§ 85. “Modern Alchemy” 117
§ 86. X-Rays and Becquerel Rays 117
§ 87. The Discovery of Radium 118
§ 88. Chemical Properties of Radium 119
§ 89. The Radioactivity of Radium 120
§ 90. The Disintegration of the Radium Atom 122
§ 91. “Induced Radioactivity” 123
§ 92. Properties of Uranium and Thorium 123
§ 93. The Radium Emanation 124
§ 94. The Production of Helium from Emanation 125
§ 95. Nature of this Change 127
§ 96. Is this Change a true Transmutation? 128
§ 97. The Production of Neon from Emanation 130
§ 98. Ramsay’s Experiments on Copper 132
§ 99. Further Experiments on Radium and Copper 134
§ 100. Ramsay’s Experiments on Thorium and allied Metals 134
§ 101. The Possibility of Making Gold 136
§ 102. The Significance of “Allotropy” 136
§ 103. Conclusion 142
LIST OF PLATES
PLATE 1. Portrait of Paracelsus _Frontispiece_
TO FACE PAGE
PLATE 2. Symbolical Illustration representing the Trinity of
Body, Soul and Spirit 15
PLATE 3. Symbolical Illustrations representing--
(A) The Fertility of the Earth } 26
(B) The Amalgamation of Mercury and Gold }
PLATE 4. Symbolical Illustrations representing--
(A) The Coction of Gold-Amalgam in a Closed Vessel } 33
(B) The Transmutation of the Metals }
PLATE 5. Alchemistic Apparatus--
(A) (B) Two forms of apparatus for sublimation 37
PLATE 6. Alchemistic Apparatus--
(A) An Athanor } 38
(B) A Pelican }
PLATE 7. Portrait of Albertus Magnus 44
PLATE 8. Portraits of--
(A) Thomas Aquinas } 52
(B) Nicolas Flamel }
PLATE 9. Portraits of--
(A) Edward Kelley } 68
(B) John Dee }
PLATE 10. Portrait of Michael Maier 72
PLATE 11. Portrait of Jacob Boehme 74
PLATE 12. Portraits of J. B. and F. M. van Helmont 76
PLATE 13. Portrait of J. F. Helvetius 84
PLATE 14. Portrait of “Cagliostro” 92
PLATE 15. Portrait of Robert Boyle 94
PLATE 16. Portrait of John Dalton 100
TABLE SHOWING THE PERIODIC CLASSIFICATION OF THE CHEMICAL
ELEMENTS Pages 106, 107
ALCHEMY:
ANCIENT AND MODERN
CHAPTER I
THE MEANING OF ALCHEMY
The Aim of Alchemy.
§ =1.= Alchemy is generally understood to have been that art whose end
was the transmutation of the so-called base metals into gold by means of
an ill-defined something called the Philosopher’s Stone; but even from a
purely physical standpoint, this is a somewhat superficial view. Alchemy
was both a philosophy and an experimental science, and the transmutation
of the metals was its end only in that this would give the final proof
of the alchemistic hypotheses; in other words, Alchemy, considered from
the physical standpoint, was the attempt to demonstrate experimentally
on the material plane the validity of a certain philosophical view of
the Cosmos. We see the genuine scientific spirit in the saying of one of
the alchemists: “Would to God . . . all men might become adepts in our
Art--for then gold, the great idol of mankind, would lose its value, and
we should prize it only for its scientific teaching.”[6] Unfortunately,
however, not many alchemists came up to this ideal; and for the majority
of them, Alchemy did mean merely the possibility of making gold cheaply
and gaining untold wealth.
[6] “EIRENÆUS PHILALETHES”: _An Open Entrance to the Closed Palace
of the King_ (see _The Hermetic Museum, Restored and Enlarged_,
edited by A. E. Waite, 1893, vol. ii. p. 178).
The Transcendental Theory of Alchemy.
§ =2.= By some mystics, however, the opinion has been expressed that
Alchemy was not a physical art or science at all, that in no sense was
its object the manufacture of material gold, and that its processes were
not carried out on the physical plane. According to this transcendental
theory, Alchemy was concerned with man’s soul, its object was the
perfection, not of material substances, but of man in a spiritual sense.
Those who hold this view identify Alchemy with, or at least regard it as
a branch of, Mysticism, from which it is supposed to differ merely by
the employment of a special language; and they hold that the writings of
the alchemists must not be understood literally as dealing with chemical
operations, with furnaces, retorts, alembics, pelicans and the like,
with salt, sulphur, mercury, gold and other material substances, but
must be understood as grand allegories dealing with spiritual truths.
According to this view, the figure of the transmutation of the “base”
metals into gold symbolised the salvation of man--the transmutation of
his soul into spiritual gold--which was to be obtained by the
elimination of evil and the development of good by the grace of God; and
the realisation of which salvation or spiritual transmutation may be
described as the New Birth, or that condition of being known as union
with the Divine. It would follow, of course, if this theory were true,
that the genuine alchemists were pure mystics, and hence, that the
development of chemical science was not due to their labours, but to
pseudo-alchemists who so far misunderstood their writings as to have
interpreted them in a literal sense.
Failure of the Transcendental Theory.
§ =3.= This theory, however, has been effectively disposed of by Mr.
Arthur Edward Waite, who points to the lives of the alchemists
themselves in refutation of it. For their lives indisputably prove that
the alchemists were occupied with chemical operations on the physical
plane, and that for whatever motive, they toiled to discover a method
for transmuting the commoner metals into actual, material gold. As
Paracelsus himself says of the true “spagyric physicians,” who were the
alchemists of his period: “These do not give themselves up to ease and
idleness . . . But they devote themselves diligently to their labours,
sweating whole nights over fiery furnaces. These do not kill the time
with empty talk, but find their delight in their laboratory.”[7] The
writings of the alchemists contain (mixed, however, with much that from
the physical standpoint appears merely fantastic) accurate accounts of
many chemical processes and discoveries, which cannot be explained away
by any method of transcendental interpretation. There is not the
slightest doubt that chemistry owes its origin to the direct labours of
the alchemists themselves, and not to any who misread their writings.
[7] PARACELSUS: “Concerning the Nature of Things” (see _The Hermetic
and Alchemical Writings of Paracelsus_, edited by A. E. Waite, 1894,
vol. i. p. 167).
The Qualifications of the Adept.
§ =4.= At the same time, it is quite evident that there is a
considerable element of Mysticism in the alchemistic doctrines; this has
always been recognised; but, as a general rule, those who have
approached the subject from the scientific point of view have considered
this mystical element as of little or no importance. However, there are
certain curious facts which are not satisfactorily explained by a purely
physical theory of Alchemy, and, in our opinion, the recognition of the
importance of this mystical element and of the true relation which
existed between Alchemy and Mysticism is essential for the right
understanding of the subject. We may notice, in the first place, that
the alchemists always speak of their Art as a Divine Gift, the highest
secrets of which are not to be learnt from any books on the subject; and
they invariably teach that the right mental attitude with regard to God
is the first step necessary for the achievement of the _magnum opus_. As
says one alchemist: “In the first place, let every devout and
God-fearing chemist and student of this Art consider that this arcanum
should be regarded, not only as a truly great, but as a most holy Art
(seeing that it typifies and shadows out the highest heavenly good).
Therefore, if any man desire to reach this great and unspeakable
Mystery, he must remember that it is obtained not by the might of man,
but by the grace of God, and that not our will or desire, but only the
mercy of the Most High, can bestow it upon us. For this reason you must
first of all cleanse your heart, lift it up to Him alone, and ask of
Him this gift in true, earnest, and undoubting prayer. He alone can give
and bestow it.”[8] And “Basil Valentine”: “First, there should be the
invocation of God, flowing from the depth of a pure and sincere heart,
and a conscience which should be free from all ambition, hypocrisy, and
vice, as also from all cognate faults, such as arrogance, boldness,
pride, luxury, worldly vanity, oppression of the poor, and similar
iniquities, which should all be rooted up out of the heart--that when a
man appears before the Throne of Grace, to regain the health of his
body, he may come with a conscience weeded of all tares, and be changed
into a pure temple of God cleansed of all that defiles.”[9]
[8] _The Sophic Hydrolith; or, Water Stone of the Wise_ (see _The
Hermetic Museum_, vol. i. p. 74).
