was born near Ilchester in Somerset, probably in 1214. His erudition,
considering the general state of ignorance prevailing at this time, was
most remarkable. Professor Meyer says: “He is to be regarded as the
intellectual originator of experimental research, if the departure in
this direction is to be coupled with any one name--a direction which,
followed more and more as time went on, gave to the science [of
Chemistry] its own peculiar stamp, and ensured its steady
development.”[46] Roger Bacon studied theology and science at Oxford and
at Paris; and he joined the Franciscan order, at what date, however, is
uncertain. He was particularly interested in optics, and certain
discoveries in this branch of physics have been attributed to him,
though probably erroneously. It appears, also, that he was acquainted
with gunpowder, which was, however, not employed in Europe until many
years later.[47] Unfortunately, he earned the undesirable reputation of
being in communication with the powers of darkness, and as he did not
hesitate to oppose many of the opinions current at the time, he
suffered much persecution. He was a firm believer in the powers of the
Philosopher’s Stone to transmute large quantities of “base” metal into
gold, and also to extend the life of the individual. “_Alchimy_,” he
says, “is a Science, teaching how to transforme any kind of mettall into
another: and that by a proper medicine, as it appeareth by many
Philosophers Bookes. _Alchimy_ therefore is a science teaching how to
make and compound a certaine medicine, which is called _Elixir_, the
which when it is cast upon mettals or imperfect bodies, doth fully
perfect them in the verie projection.”[48] He also believed in
Astrology; but, nevertheless, he was entirely opposed to many of the
magical and superstitious notions held at the time, and his tract, _De
Secretis Operibus Artis et Naturæ, et de Nullitate Magiæ_, was an
endeavour to prove that many so-called “miracles” could be brought about
simply by the aid of natural science. Roger Bacon was a firm supporter
of the Sulphur-Mercury theory: he says: “. . . the natural principles in
the mynes, are _Argent-vive_, and _Sulphur_. All mettals and minerals,
whereof there be sundrie and divers kinds, are begotten of these two:
but I must tel you, that nature alwaies intendeth and striveth to the
perfection of Gold: but many accidents coming between, change the
metalls. . . . For according to the puritie and impuritie of the two
aforesaide principles, _Argent-vive_ and _Sulphur_, pure, and impure
mettals are ingendred.”[49] He expresses surprise that any should employ
animal and vegetable substances in their attempts to prepare the Stone,
a practice common to some alchemists but warmly criticised by others.
He says: “Nothing may be mingled with mettalls which hath not beene made
or sprung from them, it remaineth cleane inough, that no strange thing
which hath not his originall from these two [viz., sulphur and mercury],
is able to perfect them, or to make a chaunge and new transmutation of
them: so that it is to be wondered at, that any wise man should set his
mind upon living creatures, or vegetables which are far off, when there
be minerals to bee found nigh enough: neither may we in any wise thinke,
that any of the Philosophers placed the Art in the said remote things,
except it were by way of comparison.”[50] The one process necessary for
the preparation of the Stone, he tells us, is “continuall concoction” in
the fire, which is the method that “God hath given to nature.”[51] He
died about 1294.
[46] ERNST VON MEYER: _A History of Chemistry_ (translated by Dr.
McGowan, 1906), p. 35.
[47] See ROGER BACON’S _Discovery of Miracles_, chaps. vi. and xi.
[48] ROGER BACON: _The Mirror of Alchimy_ (1597), p. 1.
[49] _Ibid._ p. 2.
[50] ROGER BACON: _The Mirror of Alchimy_ (1597), p. 4.
[51] _Ibid._ p. 9.
Arnold de Villanova (12--?-1310?).
§ =37.= The date and birthplace of =Arnold de Villanova=, or Villeneuve,
are both uncertain. He studied medicine at Paris, and in the latter part
of the thirteenth century practised professionally in Barcelona. To
avoid persecution at the hands of the Inquisition, he was obliged to
leave Spain, and ultimately found safety with Frederick II. in Sicily.
He was famous not only as an alchemist, but also as a skilful physician.
He died (it is thought in a shipwreck) about 1310-1313.
Raymond Lully (1235?-1315).
§ =38.= =Raymond Lully=, the son of a noble Spanish family, was born at
Palma (in Majorca) about 1235. He was a man of somewhat eccentric
character--in his youth a man of pleasure; in his maturity, a mystic
and ascetic. His career was of a roving and adventurous character. We
are told that, in his younger days, although married, he became
violently infatuated with a lady of the name of Ambrosia de Castello,
who vainly tried to dissuade him from his profane passion. Her efforts
proving futile, she requested Lully to call upon her, and in the
presence of her husband, bared to his sight her breast, which was almost
eaten away by a cancer. This sight--so the story goes--brought about
Lully’s conversion. He became actuated by the idea of converting to
Christianity the heathen in Africa, and engaged the services of an
Arabian whereby he might learn the language. The man, however,
discovering his master’s object, attempted to assassinate him, and Lully
narrowly escaped with his life. But his enthusiasm for missionary work
never abated--his central idea was the reasonableness and
demonstrability of Christian doctrine--and unhappily he was, at last,
stoned to death by the inhabitants of Bugiah (in Algeria) in 1315.[52]
[52] See _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_ (1815), pp. 17 _et
seq._
A very large number of alchemistic, theological and other treatises are
attributed to Lully, many of which are undoubtedly spurious; and it is a
difficult question to decide exactly which are genuine. He is supposed
to have derived a knowledge of Alchemy from Roger Bacon and Arnold de
Villanova. It appears more probable, however, either that Lully the
alchemist was a personage distinct from the Lully whose life we have
sketched above, or that the alchemistic writings attributed to him are
forgeries of a similar nature to the works of pseudo-Geber (§ 32). Of
these alchemical writings we may here mention the _Clavicula_. This he
says is the key to all his other books on Alchemy, in which books the
whole Art is fully declared, though so obscurely as not to be
understandable without its aid. In this work an alleged method for what
may be called the multiplication of the “noble” metals rather than
transmutation is described in clear language; but it should be noticed
that the stone employed is itself a compound either of silver or gold.
According to Lully, the secret of the Philosopher’s Stone is the
extraction of the mercury of silver or gold. He writes: “Metals cannot
be transmuted . . . in the Minerals, unless they be reduced into their
first Matter. . . . Therefore I counsel you, O my Friends, that you do
not work but about _Sol_ and _Luna_, reducing them into the first
Matter, our _Sulphur_ and _Argent vive_: therefore, Son, you are to use
this venerable Matter; and I swear unto you and promise, that unless you
take the _Argent vive_ of these two, you go to the Practick as blind men
without eyes or sense. . . .”[53]
[53] RAYMOND LULLY: _Clavicula, or, A Little Key_ (see _Aurifontina
Chymica_, 1680, p. 167).
Peter Bonus (14th Century).
§ =39.= In 1546, a work was published entitled _Magarita Pretiosa_,
which claimed to be a “faithful abridgement,” by “Janus Lacinus
Therapus, the Calabrian,” of a MS. written by =Peter Bonus= in the
fourteenth century. An abridged English translation of this book by Mr.
A. E. Waite was published in 1894. Of the life of Bonus, who is said to
have been an inhabitant of Pola, a seaport of Istria, nothing is known;
but the _Magarita Pretiosa_ is an alchemistic work of considerable
interest. The author commences, like pseudo-Geber in his _Sum of
Perfection_, by bringing forward a number of very ingenious arguments
against the validity of the Art; he then proceeds with arguments in
favour of Alchemy and puts forward answers in full to the former
objections; further difficulties, &c., are then dealt with. In all this,
compared with many other alchemists, Bonus, though somewhat prolix, is
remarkably lucid. All metals, he argues, following the views of
pseudo-Geber, consist of mercury and sulphur; but whilst the mercury is
always one and the same, different metals contain different sulphurs.
There are also two different kinds of sulphurs--inward and outward.
Sulphur is necessary for the development of the mercury, but for the
final product, gold, to come forth, it is necessary that the outward and
impure sulphur be purged off. “Each metal,” says Bonus, “differs from
all the rest, and has a certain perfection and completeness of its own;
but none, except gold, has reached that highest degree of perfection of
which it is capable. For all common metals there is a transient and a
perfect state of inward completeness, and this perfect state they attain
either through the slow operation of Nature, or through the sudden
transformatory power of our Stone. We must, however, add that the
imperfect metals form part of the great plan and design of Nature,
though they are in course of transformation into gold. For a large
number of very useful and indispensable tools and utensils could not be
provided at all if there were no copper, iron, tin, or lead, and if all
metals were either silver or gold. For this beneficent reason Nature
has furnished us with the metallic substance in all its different stages
of development, from iron, or the lowest, to gold, or the highest state
of metallic perfection. Nature is ever studying variety, and, for that
reason, instead of covering the whole face of the earth with water, has
evolved out of that elementary substance a great diversity of forms,
embracing the whole animal, vegetable and mineral world. It is, in like
manner, for the use of men that Nature has differentiated the metallic
substance into a great variety of species and forms.”[54] According to
this interesting alchemistic work, the Art of Alchemy consists, not in
reducing the imperfect metals to their first substance, but in carrying
forward Nature’s work, developing the imperfect metals to perfection and
removing their impure sulphur.
[54] PETER BONUS: _The New Pearl of Great Price_ (Mr. A. E. Waite’s
translation, pp. 176-177).
Nicolas Flamel (1330-1418).
