Abstract
IN the preface to his “Dictionary of Chemistry”, published in London in 1795, William Nicholson remarked that “the form of a Dictionary, though, for many years, in high estimation with the world in books on every subject, is confessedly inimical to the natural order of things”. Macquer had justified the alphabetical arrangement in his earlier dictionary on the ground that chemistry was then little more than a collection of facts, scarcely entitled to the name of science, or capable either of synthetic or analytic explanation. While pointing out that the progress of chemistry in the interim had been uncommonly rapid, Nicholson urged that “the science of Chemistry possesses little system”, in consequence of which “the utility of a dictionary to the Learner will more than compensate for the offence given to the Masters of the Science”.
(1) Kingzett's Chemical Encyclopædia
A Digest of Chemistry and its Industrial Applications. Revised and edited by Prof. Ralph K. Strong. Sixth edition. Pp. x + 1088. (London: Bailliere, Tindall and Cox, 1940.) 45s.
(2) A New Dictionary of Chemistry
Edited by Dr. Stephen Miall. Pp. xv + 575. (London, New York and Toronto: Longmans, Green and Co., Ltd., 1940.) 42s. net.
Enjoying our latest content?
Log in or create an account to continue
- Access the most recent journalism from Nature's award-winning team
- Explore the latest features & opinion covering groundbreaking research
or
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
READ, J. (1) Kingzett's Chemical Encyclopædia (2) A New Dictionary of Chemistry. Nature 146, 280–281 (1940). https://doi.org/10.1038/146280a0
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/146280a0
