Chapter IX: Part 9

Although the history of architecture in America cannot be written without some reference to contemporary work in Europe,—since so much of our architecture in the first half of the century is adopted from that of our ancestors and adapted to our uses, and in the last half so many of our architects have studied there and so many of our citizens have traveled there,—the problems and their conditions in the Old World are very different from those of the New. Europe was already mature when steam and electricity were introduced; precedent was always to be considered, and modern requirements were often forced to conform to existing circumstances. There has, therefore, been comparatively less change there during the century than during the past thirty years with us. With our republican institutions, many of the monarchical formulas soon became obsolete, though the general trend of our architecture has been in the direction of classic models. As the country has grown larger and more wealthy, the problems given to architects have become more complex; less reliance could be placed upon precedent and a premium was placed upon originality, which, in spite of innumerable vagaries, has brought American architecture, at the end of the century, to be the most notable of the day.

At the end of the eighteenth century, this republic consisted of hardly more than a number of communities extending at intervals along the Atlantic seaboard, with an occasional settlement beyond the Alleghany Mountains and across the Ohio River. Their resources were extremely limited, their wants very few, and their intercommunication irregular; but their methods of living were simple and frugal, and their courage and endurance phenomenal.

Among the settlers of New England were many mechanics and manufacturers, and these soon began to replace the primitive log cabins with frame dwellings; those of the Southern States were chiefly planters, who imported much of their labor, and often the bricks as well as the glass, hardware, tiles, and other materials for their houses. Many of those who colonized the Middle States had come from countries in Europe where these materials were made, and brought their secrets with them, while others were farmers and stock growers, whose snug little cottages and enormous barns may be seen to this day in New York and Pennsylvania.

At the beginning of the nineteenth century we possessed a national style of architecture, which, although it had come to us from Italy, through France and England, was yet distinctly American. It was, however, almost exclusively confined to residences, and there were very few public buildings of any description, except certain churches,—said to have been designed by followers of Sir Christopher Wren, some of whom were doubtless ship carpenters who had studied the works of Sir William Chambers.

The Colonial style, as we now term it, was sufficiently elastic in its adaptability to conform to the requirements of the merchant, manufacturer, or mariner living at Salem, Boston, or Newport, as well as to those of the planter living at Charleston or Savannah. There were certain differences, more or less pronounced, peculiar to each section and to each city, but all houses were alike in this respect,—there was no gas or water, and the open fireplace was depended upon for heat.

In New England the dwelling-houses were placed near the ground; the chimneys built in an interior cross wall, the kitchen, with its accessories, as near to the dining-room as possible; the ceilings were low, with cornices sometimes of plaster, sometimes of wood. The roof,—which was often hipped and often of the gambrel shape, but rarely a gable of even slope,—was always covered with shingles, which covering was occasionally used also on the exterior walls.

In the South, some of the characteristics were the high basement, broad piazzas, frequently at the level of the second as well as the first story, and placed on the south and west sides; the chimney on outside walls; the kitchen in a separate building, detached from the dwelling; a broad hall through the centre, giving access to large rooms with high ceilings; the roof quite as frequently hipped as gabled, and often—in either case—a huge fanlight set in a low gable on the front for ventilation of the attic; dormers were seldom used, as the attic was not inhabited; the gambrel roof was uncommon; slate, and occasionally tile or shingle, was used for roof covering.

Our first public buildings of any importance, and which show the influence of contemporary work in England, were the White House, designed by Hoban in 1792; the Capitol, begun by Dr. Thornton in 1793 and completed by B. H. Latrobe in 1830; the wings, containing the present Senate and House of Representatives, were added later; the dome, designed by Thomas U. Walter, was begun in 1858, but not completed until 1873.

Our early Presidents took much interest in architecture, Washington directing and criticising the planning of the Capitol and building his own home at Mount Vernon, and Jefferson designing the dome and colonnades of the University of Virginia, at Charlottesville, and his own home at Monticello.

Massachusetts was the first State to erect its capitol,—the State House in Boston, by Bulfinch, dating from 1795.

The City Hall of New York was our first work of unmistakable French character, and shows the influence of the time of Louis XVI. It was designed by Mangin, a Frenchman, begun in 1803, and completed in 1812.

After the war of 1812, many state and national buildings were erected; from that time colonnades and domes seem indispensable to the proper dignity of the capitol or court house. The use of both brick and stone became more general, and, for private houses, the form of the gambrel roof gradually disappeared in favor of the hip and gable. Subsequent to 1830, the accepted type of the larger or more pretentious house was the Italian villa, with a square tower accentuating the front entrance, often one story higher than the main building; all roofs of low pitch, covered with tin; the exterior walls faced with stucco. About this time bay windows and sliding doors for principal rooms of first story, and better facilities for the use of heat, light, and water were introduced and the symmetrical disposition of parts often neglected.

The very steep pointed Gothic roof denoted the modest cottage, and the perforated wooden tracery of windows and porches, or the barge-boards of gables, became the simple beginning of that riotous growth of jig-sawed fretwork afterwards so prominent upon those houses constructed with Mansard or French roofs of rectilinear, concave, or convex form. The works and writings of Downing had much influence at this time, and it was shown not only in these Italian villas or Gothic cottages, but also in landscape gardening about suburban residences.

The political disturbances in various countries of Europe in 1848 brought very many immigrants to our shores, and the discovery of gold in California, in 1849, was the beginning of that steady flow of settlers which has since then peopled so many of our Western States and Territories.

(Thos. Jefferson, Designer.)]

