origin. We have had laid before us by Professor Ferguson, in his papers
on this subject of Chemical History, very clearly and fully the
generally-accepted position as regards the origin of the science, and in
the last of these papers, entitled “Eleven Centuries of Chemistry,” he
deals with the subject in a most complete manner, tracing back through
its various mutations the development of the science to the time of
Geber, in or about the year A.D. 778.

Of Geber, as a chemist, Professor Ferguson writes, “He was the
first--because, although he himself speaks of the ancients, meaning
thereby his forerunners, nothing is known of these older chemists.”

Rodwell, in his “Birth of Chemistry,” after a careful examination of the
question, comes to the conclusion that, “in spite of all that has been
written on the subject, there is no good evidence to prove that alchemy
and chemistry did not originate in Arabia not long prior to the eighth
century, A.D.,” bringing us again to the times of Geber.

He is not alone in this opinion, and it seems to be generally accepted
that chemistry originated in the Arabian schools about this period.

In dealing with the question of the antiquity of chemical art, it has
been too much the habit to look at the question with a view of
discovering when and who it was that first brought forth, fully clothed
as a science, the art of chemistry.

Let us look at the definition of the science given by Boerhæve, about
1732. He describes chemistry as “an art which teaches the manner of
performing certain physical operations, whereby bodies cognizable to the
senses, or capable of being rendered cognizable, and of being contained