CHAPTER I.

[Illustration:

_Raeburn. pinx^t._ _Dean, sculp^t._

JOSEPH BLACK, M.D. F.R.S.E.

_London. Published by Henry Colburn & Richard Bentley. 1830._]

THE

HISTORY

OF

CHEMISTRY.

BY

THOMAS THOMSON, M.D. F.R.S.E.

PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.

IN TWO VOLUMES.

VOL. I.

LONDON:

HENRY COLBURN, AND RICHARD BENTLEY,

NEW BURLINGTON STREET.

1830.

C. WHITING, BEAUFORT HOUSE, STRAND.

PREFACE.

It may be proper, perhaps, to state here, in a very few words, the

objects which the author had in view in drawing up the following

History of Chemistry. Alchymy, or the art of making gold, with which

the science originated, furnishes too curious a portion of the

aberrations of the human intellect to be passed over in silence.

The writings of the alchymists are so voluminous and so mystical,

that it would have afforded materials for a very long work. But

I was prevented from extending this part of the subject to any

greater length than I have done, by considering the small quantity of

information which could have been gleaned from the reveries of these

fanatics or impostors; I thought it sufficient to give a general view

of the nature of their pursuits: but in order to put it in the power of

those who feel inclined to prosecute such investigations, I have given

a catalogue of the most eminent of the alchymists and a list of their

works, so far as I am acquainted with them. This catalogue might have

been greatly extended. Indeed it would have been possible to have added

several hundred names. But I think the works which I have quoted are

more than almost any reasonable man would think it worth his while to

peruse; and I can state, from experience, that the information gained

by such a perusal will very seldom repay the trouble.

* * * * *

The account of the chemical arts, with which the ancients were

acquainted, is necessarily imperfect; because all arts and trades were

held in so much contempt by them that they did not think it worth their

while to make themselves acquainted with the processes. My chief

guide has been Pliny, but many of his descriptions are unintelligible,

obviously from his ignorance of the arts which he attempts to describe.

Thus circumstanced, I thought it better to be short than to waste a

great deal of paper, as some have done, on hypothesis and conjecture.

* * * * *

The account of the Chemistry of the Arabians is almost entirely limited

to the works of Geber, which I consider to be the first book on

Chemistry that ever was published, and to constitute, in every point

of view, an exceedingly curious performance. I was much struck with

the vast number of facts with which he was acquainted, and which have

generally been supposed to have been discovered long after his time.

I have, therefore, been at some pains in endeavouring to convey a

notion of Geber’s opinions to the readers of this history; but am not

sure that I have succeeded. I have generally given his own words, as

literally as possible, and, wherever it would answer the purpose, have

employed the English translation of 1678.

Paracelsus gave origin to so great a revolution in medicine and the

sciences connected with it, that it would have been unpardonable not

to have attempted to lay his opinions and views before the reader;

but, after perusing several of his most important treatises, I found

it almost impossible to form accurate notions on the subject. I

have, therefore, endeavoured to make use of his own words as much

as possible, that the want of consistency and the mysticism of his

opinions may fall upon his own head. Should the reader find any

difficulty in understanding the philosophy of Paracelsus, he will be

in no worse a situation than every one has been who has attempted to

delineate the principles of this prince of quacks and impostors. Van

Helmont’s merits were of a much higher kind, and I have endeavoured to

do him justice; though his weaknesses are so visible that it requires

much candour and patience to discriminate accurately between his

excellencies and his foibles.

* * * * *

The history of Iatro-chemistry forms a branch of our subject scarcely

less extraordinary than Alchymy itself. It might have been extended

to a much greater length than I have done. The reason why I did not

enter into longer details was, that I thought the subject more

intimately connected with the history of medicine than of chemistry:

it undoubtedly contributed to the improvement of chemistry; not,

however, by the opinions or the physiology of the iatro-chemists, but

by inducing their contemporaries and successors to apply themselves to

the discovery of chemical medicines.

* * * * *

The History of Chemistry, after a theory of combustion had been

introduced by Beccher and Stahl, becomes much more important. It now

shook off the trammels of alchymy, and ventured to claim its station

among the physical sciences. I have found it necessary to treat of its

progress during the eighteenth century rather succinctly, but I hope

so as to be easily intelligible. This made it necessary to omit the

names of many meritorious individuals, who supplied a share of the

contributions which the science was continually receiving from all

quarters. I have confined myself to those who made the most prominent

figure as chemical discoverers. I had no other choice but to follow

this plan, unless I had doubled the size of this little work, which

would have rendered it less agreeable and less valuable to the general

reader.

* * * * *

With respect to the History of Chemistry during that portion of the

nineteenth century which is already past, it was beset with several

difficulties. Many of the individuals, of whose labours I had occasion

to speak, are still actively engaged in the prosecution of their

useful works. Others have but just left the arena, and their friends

and relations still remain to appreciate their merits. In treating of

this branch of the science (by far the most important of all) I have

followed the same plan as in the history of the preceding century. I

have found it necessary to omit many names that would undoubtedly have

found a place in a larger work, but which the limited extent to which I

was obliged to confine myself, necessarily compelled me to pass over. I

have been anxious not to injure the character of any one, while I have

rigidly adhered to truth, so far as I was acquainted with it. Should I

have been so unfortunate as to hurt the feelings of any individual by

any remarks of mine in the following pages, it will give me great pain;

and the only alleviation will be the consciousness of the total absence

on my part of any malignant intention. To gratify the wishes of every

individual may, perhaps, be impossible; but I can say, with truth,

that my uniform object has been to do justice to the merits of all, so

far as my own limited knowledge put it in my power to do.

CONTENTS

OF

THE FIRST VOLUME.

Page

Introduction 1

CHAPTER I.

Of Alchymy 3

CHAPTER II.

Of the chemical knowledge possessed by the Ancients 49

CHAPTER III.

Chemistry of the Arabians 110

CHAPTER IV.

Of the progress of Chemistry under Paracelsus and his disciples 140

CHAPTER V.

Of Van Helmont and the Iatro-Chemists 179

CHAPTER VI.

Of Agricola and metallurgy 219

CHAPTER VII.

Of Glauber, Lemery, and some other chemists of the end of the

seventeenth century 226

CHAPTER VIII.

Of the attempts to establish a theory in chemistry 246

CHAPTER IX.

Of the foundation and progress of scientific chemistry in Great

Britain 303

HISTORY OF CHEMISTRY.

INTRODUCTION.

Chemistry, unlike the other sciences, sprang originally from delusion

and superstition, and was at its commencement exactly on a level

with magic and astrology. Even after it began to be useful to man,

by furnishing him with better and more powerful medicines than the

ancient physicians were acquainted with, it was long before it could

shake off the trammels of alchymy, which hung upon it like a nightmare,

cramping and blunting all its energies, and exposing it to the scorn

and contempt of the enlightened part of mankind. It was not till about

the middle of the eighteenth century that it was able to free itself

from these delusions, and to venture abroad in all the native dignity

of a useful science. It was then that its utility and its importance

began to attract the attention of the world; that it drew within its

vortex some of the greatest and most active men in every country; and

that it advanced towards perfection with an accelerated pace. The field

which it now presents to our view is vast and imposing. Its paramount

utility is universally acknowledged. It has become a necessary part of

education. It has contributed as much to the progress of society, and

has done as much to augment the comforts and conveniences of life, and

to increase the power and the resources of mankind, as all the other

sciences put together.

It is natural to feel a desire to be acquainted with the origin and the

progress of such a science; and to know something of the history and

character of those numerous votaries to whom it is indebted for its

progress and improvement. The object of this little work is to gratify

these laudable wishes, by taking a rapid view of the progress of

Chemistry, from its first rude and disgraceful beginnings till it has

reached its present state of importance and dignity. I shall divide the

subject into fifteen chapters. In the first I shall treat of Alchymy,

which may be considered as the inauspicious commencement of the

science, and which, in fact, consists of little else than an account of

dupes and impostors; every where so full of fiction and obscurity, that

it is a hopeless and almost impossible task to reach the truth. In the

second chapter I shall endeavour to point out the few small chemical

rills, which were known to the ancients. These I shall follow in their

progress, in the succeeding chapters, till at last, augmented by an

infinite number of streams flowing at once from a thousand different

quarters, they have swelled to the mighty river, which now flows on

majestically, wafting wealth and information to the civilized world.

CHAPTER I.

OF ALCHYMY.

The word _chemistry_ (χημεια, _chemeia_) first occurs in Suidas,

a Greek writer, who is supposed to have lived in the eleventh

century, and to have written his lexicon during the reign of Alexius

Comnenus.[1] Under the word χημεια in his dictionary we find the

following passage:

“CHEMISTRY, the preparation of silver and gold. The books

on it were sought out by Dioclesian and burnt, on account of the new

attempts made by the Egyptians against him. He treated them with

cruelty and harshness, as he sought out the books written by the

ancients on the chemistry (Περι χημειας) of gold and silver, and burnt

them. His object was to prevent the Egyptians from becoming rich by the

knowledge of this art, lest, emboldened by abundance of wealth, they

might be induced afterwards to resist the Romans.”[2]

[1] The word χημεια is said to occur in several Greek manuscripts of

a much earlier date. But of this, as I have never had an opportunity

of seeing them, I cannot pretend to judge. So much fiction has been

introduced into the history of Alchymy, and so many ancient names have

been treacherously dragged into the service, that we may be allowed

to hesitate when no evidence is presented sufficient to satisfy a

reasonable man.

[2] Χημεια, ἡ του αργυρου και χρυσου κατασκευη· ἡς τα βιβλια

διερευνησαμενος ὁ Διοκλητιανος εκαυσε, δια τα νεωτερισθεντα αιγυπτιοις

Διοκλητιανω· τουτοις ανημερως και φονικως εχρησατο ὁτεδη και τα

περι χημειας χρυσου και αργυρου τοις παλαιοις γεγραμμενα βιβλια

διερευνησαμενος εκαυσε, προς το μηκετι πλουτον αιγυπτιοις εκ της

τοιαυτης προσγινεσθαι τεχνης, μηδε χρηματων αυτοις θαρῥονιτας περιουσια

του λοιπου ῥωμαιοις ανταιρειν.

