by another loud as the report of cannon, assailed their ears. They
hastened to the laboratory; two of the greatest stills had burst, and
one part of the laboratory and the house were in flames. We are told
that after another adventure of this kind, this victim to Alchymy, after
ruining another patron, in despair swallowed poison.
Even more recently we have a history of an Alchymist in the life of
Romney, the painter. This Alchymist, after bestowing much time and money
on preparations for the grand projection, and being near the decisive
hour, was induced, by the too earnest request of his wife, to quit his
furnace one evening, to attend some of her company at the tea-table.
While the projector was attending the ladies, his furnace blew up! In
consequence of this event, he conceived such an antipathy against his
wife, that he could not endure the idea of living with her again.
Henry IV. was so reduced by his extravagancies, that Evelyn observes in
his Numismata, he endeavoured to recruit his empty coffers by an
Alchymical speculation. The _record_ of this singular proposition,
contains “the most solemn and serious account of the feasibility and
virtues of the _philosopher’s stone_, encouraging the search after it,
and dispensing with all statutes and prohibitions to the contrary.” This
_record_ was very probably communicated (says an ingenious antiquary) by
Mr. Selden to his beloved friend Ben Jonson, when he was writing his
comedy of the Alchymist.
After this patent was published, many promised to answer the King’s
expectations so effectually (adds the same writer) that the next year he
published another patent; wherein he tells his subjects, that the _happy
hour_ was drawing nigh, and by means of the STONE, which he should be
master of, he would pay all the debts of the nation in _real gold_ and
silver. The persons picked out for his new operations were as remarkable
as the patent itself, being a most “miscellaneous rabble” of friars,
grocers, mercers, and fishmongers!
This patent was likewise granted _authoritate parliamenti_.
Prynne, who has given this patent in his _Aurum Reginæ_, p. 135,
concludes with this sarcastic observation:—“A project never so
seasonable and necessary as now!” And this we repeat, and our successors
will no doubt imitate us!
Alchymists were formerly called _multipliers_; as appears from a statute
of Henry IV. repealed in the preceding record. The statute being
extremely short, we shall give it for the reader’s satisfaction.
“None from henceforth shall use to multiply gold or silver, or use the
_craft of multiplication_; and if any the same do, he shall incur the
pain of felony.”
Every philosophical mind must be convinced that Alchymy is not an art,
which some have fancifully traced to the _remotest times_; it may rather
be regarded, when opposed to such a distance of time, as a modern
imposture. Cæsar commanded the treatises of Alchymy to be burnt
throughout the Roman dominions—Cæsar, who is not less to be admired as a
philosopher than as a monarch.
Mr. Gibbon has the following succinct passage relative to Alchymy: “The
ancient books of Alchymy, so liberally ascribed to Pythagoras, to
Solomon, or to Hermes, were the pious frauds of more recent adepts. The
Greeks were inattentive either to the use or abuse of chemistry. In that
immense register, where Pliny has deposited the discoveries, the arts
and the errors of mankind, there is not the least mention of the
transmutation of metals; and the persecution of Dioclesian is the first
authentic event in the history of Alchymy. The conquest of Egypt by the
Arabs diffused that vain science over the globe. Congenial to the
avarice of the human heart, it was studied in China as in Europe, with
equal eagerness and equal success. The darkness of the middle ages
ensured a favourable reception to every tale of wonder; and the revival
of learning gave new vigour to hope, and suggested more specious arts to
deception. Philosophy, with the aid of experience, has at length
banished the study of Alchymy; and the present age, however desirous of
riches, is content to seek them by the humbler means of commerce and
industry.”