Then followed our own Civil War, from 1861 to 1865, and subsequent to that the period of reconstruction, during which time there was some building, but very little architecture, throughout the country.

In 1869 the Pacific Railroad was completed, and this not only gave a new impetus to Western mining and farming, but created a new market for Eastern manufactures.

So great was this manufacturing and commercial activity that vast fortunes were made, and there were many opportunities calling for the services of architects; but as they had hitherto been rarely employed, except in a few of the larger cities, upon churches or public buildings, a great proportion of them were untrained amateurs or self-taught carpenters and masons. However, the first school of architecture had just been organized at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in Boston, and to William E. Ware,—who was its professor of architecture from 1866, and who organized a similar school at Columbia College, New York, in 1880,—the profession and the public owe more than to any other one man for well-directed efforts towards the development of such, qualifications as may eventually give a national character to our architecture. These schools came none too soon, and within the past twenty-five years many others have been founded and many traveling scholarships endowed; collections of books, photographs, and casts have been provided in various cities; architectural periodicals published, and architectural societies and sketch clubs formed, each of which has contributed to the higher education of the profession and to the greater appreciation by the public.

Prior to this time, each section and each city had certain peculiarities of architecture, as of speech, which were unmistakable. The white New England meeting-house, the red school-house, the country house with its kitchen, wash-room, and wood-shed trailing in the rear, or the swell-front city house, were as characteristic as the endless blocks of brown stone, high stoop houses of New York, or the monotonous rows of red brick dwellings with white marble trimmings of Philadelphia, or the broad verandas and halls of the Southern home.

Cast-iron was the recognized material for the front of business buildings, the designs being chiefly in the Corinthian or composite orders, and the arch or lintel used indiscriminately; and when the dry goods store of A. T. Stewart & Co. was built, in 1872, to occupy the whole block from Broadway to Fourth Avenue, and from Ninth to Tenth Streets, it was the largest and most important of its kind. Before this class of commercial architecture disappeared, a front was designed by R. M. Hunt, about 1878, for a store on Broadway, near Broome Street, where the plastic forms of the tile and stucco of Saracenic architecture were used as being more logical for this material than an imitation of Roman forms in stone.

There were not many summer resorts, and a few weeks at Saratoga, Newport, or the Virginia Springs was the limit of the annual vacation; the orthodox hotel was a rectangular frame building, with veranda on one or more sides, covered by a flat roof supported by square piers having the height of several stories; the length, width, and height of the building were governed by no other proportion than that of the number of guests.

In the South and West there were virtually no hotels, and the belated traveler applied for food and shelter for himself and his horse to the nearest friendly farm.

These were the prevailing conditions when the _nouveau riche_ appeared upon the scene; to him as citizen prosperity meant a better home, to the congregation a larger church, to the community a new city hall or court house, to the State a more expensive capitol.

While these buildings were being everywhere erected, in accordance with the time honored fashions of construction and with elaborate finish, the disastrous conflagrations of 1871 in Chicago, and of 1872 in Boston, called general attention to the necessity for more permanent building; and the precautions now taken against similar occurrences were the beginning of efforts toward methods of fireproof construction. Granite, marble, and limestone were discarded in favor of sandstone, brick, and terra cotta; iron beams carrying brick or concrete (subsequently hollow terra cotta) arches were introduced, and metal laths were substituted for the wooden strips to a certain degree; but as these fires were mainly in the business districts, such reforms have been confined almost exclusively to commercial architecture.

In 1873 the financial panic gave a check to many building operations, but it was of comparatively short duration, for in 1876 all the other nations of the earth were invited to unite with us at Philadelphia in celebrating the centennial anniversary of our independence.

This was our first international Exposition, and it was not remarkable that in our eagerness to learn, and in the enthusiasm of prosperity, we sought inspiration from all those peoples who had brought their goods for our inspection. At once we began to build Queen Anne cottages or to remodel existing houses with many bays and towers, rooms set at all angles, floors at different levels, walls of many materials, and roofs of varying slopes, as well as to apply many tints and shades of color within and without.

The summer hotel and summer cottage began to appear at the seashore, in the mountains, and along the shores of the great lakes, and the winter resorts of the Carolinas, Florida, and California to attract the seekers for health and pleasure.

The interior decoration of our houses was the chief lesson of 1876, and having once seen the European and Oriental hangings, draperies, rugs, and bric-à-brac, we set about furnishing our rooms with them.

Hitherto American architecture had been most influenced by English precedent, and the Victorian Gothic had able advocates, especially in Boston, where the Art Museum by Sturgis & Brigham, as well as many stores, residences, and churches by Cummings & Sears, Peabody & Stearns, and others, showed much vigor and originality. William A. Potter, as supervising architect for the Government, adopted this style, in 1875, for his buildings at Fall River, Mass., Nashville, Tenn., and Covington, Ky., and R. M. Upjohn designed for Hartford, Conn., the only Gothic State Capitol in this country.

R. M. Upjohn and Henry M. Congdon of New York had already done much Gothic ecclesiastical work and, with the possible exception of Grace Church in 1840, and St. Patrick’s Roman Catholic Cathedral in 1886 by Renwick, there is no example of this style which shows such appreciation of proportion or of form, in mass and in detail, as Trinity Church (1843) by the first-named architect.

It was perhaps rather fortunate that just as the Queen Anne fashion, with its multiplicity of detail, was brought to us from England, H. H. Richardson, of Boston, called our attention to the bigness and (almost brutal) simplicity of the Romanesque from Southern France. From the date of the building of Trinity Church, in Boston (1876), may be reckoned the parting of the ways. Heretofore everything we had done of any importance had an English stamp upon it; henceforth the work that was done showed the result of training of the Parisian _atelier_ or of the well-filled sketch books of Continental travel.