Under the word Δερας, _deras_ (_a skin_), in the lexicon, occurs the

following passage: “Δερας, the golden fleece, which Jason and the

Argonauts (after a voyage through the Black Sea to Colchis) took,

together with Medea, daughter of Ætes, the king. But this was not

what the poets represent, but a treatise written on skins (δερμασι),

teaching how gold might be prepared by chemistry. Probably, therefore,

it was called by those who lived at that time, _golden_, on account of

its great importance.”[3]

[3] Δερας, το χρυσομαλλον δερας, ὁπερ ὁ Ιασων δια της ποντικης

θαλασσης συν τοις αργοναυταις εις την κολχιδα παραγενομενοι ελαβον,

και την Μηδειαν την Αιητου του βασιλεως θυγατερα. Τουτο δε ουκ ὡς

ποιητικως φερεται· αλλα βιβλιον ην εν δερμασι γεγραμενον περισχον ὁπως

δειγινεσθαι δια χημειας χρυσον· εικοτως ουν ὁι τοτε χρουσουν ωνομαζον

αυτο δερας δια την ενεργειαν την εξ αυτου.

From these two passages there can be no doubt that the word _chemistry_

was known to the Greeks in the eleventh century; and that it signified,

at that time, the art of making gold and silver. It appears, further,

that in Suidas’s opinion, this art was known to the Egyptians in the

time of Dioclesian; that Dioclesian was convinced of its reality;

and that, to put an end to it, he collected and burnt all the

chemical writings to be found in Egypt. Nay, Suidas affirms that a

book, describing the art of making gold, existed at the time of the

Argonauts: and that the object of Jason and his followers was to get

possession of that invaluable treatise, which the poets disguised under

the term _golden fleece_.

The first meaning, then, of chemistry, was the _art of making gold_.

And this art, in the opinion of Suidas, was understood at least as

early as one thousand two hundred and twenty-five years before

the Christian era: for that is the period at which the Argonautic

expedition is commonly fixed by chronologists.

Though the lexicon of Suidas be the first printed book in which the

word Chemistry occurs, yet it is said to be found in much earlier

tracts, which still continue in manuscript. Thus Scaliger informs us

that he perused a Greek manuscript of Zosimus, the Panapolite, written

in the fifth century, and deposited in the King of France’s library.

Olaus Borrichius mentions this manuscript; but in such terms that it

is difficult to know whether he had himself read it; though he seems

to insinuate as much.[4] The title of this manuscript is said to be

“A faithful Description of the sacred and divine Art of making Gold

and Silver, by Zosimus, the Panapolite.”[5] In this treatise, Zosimus

distinguishes the art by the name χημια, _chemia_. From a passage

in this manuscript, quoted by Scaliger, and given also by Olaus

Borrichius, it appears that Zosimus carries the antiquity of the art of

making gold and silver, much higher than Suidas has ventured to do. The

following is a literal translation of this curious passage:

[4] De Ortu et Progressu Chemiæ, p. 12.

[5] Σωσιμου του παναπολιτου γνησια γραφη, περι της ἱερας, και θειας

τεχνης του χρυσου και αργυριου ποιησιος. Παναπολις was a city in Egypt.

“The sacred Scriptures inform us that there exists a tribe of genii,

who make use of women. Hermes mentions this circumstance in his

Physics; and almost every writing (λογος), whether sacred (φανερος) or

apocryphal, states the same thing. The ancient and divine Scriptures

inform us, that the angels, captivated by women, taught them all the

operations of nature. Offence being taken at this, they remained out of

heaven, because they had taught mankind all manner of evil, and things

which could not be advantageous to their souls. The Scriptures inform

us that the giants sprang from these embraces. Chema is the first of

their traditions respecting these arts. The book itself they called

Chema; hence the art is called _Chemia_.”

Zosimus is not the only Greek writer on Chemistry. Olaus Borrichius has

given us a list of thirty-eight treatises, which he says exist in the

libraries of Rome, Venice, and Paris: and Dr. Shaw has increased this

list to eighty-nine.[6] But among these we find the names of Hermes,

Isis, Horus, Democritus, Cleopatra, Porphyry, Plato, &c.--names which

undoubtedly have been affixed to the writings of comparatively modern

and obscure authors. The style of these authors, as Borrichius informs

us, is barbarous. They are chiefly the production of ecclesiastics,

who lived between the fifth and twelfth centuries. In these tracts,

the art of which they treat is sometimes called _chemistry_ (χημεια);

sometimes the _chemical art_ (χημευτικα); sometimes the _holy art_; and

the _philosopher’s stone_.

[6] Shaw’s Translation of Boerhaave’s Chemistry, i. 20.

It is evident from this, that between the fifth century and the taking

of Constantinople in the fifteenth century, the Greeks believed in the

possibility of making gold and silver artificially; and that the art

which professed to teach these processes was called by them Chemistry.

These opinions passed from the Greeks to the Arabians, when, under the

califs of the family of Abassides, they began to turn their attention

to science, about the beginning of the ninth century; and when the

enlightened zeal of the Fatimites in Africa, and the Ommiades in Spain,

encouraged the cultivation of the sciences. From Spain they gradually

made their way into the different Christian kingdoms of Europe. From

the eleventh to the sixteenth century, the art of making gold and

silver was cultivated in Germany, Italy, France, and England, with

considerable assiduity. The cultivators of it were called _Alchymists_;

a name obviously derived from the Greek word _chemia_, but somewhat

altered by the Arabians. Many alchymistical tracts were written during

that period. A considerable number of them were collected by Lazarus

Zetzner, and published at Strasburg in 1602, under the title of

“Theatrum Chemicum, præcipuos selectorum auctorum tractatus de Chemiæ

et Lapidis Philosophici Antiquitate, veritate, jure, præstantia, et

operationibus continens in gratiam veræ Chemiæ et Medicinæ Chemicæ

Studiosorum (ut qui uberrimam unde optimorum remediorum messem facere

poterunt) congestum et in quatuor partes seu volumina digestum.” This

book contains one hundred and five different alchymistical tracts.

In the year 1610 another collection of alchymistical tracts was

published at Basil, in three volumes, under the title of “Artis

Auriferæ quam Chemiam vocant volumina tria.” It contains forty-seven

different tracts.

In the year 1702 Mangetus published at Geneva two very large folio

volumes, under the name of “Bibliotheca Chemica Curiosa, seu rerum

ad Alchymiam pertinentium thesaurus instructissimus, quo non tantum

Artis Auriferæ ac scriptorum in ea nobiliorum Historia traditur;

lapidis veritas Argumentis et Experimentis innumeris, immo et Juris

Consultorum Judiciis evincitur; Termini obscuriores explicantur;

Cautiones contra Impostores et Difficultates in Tinctura Universali

conficienda occurrentes declarantur: verum etiam Tractatus omnes

Virorum Celebriorum, qui in Magno sudarunt Elixyre, quique ab ipso

Hermete, ut dicitur, Trismegisto, ad nostra usque tempora de Chrysopoea

scripserunt, cum præcipuis suis Commentariis, concinno ordine dispositi

exhibentur.” This Bibliotheca contains one hundred and twenty-two

alchymistical treatises, many of them of considerable length.

Two additional volumes of the Theatrum Chemicum were afterwards

published; but these I have never had an opportunity of seeing.

From these collections, which exhibit a pretty complete view of the

writings of the alchymists, a tolerably accurate notion may be formed

of their opinions. But before attempting to lay open the theories and

notions by which the alchymists were guided, it will be proper to state

the opinions which were gradually adopted respecting the origin of

Alchymy, and the contrivances by which these opinions were supported.

Zosimus, the Panapolite, in a passage quoted above informs us, that

the art of making gold and silver was not a human invention; but was

communicated to mankind by angels or demons. These angels, he says,

fell in love with women, and were induced by their charms to abandon

heaven altogether, and take up their abode upon earth. Among other

pieces of information which these spiritual beings communicated to

their paramours, was the sublime art of Chemistry, or the fabrication

of gold and silver.

It is quite unnecessary to refute this extravagant opinion, obviously

founded on a misunderstanding of a passage in the sixth chapter of

Genesis. “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face

of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God

saw the daughters of men, that they were fair; and they took them wives

of all which they chose.--There were giants in the earth in those days;

and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters

of men, and they bare _children_ to them; the same became mighty men,

which were of old, men of renown.”

There is no mention whatever of angels, or of any information on

science communicated by them to mankind.

Nor is it necessary to say much about the opinion advanced by some,

and rather countenanced by Olaus Borrichius, that the art of making

gold was the invention of Tubal-cain, whom they represent as the same

as Vulcan. All the information which we have respecting Tubal-cain,

is simply that he was an instructor of every artificer in brass and

iron.[7] No allusion whatever is made to gold. And that in these early

ages of the world there was no occasion for making gold artificially,

we have the same authority for believing. For in the second chapter

of Genesis, where the garden of Eden is described, it is said, “And

a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was

parted, and came into four heads: the name of the first is Pison,

that is it which encompasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there

is gold. And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and

onyx-stone.”

[7] Genesis iv. 22.

But the most generally-received opinion is, that alchymy originated in

Egypt; and the honour of the invention has been unanimously conferred

upon Hermes Trismegistus. He is by some supposed to be the same person

with Chanaan, the son of Ham, whose son Mizraim first occupied and

peopled Egypt. Plutarch informs us, that Egypt was sometimes called

_Chemia_.[8] This name is supposed to be derived from Chanaan (ןענכ);

thence it was believed that Chanaan was the true inventor of alchymy,

to which he affixed his own name. Whether the Hermes (Ἑρμης) of

the Greeks was the same person with Chanaan or his son Mizraim, it

is impossible at this distance of time to decide; but to Hermes is

assigned the invention of alchymy, or the art of making gold, by almost

the unanimous consent of the adepts.

[8] De Iside and Osiride, c. 5.