§ =40.= Nicolas Flamel (see plate 8) was born about 1330, probably in
Paris. His parents were poor, and Nicolas took up the trade of a
scrivener. In the course of time, Flamel became a very wealthy man and,
at the same time, it appears, one who exhibited considerable
munificence. This increase in Flamel’s wealth has been attributed to
supposed success in the Hermetic Art. We are told that a remarkable book
came into the young scrivener’s possession, which, at first, he was
unable to understand, until, at last, he had the good fortune to meet an
adept who translated its mysteries for him. This book revealed the
occult secrets of Alchemy, and by its means Nicolas was enabled to
obtain immense quantities of gold. This story, however, appears to be of
a legendary nature, and it seems more likely that Flamel’s riches
resulted from his business as a scrivener and from moneylending. At any
rate, all of the alchemistic works attributed to Flamel are of more or
less questionable origin. One of these, entitled _A Short Tract, or
Philosophical Summary_, will be found in _The Hermetic Museum_. It is a
very brief work, supporting the sulphur-mercury theory.
[Illustration: PLATE 8.
PORTRAIT OF THOMAS AQUINAS.
PORTRAIT OF NICOLAS FLAMEL.
_To face page 52_]]
“Basil Valentine” and “The Triumphal Chariot of Antimony.”
§ =41.= Probably the most celebrated of all alchemistic books is the
work known as _Triumph-Wagen des Antimonii_. A Latin translation with a
commentary by Theodore Kerckringius was published in 1685, and an
English translation of this version by Mr. A. E. Waite appeared in 1893.
The author describes himself as “=Basil Valentine=, a Benedictine monk.”
In his “_Practica_,” another alchemistic work, he says: “When I had
emptied to the dregs the cup of human suffering, I was led to consider
the wretchedness of this world, and the fearful consequences of our
first parents’ disobedience . . . I made haste to withdraw myself from
the evil world, to bid farewell to it, and to devote myself to the
Service of God.”[55] He proceeds to relate that he entered a monastery,
but finding that he had some time on his hands after performing his
daily work and devotions, and not wishing to pass this time in idleness,
he took up the study of Alchemy, “the investigation of those natural
secrets by which God has shadowed out eternal things,” and at last
his labours were rewarded by the discovery of a Stone most potent in the
curing of diseases. In _The Triumphal Chariot of Antimony_ are
accurately described a large number of antimonial preparations, and as
Basil was supposed to have written this work some time in the fifteenth
century, these preparations were accordingly concluded to have been, for
the most part, his own discoveries. He defends with the utmost vigour
the medicinal values of antimony, and criticises in terms far from mild
the physicians of his day. On account of this work Basil Valentine has
ranked very high as an experimental chemist; but from quite early times
its date and authorship have been regarded alike as doubtful; and it
appears from the researches of the late Professor Schorlemmer “to be an
undoubted forgery dating from about 1600, the information being culled
from the works of other writers. . . .”[56] Probably the other works
ascribed to Basil Valentine are of a like nature. _The Triumphal Chariot
of Antimony_ does, however, give an accurate account of the knowledge of
antimony of this time, and the pseudo-Valentine shows himself to have
been a man of considerable experience with regard to this subject.
[55] “BASIL VALENTINE”: _The “Practica”_ (see _The Hermetic Museum_,
vol. i. p. 313).
[56] Sir H. E. ROSCOE, F.R.S., and C. SCHORLEMMER, F.R.S.: _A
Treatise on Chemistry_, vol. i. (1905), p. 9.
Isaac of Holland (15th Century).
§ =42.= Isaac of Holland and a countryman of the same name, probably his
son, are said to have been the first Dutch alchemists. They are supposed
to have lived during the fifteenth century, but of their lives nothing
is known. Isaac, although not free from superstitious opinions, appears
to have been a practical chemist, and his works, which abound in
recipes, were held in great esteem by Paracelsus and other alchemists.
He held that all things in this world are of a dual nature, partly good
and partly bad. “. . . All that God hath created good in the upper part
of the world,” he writes, “are perfect and uncorruptible, as the heaven:
but whatsoever in these lower parts, whether it be in beasts, fishes,
and all manner of sensible creatures, hearbs or plants, it is indued
with a double nature, that is to say, perfect, and unperfect; the
perfect nature is called the Quintessence, the unperfect the Feces or
dreggs, or the venemous or combustible oile. . . . God hath put a secret
nature or influence in every creature, and . . . to every nature of one
sort or kind he hath given one common influence and vertue, whether it
bee on Physick or other secret works, which partly are found out by
naturall workmanship. And yet more things are unknown than are apparent
to our senses.”[57] He gives directions for extracting the Quintessence,
for which marvellous powers are claimed, out of sugar and other organic
substances; and he appears to be the earliest known writer who makes
mention of the famous sulphur-mercury-salt theory.
[57] _One hundred and Fourteen Experiments and Cures of the Famous
Physitian Theophrastus Paracelsus, whereunto is added . . . certain
Secrets of Isaac Hollandus, concerning the Vegetall and Animall
Work_ (1652), p. 35.
Bernard Trévisan (1406-1490).
§ =43.= =Bernard Trévisan=, a French count of the fifteenth century,
squandered enormous sums of money in the search for the Stone, in which
the whole of his life and energies were engaged. He seems to have become
the dupe of one charlatan after another, but at last, at a ripe old
age, he says that his labours were rewarded, and that he successfully
performed the _magnum opus_. In a short, but rather obscure work, he
speaks of the Philosopher’s Stone in the following words: “This Stone
then is compounded of a Body and Spirit, or of a volatile and fixed
Substance, and that is therefore done, because nothing in the World can
be generated and brought to light without these two Substances, to wit,
a Male and Female: From whence it appeareth, that although these two
Substances are not of one and the same species, yet one Stone doth
thence arise, and although they appear and are said to be two
Substances, yet in truth it is but one, to wit, _Argent-vive_.”[58] He
appears, however, to have added nothing to our knowledge of chemical
science.
[58] BERNARD, EARL OF TRÉVISAN: _A Treatise of the Philosophers
Stone_, 1683 (see _Collectanea Chymica: A Collection of Ten Several
Treatises in Chemistry_, 1684, p. 91).
Sir George Ripley (14--?-1490?).
§ =44.= =Sir George Ripley=, an eminent alchemistic philosopher of the
fifteenth century, entered upon a monastic life when a youth, becoming
one of the canons regular of Bridlington. After some travels he returned
to England and obtaining leave from the Pope to live in solitude, he
devoted himself to the study of the Hermetic Art. His chief work is _The
Compound of Alchymie . . . conteining twelve Gates_, which was written
in 1471. In this curious work, we learn that there are twelve processes
necessary for the achievement of the _magnum opus_, namely, Calcination,
Solution, Separation, Conjunction, Putrefaction, Congelation, Cibation,
Sublimation, Fermentation, Exaltation, Multiplication, and Projection.
These are likened to the twelve gates of a castle which the philosopher
must enter. At the conclusion of the twelfth gate, Ripley says:--
“Now thou hast conqueryd the _twelve Gates_,
And all the Castell thou holdyst at wyll,
Keep thy Secretts in store unto thy selve;
And the commaundements of God looke thou fulfull:
In fyer conteinue thy glas styll,
And Multeply thy Medcyns ay more and more,
For wyse men done say _store ys no sore_.”[59]
[59] Sir GEORGE RIPLEY: _The Compound of Alchemy_ (see _Theatrum
Chemicum Britannicum_, edited by Elias Ashmole, 1652, p. 186).
At the conclusion of the work he tells us that in all that he wrote
before he was mistaken; he says:--
“I made _Solucyons_ full many a one,
Of Spyrytts, Ferments, Salts, Yerne and Steele;
Wenyng so to make the Phylosophers Stone:
But fynally I lost eche dele,
After my Boks yet wrought I well;
Whych evermore untrue I provyd,
That made me oft full sore agrevyd.”[60]
[60] _Ibid._ p. 189.
Ripley did much to popularise the works of Raymond Lully in England, but
does not appear to have added to the knowledge of practical chemistry.
His _Bosom Book_, which contains an alleged method for preparing the
Stone, will be found in the _Collectanea Chemica_ (1893).
Thomas Norton (15th Century).
§ =45.= =Thomas Norton=, the author of the celebrated _Ordinall of
Alchemy_, was probably born shortly before the commencement of the
fifteenth century. The _Ordinall_, which is written in verse (and which
will be found in Ashmole’s _Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum_),[61] is
anonymous, but the author’s identity is revealed by a curious device.
The initial syllables of the proem and of the first six chapters,
together with the first line of the seventh chapter, give the following
couplet:--
“Tomais Norton of Briseto,
A parfet _Master_ ye maie him call trowe.”
[61] A prose version will be found in _The Hermetic Museum_
translated back into English from a Latin translation by Maier.
Samuel Norton, the grandson of Thomas, who was also an alchemist, says
that Thomas Norton was a member of the privy chamber of Edward IV.
Norton’s distinctive views regarding the generation of the metals we
have already mentioned (see § 20). He taught that true knowledge of the
Art of Alchemy could only be obtained by word of mouth from an adept,
and in his _Ordinall_ he gives an account of his own initiation. He
tells us that he was instructed by his master (probably Sir George
Ripley) and learnt the secrets of the Art in forty days, at the age of
twenty-eight. He does not, however, appear to have reaped the fruits of
this knowledge. Twice, he tells us, did he prepare the Elixir, and twice
was it stolen from him; and he is said to have died in 1477, after
ruining himself and his friends by his unsuccessful experiments.