Not only in this church, but in his libraries at Woburn, North Easton, Quincy, Milford, Burlington, and New Orleans, did Richardson show his grasp of the subject. Trinity is unmistakably a Christian temple, and its bigness most conducive to the sense of awe and reverence. His libraries leave no doubt as to their having been built for the storing and reading of books; his stone buildings, whether the Court House and jail in Pittsburg, the Chamber of Commerce in Cincinnati, or private houses in Buffalo or Chicago, show their purpose and emphasize their material; his brick buildings, whether a college building at Cambridge, railway station at New London, or residence at Washington, tell their story in brick; and his country houses about the suburbs of Boston, to be what they are, could not have been other than of wood.

His influence upon the architecture of the day was therefore not surprising, but there was a subtleness in the character of his designs that his imitators could never acquire and even his immediate successors could not long retain after his personality was lost to them; and from the lack partly, perhaps, of true sympathy, partly from the modification of conditions, his art may be said to have died with him.

As R. M. Hunt had the last word on the cast-iron front, so he had the first on the modern sky-scraper, a peculiarly American production; the walls of the Tribune Building, however, carry both their own weight, and that of the floors, being built before the days of the methods of steel skeleton construction. Hunt was trained in Paris, as was Richardson, and had assisted in the design of the Pavillon de Flore under Lefnel, and he showed his appreciation of the Neo-Grec movement in his design for the Lenox Library. It is somewhat unusual for an artist to do his best work in his latest years, but surely no better work of its kind has been done in modern times than the residences which he designed for three members of the Vanderbilt family at Newport, in New York city, and at Biltmore, N. C. The design which he left for the Fifth Avenue front of the Metropolitan Museum, now being carried out by his son, is a magnificent Corinthian order, whereas much of his other work is late French Gothic.

That he was called upon to design the base for Bartholdi’s Liberty in New York Harbor, and the Administration Building at the International Exposition of 1893, and that a portrait bust has been erected to his memory, all testify to the appreciation in which he was held by the profession.

To McKim, Mead & White, of New York, we are greatly indebted for their influence upon secular architecture, and their Casino at Newport, built in 1880, was probably more far-reaching in its effect upon country houses than any other building at that time. Among the other work from their office may be mentioned the Boston Public Library, the Madison Square Garden (reproducing in its tower the Giralda of Seville), the Library and other buildings for Columbia College, the Metropolitan and University Clubs, the Agricultural Building (of staff) in Chicago in 1893, now being reproduced in marble for the Brooklyn Institute, the Tiffany, the Villard, and other city houses, and a host of country houses at Newport, Lenox, and elsewhere.

There is another architect whose talents should be acknowledged; for about 1880, when the shingle house had just begun to take shape, there was none more clever at that sort of thing than W. R. Emerson, of Boston, and his resources seemed endless in harmonizing form and color with conditions of seashore or mountain, as shown in his houses at Bar Harbor, Milton, Newport, and many other summer resorts.

Philadelphia, which had hitherto always been extremely conservative in architecture, soon began to erect some of the most singular and fantastic structures that could well be imagined; but fortunately the refined simplicity and fertile originality of such men as Wilson Eyre, Frank Miles Day & Bro., and Cope & Stewardson have prevailed, and in both city and suburban work they and certain others have done and are doing much to counterbalance the character of the eccentricities of their predecessors, as shown in buildings for the University of Pennsylvania and the Academy of Arts and Sciences.

But the restless activity of Eastern loom and machine shop, and of Western farm and mine, seemed to meet and concentrate in Chicago—the _entrepôt_ for the raw material of the West and the finished product of the East. The unprecedented increase in value of land, the low price of iron and steel, with the introduction of high-speed elevators, combined to develop a new type of sky-scraper; and as the nature of the soil was entirely unlike that of other cities, the foundations of these buildings presented problems which were solved by Chicago architects in various ways hitherto untried. The Rookery by Burnham & Root, Pullman Building by S. S. Beman, and the Auditorium (opera house, hotel, and office building in one) by Adler & Sullivan, at the time of their completion were most notable examples of architectural engineering, and were soon followed by many others more or less similar, designed by W. L. B. Jenny, Holabird & Roche, Henry Ives Cobb, and others. The buildings for the Chicago University, the Athletic Club, and Newbury Library, by the last-named architect, show a high degree of ability; the peculiarly rich arabesque ornamentation designed by Louis H. Sullivan, and the direct and rational handling of the buildings upon which it was used, are certainly indicative of the spirit of enthusiasm and conscientiousness of a well-trained mind. It is by such characteristics that John W. Root was able to accomplish so much for the advancement of architecture in the West.

What Krupp and Stumm had done for the employees in their works in Germany, Pullman determined to do for his men and their families here; and a town, with dwellings, schools, churches, water-works, etc., for many thousand inhabitants was designed and built by S. S. Beman, which has been reported by experts to be the best of its kind.

In Chicago, in 1893, was held our second international Exposition; and that the exhibits should be suitably housed, some of the most prominent architects of the country were called together, buildings were assigned to each of them, and Frederick Law Olmsted was appointed to lay out the grounds, waterways, and bridges.

Except for the difference in material, never did Rome in the days of Augustan magnificence show buildings similar to those grouped about the Court of Honor. A Greek would surely have been proud to walk through the Peristyle, or to have visited the Art Galleries, and a Roman to have sauntered about the Terminal Station or the triumphal arches of the Manufactures Building. Right nobly was the Spanish aid to Columbus acknowledged in the design of Machinery Hall; but to France, whose generosity had trained so many of our architects, sculptors, and painters to do such things, was the greatest triumph in the unanimity with which they had all worked and the success which crowned their labors.

