iv.] YEAST. 73 



physician, Van Helmont, lived in the latter part of the 

 sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth century 

 in the transition period between alchemy and chemistry 

 and was rather more alchemist than chemist. Appended 

 to his &quot; Opera Omnia,&quot; published in 1707, there is a very 

 needful &quot;Clavis ad obscuriorum sensum referandum,&quot; in 

 which the following passage occurs : 



&quot; ALCOHOL. Chjmicis est liquor aut pulvis summe subtilisatus, 

 vocabulo Orientalibus quoque, cum primis Habessinis, familiari, quibus 

 cohol speciatim pulverem impalpabilera ex antimouio pro oculis tin- 

 gendis denotat. . . Hodie autem, ob analogiam, quivis pulvis teiierior, 

 ut pulvis oculorum cancri summe subtilisatus alcohol audit, baud 

 nliter ac spiritus rectificatissimi alcolisati dicuntur.&quot; 



Similarly, Eobert Boyle speaks of a fine powder as 

 &quot; alcohol ; &quot; and, so late as the middle of the last cen 

 tury, the English lexicographer, Nathan Bailey, defines 

 &quot; alcohol &quot; as &quot; the pure substance of anything separated 

 from the more gross, a very fine and impalpable powder, 

 or a very pure, well-rectified spirit.&quot; But, by the time 

 of the publication of Lavoisier s &quot; Traite Elementairc de 

 Chimie,&quot; in 1789, the term &quot;alcohol,&quot; &quot; alkohol,&quot; or 

 &quot; alkool &quot; (for it is spelt in all three ways), which Van 

 Helmont had applied primarily to a fine powder, and only 

 secondarily to spirits of wine, had lost its primary mean 

 ing altogether ; and, from the end of the last century 

 until now, it has, I believe, been used exclusively as the 

 denotation of spirits of wine, and bodies chemically 

 allied to that substance. 



The process which gives rise to alcohol in a saccharine 

 fluid is known to us as &quot; fermentation ; ;; a term based 

 upon the apparent boiling up or &quot; effervescence &quot; of the 

 fermenting liquid, and of Latin origin. 



Our Teutonic cousins call the same process &quot;gfthren,&quot; 

 &quot;giisen,&quot; &quot;goschen,&quot; and &quot;gischen;&quot; but, oddly enough, 

 we do not seem to have retained their verb or tlieii 