CHAPTER IV
THE ALCHEMISTS (_continued_)
(B. PARACELSUS AND AFTER)
Paracelsus (1493-1541.)
§ =46.= That erratic genius, =Paracelsus=--or, to give him his correct
name, Philip (?) Aureole (?) =Theophrast Bombast von Hohenheim=--whose
portrait forms the frontispiece to the present work--was born at
Einsiedeln in Switzerland in 1493. He studied the alchemistic and
medical arts under his father, who was a physician, and continued his
studies later at the University of Basle. He also gave some time to the
study of magic and the occult sciences under the famous Trithemius of
Spanheim. Paracelsus, however, found the merely theoretical “book
learning” of the university curriculum unsatisfactory and betook himself
to the mines, where he might study the nature of metals at first hand.
He then spent several years in travelling, visiting some of the chief
countries of Europe. At last he returned to Basle, the chair of Medical
Science of his old university being bestowed upon him. The works of
Isaac of Holland had inspired him with the desire to improve upon the
medical science of his day, and in his lectures (which were, contrary
to the usual custom, delivered not in Latin, but in the German language)
he denounced in violent terms the teachings of Galen and Avicenna, who
were until then the accredited authorities on medical matters. His use
of the German tongue, his coarseness in criticism and his intense
self-esteem, combined with the fact that he did lay bare many of the
medical follies and frauds of his day, brought him into very general
dislike with the rest of the physicians, and the municipal authorities
siding with the aggrieved apothecaries and physicians, whose methods
Paracelsus had exposed, he fled from Basle and resumed his former roving
life. He was, so we are told, a man of very intemperate habits, being
seldom sober (a statement seriously open to doubt); but on the other
hand, he certainly accomplished a very large number of most remarkable
cures, and, judging from his writings, he was inspired by lofty and
noble ideals and a fervent belief in the Christian religion. He died in
1541.
Paracelsus combined in himself such opposite characteristics that it is
a matter of difficulty to criticise him aright. As says Professor
Ferguson: “It is most difficult . . . to ascertain what his true
character really was, to appreciate aright this man of fervid
imagination, of powerful and persistent conviction, of unbated honesty
and love of truth, of keen insight into the errors (as he thought them)
of his time, of a merciless will to lay bare these errors and to reform
the abuses to which they gave rise, who in an instant offends by his
boasting, his grossness, his want of self-respect. It is a problem how
to reconcile his ignorance, his weakness, his superstition, his crude
notions, his erroneous observations, his ridiculous inferences and
theories, with his grasp of method, his lofty views of the true scope of
medicine, his lucid statements, his incisive and epigrammatic criticisms
of men and motives.”[62] It is also a problem of considerable difficulty
to determine which of the many books attributed to him are really his
genuine works, and consequently what his views on certain points exactly
were.
[62] JOHN FERGUSON, M.A.: Article “Paracelsus,” _Encyclopædia
Britannica_, 9th edition (1885), vol. xviii. p. 236.
Views of Paracelsus.
§ =47.= Paracelsus was the first to recognise the desirability of
investigating the physical universe with a motive other than
alchemistic. He taught that “the object of chemistry is not to make
gold, but to prepare medicines,” and founded the school of
Iatro-chemistry or Medical Chemistry. This synthesis of chemistry with
medicine was of very great benefit to each science; new possibilities of
chemical investigation were opened up now that the aim was not purely
alchemistic. Paracelsus’s central theory was that of the analogy between
man, the microcosm, and the world or macrocosm. He regarded all the
actions that go on in the human body as of a chemical nature, and he
thought that illness was the result of a disproportion in the body
between the quantities of the three great principles--sulphur, mercury,
and salt--which he regarded as constituting all things; for example, he
considered an excess of sulphur as the cause of fever, since sulphur was
the fiery principle, &c. The basis of the iatro-chemical doctrines,
namely, that the healthy human body is a particular combination of
chemical substances: illness the result of some change in this
combination, and hence curable only by chemical medicines, expresses a
certain truth, and is undoubtedly a great improvement upon the ideas of
the ancients. But in the elaboration of his medical doctrines Paracelsus
fell a prey to exaggeration and the fantastic, and many of his theories
appear to be highly ridiculous. This extravagance is also very
pronounced in the alchemistic works attributed to him; for example, the
belief in the artificial creation of minute living creatures resembling
men (called “homunculi”)--a belief of the utmost absurdity, if we are to
understand it literally. On the other hand, his writings do contain much
true teaching of a mystical nature; his doctrine of the correspondence
of man with the universe considered as a whole, for example, certainly
being radically true, though fantastically stated and developed by
Paracelsus himself.
Iatro-Chemistry.
§ =48.= Between the pupils of Paracelsus and the older school of
medicine, as might well be supposed, a battle royal was waged for a
considerable time, which ultimately concluded, if not with a full
vindication of Paracelsus’s teaching, yet with the acceptance of the
fundamental iatro-chemical doctrines. Henceforward it is necessary to
distinguish between the chemists and the alchemists--to distinguish
those who pursued chemical studies with the object of discovering and
preparing useful medicines, and later those who pursued such studies for
their own sake, from those whose object was the transmutation of the
“base” metals into gold, whether from purely selfish motives, or with
the desire to demonstrate on the physical plane the validity of the
doctrines of Mysticism. However, during the following century or two we
find, very often, the chemist and the alchemist united in one and the
same person. Men such as Glauber and Boyle, whose names will ever be
remembered by chemists, did not doubt the possibility of performing the
_magnum opus_. In the present chapter, however, we shall confine our
attention for the most part to those men who may be regarded, for one
reason or another, particularly as _alchemists_. And the alchemists of
the period we are now considering present a very great diversity. On the
one hand, we have men of much chemical knowledge and skill such as
Libavius and van Helmont, on the other hand we have those who stand
equally as high as exponents of mystic wisdom--men such as Jacob Boehme
and, to a less extent, Thomas Vaughan. We have those, who, although they
did not enrich the science of Chemistry with any new discoveries, were,
nevertheless, regarded as masters of the Hermetic Art; and, finally, we
have alchemists of the Edward Kelley and “Cagliostro” type, whose main
object was their own enrichment at their neighbours’ expense. Before,
however, proceeding to an account of the lives and teachings of these
men, there is one curious matter--perhaps the most remarkable of all
historical curiosities--that calls for some brief consideration. We
refer to the “far-famed” Rosicrucian Society.
The Rosicrucian Society.
§ =49.= The exoteric history of the Rosicrucian Society commences with
the year 1614. In that year there was published at Cassel in Germany a
pamphlet entitled _The Discovery of the Fraternity of the Meritorious
Order of the Rosy Cross, addressed to the Learned in General and the
Governors of Europe_. After a discussion of the momentous question of
the general reformation of the world, which was to be accomplished
through the medium of a secret confederacy of the wisest and most
philanthropic men, the pamphlet proceeds to inform its readers that such
an association is in existence, founded over one hundred years ago by
the famous C.R.C., grand initiate in the mysteries of Alchemy, whose
history (which is clearly of a fabulous or symbolical nature) is given.
The book concludes by inviting the wise men of the time to join the
Fraternity, directing those who wished to do so to indicate their desire
by the publication of printed letters, which should come into the hands
of the Brotherhood. As might well be expected, the pamphlet was the
cause of considerable interest and excitement, but although many letters
were printed, apparently none of them were vouchsafed a reply. The
following year a further pamphlet appeared, _The Confession of the
Rosicrucian Fraternity, addressed to the Learned in Europe_, and in
1616, _The Chymical Nuptials of Christian Rosencreutz_. This latter book
is a remarkable allegorical romance, describing how an old man, a
lifelong student of the alchemistic Art, was present at the
accomplishment of the _magnum opus_ in the year 1459. An enormous amount
of controversy took place; it was plain to some that the Society had
deluded them, whilst others hotly maintained its claims; but after about
four years had passed, the excitement had subsided, and the subject
ceased, for the time being, to arouse any particular interest.
Some writers, even in recent times, more gifted for romance than for
historical research, have seen in the Rosicrucian Society a secret
confederacy of immense antiquity and of stupendous powers, consisting of
the great initiates of all ages, supposed to be in possession of the
arch secrets of alchemistic art. It is abundantly evident, however, that
it was nothing of the sort. It is clear from an examination of the
pamphlets already mentioned that they are animated by Lutheran ideals;
and it is of interest to note that Luther’s seal contained both the
cross and the rose--whence the term “Rosicrucian.” The generally
accepted theory regards the pamphlets as a sort of elaborate hoax
perpetrated by Valentine Andreä, a young and benevolent Lutheran divine;
but more, however, than a mere hoax. As the late Mr. R. A. Vaughan
wrote: “. . . this Andreä writes the _Discovery of the Rosicrucian
Brotherhood, a jeu-d’esprit_ with a serious purpose, just as an
experiment to see whether something cannot be done by combined effort to
remedy the defect and abuses--social, educational, and religious, so
lamented by all good men. He thought there were many Andreäs scattered
throughout Europe--how powerful would be their united systematic action!