Albertus Magnus informs us, that “Alexander the Great discovered the

sepulchre of Hermes, in one of his journeys, full of all treasures,

not metallic, but golden, written on a table of _zatadi_, which others

call emerald.” This passage occurs in a tract of Albertus _de secretis

chemicis_, which is considered as supposititious. Nothing is said of

the source whence the information contained in this passage was drawn:

but, from the quotations produced by Kriegsmann, it would appear that

the existence of this emerald table was alluded to by Avicenna and

other Arabian writers. According to them, a woman called Sarah took it

from the hands of the dead body of Hermes, some ages after the flood,

in a cave near Hebron. The inscription on it was in the Phœnician

language. The following is a literal translation of this famous

inscription, from the Latin version of Kriegsmann:[9]

[9] There are two Latin translations of these tables (unless we are

rather to consider them as originals, for no Phœnician nor Greek

original exists). I shall insert them both here.

I.--VERBA SECRETORUM HERMETIS TRISMEGISTI.

1. Verum sine mendacio certum et verissimum.

2. Quod est inferius, est sicut quod est superius, et quod est

superius est sicut quod est inferius ad perpetranda miracula rei

unius.

3. Et sicut omnes res fuerant ab uno meditatione unius: sic

omnes res natæ fuerunt ab hac una re adaptatione.

4. Pater ejus est Sol, mater ejus Luna, portavit illud ventus

in ventre suo, nutrix ejus terra est.

5. Pater omnis thelesmi totius mundi est hic.

6. Vis ejus integra est, si versa fuerit in terram.

7. Separabis terram ab igne, subtile a spisso suaviter cum

magno ingenio.

8. Ascendit a terra in cœlum, iterumque descendit in terram,

et recipit vim superiorum et inferiorum, sic habebis gloriam

totius mundi. Ideo fugiat a te omnis obscuritas.

9. Hic est totius fortitudinis fortitudo fortis; quia vincit

omnem rem subtilem, omnemque solidam penetrabit.

10. Sic mundus creatus est.

11. Hinc adaptationes erunt mirabiles, quarum modus est

hic.

12. Itaque vocatus sum Hermes Trismegistus, habens tres

partes philosophiæ totius mundi.

13. Completum est quod dixi de operatione solis.

II.--DESCRIPTIO ARCANORUM HERMETIS TRISMEGISTI.

1. Vere non ficte, certo verissime aio.

2. Inferiora hæc cum superioribus illis, istaque cum iis vicissim

vires sociant, ut producant rem unam omnium mirificissimam.

3. Ac quemadmodum cuncta educta ex uno fuere verbo Dei

unius: sic omnes quoque res perpetuo ex hac una re generantur

dispositione Naturæ.

4. Patrem ea habet Solem, matrem Lunam: ab aëre in utero

quasi gestatur, nutritur a terra.

5. Causa omnis perfectionis rerum ea est per univerum hoc.

6. Ad summam ipsa perfectionem virium pervenit si redierit

in humum.

7. In partes tribuite humum ignem passam, attenuans densitatem

ejus re omnium suavissima.

8. Summa ascende ingenii sagacitate a terra in cœlum, indeque

rursum in terram descende, ac vires superiorum inferiorumque

coge in unum: sic potiere gloria totius mundi atque ita abjectæ

sortis homo amplius non habere.

9. Isthæc jam res ipsa fortitudine fortior existet; corpora

quippe tam tenuia quam solida penetrando subige.

10. Atque sic quidem quæcunque mundus continet creata fuere.

11. Hinc admiranda evadunt opera, quæ ad eundum modum

instituantur.

12. Mihi vero ideo nomen Hermetis Trismegisti impositum

fuit, quod trium mundi sapientiæ partium doctor deprehensus

sum.

13. Hæc sunt quæ de chemicæ artis prestantissimo opere

consignanda esse duxi.

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 similar to that which is below, to accomplish

the miracles of one thing.

3. And as all things were produced by the meditation

of one Being, so all things were produced from

this one thing by adaptation.

4. Its father is _Sol_, its mother _Luna_; the wind

carried it in its belly, the earth is its nurse.

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 subtile

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 possess the glory of the whole

world; and all obscurity will fly far away from you.

9. This thing has more fortitude than fortitude itself;

because it will overcome every subtile thing, and

penetrate every solid thing.

10. By it this world was formed.

11. Hence proceed wonderful things, which in this

wise were established.

12. For this reason I am called Hermes Trismegistus,

because I possess three parts of the philosophy of

the whole world.

13. What I had to say about the operation of _Sol_

is completed.

Such is a literal translation of the celebrated inscription of Hermes

Trismegistus upon the emerald tablet. It is sufficiently obscure to

put it in the power of commentators to affix almost any explanation to

it that they choose. The two individuals who have devoted most time

to illustrate this tablet, are Kriegsmann and Gerard Dorneus, whose

commentaries may be seen in the first volume of Mangetus’s Bibliotheca

Chemica. They both agree that it refers to the _universal medicine_,

which began to acquire celebrity about the time of Paracelsus, or a

little earlier.

This exposition, which appears as probable as any other, betrays

the time when this celebrated inscription seems to have been really

written. Had it been taken out of the hands of the dead body of Hermes

by Sarah (obviously intended for the wife of Abraham) as is affirmed

by Avicenna, it is not possible that Herodotus, and all the writers of

antiquity, both Pagan and Christian, should have entirely overlooked

it; or how could Avicenna have learned what was unknown to all those

who lived nearest the time when the discovery was supposed to have been

made? Had it been discovered in Egypt by Alexander the Great, would

it have been unknown to Aristotle, and to all the numerous tribe of

writers whom the Alexandrian school produced, not one of whom, however,

make the least allusion to it? In short, it bears all the marks of

a forgery of the fifteenth century. And even the tract ascribed to

Albertus Magnus, in which the tablet of Hermes is mentioned, and the

discovery related, is probably also a forgery; and doubtless a forgery

of the same individual who fabricated the tablet itself, in order to

throw a greater air of probability upon a story which he wished to palm

upon the world as true. His object was in some measure accomplished;

for the authenticity of the tablet was supported with much zeal by

Kriegsmann, and afterwards by Olaus Borrichius.

There is another tract of Hermes Trismegistus, entitled “Tractatus

Aureus de Lapidis Physici Secreto;” on which no less elaborate

commentaries have been written. It professes to teach the process of

making the _philosopher’s stone_; and, from the allusions in it, to the

use of this stone, as a universal medicine, was probably a forgery of

the same date as the emerald tablet. It would be in vain to attempt to

extract any thing intelligible out of this Tractatus Aureus: it may be

worth while to give a single specimen, that the reader may be able to

form some idea of the nature of the style.

“Take of moisture an ounce and a half; of meridional redness, that is

the soul of the sun, a fourth part, that is half an ounce; of yellow

seyr, likewise half an ounce; and of auripigmentum, a half ounce,

making in all three ounces. Know that the vine of wise men is extracted

in threes, and its wine at last is completed in thirty.”[10]

[10] “Accipe de humore unciam unam et mediam, et de rubore meridionali,

id est anima solis, quartam partem, id est, unciam mediam, et de Seyre

citrino, similiter unciam mediam, et de auripigmenti dimidium, quæ

sunt octo, id est unciæ tres. Scitote quod vitis sapientum in tribus

extrahitur, ejusque vinum in fine triginta peragitur.”

Had the opinion, that gold and silver could be artificially formed

originated with Hermes Trismegistus, or had it prevailed among

the ancient Egyptians, it would certainly have been alluded to by

Herodotus, who spent so many years in Egypt, and was instructed by

the priests in all the science of the Egyptians. Had _chemistry_ been

the name of a science, real or fictitious, which existed as early as

the expedition of the Argonauts, and had so many treatises on it, as

Suidas alleges existed in Egypt before the reign of Dioclesian, it

could hardly have escaped the notice of Pliny, who was so curious

and so indefatigable in his researches, and who has collected in his

natural history a kind of digest of all the knowledge of the ancients

in every department of practical science. The fact that the term

chemistry (χημεια) never occurs in any Greek or Roman writer prior to

Suidas, who wrote so late as the eleventh century, seems to overturn

all idea of the existence of that pretended science among the ancients,

notwithstanding the elaborate attempts of Olaus Borrichius to prove the

contrary.

I am disposed to believe, that chemistry or alchymy, understanding

by the term the _art of making gold and silver_, originated among

the Arabians, when they began to turn their attention to medicine,

after the establishment of the caliphs; or if it had previously been

cultivated by Greeks (as the writings of Zosimus, the Panapolite,

if genuine, would lead us to suppose), that it was taken up by the

Arabians, and reduced by them into regular form and order. If the works

of Geber be genuine, they leave little doubt on this point. Geber is

supposed to have been a physician, and to have written in the seventh

century. He admits, as a first principle, that metals are compounds of

mercury and sulphur. He talks of the philosopher’s stone; professes

to give the mode of preparing it; and teaches the way of converting

the different metals, known in his time, into medicines, on whose

efficacy he bestows the most ample panegyrics. Thus the principles

which lie at the bottom of alchymy were implicitly adopted by him.

Yet I can nowhere find in him any attempt to make gold artificially.

His chemistry was entirely devoted to the improvement of medicine.

The subsequent pretensions of the alchymists to convert the baser

metals into gold are no where avowed by him. I am disposed from this

to suspect, that the theory of gold-making was started after Geber’s

time, or at least that it was after the seventh century, before any

alchymist ventured to affirm that he himself was in possession of the

secret, and could fabricate gold artificially at pleasure. For there is

a wide distance between the opinion that gold may be made artificially

and the affirmation that we are in possession of a method by which this

transmutation of the baser metals into gold can be accomplished. The

first may be adopted and defended with much plausibility and perfect

honesty; but the second would require a degree of skill far exceeding

that of the most scientific votary of chemistry at present existing.