The building occupied by the Federal Government was one of the few unworthy of its location or of the occasion. While the architecture of the people had been advancing steadily for fifty years, that provided by the Treasury Department in Washington had been quite as steadily retrograding. The Custom House, Boston; Sub-Treasury, New York; the Mint, in Philadelphia; the Treasury, Post Office, and Interior Department buildings, in Washington, have stood almost alone since the middle of the century. The few Gothic buildings referred to previously were honest and intelligent attempts to improve the quality of design for the government, but the politicians decided that artistic ability was not a prerequisite for the office of Supervising Architect.

Since 1895, there has been some infusion of new life into the designing-room, and such work as the designs by William Martin Aiken, for the Buffalo and San Francisco Post Offices and Court Houses, the Denver and the Philadelphia Mints, and the New London Post Office, were about being materialized, when once again the politicians, who cared not a whit for one design more than another, interfered to oblige the government contractor. But the good seed had been planted, and the work of the present incumbent, James Knox Taylor, is likely to show a marked advance over that of many previous years.

The general scheme of the Congressional Library was conceived by Smithmeyer & Pelz, the details carried out subsequently by General Casey and his able assistants and successors, and the building opened to the public in 1896. The experiment of the collaboration of sculptor and painter with the architect had resulted so favorably in Chicago, that the artists invited to decorate this building gladly responded; and although the remuneration was inconsiderable, their loyalty to the country, as to Art, resulted in such mural decoration as had not been seen since W. M. Hunt decorated the Senate Chamber in Albany, or La Farge did the figures in Trinity Church, Boston, and St. Thomas Church, New York. Blashfield’s dome, typifying all the nations of the earth; Vedder’s Minerva, in mosaic; H. O. Walker’s large lunettes, illustrating English poems, and Simmons’ small lunettes, filled with exquisite little figures, are but a few of the many interesting works in color. Two of the main entrance doors of bronze were modeled by Olin L. Warner, but he did not live to complete them. The marble stairway is by Martini, and the statues which adorn the main reading-room are by Adams, Bartlett, Partridge, Ward, and others.

The plan of the building is that of a central octagon containing the general reading-room, connected by wings containing the book-stacks with a surrounding hollow square containing rooms for special collections. There are ample reading-rooms for representatives, senators, and the public, and a tunnel by which books are sent to the Capitol. This is the last building of considerable importance constructed by the government, and it was built on time and within the appropriation of $6,000,000; it may be said to be dignified and suitable to its purpose, and to be representative of the people at the close of the century.

It now seems probable that New York will build the handsome library designed by Carrère & Hastings; the Egyptian lines of the reservoir occupying the site—emphasized by the varying hues of the ivy for so many seasons—will give place to those of an example of modern French Renaissance.

Among the changes incidental to the growth of this city is the recent disappearance of the old Tombs prison, which was another building of Egyptian architecture, good of its kind, and quite dignified and impressive.

There are certain other buildings designed in the style of a country almost as tropical as Egypt, and as light and airy as that is sombre and gloomy, but which seem quite as appropriate for their different purposes: they are the Casino Theatre and the Synagogue at Fifth Avenue and Forty-third Street,—each an excellent example of Saracenic architecture,—the former of brick and terra cotta, and the latter of vari-colored sandstones. Another synagogue, by Brunner & Tryon, further up the avenue and facing Central Park, has a decided Byzantine flavor,—the large arch accentuating the entrance, carrying a small arcade, and being surmounted by the traceried dome.

The largest and most expensively elaborate hotel in America is the Waldorf-Astoria; and although certain features of the exterior may not be justified by interior arrangements, it has certainly been planned with a view to great comfort and luxury.

While New York has the largest and most expensive private residences,— the chief of these is that of Cornelius Vanderbilt,—Philadelphia has the greatest number of small houses owned by their occupants; and of late years, there are a greater number of attractive homes in St. Louis than anywhere else in this country. Very many of them have been designed by Eames & Young, or by Shepley, Rutan & Coolidge; and with much open space about them, they have an air of elegance and hospitality that is lacking to the homes in most other cities.

New York, from its position as the commercial and financial centre of the country, in spite of its situation on a long, narrow island, may be accepted as the typical city. What is done here architecturally is done (only to a different degree) elsewhere, and its growth horizontally in the northern portion of the city has kept pace with its perpendicular growth in the more congested business portion. This general expansion has altogether changed the character of many streets, the residences becoming apartment houses, and the shops becoming office buildings from ten to twenty stories,—or even more,—the masses becoming larger and the detail proportionately less prominent.

The sky-line has entirely changed; the spire of Trinity is lost in such surroundings as the Bowling Green, Empire, Washington Life, and American Surety buildings, and in the vicinity where the Tribune tower was once conspicuous, now the St. Paul Building rises twenty-five stories, and the Ives Syndicate Building even higher; further and further up Broadway, and to the right and left of it, these monster buildings continue to rise. But among them all there is not one which shows a more masterly handling of the problem than the Surety, where the architect, Bruce Price, has emphasized the entrance with a colonnade and six figures of much dignity and grace, and has concentrated the ornament about the upper part of the building, crowning it with a fine cornice, which is more effective from the simplicity of the four walls beneath. This building holds its own among such others as the Washington Life and St. James buildings, New York, or the Ames Building, Boston, Harrison Building, Philadelphia, Schiller Theatre, Chicago, Wainwright Building, St. Louis, or Examiner Building, San Francisco.

