Alchemy: Ancient and Modern Being a Brief Account of the Alchemistic Doctrines, and Their Relations, to Mysticism on the One Hand, and to Recent Discoveries in Physical Science on the Other Hand; Together with Some Particulars Regarding the Lives and Teachings of the Most Noted Alchemists

Transcriber’s Notes

Texts printed in italics in the original work have been transcribed as _text_, bold face texts as =text=. Small caps texts have been transcribed as ALL CAPITALS. [U] represents a U-shape rather than the letter U.

Depending on the hard- and software used to read this text and their settings, not all characters and symbols may display as intended.

More Transcriber’s Notes may be found at the ned of this text.

Alchemy: Ancient And Modern

[Illustration: PLATE 1.

Portrait Of Paracelsus

[_Frontispiece_]

Alchemy:

Ancient And Modern

BEING A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE ALCHEMISTIC DOCTRINES, AND THEIR RELATIONS, TO MYSTICISM ON THE ONE HAND, AND TO RECENT DISCOVERIES IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE ON THE OTHER HAND; TOGETHER WITH SOME PARTICULARS REGARDING THE LIVES AND TEACHINGS OF THE MOST NOTED ALCHEMISTS

By

H. STANLEY REDGROVE, B.Sc. (Lond.), F.C.S.

AUTHOR OF “ON THE CALCULATION OF THERMO-CHEMICAL CONSTANTS,” “MATTER, SPIRIT AND THE COSMOS,” ETC.

With 16 Full-Page Illustrations

Second And Revised Edition

London

William Rider & Son, Ltd.

8 Paternoster Row, E.C. 4

1922

_First published_ 1911 _Second Edition_ 1922

Preface To The Second Edition

It is exceedingly gratifying to me that a second edition of this book should be called for. But still more welcome is the change in the attitude of the educated world towards the old-time alchemists and their theories which has taken place during the past few years.

The theory of the origin of Alchemy put forward in Chapter I has led to considerable discussion; but whilst this theory has met with general acceptance, some of its earlier critics took it as implying far more than is actually the case. As a result of further research my conviction of its truth has become more fully confirmed, and in my recent work entitled _Bygone Beliefs_ (Rider, 1920), under the title of “The Quest of the Philosopher’s Stone,” I have found it possible to adduce further evidence in this connection. At the same time, whilst I became increasingly convinced that the main alchemistic hypotheses were drawn from the domain of mystical theology and applied to physics and chemistry by way of analogy, it also became evident to me that the crude physiology of bygone ages and remnants of the old phallic faith formed a further and subsidiary source of alchemistic theory. I have barely, if at all, touched on this matter in the present work; the reader who is interested will find it dealt with in some detail in “The Phallic Element in Alchemical Doctrine” in my _Bygone Beliefs_.

In view of recent research in the domain of Radioactivity and the consequent advance in knowledge that has resulted since this book was first published, I have carefully considered the advisability of rewriting the whole of the last chapter, but came to the conclusion that the time for this was not yet ripe, and that, apart from a few minor emendations, the chapter had better remain very much as it originally stood. My reason for this course was that, whilst considerably more is known to-day, than was the case in 1911, concerning the very complex transmutations undergone spontaneously by the radioactive elements--knowledge helping further to elucidate the problem of the constitution of the so-called “elements” of the chemist--the problem really cognate to my subject, namely that of effecting a transmutation of one element into another at will, remains in almost the same state of indeterminateness as in 1911. In 1913, Sir William Ramsay[1] thought he had obtained evidence for the transmutation of hydrogen into helium by the action of the electric discharge, and Professors Collie and Patterson[2] thought they had obtained evidence of the transmutation of hydrogen into neon by similar means. But these observations (as well as Sir William Ramsay’s earlier transmutational experiments) failed to be satisfactorily confirmed;[3] and since the death of the latter, little, if anything, appears to have been done to settle the questions raised by his experiments. Reference must, however, be made to a very interesting investigation by Sir Ernest Rutherford on the “Collision of α-Particles with Light Atoms,”[4] from which it appears certain that when bombarded with the swiftly-moving α-particles given off by radium-C, the atoms of nitrogen may be disintegrated, one of the products being hydrogen. The other product is possibly helium,[5] though this has not been proved. In view of Rutherford’s results a further repetition of Ramsay’s experiments would certainly appear to be advisable.

[1] See his “The Presence of Helium in the Gas from the Interior of an X-Ray Bulb,” _Journal of the Chemical Society_, vol. ciii. (1913), pp. 264 _et seq._

[2] See their “The Presence of Neon in Hydrogen after the Passage of the Electric Discharge through the latter at Low Pressures,” _ibid._, pp. 419 _et seq._; and “The Production of Neon and Helium by the Electric Discharge,” _Proceedings of the Royal Society_, _A_, vol. xci. (1915), pp. 30 _et seq._

[3] See especially the report of negative experiments by Mr. A. C. G. Egerton, published in _Proceedings of the Royal Society_, _A_, vol. xci. (1915), pp. 180 _et seq._

[4] See the _Philosophical Magazine_ for June, 1919, 6th Series, vol. xxxvii. pp. 537-587.

[5] Or perhaps an isotope of helium (see below).

As concerns the spontaneous transmutations undergone by the radioactive elements, the facts appear to indicate (or, at least, can be brought into some sort of order by supposing) the atom to consist of a central nucleus and an outer shell, as suggested by Sir Ernest Rutherford. The nucleus may be compared to the sun of a solar system. It is excessively small, but in it the mass of the atom is almost entirely concentrated. It is positively charged, the charge being neutralised by that of the free electrons which revolve like planets about it, and which by their orbits account for the volume of the atom. The atomic weight of the element depends upon the central sun; but the chemical properties of the element are determined by the number of electrons in the shell; this number is the same as that representing the position of the element in the periodic system. Radioactive change originates in the atomic nucleus. The expulsion of an α-particle therefrom decreases the atomic weight by 4 units, necessitates (since the α-particle carries two positive charges) the removal of two electrons from the shell in order to maintain electrical neutrality, and hence changes the chemical nature of the body, transmuting the element into one occupying a position two places to the left in the periodic system (for example, the change of radium into niton). But radioactivity sometimes results in the expulsion of a β-particle from the nucleus. This results in the addition of an electron to the shell, and hence changes the chemical character of the element, transmuting it into one occupying a position one place to the right in the periodic system, but _without altering its atomic weight_. Consequently, the expulsion of one α- and two β-particles from the nucleus, whilst decreasing the atomic weight of the element by 4, leaves the number of electrons in the shell, and thus the chemical properties of the element, unaltered. These remarkable conclusions are amply borne out by the facts, and the discovery of elements (called “isobares”) having the same atomic weight but different chemical properties, and of those (called “isotopes”) having identical chemical characters but different atomic weights, must be regarded as one of the most significant and important discoveries of recent years. Some further reference to this theory will be found in §§ 77 and 81: the reader who wishes to follow the matter further should consult the fourth edition of Professor Frederick Soddy’s _The Interpretation of Radium_ (1920), and the two chapters on the subject in his _Science and Life_ (1920), one of which is a popular exposition and the other a more technical one.

These advances in knowledge all point to the possibility of effecting transmutations at will, but so far attempts to achieve this, as I have already indicated, cannot be regarded as altogether satisfactory. Several methods of making gold, or rather elements chemically identical with gold, once the method of controlling radioactive change is discovered (as assuredly it will be) are suggested by Sir Ernest Rutherford’s theory of the nuclear atom. Thus, the expulsion of two α-particles from bismuth or one from thallium would yield the required result. Or lead could be converted into mercury by the expulsion of one α-particle, and this into thallium by the expulsion of one β-particle, yielding gold by the further expulsion of an α-particle. But, as Professor Soddy remarks in his _Science and Life_ just referred to, “if man ever achieves this further control over Nature, it is quite certain that the last thing he would want to do would be to turn lead or mercury into gold--_for the sake of gold_. The energy that would be liberated, if the control of these sub-atomic processes were as possible as is the control of ordinary chemical changes, such as combustion, would far exceed in importance and value the gold. Rather it would pay to transmute gold into silver or some base metal.”

In § 101 of the book I suggest that the question of the effect on the world of finance of the discovery of an inexpensive method of transmuting base metal into gold on a large scale is one that should appeal to a novelist specially gifted with imagination. Since the words were first written a work has appeared in which something approximating to what was suggested has been attempted and very admirably achieved. My reference is to Mr. H. G. Wells’s novel, _The World Set Free_, published in 1914.

In conclusion I should like to thank the very many reviewers who found so many good things to say concerning the first edition of this book. For kind assistance in reading the proofs of this edition my best thanks are due also and are hereby tendered to my wife, and my good friend Gerald Druce, Esq., M.Sc.

H. S. R.

191, CAMDEN ROAD, LONDON, N.W. 1. _October_, 1921.

Preface

The number of books in the English language dealing with the interesting subject of Alchemy is not sufficiently great to render an apology necessary for adding thereto. Indeed, at the present time there is an actual need for a further contribution on this subject. The time is gone when it was regarded as perfectly legitimate to point to Alchemy as an instance of the aberrations of the human mind. Recent experimental research has brought about profound modifications in the scientific notions regarding the chemical elements, and, indeed, in the scientific concept of the physical universe itself; and a certain resemblance can be traced between these later views and the theories of bygone Alchemy. The spontaneous change of one “element” into another has been witnessed, and the recent work of Sir William Ramsay suggests the possibility of realising the old alchemistic dream--the transmutation of the “base” metals into gold.

The basic idea permeating all the alchemistic theories appears to have been this: All the metals (and, indeed, all forms of matter) are one in origin, and are produced by an evolutionary process. The Soul of them all is one and the same; it is only the Soul that is permanent; the body or outward form, _i.e._, the mode of manifestation of the Soul, is transitory, and one form may be transmuted into another. The similarity, indeed it might be said, the identity, between this view and the modern etheric theory of matter is at once apparent.

The old alchemists reached the above conclusion by a theoretical method, and attempted to demonstrate the validity of their theory by means of experiment; in which, it appears, they failed. Modern science, adopting the reverse process, for a time lost hold of the idea of the unity of the physical universe, to gain it once again by the experimental method. It was in the elaboration of this grand fundamental idea that Alchemy failed. If I were asked to contrast Alchemy with the chemical and physical science of the nineteenth century I would say that, whereas the latter abounded in a wealth of much accurate detail and much relative truth, it lacked philosophical depth and insight; whilst Alchemy, deficient in such accurate detail, was characterised by a greater degree of philosophical depth and insight; for the alchemists did grasp the fundamental truth of the Cosmos, although they distorted it and made it appear grotesque. The alchemists cast their theories in a mould entirely fantastic, even ridiculous--they drew unwarrantable analogies--and hence their views cannot be accepted in these days of modern science. But if we cannot approve of their theories _in toto_, we can nevertheless appreciate the fundamental ideas at the root of them. And it is primarily with the object of pointing out this similarity between these ancient ideas regarding the physical universe and the latest products of scientific thought, that this book has been written.

It is a regrettable fact that the majority of works dealing with the subject of Alchemy take a one-sided point of view. The chemists generally take a purely physical view of the subject, and instead of trying to understand its mystical language, often (I do not say always) prefer to label it nonsense and the alchemist a fool. On the other hand, the mystics, in many cases, take a purely transcendental view of the subject, forgetting the fact that the alchemists were, for the most part, concerned with operations of a physical nature. For a proper understanding of Alchemy, as I hope to make plain in the first chapter of this work, a synthesis of both points of view is essential; and, since these two aspects are so intimately and essentially connected with one another, this is necessary even when, as in the following work, one is concerned primarily with the physical, rather than the purely mystical, aspect of the subject.

Now, the author of this book may lay claim to being a humble student of both Chemistry and what may be generalised under the terms Mysticism and Transcendentalism; and he hopes that this perhaps rather unusual combination of studies has enabled him to take a broad-minded view of the theories of the alchemists, and to adopt a sympathetic attitude towards them.