. . . He hoped that the few nobler minds whom he desired to organize
would see through the veil of fiction in which he had invested his
proposal; that he might communicate personally with some such, if they
should appear; or that his book might lead them to form among themselves
a practical philanthropic confederacy, answering to the serious purpose
he had embodied in his fiction.”[63] His scheme was a failure, and on
seeing its result, Andreä, not daring to reveal himself as the author of
the pamphlets, did his best to put a stop to the folly by writing
several works in criticism of the Society and its claims. Mr. A. E.
Waite, however, whose work on the subject should be consulted for
further information, rejects this theory, and suggests that the
Rosicrucian Society was probably identical with the _Militia Crucifera
Evangelica_, a secret society founded in Nuremburg by the Lutheran
alchemist and mystic, Simon Studion.[64]
[63] ROBERT ALFRED VAUGHAN, B.A.: _Hours with the Mystics_ (7th
edition, 1895), vol. ii. bk. 8, chap. ix. p. 134.
[64] ARTHUR EDWARD WAITE: _The Real History of the Rosicrucians_,
(1887).
Thomas Charnock (1524-1581).
§ =50.= We must now turn our attention to the lives and teachings of the
alchemists of the period under consideration, treating them, as far as
possible, in chronological order; whence the first alchemist to come
under our notice is Thomas Charnock.
=Thomas Charnock= was born at Faversham (Kent), either in the year 1524
or in 1526. After some travels over England he settled at Oxford,
carrying on experiments in Alchemy. In 1557 he wrote his _Breviary of
Philosophy_. This work is almost entirely autobiographical, describing
Charnock’s alchemistic experiences. He tells us that he was initiated
into the mysteries of the Hermetic Art by a certain James S. of
Salisbury; he also had another master, an old blind man, who on his
death-bed instructed Charnock. Unfortunately, however, Thomas was doomed
to failure in his experiments. On the first attempt his apparatus caught
fire and his work was destroyed. His next experiments were ruined by the
negligence of a servant. His final misfortune shall be described in his
own words. He had started the work for a third time, and had spent much
money on his fire, hoping to be shortly rewarded. . . .
“Then a _Gentleman_ that oughte me great mallice
Caused me to be prest to goe serve at _Callys_:
When I saw there was no other boote,
But that I must goe spight of my heart roote;
In my fury I tooke a Hatchet in my hand,
And brake all my Worke whereas it did stand.”[65]
[65] THOMAS CHARNOCK: _The Breviary of Naturall Philosophy_ (see
_Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum_, edited by Ashmole, 1652, p. 295.)
Thomas Charnock married in 1562 a Miss Agnes Norden. He died in 1581. It
is, perhaps, unnecessary to say that his name does not appear in the
history of Chemistry.
Andreas Libavius (1540-1616.)
§ =51.= =Andreas Libavius= was born at Halle in Germany in 1540, where
he studied medicine and practiced for a short time as a physician. He
accepted the fundamental iatro-chemical doctrines, at the same time,
however, criticising certain of the more extravagant views expressed by
Paracelsus. He was a firm believer in the transmutation of the metals,
but his own activities were chiefly directed to the preparation of new
and better medicines. He enriched the science of Chemistry by many
valuable discoveries, and tin tetra-chloride, which he was the first to
prepare, is still known by the name of _spiritus fumans Libavii_.
Libavius was a man possessed of keen powers of observation; and his work
on Chemistry, which contains a full account of the knowledge of the
science of his time, may be regarded as the first text-book of
Chemistry. It was held in high esteem for a considerable time, being
reprinted on several occasions.
[Illustration: PLATE 9.
PORTRAIT OF EDWARD KELLEY.
PORTRAIT OF JOHN DEE.
_To face page 68_]]
Edward Kelley (1555-1595) and John Dee (1527-1608.)
§ =52.= Edward Kelley or Kelly (see plate 9) was born at Worcester on
August 1, 1555. His life is so obscured by various traditions that it is
very difficult to arrive at the truth concerning it. The latest, and
probably the best, account will be found in Miss Charlotte Fell Smith’s
_John Dee_ (1909). Edward Kelley, according to some accounts, was
brought up as an apothecary.[66] He is also said to have entered Oxford
University under the pseudonym of Talbot.[67] Later, he practised as a
notary in London. He is said to have committed a forgery, for which he
had his ears cropped; but another account, which supposes him to have
avoided this penalty by making his escape to Wales, is not improbable.
Other crimes of which he is accused are coining and necromancy. He was
probably not guilty of all these crimes, but that he was undoubtedly a
charlatan and profligate the sequel will make plain. We are told that
about the time of his alleged escape to Wales, whilst in the
neighbourhood of Glastonbury Abbey, he became possessed, by a lucky
chance, of a manuscript by St. Dunstan setting forth the grand secrets
of Alchemy, together with some of the two transmuting tinctures, both
white and red,[68] which had been discovered in a tomb near by. His
friendship with John Dee, or Dr. Dee as he is generally called,
commenced in 1582. Now, =John Dee= (see plate 9) was undoubtedly a
mathematician of considerable erudition. He was also an astrologer, and
was much interested in experiments in “crystal-gazing,” for which
purpose he employed a speculum of polished cannel-coal, and by means of
which he believed that he had communication with the inhabitants of
spiritual spheres. It appears that Kelley, who probably did possess some
mediumistic powers, the results of which he augmented by means of fraud,
interested himself in these experiments, and not only became the
doctor’s “scryer,” but also gulled him into the belief that he was in
the possession of the arch-secrets of Alchemy. In 1583, Kelley and his
learned dupe left England together with their wives and a Polish
nobleman, staying firstly at Cracovia and afterwards at Prague, where it
is not unlikely that the Emperor Rudolph II. knighted Kelley. As
instances of the belief which the doctor had in Kelley’s powers as an
alchemist, we may note that in his Private Diary under the date December
19, 1586, Dee records that Kelley performed a transmutation for the
benefit of one Edward Garland and his brother Francis;[69] and under
the date May 10, 1588, we find the following recorded: “E.K. did open
the great secret to me, God be thanked!”[70] That he was not always
without doubts as to Kelley’s honesty, however, is evident from other
entries in his Diary. In 1587 occurred an event which must be recorded
to the partners’ lasting shame. To cap his former impositions, Kelley
informed the doctor that by the orders of a spirit which had appeared to
him in the crystal, they were to share “their two wives in common”; to
which arrangement, after some further persuasion, Dee consented.
Kelley’s profligacy and violent temper, however, had already been the
cause of some disagreement between him and the doctor, and this incident
leading to a further quarrel, the erstwhile friends parted. In 1589, the
Emperor Rudolph imprisoned Kelley, the price of his freedom being the
transmutative secret, or a substantial quantity of gold, at least,
prepared by its aid. He was, however, released in 1593; but died in
1595; according to one account, as the result of an accident incurred
while attempting to escape from a second imprisonment. Dee merely
records that he received news to the effect that Kelley “was slayne.”
[66] See, for example, WILLIAM LILLY: _History of His Life and
Times_ (1715, reprinted in 1822, p. 227).
[67] See ANTHONY À WOOD’S account of Kelley’s life in _Athenæ
Oxonienses_ (3rd edition, edited by Philip Bliss, vol. i. col. 639.)
[68] William Lilly, the astrologer, in his _History of His Life and
Times_ (1822 reprint, pp. 225-226), relates a different story
regarding the manner in which Kelley is supposed to have obtained
the Great Medicine, but as it is told at third hand, it is of little
importance. We do not suppose that there can be much doubt that the
truth was that Dee and others were deceived by some skilful
conjuring tricks, for whatever else Kelley may have been, he
certainly was a very ingenious fellow.
[69] _The Private Diary of Dr. John Dee_ (The Camden Society, 1842),
p. 22.
[70] _The Private Diary of Dr. John Dee_ (The Camden Society, 1842),
p. 27.
It was during his incarceration that he wrote an alchemistic work
entitled _The Stone of the Philosophers_, which consists largely of
quotations from older alchemistic writings. His other works on Alchemy
were probably written at an earlier period.[71]
[71] An English translation of Kelley’s alchemistic works were
published under the editorship of Mr. A. E. Waite, in 1893.
Henry Khunrath (1560-1605).
§ =53.= =Henry Khunrath= was born in Saxony in the second half of the
sixteenth century. He was a follower of Paracelsus, and travelled about
Germany, practising as a physician. “This German alchemist,” says Mr. A.
E. Waite, “. . . is claimed as a hierophant of the psychic side of the
_magnum opus_, and . . . was undoubtedly aware of the larger issues, of
Hermetic theorems”; he describes Khunrath’s chief work, _Amphitheatrum
Sapientiæ Æternæ_, &c., as “purely mystical and magical.”[72]
[72] A. E. WAITE: _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_ (1888), p.
159.
Alexander Sethon (?-1604) and Michael Sendivogius (1566?-1646).
§ =54.= The date and birthplace of =Alexander Sethon=, a Scottish
alchemist, do not appear to have been recorded, but =Michael
Sendivogius= was probably born in Moravia about 1566. Sethon, we are
told, was in possession of the arch-secrets of Alchemy. He visited
Holland in 1602, proceeded after a time to Italy, and passed through
Basle to Germany; meanwhile he is said to have performed many
transmutations. Ultimately arriving at Dresden, however, he fell into
the clutches of the young Elector, Christian II., who, in order to
extort his secret, cast him into prison, and put him to the torture, but
without avail. Now, it so happened that Sendivogius, who was in quest of
the Philosopher’s Stone, was staying at Dresden, and hearing of Sethon’s
imprisonment obtained permission to visit him. Sendivogius offered to
effect Sethon’s escape in return for assistance in his alchemistic
pursuits, to which arrangement the Scottish alchemist willingly agreed.