It is impossible, in so brief a survey of the field, to enumerate more than a very small fraction of the buildings illustrating the progress of the architecture of the century; and aside from the residences, apartments, and hotels where we live winter or summer, and commercial buildings in which our working hours may be occupied, there are very many examples of churches, schools, colleges, libraries, and museums, donated, equipped, and endowed for our instruction, theatres and music halls for our entertainment, railroad stations for transportation, storage warehouses for the safety of valuables, and armories for the use of our militia.

Besides these, there are engineering works of considerable importance, such as the Eads Bridge, at St. Louis, or the Roebling Bridge, between New York and Brooklyn, and the works of the sculptor St. Gaudens, the Washington Arch by Stanford White, the Farragut and Lincoln statues in New York and in Chicago, which should surely be mentioned, since monumental works are the poetry, whereas the secular and commercial works are but the prose of architecture.

As we review our productions, we should certainly feel encouraged to believe that if we continue to meet and solve each problem in the same direct, honest way that we have been doing for the last quarter of the century, there need be no misgivings as to the future of architecture in these United States.

THE CENTURY’S PROGRESS IN CHEMISTRY

BY HARVEY W. WILEY, M.D., PH.D., LL.D.,

_Chief Chemist Agricultural Department, Washington, D. C._

The science of chemistry, as it is known to-day, had its real origin towards the end of the eighteenth century. Before and up to that time it is true there were many great workers in chemistry, whose names are associated with investigations in chemical science, such as Boyle, Stahl, Black, and Scheele. Contemporary with the close of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth must also be mentioned particularly the names of Priestly (1733–1804), Cavendish and Humphry Davy (1778–1829). All these workers had to contend, first of all, with erroneous theories, which made it difficult to rightly interpret the data of experiment. The old theory of phlogiston produced an environment in which it was difficult for true scientific methods to survive. The great investigator, who did more than any other one man to overturn this false theory and place chemistry on a firm foundation, was Lavoisier (1743–1794). Born near the middle of the eighteenth century, his scientific activity began about 1770, and before he was twenty-five he was made a member of the French Academy of Sciences. At the age of forty he was recognized as the foremost scientist of his age.

Priestly discovered oxygen in 1774, but failed to recognize its true relations to other bodies. It was Lavoisier who discovered oxidation (1776), an achievement which meant more to chemistry than the discovery of oxygen.

The observation that metals when heated in confined air increased in weight while the volume of the confined air decreased, is the crucial experiment upon which the whole science of chemistry rests. This experiment was made most rigorously by Lavoisier, and the apparatus which he used is still preserved in the Museum of L’École des Arts et Métiers in Paris. This apparatus, simple in character and yet almost perfect in construction, has for the chemist a peculiar significance and sacredness, producing an impression similar to that inspired in the devout Christian by the relics of the Cross and the Holy Sepulchre.

In the brief space which is assigned for a discussion of the progress of chemistry during the nineteenth century, economy of words will be secured by briefly tracing some of the salient points in the progress of some of the more important branches of chemical science. In the following pages, therefore, will be found a brief statement of what has been accomplished, of the most important character, in the science of chemistry, under the following heads:—

Inorganic chemistry; physical chemistry; organic chemistry; analytical chemistry; synthetical chemistry; metallurgical chemistry; agricultural chemistry; graphic chemistry; didactic chemistry; chemistry of fermentation; and lastly electro-chemistry.

No attempt will be made in this paper to enter upon the discussion of the progress which has been made in medical, pharmaceutical, and physiological chemistry. The discussion outlined under the above heads does not by any means embrace the whole subject. It will be sufficient to indicate only the lines of progress along which the greatest advances have been made.

I. INORGANIC AND PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY.

The three propositions established by Lavoisier, which serve as the foundation for inorganic and physical chemistry, are the following:—

1. Bodies burn only in contact with pure air.

2. The air is consumed in the combustion, and the increase in weight of the burnt body is equal to the decrease in weight of the air.

3. In combustion the body is generally changed, by its combination with the pure air, into an acid, and metals are changed into metal calx.

The total number of elementary bodies known at the beginning of the century was probably less than thirty. Many had been recognized as such since remote antiquity, but none of the non-metallic elements, except oxygen and sulphur, was known, and even their properties were not established with any degree of precision.

Not only did Lavoisier establish the fundamental principles of modern chemistry, but in connection with Fourcroy (1755–1809), Berthollet (1748–1822), and Guyton de Morveau (1737–1816), laid the foundation of modern chemical nomenclature.

The contributions to chemical knowledge at this time were greatly increased by the works of the Swedish chemist, Scheele (1742–1786), and in the beginning years of the century the great work which was accomplished by Sir Humphry Davy advanced very rapidly the general knowledge of chemical science.

Davy’s first works served to elucidate the connection between electricity and chemical processes, and it was through the classical experiment with an electric current that he isolated (1807) the metals sodium and potassium, and described their properties.

This achievement of Sir Humphry Davy’s was the second great step in the progress of chemistry, after the one taken by Lavoisier. By means of the metals sodium and potassium other metallic elements were separated, notably aluminium by Wöhler (1845). Basing his work upon the above experiment, Sainte Claire Deville developed the metallurgy of aluminium (1854), and Bussy isolated magnesium (1830).

In 1811 iodine was discovered by Courtois, and its properties examined simultaneously (1814) by Davy and Gay-Lussac.

The contributions made by Berzelius (1779–1848), who was a contemporary of Davy and Gay-Lussac (1778–1850), were of the most important character. Berzelius not only added to the knowledge of inorganic chemistry but also established many of the important theories on which chemical action depends. His elaboration of the employment of the blowpipe in chemical analysis was of the greatest practical value.

