342 BLA.CK. 



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 