The opinion of the alchymists was, that all the metals are compounds;

that the baser metals contain the same constituents as gold,

contaminated, indeed, with various impurities, but capable, when their

impurities are removed or remedied, of assuming all the properties and

characters of gold. The substance possessing this wonderful power they

distinguish by the name of _lapis philosophorum_, or, philosopher’s

stone, and they usually describe it as a red powder, having a peculiar

smell. Few of the alchymists who have left writings behind them boast

of being possessed of the philosopher’s stone. Paracelsus, indeed,

affirms, that he was acquainted with the method of making it, and

gives several processes, which, however, are not intelligible. But

many affirm that they had seen the philosopher’s stone; that they had

portions of it in their possession; and that they had seen several of

the inferior metals, especially lead and quicksilver, converted by

means of it into gold. Many stories of this kind are upon record, and

so well authenticated, that we need not be surprised at their having

been generally credited. It will be sufficient if we state one or two

of those which depend upon the most unexceptionable evidence. The

following relation is given by Mangetus, on the authority of M. Gros, a

clergyman of Geneva, of the most unexceptionable character, and at the

same time a skilful physician and expert chemist:

“About the year 1650 an unknown Italian came to Geneva, and took

lodgings at the sign of the _Green Cross_. After remaining there a

day or two, he requested De Luc, the landlord, to procure him a man

acquainted with Italian, to accompany him through the town and point

out those things which deserved to be examined. De Luc was acquainted

with M. Gros, at that time about twenty years of age, and a student

in Geneva, and knowing his proficiency in the Italian language,

requested him to accompany the stranger. To this proposition he

willingly acceded, and attended the Italian every where for the space

of a fortnight. The stranger now began to complain of want of money,

which alarmed M. Gros not a little--for at that time he was very

poor--and he became apprehensive, from the tenour of the stranger’s

conversation, that he intended to ask the loan of money from him. But

instead of this, the Italian asked him if he was acquainted with any

goldsmith, whose bellows and other utensils they might be permitted

to use, and who would not refuse to supply them with the different

articles requisite for a particular process which he wanted to perform.

M. Gros named a M. Bureau, to whom the Italian immediately repaired.

He readily furnished crucibles, pure tin, quicksilver, and the other

things required by the Italian. The goldsmith left his workshop, that

the Italian might be under the less restraint, leaving M. Gros, with

one of his own workmen, as an attendant. The Italian put a quantity

of tin into one crucible, and a quantity of quicksilver into another.

The tin was melted in the fire and the mercury heated. It was then

poured into the melted tin, and at the same time a red powder enclosed

in wax was projected into the amalgam. An agitation took place,

and a great deal of smoke was exhaled from the crucible; but this

speedily subsided, and the whole being poured out, formed six heavy

ingots, having the colour of gold. The goldsmith was called in by the

Italian, and requested to make a rigid examination of the smallest of

these ingots. The goldsmith, not content with the touchstone and the

application of aqua fortis, exposed the metal on the cupel with lead,

and fused it with antimony, but it sustained no loss. He found it

possessed of the ductility and specific gravity of gold; and full of

admiration, he exclaimed that he had never worked before upon gold so

perfectly pure. The Italian made him a present of the smallest ingot

as a recompence, and then, accompanied by M. Gros, he repaired to the

Mint, where he received from M. Bacuet, the mintmaster, a quantity of

Spanish gold coin, equal in weight to the ingots which he had brought.

To M. Gros he made a present of twenty pieces, on account of the

attention that he had paid to him; and, after paying his bill at the

inn, he added fifteen pieces more, to serve to entertain M. Gros and

M. Bureau for some days, and in the mean time he ordered a supper,

that he might, on his return, have the pleasure of supping with these

two gentlemen. He went out, but never returned, leaving behind him the

greatest regret and admiration. It is needless to add, that M. Gros and

M. Bureau continued to enjoy themselves at the inn till the fifteen

pieces, which the stranger had left, were exhausted.”[11]

[11] Preface to Mangetus’s Bibliotheca Chemica Curiosa.

Mangetus gives also the following relation, which he states upon the

authority of an English bishop, who communicated it to him in the year

1685, and at the same time gave him about half an ounce of the gold

which the alchymist had made:

A stranger, meanly dressed, went to Mr. Boyle, and after conversing

for some time about chemical processes, requested him to furnish him

with antimony, and some other common metallic substances, which then

fortunately happened to be in Mr. Boyle’s laboratory. These were

put into a crucible, which was then placed in a melting-furnace. As

soon as these metals were fused, the stranger showed a powder to the

attendants, which he projected into the crucible, and instantly went

out, directing the servants to allow the crucible to remain in the

furnace till the fire went out of its own accord, and promising at the

same time to return in a few hours. But, as he never fulfilled this

promise, Boyle ordered the cover to be taken off the crucible, and

found that it contained a yellow-coloured metal, possessing all the

properties of pure gold, and only a little lighter than the weight of

the materials originally put into the crucible.[12]

[12] Ibid.

The following strange story is related by Helvetius, physician to the

Prince of Orange, in his Vitulus Aureus: Helvetius was a disbeliever of

the philosopher’s stone, and the universal medicine, and even turned

Sir Kenelm Digby’s sympathetic powder into ridicule. On the 27th of

December, 1666, a stranger called upon him, and after conversing for

some time about a universal medicine, showed a yellow powder, which

he affirmed to be the philosopher’s stone, and at the same time five

large plates of gold, which had been made by means of it. Helvetius

earnestly entreated that he would give him a little of this powder,

or at least that he would make a trial of its power; but the stranger

refused, promising however to return in six weeks. He returned

accordingly, and after much entreaty he gave to Helvetius a piece of

the stone, not larger than the size of a rape-seed. When Helvetius

expressed his doubt whether so small a portion would be sufficient to

convert four grains of lead into gold, the adept broke off one half of

it, and assured him that what remained was more than sufficient for the

purpose. Helvetius, during the first conference, had concealed a little

of the stone below his nail. This he threw into melted lead, but it was

almost all driven off in smoke, leaving only a vitreous earth. When he

mentioned this circumstance, the stranger informed him that the powder

must be enclosed in wax, before it be thrown into the melted lead, lest

it should be injured by the smoke of the lead. The stranger promised

to return next day, and show him the method of making the projection;

but having failed to make his appearance, Helvetius, in the presence

of his wife and son, put six drachms of lead into a crucible, and as

soon as it was melted he threw into it the fragment of philosopher’s

stone in his possession, previously covered over with wax. The crucible

was now covered with its lid, and left for a quarter of an hour in the

fire, at the end of which time he found the whole lead converted into

gold. The colour was at first a deep green; being poured into a conical

vessel, it assumed a blood-red colour; but when cold, it acquired the

true tint of gold. Being examined by a goldsmith, he considered it as

pure gold. He requested Porelius, who had the charge of the Dutch mint,

to try its value. Two drachms of it being subjected to quartation, and

solution in aqua fortis, were found to have increased in weight by two

scruples. This increase was doubtless owing to the silver, which still

remained enveloped in the gold, after the action of the aqua fortis.

To endeavour to separate the silver more completely, the gold was again

fused with seven times its weight of antimony, and treated in the usual

manner; but no alteration took place in the weight.[13]

[13] Bergmann, Opusc. iv. 121.

It would be easy to relate many other similar narratives; but the

three which I have given are the best authenticated of any that I am

acquainted with. The reader will observe, that they are all stated on

the authority, not of the persons who were the actors, but of others

to whom they related them; and some of these, as the English bishop,

perhaps not very familiar with chemical processes, and therefore liable

to leave out or misstate some essential particulars. The evidence,

therefore, though the best that can be got, is not sufficient to

authenticate these wonderful stories. A little latent vanity might

easily induce the narrators to suppress or alter some particulars,

which, if known, would have stripped the statements of every thing

marvellous which they contain, and let us into the secret of the

origin of the gold, which these alchymists boasted that they had

fabricated. Whoever will read the statements of Paracelsus, respecting

his knowledge of the philosopher’s stone, which he applied not to the

formation of gold but to medicine, or whoever will examine his formulas

for making the stone, will easily satisfy himself that Paracelsus

possessed no real knowledge on the subject.[14]

[14] I allude to his _Manuale sive de Lapide Philosophico Medicinali_.

Opera Paracelsi, ii. 133. Folio edition. Geneva, 1658.

But to convey as precise ideas on this subject as possible, it may

be worth while to state a few of the methods by which the alchymists

persuaded themselves that they could convert the baser metals into gold.

In the year 1694 an old gentleman called upon Mr. Wilson, at that time

a chemist in London, and informed him that at last, after forty years’

search, he had met with an ample recompence for all his trouble and

expenses. This he confirmed with some oaths and imprecations; but,

considering his great weakness and age, he looked upon himself as

incapable to undergo the fatigues of the process. “I have here,” says

he, “a piece of sol (_gold_) that I made from silver, about four years

ago, and I cannot trust any man but you with so rare a secret. We will

share equally the charges and profit, which will render us wealthy

enough to command the world.” The nature of the process being stated,

Mr. Wilson thought it not unreasonable, especially as he aimed at no

peculiar advantage for himself. He accordingly put it to the trial in

the following manner:

1. Twelve ounces of Japan copper were beat into thin plates, and laid

_stratum super stratum_ with three ounces of flowers of sulphur, in a

crucible. It was exposed in a melting-furnace to a gentle heat, till

the sulphureous flames expired. When cold, the æs ustum (_sulphuret

of copper_) was pounded, and stratified again; and this process was

repeated five times. Mr. Wilson does not inform us whether the powder

was mixed with flowers of sulphur every time that it was heated; but

this must have been the case, otherwise the sulphuret would have been

again converted into metallic copper, which would have melted into a

mass. By this first process, then, bisulphuret of copper was formed,

composed of equal weights of sulphur and copper.

2. Six pounds of iron wire were put into a large glass body, and twelve

pounds of muriatic acid poured upon it. Six days elapsed (during which

it stood in a gentle heat) before the acid was saturated with the iron.

The solution was then decanted off, and filtered, and six pounds of new

muriatic acid poured on the undissolved iron. This acid, after standing

a sufficient time, was decanted off, and filtered. Both liquids were

put into a large retort, and distilled by a sand-heat. Towards the

end, when the drops from the retort became yellow, the receiver was

changed, and the fire increased to the highest degree, in which the

retort was kept between four and six hours. When all was cold, the

receiver was taken off, and a quantity of flowers was found in the neck

of the retort, variously coloured, like the rainbow. The yellow liquor

in the receiver weighed ten ounces and a half; the flowers (_chloride

of iron_), two ounces and three drams. The liquid and flowers were put

into a clean bottle.