In 1807 Dalton published a work entitled “New System of Chemical Philosophy,” in which was announced for the first time the law of the definite proportions of bodies forming a definite union. The atomic theory of matter was also developed by Dalton, who gave it a definite form and expression. Chemists now began to consider the elements as definite indestructible particles of matter, forming unions among themselves and with different kinds of atoms to form molecules, which were considered as the units of substances. As a result of this supposition, the development of the principle of the relative weight with which bodies combine was the logical consequence.

Now for the first time the elements began to assume not only names and descriptions of properties but also numbers, showing the relative weight of their atoms or final conditions of existence. It was only necessary, therefore, to assume the standard of comparison for any one element, in order to determine the relative weights with which it combined with others. Thus the system of atomic weights was developed.

As a result of the law of chemical action, that most elementary bodies exist in a condition where two atoms are joined together to form a molecule, it follows, that in most instances the molecular weights of the elements are double their atomic weight. There are, however, many notable exceptions to this rule.

The supposition of the existence of atoms was followed soon by another theoretical proposition, advanced by Prout (1815). Assuming that the atomic weight of hydrogen was one, Prout’s hypothesis asserted that the atomic weights of all other elementary bodies were multiples of that of hydrogen. The most rigid investigations of recent years have shown that Prout’s hypothesis is untenable; but the remarkable fact still remains, that in a great many cases the atomic weights of the elements are almost whole numbers, or differ from whole numbers by almost a half unit.

The determination of the atomic weights of the various elements during the past one hundred years has been worked on by hundreds of chemists whose names it would be impracticable to mention. The most important of them are Berzelius, Cooke, Cleve, Delafontaine, Dumas, Hermann, Marchand, Marignac (1817), Morley, Noyes, Pelouse (1807–1867), Richards, Schneider, Stas (1813–1891), and Thompson. Of all these workers Stas, a Belgian chemist, is perhaps the most renowned. Among those mentioned, Cooke, Morley, Noyes, Delafontaine, and Richards are citizens of the United States.

From the less than thirty elements which were known at the beginning of the century, there are known to-day seventy-two with certainty, and perhaps one or two more whose identity has not yet been fully established. The chemists who have become most renowned by the discovery of elementary bodies are: Cavendish, Scheele, Berzelius, Wöhler (1800–1882), Davy, Gay-Lussac, Priestly, Bunsen (b. 1811), Crookes (b. 1832), and Ramsay.

The following elements, twenty-eight in number, were known before 1800:

ELEMENTS KNOWN BEFORE 1800.

1. Copper Known to Ancients.

2. Gold ” ” ”

3. Iron ” ” ”

4. Lead ” ” ”

5. Silver ” ” ”

6. Tin ” ” ”

7. Carbon ” ” ”
(But three forms not identified until 1786–1800.)

8. Mercury Known to Ancients.

9. Antimony Fifteenth Century.

10. Bismuth ” ”

11. Zinc ” ”

12. Phosphorus 1669

13. Arsenic (Isolated) 1697
” (Studied) 1733

14. Cobalt 1733

15. Platinum 1735–1748

16. Nickel 1751

17. Hydrogen 1766

18. Nitrogen 1772

19. Oxygen 1774

20. Manganese (Studied in compounds,
isolated at unknown date) 1774

21. Barium 1774

22. Tungsten 1781–1785

23. Molybdenum 1782

24. Tellurium 1782–1798

25. Strontium 1790

26. Yttrium 1794

27. Chromium 1797

28. Beryllium 1798

Four additional elements were known to exist before that date, but they had not been isolated and identified. These are:—

ELEMENTS KNOWN BUT NOT ISOLATED OR EXAMINED BEFORE 1800.

Chlorine {Compound known 1774
{Isolated and studied 1810

Titanium {Known in compounds 1791
{Isolated 1824

Uranium {Known in compounds 1789
{Isolated 1824

Zirconium {Known in compounds 1789
{Isolated 1824

The following elements, forty-nine in number, have been discovered since 1800:—

ELEMENTS DISCOVERED SINCE 1800.

1. Niobium 1801

2. Vanadium 1801

3. Tantalum. Studied about 1802–1803
(Not yet isolated.)

4. Cerium 1803

5. Iridium 1803

6. Osmium 1803

7. Palladium 1803

8. Rhodium 1803

9. Potassium 1807

10. Sodium 1807

11. Calcium 1808

12. Boron 1808

13. Silicon 1810

14. Iodine 1812

15. Cadmium 1817

16. Lithium 1817

17. Selenium 1817

18. Bromine 1826

19. Aluminium 1827

20. Thorium 1828

21. Ruthenium 1828–1845

22. Magnesium 1830

23. Lanthanum 1839

24. Terbium. Studied about 1839
(Not yet isolated.)

25. Erbium 1843

26. Neodymium 1843

27. Praseodymium 1843

28. Rubidium 1860

29. Cæsium 1860

30. Thallium 1861

31. Indium 1863

32. Gallium 1875

33. Decipium. (Name given in 1878 to
mixture of Samarium and Decipium.)
Isolated 1878

34. Ytterbium 1878

35. Thulium. (Name given by Cleve in
1879 to a metal in Gadolinite.
Has not yet been isolated, and
elementary nature is disputed.)