With regard to the illustrations, the author must express his thanks to the authorities of the British Museum for permission to photograph engraved portraits and illustrations from old works in the British Museum Collections, and to G. H. Gabb, Esq., F.C.S., for permission to photograph engraved portraits in his possession.

The author’s heartiest thanks are also due to Frank E. Weston, Esq., B.Sc., F.C.S., and W. G. Llewellyn, Esq., for their kind help in reading the proofs, &c.

H. S. R.

THE POLYTECHNIC, LONDON, W. _October, 1910._

Contents

Page Chapter I. The Meaning Of Alchemy 1

§ 1. The Aim of Alchemy 1 § 2. The Transcendental Theory of Alchemy 2 § 3. Failure of the Transcendental Theory 3 § 4. The Qualifications of the Adept 4 § 5. Alchemistic Language 5 § 6. Alchemists of a Mystical Type 7 § 7. The Meaning of Alchemy 7 § 8. Opinions of other Writers 8 § 9. The Basic Idea of Alchemy 10 § 10. The Law of Analogy 12 § 11. The Dual Nature of Alchemy 13 § 12. “Body, Soul and Spirit” 14 § 13. Alchemy, Mysticism and Modern Science 15

Chapter II. The Theory Of Physical Alchemy 17

§ 14. Supposed Proofs of Transmutation 17 § 15. The Alchemistic Elements 18 § 16. Aristotle’s Views regarding the Elements 19 § 17. The Sulphur-Mercury Theory 20 § 18. The Sulphur-Mercury-Salt Theory 22 § 19. Alchemistic Elements and Principles 23 § 20. The Growth of the Metals 25 § 21. Alchemy and Astrology 26 § 22. Alchemistic View of the Nature of Gold 27 § 23. The Philosopher’s Stone 29 § 24. The Nature of the Philosopher’s Stone 30 § 25. The Theory of Development 32 § 26. The Powers of the Philosopher’s Stone 34 § 27. The Elixir of Life 35 § 28. The Practical Methods of the Alchemists 36

Chapter III. The Alchemists (A. Before Paracelsus) 39

§ 29. Hermes Trismegistos 39 § 30. The Smaragdine Table 40 § 31. Zosimus of Panopolis 42 § 32. Geber 42 § 33. Other Arabian Alchemists 44 § 34. Albertus Magnus 44 § 35. Thomas Aquinas 44 § 36. Roger Bacon 45 § 37. Arnold de Villanova 47 § 38. Raymond Lully 47 § 39. Peter Bonus 49 § 40. Nicolas Flamel 51 § 41. “Basil Valentine” and the _Triumphal Chariot of Antimony_. 52 § 42. Isaac of Holland 53 § 43. Bernard Trévisan 54 § 44. Sir George Ripley 55 § 45. Thomas Norton 56

Chapter IV. The Alchemists (B. Paracelsus And After) 58

§ 46. Paracelsus 58 § 47. Views of Paracelsus 60 § 48. Iatro-chemistry 61 § 49. The Rosicrucian Society 62 § 50. Thomas Charnock 65 § 51. Andreas Libavius 66 § 52. Edward Kelley and John Dee 67 § 53. Henry Khunrath 70 § 54. Alexander Sethon and Michael Sendivogius 70 § 55. Michael Maier 72 § 56. Jacob Boehme 74 § 57. J. B. van Helmont and F. M. van Helmont 75 § 58. Johann Rudolf Glauber 77 § 59. Thomas Vaughan (“Eugenius Philalethes”) 77 § 60. “Eirenæus Philalethes” and George Starkey 79

Chapter V. The Outcome Of Alchemy 81

§ 61. Did the Alchemists achieve the _Magnum Opus_? 81 § 62. The Testimony of van Helmont 82 § 63. The Testimony of Helvetius 83 § 64. Helvetius obtains the Philosopher’s Stone 85 § 65. Helvetius performs a Transmutation 87 § 66. Helvetius’s Gold Assayed 88 § 67. Helvetius’s Gold Further Tested 88 § 68. The Genesis of Chemistry 89 § 69. The Degeneracy of Alchemy 90 § 70. “Count Cagliostro” 91

Chapter VI. The Age Of Modern Chemistry 94

§ 71. The Birth of Modern Chemistry 94 § 72. The Phlogiston Theory 94 § 73. Boyle and the Definition of an Element 96 § 74. The Stoichiometric Laws 96 § 75. Dalton’s Atomic Theory 99 § 76. The Determination of the Atomic Weights of the Elements 102 § 77. Prout’s Hypothesis 102 § 78. The “Periodic Law” 105 § 79. The Corpuscular Theory of Matter 109 § 80. Proof that the Electrons are not Matter 110 § 81. The Electronic Theory of Matter 112 § 82. The Etheric Theory of Matter 113 § 83. Further Evidence of the Complexity of the Atoms 114 § 84. Views of Wald and Ostwald 115

Chapter VII. Modern Alchemy 117

§ 85. “Modern Alchemy” 117 § 86. X-Rays and Becquerel Rays 117 § 87. The Discovery of Radium 118 § 88. Chemical Properties of Radium 119 § 89. The Radioactivity of Radium 120 § 90. The Disintegration of the Radium Atom 122 § 91. “Induced Radioactivity” 123 § 92. Properties of Uranium and Thorium 123 § 93. The Radium Emanation 124 § 94. The Production of Helium from Emanation 125 § 95. Nature of this Change 127 § 96. Is this Change a true Transmutation? 128 § 97. The Production of Neon from Emanation 130 § 98. Ramsay’s Experiments on Copper 132 § 99. Further Experiments on Radium and Copper 134 § 100. Ramsay’s Experiments on Thorium and allied Metals 134 § 101. The Possibility of Making Gold 136 § 102. The Significance of “Allotropy” 136 § 103. Conclusion 142

List Of Plates

PLATE 1. Portrait of Paracelsus _Frontispiece_

To Face Page

PLATE 2. Symbolical Illustration representing the Trinity of Body, Soul and Spirit 15

PLATE 3. Symbolical Illustrations representing-- (A) The Fertility of the Earth } 26 (B) The Amalgamation of Mercury and Gold }

PLATE 4. Symbolical Illustrations representing-- (A) The Coction of Gold-Amalgam in a Closed Vessel } 33 (B) The Transmutation of the Metals }

PLATE 5. Alchemistic Apparatus-- (A) (B) Two forms of apparatus for sublimation 37

PLATE 6. Alchemistic Apparatus-- (A) An Athanor } 38 (B) A Pelican }

PLATE 7. Portrait of Albertus Magnus 44

PLATE 8. Portraits of-- (A) Thomas Aquinas } 52 (B) Nicolas Flamel }

PLATE 9. Portraits of-- (A) Edward Kelley } 68 (B) John Dee }

PLATE 10. Portrait of Michael Maier 72

PLATE 11. Portrait of Jacob Boehme 74

PLATE 12. Portraits of J. B. and F. M. van Helmont 76

PLATE 13. Portrait of J. F. Helvetius 84

PLATE 14. Portrait of “Cagliostro” 92

PLATE 15. Portrait of Robert Boyle 94

PLATE 16. Portrait of John Dalton 100

TABLE SHOWING THE PERIODIC CLASSIFICATION OF THE CHEMICAL ELEMENTS Pages 106, 107

Alchemy:

Ancient And Modern

Chapter I

The Meaning Of Alchemy

The Aim of Alchemy.

§ =1.= Alchemy is generally understood to have been that art whose end was the transmutation of the so-called base metals into gold by means of an ill-defined something called the Philosopher’s Stone; but even from a purely physical standpoint, this is a somewhat superficial view. Alchemy was both a philosophy and an experimental science, and the transmutation of the metals was its end only in that this would give the final proof of the alchemistic hypotheses; in other words, Alchemy, considered from the physical standpoint, was the attempt to demonstrate experimentally on the material plane the validity of a certain philosophical view of the Cosmos. We see the genuine scientific spirit in the saying of one of the alchemists: “Would to God . . . all men might become adepts in our Art--for then gold, the great idol of mankind, would lose its value, and we should prize it only for its scientific teaching.”[6] Unfortunately, however, not many alchemists came up to this ideal; and for the majority of them, Alchemy did mean merely the possibility of making gold cheaply and gaining untold wealth.

[6] “EIRENÆUS PHILALETHES”: _An Open Entrance to the Closed Palace of the King_ (see _The Hermetic Museum, Restored and Enlarged_, edited by A. E. Waite, 1893, vol. ii. p. 178).

The Transcendental Theory of Alchemy.

§ =2.= By some mystics, however, the opinion has been expressed that Alchemy was not a physical art or science at all, that in no sense was its object the manufacture of material gold, and that its processes were not carried out on the physical plane. According to this transcendental theory, Alchemy was concerned with man’s soul, its object was the perfection, not of material substances, but of man in a spiritual sense. Those who hold this view identify Alchemy with, or at least regard it as a branch of, Mysticism, from which it is supposed to differ merely by the employment of a special language; and they hold that the writings of the alchemists must not be understood literally as dealing with chemical operations, with furnaces, retorts, alembics, pelicans and the like, with salt, sulphur, mercury, gold and other material substances, but must be understood as grand allegories dealing with spiritual truths. According to this view, the figure of the transmutation of the “base” metals into gold symbolised the salvation of man--the transmutation of his soul into spiritual gold--which was to be obtained by the elimination of evil and the development of good by the grace of God; and the realisation of which salvation or spiritual transmutation may be described as the New Birth, or that condition of being known as union with the Divine. It would follow, of course, if this theory were true, that the genuine alchemists were pure mystics, and hence, that the development of chemical science was not due to their labours, but to pseudo-alchemists who so far misunderstood their writings as to have interpreted them in a literal sense.

Failure of the Transcendental Theory.

§ =3.= This theory, however, has been effectively disposed of by Mr. Arthur Edward Waite, who points to the lives of the alchemists themselves in refutation of it. For their lives indisputably prove that the alchemists were occupied with chemical operations on the physical plane, and that for whatever motive, they toiled to discover a method for transmuting the commoner metals into actual, material gold. As Paracelsus himself says of the true “spagyric physicians,” who were the alchemists of his period: “These do not give themselves up to ease and idleness . . . But they devote themselves diligently to their labours, sweating whole nights over fiery furnaces. These do not kill the time with empty talk, but find their delight in their laboratory.”[7] The writings of the alchemists contain (mixed, however, with much that from the physical standpoint appears merely fantastic) accurate accounts of many chemical processes and discoveries, which cannot be explained away by any method of transcendental interpretation. There is not the slightest doubt that chemistry owes its origin to the direct labours of the alchemists themselves, and not to any who misread their writings.

[7] PARACELSUS: “Concerning the Nature of Things” (see _The Hermetic and Alchemical Writings of Paracelsus_, edited by A. E. Waite, 1894, vol. i. p. 167).

The Qualifications of the Adept.