Elias Ashmole writes in his diary—“May 13, 1653. My father Backhouse (an
Astrologer who had adopted him for his son—a common practice with these
men) lying sick in Fleet Ditch, over against St. Dunstan’s church, and
not knowing whether he should live or die, about eleven of the clock
told me in _Syllables_ the true matter of the _Philosopher’s Stone_,
which he bequeathed to me as a legacy.” By this we learn that a
miserable wretch knew the art of _making gold_, yet always lived a
beggar; and that Ashmole really imagined he was in possession of the
_Syllables of a secret_! he has however built a curious monument of the
learned follies of the last century, in his “Theatrum Chemicum
Britannicum.” Though Ashmole is rather the historian of this vain
science than an adept, it may amuse literary leisure to turn over his
quarto volume, in which he has collected the works of several English
Alchymists, to which he has subjoined his Commentary. It affords a
curious specimen of Rosicrucian Mysteries; and Ashmole relates stories,
which vie for the miraculous, with the wildest fancies of Arabian
invention. Of the Philosopher’s Stone, he says, he knows enough to hold
his tongue, but not enough to speak. This Stone has not only the power
of transmuting any imperfect earthy matter into its utmost degree of
perfection, and can convert the basest metals into gold, flints into
stones, &c. but it has still more occult virtues, when the arcana have
been entered into, by the choice fathers of hermetic mysteries. The
vegetable stone has power over the natures of man, beast, fowls, fishes,
and all kinds of trees and plants, to make them flourish and bear fruit
at any time. The magical stone discovers any person wherever he is
concealed; while the angelical stone gives the apparitions of angels,
and a power of conversing with them. These great mysteries are supported
by occasional facts, and illustrated by prints of the most divine and
incomprehensible designs, which we would hope were intelligible to the
initiated. It may be worth shewing, however, how liable even the latter
were to blunder on these Mysterious Hieroglyphics. Ashmole, in one of
his chemical works, prefixed a frontispiece, which, in several
compartments, exhibited Phœbus on a lion, and opposite to him a lady,
who represented Diana, with the moon in one hand and an arrow in the
other, sitting on a crab; Mercury on a tripod, with the scheme of the
heavens in one hand, and his caduceus in the other. They were intended
to express the materials of the Stone, and the season for the process.
Upon the altar is the bust of a man, his head covered by an astrological
scheme dropped from the clouds; and on the altar are these words,
MERCURIOPHILUS ANGLICUS, _i. e._ the English lover of hermetic
philosophy. There is a tree and a little creature gnawing the root, a
pillar adorned with musical and mathematical instruments, and another
with military ensigns. This strange composition created great inquiry
among the chemical sages. Deep mysteries were conjectured to be veiled
by it. Verses were written in the highest strain of the Rosicrucian
language. _Ashmole_ confessed he meant nothing more than a kind of pun
on his own name, for the tree was the _ash_, and the creature was a
_mole_. One pillar tells his love of music and freemasonry, and the
other his military preferment and astrological studies! He afterwards
regretted that no one added a second volume to his work, from which he
himself had been hindered, for the honour of the family of Hermes, and
“to shew the world what excellent men we had once of our nation, famous
for this kind of philosophy, and masters of so transcendant a secret.”
Modern chemistry is not without a _hope_, not to say a _certainty_, of
verifying the golden visions of the Alchymists. Dr. Gertänner, of
Gottingen, has lately adventured the following prophecy: “In the
_nineteenth century_ the transmutation of metals will be generally known
and practised. Every chemist and every artist will _make gold_; kitchen
materials will be of silver, and even gold, which will contribute more
than any thing else to _prolong life_, poisoned at present by the oxyds
of copper, lead, and iron, which we daily swallow with our food[23].”
This sublime chemist, though he does not venture to predict that
universal _Elixir_[24], which is to prolong life at pleasure, yet
approximates to it. A chemical friend observed, that “the metals seem to
be _composite_ bodies, which nature is perpetually preparing; and it may
be reserved for the future researches of Science to trace, and perhaps
to imitate, some of these curious operations.”
_Origin, Objects, and Practice of Alchymy, &c._
We find the word Alchymy occurring, for the first time, in JULIUS
FIRMICUS MATERNUS, an author who lived under Constantine the Great, who
in his _Mathesis_, iii. 35, speaking of the influence of the heavenly
bodies, affirms, “that if the Moon be in the house of Saturn, at the
time a child is born, he shall be skilled in Alchymy.”
The great objects or ends pursued by Alchymy, are, 1st, To make gold;
which is attempted by separation, maturation; and by transmutation,
which is to be effected by means of the Philosopher’s stone. With a view
to this end, Alchymy, in some writers, is also called ποιητκη,
_poetice_, and χρυσοποιητικη, _chryso poetice_, _i. e._ the art of
making gold; and hence also, by a similar derivation, the artists
themselves are called gold-makers.
2d. An universal medicine, adequate to all diseases.
3d. An universal dissolvent or alkahest. (See ALKAHEST.)
4. An universal ferment, or a matter, which being applied to any seed,
shall increase its fecundity to infinity. If, for example, it be applied
to gold, it shall change the gold into the philosopher’s stone of gold,—
if to silver, into the philosopher’s stone of silver,—and if to a tree,
the result is, the philosopher’s stone of the tree; which transmutes
every thing it is applied to, into trees.
The origin and antiquity of Alchymy have been much controverted. If we
may credit legend and tradition, it must be as old as the flood; nay,
Adam himself, is represented by the Alchymist, as an adept. A great
part, not only of the heathen mythology, but of the Jewish and Christian
Revelations, are supposed to refer to it. Thus SUIDAS will have the
fable of the Philosopher’s Stone, to be alluded to in the fable of the
Argonauts; and others find it in the book of MOSES, &c. But if the æra
of the art be examined by the monument of history, it will lose much of
this fancied antiquity. The learned Dane, Borrichius, has taken immense
pains to prove that it was not unknown to the ancient Greeks and
Egyptians. Crounguis, on the contrary, with equal address, undertakes to
show its novelty. Still not one of the ancient poets, philosophers, or
physicians, from the time of Homer till four hundred years after the
birth of Christ, mention any thing about it.
The first author who speaks of making gold, is Zosimus the Pomopolite,
who lived about the beginning of the fifth century, and who has a
treatise express upon it, called, “the divine art of making gold and
silver,” in manuscript, and is, as formerly, in the King of France’s
library. The next is Æneas Gazeus, another Greek writer, towards the
close of the same century, in whom we find the following passage:—“Such
as are skilled in the ways of nature, can take silver and tin, and
changing their nature, can turn them into gold.” The same writer tells
us, that he was “wont to call himself χρυσοχοος, gold melter, and
χημευτης, chemist.” Hence we may conclude, that a notion of some such
art as Alchymy was in being at that age; but as neither of these artists
inform us how long it had been previously known, their testimony will
not carry us back beyond the age in which they lived.
In fact, we find no earlier or plainer traces of the universal medicine
mentioned any where else; nor among the physicians and naturalists, from
Moses to Geber the Arab, who is supposed to have lived in the seventh
century. In that author’s work, entitled the “_Philosopher’s Stone_,”
mention is made of a medicine that cures all leprous diseases. This
passage, some authors suppose, to have given the first hint of the
matter; though Geber himself, perhaps, meant no such thing; for by
attending to the Arabic style and diction of this author, which abounds
in allegory, it is highly probable, that by man he means gold; and by
leprous, or other diseases, the other metals; which, with relation to
gold, are all impure.
The manner in which Suidas accounts for this total silence of old
authors with regard to Alchymy, is, that Dioclesian procured all the
books of the ancient Egyptians to be burnt; and that it was in these
that the great mysteries of chymistry were contained. Corringius calls
this statement in question, and asks how Suidas, who lived but five
hundred years before us, should know what happened eight hundred years
before him? To which Borrichius answers, that he had learnt it of
Eudemus, Helladius, Zosimus, Pamphilius, &c. as Suidas himself relates.
Kercher asserts, that the theory of the Philosopher’s Stone, is
delivered at large in the table of Hermes, and that the ancient
Egyptians were not ignorant of the art, but declined to prosecute it.
They did not appear to transmute gold; they had ways of separating it
from all kinds of bodies, from the very mud of the Nile, and stones of
all kinds: but, he adds, these secrets were never written down, or made
public, but confined to the royal family, and handed down traditionally
from father to son.
The chief point advanced by Borrichius, and in which he seems to lay the
principal stress, is, the attempt of Caligula, mentioned by Pliny, for
procuring gold from Orpiment, (Hist. Nat. 1. xxxiii. c. 4.) But this, it
may be observed, makes very little for that author’s pretensions; there
being no transmutations, no hint of any Philosopher’s Stone, but only a
little gold was extracted or separated from the mineral.
The principal authors on Alchymy are, Geber, Friar Bacon, Sully, John
and Isaac Hallandus, Basil Valentine, Paracelsus, Van Zuchter, and
Sendirogius.
ALKAHEST, OR ALCAHEST,
In Chemistry, means a most pure and universal menstruum or dissolvent,
with which some chemists have pretended to resolve all bodies into their
first matter, and perform other extraordinary and unaccountable
operations.
Paracelsus and Van Helmont, expressly declare, that there is a certain
fluid in nature, capable of reducing all sublunary bodies, as well
hemogeneous as mixed, into their _ens primum_, or original matter of
which they are composed; or into an uniform equable and potable liquor,
that will unite with water, and the juices of our bodies, yet will
retain its radical virtues; and if mixed with itself again, will thereby
be converted into pure elementary water. This declaration, seconded by
the asseveration of Van Helmont, who solemnly declared himself possessed
of the secret, excited succeeding Chemists and Alchymists to the pursuit
of so noble a menstruum. Mr. Boyle was so much attracted with it, that
he frankly acknowledged he had rather been master of it, than of the
Philosopher’s Stone. In short, it is not difficult to conceive, that
bodies might originally arise from some first matter, which was once in
a fluid form. Thus, the primitive matter of gold is, perhaps, nothing
more than a ponderous fluid, which, from its own nature, or a strong
cohesion or attraction between its particles, acquires afterwards a
solid form. And hence there does not appear any absurdity in the notion
of an universal ens, that resolves all bodies into their Ens Genitate.
The Alcahest is a subject that has been embraced by many anthers; _e.
g._ Pantatem, Philalettes, Tachenius, Ludovicus, &c. Boerhaave says, a
library of them might be collected; and Werdenfelt, in his treatise de
Secretis Adeptorum, has given all the opinions that have been
entertained concerning it.
The term Alcahest is not peculiarly found in any language: Helmont
declares, he first observed it in Paracelsus, as a word that was unknown
before the time of that author, who in his second book, _De Viribus
Membrorum_, treating of the liver, has these rather remarkable words:
_Est etiam_ alkahest _liquor_, magnam sepates conservandi et
confortandi, &c. “There is also the liquor _Alkerhest_, of great
efficacy in preserving the liver; as also in curing hydropsical and all
other diseases arising from disorders of that part. If it have once
conquered its like, it becomes superior to all other hepatic medicines;
and though the liver itself was broken and dissolved, this medicine
should supply its place.”
It was this passage alone, quoted from Paracelsus, that stimulated
succeeding chemists to an enquiry after the Alkahest; there being only
another indirect expression, in all his work, relating to it.
As it was a frequent practice with Paracelsus to transpose the letters
of his words, and to abbreviate or otherwise conceal them; _e. g._ for
tartar, he would write _Sutratur_; for _Nitrum_, _Mutrin_, &c. it is
supposed that Alcahest must be a word disguised in the same manner.
Hence some imagine it, and with much probability, to be formed of
_alkali est_; consequently that it was the Alkaline salt of tartar
salatilized. This appears to have been Glauber’s opinion; who, in fact,
performed surprising things with such a menstruum, upon subjects of all
the three kingdoms. Others will have it derived from the German word
_algeist_, that is, wholly spirituous or volatile; others are of
opinion, that the word Alcahest is taken from saltz-geist, which
signifies spirit of salt; for the universal menstruum, it is said, is to
be wrought from water: and Paracelsus himself calls salt the centre of
water, wherein metals ought to die, &c. In fact, spirit of salt was the
great menstruum he used on most occasions.
The Commentator on Paracelsus, who gave a Latin edition of his works at
Delft, assures us that the alcahest was mercury, converted into a
spirit. Zwelfer judged it to be a spirit of vinegar rectified from
verdigris, and Starkey thought he discovered it in his soap.
There have nevertheless been some synonimous and more significant words
used for the Alkahest. Van Helmont, the elder, mentions it by the
compound name of _ignis-aqua_, fire-water: but he here seems to allude
to the circulated liquor of Paracelsus, which he terms fire, from its
property of consuming all things; and water, on account of its liquid
form. The same author calls it _liqoer Gehennæ_, infernal fire; a word
also used by Paracelsus. He also entitles it, “Summun et felicismum
omnium salium,” “the highest and most successful of all salts; which
having obtained the supreme degree of simplicity, purity, and subtilty,
enjoys alone the faculty of remaining unchanged and unimpaired by the
subjects it works upon, and of dissolving the most stubborn and
untractable bodies; as stones, gems, glass, earth, sulphur, metals, &c.
into real salt, equal in weight to the matter dissolved; and this with
as much ease as hot water melts down snow.”—“This salt,” continues he,
“by being several times cohabited with Paracelsus’, Sal circulatum,
loses all its fixedness, and at length becomes an insipid water, equal
in quantity to the salt it was made from.”
Van Helmont positively expresses that this salt is the product of art
and not of nature. “Though, says he, a homogeneal part of elementary
earth may be artfully converted into water, yet I deny that the same can
be done by nature alone; for no natural agent is able to transmute one
element into another.” And this he offers as a reason why the Elements
always remain the same.
It may throw some light into this affair, to observe, that Van Helmont,
as well as Paracelsus, took water for the universal instrument of
chymistry and natural philosophy; and earth for the unchangeable basis
of all things—that fire was assigned as the sufficient cause of all
things—that seminal impressions were lodged in the mechanism of the
earth—that water, by dissolving and fermenting with this earth, as it
does by means of fire, brings forth every thing; whence originally
proceeded the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms: even man himself,
according to Moses, was thus at first created.
The great characteristic or property of the Alkahest, as has already
been observed, is to dissolve and change all sublunary bodies—water
alone excepted.——The changes it induces proceed in the following manner,
viz.
1. The subject exposed to its operation, is converted into its three
principles, salt, sulphur, and mercury; and afterwards into salt alone,
which then becomes volatile; and, at length, is wholly turned into
insipid water.—The manner in which it is applied, is by touching the
body proposed to be dissolved; _e. g._ gold, mercury, sand, glass, or
the like, once or twice with the pretended alkahest; and if the liquor
be genuine, the body will on this application be converted into its own
quality of salt.
2. It does not destroy the seminal virtues of the bodies thereby
dissolved.—For instance,—gold, by its action, is reduced to a salt of
gold; antimony, to a salt of antimony; saffron, to a salt of saffron,
&c. of the same seminal virtues, or characters with the original
concrete. By seminal virtues, Van Helmont means those virtues which
depend upon the structure or mechanism of a body, and which constitutes
it what it actually is. Hence an actual and general _aurum_ potabile
might readily be gained by the alkahest, as converting the whole body of
gold into salt, retaining its seminal virtues, and being withal soluble
in water.
3. Whatever it dissolves may be rendered volatile by a sand-heat; and
if, after volatilizing the solvent, it be distilled therefrom, the body
is left pure insipid water, equal in quantity to its original self, but
deprived of its seminal virtues. Then, if gold be dissolved by the
Alkahest, the metal first becomes salt, which is potable gold; but when
the menstruum, by a further application of fire, is distilled therefrom,
it is left mere elementary water. Whence it appears, that pure water is
the last production or effect of the alkahest.
4. It suffers no change or diminution of force by dissolving the bodies
it works in; consequently sustains no reaction from them; being the only
immutable menstruum in nature.
5. It is incapable of mixture, and therefore remains free from
fermentation and putrefaction; coming off as pure from the body it has
dissolved, as when first applied to it; without leaving the least
foulness behind.
MAGICIAN.
_One who practises the art of Magic._ (_Vide Divination, Sorcery, and
Magic._)