Chapter I Prelude to the Epoch of De Lisle and Haüy.
OF all the physical properties of bodies, there is none so fixed, and in every way so remarkable, as this;—that the same chemical compound always assumes, with the utmost precision, the same geometrical form. This identity, however, is not immediately obvious; it is often obscured by various mixtures and imperfections in the substance; and even when it is complete, it is not immediately recognized by a common eye, since it consists, not in the equality of the sides or faces of the figures, but in the equality of their angles. Hence it is not surprising that the constancy of form was not detected by the early observers. Pliny says,1 “Why crystal is generated in a hexagonal form, it is difficult to assign a reason; and the more so, since, while its faces are smoother than any art can make them, the pyramidal points are not all of the same kind.” The quartz crystals of the Alps, to which he refers, are, in some specimens, very regular, while in others, one side of the pyramid becomes much the largest; yet the angles remain constantly the same. But when the whole shape varied so much, the angles also seemed to vary. Thus Conrad Gessner, a very learned naturalist, who, in 1564, published at Zurich his work, De rerum Fossilium, Lapidum et Gemmarum maxime, Figuris, says,2 “One crystal differs from another in its angles, and consequently in its figure.” And Cæsalpinus, who, as we shall find, did so much in establishing fixed characters in botany, was led by some of his general views to disbelieve the fixity of the form of crystals. In his work De Metallicis, published at Nuremberg in 1602, he says,3 “To ascribe to inanimate bodies a definite form, does not appear consentaneous to reason; for it is the office of organization to produce a definite form;” an opinion very natural in one who had been immersed in the study of the general analogies of the forms of plants. But though this is excusable in Cæsalpinus, the rejection of this definiteness of form a hundred years later, when its existence had been proved, and its laws developed by numerous observers, cannot be ascribed to anything but strong prejudice; yet this was the course taken by no less a person than Buffon. “The form of crystallization,” says he,4 “is not a constant character, but is more equivocal and more variable than any other of the characters by which minerals are to be distinguished.” And accordingly, he makes no use of this most important feature in his history of minerals. This strange perverseness may perhaps be ascribed to the dislike which Buffon is said to have entertained for Linnæus, who had made crystalline form a leading character of minerals.
1 Nat. Hist. xxvii. 2.
2 p. 25.
3 p. 97.
4 Hist. des Min. p. 343.
It is not necessary to mark all the minute steps by which mineralogists were gradually led to see clearly the nature and laws of the fixity of crystalline forms. These forms were at first noticed in that substance which is peculiarly called rock-crystal or quartz; and afterwards in various stones and gems, in salts obtained from various solutions, and in snow. But those who observed the remarkable regular figures which these substances assume, were at first impelled onwards in their speculations by the natural tendency of the human mind to generalize and guess, rather than to examine and measure. They attempted to snatch at once the general laws of geometrical regularity of these occurrences, or to connect them with some doctrine concerning formative causes. Thus Kepler,5 in his Harmonics of the World, asserts a “formatrix facultas, which has its seat in the entrails of the earth, and, after the manner of a pregnant woman, expresses the five regular geometrical solids in the forms of gems.” But Philosophers, in the course of time, came to build more upon observation, and less upon abstract reasonings. Nicolas Steno, a Dane, published, in 1669, a dissertation De Solido intra Solidum Naturaliter contento, in which he says,6 that though the sides of the hexagonal crystal may vary, the angles are not changed. And Dominic Gulielmini, in a Dissertation on Salts, published in 1707, says,7 in a true inductive spirit, “Nature does not employ all figures, but only certain ones of those which are possible; and of these, the determination is not to be fetched from the brain, or proved à priori, but obtained by experiments and observations.” And he speaks8 with entire decision on this subject: “Nevertheless since there is here a principle of crystallization, the inclination of the planes and of the angles is always constant.” He even anticipates, very nearly, the views of later crystallographers as to the mode in which crystals are formed from elementary molecules. From this time, many persons labored and speculated on this subject; as Cappeller, whose Prodromus Crystallographiæ appeared at Lucern in 1723; Bourguet, who published Lettres Philosophiques sur la Formation de Sels et de Cristaux, at Amsterdam, in 1792; and Henckel, the “Physicus” of the Elector of Saxony, whose Pyritologia came forth in 1725. In this last work we have an example of the description of the various forms of special classes of minerals, (iron pyrites, copper pyrites, and arsenic pyrites;) and an example of the enthusiasm which this apparently dry and laborious study can excite: “Neither tongue nor stone,” he exclaims,9 “can express the satisfaction which I received on setting eyes upon this sinter covered with galena; and thus it constantly happens, that one must have more pleasure in what seems worthless rubbish, than in the purest and most precious ores, if we know aught of minerals.”