§ =4.= At the same time, it is quite evident that there is a considerable element of Mysticism in the alchemistic doctrines; this has always been recognised; but, as a general rule, those who have approached the subject from the scientific point of view have considered this mystical element as of little or no importance. However, there are certain curious facts which are not satisfactorily explained by a purely physical theory of Alchemy, and, in our opinion, the recognition of the importance of this mystical element and of the true relation which existed between Alchemy and Mysticism is essential for the right understanding of the subject. We may notice, in the first place, that the alchemists always speak of their Art as a Divine Gift, the highest secrets of which are not to be learnt from any books on the subject; and they invariably teach that the right mental attitude with regard to God is the first step necessary for the achievement of the _magnum opus_. As says one alchemist: “In the first place, let every devout and God-fearing chemist and student of this Art consider that this arcanum should be regarded, not only as a truly great, but as a most holy Art (seeing that it typifies and shadows out the highest heavenly good). Therefore, if any man desire to reach this great and unspeakable Mystery, he must remember that it is obtained not by the might of man, but by the grace of God, and that not our will or desire, but only the mercy of the Most High, can bestow it upon us. For this reason you must first of all cleanse your heart, lift it up to Him alone, and ask of Him this gift in true, earnest, and undoubting prayer. He alone can give and bestow it.”[8] And “Basil Valentine”: “First, there should be the invocation of God, flowing from the depth of a pure and sincere heart, and a conscience which should be free from all ambition, hypocrisy, and vice, as also from all cognate faults, such as arrogance, boldness, pride, luxury, worldly vanity, oppression of the poor, and similar iniquities, which should all be rooted up out of the heart--that when a man appears before the Throne of Grace, to regain the health of his body, he may come with a conscience weeded of all tares, and be changed into a pure temple of God cleansed of all that defiles.”[9]

[8] _The Sophic Hydrolith; or, Water Stone of the Wise_ (see _The Hermetic Museum_, vol. i. p. 74).

[9] _The Triumphal Chariot of Antimony_ (Mr. A. E. Waite’s translation, p. 13). See § 41.

Alchemistic Language.

§ =5.= In the second place, we must notice the nature of alchemistic language. As we have hinted above, and as is at once apparent on opening any alchemistic book, the language of Alchemy is very highly mystical, and there is much that is perfectly unintelligible in a physical sense. Indeed, the alchemists habitually apologise for their vagueness on the plea that such mighty secrets may not be made more fully manifest. It is true, of course, that in the days of Alchemy’s degeneracy a good deal of pseudo-mystical nonsense was written by the many impostors then abounding, but the mystical style of language is by no means confined to the later alchemistic writings. It is also true that the alchemists, no doubt, desired to shield their secrets from vulgar and profane eyes, and hence would necessarily adopt a symbolic language. But it is past belief that the language of the alchemist was due to some arbitrary plan; whatever it is to us, it was very real to him. Moreover, this argument cuts both ways, for those, also, who take a transcendental view of Alchemy regard its language as symbolical, although after a different manner. It is also, to say the least, curious, as Mr. A. E. Waite points out, that this mystical element should be found in the writings of the earlier alchemists, whose manuscripts were not written for publication, and therefore ran no risk of informing the vulgar of the precious secrets of Alchemy. On the other hand, the transcendental method of translation does often succeed in making sense out of what is otherwise unintelligible in the writings of the alchemists. The above-mentioned writer remarks on this point: “Without in any way pretending to assert that this hypothesis reduces the literary chaos of the philosophers into a regular order, it may be affirmed that it materially elucidates their writings, and that it is wonderful how contradictions, absurdities, and difficulties seem to dissolve wherever it is applied.”[10]

[10] ARTHUR EDWARD WAITE: _The Occult Sciences_ (1891), p. 91.

The alchemists’ love of symbolism is also conspicuously displayed in the curious designs with which certain of their books are embellished. We are not here referring to the illustrations of actual apparatus employed in carrying out the various operations of physical Alchemy, which are not infrequently found in the works of those alchemists who at the same time were practical chemists (Glauber, for example), but to pictures whose meaning plainly lies not upon the surface and whose import is clearly symbolical, whether their symbolism has reference to physical or to spiritual processes. Examples of such symbolic illustrations, many of which are highly fantastic, will be found in plates 2, 3, and 4. We shall refer to them again in the course of the present and following chapters.

Alchemists of a Mystical Type.

§ =6.= We must also notice that, although there cannot be the slightest doubt that the great majority of alchemists were engaged in problems and experiments of a physical nature, yet there were a few men included within the alchemistic ranks who were entirely, or almost entirely, concerned with problems of a spiritual nature; Thomas Vaughan, for example, and Jacob Boehme, who boldly employed the language of Alchemy in the elaboration of his system of mystical philosophy. And particularly must we notice, as Mr. A. E. Waite has also indicated, the significant fact that the Western alchemists make unanimous appeal to Hermes Trismegistos as the greatest authority on the art of Alchemy, whose alleged writings are of an undoubtedly mystical character (see § 29). It is clear, that in spite of its apparently physical nature, Alchemy must have been in some way closely connected with Mysticism.

The Meaning of Alchemy.

§ =7.= If we are ever to understand the meaning of Alchemy aright we must look at the subject from the alchemistic point of view. In modern times there has come about a divorce between Religion and Science in men’s minds (though more recently a unifying tendency has set in); but it was otherwise with the alchemists, their religion and their science were closely united. We have said that “Alchemy was the attempt to demonstrate experimentally on the material plane the validity of a certain philosophical view of the Cosmos”; now, this “philosophical view of the Cosmos” was Mysticism. =Alchemy had its origin in the attempt to apply, in a certain manner, the principles of Mysticism to the things of the physical plane=, and was, therefore, of a dual nature, on the one hand spiritual and religious, on the other, physical and material. As the anonymous author of _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_ (1815) remarks, “The universal chemistry, by which the science of alchemy opens the knowledge of all nature, being founded on _first principles_ forms analogy with whatever knowledge is founded on the _same first principles_. . . . Saint John describes the redemption, or the new creation of the fallen soul, on the _same first principles_, until the consummation of the work, in which the Divine tincture transmutes the base metal of the soul into a perfection, that will pass the fire of eternity;”[11] that is to say, Alchemy and the mystical regeneration of man (in this writer’s opinion) are analogous processes on different planes of being, because they are founded on the same first principles.

[11] F. B.: _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_ (1815), Preface, p. 3.

Opinions of other Writers.

§ =8.= We shall here quote the opinions of two modern writers, as to the significance of Alchemy; one a mystic, the other a man of science. Says Mr. A. E. Waite, “If the authors of the ‘Suggestive Inquiry’ and of ‘Remarks on Alchemy and the Alchemists’ [two books putting forward the transcendental theory] had considered the lives of the symbolists, as well as the nature of the symbols, their views would have been very much modified; they would have found that the true method of Hermetic interpretation lies in a middle course; but the errors which originated with merely typographical investigations were intensified by a consideration of the great alchemical theorem, which, _par excellence_, is one of universal development, which acknowledges that every substance contains undeveloped resources and potentialities, and can be brought outward and forward into perfection. They [the generality of alchemists] applied their theory only to the development of metallic substances from a lower to a higher order, but we see by their writings that the grand hierophants of Oriental and Western alchemy alike were continually haunted by brief and imperfect glimpses of glorious possibilities for man, if the evolution of his nature were accomplished along the lines of their theory.”[12] Mr. M. M. Pattison Muir, M.A., says: “. . . alchemy aimed at giving experimental proof of a certain theory of the whole system of nature, including humanity. The practical culmination of the alchemical quest presented a threefold aspect; the alchemists sought the stone of wisdom, for by gaining that they gained the control of wealth; they sought the universal panacea, for that would give them the power of enjoying wealth and life; they sought the soul of the world, for thereby they could hold communion with spiritual existences, and enjoy the fruition of spiritual life. The object of their search was to satisfy their material needs, their intellectual capacities, and their spiritual yearnings. The alchemists of the nobler sort always made the first of these objects subsidiary to the other two. . . .”[13]

[12] ARTHUR EDWARD WAITE: _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_ (1888), pp. 30, 31. As says another writer of the mystical school of thought: “If we look upon the subject [of Alchymy] from the point which affords the widest view, it may be said that Alchymy has two aspects: the simply material, and the religious. The dogma that Alchymy was only a form of chemistry is untenable by any one who has read the works of its chief professors. The doctrine that Alchymy was religion only, and that its chemical references were all blinds, is equally untenable in the face of history, which shows that many of its most noted professors were men who had made important discoveries in the domain of common chemistry, and were in no way notable as teachers either of ethics or religion” (“Sapere Aude,” _The Science of Alchymy, Spiritual and Material_ (1893), pp. 3 and 4).

[13] M. M. PATTISON MUIR, M.A.: _The Story of Alchemy and the Beginnings of Chemistry_ (1902), pp. 105 and 106.

The Basic Idea of Alchemy.

§ =9.= The famous axiom beloved by every alchemist--“_What is above is as that which is below, and what is below is as that which is above_”--although of questionable origin, tersely expresses the basic idea of Alchemy. The alchemists postulated and believed in a very real sense in the essential unity of the Cosmos. Hence, they held that there is a correspondence or analogy existing between things spiritual and things physical, the same laws operating in each realm. As writes Sendivogius “. . . the Sages have been taught of God that this natural world is only an image and material copy of a heavenly and spiritual pattern; that the very existence of this world is based upon the reality of its celestial archetype; and that God has created it in imitation of the spiritual and invisible universe, in order that men might be the better enabled to comprehend His heavenly teaching, and the wonders of His absolute and ineffable power and wisdom. Thus the Sage sees heaven reflected in Nature as in a mirror; and he pursues this Art, not for the sake of gold or silver, but for the love of the knowledge which it reveals; he jealously conceals it from the sinner and the scornful, lest the mysteries of heaven should be laid bare to the vulgar gaze.”[14]

[14] MICHAEL SENDIVOGIUS: _The New Chemical Light, Pt. II., Concerning Sulphur_ (_The Hermetic Museum_, vol. ii. p. 138).

The alchemists held that the metals are one in essence, and spring from the same seed in the womb of nature, but are not all equally matured and perfect, gold being the highest product of Nature’s powers. In gold, the alchemist saw a picture of the regenerate man, resplendent with spiritual beauty, overcoming all temptations and proof against evil; whilst he regarded lead--the basest of the metals--as typical of the sinful and unregenerate man, stamped with the hideousness of sin and easily overcome by temptation and evil; for whilst gold withstood the action of fire and all known corrosive liquids (save _aqua regia_ alone), lead was most easily acted upon. We are told that the Philosopher’s Stone, which would bring about the desired grand transmutation, is of a species with gold itself and purer than the purest; understood in the mystical sense this means that the regeneration of man can be effected only by Goodness itself--in terms of Christian theology, by the Power of the Spirit of Christ. The Philosopher’s Stone was regarded as symbolical of Christ Jesus, and in this sense we can understand the otherwise incredible powers attributed to it.

The Law of Analogy.

§ =10.= With the theories of physical Alchemy we shall deal at length in the following chapter, but enough has been said to indicate the analogy existing, according to the alchemistic view, between the problem of the perfection of the metals, _i.e._, the transmutation of the “base” metals into gold, and the perfection or transfiguration of spiritual man; and it might also be added, between these problems and that of the perfection of man considered physiologically. To the alchemistic philosopher these three problems were one: the same problem on different planes of being; and the solution was likewise one. He who held the key to one problem held the key to all three, provided he understood the analogy between matter and spirit. The point is not, be it noted, whether these problems are in reality one and the same; the main doctrine of analogy, which is, indeed, an essential element in all true mystical philosophy, will, we suppose, meet with general consent; but it will be contended (and rightly, we think) that the analogies drawn by the alchemists are fantastic and by no means always correct, though possibly there may be more truth in them than appears at first sight. The point is not that these analogies are correct, but that they were regarded as such by all true alchemists. Says the author of _The Sophic Hydrolith_: “. . . the practice of this Art enables us to understand, not merely the marvels of Nature, but the nature of God Himself, in all its unspeakable glory. It shadows forth, in a wonderful manner . . . all the articles of the Christian faith, and the reason why man must pass through much tribulation and anguish, and fall a prey to death, before he can rise again to a new life.”[15] A considerable portion of this curious alchemistic work is taken up in expounding the analogy believed to exist between the Philosopher’s Stone and “the Stone which the builders rejected,” Christ Jesus; and the writer concludes: “Thus . . . I have briefly and simply set forth to you the perfect analogy which exists between our earthly and chemical and the true and heavenly Stone, Jesus Christ, whereby we may attain unto certain beatitude and perfection, not only in earthly but also in eternal life.”[16] And likewise says Peter Bonus: “I am firmly persuaded that any unbeliever who got truly to know this Art, would straightway confess the truth of our Blessed Religion, and believe in the Trinity and in our Lord Jesus Christ.”[17]

[15] _The Sophic Hydrolith; or, Water Stone of the Wise_ (see _The Hermetic Museum_, vol. i. p. 88).