36. Scandium. Known since 1879
(Not yet isolated.)

37. Germanium 1885

38. Samarium. (A name given to a metal
found in Gadolinite. Elementary
nature very doubtful.)

39. Holmium. (Not yet isolated.)

40. Argon 1895

41. Helium 1896

42. Metargon 1898

43. Krypton 1898

44. Neon 1898

45. Polonium 1898

46. Coronium 1898

47. Xenon 1898

48. Monium 1898

49. Etherion (?) 1898

50. Gadolinium (?) 1885

51. Radium (?) 1898

The date in each case is that of the discovery. Numbers 49, 50, and 51 are not yet sufficiently well known to justify being considered elements, and are therefore properly followed by an interrogation point.

II. PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY.

In strictly physical chemistry the relations of electricity and heat to chemical action have been extensively developed during the century. The specific heats of the elements and of most of their compounds have been carefully determined, and thermo and physical chemistry under the leadership of such master minds as Berthollet, Thompson, Van’t Hoff, and Ostwald have been brought to the highest degree of perfection.

The chemist now does not consider that he knows any body until he knows thoroughly its relations to heat and to electricity. The action of light must also be included, but this subject will be more thoroughly discussed under graphic chemistry.

The nature of solutions has also been developed by the studies of Ostwald and Van’t Hoff, and as a result of these studies, a flood of light has been thrown upon the constitution of compound bodies.

In the development of physical chemistry, attention should be directed to the help afforded by Newlands (1864) and Mendelejeff (1869) and others, showing that the elements form groups which tend to recur with a periodicity which is sufficiently definite to enable the investigator to foretell to some extent the properties of the elements which have never yet been discovered, and whose existence is necessary in order to fill up the gaps in existing groups.

By this method the existence, atomic weight and properties of scandium, gallium, and germanium were foretold years before their discovery. Such actual realization of a scientific-prophetic method is one of the strongest indications of the basis of fact upon which it rests. Although a rigid application of the principles of the periodic law is not possible, yet its discovery and elaboration mark one of the great forward steps of chemical philosophy.

If we regard any material system by itself, i.e., independently of any other system or influence by which it may be surrounded, we recognize it as consisting of essentially two things,—matter and energy. A precise definition of either matter or energy is difficult, if not impossible; but what is connoted by these names is sufficiently well understood by their well-known properties. Both energy and matter are essential to each and every system. They are coexistent. In the light of human experience, we cannot conceive of one existing without the other; and in the study of any material system, consideration of one of these components without the other can only be regarded as incomplete. But, for the sake of convenience, this has been the practice, and, generally speaking, chemists have concerned themselves with matter changes of equilibria, while physicists have more especially directed their attention to energy equilibria. The object of the physical chemist is to follow equilibria changes in given systems, having due regard for both the matter and energy involved.

Berthollet may be regarded as the first true physical chemist, on account of his classical views on mass action. Largely because the time was not ripe for it, his views were not generally adopted.

A quarter of a century later (1867), Guldberg and Waage gave a precise mathematical expression of the law, but still it attracted very little attention from investigators. A tremendous impetus was given to the subject by the electrolytic dissociation theory of Arrhenius (1887), and the extension of the additive laws of gases to dilute solutions, by Van’t Hoff (1885). This was but a comparatively small field in the subject, but it stimulated activity along the whole line, the wonderful increase of our knowledge concerning the velocity or rates of reaction, the heat changes involved, and the marvelous development of electrolytic chemistry being pertinent instances.

The generalization of Gibbs, known as the phase rule (1876), which accurately states the condition for equilibrium in the system, and the Theorem of Le Chatelier (1884), that any change in the factors of equilibrium from outside is followed by a reverse change within the system, together with the mass law, now give us a consistent theoretical foundation for the subject. In general terms, it may be said that all chemistry, at least all theoretical chemistry, properly belongs to the province of physical chemistry, and the title, while in many ways convenient, is misleading.

III. ORGANIC CHEMISTRY.

Compounds containing carbon enter into all the products of a living cell. For this reason the chemistry of carbon compounds came to be known as organic chemistry. This should not be taken as a definition, however, without limitations. Many of the compounds containing carbon are not known to enter into living tissue in any way, and their connection with it is very remote and not essential. On the other hand, it should be remembered that many organic compounds, and those even of most importance, contain some other element,—nitrogen, for example,—as the significant one.

While nearly all the known elements can enter into organic compounds, the vast majority of such substances are composed of but very few. For instance, those classes of which sugar, starch, the fats, etc., are examples, contain only carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. With nitrogen, sulphur, and phosphorus added to these elements, almost the entire range of organic chemistry is covered. Organic chemistry, therefore, differs from inorganic chemistry in that, while the number of compounds is much larger, the number of elements involved is very limited.

Berzelius may be regarded as having founded organic chemistry in the beginning of this century. As a result of his analyses of the salts of organic acids, he clearly demonstrated that the laws of definite and multiple proportions hold equally for organic compounds and for inorganic ones. The work of this master was ably furthered by Liebig (1803–1873), who devised most elegant methods for the analytical investigation of organic compounds, methods which are in use to-day without any essential change.

Very soon, however, it was found that organic compounds existed having the same percentage composition, but quite dissimilar properties, physical and chemical, as, for instance, sugar and starch. Other striking examples are Faraday’s discovery (1825) of a compound identical in composition with ethylene, but wholly different in properties; and Wöhler’s classical synthesis (1828) of urea by the transformation of ammonium cyanate. Similar facts in the domain of inorganic chemistry, though now well known, were at that time wanting, and thus this most fruitful idea, designated as isomerism, was introduced into the science.