[9] _The Triumphal Chariot of Antimony_ (Mr. A. E. Waite’s
translation, p. 13). See § 41.
Alchemistic Language.
§ =5.= In the second place, we must notice the nature of alchemistic
language. As we have hinted above, and as is at once apparent on opening
any alchemistic book, the language of Alchemy is very highly mystical,
and there is much that is perfectly unintelligible in a physical sense.
Indeed, the alchemists habitually apologise for their vagueness on the
plea that such mighty secrets may not be made more fully manifest. It is
true, of course, that in the days of Alchemy’s degeneracy a good deal of
pseudo-mystical nonsense was written by the many impostors then
abounding, but the mystical style of language is by no means confined to
the later alchemistic writings. It is also true that the alchemists, no
doubt, desired to shield their secrets from vulgar and profane eyes, and
hence would necessarily adopt a symbolic language. But it is past belief
that the language of the alchemist was due to some arbitrary plan;
whatever it is to us, it was very real to him. Moreover, this argument
cuts both ways, for those, also, who take a transcendental view of
Alchemy regard its language as symbolical, although after a different
manner. It is also, to say the least, curious, as Mr. A. E. Waite points
out, that this mystical element should be found in the writings of the
earlier alchemists, whose manuscripts were not written for publication,
and therefore ran no risk of informing the vulgar of the precious
secrets of Alchemy. On the other hand, the transcendental method of
translation does often succeed in making sense out of what is otherwise
unintelligible in the writings of the alchemists. The above-mentioned
writer remarks on this point: “Without in any way pretending to assert
that this hypothesis reduces the literary chaos of the philosophers into
a regular order, it may be affirmed that it materially elucidates their
writings, and that it is wonderful how contradictions, absurdities, and
difficulties seem to dissolve wherever it is applied.”[10]
[10] ARTHUR EDWARD WAITE: _The Occult Sciences_ (1891), p. 91.
The alchemists’ love of symbolism is also conspicuously displayed in the
curious designs with which certain of their books are embellished. We
are not here referring to the illustrations of actual apparatus employed
in carrying out the various operations of physical Alchemy, which are
not infrequently found in the works of those alchemists who at the same
time were practical chemists (Glauber, for example), but to pictures
whose meaning plainly lies not upon the surface and whose import is
clearly symbolical, whether their symbolism has reference to physical or
to spiritual processes. Examples of such symbolic illustrations, many of
which are highly fantastic, will be found in plates 2, 3, and 4. We
shall refer to them again in the course of the present and following
chapters.
Alchemists of a Mystical Type.
§ =6.= We must also notice that, although there cannot be the slightest
doubt that the great majority of alchemists were engaged in problems and
experiments of a physical nature, yet there were a few men included
within the alchemistic ranks who were entirely, or almost entirely,
concerned with problems of a spiritual nature; Thomas Vaughan, for
example, and Jacob Boehme, who boldly employed the language of Alchemy
in the elaboration of his system of mystical philosophy. And
particularly must we notice, as Mr. A. E. Waite has also indicated, the
significant fact that the Western alchemists make unanimous appeal to
Hermes Trismegistos as the greatest authority on the art of Alchemy,
whose alleged writings are of an undoubtedly mystical character (see §
29). It is clear, that in spite of its apparently physical nature,
Alchemy must have been in some way closely connected with Mysticism.
The Meaning of Alchemy.
§ =7.= If we are ever to understand the meaning of Alchemy aright we
must look at the subject from the alchemistic point of view. In modern
times there has come about a divorce between Religion and Science in
men’s minds (though more recently a unifying tendency has set in); but
it was otherwise with the alchemists, their religion and their science
were closely united. We have said that “Alchemy was the attempt to
demonstrate experimentally on the material plane the validity of a
certain philosophical view of the Cosmos”; now, this “philosophical view
of the Cosmos” was Mysticism. =Alchemy had its origin in the attempt to
apply, in a certain manner, the principles of Mysticism to the things of
the physical plane=, and was, therefore, of a dual nature, on the one
hand spiritual and religious, on the other, physical and material. As
the anonymous author of _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_ (1815)
remarks, “The universal chemistry, by which the science of alchemy opens
the knowledge of all nature, being founded on _first principles_ forms
analogy with whatever knowledge is founded on the _same first
principles_. . . . Saint John describes the redemption, or the new
creation of the fallen soul, on the _same first principles_, until the
consummation of the work, in which the Divine tincture transmutes the
base metal of the soul into a perfection, that will pass the fire of
eternity;”[11] that is to say, Alchemy and the mystical regeneration of
man (in this writer’s opinion) are analogous processes on different
planes of being, because they are founded on the same first principles.
[11] F. B.: _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_ (1815), Preface,
p. 3.
Opinions of other Writers.
§ =8.= We shall here quote the opinions of two modern writers, as to the
significance of Alchemy; one a mystic, the other a man of science. Says
Mr. A. E. Waite, “If the authors of the ‘Suggestive Inquiry’ and of
‘Remarks on Alchemy and the Alchemists’ [two books putting forward the
transcendental theory] had considered the lives of the symbolists, as
well as the nature of the symbols, their views would have been very much
modified; they would have found that the true method of Hermetic
interpretation lies in a middle course; but the errors which originated
with merely typographical investigations were intensified by a
consideration of the great alchemical theorem, which, _par excellence_,
is one of universal development, which acknowledges that every substance
contains undeveloped resources and potentialities, and can be brought
outward and forward into perfection. They [the generality of alchemists]
applied their theory only to the development of metallic substances from
a lower to a higher order, but we see by their writings that the grand
hierophants of Oriental and Western alchemy alike were continually
haunted by brief and imperfect glimpses of glorious possibilities for
man, if the evolution of his nature were accomplished along the lines of
their theory.”[12] Mr. M. M. Pattison Muir, M.A., says: “. . . alchemy
aimed at giving experimental proof of a certain theory of the whole
system of nature, including humanity. The practical culmination of the
alchemical quest presented a threefold aspect; the alchemists sought the
stone of wisdom, for by gaining that they gained the control of wealth;
they sought the universal panacea, for that would give them the power of
enjoying wealth and life; they sought the soul of the world, for thereby
they could hold communion with spiritual existences, and enjoy the
fruition of spiritual life. The object of their search was to satisfy
their material needs, their intellectual capacities, and their spiritual
yearnings. The alchemists of the nobler sort always made the first of
these objects subsidiary to the other two. . . .”[13]
[12] ARTHUR EDWARD WAITE: _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_
(1888), pp. 30, 31. As says another writer of the mystical school of
thought: “If we look upon the subject [of Alchymy] from the point
which affords the widest view, it may be said that Alchymy has two
aspects: the simply material, and the religious. The dogma that
Alchymy was only a form of chemistry is untenable by any one who has
read the works of its chief professors. The doctrine that Alchymy
was religion only, and that its chemical references were all blinds,
is equally untenable in the face of history, which shows that many
of its most noted professors were men who had made important
discoveries in the domain of common chemistry, and were in no way
notable as teachers either of ethics or religion” (“Sapere Aude,”
_The Science of Alchymy, Spiritual and Material_ (1893), pp. 3 and
4).
[13] M. M. PATTISON MUIR, M.A.: _The Story of Alchemy and the
Beginnings of Chemistry_ (1902), pp. 105 and 106.
The Basic Idea of Alchemy.
§ =9.= The famous axiom beloved by every alchemist--“_What is above is
as that which is below, and what is below is as that which is
above_”--although of questionable origin, tersely expresses the basic
idea of Alchemy. The alchemists postulated and believed in a very real
sense in the essential unity of the Cosmos. Hence, they held that there
is a correspondence or analogy existing between things spiritual and
things physical, the same laws operating in each realm. As writes
Sendivogius “. . . the Sages have been taught of God that this natural
world is only an image and material copy of a heavenly and spiritual
pattern; that the very existence of this world is based upon the reality
of its celestial archetype; and that God has created it in imitation of
the spiritual and invisible universe, in order that men might be the
better enabled to comprehend His heavenly teaching, and the wonders of
His absolute and ineffable power and wisdom. Thus the Sage sees heaven
reflected in Nature as in a mirror; and he pursues this Art, not for the
sake of gold or silver, but for the love of the knowledge which it
reveals; he jealously conceals it from the sinner and the scornful, lest
the mysteries of heaven should be laid bare to the vulgar gaze.”[14]
[14] MICHAEL SENDIVOGIUS: _The New Chemical Light, Pt. II.,
Concerning Sulphur_ (_The Hermetic Museum_, vol. ii. p. 138).