[16] _Ibid._ p. 114.

[17] PETER BONUS: _The New Pearl of Great Price_ (Mr. A. E. Waite’s translation, p. 275).

The Dual Nature of Alchemy.

§ =11.= For the most part, the alchemists were chiefly engaged with the carrying out of the alchemistic theory on the physical plane, _i.e._, with the attempt to transmute the “base” metals into the “noble” ones; some for the love of knowledge, but alas! the vast majority for the love of mere wealth. But all who were worthy of the title of “alchemist” realised at times, more or less dimly, the possibility of the application of the same methods to man and the glorious result of the transmutation of man’s soul into spiritual gold. There were a few who had a clearer vision of this ideal, those who devoted their activities entirely, or almost so, to the attainment of this highest goal of alchemistic philosophy, and concerned themselves little if at all with the analogous problem on the physical plane. The theory that Alchemy originated in the attempt to demonstrate the applicability of the principles of Mysticism to the things of the physical realm brings into harmony the physical and transcendental theories of Alchemy and the various conflicting facts advanced in favour of each. It explains the existence of the above-mentioned, two very different types of alchemists. It explains the appeal to the works attributed to Hermes, and the presence in the writings of the alchemists of much that is clearly mystical. And finally, it is in agreement with such statements as we have quoted above from _The Sophic Hydrolith_ and elsewhere, and the general religious tone of the alchemistic writings.

[Illustration: PLATE 2.

Symbolical Illustration

Representing the Trinity of Body, Soul and Spirit.

[_To face page 15_]

“Body, Soul and Spirit.”

§ =12.= In accordance with our primary object as stated in the preface, we shall confine our attention mainly to the physical aspect of Alchemy; but in order to understand its theories, it appears to us to be essential to realise the fact that Alchemy was an attempted application of the principles of Mysticism to the things of the physical world. The supposed analogy between man and the metals sheds light on what otherwise would be very difficult to understand. It helps to make plain why the alchemists attributed moral qualities to the metals--some are called “imperfect,” “base”; others are said to be “perfect,” “noble.” And especially does it help to explain the alchemistic notions regarding the nature of the metals. The alchemists believed that the metals were constructed after the manner of man, into whose constitution three factors were regarded as entering: body, soul, and spirit. As regards man, mystical philosophers generally use these terms as follows: “body” is the outward manifestation and form; “soul” is the inward individual spirit[18]; and “spirit” is the universal Soul in all men. And likewise, according to the alchemists, in the metals, there is the “body” or outward form and properties, “metalline soul” or spirit,[19] and finally, the all-pervading essence of all metals. As writes the author of the exceedingly curious tract entitled _The Book of Lambspring_: “Be warned and understand truly that two fishes are swimming in our sea,” illustrating his remark by the symbolical picture reproduced in plate 2, and adding in elucidation thereof, “The Sea is the Body, the two Fishes are Soul and Spirit.”[20] The alchemists, however, were not always consistent in their use of the term “spirit.” Sometimes (indeed frequently) they employed it to denote merely the more volatile portions of a chemical substance; at other times it had a more interior significance.

[18] Which, in virtue of man’s self-consciousness, is, by the grace of God, immortal.

[19] See the work _Of Natural and Supernatural Things_, attributed to “Basil Valentine,” for a description of the “spirits” of the metals in particular.

[20] _The Book of Lambspring_, translated by Nicholas Barnaud Delphinas (see the _Hermetic Museum_, vol. i. p. 277). This work contains many other fantastic alchemistic symbolical pictures, amongst the most curious series in alchemistic literature.

Alchemy, Mysticism and Modern Science.

§ =13.= We notice the great difference between the alchemistic theory and the views regarding the constitution of matter which have dominated Chemistry since the time of Dalton. But at the present time Dalton’s theory of the chemical elements is undergoing a profound modification. We do not imply that Modern Science is going back to any such fantastic ideas as were held by the alchemists, but we are struck with the remarkable similarity between this alchemistic theory of a soul of all metals, a one primal element, and modern views regarding the ether of space. In its attempt to demonstrate the applicability of the fundamental principles of Mysticism to the things of the physical realm Alchemy apparently failed and ended its days in fraud. It appears, however, that this true aim of alchemistic art--particularly the demonstration of the validity of the theory that all the various forms of matter are produced by an evolutionary process from some one primal element or _quintessence_--is being realised by recent researches in the domain of physical and chemical science.

Chapter II

The Theory Of Physical Alchemy

Supposed Proofs of Transmutation.

§ =14.= It must be borne in mind when reviewing the theories of the alchemists, that there were a number of phenomena known at the time, the superficial examination of which would naturally engender a belief that the transmutation of the metals was a common occurrence. For example, the deposition of copper on iron when immersed in a solution of a copper salt (_e.g._, blue vitriol) was naturally concluded to be a transmutation of iron into copper,[21] although, had the alchemists examined the residual liquid, they would have found that the two metals had merely exchanged places; and the fact that white and yellow alloys of copper with arsenic and other substances could be produced, pointed to the possibility of transmuting copper into silver and gold. It was also known that if water (and this is true of distilled water which does not contain solid matter in solution) was boiled for some time in a glass flask, some solid, earthy matter was produced; and if water could be transmuted into earth, surely one metal could be converted into another.[22] On account of these and like phenomena the alchemists regarded the transmutation of the metals as an experimentally proved fact. Even if they are to be blamed for their superficial observation of such phenomena, yet, nevertheless, their labours marked a distinct advance upon the purely speculative and theoretical methods of the philosophers preceding them. Whatever their faults, the alchemists _were_ the forerunners of modern experimental science.

[21] Cf. _The Golden Tract concerning the Stone of the Philosophers_ (_The Hermetic Museum_, vol. i. p. 25).

[22] Lavoisier (eighteenth century) proved this apparent transmutation to be due to the action of the water on the glass vessel containing it.

The Alchemistic Elements.

§ =15.= The alchemists regarded the metals as composite, and granting this, then the possibility of transmutation is only a logical conclusion. In order to understand the theory of the elements held by them we must rid ourselves of any idea that it bears any close resemblance to Dalton’s theory of the chemical elements; this is clear from what has been said in the preceding chapter. Now, it is a fact of simple observation that many otherwise different bodies manifest some property in common, as, for instance, combustibility. Properties such as these were regarded as being due to some principle or element common to all bodies exhibiting such properties; thus, combustibility was thought to be due to some elementary principle of combustion--the “sulphur” of the alchemists and the “phlogiston” of a later period. This is a view which _à priori_ appears to be not unlikely; but it is now known that, although there are relations existing between the properties of bodies and their constituent chemical elements (and also, it should be noted, the relative arrangement of the particles of these elements), it is the less obvious properties which enable chemists to determine the constitution of bodies, and the connection is very far from being of the simple nature imagined by the alchemists.

Aristotle’s Views regarding the Elements.

§ =16.= For the origin of the alchemistic theory of the elements it is necessary to go back to the philosophers preceding the alchemists, and it is not improbable that they derived it from some still older source. It was taught by Empedocles of Agrigent (440 B.C. _circa_), who considered that there were four elements--earth, water, air, and fire. Aristotle added a fifth, “the ether.” These elements were regarded, not as different kinds of matter, but rather as different forms of the one original matter, whereby it manifested different properties. It was thought that to these elements were due the four primary properties of dryness, moistness, warmth, and coldness, each element being supposed to give rise to two of these properties, dryness and warmth being thought to be due to fire, moistness and warmth to air, moistness and coldness to water, and dryness and coldness to earth. Thus, moist and cold bodies (liquids in general) were said to possess these properties in consequence of the aqueous element, and were termed “waters,” &c. Also, since these elements were not regarded as different kinds of matter, transmutation was thought to be possible, one being convertible into another, as in the example given above (§ 14).

The Sulphur-Mercury Theory.

§ =17.= Coming to the alchemists, we find the view that the metals are all composed of two elementary principles--sulphur and mercury--in different proportions and degrees of purity, well-nigh universally accepted in the earlier days of Alchemy. By these terms “sulphur” and “mercury,” however, must not be understood the common bodies ordinarily designated by these names; like the elements of Aristotle, the alchemistic principles were regarded as properties rather than as substances, though it must be confessed that the alchemists were by no means always clear on this point themselves. Indeed, it is not altogether easy to say exactly what the alchemists did mean by these terms, and the question is complicated by the fact that very frequently they make mention of different sorts of “sulphur” and “mercury.” Probably, however, we shall not be far wrong in saying that “sulphur” was generally regarded as the principle of combustion and also of colour, and was said to be present on account of the fact that most metals are changed into earthy substances by the aid of fire; and to the “mercury,” the metallic principle _par excellence_, was attributed such properties as fusibility, malleability and lustre, which were regarded as characteristic of the metals in general. The pseudo-Geber (see § 32) says that “Sulphur is a fatness of the Earth, by temperate Decoction in the Mine of the Earth thickened, until it be hardned and made dry.”[23] He considered an excess of sulphur to be a cause of imperfection in the metals, and he writes that one of the causes of the corruption of the metals by fire “is the Inclusion of a burning Sulphuriety in the profundity of their Substance, diminishing them by Inflamation, and exterminating also into Fume, with extream Consumption, whatsoever Argentvive in them is of good Fixation.”[24] He assumed, further, that the metals contained an incombustible as well as a combustible sulphur, the latter sulphur being apparently regarded as an impurity.[25] A later alchemist says that sulphur is “most easily recognised by the vital spirit in animals, the colour in metals, the odour in plants.”[26] Mercury, on the other hand, according to the pseudo-Geber, is the cause of perfection in the metals, and endows gold with its lustre. Another alchemist, quoting Arnold de Villanova, writes: “Quicksilver is the elementary form of all things fusible; for all things fusible, when melted, are changed into it, and it mingles with them because it is of the same substance with them. Such bodies differ from quicksilver in their composition only so far as itself is or is not free from the foreign matter of impure sulphur.”[27] The obtaining of “philosophical mercury,” the imaginary virtues of which the alchemists never tired of relating, was generally held to be essential for the attainment of the _magnum opus_. It was commonly thought that it could be prepared from ordinary quicksilver by purificatory processes, whereby the impure sulphur supposed to be present in this sort of mercury might be purged away.

[23] _Of the Sum of Perfection_ (see _The Works of Geber_, translated by Richard Russel, 1678, pp. 69 and 70).

[24] _Of the Sum of Perfection_ (see _The Works of Geber_, p. 156).

[25] See _The Works of Geber_, p. 160. This view was also held by other alchemists.

[26] _The New Chemical Light_, Part II., _Concerning Sulphur_ (see _The Hermetic Museum_, vol. ii. p. 151).

[27] See _The Golden Tract concerning the Stone of the Philosophers_ (_The Hermetic Museum_, vol. i. p. 17).

The sulphur-mercury theory of the metals was held by such famous alchemists as Roger Bacon, Arnold de Villanova and Raymond Lully. Until recently it was thought to have originated to a great extent with the Arabian alchemist, Geber; but the late Professor Berthelot showed that the works ascribed to Geber, in which the theory is put forward, are forgeries of a date by which it was already centuries old (see § 32). Occasionally, arsenic was regarded as an elementary principle (this view is to be found, for example, in the work _Of the Sum of Perfection_, by the pseudo-Geber), but the idea was not general.

The Sulphur-Mercury-Salt Theory.

