342 BLACK. 



own judgment upon it, "the consequence of which has 

 been," he adds, " that owing to the prejudices enter- 

 tained against the nature and reach of the science, it 

 becomes a matter of no small difficulty or slight con- 

 troversy to say clearly and precisely what chemistry is. 

 Some make no distinction between the chemist and 

 the quack who seeks after the philosopher's stone 

 ( souffleur ) ; others think any one a chemist who has 

 a still for preparing perfumes or colours. Many con- 

 sider the compounding of drugs as containing the 

 whole of the art. Even men of science know scarcely 

 any thing about the chemists." " What natural phi- 

 losopher," he asks, " so much as ever names Becker or 

 Stahl? Whereas those who, having other scientific 

 illustrations, as John Bernouilli and Boerhaave, have 

 written chemical works, or rather works on chemical 

 subjects, are very differently thought of; so that the for- 

 mer's work on ' Fermentation,' and the latter's on 'Fire,' 

 are known, cited, and praised, while the far greater 

 views of Stahl on the same subjects only exist for a few 

 chemists." He then goes on to cite other proofs of the 

 low estimate formed of the science, and even the pre- 

 vailing impression of chemists being mere workmen ; 

 and concludes, that " the revolution which should raise 

 chemistry to the rank it merits, and place it on a level 

 with natural philosophy, can only be accomplished by 

 a great, an enthusiastic, and a bold genius." While 

 waiting for the advent of this new Paracelsus, he says, 

 it must be his task to present chemistry in a light 

 which may show it worthy the notice of philosophers, 

 and capable of becoming something in their hands. 

 If we go back to an earlier period, we shall find 



