Bunsen worked on problems of _chemical geology_, and made a long series of analyses of _volcanic products_. With Schischkoff, he examined, in 1857, the products of fired gunpowder. He effected many improvements in analytical chemistry; devised the _iodiometric method_ of volumetric analysis, and systematised the processes of _water analysis_. Lastly, he invented the _gas-burner_—a piece of apparatus with which his name is inseparably associated, and which has been of inestimable service to operative chemistry and in the arts. Bunsen was no theorist, and purely speculative questions had little or no interest for him. At the same time he was a great teacher, and made the chemical school of Heidelberg no less famous than the schools of Giessen and Göttingen.
The mass of material relating to the development of chemistry which has been accumulated during the past sixty years is so vast that it would be hopeless to attempt to survey it in detail within the limits of such a work as this. Nor, indeed, is this required in a history of this character. Those who desire information concerning the origin and sequence of the facts which collectively make up the superstructure of modern chemistry must be referred to the encyclopædias or larger treatises—or, preferably, to the numerous monographs, dealing with special sections, which the volume and complexity of the matter to be dealt with seem to render increasingly necessary. All we can do here is to attempt to show what has been the main outcome of this sixty years of incessant effort to elucidate the mysteries of chemical phenomena and to ascertain the nature of the conditions which control, modify, or determine them. All this effort is ultimately directed to the solution of the fundamental problem of the constitution of matter. The most significant result of this endeavour has been the elaboration and consolidation of the doctrine of chemical atoms, not necessarily of atoms in the limited Daltonian sense, but of atoms considered as associations of particles, or corpuscles—that is, of entities which _may_ be divisible, but which, in the main, are not divided in the vast number of the transformations in which they are concerned. This modification of the original conception of Dalton has been thought by some to destroy the basis upon which his theory really rests. There is no necessity for such an assumption. So pronounced an atomist as Graham, as far back as 1863, in a suggestive paper entitled _Speculative Ideas on the Constitution of Matter_, enlarged the conception of the Daltonian atom in precisely the sense which recent experimental work appears to require. The present position, too, as it affects chemists, was equally well stated by Kekulé, in 1867, in the following terms: