yellow, just as iodine does. -
I4.
He offers to manufacturers of iodine practical sugges-
tions based on these vagaries, which are too absurd to
transcribe. -
Denying the elementary character of the metals,
Strindberg naturally believes in transmutation, and claims
to have accomplished the “great work” in more than
one instance. By dissolving pure copper in linseed oil,
he finds in the product by analytical tests only nickel, and
he claims to have obtained gold from lead and sulphur.
He appeals to the transforming power of growing plants
as proof of transmutation in Nature, and he ridicules the
methods of official analytical chemists who examine the
ashes of plants to ascertain the nature of the plants:—
“Does anyone make an inventory of the treasures of a
palace by setting fire to the four corners of a Raphael or
a Rembrandt, and does he determine their value by the
remaining traces of cinnabar, white lead, and chrome
yellow 2 ”
This convincing method of reasoning he employs in
another connection :-‘‘People ask me if I can make
gold, and I reply, ‘To draw the genealogical chart of the
ancestors of a cat, I do not need to know how to make
a cat l’”
Though their theories and methods are indisputably
original, hysterical chemists, so far as appears from their
writings, have contributed nothing whatever to advance
the science they profess to admire. If anyone of their
number appears to be a genius, it must be remembered
that “a genius is a man who is almost a fool.” More-
over, paraphrasing Rabelais,
“The world of fools hath such a store
That he who would not see an ass
Must bide at home, bolt his door,
And break his looking-glass 1 ''
E. J. DAVEY, PRINTER, 6 & 7, cre ED LA NE, LUD GATE HILL, LONDON.
VERSITY OF MICHIGAN
|||
§§ :
*:::: is
:::::::l!! t; :
:::::::::::#fff; ! .
y
!
* *
* }
+
$
Ill
9015 O7507
i
i
l
* . * * * *
!!!;?!?!:
* * * * * * * *
1.
sitti º
* * * *
!!!!!!!
+ 4.
}:::::::
1 * :
w
iyeh
:::::::
º
::::::::::::
!! • * *
:}}}}}}
** * * *
t * * * *
tº r *
: ; ;...:::::
:::::::A.::::::::
::::::::::::
* I # 1 &
:::::::
a |
* *
** is
-
tº tº it
#:
* * ***, * * * * * * * tº * *
*** ::::::::::
1 it is tº a tº
jº º ºs
* } { }}:{{{!!};
g
! #!!!!!
:::::::::::
{{:}
" . . . .
* * * * * : * it # - 1
ſ!!!!
g
fit is
º
. . . . . º. * * * * * * *
• * , , , it !!!!::::::::::::
' ' ' ' ' , , , !!!!::::::::::
* * * : * i ! - # 1. * it tº , ; # * * r * tº
* M t - :::::::::::::::
*
h !!!:::::::
w # * *
: , , ; ; ; \* * * * * * * * * * * * *
• * * * !!!;?!!::::::
::::::::::::
R}} • #1 * *
* } ::ſ
3UN 9 1975
• * : * * * * * * * * * * *t
, !!!!!!!}{ ; :
- 1 tº tºº::: *****, i
º º','!'};
*:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
t
}
}
\
4.
!!!!!!!!
!!!
§ { } | {
f : . . . . ;
{!!!!!!!!:
; :::::::::::::::::::::::
§
* * !!!!!
; : t ,
t
• * : * * * * *
išiliš.
... :{{!!}}}}}!!!?!!!!!.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * : * ,
#:::::::::::::: :::
- tº ** -
* {
* * * * * *
• * * * * * * * *
... :::::
- * * * * * * *
...!!!
i
!!!!" !?!
A i ; ; ; ; , f is tº
!::::4 º,!!!,
• * * * * * * : * ~ * * *
tº t
* : * *
• ºf ºt -
* , 4 tº * * * * * * -
* * * * * * * -
4 * *
- t
* *
tº tº 4
. . . . !!! i ; ; * * * * * * * , , ,
t * , , , , i.' . * is ; ; ; ; * * * * * * * * *
!!!”, “ºl. (:::
{ * *, *. ** * * *
1 * * * *
- o
- + - -
- - ; : * ~ *
* * * it it * 14 t w
r t § { };} :::::::::::::::::::::
-- +++ - - - • *, *t is $ tº ºt ! • *t
# , , , , , , i , w! 4 a t + , , , , , t t t is # * * * -
1 * ::::::::::: {{i}!!!!!!!!!!:
i i + * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *::
* f * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ~ * * * * * !!!!! t
* : * * * * * * * * * . . . . . * * * * * * * * is in tº
-- ! ;: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; * * * * * * * * *
*
}}}}|};}:
!
4 *
s' calcal \º |
* * * * *
* , , , i i i
!!!
ºf + ,
t
#
* * * * * * * * *
:::::\!!?!!!!,
#########:
, , , , , , , , , , º' tº It “t
* * * : * * * * * * * t *
* , , , t , , , t , , , , , , , , § 1 + 4* * 't
* * * * * : * : * * * * *
+
tº t
* {...}}
* * * * , , , . " ": { * . . . . . . if t < * * * r * : *
. . * * *, * * nº º i ! : * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * - !!!::::::
* * : * * i! ;}}}:
- * * * * *
i ) + i ; t-
tº
#.
* * * :
, , , , , , , , , * r * t i 4 * * * * * *
* . • *** * * * * : * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
::::::::::A; ; ; ;
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
:
1, i
Jº..."?: &
* * * * *
* * * * * * *
* *
**
* , ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , s: , ;
{{!}...º.
, sº • * * *
*
''': ;;.
* * | * * * * *
!!!...!!!!";
::::::";}{..}}
a • * * * * * i t . . .
* * * * * . . . . . . . ; * * * *
:*:::::::ii.;?::::::1:
" ; ::::::::::::: * * *
y ; * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * !
. . . . . . . . . . . * * * * * * * !';
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * * *

¿¿.*¿¿.
§ 8
§§
ſaeae
º.º
§§
šſ§§
* &
* ¿ $¢ £ €
≡
！
º
§§
ſººſ，ſae،
º