“No modern art or chemistry has anything to do with alchemy, beyond the borrowed terms which were made use of in continuance chiefly to veil the latter.” That is to say, the alchemists did not lay the foundations of the science, the beginnings of which are attributed to them, and in this matter we are not by any means indebted to them. This extreme statement is qualified by the later commentator, who gives a more detailed expression to his views. “That chemistry is indebted for its introduction among the sciences indirectly to the alchemists is certainly true; at least I have no disposition to question it; but not to the immediate labours of the alchemists themselves, whose peculiar work was one of contemplation and not of the hands. Their alembic, furnace, cucurbit, retort, philosophical egg, &c., in which the work of fermentation, distillation, extraction of essence and spirits, and the preparation of salts is said to have taken place, was man--yourself, friendly reader; and if you will take yourself into your own study, and be candid and honest, acknowledging no other guide or authority but Truth, you may easily discover something of Hermetic philosophy; and if at the beginning there should be ‘fear and trembling,’ the end may be a more than compensating peace. “It is a plain case, that, for the most part, the experiments which led the way to chemistry were made by men who were misled by the alchemists, and sought gold instead of truth; but this class of men wrote no books upon alchemy. Many of them no doubt died over their furnaces, ‘_uttering no voice_,’ and none of them wrote books upon the philosopher’s stone, for the simple reason that they never discovered anything to write about. I know that some impostors purposely wrote of mysteries to play upon the credulity of the ignorant, but their works have nothing alchemical about them. It is true also that many books were written by men who really imagined that they had discovered the secret, and were nevertheless mistaken. But this imaginary success could never have had place when gold was the object, because in the _bald fact_ no man was ever deceived: no man ever believed that he had discovered a method of making gold out of inferior metals. The thing speaks for itself. It is impossible that any man can ever be deluded upon this bare fact; but it is quite otherwise with the real object of alchemy, in which men have been deceived in all ages ... for the _subject_ is always in the world, and hence the antiquity claimed for the art by the alchemists.” * * * * *