3. Half a pound of sal enixum (_sulphate of potash_) and a pound and a

half of nitric acid were put into a retort. When the salt had dissolved

in the acid, ten ounces of mercury (previously distilled through

quicklime and salt of tartar) were added. The whole being distilled to

dryness, a fine yellow mass (_pernitrate of mercury_) remained in the

bottom of the retort. The liquor was returned, with half a pound of

fresh nitric acid, and the distillation repeated. The distillation was

repeated a third time, urging this last cohobation with the highest

degree of fire. When all was cold, a various-coloured mass was found in

the bottom of the retort: this mass was doubtless a mixture of sulphate

of potash, and pernitrate of mercury, with some oxide of mercury.

4. Four ounces of fine silver were dissolved in a pound of aqua fortis;

to the solution was added, of the bisulphuret of copper four ounces;

of the mixture of sulphate of potash, pernitrate of mercury, and oxide

of mercury one ounce and a half, and of the solution of perchloride

of iron two ounces and a half. When these had stood in a retort

twenty-four hours, the liquor was decanted off, and four ounces of

nitric acid were poured upon the little matter that was not dissolved.

Next morning a total dissolution was obtained. The whole of this

dissolution was put into a retort and distilled almost to dryness. The

liquid was poured back, and the distillation repeated three times; the

last time the retort being urged by a very strong fire till no fumes

appeared, and not a drop fell.

5. The matter left in the bottom of the retort was now put into a

crucible, all the corrosive fumes were gently evaporated, and the

residue melted down with a fluxing powder.

This process was expected to yield five ounces of pure gold; but

on examination the silver was the same (except the loss of half a

pennyweight) as when dissolved in the aqua fortis: there were indeed

some grains among the scoria, which appeared like gold, and would not

dissolve in aqua fortis. No doubt they consisted of peroxide of iron,

or, perhaps, persulphuret of iron.[15]

[15] Wilson’s Chemistry, p. 375.

Mr. Wilson’s alchymistical friend, not satisfied with this first

failure, insisted upon a repetition of the process, with some

alteration in the method and the addition of a certain quantity

of gold. The whole was accordingly gone through again; but it is

unnecessary to say that no gold was obtained, or at least, the two

drams of gold employed had increased in weight by only two scruples and

thirteen grains; this addition was doubtless owing to a little silver

from which it had not been freed.[16]

[16] Ibid., p. 379.

I shall now give a process for making the philosopher’s stone, which

was considered by Mangetus as of great value, and on that account was

given by him in the preface to his Bibliotheca Chemica.

1. Prepare a quantity of spirit of wine, so free from water that it is

wholly combustible, and so volatile that when a drop of it is let fall

it evaporates before it reaches the ground;--this constitutes the first

menstruum.

2. Take pure mercury, revived in the usual manner from cinnabar, put

it into a glass vessel with common salt and distilled vinegar; agitate

violently, and when the vinegar acquires a black colour pour it off and

add new vinegar; agitate again, and continue these repeated agitations

and additions till the vinegar ceases to acquire a black colour from

the mercury: the mercury is now quite pure and very brilliant.

3. Take of this mercury four parts; of sublimed mercury[17] (_mercurii

meteoresati_), prepared with your own hands, eight parts; triturate

them together in a wooden mortar with a wooden pestle, till all the

grains of running mercury disappear. This process is tedious and rather

difficult.

[17] Probably corrosive sublimate.

4. The mixture thus prepared is to be put into an aludel, or a

sand-bath, and exposed to a subliming heat, which is to be gradually

raised till the whole sublimes. Collect the sublimed matter, put it

again into the aludel, and sublime a second time; this process must be

repeated five times. Thus a very sweet and crystallized sublimate is

obtained: it constitutes the salt of wise men (_sal sapientum_), and

possesses wonderful properties.[18]

[18] Probably calomel.

5. Grind it in a wooden mortar, and reduce it to powder; put it into

a glass retort, and pour upon it the spirit of wine (No. 1) till it

stands about three finger-breadths above the powder; seal the retort

hermetically, and expose it to a very gentle heat for seventy-four

hours, shaking it several times a-day; then distil with a gentle heat

and the spirit of wine will pass over, together with spirit of mercury.

Keep this liquid in a well-stopped bottle, lest it should evaporate.

More spirit of wine is to be poured upon the residual salt, and after

digestion it must be distilled off as before; and this process must

be repeated till the whole salt is dissolved, and distilled over with

the spirit of wine. You have now performed a great work. The mercury

is now rendered in some measure volatile, and it will gradually become

fit to receive the tincture of gold and silver. Now return thanks to

God, who has hitherto crowned your wonderful work with success; nor

is this great work involved in Cimmerian darkness, but clearer than

the sun; though preceding writers have imposed upon us with parables,

hieroglyphics, fables, and enigmas.

6. Take this mercurial spirit, which contains our magical steel in its

belly, put it into a glass retort, to which a receiver must be well and

carefully luted: draw off the spirit by a very gentle heat, there will

remain in the bottom of the retort the quintessence or soul of mercury;

this is to be sublimed by applying a stronger heat to the retort that

it may become volatile, as all the philosophers express themselves--

Si fixum solvas faciesque volare solutum,

Et volucrum figas faciet te vivere tutum.

This is our luna, our fountain, in which the king and queen may bathe.

Preserve this precious quintessence of mercury, which is very volatile,

in a well-shut vessel for further use.

8. Let us now proceed to the operation of common gold, which we shall

communicate clearly and distinctly, without digression or obscurity;

that from vulgar gold we may obtain our philosophical gold, just

as from common mercury we obtained, by the preceding processes,

philosophical mercury.

In the name of God, then, take common gold, purified in the usual

way by antimony, convert it into small grains, which must be washed

with salt and vinegar, till it be quite pure. Take one part of this

gold, and pour on it three parts of the quintessence of mercury; as

philosophers reckon from seven to ten, so we also reckon our number as

philosophical, and we begin with three and one; let them be married

together like husband and wife, to produce children of their own kind,

and you will see the common gold sink and plainly dissolve. Now the

marriage is consummated; now two things are converted into one: thus

the philosophical sulphur is at hand, as the philosophers say, _the

sulphur being dissolved the stone is at hand_. Take then, in the name

of God, our philosophical vessel, in which the king and queen embrace

each other as in a bedchamber, and leave it till the water is converted

into earth, then peace is concluded between the water and fire, then

the elements have no longer any thing contrary to each other; because,

when the elements are converted into earth they no longer oppose each

other; for in earth all elements are at rest. For the philosophers say,

“When you shall have seen the water coagulate itself, think that your

knowledge is true, and that your operations are truly philosophical.”

The gold is now no longer common, but ours is philosophical, on

account of our processes: at first exceedingly fixed; then exceedingly

volatile, and finally exceedingly fixed; and the whole science depends

upon the change of the elements. The gold at first was a metal, now it

is a sulphur, capable of converting all metals into its own sulphur.

Now our tincture is wholly converted into sulphur, which possesses the

energy of curing all diseases: this is our universal medicine against

all the most deplorable diseases of the human body; therefore, return

infinite thanks to Almighty God for all the good things which he has

bestowed upon us.

9. In this great work of ours, two modes of fermenting and projecting

are wanting, without which the uninitiated will not easily follow our

process. The mode of fermenting is as follows: Take of our sulphur

above described one part, and project it upon three parts of very

pure gold fused in a furnace; in a moment you will see the gold, by

the force of the sulphur, converted into a red sulphur of an inferior

quality to the first sulphur; take one part of this, and project it

upon three parts of fused gold, the whole will be again converted

into a sulphur, or a friable mass; mixing one part of this with three

parts of gold, you will have a malleable and extensible metal. If

you find it so, well; if not add other sulphur and it will again pass

into sulphur. Now the sulphur will be sufficiently fermented, or our

medicine will be brought into a metallic nature.

10. The mode of projecting is this: Take of the fermented sulphur one

part, and project it upon ten parts of mercury, heated in a crucible,

and you will have a perfect metal; if its colour is not sufficiently

deep, fuse it again, and add more fermented sulphur, and thus it will

acquire colour. If it becomes frangible, add a sufficient quantity of

mercury and it will be perfect.

Thus, friend, you have a description of the universal medicine, not

only for curing diseases and prolonging life, but also for transmuting

all metals into gold. Give therefore thanks to Almighty God, who,

taking pity on human calamities, has at last revealed this inestimable

treasure, and made it known for the common benefit of all.[19]

[19] Mangeti Bibliothecæ Chemicæ Præfatio.

Such is the formula (slightly abridged) of Carolus Musitanus, by which

the philosopher’s stone, according to him, may be formed. Compared with

the formulas of most of the alchymists, it is sufficiently plain. What

the _sublimed mercury_ is does not appear; from the process described

we should be apt to consider it as _corrosive sublimate_; on that

supposition, the sal sapientum formed in No. 5, would be calomel: the

only objection to this supposition is the process described in No. 5;

for calomel is not soluble in alcohol. The philosopher’s stone prepared

by this elaborate process could hardly have been any thing else than

an _amalgam of gold_; it could not have contained chloride of gold,

because such a preparation, instead of acting medicinally, would have

proved a most virulent poison. There is no doubt that amalgam of gold,

if projected into melted lead or tin, and afterwards cupellated, would

leave a portion of gold--all the gold of course that existed previously

in the amalgam. It might therefore have been employed by impostors to

persuade the ignorant that it was really the philosopher’s stone; but

the alchymists who prepared the amalgam could not be ignorant that it

contained gold.

There is another process given in the same preface of a very different

nature, but too long to be transcribed here, and the nature of the

process is not sufficiently intelligible to render an account of it of

much consequence.[20]

[20] Whoever wishes to enter more particularly into the processes for

making the philosopher’s stone contrived by the alchymists, will find a

good deal of information on the subject in Stahl’s Fundamenta Chemiæ,

vol. i. p. 219, in his chapter _De lapide philosophorum_: and Junker’s

Conspectus Chemiæ, vol. i. p. 604, in his tabula 28, _De transmutatione

metallorum universali_: and tabula 29, _De transmutatione metallorum

particulari_.

