Until now, the only known source on a curious incident in Robert Boyle's life was the account of his laboratory assistant Ambrose Godfrey regarding one anonymous "Crosey-Crucian." It survives only in excerpts and paraphrases published in 1858. Based on the recent identification of this adept as Peter Moritz, a German alchemist and religious dissenter, this paper presents his own perspective as expressed in an epistolary document originally addressed to Boyle. It emerges that the stock tale of alchemical fraud dominating Godfrey's account does not do justice to the episode's complexities. Instead, it becomes possible to perceive how the fraud narrative itself - construed as an implicit and increasing scepticism towards the claims of alchemical practitioners - affected events as they unfolded. Boyle initially offered modest support yet soon reduced it, as he observed that Moritz's behaviour did not correspond to that expected of a paid labourer. Despite this, most of the experiments Moritz conducted in London clearly reflected Boyle's long-standing interests. As Godfrey had promised financial assistance without Boyle's backing, Moritz accused the laboratory assistant of embezzling funds and of undermining his livelihood by extracting arcana for payments that were subsequently discounted or withheld altogether.

中文翻译：

---

炼金术承诺、欺诈叙事和来自底层的科学史：一位德国专家与罗伯特·博伊尔和安布罗斯·戈弗雷的相遇

到目前为止，关于罗伯特·博伊尔一生中发生的一件奇怪事件的唯一已知消息来源是他的实验室助理安布罗斯·戈弗雷 (Ambrose Godfrey) 对一位匿名“克罗西-克鲁斯”的描述。它仅存于 1858 年出版的摘录和释义中。根据最近将这位专家鉴定为德国炼金术士和宗教异议者彼得·莫里茨 (Peter Moritz)，本文提出了他在最初写给波义耳的书信文件中表达的自己的观点。出现了支配戈弗雷帐户的炼金术欺诈的股票故事并不能公正地说明这一集的复杂性。取而代之的是，有可能意识到欺诈叙述本身 - 被解释为对炼金术从业者的主张的含蓄和日益增长的怀疑 - 随着事件的展开而影响事件。博伊尔最初提供了适度的支持，但很快就减少了支持，因为他观察到莫里茨的行为与受薪工人的预期不符。尽管如此，莫里茨在伦敦进行的大多数实验清楚地反映了博伊尔长期以来的兴趣。由于戈弗雷在没有博伊尔支持的情况下承诺提供经济援助，莫里茨指责实验室助理挪用资金并通过提取奥秘来支付随后打折或完全扣留的款项，从而破坏了他的生计。