I believe some of the argument in this article is that we may have had something closer to the start of a real foundation for a chemistry and money shifted back towards the direction of alchemy for the time being simply because alchemy's practitioners are better at making it seem shinier and more exciting.
I don't know if I entirely agree with the article, but it has some food for thought.
I don't know if I entirely agree with the article, but it has some food for thought.