The preceding observations will give the reader some notion of the

nature of the pursuits which occupied the alchymists: their sole

object was the preparation of a substance to which they gave the name

of the philosopher’s stone, which possessed the double property of

converting the baser metals into gold, and of curing all diseases, and

of preserving human life to an indefinite extent. The experiments of

Wilson, and the formula of Musitanus, which have been just inserted,

will give the reader some notion of the way in which they attempted

to manufacture this most precious substance. Being quite ignorant of

the properties of bodies, and of their action on each other, their

processes were guided by no scientific analogies, and one part of the

labour not unfrequently counteracted another; it would be a waste of

time, therefore, to attempt to analyze their numerous processes, even

though such an attempt could be attended with success. But in most

cases, from the unintelligible terms in which their books are written,

it is impossible to divine the nature of the processes by which they

endeavoured to manufacture the philosopher’s stone, or the nature of

the substances which they obtained.[21]

[21] Kircher, in his Mundus Subterraneus, has an article on the

philosopher’s stone, in which he examines the processes of the

alchymists, points out their absurdity, and proves by irrefragable

arguments that no such substance had ever been obtained. Those who are

curious about alchymistical processes may consult that work.

In consequence of the universality of the opinion that gold could be

made by art, there was a set of impostors who went about pretending

that they were in possession of the philosopher’s stone, and offering

to communicate the secret of making it for a suitable reward. Nothing

is more astonishing than that persons should be found credulous enough

to be the dupes of such impostors. The very circumstance of their

claiming a reward was a sufficient proof that they were ignorant of

the secret which they pretended to reveal; for what motive could a

man have for asking a reward who was in possession of a method of

creating gold at pleasure? To such a person money could be no object,

as he could procure it in any quantity. Yet, strange as it may appear,

they met with abundance of dupes credulous enough to believe their

asseverations, and to supply them with money to enable them to perform

the wished-for processes. The object of these impostors was either to

pocket the money thus furnished, or they made use of it to purchase

various substances from which they extracted oils, acids, or similar

products, which they were enabled to sell at a profit. To keep the

dupes, who thus supplied them with the means of carrying on these

processes, in good spirits, it was necessary to show them occasionally

small quantities of the baser metals converted into gold; this they

performed in various ways. M. Geoffroy, senior, who had an opportunity

of witnessing many of their performances, has given us an account of a

number of their tricks. It may be worth while to state a few by way of

specimen.

Sometimes they made use of crucibles with a false bottom; at the real

bottom they put a quantity of oxide of gold or silver, this was covered

with a portion of powdered crucible, glued together by a little gummed

water or a little wax; the materials being put into this crucible, and

heat applied, the false bottom disappears, the oxide of gold or silver

is reduced, and at the end of the process is found at the bottom of the

crucible, and considered as the product of the operation.

Sometimes they make a hole in a piece of charcoal and fill it with

oxide of gold or silver, and stop up the mouth with a little wax; or

they soak charcoal in solutions of these metals; or they stir the

mixtures in the crucible with hollow rods containing oxide of gold or

silver within, and the bottom shut with wax: by these means the gold

or silver wanted is introduced during the process, and considered as a

product of the operation.

Sometimes they have a solution of silver in nitric acid, or of gold

in aqua regia, or an amalgam of gold or silver, which being adroitly

introduced, furnishes the requisite quantity of metal. A common

exhibition was to dip nails into a liquid, and take them out half

converted into gold. The nails consisted of one-half gold, neatly

soldered to the iron, and covered with something to conceal the colour,

which the liquid removed. Sometimes they had metals one-half gold the

other half silver, soldered together, and the gold side whitened with

mercury; the gold half was dipped into the transmuting liquid and then

the metal heated; the mercury was dissipated, and the gold half of the

metal appeared.[22]

[22] Mem. Paris, 1722, p. 61.

As the alchymists were assiduous workmen--as they mixed all the metals,

salts, &c. with which they were acquainted, in various ways with each

other, and subjected such mixtures to the action of heat in close

vessels, their labours were occasionally repaid by the discovery of new

substances, possessed of much greater activity than any with which they

were previously acquainted. In this way they were led to the discovery

of sulphuric, nitric, and muriatic acids. These, when known, were made

to act upon the metals; solutions of the metals were obtained, and

this gradually led to the knowledge of various metalline salts and

preparations, which were introduced with considerable advantage into

medicine. Thus the alchymists, by their absurd pursuits, gradually

formed a collection of facts, which led ultimately to the establishment

of scientific chemistry. On this account it will be proper to notice,

in this place, such of them as appeared in Europe during the darker

ages, and acquired the highest reputation either on account of their

skill as physicians, or their celebrity as chemists.[23]

[23] The original author, whom all who have given any account of the

alchymists have followed, is Olaus Borrichius, in his Conspectus

Scriptorum Chemicorum Celebriorum. He does not inform us from what

sources his information was derived.

1. The first alchymist who deserves notice is Albertus Magnus, or

Albert Groot, a German, who was born, it is supposed, in the year

1193, at Bollstaedt, and died in the year 1282.[24] When very young

he is said to have been so remarkable for his dulness, that he became

the jest of his acquaintances. He studied the sciences at Padua, and

afterwards taught at Cologne, and finally in Paris. He travelled

through all Germany as Provincial of the order of Dominican Monks,

visited Rome, and was made bishop of Ratisbon: but his passion for

science induced him to give up his bishopric, and return to a cloister

at Cologne, where he continued till his death.

[24] Sprengel’s History of Medicine, iv. 368.

Albertus was acquainted with all the sciences cultivated in his time.

He was at once a theologian, a physician, and a man of the world: he

was an astronomer and an alchymist, and even dipped into magic and

necromancy. His works are very voluminous. They were collected by Petr.

Jammy, and published at Leyden in twenty-one folio volumes, in 1651.

His principal alchymistical tracts are the following:

1. De Rebus Metallicis et Mineralibus.

2. De Alchymia.

3. Secretorum Tractatus.

4. Breve Compendium de Ortu Metallorum.

5. Concordantia Philosophorum de Lapide.

6. Compositum de Compositis.

7. Liber octo Capitum de Philosophorum Lapide.

Most of these tracts have been inserted in the Theatrum Chemicum. They

are in general plain and intelligible. In his treatise De Alchymia, for

example, he gives a distinct account of all the chemical substances

known in his time, and of the manner of obtaining them. He mentions

also the apparatus then employed by chemists, and the various processes

which they had occasion to perform. I may notice the most remarkable

facts and opinions which I have observed in turning over these

treatises.

He was of opinion that all metals are composed of sulphur and mercury;

and endeavoured to account for the diversity of metals partly by

the difference in the purity, and partly by the difference in the

proportions of the sulphur and mercury of which they are composed. He

thought that water existed also as a constituent of all metals.

He was acquainted with the water-bath, employed alembics for

distillation, and aludels for sublimation; and he was in the habit of

employing various lutes, the composition of which he describes.

He mentions alum and caustic alkali, and seems to have known the

alkaline basis of cream of tartar. He knew the method of purifying the

precious metals by means of lead and of gold, by cementation; and

likewise the method of trying the purity of gold, and of distinguishing

pure from impure gold.

He mentions red lead, metallic arsenic, and liver of sulphur. He was

acquainted with green vitriol and iron pyrites. He knew that arsenic

renders copper white, and that sulphur attacks all the metals except

gold.

It is said by some that he was acquainted with gunpowder; but nothing

indicating any such knowledge occurs in any of his writings that I have

had an opportunity of perusing.[25]

[25] It is curious that Olaus Borrichius omits Albertus Magnus in the

list of alchymistical writers that he has given.

2. Albertus is said to have had for a pupil, while he taught in Paris,

the celebrated Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican, who studied at Bologna,

Rome, and Naples, and distinguished himself still more in divinity and

scholastic philosophy than in alchymy. He wrote,

1. Thesaurum Alchymiæ Secretissimum.

2. Secreta Alchymiæ Magnalia.

3. De Esse et Essentia Mineralium; and perhaps some other

works, which I have not seen.

These works, so far as I have perused them, are exceedingly obscure,

and in various places unintelligible. Some of the terms still employed

by modern chemists occur, for the first time, in the writings of Thomas

Aquinas. Thus the term _amalgam_, still employed to denote a compound

of mercury with another metal, occurs in them, and I have not observed

it in any earlier author.

3. Soon after Albertus Magnus, flourished Roger Bacon, by far the most

illustrious, the best informed, and the most philosophical of all the

alchymists. He was born in 1214, in the county of Somerset. After

studying in Oxford, and afterwards in Paris, he became a cordelier

friar; and, devoting himself to philosophical investigations, his

discoveries, notwithstanding the pains which he took to conceal them,

made such a noise, that he was accused of magic, and his brethren in

consequence threw him into prison. He died, it is said, in the year

1284, though Sprengel fixes the year of his death to be 1285.

His writings display a degree of knowledge and extent of thought

scarcely credible, if we consider the time when he wrote, the darkest

period of the dark ages. In his small treatise De Mirabili Potestate

Artis et Naturæ, he begins by pointing out the absurdity of believing

in magic, necromancy, charms, or any of those similar opinions which

were at that time universally prevalent. He points out the various

ways in which mankind are deceived by jugglers, ventriloquists, &c.;

mentions the advantages which physicians may derive from acting on

the imaginations of their patients by means of charms, amulets, and

infallible remedies: he affirms that many of those things which are

considered as supernatural, are merely so because mankind in general

are unacquainted with natural philosophy. To illustrate this he

mentions a great number of natural phenomena, which had been reckoned

miraculous; and concludes with several secrets of his own, which he

affirms to be still more extraordinary imitations of some of the most

singular processes of nature. These he delivers in the enigmatical

style of the times; induced, as he tells us, partly by the conduct of

other philosophers, partly by the propriety of the thing, and partly by

the danger of speaking too plainly.

From an attentive perusal of his works, many of which have been

printed, it will be seen that Bacon was a great linguist, being

familiar with Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic; and that he had perused

the most important books at that time existing in all these languages.