§ =18.= Later in the history of Alchemy, the mercury-sulphur theory was extended by the addition of a third elementary principle, salt. As in the case of philosophical sulphur and mercury, by this term was not meant common salt (sodium chloride) or any of those substances commonly known as salts. “Salt” was the name given to a supposed basic principle in the metals, a principle of fixity and solidification, conferring the property of resistance to fire. In this extended form, the theory is found in the works of Isaac of Holland and in those attributed to “Basil Valentine,” who (see the work _Of Natural and Supernatural Things_) attempts to explain the differences in the properties of the metals as the result of the differences in the proportion of sulphur, salt, and mercury they contain. Thus, copper, which is highly coloured, is said to contain much sulphur, whilst iron is supposed to contain an excess of salt, &c. The sulphur-mercury-salt theory was vigorously championed by Paracelsus, and the doctrine gained very general acceptance amongst the alchemists. Salt, however, seems generally to have been considered a less important principle than either mercury or sulphur.

The same germ-idea underlying these doctrines is to be found much later in Stahl’s phlogistic theory (eighteenth century), which attempted to account for the combustibility of bodies by the assumption that such bodies all contain “phlogiston”--the hypothetical principle of combustion (see § 72)--though the concept of “phlogiston” approaches more nearly to the modern idea of an element than do the alchemistic elements or principles. It was not until still later in the history of Chemistry that it became quite evident that the more obvious properties of chemical substances are not specially conferred on them in virtue of certain elements entering into their constitution.

Alchemistic Elements and Principles.

§ =19.= The alchemists combined the above theories with Aristotle’s theory of the elements. The latter, namely, earth, air, fire and water, were regarded as more interior, more primary, than the principles, whose source was said to be these same elements. As writes Sendivogius in Part II. of _The New Chemical Light_: “The three Principles of things are produced out of the four elements in the following manner: Nature, whose power is in her obedience to the Will of God, ordained from the very beginning, that the four elements should incessantly act on one another so, in obedience to her behest, fire began to act on air, and produced Sulphur; air acted on water, and produced Mercury; water, by its action on the earth, produced Salt. Earth, alone, having nothing to act upon, did not produce anything, but became the nurse, or womb, of these three Principles. We designedly speak of three Principles; for though the Ancients mention only two, it is clear that they omitted the third (Salt) not from ignorance, but from a desire to lead the uninitiated astray.”[28]

[28] _The New Chemical Light_, Part II., _Concerning Sulphur_ (see _The Hermetic Museum_, vol. ii. pp. 142-143).

Beneath and within all these coverings of outward properties, taught the alchemists, is hidden the secret essence of all material things. “. . . the elements and compounds,” writes one alchemist, “in addition to crass matter, are composed of a subtle substance, or intrinsic radical humidity, diffused through the elemental parts, simple and wholly incorruptible, long preserving the things themselves in vigour, and called the Spirit of the World, proceeding from the Soul of the World, the one certain life, filling and fathoming all things, gathering together and connecting all things, so that from the three genera of creatures, Intellectual, Celestial, and Corruptible, there is formed the One Machine of the whole world.”[29] It is hardly necessary to point out how nearly this approaches modern views regarding the Ether of Space.

[29] ALEXANDER VON SUCHTEN: _Man, the best and most perfect of God’s creatures. A more complete Exposition of this Medical Foundation for the less Experienced Student._ (See BENEDICTUS FIGULUS: _A Golden and Blessed Casket of Nature’s Marvels_, translated by A. E. Waite, 1893, pp. 71 and 72.)

The Growth of the Metals.

§ =20.= The alchemists regarded the metals as growing in the womb of the earth, and a knowledge of this growth as being of very great importance. Thomas Norton (who, however, contrary to the generality of alchemists, denied that metals have seed and that they grow in the sense of multiply) says:--

“_Mettalls_ of kinde grow lowe under ground, For above erth rust in them is found; Soe above erth appeareth corruption, Of mettalls, and in long tyme destruction, Whereof noe Cause is found in this Case, Buth that above Erth thei be not in their place Contrarie places to nature causeth strife As Fishes out of water losen their Lyfe: And Man, with Beasts, and Birds live in ayer, But Stones and Mineralls under Erth repaier.”[30]

[30] THOMAS NORTON: _Ordinall of Alchemy_ (see _Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum_, edited by Elias Ashmole, 1652, p. 18).

Norton here expresses the opinion, current among the alchemists, that each and every thing has its own peculiar environment natural to it; a view controverted by Robert Boyle (§ 71). So firm was the belief in the growth of metals, that mines were frequently closed for a while in order that the supply of metal might be renewed. The fertility of Mother Earth forms the subject of one of the illustrations in _The Twelve Keys_ of “Basil Valentine” (see § 41). We reproduce it in plate 3, fig. A. Regarding this subject, the author writes: “The quickening power of the earth produces all things that grow forth from it, and he who says that the earth has no life makes a statement which is flatly contradicted by the most ordinary facts. For what is dead cannot produce life and growth, seeing that it is devoid of the quickening spirit. This spirit is the life and soul that dwell in the earth, and are nourished by heavenly and sidereal influences. For all herbs, trees, and roots, and all metals and minerals, receive their growth and nutriment from the spirit of the earth, which is the spirit of life. This spirit is itself fed by the stars, and is thereby rendered capable of imparting nutriment to all things that grow, and of nursing them as a mother does her child while it is yet in the womb. The minerals are hidden in the womb of the earth, and nourished by her with the spirit which she receives from above.

“Thus the power of growth that I speak of is imparted not by the earth, but by the life-giving spirit that is in it. If the earth were deserted by this spirit, it would be dead, and no longer able to afford nourishment to anything. For its sulphur or richness would lack the quickening spirit without which there can be neither life nor growth.”[31]

[31] “BASIL VALENTINE”: _The Twelve Keys_ (see _The Hermetic Museum_, vol. i. pp. 333-334).

[Illustration: PLATE 3.

A.

Symbolical Illustration

Representing the Fertility of the Earth.

B.

Symbolical Illustration

Representing the Amalgamation of Gold with Mercury.

(See page 33.)

_To face page 26_]]

Alchemy and Astrology.

§ =21.= The idea that the growth of each metal was under the influence of one of the heavenly bodies (a theory in harmony with the alchemistic view of the unity of the Cosmos), was very generally held by the alchemists; and in consequence thereof, the metals were often referred to by the names or astrological symbols of their peculiar planets. These particulars are shown in the following table:--

-----------+----------------------+-------------- Metals. | Planets, &c.[32] | Symbols. -----------+----------------------+-------------- Gold | Sun | ☉ Silver | Moon | ☽ Mercury | Mercury | ☿ Copper | Venus | ♀ Iron | Mars | ♂ Tin | Jupiter | ♃ Lead | Saturn | ♄ -----------+----------------------+--------------

Moreover, it was thought by some alchemists that a due observance of astrological conditions was necessary for successfully carrying out important alchemistic experiments.

[32] This supposed connection between the metals and planets also played an important part in Talismanic Magic.

Alchemistic View of the Nature of Gold.

§ =22.= The alchemists regarded gold as the most perfect metal, silver being considered more perfect than the rest. The reason of this view is not difficult to understand: gold is the most beautiful of all the metals, and it retains its beauty without tarnishing; it resists the action of fire and most corrosive liquids, and is unaffected by sulphur; it was regarded, as we have pointed out above (see § 9), as symbolical of the regenerate man. Silver, on the other hand, is, indeed, a beautiful metal which wears well in a pure atmosphere and resists the action of fire; but it is attacked by certain corrosives (_e.g._, _aqua fortis_ or nitric acid) and also by sulphur. Through all the metals, from the one seed, Nature, according to the alchemists, works continuously up to gold; so that, in a sense, all other metals are gold in the making; their existence marks the staying of Nature’s powers; as “Eirenæus Philalethes” says: “All metallic seed is the seed of gold; for gold is the intention of Nature in regard to all metals. If the base metals are not gold, it is only through some accidental hindrance; they are all potentially gold.”[33] Or, as another alchemist puts it: “Since . . . the substance of the metals is _one_, and common to all, and since this substance is (either at once, or after laying aside in course of time the foreign and evil sulphur of the baser metals by a process of gradual digestion) changed by the virtue of its own indwelling sulphur into GOLD, which is the goal of all the metals, and the true intention of Nature--we are obliged to admit, and freely confess that in the mineral kingdom, as well as in the vegetable and animal kingdoms, Nature seeks and demands a gradual attainment of perfection, and a gradual approximation to the highest standard of purity and excellence.”[34] Such was the alchemistic view of the generation of the metals; a theory which is admittedly crude, but which, nevertheless, contains the germ of a great principle of the utmost importance, namely, the idea that all the varying forms of matter are evolved from some one primordial stuff--a principle of which chemical science lost sight for awhile, for its validity was unrecognised by Dalton’s Atomic Theory (at least, as enunciated by him), but which is being demonstrated, as we hope to show hereinafter, by recent scientific research. The alchemist was certainly a fantastic evolutionist, but he _was_ an evolutionist, and, moreover, he did not make the curious and paradoxical mistake of regarding the fact of evolution as explaining away the existence of God--the alchemist recognised the hand of the Divine in nature--and, although, in these days of modern science, we cannot accept his theory of the growth of metals, we can, nevertheless, appreciate and accept the fundamental germ-idea underlying it.

[33] “EIRENÆUS PHILALETHES”: _The Metamorphosis of Metals_ (see _The Hermetic Museum_, vol. ii. p. 239).

[34] _The Golden Tract Concerning the Stone of the Philosophers_ (see _The Hermetic Museum_, vol. i. p. 19).

The Philosopher’s Stone.

§ =23.= The alchemist strove to assist Nature in her gold-making, or, at least, to carry out her methods. The pseudo-Geber taught that the imperfect metals were to be perfected or cured by the application of “medicines.” Three forms of medicines were distinguished; the first bring about merely a temporary change, and the changes wrought by the second class, although permanent, are not complete. “A Medicine of the third Order,” he writes, “I call every Preparation, which, when it comes to Bodies, with its projection, takes away all Corruption, and perfects them with the Difference of all Compleatment. But this is one only.”[35] This, the true medicine that would produce a real and permanent transmutation, is the =Philosopher’s Stone=, the Masterpiece of alchemistic art. Similar views were held by all the alchemists, though some of them taught that it was necessary first of all to reduce the metals to their first substance. Often, two forms of the Philosopher’s Stone were distinguished, or perhaps we should say, two degrees of perfection in the one Stone; that for transmuting the “imperfect” metals into silver being said to be white, the stone or “powder of projection” for gold being said to be of a red colour. In other accounts (see Chapter V.) the medicine is described as of a pale brimstone hue.

[35] _Of the Sum of Perfection_ (see _The Works of Geber_, translated by Richard Russel, 1678, p. 192).

Most of the alchemists who claimed knowledge of the Philosopher’s Stone or the _materia prima_ necessary for its preparation, generally kept its nature most secret, and spoke only in the most enigmatical and allegorical language, the majority of their recipes containing words of unknown meaning. In some cases gold or silver, as the case may be, was employed in preparing the “medicine”; and, after projection had been made, this was, of course, obtained again in the metallic form, the alchemist imagining that a transmutation had been effected. In the case of the few other recipes that are intelligible, the most that could be obtained by following out their instructions is a white or yellow metallic alloy superficially resembling silver or gold.

The Nature of the Philosopher’s Stone.

