A translation of the table of chemical nomenclature / proposed by De Guyton, formerly De Morveau, Lavoisier, Bertholet, and De Fourcroy ; with additions and alterations ; to which are prefixed an explanation of the terms, and some observations on the new system of chemistry.

  • Guyton de Morveau, Louis-Bernard, 1737-1816.
Date:
1794
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A translation of the table of chemical nomenclature / proposed by De Guyton, formerly De Morveau, Lavoisier, Bertholet, and De Fourcroy ; with additions and alterations ; to which are prefixed an explanation of the terms, and some observations on the new system of chemistry. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Leeds Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Leeds Library.

    22/74 (page 12)
    [ .2 ] Phofphorus, Arfenic, &c. ; and the compofition of Oxyds. Since the year 1790, the New Syftem of Chemiftry, as it is called, and its new language, have been very generally adopted. Kirwan, in Janu- ary 1790, after, as he fays, ff combating in defence of Phlogifbon ” for ten years,” lays down his arms; and Black, in the fame month of that year, which is a remarkable coincidence, acknow- ledges that he is a convert to the “ new doCtrine.” I muft acknowledge that I have experienced greater facility in teaching, and ftudents experience greater facility in learning, the new fyftem of principles with its Nomenclature than the former fyftem of chemiftry. I find the trouble of learning the meaning of new names amply compenfated by a more juft and extenfive knowledge of things. Under the prefent circumftances of chemiftry, I have confidered myfelf to be fully juftifiable in teaching the new fyftem and employ- ing the new terms ; and in order to facilitate the acquifition of the knowledge of them, I have tranfiated from the French the New che- mical Nomenclature, with the alterations and additions hereafter to be explained. I beg leave to obferve, that I do not confider the terms in the original table, nor in the table in the ftate in which it is now fubmit- ted to the public, as even near perfection. I am fully fenfible of many defeCts, and fome improprieties, in the new Nomenclature, and that as the fubjeCt becomes better known the terms muft receive fucceftive improvements ; but, in my apprehenfion, the new paths now laid open lead to the higheft attainments in chemical fcience, and to the moft beneficial confequences to the arts in common life. Although I think I can vindicate the new Syftem of chemical Nomenclature, I muft lament, for the fake of medical ftudents, the introduction of the new names in the London Pharmacopoeia of