He was also a grammarian; he was well versed in the theory and practice

of perspective; he understood the use of convex and concave glasses,

and the art of making them. The camera obscura, burning-glasses, and

the powers of the telescope, were known to him. He was well versed

in geography and astronomy. He knew the great error in the Julian

calendar, assigned the cause, and proposed the remedy. He understood

chronology well; he was a skilful physician, and an able mathematician,

logician, metaphysician, and theologist; but it is as a chemist that

he claims our attention here. The following is a list of his chemical

writings, as given by Gmelin, the whole of which I have never had an

opportunity of seeing:

1. Speculum Alchymiæ.[26]

2. Epistola de Secretis Operibus Artis et Naturæ et

de Nullitate Magiæ.

3. De Mirabili Potestate Artis et Naturæ.

4. Medulla Alchymiæ.

5. De Arte Chemiæ.

6. Breviorium Alchymiæ.

7. Documenta Alchymiæ.

8. De Alchymistarum Artibus.

9. De Secretis.

10. De Rebus Metallicis.

11. De Sculpturis Lapidum.

12. De Philosophorum Lapide.

13. Opus Majus, _or_ Alchymia Major.

14. Breviarium de Dono Dei.

15. Verbum abbreviatum de Leone Viridi.

16. Secretum Secretorum.

17. Tractatus Trium Verborum.

18. Speculum Secretorum.

[26] This tract and the next, which is of considerable length, will be

found in Mangetus’s Bibliotheca Chemica Curiosa, i. 613.

A number of these were collected together, and published at Frankfort

in 1603, under the title of “Rogeri Baconis Angli de Arte Chemiæ

Scripta,” in a small duodecimo volume. The Opus Majus was published in

London in 1733, by Dr. Jebb, in a folio volume. Several of his tracts

still continue in manuscript in the Harleian and Bodleian libraries at

Oxford. He considered the metals as compound of mercury and sulphur.

Gmelin affirms that he was aware of the peculiar nature of manganese,

and that he was acquainted with bismuth; but after perusing the whole

of the Speculum Alchymiæ, the third chapter of which he quotes as

containing the facts on which he founds his opinion, I cannot find any

certain allusion either to manganese or bismuth. The term _magnesia_

indeed occurs, but nothing is said respecting its nature: and long

after the time of Paracelsus, bismuth (_bisematum_) was considered as

an impure kind of _lead_. That he was acquainted with the composition

and properties of _gunpowder_ admits of no doubt. In the sixth chapter

of his epistle De Secretis Operibus Artis et Naturæ et de Nullitate

Magiæ, the following passage occurs:

“For sounds like thunder, and coruscations like lightning, may be made

in the air, and they may be rendered even more horrible than those of

nature herself. A small quantity of matter, properly manufactured, not

larger than the human thumb, may be made to produce a horrible noise

and coruscation. And this may be done many ways, by which a city or an

army may be destroyed, as was the case when Gideon and his men broke

their pitchers and exhibited their lamps, fire issuing out of them with

inestimable noise, destroyed an infinite number of the army of the

Midianites.” And in the eleventh chapter of the same epistle occurs

the following passage: “Mix together saltpetre, luru vopo vir con

utriet, and sulphur, and you will make thunder and lightning, if you

know the method of mixing them.” Here all the ingredients of gunpowder

are mentioned except charcoal, which is doubtless concealed under the

barbarous terms _luru vopo vir con utriet_.

But though Bacon was acquainted with gunpowder, we have no evidence

that he was the inventor. How far the celebrated Greek fire,

concerning which so much has been written, was connected with

gunpowder, it is impossible to say; but there is good evidence to prove

that gunpowder was known and used in China before the commencement of

the Christian era; and Lord Bacon is of opinion that the thunder and

lightning and magic stated by the Macedonians to have been exhibited

in Oxydrakes, when it was besieged by Alexander the Great, was nothing

else than gunpowder. Now as there is pretty good evidence that the use

of gunpowder had been introduced into Spain by the Moors, at least as

early as the year 1343, and as Roger Bacon was acquainted with Arabic,

it is by no means unlikely that he might have become acquainted with

the mode of making the composition, and with its most remarkable

properties, by perusing some Arabian writer, with whom we are at

present unacquainted. Barbour, in his life of Bruce, informs us that

guns were first employed by the English at the battle of Werewater,

which was fought in 1327, about forty years after the death of Bacon.

Two novelties that day they saw,

That forouth in Scotland had been nene;

Timbers for helmes was the ane

That they thought then of great beautie,

And also wonder for to see.

The other _crakys_ were of war

That they before heard never air.

In another part of the same book we have the phrase _gynnys for

crakys_, showing that the term crakys was used to denote a gun or

musket of some form or other. It is curious that the English would

seem to have been the first European nation that employed gunpowder

in war; they used it in the battle of Crecy, fought in 1346, when it

was unknown to the French, and it is supposed to have contributed

materially to the brilliant victory which was obtained.

4. Raymond Lully is said to have been a scholar and a friend of

Roger Bacon. He was a most voluminous writer, and acquired as high a

reputation as any of the alchymists. According to Mutius he was born

in Majorca in the year 1235. His father was seneschal to King James

the First of Arragon. In his younger days he went into the army; but

afterwards held a situation in the court of his sovereign. Devoting

himself to science he soon acquired a competent knowledge of Latin and

Arabic. After studying in Paris he got the degree of doctor conferred

upon him. He entered into the order of Minorites, and induced King

James to establish a cloister of that order in Minorca. He afterwards

travelled through Italy, Germany, England, Portugal, Cyprus, Armenia

and Palestine. He is said by Mutius to have died in the year 1315, and

to have been buried in Majorca. The following epitaph is given by Olaus

Borrichius as engraven on his tomb:

Raymundus Lulli, cujus pia dogmata nulli

Sunt odiosa viro, jacet hic in marmore miro

Hic M. et CC. Cum P. cœpit sine sensibus esse.

M C C C in these lines denote 1300, and P which is the 15th letter of

the alphabet denotes 15, so that if this epitaph be genuine it follows

that his death took place in the year 1315.

It seems scarcely necessary to notice the story that Raymond Lully

made a present to Edward, King of England, of six millions of pieces

of gold, to enable him to make war on the Saracens, which sum that

monarch employed, contrary to the intentions of the donor, in his

French wars. This story cannot apply to Edward III., because in 1315,

at the time of Raymond’s death, that monarch was only three years of

age. It can scarcely apply to Edward II., who ascended the throne in

1305: but who had no opportunity of making war, either on the Saracens

or French, being totally occupied in opposing the intrigues of his

queen and rebellious subjects, to whom he ultimately fell a sacrifice.

Edward the First made war both upon the Saracens and the French, and

lived during the time of Raymond: but his wars with the Saracens were

finished before he ascended the throne, and during the whole of his

reign he was too much occupied with his projected conquest of Scotland,

to pay much serious attention to any French war whatever. The story,

therefore, cannot apply to any of the three Edwards, and cannot be

true. Raymond Lully is said to have been stoned to death in Africa for

preaching Christianity in the year 1315. Others will have it that he

was alive in England in the year 1332, at which time his age would have

been 97.

The following table exhibits a list of his numerous writings, most of

which are to be found in the Theatrum Chemicum, the Artis Auriferæ, or

the Biblotheca Chemica.

1. Praxis Universalis Magni Operis.

2. Clavicula.

3. Theoria et Practica.

4. Compendium Animæ Transmutationis Artis Metallorum.

5. Ultimum Testamentum. Of this work, which

professes to give the whole doctrine of alchymy, there

is an English translation.

6. Elucidatio Testamenti.

7. Potestas Divitiorum cum Expositione Testamenti

Hermetis.

8. Compendium Artis Magicæ, quoad Compositionem

Lapidis.

9. De Lapide et Oleo Philosophorum.

10. Modus accipiendi Aurum Potabile.

11. Compendium Alchymiæ et Naturalis Philosophiæ.

12. Lapidarium.

13. Lux Mercuriorum.

14. Experimenta.

15. Ars Compendiosa vel Vademecum.

16. De Accurtatione Lapidis.

Several other tracts besides these are named by Gmelin; but I have

never seen any of them. I have attempted several times to read over

the works of Raymond Lully, particularly his Last Will and Testament,

which is considered the most important of them all. But they are all so

obscure, and filled with such unintelligible jargon, that I have found

it impossible to understand them. In this respect they form a wonderful

contrast with the works of Albertus Magnus and Roger Bacon, which are

comparatively plain and intelligible. For an account, therefore, of

the chemical substances with which he was acquainted, I am obliged to

depend on Gmelin; though I put no great confidence in his accuracy.

Like his predecessors, he was of opinion that all the metals are

compounds of sulphur and mercury. But he seems first to have introduced

those hieroglyphical figures or symbols, which appear in such profusion

in the English translation of his Last Will and Testament, and which

he doubtless intended to illustrate his positions. Though what other

purpose they could serve, than to induce the reader to consider his

statements as allegorical, it is not easy to conjecture. Perhaps they

may have been designed to impose upon his contemporaries by an air of

something very profound and inexplicable. For that he possessed a good

deal of charlatanry is pretty evident, from the slightest glance at his

performances.

He was acquainted with cream of tartar, which he distilled: the

residue he burnt, and observed that the alkali extracted deliquesced

when exposed to the air. He was acquainted with nitric acid, which he

obtained by distilling a mixture of saltpetre and green vitriol. He

mentions its power of dissolving, not merely mercury, but likewise

other metals. He could form aqua regia by adding sal ammoniac or

common salt to nitric acid, and he was aware of the property which it

had of dissolving gold.

Spirit of wine was well known to him, and distinguished by him by

the names of aqua vitæ ardens and argentum vivum vegetabile. He knew

the method of rendering it stronger by an admixture of dry carbonate

of potash, and of preparing vegetable tinctures by means of it.

He mentions alum from Rocca, marcasite, white and red mercurial

precipitate. He knew the volatile alkali and its coagulations by

means of alcohol. He was acquainted with cupellated silver, and first

obtained rosemary oil by distilling the plant with water. He employed a

mixture of flour and white of egg spread upon a linen cloth to cement

cracked glass vessels, and used other lutes for similar purposes.[27]

[27] Gmelin’s Geschitte der Chemie, i. 74.