§ =24.= The mystical as distinguished from the pseudo-practical descriptions of the Stone and its preparation are by far the more interesting of the two. Paracelsus, in his work on _The Tincture of the Philosophers_, tells us that all that is necessary for us to do is to mix and coagulate the “rose-coloured blood from the Lion” and “the gluten from the Eagle,” by which he probably meant that we must combine “philosophical sulphur” with “philosophical mercury.” This opinion, that the Philosopher’s Stone consists of “philosophical sulphur and mercury” combined so as to constitute a perfect unity, was commonly held by the alchemists, and they frequently likened this union to the conjunction of the sexes in marriage. “Eirenæus Philalethes” tells us that for the preparation of the Stone it is necessary to extract the seed of gold, though this cannot be accomplished by subjecting gold to corrosive liquids, but only by a homogeneous water (or liquid)--the Mercury of the Sages. In the _Book of the Revelation of Hermes, interpreted by Theophrastus Paracelsus, concerning the Supreme Secret of the World_, the Medicine, which is here, as not infrequently, identified with the alchemistic essence of all things or Soul of the World, is described in the following suggestive language: “This is the Spirit of Truth, which the world cannot comprehend without the interposition of the Holy Ghost, or without the instruction of those who know it. The same is of a mysterious nature, wondrous strength, boundless power. . . . By Avicenna this Spirit is named the Soul of the World. For, as the Soul moves all the limbs of the Body, so also does this Spirit move all bodies. And as the Soul is in all the limbs of the Body, so also is this Spirit in all elementary created things. It is sought by many and found by few. It is beheld from afar and found near; for it exists in every thing, in every place, and at all times. It has the powers of all creatures; its action is found in all elements, and the qualities of all things are therein, even in the highest perfection . . . it heals all dead and living bodies without other medicine, . . . converts all metallic bodies into gold, and there is nothing like unto it under Heaven.”[36]

[36] See BENEDICTUS FIGULUS: _A Golden and Blessed Casket of Nature’s Marvels_ (translated by A. E. Waite, 1893, pp. 36, 37, and 41).

The Theory of Development.

§ =25.= From the ascetic standpoint (and unfortunately, most mystics have been somewhat overfond of ascetic ideas), the development of the soul is only fully possible with the mortification of the body; and all true Mysticism teaches that if we would reach the highest goal possible for man--union with the Divine--there must be a giving up of our own individual wills, an abasement of the soul before the Spirit. And so the alchemists taught that for the achievement of the _magnum opus_ on the physical plane, we must strip the metals of their outward properties in order to develop the essence within. As says Helvetius: “. . . the essences of metals are hidden in their outward bodies, as the kernel is hidden in the nut. Every earthly body, whether animal, vegetable, or mineral, is the habitation and terrestrial abode of that celestial spirit, or influence, which is its principle of life or growth. The secret of Alchemy is the destruction of the body, which enables the Artist to get at, and utilise for his own purposes, the living soul.”[37] This killing of the outward nature of material things was to be brought about by the processes of putrefaction and decay; hence the reason why such processes figure so largely in alchemistic recipes for the preparation of the “Divine Magistery.” It must be borne in mind, however, that the alchemists used the terms “putrefaction” and “decay” rather indiscriminately, applying them to chemical processes which are no longer regarded as such. Pictorial symbols of death and decay representative of such processes are to be found in several alchemistic books. There is a curious series of pictures in _A Form and Method of Perfecting Base Metals_, by Janus Lacinus, the Calabrian (a short tract prefixed to _The New Pearl of Great Price_ by Peter Bonus--see § 39), of which we show three examples in plates 3 and 4. In the first picture of the series (not shown here) we enter the palace of the king (gold) and observe him sitting crowned upon his throne, surrounded by his son (mercury) and five servants (silver, copper, tin, iron and lead). In the next picture (plate 3, fig. B), the son, incited by the servants, kills his father; and, in the third, he catches the blood of his murdered parent in his robes; whereby we understand that an amalgam of gold and mercury is to be prepared, the gold apparently disappearing or dying, whilst the mercury is coloured thereby. The next picture shows us a grave being dug, _i.e._, a furnace is to be made ready. In the fifth picture in the series, the son “thought to throw his father into the grave, and to leave him there; but . . . both fell in together”; and in the sixth picture (plate 4, fig. A), we see the son being prevented from escaping, both son and father being left in the grave to decay. Here we have instructions in symbolical form to place the amalgam in a sealed vessel in the furnace and to allow it to remain there until some change is observed. So the allegory proceeds. Ultimately the father is restored to life, the symbol of resurrection being (as might be expected) of frequent occurrence in alchemistic literature. By this resurrection we understand that the gold will finally be obtained in a pure form. Indeed, it is now the “great medicine” and, in the last picture of the series (plate 4, fig. B), the king’s son and his five servants are all made kings in virtue of its powers.

[37] J. F. HELVETIUS: _The Golden Calf_, ch. iv. (see _The Hermetic Museum_, vol. ii. p. 298).

[Illustration: PLATE 4.

A.

Symbolical Illustration

Representing the Coction of Gold Amalgam in a Closed Vessel.

B.

Symbolical Illustration

Representing the Transmutation of the Metals.

[_To face page 33_]

The Powers of the Philosopher’s Stone.

§ =26.= The alchemists believed that a most minute proportion of the Stone projected upon considerable quantities of heated mercury, molten lead, or other “base” metal, would transmute practically the whole into silver or gold. This claim of the alchemists, that a most minute quantity of the Stone was sufficient to transmute considerable quantities of “base” metal, has been the object of much ridicule. Certainly, some of the claims of the alchemists (understood literally) are out of all reason; but on the other hand, the disproportion between the quantities of Stone and transmuted metal cannot be advanced as an _à priori_ objection to the alchemists’ claims, inasmuch that a class of chemical reactions (called “catalytic”) is known, in which the presence of a small quantity of some appropriate form of matter--the catalyst--brings about a chemical change in an indefinite quantity of some other form or forms; thus, for example, cane-sugar in aqueous solution is converted into two other sugars by the action of small quantities of acid; and sulphur-dioxide and oxygen, which will not combine under ordinary conditions, do so readily in the presence of a small quantity of platinized asbestos, which is obtained unaltered after the reaction is completed and may be used over and over again (this process is actually employed in the manufacture of sulphuric acid or oil of vitriol). However, whether any such catalytic transmutation of the chemical “elements” is possible is merely conjecture.

The Elixir of Life.

§ =27.= The Elixir of Life, which was generally described as a solution of the Stone in spirits of wine, or identified with the Stone itself, could be applied, so it was thought, under certain conditions to the alchemist himself, with an entirely analogous result, _i.e._, it would restore him to the flower of youth. The idea, not infrequently attributed to the alchemists, that the Elixir would endow one with a life of endless duration on the material plane is not in strict accord with alchemistic analogy. From this point of view, the effect of the Elixir is physiological perfection, which, although ensuring long life, is not equivalent to endless life on the material plane. “The Philosophers’ Stone,” says Paracelsus, “purges the whole body of man, and cleanses it from all impurities by the introduction of new and more youthful forces which it joins to the nature of man.”[38] And in another work expressive of the opinions of the same alchemist, we read: “. . . there is nothing which might deliver the mortal body from death; but there is One Thing which may postpone decay, renew youth, and prolong short human life . . .”[39] In the theory that a solution of the Philosopher’s Stone (which, it must be remembered, was thought to be of a species with gold) constituted the _Elixir Vitæ_, can be traced, perhaps, the idea that gold in a potable form was a veritable cure-all: in the latter days of Alchemy any yellow-coloured liquid was foisted upon a credulous public as a medicinal preparation of gold.

[38] THEOPHRASTUS PARACELSUS: _The Fifth Book of the Archidoxies_ (see _The Hermetic and Alchemical Writings of Paracelsus_, translated by A. E. Waite, 1894, vol. ii. p. 39).

[39] _The Book of the Revelation of Hermes, interpreted by Theophrastus Paracelsus, concerning the Supreme Secret of the World._ (See BENEDICTUS FIGULUS: _A Golden Casket of Nature’s Marvels_, translated by A. E. Waite, 1893, pp. 33 and 34.)

[Illustration: PLATE 5.

ALCHEMISTIC APPARATUS. A and B.--Two forms of Apparatus for Sublimation.

_To face page 37_]]

The Practical Methods of the Alchemists.

§ =28.= We will conclude this chapter with some few remarks regarding the practical methods of the alchemists. In their experiments, the alchemists worked with very large quantities of material compared with what is employed in chemical researches at the present day. They had great belief in the efficacy of time to effect a desired change in their substances, and they were wont to repeat the same operation (such as distillation, for example) on the same material over and over again; which demonstrated their unwearied patience, even if it effected little towards the attainment of their end. They paid much attention to any changes of colour they observed in their experiments, and many descriptions of supposed methods to achieve the _magnum opus_ contain detailed directions as to the various changes of colour which must be obtained in the material operated upon if a successful issue to the experiment is desired.[40] In plates 5 and 6 we give illustrations of some characteristic pieces of apparatus employed by the alchemists. Plate 5, fig. A, and plate 6, fig. A, are from a work known as _Alchemiae Gebri_ (1545); plate 5, fig. B, is from Glauber’s work on Furnaces (1651); and plate 6, fig. B, is from a work by Dr. John French entitled _The Art of Distillation_ (1651). The first figure shows us a furnace and alembics. The alembic proper is a sort of still-head which can be luted on to a flask or other vessel, and was much used for distillations. In the present case, however, the alembics are employed in conjunction with apparatus for subliming difficultly volatile substances. Plate 5, fig. B, shows another apparatus for sublimation, consisting of a sort of oven, and three detachable upper chambers, generally called aludels. In both forms of apparatus the vapours are cooled in the upper part of the vessel, and the substance is deposited in the solid form, being thereby purified from less volatile impurities. Plate 6, fig. A, shows an athanor (or digesting furnace) and a couple of digesting vessels. A vessel of this sort was employed for heating bodies in a closed space, the top being sealed up when the substances to be operated upon had been put inside, and the vessel heated in ashes in an athanor, a uniform temperature being maintained. The pelican, illustrated in plate 6, fig. B, was used for a similar purpose, the two arms being added in the idea that the vapours would be circulated thereby.

[40] As writes Espagnet in his _Hermetic Arcanum_, canons 64 and 65: “The Means or demonstrative signs are Colours, successively and orderly affecting the matter and its affections and demonstrative passions, whereof there are also three special ones (as critical) to be noted; to these some add a Fourth. The first is black, which is called the Crow’s head, because of its extreme blackness, whose crepusculum sheweth the beginning of the action of the fire of nature and solution, and the blackest midnight sheweth the perfection of liquefaction, and confusion of the elements. Then the grain putrefies and is corrupted, that it may be the more apt for generation. The white colour succeedeth the black, wherein is given the perfection of the first degree, and of the White Sulphur. This is called the blessed stone; this Earth is white and foliated, wherein Philosophers do sow their gold. The third is Orange colour, which is produced in the passage of the white to the red, as the middle, and being mixed of both is as the dawn with his saffron hair, a forerunner of the Sun. The fourth colour is Ruddy and Sanguine, which is extracted from the white fire only. Now because whiteness is easily altered by any other colour before day it quickly faileth of its candour. But the deep redness of the Sun perfecteth the work of Sulphur, which is called the Sperm of the male, the fire of the Stone, the King’s Crown, and the Son of Sol, wherein the first labour of the workman resteth.

“Besides these decretory signs which firmly inhere in the matter, and shew its essential mutations, almost infinite colours appear, and shew themselves in vapours, as the Rainbow in the clouds, which quickly pass away and are expelled by those that succeed, more affecting the air than the earth: the operator must have a gentle care of them, because they are not permanent, and proceed not from the intrinsic disposition of the matter, but from the fire painting and fashioning everything after its pleasure, or casually by heat in slight moisture” (see _Collectanea Hermetica_, edited by W. Wynn Westcott, vol. i., 1893, pp. 28 and 29). Very probably this is not without a mystical meaning as well as a supposed application in the preparation of the physical Stone.

[Illustration: PLATE 6.

ALCHEMISTIC APPARATUS. A.--An Athanor. B.--A Pelican.

_To face page 38_]]

Chapter III

The Alchemists[41]

(A. Before Paracelsus)

Hermes Trismegistos.

§ =29.= Having now considered the chief points in the theory of Physical Alchemy, we must turn our attention to the lives and individual teachings of the alchemists themselves. The first name which is found in the history of Alchemy is that of =Hermes Trismegistos=. We have already mentioned the high esteem in which the works ascribed to this personage were held by the alchemists (§ 6). He has been regarded as the father of Alchemy; his name has supplied a synonym for the Art--the Hermetic Art--and even to-day we speak of _hermetically_ sealing flasks and the like. But who Hermes actually was, or even if there were such a personage, is a matter of conjecture. The alchemists themselves supposed him to have been an Egyptian living about the time of Moses. He is now generally regarded as purely mythical--a personification of Thoth, the Egyptian God of learning; but, of course, some person or persons must have written the works attributed to him, and the first of such writers (if, as seems not unlikely, there were more than one) may be considered to have a right to the name. Of these works, the _Divine Pymander_,[42] a mystical-religious treatise, is the most important. The _Golden Tractate_, also attributed to Hermes, which is an exceedingly obscure alchemistic work, is now regarded as having been written at a comparatively late date.

[41] It is perhaps advisable to mention here that the lives of the alchemists, for the most part, are enveloped in considerable obscurity, and many points in connection therewith are in dispute. The authorities we have followed will be found, as a rule, specifically mentioned in what follows; but we may here acknowledge our general indebtedness to the following works, though, as the reader will observe, many others have been consulted as well: Thomas Thomson’s _The History of Chemistry_, Meyer’s _A History of Chemistry_, the anonymous _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_ (1815), the works of Mr. A. E. Waite, the _Dictionary of National Biography_, and certain articles in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_. This must not be taken to mean, however, that we have always followed the conclusions reached in these works, for so far as the older of them are concerned, recent researches by various authorities--to whom reference will be found in the following pages, and to whom, also, we are indebted--have shown, in certain cases, that such are not tenable.

[42] Dr. Everard’s translation of this work forms vol. ii. of the _Collectanea Hermetica_, edited by W. Wynn Westcott, M.B., D.P.H. It is now, however, out of print.

The Smaragdine Table.

§ =30.= In a work attributed to Albertus Magnus, but which is probably spurious, we are told that Alexander the Great found the tomb of Hermes in a cave near Hebron. This tomb contained an emerald table--“The Smaragdine Table”--on which were inscribed the following thirteen sentences in Phœnician characters:--

1. I speak not fictitious things, but what is true and most certain.

2. What is below is like that which is above, and what is above is like that which is below, to accomplish the miracles of one thing.

3. And as all things were produced by the mediation of one Being, so all things were produced from this one thing by adaptation.

4. Its father is the Sun, its mother the Moon; the wind carries it in its belly, its nurse is the earth.

5. It is the cause of all perfection throughout the whole world.

6. Its power is perfect if it be changed into earth.

7. Separate the earth from the fire, the subtle from the gross, acting prudently and with judgment.

8. Ascend with the greatest sagacity from the earth to heaven, and then again descend to the earth, and unite together the powers of things superior and things inferior. Thus you will obtain the glory of the whole world, and all obscurity will fly far away from you.

9. This thing is the fortitude of all fortitude, because it overcomes all subtle things, and penetrates every solid thing.

10. Thus were all things created.

11. Thence proceed wonderful adaptations which are produced in this way.

12. Therefore am I called Hermes Trismegistos, possessing the three parts of the philosophy of the whole world.

13. That which I had to say concerning the operation of the Sun is completed.

These sentences clearly teach the doctrine of the alchemistic essence or “One Thing,” which is everywhere present, penetrating even solids (this we should note is true of the ether of space), and out of which all things of the physical world are made by adaptation or modification. The terms Sun and Moon in the above passage probably stand for Spirit and Matter respectively, not gold and silver.

Zosimus of Panopolis.

§ =31.= One of the earliest of the alchemists of whom record remains was =Zosimus of Panopolis=, who flourished in the fifth century, and was regarded by the later alchemists as a master of the Art. He is said to have written many treatises dealing with Alchemy, but only fragments remain. Of these fragments, Professor Venable says: “. . . they give us a good idea of the learning of the man and of his times. They contain descriptions of apparatus, of furnaces, studies of minerals, of alloys, of glass making, of mineral waters, and much that is mystical, besides a good deal referring to the transmutation of metals.”[43] Zosimus is said to have been the author of the saying, “like begets like,” but whether all the fragments ascribed to him were really his work is doubtful.

[43] F. P. VENABLE, Ph.D.: _A Short History of Chemistry_ (1896), p. 13.

Among other early alchemists we may mention also =Africanus=, the Syrian; =Synesius=, Bishop of Ptolemais, and the historian, =Olympiodorus= of Thebes.

Geber.

§ =32.= In the seventh century the Arabians conquered Egypt; and strangely enough, Alchemy flourished under them to a remarkable degree. Of all the Arabian alchemists, =Geber= has been regarded as the greatest; as Professor Meyer says: “There can be no dispute that with the name _Geber_ was propagated the memory of a personality with which the chemical knowledge of the time was bound up.”[44] Geber is supposed to have lived about the ninth century, but of his life nothing definite is known. A large number of works have been ascribed to him, of which the majority are unknown, but the four Latin MSS. which have been printed under the titles _Summa Perfectionis Mettalorum_, _De Investigatione Perfectionis Metallorum_, _De Inventione Veritatis_ and _De Fornacibus Construendis_, were, until a few years ago, regarded as genuine. On the strength of these works, Geber has ranked high as a chemist. In them are described the preparation of many important chemical compounds; the most essential chemical operations, such as sublimation, distillation, filtration, crystallisation (or coagulation, as the alchemists called it), &c.; and also important chemical apparatus, for example, the water-bath, improved furnaces, &c. However, it was shown by the late Professor Berthelot that _Summa Perfectionis Mettalorum_ is a forgery of the fourteenth century, and the other works forgeries of an even later date. Moreover, the original Arabic MSS. of Geber have been brought to light. These true writings of Geber are very obscure; they give no warrant for believing that the famous sulphur-mercury theory was due to this alchemist, and they prove him not to be the expert chemist that he was supposed to have been. The spurious writings mentioned above show that the pseudo-Geber was a man of wide chemical knowledge and experience, and play a not inconsiderable part in the history of Alchemy.

[44] ERNST VON MEYER: _A History of Chemistry_ (translated by Dr. McGowan, 1906), p. 31.

Other Arabian Alchemists.

§ =33.= Among other Arabian alchemists the most celebrated were =Avicenna= and =Rhasis=, who are supposed to have lived some time after Geber; and to whom, perhaps, the sulphur-mercury theory may have been to some extent due.

The teachings of the Arabian alchemists gradually penetrated into the Western world, in which, during the thirteenth century, flourished some of the most eminent of the alchemists, whose lives and teachings we must now briefly consider.

[Illustration: PLATE 7.

[by de Bry]

Portrait Of Albertus Magnus.

_To face page 44_]]

Albertus Magnus (1193-1280).

§ =34.= =Albertus Magnus=, Albert Groot or Albert von Bollstädt (see plate 7), was born at Lauingen, probably in 1193. He was educated at Padua, and in his later years he showed himself apt at acquiring the knowledge of his time. He studied theology, philosophy and natural science, and is chiefly celebrated as an Aristotelean philosopher. He entered the Dominican order, taught publicly at Cologne, Paris and elsewhere, and was made provincial of this order. Later he had the bishopric of Regensburg conferred on him, but he retired after a few years to a Dominican cloister, where he devoted himself to philosophy and science. He was one of the most learned men of his time and, moreover, a man of noble character. The authenticity of the alchemistic works attributed to him has been questioned.

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274).

§ =35.= The celebrated Dominican, =Thomas Aquinas= (see plate 8), was probably a pupil of Albertus Magnus, from whom it is thought he imbibed alchemistic learning. It is very probable, however, that the alchemistic works attributed to him are spurious. The author of these works manifests a deeply religious tone, and, according to Thomson’s _History of Chemistry_, he was the first to employ the term “amalgam” to designate an alloy of mercury with some other metal.[45]

[45] THOMAS THOMSON: _The History of Chemistry_, vol. i. (1830), p. 33.

Roger Bacon (1214-1294).

§ =36.= =Roger Bacon=, the most illustrious of the mediæval alchemists, was born near Ilchester in Somerset, probably in 1214. His erudition, considering the general state of ignorance prevailing at this time, was most remarkable. Professor Meyer says: “He is to be regarded as the intellectual originator of experimental research, if the departure in this direction is to be coupled with any one name--a direction which, followed more and more as time went on, gave to the science [of Chemistry] its own peculiar stamp, and ensured its steady development.”[46] Roger Bacon studied theology and science at Oxford and at Paris; and he joined the Franciscan order, at what date, however, is uncertain. He was particularly interested in optics, and certain discoveries in this branch of physics have been attributed to him, though probably erroneously. It appears, also, that he was acquainted with gunpowder, which was, however, not employed in Europe until many years later.[47] Unfortunately, he earned the undesirable reputation of being in communication with the powers of darkness, and as he did not hesitate to oppose many of the opinions current at the time, he suffered much persecution. He was a firm believer in the powers of the Philosopher’s Stone to transmute large quantities of “base” metal into gold, and also to extend the life of the individual. “_Alchimy_,” he says, “is a Science, teaching how to transforme any kind of mettall into another: and that by a proper medicine, as it appeareth by many Philosophers Bookes. _Alchimy_ therefore is a science teaching how to make and compound a certaine medicine, which is called _Elixir_, the which when it is cast upon mettals or imperfect bodies, doth fully perfect them in the verie projection.”[48] He also believed in Astrology; but, nevertheless, he was entirely opposed to many of the magical and superstitious notions held at the time, and his tract, _De Secretis Operibus Artis et Naturæ, et de Nullitate Magiæ_, was an endeavour to prove that many so-called “miracles” could be brought about simply by the aid of natural science. Roger Bacon was a firm supporter of the Sulphur-Mercury theory: he says: “. . . the natural principles in the mynes, are _Argent-vive_, and _Sulphur_. All mettals and minerals, whereof there be sundrie and divers kinds, are begotten of these two: but I must tel you, that nature alwaies intendeth and striveth to the perfection of Gold: but many accidents coming between, change the metalls. . . . For according to the puritie and impuritie of the two aforesaide principles, _Argent-vive_ and _Sulphur_, pure, and impure mettals are ingendred.”[49] He expresses surprise that any should employ animal and vegetable substances in their attempts to prepare the Stone, a practice common to some alchemists but warmly criticised by others. He says: “Nothing may be mingled with mettalls which hath not beene made or sprung from them, it remaineth cleane inough, that no strange thing which hath not his originall from these two [viz., sulphur and mercury], is able to perfect them, or to make a chaunge and new transmutation of them: so that it is to be wondered at, that any wise man should set his mind upon living creatures, or vegetables which are far off, when there be minerals to bee found nigh enough: neither may we in any wise thinke, that any of the Philosophers placed the Art in the said remote things, except it were by way of comparison.”[50] The one process necessary for the preparation of the Stone, he tells us, is “continuall concoction” in the fire, which is the method that “God hath given to nature.”[51] He died about 1294.

[46] ERNST VON MEYER: _A History of Chemistry_ (translated by Dr. McGowan, 1906), p. 35.

[47] See ROGER BACON’S _Discovery of Miracles_, chaps. vi. and xi.

[48] ROGER BACON: _The Mirror of Alchimy_ (1597), p. 1.

[49] _Ibid._ p. 2.

[50] ROGER BACON: _The Mirror of Alchimy_ (1597), p. 4.

[51] _Ibid._ p. 9.

Arnold de Villanova (12--?-1310?).

§ =37.= The date and birthplace of =Arnold de Villanova=, or Villeneuve, are both uncertain. He studied medicine at Paris, and in the latter part of the thirteenth century practised professionally in Barcelona. To avoid persecution at the hands of the Inquisition, he was obliged to leave Spain, and ultimately found safety with Frederick II. in Sicily. He was famous not only as an alchemist, but also as a skilful physician. He died (it is thought in a shipwreck) about 1310-1313.

Raymond Lully (1235?-1315).