After some considerable outlay of money in bribery, Sendivogius’s plan
of escape was successfully carried out, and Sethon found himself a free
man; but he refused to betray the high secrets of Hermetic philosophy to
his rescuer. However, before his death, which occurred shortly
afterwards, he presented him with an ounce of the transmutative powder.
Sendivogius soon used up this powder, we are told, in effecting
transmutations and cures, and, being fond of expensive living, he
married Sethon’s widow, in the hope that she was in the possession of
the transmutative secret. In this, however, he was disappointed; she
knew nothing of the matter, but she had the manuscript of an alchemistic
work written by her late husband. Shortly afterwards Sendivogius printed
at Prague a book entitled _The New Chemical Light_ under the name of
“Cosmopolita,” which is said to be this work of Sethon’s but which
Sendivogius claimed for his own by the insertion of his name on the
title-page, in the form of an anagram. The tract _On Sulphur_ which was
printed at the end of later editions, however, is said to have been the
genuine work of the Moravian. Whilst his powder lasted, Sendivogius
travelled about, performing, we are told, many transmutations. He was
twice imprisoned in order to extort the secrets of Alchemy from him, on
one occasion escaping, and on the other occasion obtaining his release
from the Emperor Rudolph. Afterwards, he appears to have degenerated
into an impostor, but this is said to have been a _finesse_ to hide his
true character as an alchemistic adept. He died in 1646.[73]
[73] See F. B.: _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_ (1815), pp.
66-69.
The _New Chemical Light_ was held in great esteem by the alchemists. The
first part treats at length of the generation of the metals and also of
the Philosopher’s Stone, and claims to be based on practical experience.
The seed of Nature, we are told, is one, but various products result on
account of the different conditions of development. An imaginary
conversation between Mercury, an Alchemist and Nature which is appended,
is not without a touch of humour. Says the Alchemist, in despair, “Now I
see that I know nothing; only I must not say so. For I should lose the
good opinion of my neighbours, and they would no longer entrust me with
money for my experiments. I must therefore go on saying that I know
everything; for there are many that expect me to do great things for
them. . . . There are many countries, and many greedy persons who will
suffer themselves to be gulled by my promises of mountains of gold. Thus
day will follow day, and in the meantime the King or the donkey will
die, or I myself.”[74] The second part treats of the Elements and
Principles (see §§ 17 and 19).
[74] _The New Chemical Light_, Part I. (see _The Hermetic Museum_,
vol. ii. p. 125).
[Illustration: PLATE 10.
[by J. Brunn]
PORTRAIT OF MICHAEL MAIER.
_To face page 72_]]
Michael Maier (1568-1622).
§ =55.= =Michael Maier= (see plate 10) was born at Rendsberg (in
Holstein) about 1568. He studied medicine assiduously, becoming a most
successful physician, and he was ennobled by Rudolf II. Later on,
however, he took up the subject of Alchemy, and is said to have ruined
his health and wasted his fortune in the pursuit of the alchemistic
_ignis fatuus_--the Stone of the Philosophers--travelling about Germany
and elsewhere in order to have converse with those who were regarded as
adepts in the Art. He took a prominent part in the famous Rosicrucian
controversy (see § 49), defending the claims of the alleged society in
several tracts. He is said, on the one hand, to have been admitted as a
member of the fraternity; and on the other hand, to have himself founded
a similar institution. A full account of his views will be found in the
Rev. J. B. Craven’s _Count Michael Maier: Life and Writings_ (1910). He
was a very learned man, but his works are somewhat obscure and abound in
fanciful allegories. He read an alchemistic meaning into the ancient
fables concerning the Egyptian and Greek gods and heroes. Like most
alchemists, he held the supposed virtues of mercury in high esteem. In
his _Lusus Serius: or, Serious Passe-time_, for example, he supposes a
Parliament of the various creatures of the world to meet, in order that
Man might choose the noblest of them as king over all the rest. The
calf, the sheep, the goose, the oyster, the bee, the silkworm, flax and
mercury are the chosen representatives, each of which discourses in
turn. It will be unnecessary to state that Mercury wins the day. Thus
does Maier eulogise it: “Thou art the miracle, splendour and light of
the world. Thou art the glory, ornament, and supporter of the Earth.
Thou art the Asyle, Anchor, and tye of the Universe. Next to the minde
of Man, God Created nothing more Noble, more Glorious, or more
Profitable.”[75] His _Subtle Allegory concerning the Secrets of Alchemy,
very useful to possess and pleasant to read_, will be found in the
_Hermetic Museum_, together with his _Golden Tripod_, consisting of
translations of “Valentine’s” “_Practica_” and _Twelve Keys_, Norton’s
_Ordinal_ and Cremer’s spurious _Testament_.
[75] MICHAEL MAIER: _Lusus Serius: or Serious Passe-time_ (1654), p.
138.
[Illustration: Plate 11.
PORTRAIT OF JACOB BOEHME.
_To face page 74_]]
Jacob Boehme (1575-1624.)
§ =56.= =Jacob Boehme=, or Behmen (see plate 11), was born at Alt
Seidenberg, a village near Görlitz, in 1575. His parents being poor, the
education he received was of a very rudimentary nature, and when his
schooling days were over, Jacob was apprenticed to a shoemaker. His
religious nature caused him often to admonish his fellow-apprentices,
which behaviour ultimately caused him to be dismissed. He travelled
about as a journeyman shoemaker, returning, however, to Görlitz in 1594,
where he married and settled in business. He claims to have experienced
a wonderful vision in 1598, and to have had a similar vision two years
later. In these visions, the first of which lasted for several days, he
believed that he saw into the inmost secrets of nature; but what at
first appeared dim and vague became clear and coherent in a third
vision, which he tells us was vouchsafed to him in 1610. It was then
that he wrote his first book, the _Aurora_, which he composed for
himself only, in order that he should not forget the mysteries disclosed
to him. At a later period he produced a large number of treatises of a
mystical-religious nature, having spent the intervening years in
improving his early education. These books aroused the ire of the
narrow-minded ecclesiastical authorities of the town, and Jacob suffered
considerable persecution in consequence. He visited Dresden in 1624, and
in the same year was there taken ill with a fever. Returning to Görlitz,
he expired in a condition of ecstasy.
Jacob Boehme was an alchemist of a purely transcendental order. He had,
it appears, acquired some knowledge of Chemistry during his apprentice
days, and he employed the language of Alchemy in the elaboration of his
system of mystical philosophy. With this lofty mystical-religious system
we cannot here deal; Boehme is, indeed, often accounted the greatest of
true Christian mystics; but although conscious of his superiority over
many minor lights, we think this title is due to Emanuel Swedenborg. The
question of the validity of his visions is also one which lies beyond
the scope of the present work;[76] we must confine our attention to
Boehme as an alchemist. The Philosopher’s Stone, in Boehme’s
terminology, is the Spirit of Christ which must “tincture” the
individual soul. In one place he says, “_The Phylosophers Stone_ is a
very dark disesteemed Stone, of a _Gray_ colour, but therein lyeth the
highest Tincture.”[77] In the transcendental sense, this is reminiscent
of the words of Isaiah: “He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we see
him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. . . . He was despised
and we esteemed him not,” &c.[78]
[76] For a general discussion of spiritual visions see the present
writer’s _Matter, Spirit and the Cosmos_ (Rider, 1910), Chapter IV.,
“On Matter and Spirit.” Undoubtedly Boehme’s visions involved a
valuable element of truth, but at the same time much that was purely
relative and subjective.
[77] JACOB BOEHME: _Epistles_ (translated by J. E., 1649), Ep. iv. §
111, p. 65.
[78] _The Book of the Prophet Isaiah_, chap, liii., vv. 2 and 3,
R.V.
J. B. van Helmont (1577-1644) and F. M. van Helmont (1618-1699.)
§ =57.= =John Baptist van Helmont= (see plate 12) was born in Brussels
in 1577. He devoted himself to the study of medicine, at first following
Galen, but afterwards accepting in part the teachings of Paracelsus;
and he helped to a large extent in the overthrow of the old medical
doctrines. His purely chemical researches were also of great value to
the science. He was a man of profound knowledge, of a religious
temperament, and he possessed a marked liking for the mystical. He was
inspired by the writings of Thomas à Kempis to imitate Christ in all
things, and he practised medicine, therefore, as a work of benevolence,
asking no fee for his services. At the same time, moreover, he was a
firm believer in the powers of the Philosopher’s Stone, claiming to have
himself successfully performed the transmutation of the metals on more
than one occasion, though unacquainted with the composition of the
medicine employed (see § 62). Many of his theoretical views are highly
fantastical. He lived a life devoted to scientific research, and died in
1644.
[Illustration: PLATE 12.
PORTRAITS OF J. B. AND F. M. VAN HELMONT.
(From the Frontispiece to J. B. van Helmont’s _Oriatrike_).
_To face page 76_]]
Van Helmont regarded water as the primary element out of which all
things are produced. He denied that fire was an element or anything
material at all, and he did not accept the sulphur-mercury-salt theory.