5. Arnoldus de Villa Nova is said to have been born at Villeneuve, a

village of Provence, about the year 1240. Olaus Borrichius assures us,

that in his time his posterity lived in the neighbourhood of Avignon;

that he was acquainted with them, and that they were by no means

destitute of chemical knowledge. He is said to have been educated at

Barcelona, under John Casamila, a celebrated professor of medicine.

This place he was obliged to leave, in consequence of foretelling the

death of Peter of Arragon. He went to Paris, and likewise travelled

through Italy. He afterwards taught publicly in the University of

Montpelier. His reputation as a physician became so great, that his

attendance was solicited in dangerous cases by several kings, and

even by the pope himself. He was skilled in all the sciences of his

time, and was besides a proficient in Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic. When

at Paris he studied astrology, and calculating the age of the world,

he found that it was to terminate in the year 1335. The theologians

of Paris exclaimed against this and several other of his opinions,

and condemned our astrologer as a heretic. This obliged him to leave

France; but the pope protected him. He died in the year 1313, on his

way to visit Pope Clement V. who lay sick at Avignon. The following

table exhibits a pretty full list of his works:

1. Antidotorium

2. De Vinis.

3. De Aquis Laxativis.

4. Rosarius Philosophorum.

5. Lumen Novum.

6. De Sigillis.

7. Flos Florum.

8. Epistolæ super Alchymia ad Regem Neapolitanum.

9. Liber Perfectionis Magisterii.

10. Succosa Carmina.

11. Questiones de Arte Transmutationis Metallorum.

12. Testamentum.

13. Lumen Luminum.

14. Practica.

15. Speculum Alchymiæ.

16. Carmen.

17. Questiones ad Bonifacium.

18. Semita Semitæ.

19. De Lapide Philosophorum.

20. De Sanguine Humano.

21. De Spiritu Vini, Vino Antimonii et Gemmorum Viribus.

Perhaps the most curious of all these works is the _Rosarium_, which

is intended as a complete compend of all the alchymy of his time.

The first part of it on the theory of the art is plain enough; but

the second part on the practice, which is subdivided into thirty-two

chapters, and which professes to teach the art of making the

philosopher’s stone, is in many places quite unintelligible to me.

He considered, like his predecessors, mercury as a constituent of

metals, and he professed a knowledge of the philosopher’s stone,

which he could increase at pleasure. Gold and gold-water was, in his

opinion, one of the most precious of medicines. He employed mercury in

medicine. He seems to designate bismuth under the name _marcasite_. He

was in the habit of preparing oil of turpentine, oil of rosemary, and

spirit of rosemary, which afterwards became famous under the name of

Hungary-water. These distillations were made in a glazed earthen vessel

with a glass top and helm.

His works were published at Venice in a single folio volume, in the

year 1505. There were seven subsequent editions, the last of which

appeared at Strasburg in 1613.

6. John Isaac Hollandus and his countryman of the same name, were

either two brothers or a father and son; it is uncertain which. For

very few circumstances respecting these two laborious and meritorious

men have been handed down to posterity. They were born in the

village of Stolk in Holland, it is supposed in the 13th century.

They certainly were after Arnoldus de Villa Nova, because they refer

to him in their writings. They wrote many treatises on chemistry,

remarkable, considering the time when they wrote, for clearness and

precision, describing their processes with accuracy, and even giving

figures of the instruments which they employed. This makes their books

intelligible, and they deserve attention because they show that various

processes, generally supposed of a more modern date were known to them.

Their treatises are written partly in Latin and partly in German. The

following list contains the names of most of them:

1. Opera Vegetabilia ad ejus alia Opera Intelligenda

Necessaria.

2. Opera Mineralia seu de Lapide Philosophico

Libri duo.

3. Tractat vom stein der Weisen.

4. Fragmenta Quædam Chemica.

5. De Triplice Ordine Elixiris et Lapidis Theorea.

6. Tractatus de Salibus et Oleis Metallorum.

7. Fragmentum de Opere Philosophorum.

8. Rariores Chemiæ Operationes.

9. Opus Saturni.

10. De Spiritu Urinæ.

11. Hand der Philosopher.

Olaus Borrichius complains that their _opera mineralia_ abound with

processes; but that they are ambiguous, and such that nothing certain

can be deduced from them even after much labour. Hence they draw on

the unwary tyro from labour to labour. I am disposed myself to draw a

different conclusion, from what I have read of that elaborate work.

It is true that the processes which profess to make the philosopher’s

stone, are fallacious, and do not lead to the manufacture of gold,

as the author intended, and expected: but it is a great deal when

alchymistical processes are delivered in such intelligible language

that you know the substances employed. This enables us easily to see

the results in almost every case, and to know the new compounds which

were formed during a vain search for the philosopher’s stone. Had the

other alchymists written as plainly, the absurdity of their researches

would have been sooner discovered, and thus a useless or pernicious

investigation would have sooner terminated.

7. Basil Valentine is said to have been born about the year 1394, and

is, perhaps, the most celebrated of all the alchymists, if we except

Paracelsus. He was a Benedictine monk, at Erford, in Saxony. If we

believe Olaus Borrichius, his writings were enclosed in the wall of

a church at Erford, and were discovered long after his death, in

consequence of the wall having been driven down by a thunderbolt. But

this story is not well authenticated, and is utterly improbable. Much

of his time seems to have been taken up in the preparation of chemical

medicines. It was he that first introduced antimony into medicine;

and it is said, though on no good authority, that he first tried the

effects of antimonial medicines upon the monks of his convent, upon

whom it acted with such violence that he was induced to distinguish the

mineral from which these medicines had been extracted, by the name of

_antimoine_ (hostile to monks). What shows the improbability of this

story is, that the works of Basil Valentine, and in particular his

Currus triumphalis Antimonii, were written in the German language. Now

the German name for antimony is not _antimoine_, but _speissglass_. The

Currus triumphalis Antimonii was translated into Latin by Kerkringius,

who published it, with an excellent commentary, at Amsterdam, in 1671.

Basil Valentine writes with almost as much virulence against the

physicians of his time, as Paracelsus himself did afterwards. As no

particulars of his life have been handed down to posterity, I shall

satisfy myself with giving a catalogue of his writings, and then

pointing out the most striking chemical substances with which he was

acquainted.

The books which have appeared under the name of Basil Valentine, are

very numerous; but how many of them were really written by him, and how

many are supposititious, is extremely doubtful. The following are the

principal:

1. Philosophia Occulta.

2. Tractat von naturlichen und ubernaturlichen

Dingen; auch von der ersten tinctur, Wurzel und

Geiste der Metallen.

3. Von dern grossen stein der Uhralten.

4. Vier tractatlein vom stein der Weisen.

5. Kurzer anhang und klare repetition oder Wiederholunge

vom grosen stein der Uhralten.

6. De prima Materia Lapidis Philosophici.

7. Azoth Philosophorum seu Aureliæ occultæ de

Materia Lapidis Philosophorum.

8. Apocalypsis Chemica.

9. Claves 12 Philosophiæ.

10. Practica.

11. Opus præclarum ad utrumque, quod pro Testamento

dedit Filio suo adoptivo.

12. Letztes Testament.

13. De Microcosmo.

14. Von der grosen Heimlichkeit der Welt und ihrer

Arzney.

15. Von der Wissenschaft der sieben Planeten.

16. Offenbahrung der verborgenen Handgriffe.

17. Conclusiones or Schlussreden.

18. Dialogus Fratris Alberti cum Spiritu.

19. De Sulphure et fermento Philosophorum.

20. Haliographia.

21. Triumph wagen Antimonii.

22. Einiger Weg zur Wahrheit.

23. Licht der Natur.

The only one of these works that I have read with care, is

Kerkringius’s translation and commentary on the Currus triumphalis

Antimonii. It is an excellent book, written with clearness and

precision, and contains every thing respecting antimony that was known

before the commencement of the 19th century. How much of this is owing

to Kerkringius I cannot say, as I have never had an opportunity of

seeing a copy of the original German work of Basil Valentine.

Basil Valentine, like Isaac Hollandus, was of opinion that the metals

are compounds of salt, sulphur, and mercury. The philosopher’s stone

was composed of the same ingredients. He affirmed, that there exists

a great similarity between the mode of purifying gold and curing the

diseases of men, and that antimony answers best for both. He was

acquainted with arsenic, knew many of its properties, and mentions the

red compound which it forms with sulphur. Zinc seems to have been known

to him, and he mentions bismuth, both under its own name, and under

that of _marcasite_. He was aware that manganese was employed to render

glass colourless. He mentions nitrate of mercury, alludes to corrosive

sublimate, and seems to have known the red oxide of mercury. It would

be needless to specify the preparations of antimony with which he was

acquainted; scarcely one was unknown to him which, even at present,

exists in the European Pharmacopœias. Many of the preparations of lead

were also familiar to him. He was aware that lead gives a sweet taste

to vinegar. He knew sugar of lead, litharge, yellow oxide of lead,

white carbonate of lead; and mentions that this last preparation was

often adulterated in his time. He knew the method of making green

vitriol, and the double chloride of iron and ammonia. He was aware

that iron could be precipitated from its solution by potash, and that

iron has the property of throwing down copper. He was aware that tin

sometimes contains iron, and ascribed the brittleness of Hungarian

iron to copper. He knew that oxides of copper gave a green colour to

glass; that Hungarian silver contained gold; that gold is precipitated

from aqua regia by mercury, in the state of an amalgam. He mentions

fulminating gold. But the important facts contained in his works are

so numerous, while we are so uncertain about the genuineness of the

writings themselves, that it will scarcely be worth while to proceed

further with the catalogue.

Thus I have brought the history of alchymy to the time of Paracelsus,

when it was doomed to undergo a new and important change. It will be

better, therefore, not to pursue the history of alchymy further, but

to take up the history of true chemistry; and in the first place to

endeavour to determine what chemical facts were known to the Ancients,

and how far the science had proceeded to develop itself before the time

of Paracelsus.