The alchemists held that the metals are one in essence, and spring from
the same seed in the womb of nature, but are not all equally matured and
perfect, gold being the highest product of Nature’s powers. In gold, the
alchemist saw a picture of the regenerate man, resplendent with
spiritual beauty, overcoming all temptations and proof against evil;
whilst he regarded lead--the basest of the metals--as typical of the
sinful and unregenerate man, stamped with the hideousness of sin and
easily overcome by temptation and evil; for whilst gold withstood the
action of fire and all known corrosive liquids (save _aqua regia_
alone), lead was most easily acted upon. We are told that the
Philosopher’s Stone, which would bring about the desired grand
transmutation, is of a species with gold itself and purer than the
purest; understood in the mystical sense this means that the
regeneration of man can be effected only by Goodness itself--in terms of
Christian theology, by the Power of the Spirit of Christ. The
Philosopher’s Stone was regarded as symbolical of Christ Jesus, and in
this sense we can understand the otherwise incredible powers attributed
to it.
The Law of Analogy.
§ =10.= With the theories of physical Alchemy we shall deal at length in
the following chapter, but enough has been said to indicate the analogy
existing, according to the alchemistic view, between the problem of the
perfection of the metals, _i.e._, the transmutation of the “base” metals
into gold, and the perfection or transfiguration of spiritual man; and
it might also be added, between these problems and that of the
perfection of man considered physiologically. To the alchemistic
philosopher these three problems were one: the same problem on different
planes of being; and the solution was likewise one. He who held the key
to one problem held the key to all three, provided he understood the
analogy between matter and spirit. The point is not, be it noted,
whether these problems are in reality one and the same; the main
doctrine of analogy, which is, indeed, an essential element in all true
mystical philosophy, will, we suppose, meet with general consent; but it
will be contended (and rightly, we think) that the analogies drawn by
the alchemists are fantastic and by no means always correct, though
possibly there may be more truth in them than appears at first sight.
The point is not that these analogies are correct, but that they were
regarded as such by all true alchemists. Says the author of _The Sophic
Hydrolith_: “. . . the practice of this Art enables us to understand,
not merely the marvels of Nature, but the nature of God Himself, in all
its unspeakable glory. It shadows forth, in a wonderful manner . . . all
the articles of the Christian faith, and the reason why man must pass
through much tribulation and anguish, and fall a prey to death, before
he can rise again to a new life.”[15] A considerable portion of this
curious alchemistic work is taken up in expounding the analogy believed
to exist between the Philosopher’s Stone and “the Stone which the
builders rejected,” Christ Jesus; and the writer concludes: “Thus . . .
I have briefly and simply set forth to you the perfect analogy which
exists between our earthly and chemical and the true and heavenly Stone,
Jesus Christ, whereby we may attain unto certain beatitude and
perfection, not only in earthly but also in eternal life.”[16] And
likewise says Peter Bonus: “I am firmly persuaded that any unbeliever
who got truly to know this Art, would straightway confess the truth of
our Blessed Religion, and believe in the Trinity and in our Lord Jesus
Christ.”[17]
[15] _The Sophic Hydrolith; or, Water Stone of the Wise_ (see _The
Hermetic Museum_, vol. i. p. 88).
[16] _Ibid._ p. 114.
[17] PETER BONUS: _The New Pearl of Great Price_ (Mr. A. E. Waite’s
translation, p. 275).
The Dual Nature of Alchemy.
§ =11.= For the most part, the alchemists were chiefly engaged with the
carrying out of the alchemistic theory on the physical plane, _i.e._,
with the attempt to transmute the “base” metals into the “noble” ones;
some for the love of knowledge, but alas! the vast majority for the love
of mere wealth. But all who were worthy of the title of “alchemist”
realised at times, more or less dimly, the possibility of the
application of the same methods to man and the glorious result of the
transmutation of man’s soul into spiritual gold. There were a few who
had a clearer vision of this ideal, those who devoted their activities
entirely, or almost so, to the attainment of this highest goal of
alchemistic philosophy, and concerned themselves little if at all with
the analogous problem on the physical plane. The theory that Alchemy
originated in the attempt to demonstrate the applicability of the
principles of Mysticism to the things of the physical realm brings into
harmony the physical and transcendental theories of Alchemy and the
various conflicting facts advanced in favour of each. It explains the
existence of the above-mentioned, two very different types of
alchemists. It explains the appeal to the works attributed to Hermes,
and the presence in the writings of the alchemists of much that is
clearly mystical. And finally, it is in agreement with such statements
as we have quoted above from _The Sophic Hydrolith_ and elsewhere, and
the general religious tone of the alchemistic writings.
[Illustration: PLATE 2.
SYMBOLICAL ILLUSTRATION
Representing the Trinity of Body, Soul and Spirit.
[_To face page 15_]
“Body, Soul and Spirit.”
§ =12.= In accordance with our primary object as stated in the preface,
we shall confine our attention mainly to the physical aspect of Alchemy;
but in order to understand its theories, it appears to us to be
essential to realise the fact that Alchemy was an attempted application
of the principles of Mysticism to the things of the physical world. The
supposed analogy between man and the metals sheds light on what
otherwise would be very difficult to understand. It helps to make plain
why the alchemists attributed moral qualities to the metals--some are
called “imperfect,” “base”; others are said to be “perfect,” “noble.”
And especially does it help to explain the alchemistic notions
regarding the nature of the metals. The alchemists believed that the
metals were constructed after the manner of man, into whose constitution
three factors were regarded as entering: body, soul, and spirit. As
regards man, mystical philosophers generally use these terms as follows:
“body” is the outward manifestation and form; “soul” is the inward
individual spirit[18]; and “spirit” is the universal Soul in all men.
And likewise, according to the alchemists, in the metals, there is the
“body” or outward form and properties, “metalline soul” or spirit,[19]
and finally, the all-pervading essence of all metals. As writes the
author of the exceedingly curious tract entitled _The Book of
Lambspring_: “Be warned and understand truly that two fishes are
swimming in our sea,” illustrating his remark by the symbolical picture
reproduced in plate 2, and adding in elucidation thereof, “The Sea is
the Body, the two Fishes are Soul and Spirit.”[20] The alchemists,
however, were not always consistent in their use of the term “spirit.”
Sometimes (indeed frequently) they employed it to denote merely the more
volatile portions of a chemical substance; at other times it had a more
interior significance.
[18] Which, in virtue of man’s self-consciousness, is, by the grace
of God, immortal.
[19] See the work _Of Natural and Supernatural Things_, attributed
to “Basil Valentine,” for a description of the “spirits” of the
metals in particular.
[20] _The Book of Lambspring_, translated by Nicholas Barnaud
Delphinas (see the _Hermetic Museum_, vol. i. p. 277). This work
contains many other fantastic alchemistic symbolical pictures,
amongst the most curious series in alchemistic literature.
Alchemy, Mysticism and Modern Science.
§ =13.= We notice the great difference between the alchemistic theory
and the views regarding the constitution of matter which have dominated
Chemistry since the time of Dalton. But at the present time Dalton’s
theory of the chemical elements is undergoing a profound modification.
We do not imply that Modern Science is going back to any such fantastic
ideas as were held by the alchemists, but we are struck with the
remarkable similarity between this alchemistic theory of a soul of all
metals, a one primal element, and modern views regarding the ether of
space. In its attempt to demonstrate the applicability of the
fundamental principles of Mysticism to the things of the physical realm
Alchemy apparently failed and ended its days in fraud. It appears,
however, that this true aim of alchemistic art--particularly the
demonstration of the validity of the theory that all the various forms
of matter are produced by an evolutionary process from some one primal
element or _quintessence_--is being realised by recent researches in the
domain of physical and chemical science.