The next great step was the introduction of the theory of radicles, first suggested tentatively by Berzelius (1810), but put forward in a definite way as one of the results of the classical investigation on benzoyl by Liebig and Wöhler (1832). That is to say, a group of elements, or radicle, can pass through a series of compounds, from one to the other, as though the group were one single element. For years this idea was the guiding principle in chemical investigations, and was most useful in aiding the classification of chemical compounds and bringing order out of the chaos of accumulating observations.

But the search for radicles was in a sense a vain one. We now know that _no_ radicle exists as such by itself. Meanwhile, Dumas and his pupil Laurent had introduced and developed the theory of types, whereby all chemical compounds could be classified under four types, which marked a distinct step in advance. Laurent, together with his colleague Gerhardt (1816–1856), recognized the shortcomings of both the radicle and type theories in their earlier forms, and showed their inter-relation, when modified so as to do away with certain inconsistencies.

Dumas had before this demonstrated the theory of substitution (1834),—that is, that in certain compounds one or more of the elements can be driven out and replaced by others without changing the essential characteristics of the compound. For instance, chloracetic acid, in which part of the hydrogen of acetic acid has been replaced by chlorine, contains all the essential characteristics of acetic acid; in fact, some of them—its acidic properties, for example—being markedly accentuated. This theory was fiercely assailed at first, notably by Liebig. Like all theories of science, it was in the beginning pushed to the extreme, and put forward to explain things to which it was not applicable. It gradually came to demonstrate its own right to existence, largely as a result of the work of Laurent and Gerhardt, and made its influence felt in the exposition of their ideas, to which reference has just been made.

The development of these theories, about the middle of the century, was greatly hastened by the work of many brilliant investigators, notably Wurtz (1817–1884), Hofmann (1818–1892), Williamson (1824–), Kolbe (1818–1884), and Frankland (1825–) among others.

Kekulé proposed a new type, marsh gas or methane. Shortly afterwards, his well-known formula for benzene, the starting-point and foundation of the vast class of aromatic bodies, was proposed. He insisted that the time had come when chemists must ask what those ultimate particles, or atoms, of the elements themselves were doing in these compounds of various types. The answer was a grand one, and the result, our magnificent store of information concerning the _constitution_ of organic compounds, or the way in which the atoms are connected with each other. It is not to be inferred that our knowledge on this subject, in any one case, is complete. Far from it! Much that is most interesting and important is apparently as remote from our grasp as ever. But we do know something about the general relations of the atoms in the molecule, and our knowledge, so far as it goes, is definite and precise.

Somewhat later, Van’t Hoff and Lebel, at the same time but independently, introduced the study of the space relations of organic compounds by suggesting the simplest possible space formula (the tetrahedron) for marsh gas or methane, of which all other organic compounds may, theoretically at least, be regarded as derivatives. Many inexplicable relations, especially among isomers, now became clear. The theory was at first bitterly assailed, especially by Kolbe. It found an able champion in Wislicenus (1838–), however, and has so thoroughly established itself, that it may be safely said that at the present day it is the controlling idea in the large majority of organic investigations.

The carbon atom is characterized by a wonderful facility in uniting not only with other elements, but with itself. It would even appear as though its influence in this regard extended to other elements united with it, as nitrogen, for instance, shows an unexpected ability to unite with nitrogen in organic compounds.

Further, the carbon atom is characterized by an unusually constant valency, namely, four. These two characteristics account for homology, that is, for a series of similar compounds differing in composition one from the other by—CH2, and enables us to trace back all organic compounds to one mother substance—marsh gas or methane.

These ideas have also been more or less successfully applied to the study of the composition of inorganic compounds. The assistance organic chemistry has given to the general subject is incalculable. Finally, it may be said, that while in the nature of the case our ideas of structure in organic compounds cannot be regarded as proved, or as not subject to possible future modifications, we have, at least, a consistent theory and good working hypothesis. A homely illustration of our present ideas may be drawn from the modern high city building. The skeleton of this building is made of iron, about which are grouped the brick, stone, wood, and other materials to form a complete building. So the organic body is built on a chain or frame-work or skeleton of carbon atoms, about which are grouped the atoms of hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, or radicle compounds thereof.

It is not possible here to even name some of the more eminent workers who for a quarter of a century have contributed to our knowledge of organic chemistry. This branch of chemistry has been the vogue, and has been pushed almost to the limit of possibility since 1875. Many almost unexplored fields still remain, but chemists recognize the fact that in theory and practice organic chemistry has reached a high degree of perfection, and they are returning to continue the researches in other fields which have for so long been almost neglected.

IV. ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY.

No branch of chemical science has a more general interest for the public than that which relates to the determination of the materials of which bodies are composed, and the proportions in which they exist.

At the beginning of the century considerable progress had been made in this branch of knowledge by the researches of Boyle (1626–1691), Hoffmann, Margraff (1709–1780), Scheele and Bergmann (1735–1784). Berzelius, as has already been mentioned, had added a new and valuable factor to chemical analysis by the development of the blowpipe, and in the early part of the century mineral analysis was still further advanced by Klaproth (1743–1817), Rose (1798–1873), and many others.

No one man did so much to advance this branch of chemical science as Fresenius (1818–1897). He collated and proved all the proposed methods of analysis, both qualitative and quantitative, and out of a confused mass of material formed a logical system of procedure, which has proved invaluable to the progress of chemical science in all its branches.

The volumetric methods of analysis, which save so much time and labor without sacrificing accuracy, were developed by Gay-Lussac, Vauquelin (1763–1879), Mohr (1806–1879), Volhard, Sutton, Fehling, and Liebig.

The methods of gas analysis have been worked out chiefly by Bunsen, ably assisted by Winkler and Hempel.