To him is due the word “gas”--before his time various gases were looked
upon as mere varieties of air--and he also made a distinction between
gases (which could not be condensed)[79] and vapours (which give liquids
on cooling). In particular he investigated the gas that is now known as
carbon-dioxide (carbonic anhydride), which he termed _gas sylvestre_;
but he lacked suitable apparatus for the collection of gases, and
hence was led in many cases to erroneous conclusions.
[79] It has since been discovered that all gases can be condensed,
given a sufficient degree of cold and pressure.
=Francis Mercurius van Helmont= (see plate 12), the son of John Baptist,
born in 1618, gained the reputation of having also achieved the _magnum
opus_, since he appeared to live very luxuriously upon a limited income.
He was a skilled chemist and physician, but held many queer theories,
metempsychosis included.
Johann Rudolf Glauber (1604-1668).
§ =58.= =Johann Rudolf Glauber= was born at Karlstadt in 1604. Of his
life little is known. He appears to have travelled about Germany a good
deal, afterwards visiting Amsterdam, where he died in 1668. He was of a
very patriotic nature, and a most ardent investigator in the realm of
Chemistry. He accepted the main iatro-chemical doctrines, but gave most
of his attention to applied Chemistry. He enriched the science with many
important discoveries; and crystallised sodium sulphate is still called
“Glauber’s Salt.” Glauber, himself, attributed remarkable medicinal
powers to this compound. He was a firm believer in the claims of
Alchemy, and held many fantastic ideas.
Thomas Vaughan (“Eugenius Philalethes”) (1622-1666.)
§ =59.= =Thomas Vaughan=, who wrote under the name of “=Eugenius
Philalethes=,” was born at Newton in Brecknockshire in 1622. He was
educated at Jesus College, Oxford, graduating as a Bachelor of Arts, and
being made a fellow of his college. He appears also to have taken holy
orders and to have had the living of St. Bridget’s (Brecknockshire)
conferred on him.[80] During the civil wars he bore arms for the king,
but his allegiance to the Royalist cause led to his being accused of
“drunkenness, swearing, incontinency and bearing arms for the King”; and
he appears to have been deprived of his living. He retired to Oxford and
gave himself up to study and chemical research. He is to be regarded as
an alchemist of the transcendental order. His views as to the nature of
the true Philosopher’s Stone may be gathered from the following
quotation: “This, reader,” he says, speaking of the mystical
illumination, “is the Christian Philosopher’s Stone, a Stone so often
inculcated in Scripture. This is the Rock in the wildernesse, because in
great obscurity, and few there are that know the right way unto it. This
is the Stone of Fire in Ezekiel; this is the Stone with Seven Eyes upon
it in Zacharie, and this is the White Stone with the New Name in the
Revelation. But in the Gospel, where Christ himself speakes, who was
born to discover mysteries and communicate Heaven to Earth, it is more
clearly described.”[81] At the same time he appears to have carried out
experiments in physical Alchemy, and is said to have met with his death
in 1666 through accidentally inhaling the fumes of some mercury with
which he was experimenting.
[80] See ANTHONY À WOOD: _Athenæ Oxonienses_, edited by Philip
Bliss, vol. iii. (1817), cols. 722-726.
[81] THOMAS VAUGHAN (“Eugenius Philalethes”): _Anima Magica
Abscondita_ (see _The Magical Writings of Thomas Vaughan_, edited by
A. E. Waite, 1888, p. 71).
Thomas Vaughan was an ardent disciple of Cornelius Agrippa, the
sixteenth-century theosophist. He held the peripatetic philosophy in
very slight esteem. He was a man devoted to God, though probably guilty
of some youthful follies, full of love towards his wife, and with an
intense desire for the solution of the great problems of Nature. Amongst
his chief works, which are by no means wanting in flashes of mystic
wisdom, may be mentioned _Anthroposophia Theomagica_, _Anima Magica
Abscondita_ (which were published together), and _Magia Adamica; or, the
Antiquitie of Magic_. With regard to his views as expressed in the first
two of these books, a controversy ensued between Vaughan and Henry
Moore, which was marked by considerable acrimony.
“Eirenæus Philalethes” (1623?-?) and George Starkey (?-1665).
§ =60.= The use of the pseudonym “Philalethes” has not been confined to
one alchemist. The cosmopolitan adept who wrote under the name of
“=Eirenæus Philalethes=,” has been confused, on the one hand, with
Thomas Vaughan, on the other hand with George Starkey (?-1665). He has
also been identified with Dr. Robert Child (1613-1654); but his real
identity remains shrouded in mystery.[82] =George Starkey= (or Stirk),
the son of George Stirk, minister of the Church of England in Bermuda,
graduated at Harvard in 1646 and practised medicine in the United States
of America from 1647 to 1650. In 1651 he came to England and practised
medicine in London. He died of the plague in 1665. In 1654-5 he
published _The Marrow of Alchemy_, by “Eirenæus Philoponos
Philalethes,” which some think he had stolen from his Hermetic Master.
Other works by “Eirenæus Philalethes” appeared after Starkey’s death and
became immensely popular. The _Open Entrance to the Closed Palace of the
King_ (the most famous of these) and the _Three Treatises_ of the same
author will be found in _The Hermetic Museum_. Some of his views have
already been noted (see §§ 1 and 22). On certain points he differed from
the majority of the alchemists. He denied that fire was an element, and,
also, that bodies are formed by mixture of the elements. According to
him there is one principle in the metals, namely, mercury, which arises
from the aqueous element, and is termed “metalically differentiated
water, _i.e._, it is water passed into that stage of development, in
which it can no longer produce anything but mineral substances.”[83]
Philalethes’s views as to “metallic seed” are also of considerable
interest. Of the seed of gold, which he regarded as the seed, also, of
all other metals, he says: “The seed of animals and vegetables is
something separate, and may be cut out, or otherwise separately
exhibited; but metallic seed is diffused throughout the metal, and
contained in all its smallest parts; neither can it be discerned from
its body: its extraction is therefore a task which may well tax the
ingenuity of the most experienced philosopher. . . .”[84] Well might
this have been said of the electron of modern scientific theory.
[82] See Mr. A. E. Waite’s _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_,
art. “Eirenæus Philalethes,” and the Biographical Preface to his
_The Works of Thomas Vaughan_ (1919); also the late Professor
Ferguson’s “‘The Marrow of Alchemy’,” _The Journal of The Alchemical
Society_, vol. iii. (1915), pp. 106 _et seq._, and Professor G. L.
Kittredge’s _Doctor Robert Child, The Remonstrant_ (Camb., Mass.,
1919). The last mentioned writer strongly urges the identification
of “Eirenæus Philalethes” with George Starkey.
[83] “EIRENÆUS PHILALETHES”: _The Metamorphosis of Metals_ (see _The
Hermetic Museum_, vol. ii. p. 236). Compare with van Helmont’s
views, § 57.
[84] _Ibid._, p. 240.
CHAPTER V
THE OUTCOME OF ALCHEMY
Did the Alchemists achieve the “Magnum Opus”?
§ =61.= The alchemists were untiring in their search for the Stone of
the Philosophers, and we may well ask whether they ever succeeded in
effecting a real transmutation. That many _apparent_ transmutations
occurred, the observers being either self-deceived by a superficial
examination--certain alloys resemble the “noble metals”--or deliberately
cheated by impostors, is of course undoubted. But at the same time we
must not assume that, because we know not the method now, real
transmutations have never taken place. Modern research indicates that it
may be possible to transmute other metals, such as lead or bismuth, into
gold, and consequently we must admit the possibility that amongst the
many experiments carried out, a real transmutation was effected. On the
other hand, the method which is suggested by the recent researches in
question could not have been known to the alchemists or accidentally
employed by them; and, moreover, the quantity of gold which is hoped
for, should such a method prove successful, is far below the smallest
amount that would have been detected in the days of Alchemy. But if
there be one method whereby the metals may be transmuted, there may be
other methods. And it is not altogether an easy task to explain away the
testimony of eminent men such as were van Helmont and Helvetius.
The Testimony of van Helmont.
§ =62.= =John Baptist van Helmont= (see § 57), who was celebrated alike
for his skill as a physician and chemist and for his nobility of
character, testified in more than one place that he had himself carried
out the transmutation of mercury into gold. But, as we have mentioned
above, the composition of the Stone employed on these occasions was
unknown to him. He says: “. . . For truly, I have divers times seen it
[the Stone of the Philosophers], and handled it with my hands: but it
was of colour, such as is in Saffron in its Powder, yet weighty, and
shining like unto powdered Glass: There was once given unto me one
fourth part of one Grain: But I call a Grain the six hundredth part of
one Ounce: This quarter of one Grain therefore, being rouled up in
Paper, I projected upon eight Ounces of Quick-silver made hot in a
Crucible; and straightway all the Quick-silver, with a certain degree of
Noise, stood still from flowing, and being congealed, setled like unto a
yellow Lump: but after pouring it out, the Bellows blowing, there were
found eight Ounces, and a little less than eleven Grains [eight Ounces
less eleven Grains] of the purest Gold: Therefore one only Grain of that
Powder, had transchanged 19186 [19156] Parts of Quick-silver, equal to
itself, into the best Gold.”[85]
[85] J. B. VAN HELMONT: _Life Eternal_ (see _Oriatrike_, translated
by J. C., 1662; or _van Helmont’s Workes_, translated by J. C.,
1664, which is merely the former work with a new title-page and
preliminary matter, pp. 751 and 752).