CHAPTER II
THE THEORY OF PHYSICAL ALCHEMY
Supposed Proofs of Transmutation.
§ =14.= It must be borne in mind when reviewing the theories of the
alchemists, that there were a number of phenomena known at the time, the
superficial examination of which would naturally engender a belief that
the transmutation of the metals was a common occurrence. For example,
the deposition of copper on iron when immersed in a solution of a copper
salt (_e.g._, blue vitriol) was naturally concluded to be a
transmutation of iron into copper,[21] although, had the alchemists
examined the residual liquid, they would have found that the two metals
had merely exchanged places; and the fact that white and yellow alloys
of copper with arsenic and other substances could be produced, pointed
to the possibility of transmuting copper into silver and gold. It was
also known that if water (and this is true of distilled water which does
not contain solid matter in solution) was boiled for some time in a
glass flask, some solid, earthy matter was produced; and if water could
be transmuted into earth, surely one metal could be converted into
another.[22] On account of these and like phenomena the alchemists
regarded the transmutation of the metals as an experimentally proved
fact. Even if they are to be blamed for their superficial observation of
such phenomena, yet, nevertheless, their labours marked a distinct
advance upon the purely speculative and theoretical methods of the
philosophers preceding them. Whatever their faults, the alchemists
_were_ the forerunners of modern experimental science.
[21] Cf. _The Golden Tract concerning the Stone of the Philosophers_
(_The Hermetic Museum_, vol. i. p. 25).
[22] Lavoisier (eighteenth century) proved this apparent
transmutation to be due to the action of the water on the glass
vessel containing it.
The Alchemistic Elements.
§ =15.= The alchemists regarded the metals as composite, and granting
this, then the possibility of transmutation is only a logical
conclusion. In order to understand the theory of the elements held by
them we must rid ourselves of any idea that it bears any close
resemblance to Dalton’s theory of the chemical elements; this is clear
from what has been said in the preceding chapter. Now, it is a fact of
simple observation that many otherwise different bodies manifest some
property in common, as, for instance, combustibility. Properties such as
these were regarded as being due to some principle or element common to
all bodies exhibiting such properties; thus, combustibility was thought
to be due to some elementary principle of combustion--the “sulphur” of
the alchemists and the “phlogiston” of a later period. This is a view
which _à priori_ appears to be not unlikely; but it is now known that,
although there are relations existing between the properties of bodies
and their constituent chemical elements (and also, it should be noted,
the relative arrangement of the particles of these elements), it is the
less obvious properties which enable chemists to determine the
constitution of bodies, and the connection is very far from being of the
simple nature imagined by the alchemists.
Aristotle’s Views regarding the Elements.
§ =16.= For the origin of the alchemistic theory of the elements it is
necessary to go back to the philosophers preceding the alchemists, and
it is not improbable that they derived it from some still older source.
It was taught by Empedocles of Agrigent (440 B.C. _circa_), who
considered that there were four elements--earth, water, air, and fire.
Aristotle added a fifth, “the ether.” These elements were regarded, not
as different kinds of matter, but rather as different forms of the one
original matter, whereby it manifested different properties. It was
thought that to these elements were due the four primary properties of
dryness, moistness, warmth, and coldness, each element being supposed to
give rise to two of these properties, dryness and warmth being thought
to be due to fire, moistness and warmth to air, moistness and coldness
to water, and dryness and coldness to earth. Thus, moist and cold bodies
(liquids in general) were said to possess these properties in
consequence of the aqueous element, and were termed “waters,” &c. Also,
since these elements were not regarded as different kinds of matter,
transmutation was thought to be possible, one being convertible into
another, as in the example given above (§ 14).
The Sulphur-Mercury Theory.
§ =17.= Coming to the alchemists, we find the view that the metals are
all composed of two elementary principles--sulphur and mercury--in
different proportions and degrees of purity, well-nigh universally
accepted in the earlier days of Alchemy. By these terms “sulphur” and
“mercury,” however, must not be understood the common bodies ordinarily
designated by these names; like the elements of Aristotle, the
alchemistic principles were regarded as properties rather than as
substances, though it must be confessed that the alchemists were by no
means always clear on this point themselves. Indeed, it is not
altogether easy to say exactly what the alchemists did mean by these
terms, and the question is complicated by the fact that very frequently
they make mention of different sorts of “sulphur” and “mercury.”
Probably, however, we shall not be far wrong in saying that “sulphur”
was generally regarded as the principle of combustion and also of
colour, and was said to be present on account of the fact that most
metals are changed into earthy substances by the aid of fire; and to the
“mercury,” the metallic principle _par excellence_, was attributed such
properties as fusibility, malleability and lustre, which were regarded
as characteristic of the metals in general. The pseudo-Geber (see § 32)
says that “Sulphur is a fatness of the Earth, by temperate Decoction in
the Mine of the Earth thickened, until it be hardned and made dry.”[23]
He considered an excess of sulphur to be a cause of imperfection in the
metals, and he writes that one of the causes of the corruption of the
metals by fire “is the Inclusion of a burning Sulphuriety in the
profundity of their Substance, diminishing them by Inflamation, and
exterminating also into Fume, with extream Consumption, whatsoever
Argentvive in them is of good Fixation.”[24] He assumed, further, that
the metals contained an incombustible as well as a combustible sulphur,
the latter sulphur being apparently regarded as an impurity.[25] A later
alchemist says that sulphur is “most easily recognised by the vital
spirit in animals, the colour in metals, the odour in plants.”[26]
Mercury, on the other hand, according to the pseudo-Geber, is the cause
of perfection in the metals, and endows gold with its lustre. Another
alchemist, quoting Arnold de Villanova, writes: “Quicksilver is the
elementary form of all things fusible; for all things fusible, when
melted, are changed into it, and it mingles with them because it is of
the same substance with them. Such bodies differ from quicksilver in
their composition only so far as itself is or is not free from the
foreign matter of impure sulphur.”[27] The obtaining of “philosophical
mercury,” the imaginary virtues of which the alchemists never tired of
relating, was generally held to be essential for the attainment of the
_magnum opus_. It was commonly thought that it could be prepared from
ordinary quicksilver by purificatory processes, whereby the impure
sulphur supposed to be present in this sort of mercury might be purged
away.
[23] _Of the Sum of Perfection_ (see _The Works of Geber_,
translated by Richard Russel, 1678, pp. 69 and 70).
[24] _Of the Sum of Perfection_ (see _The Works of Geber_, p. 156).
[25] See _The Works of Geber_, p. 160. This view was also held by
other alchemists.
[26] _The New Chemical Light_, Part II., _Concerning Sulphur_ (see
_The Hermetic Museum_, vol. ii. p. 151).
[27] See _The Golden Tract concerning the Stone of the Philosophers_
(_The Hermetic Museum_, vol. i. p. 17).
The sulphur-mercury theory of the metals was held by such famous
alchemists as Roger Bacon, Arnold de Villanova and Raymond Lully. Until
recently it was thought to have originated to a great extent with the
Arabian alchemist, Geber; but the late Professor Berthelot showed that
the works ascribed to Geber, in which the theory is put forward, are
forgeries of a date by which it was already centuries old (see § 32).
Occasionally, arsenic was regarded as an elementary principle (this view
is to be found, for example, in the work _Of the Sum of Perfection_, by
the pseudo-Geber), but the idea was not general.
The Sulphur-Mercury-Salt Theory.
§ =18.= Later in the history of Alchemy, the mercury-sulphur theory was
extended by the addition of a third elementary principle, salt. As in
the case of philosophical sulphur and mercury, by this term was not
meant common salt (sodium chloride) or any of those substances commonly
known as salts. “Salt” was the name given to a supposed basic principle
in the metals, a principle of fixity and solidification, conferring the
property of resistance to fire. In this extended form, the theory is
found in the works of Isaac of Holland and in those attributed to “Basil
Valentine,” who (see the work _Of Natural and Supernatural Things_)
attempts to explain the differences in the properties of the metals as
the result of the differences in the proportion of sulphur, salt, and
mercury they contain. Thus, copper, which is highly coloured, is said to
contain much sulphur, whilst iron is supposed to contain an excess of
salt, &c. The sulphur-mercury-salt theory was vigorously championed by
Paracelsus, and the doctrine gained very general acceptance amongst the
alchemists. Salt, however, seems generally to have been considered a
less important principle than either mercury or sulphur.