5 Linz. 1619, p. 161.
6 p. 69.
7 p. 19.
8 p. 83.
9 p. 343.
Still, however, Henckel10 disclaims the intention of arranging minerals according to their mathematical forms; and this, which may be considered as the first decided step in the formation of crystallographic mineralogy, appears to have been first attempted by Linnæus. In this attempt, however, he was by no means happy; nor does he himself appear to have been satisfied. He begins his preface by saying, “Lithology is not what I plume myself upon.” (Lithologia mihi cristas non eriget.) Though his sagacity, as a natural historian, led him to see that crystalline form was one of the most definite, and therefore most important, characters of minerals, he failed in profiting by this thought, because, in applying it, he did not employ the light of geometry, but was regulated by what appeared to him resemblances, arbitrarily selected, and often delusive.11 Thus he derived the form of pyrites from that of vitriol;12 and brought together alum and diamond on account of their common octohedral form. But he had the great merit of animating to this study one to whom, more perhaps than to any other person, it owes its subsequent progress; I mean Romé de Lisle. “Instructed,” this writer says, in his preface to his Essais de Crystallographie, “by the works of the celebrated Von Linnée, how greatly the study of the angular form of crystals might become interesting, and fitted to extend the sphere of our mineralogical knowledge, I have followed them in all their metamorphoses with the most scrupulous attention.” The views of Linnæus, as to the importance of this character, had indeed been adopted by several others; as John Hill, the King’s gardener at Kew, who, in 1777, published his Spathogenesia; and Grignon, who, in 1775, says, “These crystallizations may give the means of finding a new theory of the generation of crystalline gems.”
10 p. 167.
11 Marx. Gesch. p. 97.
12 Syst. Nat. vi. p. 220.
The circumstance which threw so much difficulty in the way of those who tried to follow out his thought was, that in consequence of the apparent irregularity of crystals, arising from the extension or contraction of particular sides of the figure, each kind of substance may really appear under many different forms, connected with each other by certain geometrical relations. These may be conceived by considering a certain fundamental form to be cut into new forms in particular ways. Thus if we take a cube, and cut off all the eight corners, till the original faces disappear, we make it an octohedron; and if we stop short of this, we have a figure of fourteen faces, which has been called a cubo-octohedron. The first person who appears distinctly to have conceived this truncation of angles and edges, and to have introduced the word, is Démeste;13 although Wallerius14 had already said, in speaking of the various crystalline forms of calcspar, “I conceive it would be better not to attend to all differences, lest we be overwhelmed by the number.” And Werner, in his celebrated work On the External Characters of Minerals,15 had formally spoken of truncation, acuation, and acumination, or replacement by a plane, an edge, a point respectively, (abstumpfung, zuschärfung, zuspitzung,) as ways in which the forms of crystals are modified and often disguised. He applied this process in particular to show the connexion of the various forms which are related to the cube. But still the extension of the process to the whole range of minerals and other crystalline bodies, was due to Romé de Lisle.
13 Lettres, 1779, i. 48.
14 Systema Mineralogicum, 1772–5, i. 143.
15 Leipzig, 1774.
CHAPTER II.
Epoch of Romé De Lisle and Haüy.—Establishment of the Fixity of Crystalline Angles, and the Simplicity of the Laws of Derivation.
