208 HISTORY OF CHEMISTRY. 



with it, are John Joachim Beccher and George Ernest Stahl ; the 

 former of whom was professor at Mentz, and physician to the Elector 

 of Bavaria (born 1625, died 1682) ; the latter was professor at Halle, 

 and afterwards royal physician at Berlin (born 1660, died 1734). 

 These two men, who thus contributed to a common purpose, were 

 very different from each other. The first was a frank and ardent 

 enthusiast in the pursuit of chemistry, who speaks of himself and his 

 employments with a communicativeness and affection both amusing 

 and engaging. The other was a teacher of great talents and influ- 

 ence, but accused of haughtiness and moroseness ; a character which is 

 well borne out by the manner in which, in his writings, he anticipates 

 an unfavorable reception, and defies it. But it is right to add to this 

 that he speaks of Beccher, his predecessor, with an ungrudging ac- 

 knowledf'ment of obligations to him, and a vehement assertion of his 



o O ' 



merit as the founder of the true system, which give a strong impression 

 of Stahl's justice and magnanimity. 



Beccher's opinions were at first promulgated rather as a correction 

 than a refutation of the doctrine of the three principles, salt, sulphur, 

 and mercury. The main peculiarity of his views consists in the 

 offices which he ascribes to his sufyhur, these being such as after- 

 wards induced Stahl to give the name of Phlogiston to this element. 

 Beccher had the sagacity to see that the reduction of metals to an 

 earthy form (calx), and the formation of sulphuric acid from sulphur, 

 are operations connected by a general analogy, as being alike pro- 

 cesses of combustion. Hence the metal was supposed to consist of an 

 earth, and of something which, in the process of combustion, was 

 separated from it ; and, in like manner, sulphur was supposed to con- 

 sist of the sulphuric acid, which remained after its combustion, and of 

 the combustible part or true sulphur, which flew off in the burning 

 Beccher insists very distinctly upon this difference between his ele 

 ment sulphur and the " sulphur " of his Paracelsian predecessors. 



It must be considered as indicating great knowledge and talent in 

 Stahl, that he perceived so clearly what part of the views of Beccher 

 was of general truth and permanent value. Though he 1 everywhere 

 gives to Beccher the credit of the theoretical opinions which he pro- 

 mulgates, (" Beccheriana sunt qua3 profero,") it seems certain that he 

 had the merit, not only of proving them more completely, and apply- 

 ing them more widely than his forerunner, but also of conceiving their 



1 S'a?tl, Prcpf. ad Specim. Beech. 1703. 