The same germ-idea underlying these doctrines is to be found much later
in Stahl’s phlogistic theory (eighteenth century), which attempted to
account for the combustibility of bodies by the assumption that such
bodies all contain “phlogiston”--the hypothetical principle of
combustion (see § 72)--though the concept of “phlogiston” approaches
more nearly to the modern idea of an element than do the alchemistic
elements or principles. It was not until still later in the history of
Chemistry that it became quite evident that the more obvious properties
of chemical substances are not specially conferred on them in virtue of
certain elements entering into their constitution.
Alchemistic Elements and Principles.
§ =19.= The alchemists combined the above theories with Aristotle’s
theory of the elements. The latter, namely, earth, air, fire and water,
were regarded as more interior, more primary, than the principles, whose
source was said to be these same elements. As writes Sendivogius in Part
II. of _The New Chemical Light_: “The three Principles of things are
produced out of the four elements in the following manner: Nature, whose
power is in her obedience to the Will of God, ordained from the very
beginning, that the four elements should incessantly act on one another
so, in obedience to her behest, fire began to act on air, and produced
Sulphur; air acted on water, and produced Mercury; water, by its action
on the earth, produced Salt. Earth, alone, having nothing to act upon,
did not produce anything, but became the nurse, or womb, of these three
Principles. We designedly speak of three Principles; for though the
Ancients mention only two, it is clear that they omitted the third
(Salt) not from ignorance, but from a desire to lead the uninitiated
astray.”[28]
[28] _The New Chemical Light_, Part II., _Concerning Sulphur_ (see
_The Hermetic Museum_, vol. ii. pp. 142-143).
Beneath and within all these coverings of outward properties, taught the
alchemists, is hidden the secret essence of all material things. “. . .
the elements and compounds,” writes one alchemist, “in addition to crass
matter, are composed of a subtle substance, or intrinsic radical
humidity, diffused through the elemental parts, simple and wholly
incorruptible, long preserving the things themselves in vigour, and
called the Spirit of the World, proceeding from the Soul of the World,
the one certain life, filling and fathoming all things, gathering
together and connecting all things, so that from the three genera of
creatures, Intellectual, Celestial, and Corruptible, there is formed the
One Machine of the whole world.”[29] It is hardly necessary to point out
how nearly this approaches modern views regarding the Ether of Space.
[29] ALEXANDER VON SUCHTEN: _Man, the best and most perfect of God’s
creatures. A more complete Exposition of this Medical Foundation for
the less Experienced Student._ (See BENEDICTUS FIGULUS: _A Golden
and Blessed Casket of Nature’s Marvels_, translated by A. E. Waite,
1893, pp. 71 and 72.)
The Growth of the Metals.
§ =20.= The alchemists regarded the metals as growing in the womb of the
earth, and a knowledge of this growth as being of very great importance.
Thomas Norton (who, however, contrary to the generality of alchemists,
denied that metals have seed and that they grow in the sense of
multiply) says:--
“_Mettalls_ of kinde grow lowe under ground,
For above erth rust in them is found;
Soe above erth appeareth corruption,
Of mettalls, and in long tyme destruction,
Whereof noe Cause is found in this Case,
Buth that above Erth thei be not in their place
Contrarie places to nature causeth strife
As Fishes out of water losen their Lyfe:
And Man, with Beasts, and Birds live in ayer,
But Stones and Mineralls under Erth repaier.”[30]
[30] THOMAS NORTON: _Ordinall of Alchemy_ (see _Theatrum Chemicum
Britannicum_, edited by Elias Ashmole, 1652, p. 18).
Norton here expresses the opinion, current among the alchemists, that
each and every thing has its own peculiar environment natural to it; a
view controverted by Robert Boyle (§ 71). So firm was the belief in the
growth of metals, that mines were frequently closed for a while in order
that the supply of metal might be renewed. The fertility of Mother Earth
forms the subject of one of the illustrations in _The Twelve Keys_ of
“Basil Valentine” (see § 41). We reproduce it in plate 3, fig. A.
Regarding this subject, the author writes: “The quickening power of the
earth produces all things that grow forth from it, and he who says that
the earth has no life makes a statement which is flatly contradicted by
the most ordinary facts. For what is dead cannot produce life and
growth, seeing that it is devoid of the quickening spirit. This spirit
is the life and soul that dwell in the earth, and are nourished by
heavenly and sidereal influences. For all herbs, trees, and roots, and
all metals and minerals, receive their growth and nutriment from the
spirit of the earth, which is the spirit of life. This spirit is itself
fed by the stars, and is thereby rendered capable of imparting nutriment
to all things that grow, and of nursing them as a mother does her child
while it is yet in the womb. The minerals are hidden in the womb of the
earth, and nourished by her with the spirit which she receives from
above.
“Thus the power of growth that I speak of is imparted not by the earth,
but by the life-giving spirit that is in it. If the earth were deserted
by this spirit, it would be dead, and no longer able to afford
nourishment to anything. For its sulphur or richness would lack the
quickening spirit without which there can be neither life nor
growth.”[31]
[31] “BASIL VALENTINE”: _The Twelve Keys_ (see _The Hermetic
Museum_, vol. i. pp. 333-334).
[Illustration: PLATE 3.
A.
SYMBOLICAL ILLUSTRATION
Representing the Fertility of the Earth.
B.
SYMBOLICAL ILLUSTRATION
Representing the Amalgamation of Gold with Mercury.
(See page 33.)
_To face page 26_]]
Alchemy and Astrology.
§ =21.= The idea that the growth of each metal was under the influence
of one of the heavenly bodies (a theory in harmony with the alchemistic
view of the unity of the Cosmos), was very generally held by the
alchemists; and in consequence thereof, the metals were often referred
to by the names or astrological symbols of their peculiar planets. These
particulars are shown in the following table:--
-----------+----------------------+--------------
Metals. | Planets, &c.[32] | Symbols.
-----------+----------------------+--------------
Gold | Sun | ☉
Silver | Moon | ☽
Mercury | Mercury | ☿
Copper | Venus | ♀
Iron | Mars | ♂
Tin | Jupiter | ♃
Lead | Saturn | ♄
-----------+----------------------+--------------
Moreover, it was thought by some alchemists that a due observance of
astrological conditions was necessary for successfully carrying out
important alchemistic experiments.
[32] This supposed connection between the metals and planets also
played an important part in Talismanic Magic.
Alchemistic View of the Nature of Gold.
§ =22.= The alchemists regarded gold as the most perfect metal, silver
being considered more perfect than the rest. The reason of this view is
not difficult to understand: gold is the most beautiful of all the
metals, and it retains its beauty without tarnishing; it resists the
action of fire and most corrosive liquids, and is unaffected by sulphur;
it was regarded, as we have pointed out above (see § 9), as symbolical
of the regenerate man. Silver, on the other hand, is, indeed, a
beautiful metal which wears well in a pure atmosphere and resists the
action of fire; but it is attacked by certain corrosives (_e.g._, _aqua
fortis_ or nitric acid) and also by sulphur. Through all the metals,
from the one seed, Nature, according to the alchemists, works
continuously up to gold; so that, in a sense, all other metals are gold
in the making; their existence marks the staying of Nature’s powers; as
“Eirenæus Philalethes” says: “All metallic seed is the seed of gold; for
gold is the intention of Nature in regard to all metals. If the base
metals are not gold, it is only through some accidental hindrance; they
are all potentially gold.”[33] Or, as another alchemist puts it: “Since
. . . the substance of the metals is _one_, and common to all, and since
this substance is (either at once, or after laying aside in course of
time the foreign and evil sulphur of the baser metals by a process of
gradual digestion) changed by the virtue of its own indwelling sulphur
into GOLD, which is the goal of all the metals, and the true intention
of Nature--we are obliged to admit, and freely confess that in the
mineral kingdom, as well as in the vegetable and animal kingdoms, Nature
seeks and demands a gradual attainment of perfection, and a gradual
approximation to the highest standard of purity and excellence.”[34]
Such was the alchemistic view of the generation of the metals; a theory
which is admittedly crude, but which, nevertheless, contains the germ of
a great principle of the utmost importance, namely, the idea that all
the varying forms of matter are evolved from some one primordial
stuff--a principle of which chemical science lost sight for awhile, for
its validity was unrecognised by Dalton’s Atomic Theory (at least, as
enunciated by him), but which is being demonstrated, as we hope to show
hereinafter, by recent scientific research. The alchemist was certainly
a fantastic evolutionist, but he _was_ an evolutionist, and, moreover,
he did not make the curious and paradoxical mistake of regarding the
fact of evolution as explaining away the existence of God--the alchemist
recognised the hand of the Divine in nature--and, although, in these
days of modern science, we cannot accept his theory of the growth of
metals, we can, nevertheless, appreciate and accept the fundamental
germ-idea underlying it.