WE have already seen that, before 1780, several mineralogists had recognized the constancy of the angles of crystals, and had seen (as Démeste and Werner,) that the forms were subject to modifications of a definite kind. But neither of these two thoughts was so apprehended and so developed, as to supersede the occasion for a discoverer who should put forward these principles as what they really were, the materials of a new and complete science. The merit of this step belongs jointly to Romé de Lisle and to Haüy. The former of these two men had already, in 1772, published an Essai de Crystallographie, in which he had described a number of crystals. But in this work his views are still rude and vague; he does not establish any connected sequence of transitions in each kind of substance, and lays little or no stress on the angles. But in 1783, his ideas16 had reached a maturity which, by comparison, excites our admiration. In this he asserts, in the most distinct manner, the invariability of the angles of crystals of each kind, under all the changes of relative dimension which the faces may undergo;17 and he points out that this invariability applies only to the primitive forms, from each of which many secondary forms are derived by various changes.18 Thus we cannot deny him the merit of having taken steady hold on both the handles of this discovery, though something still remained for another to do. Romé pursues his general ideas into detail with great labor and skill. He gives drawings of more than five hundred regular forms (in his first work he had inserted only one hundred and ten; Linnæus only knew forty); and assigns them to their proper substances; for instance, thirty to calcspar, and sixteen to felspar. He also invented and used a goniometer. We cannot doubt that he would have been looked upon as a great discoverer, if his fame had not been dimmed by the more brilliant success of his contemporary Haüy.
16 Cristallographie, ou Description de Formes propres à tous les Corps du Règne Minéral. 3 vols. and 1 vol. of plates.
17 p. 68.
18 p. 73.
Réné-Just Haüy is rightly looked upon as the founder of the modern school of crystallography; for all those who have, since him, pursued the study with success, have taken his views for their basis. Besides publishing a system of crystallography and of mineralogy, far more complete than any which had yet appeared, the peculiar steps in the advance which belong to him are, the discovery of the importance of cleavage, and the consequent expression of the laws of derivation of secondary from primary forms, by means of the decrements of the successive layers of integrant molecules.
The latter of these discoveries had already been, in some measure, anticipated by Bergman, who had, in 1773, conceived a hexagonal prism to be built up by the juxtaposition of solid rhombs on the planes of a rhombic nucleus.19 It is not clear20 whether Haüy was acquainted with Bergman’s Memoir, at the time when the cleavage of a hexagonal prism of calcspar, accidentally obtained, led him to the same conception of its structure. But however this might be, he had the indisputable credit of following out this conception with all the vigor of originality, and with the most laborious and persevering earnestness; indeed he made it the business of his life. The hypothesis of a solid, built up of small solids, had this peculiar advantage in reference to crystallography; it rendered a reason of this curious fact;—that a certain series of forms occur in crystals of the same kind, while other forms, apparently intermediate between those which actually occur, are rigorously excluded. The doctrine of decrements explained this; for by placing a number of regularly-decreasing rows of equal solids, as, for instance, of bricks, upon one another, we might form a regular equal-sided triangle, as the gable of a house; and if the breadth of the gable were one hundred bricks, the height of the triangle might be one hundred, or fifty, or twenty-five; but it would be found that if the height were an intermediate number, as fifty-seven, or forty-three, the edge of the wall would become irregular; and such irregularity is assumed to be inadmissible in the regular structure of crystals. Thus this mode of conceiving crystals allows of certain definite secondary forms, and no others.
19 De Formis Crystallorum. Nov. Act. Reg. Soc. Sc. Ups. 1773.
20 Traité de Minér. 1822, i. 15.
The mathematical deduction of the dimensions and proportions of these secondary forms;—the invention of a notation to express them;—the examination of the whole mineral kingdom in accordance with these views;—the production of a work21 in which they are explained with singular clearness and vivacity;—are services by which Haüy richly earned the admiration which has been bestowed upon him. The wonderful copiousness and variety of the forms and laws to which he was led, thoroughly exercised and nourished the spirit of deduction and calculation which his discoveries excited in him. The reader may form some conception of the extent of his labors, by being told—that the mere geometrical propositions which he found it necessary to premise to his special descriptions, occupy a volume and a half of his work;—that his diagrams are nearly a thousand in number;—that in one single substance (calcspar) he has described forty-seven varieties of form;—and that he has described one kind of crystal (called by him fer sulfuré parallélique) which has one hundred and thirty-four faces.
21 Traité de Minéralogie, 1801, 5 vols.
In the course of a long life, he examined, with considerable care, all the forms he could procure of all kinds of mineral; and the interpretation which he gave of the laws of those forms was, in many cases, fixed, by means of a name applied to the mineral in which the form occurred; thus, he introduced such names as équiaxe, métastatique, unibinaire, perihexahèdre, bisalterne, and others. It is not now desirable to apply separate names to the different forms of the same mineral species, but these terms answered the purpose, at the time, of making the subjects of study more definite. A symbolical notation is the more convenient mode of designating such forms, and such a notation Haüy invented; but the symbols devised by him had many inconveniences, and have since been superseded by the systems of other crystallographers.
Another of Haüy’s leading merits was, as we have already intimated, to have shown, more clearly than his predecessors had done, that the crystalline angles of substances are a criterion of the substances; and that this is peculiarly true of the angles of cleavage;—that is, the angles of those edges which are obtained by cleaving a crystal in two different directions;—a mode of division which the structure of many kinds of crystals allowed him to execute in the most complete manner. As an instance of the employment of this criterion, I may mention his separation of the sulphates of baryta and strontia, which had previously been confounded. Among crystals which in the collections were ranked together as “heavy spar,” and which were so perfect as to admit of accurate measurement, he found that those which were brought from Sicily, and those of Derbyshire, differed in their cleavage angle by three degrees and a half. “I could not suppose,” he says,22 “that this difference was the effect of any law of decrement; for it would have been necessary to suppose so rapid and complex a law, that such an hypothesis might have been justly regarded as an abuse of the theory.” He was, therefore, in great perplexity. But a little while previous to this, Klaproth had discovered that there is an earth which, though in many respects it resembles baryta, is different from it in other respects; and this earth, from the place where it was found (in Scotland), had been named Strontia. The French chemists had ascertained that the two earths had, in some cases, been mixed or confounded; and Vauquelin, on examining the Sicilian crystals, found that their base was strontia, and not, as in the Derbyshire ones, baryta. The riddle was now read; all the crystals with the larger angle belong to the one, all those with the smaller, to the other, of these two sulphates; and crystallometry was clearly recognized as an authorized test of the difference of substances which nearly resemble each other.
22 Traité, ii. 320.
Enough has been said, probably, to enable the reader to judge how much each of the two persons, now under review, contributed to crystallography. It would be unwise to compare such contributions to science with the great discoveries of astronomy and chemistry; and we have seen how nearly the predecessors of Romé and Haüy had reached the point of knowledge on which these two crystallographers took their stand. But yet it is impossible not to allow, that in these discoveries, which thus gave form and substance to the science of crystallography, we have a manifestation of no common sagacity and skill. Here, as in other discoveries, were required ideas and facts;—clearness of geometrical conception which could deal with most complex relations of form; a minute and extensive acquaintance with actual crystals; and the talent and habit of referring these facts to the general ideas. Haüy, in particular, was happily endowed for his task. Without being a great mathematician, he was sufficiently a geometer to solve all the problems which his undertaking demanded; and though the mathematical reasoning might have been made more compendious by one who was more at home in mathematical generalization, probably this could hardly have been done without making the subject less accessible and less attractive to persons moderately disciplined in mathematics. In all his reasonings upon particular cases, Haüy is acute and clear; while his general views appear to be suggested rather by a lively fancy than by a sage inductive spirit: and though he thus misses the character of a great philosopher, the vivacity of style, and felicity and happiness of illustration, which grace his book, and which agree well with the character of an Abbé of the old French monarchy, had a great and useful influence on the progress of the subject.
Unfortunately Romé de Lisle and Haüy were not only rivals, but in some measure enemies. The former might naturally feel some vexation at finding himself, in his later years (he died in 1790), thrown into shade by his more brilliant successor. In reference to Haüy’s use of cleavage, he speaks23 of “innovators in crystallography, who may properly be called crystalloclasts.” Yet he adopted, in great measure, the same views of the formation of crystals by laminæ,24 which Haüy illustrated by the destructive process at which he thus sneers. His sensitiveness was kept alive by the conduct of the Academy of Sciences, which took no notice of him and his labors;25 probably because it was led by Buffon, who disliked Linnæus, and might dislike Romé as his follower; and who, as we have seen, despised crystallography. Haüy revenged himself by rarely mentioning Romé in his works, though it was manifest that his obligations to him were immense; and by recording his errors while he corrected them. More fortunate than his rival, Haüy was, from the first, received with favor and applause. His lectures at Paris were eagerly listened to by persons from all quarters of the world. His views were, in this manner, speedily diffused; and the subject was soon pursued, in various ways, by mathematicians and mineralogists in every country of Europe.
23 Pref. p. xxvii.
24 T. ii. p. 21.
25 Marx. Gesch. d. Cryst. 130.