And again: “I am constrained to believe that there is the Stone which
makes Gold, and which makes Silver; because I have at distinct turns,
made projection with my hand, of one grain of the Powder, upon some
thousand grains of hot Quick-silver; and the buisiness succeeded in the
Fire, even as Books do promise; a Circle of many People standing by,
together with a tickling Admiration of us all. . . . He who first gave
me the Gold-making Powder, had likewise also, at least as much of it, as
might be sufficient for changing two hundred thousand Pounds of Gold:
. . . For he gave me perhaps half a grain of that Powder, and nine
ounces and three quarters of Quick-silver were thereby transchanged: But
that Gold, a strange man [a stranger], being a Friend of one evenings
acquaintance, gave me.”[86]
[86] J. B. VAN HELMONT: _The Tree of Life_ (see _Oriatrike_ or _Van
Helmont’s Workes_, p. 807).
[Illustration: PLATE 13.
_To face page 84_]]
The Testimony of Helvetius.
§ =63.= =John Frederick Helvetius= (see plate 13), an eminent doctor of
medicine, and physician to the Prince of Orange, published at the Hague
in 1667 the following remarkable account of a transmutation he claimed
to have effected. Certain points of resemblance between this account and
that of van Helmont (_e.g._, in each case the Stone is described as a
glassy substance of a pale yellow colour) are worth noticing: “On the 27
December, 1666, in the forenoon, there came to my house a certain man,
who was a complete stranger to me, but of an honest, grave countenance,
and an authoritative mien, clothed in a simple garb like that of a
Memnonite. . . .
“After we had exchanged salutations, he asked me whether he might have
some conversation with me. He wished to say something to me about the
Pyrotechnic Art, as he had read one of my tracts (directed against the
sympathetic Powder of Dr. Digby), in which I hinted a suspicion whether
the Grand Arcanum of the Sages was not after all a gigantic hoax. He,
therefore, took that opportunity of asking me whether I could not
believe that such a grand mystery might exist in the nature of things,
by means of which a physician could restore any patient whose vitals
were not irreparably destroyed. I answered: ‘Such a Medicine would be a
most desirable acquisition for any physician; nor can any man tell how
many secrets there may be hidden in Nature; yet, though I have read much
about the truth of this Art, it has never been my good fortune to meet
with a real Master of the Alchemical Science.’ I also enquired whether
he was a medical man. . . . In reply, he . . . described himself as a
brassfounder. . . . After some further conversation, the Artist Elias
(for it was he) thus addressed me: ‘Since you have read so much in the
works of the Alchemists about this Stone, its substance, its colour, and
its wonderful effects, may I be allowed the question, whether you have
not yourself prepared it?’ On my answering his question in the negative,
he took out of his bag a cunningly-worked ivory box, in which there were
three large pieces of a substance resembling glass, or pale sulphur, and
informed me that here was enough of the Tincture for the production of
20 tons of gold. When I had held the precious treasure in my hand for
a quarter of an hour (during which time I listened to a recital of its
wonderful curative properties), I was compelled to restore it to its
owner, which I could not help doing with a certain degree of reluctance.
After thanking him for his kindness in shewing it to me, I then asked
how it was that his Stone did not display that ruby colour, which I had
been taught to regard as characteristic of the Philosopher’s Stone. He
replied that the colour made no difference, and that the substance was
sufficiently mature for all practical purposes. My request that he would
give me a piece of his Stone (though it were no larger than a coriander
seed), he somewhat brusquely refused, adding, in a milder tone, that he
could not give it me for all the wealth I possessed, and that not on
account of its great preciousness, but for some other reason which it
was not lawful for him to divulge; . . .
Helvetius obtains the Philosopher’s Stone.
§ =64.= “When my strange visitor had concluded his narrative, I besought
him to give me a proof of his assertion, by performing the transmutatory
operation on some metals in my presence. He answered evasively, that he
could not do so then, but that he would return in three weeks, and that,
if he was then at liberty to do so, he would shew me something that
would make me open my eyes. He appeared punctually to the promised day,
and invited me to take a walk with him, in the course of which we
discoursed profoundly on the secrets of Nature in fire, though I noticed
that my companion was very chary in imparting information about the
Grand Arcanum. . . . At last I asked him point-blank to show me the
transmutation of metals. I besought him to come and dine with me, and to
spend the night at my house; I entreated; I expostulated; but in vain.
He remained firm. I reminded him of his promise. He retorted that his
promise had been conditional upon his being permitted to reveal the
secret to me. At last, however, I prevailed upon him to give me a piece
of his precious Stone--a piece no larger than a grain of rape seed. He
delivered it to me as if it were the most princely donation in the
world. Upon my uttering a doubt whether it would be sufficient to tinge
more than four grains of lead, he eagerly demanded it back. I complied,
in the hope that he would exchange it for a larger piece; instead of
which he divided it in two with his thumb, threw away one-half and gave
me back the other, saying: ‘Even now it is sufficient for you.’ Then I
was still more heavily disappointed, as I could not believe that
anything could be done with so small a particle of the Medicine. He,
however, bade me take two drachms, or half an ounce of lead, or even a
little more, and to melt it in the crucible; for the Medicine would
certainly not tinge more of the base metal than it was sufficient for. I
answered that I could not believe that so small a quantity of Tincture
could transform so large a mass of lead. But I had to be satisfied with
what he had given me, and my chief difficulty was about the application
of the Tincture. I confessed that when I held his ivory box in my hand,
I had managed to extract a few crumbs of his Stone, but that they had
changed my lead, not into gold, but only into glass. He laughed, and
said that I was more expert at theft than at the application of the
Tincture. ‘You should have protected your spoil with “yellow wax,” then
it would have been able to penetrate the lead and to transmute it into
gold.’ . . .
Helvetius performs a Transmutation.
§ =65.= “. . . With . . . a promise to return at nine o’clock the next
morning, he left me. But at the stated hour on the following day he did
not make his appearance; in his stead, however, there came, a few hours
later, a stranger, who told me that his friend the Artist was
unavoidably detained, but that he would call at three o’clock in the
afternoon. The afternoon came; I waited for him till half-past seven
o’clock. He did not appear. Thereupon my wife came and tempted me to try
the transmutation myself. I determined, however, to wait till the
morrow, and in the meantime, ordered my son to light the fire, as I was
now almost sure that he was an impostor. On the morrow, however, I
thought that I might at least make an experiment with the piece of
‘Tincture’ which I had received; if it turned out a failure, in spite of
my following his directions closely, I might then be quite certain that
my visitor had been a mere pretender to a knowledge of this Art. So I
asked my wife to put the Tincture in wax, and I myself, in the meantime,
prepared six drachms of lead; I then cast the Tincture, enveloped as it
was in wax, on the lead; as soon as it was melted, there was a hissing
sound and a slight effervescence, and after a quarter of an hour I found
that the whole mass of lead had been turned into the finest gold. Before
this transmutation took place, the compound became intensely green, but
as soon as I had poured it into the melting pot it assumed a hue like
blood. When it cooled, it glittered and shone like gold. We immediately
took it to the goldsmith, who at once declared it to be the finest gold
he had ever seen, and offered to pay fifty florins an ounce for it.
Helvetius’s Gold Assayed.
§ =66.= “The rumour, of course, spread at once like wildfire through the
whole city; and in the afternoon, I had visits from many illustrious
students of this Art; I also received a call from the Master of the Mint
and some other gentlemen, who requested me to place at their disposal a
small piece of the gold, in order that they might subject it to the
usual tests. I consented, and we betook ourselves to the house of a
certain silversmith, named Brechtil, who submitted a small piece of my
gold to the test called ‘the fourth’: three or four parts of silver are
melted in the crucible with one part of gold, and then beaten out into
thin plates, upon which some strong _aqua fortis_ [nitric acid] is
poured. The usual result of this experiment is that the silver is
dissolved, while the gold sinks to the bottom in the shape of a black
powder, and after the _aqua fortis_ has been poured off, [the gold,]
melted once again in the crucible, resumes its former shape. . . . When
we now performed this experiment, we thought at first that one-half of
the gold had evaporated; but afterwards we found that this was not the
case, but that, on the contrary, two scruples of the silver had
undergone a change into gold.
Helvetius’s Gold Further Tested.
§ =67.= “Then we tried another test, _viz._, that which is performed by
means of a septuple of Antimony; at first it seemed as if eight grains
of the gold had been lost, but afterwards, not only had two scruples of
the silver been converted into gold, but the silver itself was greatly
improved both in quality and malleability. Thrice I performed this
infallible test, discovering that every drachm of gold produced an
increase of a scruple of gold, but the silver is excellent and extremely
flexible. Thus I have unfolded to you the whole story from beginning to
end. The gold I still retain in my possession, but I cannot tell you
what has become of the Artist Elias. Before he left me, on the last day
of our friendly intercourse, he told me that he was on the point of
undertaking a journey to the Holy Land. May the Holy Angels of God watch
over him wherever he is, and long preserve him as a source of blessing
to Christendom! This is my earnest prayer on his and our behalf.”[87]
[87] J. F. HELVETIUS: _The Golden Calf_, ch. iii. (see _The Hermetic
Museum_, vol. ii. pp. 283 _et seq._).
Testimony such as this warns us not to be too sure that a real
transmutation has never taken place. On the whole, with regard to this
question, an agnostic position appears to be the more philosophical.
The Genesis of Chemistry.