[33] “EIRENÆUS PHILALETHES”: _The Metamorphosis of Metals_ (see _The
Hermetic Museum_, vol. ii. p. 239).
[34] _The Golden Tract Concerning the Stone of the Philosophers_
(see _The Hermetic Museum_, vol. i. p. 19).
The Philosopher’s Stone.
§ =23.= The alchemist strove to assist Nature in her gold-making, or, at
least, to carry out her methods. The pseudo-Geber taught that the
imperfect metals were to be perfected or cured by the application of
“medicines.” Three forms of medicines were distinguished; the first
bring about merely a temporary change, and the changes wrought by the
second class, although permanent, are not complete. “A Medicine of the
third Order,” he writes, “I call every Preparation, which, when it comes
to Bodies, with its projection, takes away all Corruption, and perfects
them with the Difference of all Compleatment. But this is one only.”[35]
This, the true medicine that would produce a real and permanent
transmutation, is the =Philosopher’s Stone=, the Masterpiece of
alchemistic art. Similar views were held by all the alchemists, though
some of them taught that it was necessary first of all to reduce the
metals to their first substance. Often, two forms of the Philosopher’s
Stone were distinguished, or perhaps we should say, two degrees of
perfection in the one Stone; that for transmuting the “imperfect” metals
into silver being said to be white, the stone or “powder of projection”
for gold being said to be of a red colour. In other accounts (see
Chapter V.) the medicine is described as of a pale brimstone hue.
[35] _Of the Sum of Perfection_ (see _The Works of Geber_,
translated by Richard Russel, 1678, p. 192).
Most of the alchemists who claimed knowledge of the Philosopher’s Stone
or the _materia prima_ necessary for its preparation, generally kept its
nature most secret, and spoke only in the most enigmatical and
allegorical language, the majority of their recipes containing words of
unknown meaning. In some cases gold or silver, as the case may be, was
employed in preparing the “medicine”; and, after projection had been
made, this was, of course, obtained again in the metallic form, the
alchemist imagining that a transmutation had been effected. In the case
of the few other recipes that are intelligible, the most that could be
obtained by following out their instructions is a white or yellow
metallic alloy superficially resembling silver or gold.
The Nature of the Philosopher’s Stone.
§ =24.= The mystical as distinguished from the pseudo-practical
descriptions of the Stone and its preparation are by far the more
interesting of the two. Paracelsus, in his work on _The Tincture of the
Philosophers_, tells us that all that is necessary for us to do is to
mix and coagulate the “rose-coloured blood from the Lion” and “the
gluten from the Eagle,” by which he probably meant that we must combine
“philosophical sulphur” with “philosophical mercury.” This opinion,
that the Philosopher’s Stone consists of “philosophical sulphur and
mercury” combined so as to constitute a perfect unity, was commonly held
by the alchemists, and they frequently likened this union to the
conjunction of the sexes in marriage. “Eirenæus Philalethes” tells us
that for the preparation of the Stone it is necessary to extract the
seed of gold, though this cannot be accomplished by subjecting gold to
corrosive liquids, but only by a homogeneous water (or liquid)--the
Mercury of the Sages. In the _Book of the Revelation of Hermes,
interpreted by Theophrastus Paracelsus, concerning the Supreme Secret of
the World_, the Medicine, which is here, as not infrequently, identified
with the alchemistic essence of all things or Soul of the World, is
described in the following suggestive language: “This is the Spirit of
Truth, which the world cannot comprehend without the interposition of
the Holy Ghost, or without the instruction of those who know it. The
same is of a mysterious nature, wondrous strength, boundless power.
. . . By Avicenna this Spirit is named the Soul of the World. For, as
the Soul moves all the limbs of the Body, so also does this Spirit move
all bodies. And as the Soul is in all the limbs of the Body, so also is
this Spirit in all elementary created things. It is sought by many and
found by few. It is beheld from afar and found near; for it exists in
every thing, in every place, and at all times. It has the powers of all
creatures; its action is found in all elements, and the qualities of all
things are therein, even in the highest perfection . . . it heals all
dead and living bodies without other medicine, . . . converts all
metallic bodies into gold, and there is nothing like unto it under
Heaven.”[36]
[36] See BENEDICTUS FIGULUS: _A Golden and Blessed Casket of
Nature’s Marvels_ (translated by A. E. Waite, 1893, pp. 36, 37, and
41).
The Theory of Development.
§ =25.= From the ascetic standpoint (and unfortunately, most mystics
have been somewhat overfond of ascetic ideas), the development of the
soul is only fully possible with the mortification of the body; and all
true Mysticism teaches that if we would reach the highest goal possible
for man--union with the Divine--there must be a giving up of our own
individual wills, an abasement of the soul before the Spirit. And so the
alchemists taught that for the achievement of the _magnum opus_ on the
physical plane, we must strip the metals of their outward properties in
order to develop the essence within. As says Helvetius: “. . . the
essences of metals are hidden in their outward bodies, as the kernel is
hidden in the nut. Every earthly body, whether animal, vegetable, or
mineral, is the habitation and terrestrial abode of that celestial
spirit, or influence, which is its principle of life or growth. The
secret of Alchemy is the destruction of the body, which enables the
Artist to get at, and utilise for his own purposes, the living
soul.”[37] This killing of the outward nature of material things was to
be brought about by the processes of putrefaction and decay; hence the
reason why such processes figure so largely in alchemistic recipes for
the preparation of the “Divine Magistery.” It must be borne in mind,
however, that the alchemists used the terms “putrefaction” and “decay”
rather indiscriminately, applying them to chemical processes which are
no longer regarded as such. Pictorial symbols of death and decay
representative of such processes are to be found in several alchemistic
books. There is a curious series of pictures in _A Form and Method of
Perfecting Base Metals_, by Janus Lacinus, the Calabrian (a short tract
prefixed to _The New Pearl of Great Price_ by Peter Bonus--see § 39), of
which we show three examples in plates 3 and 4. In the first picture of
the series (not shown here) we enter the palace of the king (gold) and
observe him sitting crowned upon his throne, surrounded by his son
(mercury) and five servants (silver, copper, tin, iron and lead). In the
next picture (plate 3, fig. B), the son, incited by the servants, kills
his father; and, in the third, he catches the blood of his murdered
parent in his robes; whereby we understand that an amalgam of gold and
mercury is to be prepared, the gold apparently disappearing or dying,
whilst the mercury is coloured thereby. The next picture shows us a
grave being dug, _i.e._, a furnace is to be made ready. In the fifth
picture in the series, the son “thought to throw his father into the
grave, and to leave him there; but . . . both fell in together”; and in
the sixth picture (plate 4, fig. A), we see the son being prevented from
escaping, both son and father being left in the grave to decay. Here we
have instructions in symbolical form to place the amalgam in a sealed
vessel in the furnace and to allow it to remain there until some change
is observed. So the allegory proceeds. Ultimately the father is
restored to life, the symbol of resurrection being (as might be
expected) of frequent occurrence in alchemistic literature. By this
resurrection we understand that the gold will finally be obtained in a
pure form. Indeed, it is now the “great medicine” and, in the last
picture of the series (plate 4, fig. B), the king’s son and his five
servants are all made kings in virtue of its powers.
[37] J. F. HELVETIUS: _The Golden Calf_, ch. iv. (see _The Hermetic
Museum_, vol. ii. p. 298).
[Illustration: PLATE 4.
A.
SYMBOLICAL ILLUSTRATION
Representing the Coction of Gold Amalgam in a Closed Vessel.
B.
SYMBOLICAL ILLUSTRATION
Representing the Transmutation of the Metals.
[_To face page 33_]
The Powers of the Philosopher’s Stone.
§ =26.= The alchemists believed that a most minute proportion of the
Stone projected upon considerable quantities of heated mercury, molten
lead, or other “base” metal, would transmute practically the whole into
silver or gold. This claim of the alchemists, that a most minute
quantity of the Stone was sufficient to transmute considerable
quantities of “base” metal, has been the object of much ridicule.
Certainly, some of the claims of the alchemists (understood literally)
are out of all reason; but on the other hand, the disproportion between
the quantities of Stone and transmuted metal cannot be advanced as an _à
priori_ objection to the alchemists’ claims, inasmuch that a class of
chemical reactions (called “catalytic”) is known, in which the presence
of a small quantity of some appropriate form of matter--the
catalyst--brings about a chemical change in an indefinite quantity of
some other form or forms; thus, for example, cane-sugar in aqueous
solution is converted into two other sugars by the action of small
quantities of acid; and sulphur-dioxide and oxygen, which will not
combine under ordinary conditions, do so readily in the presence of a
small quantity of platinized asbestos, which is obtained unaltered
after the reaction is completed and may be used over and over again
(this process is actually employed in the manufacture of sulphuric acid
or oil of vitriol). However, whether any such catalytic transmutation of
the chemical “elements” is possible is merely conjecture.
The Elixir of Life.
§ =27.= The Elixir of Life, which was generally described as a solution
of the Stone in spirits of wine, or identified with the Stone itself,
could be applied, so it was thought, under certain conditions to the
alchemist himself, with an entirely analogous result, _i.e._, it would
restore him to the flower of youth. The idea, not infrequently
attributed to the alchemists, that the Elixir would endow one with a
life of endless duration on the material plane is not in strict accord
with alchemistic analogy. From this point of view, the effect of the
Elixir is physiological perfection, which, although ensuring long life,
is not equivalent to endless life on the material plane. “The
Philosophers’ Stone,” says Paracelsus, “purges the whole body of man,
and cleanses it from all impurities by the introduction of new and more
youthful forces which it joins to the nature of man.”[38] And in another
work expressive of the opinions of the same alchemist, we read: “. . .
there is nothing which might deliver the mortal body from death; but
there is One Thing which may postpone decay, renew youth, and prolong
short human life . . .”[39] In the theory that a solution of the
Philosopher’s Stone (which, it must be remembered, was thought to be of
a species with gold) constituted the _Elixir Vitæ_, can be traced,
perhaps, the idea that gold in a potable form was a veritable cure-all:
in the latter days of Alchemy any yellow-coloured liquid was foisted
upon a credulous public as a medicinal preparation of gold.
[38] THEOPHRASTUS PARACELSUS: _The Fifth Book of the Archidoxies_
(see _The Hermetic and Alchemical Writings of Paracelsus_,
translated by A. E. Waite, 1894, vol. ii. p. 39).
[39] _The Book of the Revelation of Hermes, interpreted by
Theophrastus Paracelsus, concerning the Supreme Secret of the
World._ (See BENEDICTUS FIGULUS: _A Golden Casket of Nature’s
Marvels_, translated by A. E. Waite, 1893, pp. 33 and 34.)
[Illustration: PLATE 5.
ALCHEMISTIC APPARATUS. A and B.--Two forms of Apparatus for Sublimation.
_To face page 37_]]
The Practical Methods of the Alchemists.
§ =28.= We will conclude this chapter with some few remarks regarding
the practical methods of the alchemists. In their experiments, the
alchemists worked with very large quantities of material compared with
what is employed in chemical researches at the present day. They had
great belief in the efficacy of time to effect a desired change in their
substances, and they were wont to repeat the same operation (such as
distillation, for example) on the same material over and over again;
which demonstrated their unwearied patience, even if it effected little
towards the attainment of their end. They paid much attention to any
changes of colour they observed in their experiments, and many
descriptions of supposed methods to achieve the _magnum opus_ contain
detailed directions as to the various changes of colour which must be
obtained in the material operated upon if a successful issue to the
experiment is desired.[40] In plates 5 and 6 we give illustrations of
some characteristic pieces of apparatus employed by the alchemists.
Plate 5, fig. A, and plate 6, fig. A, are from a work known as
_Alchemiae Gebri_ (1545); plate 5, fig. B, is from Glauber’s work on
Furnaces (1651); and plate 6, fig. B, is from a work by Dr. John French
entitled _The Art of Distillation_ (1651). The first figure shows us a
furnace and alembics. The alembic proper is a sort of still-head which
can be luted on to a flask or other vessel, and was much used for
distillations. In the present case, however, the alembics are employed
in conjunction with apparatus for subliming difficultly volatile
substances. Plate 5, fig. B, shows another apparatus for sublimation,
consisting of a sort of oven, and three detachable upper chambers,
generally called aludels. In both forms of apparatus the vapours are
cooled in the upper part of the vessel, and the substance is deposited
in the solid form, being thereby purified from less volatile impurities.
Plate 6, fig. A, shows an athanor (or digesting furnace) and a couple of
digesting vessels. A vessel of this sort was employed for heating bodies
in a closed space, the top being sealed up when the substances to be
operated upon had been put inside, and the vessel heated in ashes in an
athanor, a uniform temperature being maintained. The pelican,
illustrated in plate 6, fig. B, was used for a similar purpose, the two
arms being added in the idea that the vapours would be circulated
thereby.
[40] As writes Espagnet in his _Hermetic Arcanum_, canons 64 and 65:
“The Means or demonstrative signs are Colours, successively and
orderly affecting the matter and its affections and demonstrative
passions, whereof there are also three special ones (as critical) to
be noted; to these some add a Fourth. The first is black, which is
called the Crow’s head, because of its extreme blackness, whose
crepusculum sheweth the beginning of the action of the fire of
nature and solution, and the blackest midnight sheweth the
perfection of liquefaction, and confusion of the elements. Then the
grain putrefies and is corrupted, that it may be the more apt for
generation. The white colour succeedeth the black, wherein is given
the perfection of the first degree, and of the White Sulphur. This
is called the blessed stone; this Earth is white and foliated,
wherein Philosophers do sow their gold. The third is Orange colour,
which is produced in the passage of the white to the red, as the
middle, and being mixed of both is as the dawn with his saffron
hair, a forerunner of the Sun. The fourth colour is Ruddy and
Sanguine, which is extracted from the white fire only. Now because
whiteness is easily altered by any other colour before day it
quickly faileth of its candour. But the deep redness of the Sun
perfecteth the work of Sulphur, which is called the Sperm of the
male, the fire of the Stone, the King’s Crown, and the Son of Sol,
wherein the first labour of the workman resteth.
“Besides these decretory signs which firmly inhere in the matter,
and shew its essential mutations, almost infinite colours appear,
and shew themselves in vapours, as the Rainbow in the clouds, which
quickly pass away and are expelled by those that succeed, more
affecting the air than the earth: the operator must have a gentle
care of them, because they are not permanent, and proceed not from
the intrinsic disposition of the matter, but from the fire painting
and fashioning everything after its pleasure, or casually by heat in
slight moisture” (see _Collectanea Hermetica_, edited by W. Wynn
Westcott, vol. i., 1893, pp. 28 and 29). Very probably this is not
without a mystical meaning as well as a supposed application in the
preparation of the physical Stone.
[Illustration: PLATE 6.
ALCHEMISTIC APPARATUS. A.--An Athanor. B.--A Pelican.
_To face page 38_]]
CHAPTER III
THE ALCHEMISTS[41]
(A. BEFORE PARACELSUS)
Hermes Trismegistos.
§ =29.= Having now considered the chief points in the theory of Physical
Alchemy, we must turn our attention to the lives and individual
teachings of the alchemists themselves. The first name which is found in
the history of Alchemy is that of =Hermes Trismegistos=. We have already
mentioned the high esteem in which the works ascribed to this personage
were held by the alchemists (§ 6). He has been regarded as the father of
Alchemy; his name has supplied a synonym for the Art--the Hermetic
Art--and even to-day we speak of _hermetically_ sealing flasks and the
like. But who Hermes actually was, or even if there were such a
personage, is a matter of conjecture. The alchemists themselves supposed
him to have been an Egyptian living about the time of Moses. He is now
generally regarded as purely mythical--a personification of Thoth, the
Egyptian God of learning; but, of course, some person or persons must
have written the works attributed to him, and the first of such writers
(if, as seems not unlikely, there were more than one) may be considered
to have a right to the name. Of these works, the _Divine Pymander_,[42]
a mystical-religious treatise, is the most important. The _Golden
Tractate_, also attributed to Hermes, which is an exceedingly obscure
alchemistic work, is now regarded as having been written at a
comparatively late date.
[41] It is perhaps advisable to mention here that the lives of the
alchemists, for the most part, are enveloped in considerable
obscurity, and many points in connection therewith are in dispute.
The authorities we have followed will be found, as a rule,
specifically mentioned in what follows; but we may here acknowledge
our general indebtedness to the following works, though, as the
reader will observe, many others have been consulted as well: Thomas
Thomson’s _The History of Chemistry_, Meyer’s _A History of
Chemistry_, the anonymous _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_
(1815), the works of Mr. A. E. Waite, the _Dictionary of National
Biography_, and certain articles in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_.
This must not be taken to mean, however, that we have always
followed the conclusions reached in these works, for so far as the
older of them are concerned, recent researches by various
authorities--to whom reference will be found in the following pages,
and to whom, also, we are indebted--have shown, in certain cases,
that such are not tenable.
[42] Dr. Everard’s translation of this work forms vol. ii. of the
_Collectanea Hermetica_, edited by W. Wynn Westcott, M.B., D.P.H. It
is now, however, out of print.
The Smaragdine Table.
§ =30.= In a work attributed to Albertus Magnus, but which is probably
spurious, we are told that Alexander the Great found the tomb of Hermes
in a cave near Hebron. This tomb contained an emerald table--“The
Smaragdine Table”--on which were inscribed the following thirteen
sentences in Phœnician characters:--
1. I speak not fictitious things, but what is true and most certain.
2. What is below is like that which is above, and what is above is like
that which is below, to accomplish the miracles of one thing.
3. And as all things were produced by the mediation of one Being, so all
things were produced from this one thing by adaptation.
4. Its father is the Sun, its mother the Moon; the wind carries it in
its belly, its nurse is the earth.
5. It is the cause of all perfection throughout the whole world.
6. Its power is perfect if it be changed into earth.
7. Separate the earth from the fire, the subtle from the gross, acting
prudently and with judgment.
8. Ascend with the greatest sagacity from the earth to heaven, and then
again descend to the earth, and unite together the powers of things
superior and things inferior. Thus you will obtain the glory of the
whole world, and all obscurity will fly far away from you.
9. This thing is the fortitude of all fortitude, because it overcomes
all subtle things, and penetrates every solid thing.
10. Thus were all things created.
11. Thence proceed wonderful adaptations which are produced in this way.
12. Therefore am I called Hermes Trismegistos, possessing the three
parts of the philosophy of the whole world.
13. That which I had to say concerning the operation of the Sun is
completed.
These sentences clearly teach the doctrine of the alchemistic essence or
“One Thing,” which is everywhere present, penetrating even solids (this
we should note is true of the ether of space), and out of which all
things of the physical world are made by adaptation or modification. The
terms Sun and Moon in the above passage probably stand for Spirit and
Matter respectively, not gold and silver.
Zosimus of Panopolis.
§ =31.= One of the earliest of the alchemists of whom record remains was
=Zosimus of Panopolis=, who flourished in the fifth century, and was
regarded by the later alchemists as a master of the Art. He is said to
have written many treatises dealing with Alchemy, but only fragments
remain. Of these fragments, Professor Venable says: “. . . they give us
a good idea of the learning of the man and of his times. They contain
descriptions of apparatus, of furnaces, studies of minerals, of alloys,
of glass making, of mineral waters, and much that is mystical, besides a
good deal referring to the transmutation of metals.”[43] Zosimus is said
to have been the author of the saying, “like begets like,” but whether
all the fragments ascribed to him were really his work is doubtful.
[43] F. P. VENABLE, Ph.D.: _A Short History of Chemistry_ (1896), p.
13.
Among other early alchemists we may mention also =Africanus=, the
Syrian; =Synesius=, Bishop of Ptolemais, and the historian,
=Olympiodorus= of Thebes.
Geber.
§ =32.= In the seventh century the Arabians conquered Egypt; and
strangely enough, Alchemy flourished under them to a remarkable degree.
Of all the Arabian alchemists, =Geber= has been regarded as the
greatest; as Professor Meyer says: “There can be no dispute that with
the name _Geber_ was propagated the memory of a personality with which
the chemical knowledge of the time was bound up.”[44] Geber is supposed
to have lived about the ninth century, but of his life nothing definite
is known. A large number of works have been ascribed to him, of which
the majority are unknown, but the four Latin MSS. which have been
printed under the titles _Summa Perfectionis Mettalorum_, _De
Investigatione Perfectionis Metallorum_, _De Inventione Veritatis_ and
_De Fornacibus Construendis_, were, until a few years ago, regarded as
genuine. On the strength of these works, Geber has ranked high as a
chemist. In them are described the preparation of many important
chemical compounds; the most essential chemical operations, such as
sublimation, distillation, filtration, crystallisation (or coagulation,
as the alchemists called it), &c.; and also important chemical
apparatus, for example, the water-bath, improved furnaces, &c. However,
it was shown by the late Professor Berthelot that _Summa Perfectionis
Mettalorum_ is a forgery of the fourteenth century, and the other works
forgeries of an even later date. Moreover, the original Arabic MSS. of
Geber have been brought to light. These true writings of Geber are very
obscure; they give no warrant for believing that the famous
sulphur-mercury theory was due to this alchemist, and they prove him not
to be the expert chemist that he was supposed to have been. The spurious
writings mentioned above show that the pseudo-Geber was a man of wide
chemical knowledge and experience, and play a not inconsiderable part in
the history of Alchemy.
[44] ERNST VON MEYER: _A History of Chemistry_ (translated by Dr.
McGowan, 1906), p. 31.
Other Arabian Alchemists.
§ =33.= Among other Arabian alchemists the most celebrated were
=Avicenna= and =Rhasis=, who are supposed to have lived some time after
Geber; and to whom, perhaps, the sulphur-mercury theory may have been to
some extent due.
The teachings of the Arabian alchemists gradually penetrated into the
Western world, in which, during the thirteenth century, flourished some
of the most eminent of the alchemists, whose lives and teachings we must
now briefly consider.
[Illustration: PLATE 7.
[by de Bry]
PORTRAIT OF ALBERTUS MAGNUS.
_To face page 44_]]
Albertus Magnus (1193-1280).
§ =34.= =Albertus Magnus=, Albert Groot or Albert von Bollstädt (see
plate 7), was born at Lauingen, probably in 1193. He was educated at
Padua, and in his later years he showed himself apt at acquiring the
knowledge of his time. He studied theology, philosophy and natural
science, and is chiefly celebrated as an Aristotelean philosopher. He
entered the Dominican order, taught publicly at Cologne, Paris and
elsewhere, and was made provincial of this order. Later he had the
bishopric of Regensburg conferred on him, but he retired after a few
years to a Dominican cloister, where he devoted himself to philosophy
and science. He was one of the most learned men of his time and,
moreover, a man of noble character. The authenticity of the alchemistic
works attributed to him has been questioned.
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274).
§ =35.= The celebrated Dominican, =Thomas Aquinas= (see plate 8), was
probably a pupil of Albertus Magnus, from whom it is thought he imbibed
alchemistic learning. It is very probable, however, that the alchemistic
works attributed to him are spurious. The author of these works
manifests a deeply religious tone, and, according to Thomson’s _History
of Chemistry_, he was the first to employ the term “amalgam” to
designate an alloy of mercury with some other metal.[45]
[45] THOMAS THOMSON: _The History of Chemistry_, vol. i. (1830), p.
33.
Roger Bacon (1214-1294).