The study of the History of Chemistryas an art, or as a science, is one which possesses peculiar fascinationfor its votaries. It has been the subject of deep research and muchdiscussion, much has been written upon the subject, and many theorieshave been broached to account for its origin. We have had laid before usby Professor Ferguson, in his papers on this subject of ChemicalHistory, very clearly and fully the generally-accepted position asregards the origin of the science, and in the last of these papers,entitled “Eleven Centuries of Chemistry,” he deals with the subject in amost complete manner, tracing back through its various mutations thedevelopment of the science to the time of Geber, in or about the yearA.D. 778.
Of Geber, as a chemist, Professor Ferguson writes, “He was thefirst—because, although he himself speaks of the ancients, meaningthereby his forerunners, nothing is known of these older chemists.”
Rodwell, in his “Birth of Chemistry,” after a careful examination of thequestion, comes to the conclusion that, “in spite of all that has beenwritten on the subject, there is no good evidence to prove that alchemyand chemistry did not originate in Arabia not long prior to the eighthcentury, A.D.,” bringing us again tothe times of Geber.
He is not alone in this opinion, and it seems to be generally acceptedthat chemistry originated in the Arabian schools about this period.
In dealing with the question of the antiquity of chemical art, it hasbeen too much the habit to look at the question with a view ofdiscovering when and who it was that first brought forth, fully clothedas a science, the art of chemistry.
2Let us look at the definition of the science given by Boerhæve, about1732. He describes chemistry as “an art which teaches the manner ofperforming certain physical operations, whereby bodies cognizable to thesenses, or capable of being rendered cognizable, and of being containedin vessels, are so changed by means of proper instruments as to producecertain determinate effects, and at the same time discover the causesthereof, for the service of the various arts.”
Now, it is amply evident that, long before the various known facts couldbe collected and welded into one compact whole as a science, there musthave existed great store of intellectual wealth, as well as merehereditary practical knowledge of the various chemical facts.
I do not think it will be disputed that, until comparatively recenttimes, technical knowledge has constantly been in advance of theory, andthat it is not too much to conclude that, no matter where we first findactual records of our science, its natal day must have long beforedawned. Even in our day, when theoretical science, as applied tochemistry, has made such immens