Note: The Greek form chymeîa would appear to be a derivative of an unattested verb *chymeúein "to pour, cast, fuse" (compare Late Greek chýmeusis "alloy"), itself a derivative of chýma (with short y) "fluid, ingot, bar," etymologically "something poured," a derivative of chéō, cheîn "to pour, shed," but probably influenced in form by chȳmós "animal or plant fluid" (as a direct derivative from chýma would be *chymateúein; see chyme, chyle, found entry 5). Though this etymology would appear relatively satisfactory, the existence of a variant chēmeîā, which in vernacular Byzantine pronunciation would not have differed from chymeîā, has led to speculation of another origin. It has been recognized since at least Jean-François champollion (L'Égypte sous les Pharaons, tome premier, Paris, 1814, pp. 109-110), that chēmeîā has a striking resemblance to Chēmíā, a name for Egypt used by Plutarch (in "De Iside et Osiride," Moralia 364c): "Egypt, moreover, which has the blackest of soils, they call by the same name as the black portion of the eye, Chēmíā." This word is clearly adapted from the Coptic name for Egypt, kêmi, a descendant of ancient Egyptian km.t, a name for the Nile valley, taken to be a derivative of km "black." Other sources also point to an association of alchemy and Egypt. Zosimos of Panopolis (active around 300 A.D.), himself a native of late Hellenistic Egypt and an early alchemical writer, connects chēmeîā with Egyptian metal workers, who, he claims, enriched their rulers by secret methods of extracting gold from sand. (Zosimos drew the word chymeîā/chēmeîā from Chýmos, also Chýmēs, Chímēs—either a person or a book—but this is likely a back-formation.) Byzantine chroniclers, as John of Antioch (seventh century), refer to an edict of the Roman emperor Diocletian that ordered the burning of Egyptian books dealing with the chēmeîā of gold and silver, so that the Egyptians could not enrich themselves and thus be emboldened to rise against Roman rule (see M. Berthelot, Les origines de l'alchemie, Paris, 1885, pp. 22, 72; also Suda On Line, Adler number chi 280); evidence for such an edict contemporary with Diocletian does not appear to exist. Whether the Egyptian etymology of chymeîā/chēmeîā should completely displace the Greek, or if both have some validity, is still an undecided issue. — For the distinction in sense after ca. 1700 between alchemy and chemistry, see the note at chemist.