§ =68.= But even if the alchemists did not discover the Grand Arcanum of
Nature, they did discover very many scientifically important facts. Even
if they did not prepare the Philosopher’s Stone, they did prepare a very
large number of new and important chemical compounds. Their labours were
the seeds out of which modern Chemistry developed, and this highly
important science is rightfully included under the expression “The
Outcome of Alchemy.” As we have already pointed out (§ 48), it was the
iatro-chemists who first investigated chemical matters with an object
other than alchemistic, their especial end in view being the
preparation of useful medicines, though the medical-chemist and the
alchemist were very often united in the one person, as in the case of
Paracelsus himself and the not less famous van Helmont. It was not until
still later that Chemistry was recognised as a distinct science separate
from medicine.
The Degeneracy of Alchemy.
§ =69.= In another direction the Outcome of Alchemy was of a very
distressing nature. Alchemy was in many respects eminently suitable as a
cloak for fraud, and those who became “alchemists” with the sole object
of accumulating much wealth in a short space of time, finding that the
legitimate pursuit of the Art did not enable them to realise their
expectations in this direction, availed themselves of this fact. There
is, indeed, some evidence that the degeneracy of Alchemy had commenced
as early as the fourteenth century, but the attainment of the _magnum
opus_ was regarded as possible for some three or more centuries.
The alchemistic promises of health, wealth and happiness and a
pseudo-mystical style of language were effectively employed by these
impostors. Some more or less ingenious tricks--such as the use of hollow
stirring-rods, in which the gold was concealed, &c.--convinced a
credulous public of the validity of their claims. Of these
pseudo-alchemists we have already made the acquaintance of Edward
Kelley, but chief of them all is generally accounted the notorious
“Count Cagliostro.” That “Cagliostro” is rightfully placed in the
category of pseudo-alchemists is certain, but it also appears equally
certain that, charlatan though he was, posterity has not always done
him that justice which is due to all men, however bad they may be.
“Count Cagliostro” (--?-1795).
§ =70.= Of the birth and early life of the personage calling himself
“=Count Cagliostro=” nothing is known with any degree of certainty, even
his true name being enveloped in mystery. It has, indeed, been usual to
identify him with the notorious Italian swindler, Giuseppe Balsamo, who,
born at Palermo in 1743 (or 1748), apparently disappeared from mortal
ken after some thirty years, of which the majority were spent in
committing various crimes. “Cagliostro’s” latest biographer,[88] who
appears to have gone into the matter very thoroughly, however, throws
very grave doubts on the truth of this theory.
[88] W. R. H. TROWBRIDGE: _Cagliostro_: _The Splendour and Misery of
a Master of Magic_ (1910). We must acknowledge our indebtedness for
many of the particulars which follow to this work. It is, however,
unfortunately marred by a ridiculous attempt to show a likeness
between “Cagliostro” and Swedenborg, for which, by the way, Mr.
Trowbridge has already been criticised by the _Spectator_. It may
justly be said of Swedenborg that he was scrupulously honest and
sincere in his beliefs as well as in his actions; and, as a
philosopher, it is only now being discovered how really great he
was. He did, indeed, claim to have converse with spiritual beings;
but the results of modern psychical research have robbed such claims
of any inherent impossibility, and in Swedenborg’s case there is
very considerable evidence for their validity.
[Illustration: PLATE 14.
_To face page 92_]]
If the earlier part of “Cagliostro’s” life is unknown, the latter part
is so overlaid with legends and lies, that it is almost impossible to
get at the truth concerning it. In 1776 Cagliostro and his wife were in
London, where “Cagliostro” became a Freemason, joining a lodge connected
with “The Order of Strict Observance,” a secret society incorporated
with Freemasonry, and which (on the Continent, at least) was concerned
largely with occult subjects. “Cagliostro,” however, was unsatisfied
with its rituals and devised a new system which he called Egyptian
Masonry. Egyptian Masonry, he taught, was to reform the whole world, and
he set out, leaving England for the Continent, to convert Masons and
others to his views. We must look for the motive power of his
extraordinary career in vanity and a love of mystery-mongering, without
any true knowledge of the occult; it is probable, indeed, that
ultimately his unbounded vanity triumphed over his reason and that he
actually believed in his own pretensions. That he did possess hypnotic
and clairvoyant powers is, we think, at least probable; but it is none
the less certain that, when such failed him, he had no scruples against
employing other means of convincing the credulous of the validity of his
claims. This was the case on his visit to Russia, which occurred not
long afterwards. At St. Petersburg a youthful medium he was employing,
to put the matter briefly, “gave the show away,” and at Warsaw, where he
found it necessary to turn alchemist, he was detected in the process of
introducing a piece of gold in the crucible containing the base metal he
was about to “transmute.” At Strasburg, which he reached in 1780,
however, he was more successful. Here he appeared as a miraculous healer
of all diseases, though whether his cures are to be ascribed to some
simple but efficacious medicine which he had discovered, to hypnotism,
to the power of the imagination on the part of his patients, or to the
power of imagination on the part of those who have recorded the alleged
cures, is a question into which we do not propose to enter. At
Strasburg “Cagliostro” came into contact with the Cardinal de Rohan, and
a fast friendship sprang up between the two, which, in the end, proved
“Cagliostro’s” ruin. The “Count” next visited Bordeaux and Lyons,
successfully founding lodges of Egyptian Masonry. From the latter town
he proceeded to Paris, where he reached the height of his fame. He
became extraordinarily rich, although he is said to have asked, and to
have accepted, no fee for his services as a healer. On the other hand,
there was a substantial entrance-fee to the mysteries of Egyptian
Masonry, which, with its alchemistic promises of health and wealth,
prospered exceedingly. At the summit of his career, however, fortune
forsook him. As a friend of de Rohan, he was arrested in connection with
the Diamond Necklace affair, on the word of the infamous Countess de
Lamotte; although, of whatever else he may have been guilty, he was
perfectly innocent of this charge. After lying imprisoned in the
Bastille for several months, he was tried by the French Parliament,
pronounced innocent, and released. Immediately, however, the king
banished him, and he left Paris for London, where he seems to have been
persistently persecuted by agents of the French king. He returned to the
Continent, ultimately reaching Italy, where he was arrested by the
Inquisition and condemned to death on the charge of being a Freemason (a
dire offence in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church). The sentence,
however, was modified to one of perpetual imprisonment, and he was
confined in the Castle of San Leo, where he died in 1795, after four
years of imprisonment, in what manner is not known.
CHAPTER VI
THE AGE OF MODERN CHEMISTRY
The Birth of Modern Chemistry.
§ =71.= Chemistry as distinct from Alchemy and Iatro-chemistry commenced
with Robert Boyle (see plate 15), who first clearly recognised that its
aim is neither the transmutation of the metals nor the preparation of
medicines, but the observation and generalisation of a certain class of
phenomena; who denied the validity of the alchemistic view of the
constitution of matter, and enunciated the definition of an element
which has since reigned supreme in Chemistry; and who enriched the
science with observations of the utmost importance. Boyle, however, was
a man whose ideas were in advance of his times, and intervening between
the iatro-chemical period and the Age of Modern Chemistry proper came
the period of the Phlogistic Theory--a theory which had a certain
affinity with the ideas of the alchemists.
[Illustration: PLATE 15.
PORTRAIT OF ROBERT BOYLE.
_To face page 94_]]
The Phlogiston Theory.
§ =72.= The phlogiston theory was mainly due to Georg Ernst Stahl
(1660-1734). Becher (1635-1682) had attempted to revive the once
universally accepted sulphur-mercury-salt theory of the alchemists in a
somewhat modified form, by the assumption that all substances consist of
three earths--the combustible, mercurial, and vitreous; and herein is
to be found the germ of Stahl’s phlogistic theory. According to Stahl,
all combustible bodies (including those metals that change on heating)
contain _phlogiston_, the principle of combustion, which escapes in the
form of flame when such substances are burned. According to this theory,
therefore, the metals are compounds, since they consist of a metallic
calx (what we now call the “oxide” of the metal) combined with
phlogiston; and, further, to obtain the metal from the calx it is only
necessary to act upon it with some substance rich in phlogiston. Now,
coal and charcoal are both almost completely combustible, leaving very
little residue; hence, according to this theory, they must consist very
largely of phlogiston; and, as a matter of fact, metals can be obtained
by heating their calces with either of these substances. Many other
facts of a like nature were explicable in terms of the phlogiston
theory, and it became exceedingly popular. Chemists at this time did not
pay much attention to the balance; it was observed, however, that metals
increased in weight on calcination, but this was “explained” on the
assumption that phlogiston possessed negative weight. Antoine Lavoisier
(1743-1794), utilising Priestley’s discovery of oxygen (called
“dephlogisticated air” by its discoverer) and studying the weight
relations accompanying combustion, demonstrated the non-validity of the
phlogistic theory[89] and proved combustion to be the combination of the
substance burnt with a certain constituent of the air, the oxygen. By
this time Alchemy was to all intents and purposes defunct, Boerhave
(1668-1738) was the last eminent chemist to give any support to its
doctrines, and the new chemistry of Lavoisier gave it a final
death-blow. We now enter upon the Age of Modern Chemistry, but we shall
deal in this chapter with the history of chemical theory only so far as
is necessary in pursuance of our primary object, and hence our account
will be very far from complete.
[89] It should be noted, however, that if by the term “phlogiston”
we were to understand energy and not some form of matter, most of
the statements of the phlogistics would be true so far as they go.
Boyle and the Definition of an Element.