§ =38.= =Raymond Lully=, the son of a noble Spanish family, was born at Palma (in Majorca) about 1235. He was a man of somewhat eccentric character--in his youth a man of pleasure; in his maturity, a mystic and ascetic. His career was of a roving and adventurous character. We are told that, in his younger days, although married, he became violently infatuated with a lady of the name of Ambrosia de Castello, who vainly tried to dissuade him from his profane passion. Her efforts proving futile, she requested Lully to call upon her, and in the presence of her husband, bared to his sight her breast, which was almost eaten away by a cancer. This sight--so the story goes--brought about Lully’s conversion. He became actuated by the idea of converting to Christianity the heathen in Africa, and engaged the services of an Arabian whereby he might learn the language. The man, however, discovering his master’s object, attempted to assassinate him, and Lully narrowly escaped with his life. But his enthusiasm for missionary work never abated--his central idea was the reasonableness and demonstrability of Christian doctrine--and unhappily he was, at last, stoned to death by the inhabitants of Bugiah (in Algeria) in 1315.[52]

[52] See _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_ (1815), pp. 17 _et seq._

A very large number of alchemistic, theological and other treatises are attributed to Lully, many of which are undoubtedly spurious; and it is a difficult question to decide exactly which are genuine. He is supposed to have derived a knowledge of Alchemy from Roger Bacon and Arnold de Villanova. It appears more probable, however, either that Lully the alchemist was a personage distinct from the Lully whose life we have sketched above, or that the alchemistic writings attributed to him are forgeries of a similar nature to the works of pseudo-Geber (§ 32). Of these alchemical writings we may here mention the _Clavicula_. This he says is the key to all his other books on Alchemy, in which books the whole Art is fully declared, though so obscurely as not to be understandable without its aid. In this work an alleged method for what may be called the multiplication of the “noble” metals rather than transmutation is described in clear language; but it should be noticed that the stone employed is itself a compound either of silver or gold. According to Lully, the secret of the Philosopher’s Stone is the extraction of the mercury of silver or gold. He writes: “Metals cannot be transmuted . . . in the Minerals, unless they be reduced into their first Matter. . . . Therefore I counsel you, O my Friends, that you do not work but about _Sol_ and _Luna_, reducing them into the first Matter, our _Sulphur_ and _Argent vive_: therefore, Son, you are to use this venerable Matter; and I swear unto you and promise, that unless you take the _Argent vive_ of these two, you go to the Practick as blind men without eyes or sense. . . .”[53]

[53] RAYMOND LULLY: _Clavicula, or, A Little Key_ (see _Aurifontina Chymica_, 1680, p. 167).

Peter Bonus (14th Century).

§ =39.= In 1546, a work was published entitled _Magarita Pretiosa_, which claimed to be a “faithful abridgement,” by “Janus Lacinus Therapus, the Calabrian,” of a MS. written by =Peter Bonus= in the fourteenth century. An abridged English translation of this book by Mr. A. E. Waite was published in 1894. Of the life of Bonus, who is said to have been an inhabitant of Pola, a seaport of Istria, nothing is known; but the _Magarita Pretiosa_ is an alchemistic work of considerable interest. The author commences, like pseudo-Geber in his _Sum of Perfection_, by bringing forward a number of very ingenious arguments against the validity of the Art; he then proceeds with arguments in favour of Alchemy and puts forward answers in full to the former objections; further difficulties, &c., are then dealt with. In all this, compared with many other alchemists, Bonus, though somewhat prolix, is remarkably lucid. All metals, he argues, following the views of pseudo-Geber, consist of mercury and sulphur; but whilst the mercury is always one and the same, different metals contain different sulphurs. There are also two different kinds of sulphurs--inward and outward. Sulphur is necessary for the development of the mercury, but for the final product, gold, to come forth, it is necessary that the outward and impure sulphur be purged off. “Each metal,” says Bonus, “differs from all the rest, and has a certain perfection and completeness of its own; but none, except gold, has reached that highest degree of perfection of which it is capable. For all common metals there is a transient and a perfect state of inward completeness, and this perfect state they attain either through the slow operation of Nature, or through the sudden transformatory power of our Stone. We must, however, add that the imperfect metals form part of the great plan and design of Nature, though they are in course of transformation into gold. For a large number of very useful and indispensable tools and utensils could not be provided at all if there were no copper, iron, tin, or lead, and if all metals were either silver or gold. For this beneficent reason Nature has furnished us with the metallic substance in all its different stages of development, from iron, or the lowest, to gold, or the highest state of metallic perfection. Nature is ever studying variety, and, for that reason, instead of covering the whole face of the earth with water, has evolved out of that elementary substance a great diversity of forms, embracing the whole animal, vegetable and mineral world. It is, in like manner, for the use of men that Nature has differentiated the metallic substance into a great variety of species and forms.”[54] According to this interesting alchemistic work, the Art of Alchemy consists, not in reducing the imperfect metals to their first substance, but in carrying forward Nature’s work, developing the imperfect metals to perfection and removing their impure sulphur.

[54] PETER BONUS: _The New Pearl of Great Price_ (Mr. A. E. Waite’s translation, pp. 176-177).

Nicolas Flamel (1330-1418).

§ =40.= Nicolas Flamel (see plate 8) was born about 1330, probably in Paris. His parents were poor, and Nicolas took up the trade of a scrivener. In the course of time, Flamel became a very wealthy man and, at the same time, it appears, one who exhibited considerable munificence. This increase in Flamel’s wealth has been attributed to supposed success in the Hermetic Art. We are told that a remarkable book came into the young scrivener’s possession, which, at first, he was unable to understand, until, at last, he had the good fortune to meet an adept who translated its mysteries for him. This book revealed the occult secrets of Alchemy, and by its means Nicolas was enabled to obtain immense quantities of gold. This story, however, appears to be of a legendary nature, and it seems more likely that Flamel’s riches resulted from his business as a scrivener and from moneylending. At any rate, all of the alchemistic works attributed to Flamel are of more or less questionable origin. One of these, entitled _A Short Tract, or Philosophical Summary_, will be found in _The Hermetic Museum_. It is a very brief work, supporting the sulphur-mercury theory.

[Illustration: PLATE 8.

Portrait Of Thomas Aquinas.

Portrait Of Nicolas Flamel.

_To face page 52_]]

“Basil Valentine” and “The Triumphal Chariot of Antimony.”

§ =41.= Probably the most celebrated of all alchemistic books is the work known as _Triumph-Wagen des Antimonii_. A Latin translation with a commentary by Theodore Kerckringius was published in 1685, and an English translation of this version by Mr. A. E. Waite appeared in 1893. The author describes himself as “=Basil Valentine=, a Benedictine monk.” In his “_Practica_,” another alchemistic work, he says: “When I had emptied to the dregs the cup of human suffering, I was led to consider the wretchedness of this world, and the fearful consequences of our first parents’ disobedience . . . I made haste to withdraw myself from the evil world, to bid farewell to it, and to devote myself to the Service of God.”[55] He proceeds to relate that he entered a monastery, but finding that he had some time on his hands after performing his daily work and devotions, and not wishing to pass this time in idleness, he took up the study of Alchemy, “the investigation of those natural secrets by which God has shadowed out eternal things,” and at last his labours were rewarded by the discovery of a Stone most potent in the curing of diseases. In _The Triumphal Chariot of Antimony_ are accurately described a large number of antimonial preparations, and as Basil was supposed to have written this work some time in the fifteenth century, these preparations were accordingly concluded to have been, for the most part, his own discoveries. He defends with the utmost vigour the medicinal values of antimony, and criticises in terms far from mild the physicians of his day. On account of this work Basil Valentine has ranked very high as an experimental chemist; but from quite early times its date and authorship have been regarded alike as doubtful; and it appears from the researches of the late Professor Schorlemmer “to be an undoubted forgery dating from about 1600, the information being culled from the works of other writers. . . .”[56] Probably the other works ascribed to Basil Valentine are of a like nature. _The Triumphal Chariot of Antimony_ does, however, give an accurate account of the knowledge of antimony of this time, and the pseudo-Valentine shows himself to have been a man of considerable experience with regard to this subject.

[55] “BASIL VALENTINE”: _The “Practica”_ (see _The Hermetic Museum_, vol. i. p. 313).

[56] Sir H. E. ROSCOE, F.R.S., and C. SCHORLEMMER, F.R.S.: _A Treatise on Chemistry_, vol. i. (1905), p. 9.

Isaac of Holland (15th Century).

§ =42.= Isaac of Holland and a countryman of the same name, probably his son, are said to have been the first Dutch alchemists. They are supposed to have lived during the fifteenth century, but of their lives nothing is known. Isaac, although not free from superstitious opinions, appears to have been a practical chemist, and his works, which abound in recipes, were held in great esteem by Paracelsus and other alchemists. He held that all things in this world are of a dual nature, partly good and partly bad. “. . . All that God hath created good in the upper part of the world,” he writes, “are perfect and uncorruptible, as the heaven: but whatsoever in these lower parts, whether it be in beasts, fishes, and all manner of sensible creatures, hearbs or plants, it is indued with a double nature, that is to say, perfect, and unperfect; the perfect nature is called the Quintessence, the unperfect the Feces or dreggs, or the venemous or combustible oile. . . . God hath put a secret nature or influence in every creature, and . . . to every nature of one sort or kind he hath given one common influence and vertue, whether it bee on Physick or other secret works, which partly are found out by naturall workmanship. And yet more things are unknown than are apparent to our senses.”[57] He gives directions for extracting the Quintessence, for which marvellous powers are claimed, out of sugar and other organic substances; and he appears to be the earliest known writer who makes mention of the famous sulphur-mercury-salt theory.

[57] _One hundred and Fourteen Experiments and Cures of the Famous Physitian Theophrastus Paracelsus, whereunto is added . . . certain Secrets of Isaac Hollandus, concerning the Vegetall and Animall Work_ (1652), p. 35.

Bernard Trévisan (1406-1490).

§ =43.= =Bernard Trévisan=, a French count of the fifteenth century, squandered enormous sums of money in the search for the Stone, in which the whole of his life and energies were engaged. He seems to have become the dupe of one charlatan after another, but at last, at a ripe old age, he says that his labours were rewarded, and that he successfully performed the _magnum opus_. In a short, but rather obscure work, he speaks of the Philosopher’s Stone in the following words: “This Stone then is compounded of a Body and Spirit, or of a volatile and fixed Substance, and that is therefore done, because nothing in the World can be generated and brought to light without these two Substances, to wit, a Male and Female: From whence it appeareth, that although these two Substances are not of one and the same species, yet one Stone doth thence arise, and although they appear and are said to be two Substances, yet in truth it is but one, to wit, _Argent-vive_.”[58] He appears, however, to have added nothing to our knowledge of chemical science.

[58] BERNARD, EARL OF TRÉVISAN: _A Treatise of the Philosophers Stone_, 1683 (see _Collectanea Chymica: A Collection of Ten Several Treatises in Chemistry_, 1684, p. 91).

Sir George Ripley (14--?-1490?).

§ =44.= =Sir George Ripley=, an eminent alchemistic philosopher of the fifteenth century, entered upon a monastic life when a youth, becoming one of the canons regular of Bridlington. After some travels he returned to England and obtaining leave from the Pope to live in solitude, he devoted himself to the study of the Hermetic Art. His chief work is _The Compound of Alchymie . . . conteining twelve Gates_, which was written in 1471. In this curious work, we learn that there are twelve processes necessary for the achievement of the _magnum opus_, namely, Calcination, Solution, Separation, Conjunction, Putrefaction, Congelation, Cibation, Sublimation, Fermentation, Exaltation, Multiplication, and Projection. These are likened to the twelve gates of a castle which the philosopher must enter. At the conclusion of the twelfth gate, Ripley says:--

“Now thou hast conqueryd the _twelve Gates_, And all the Castell thou holdyst at wyll, Keep thy Secretts in store unto thy selve; And the commaundements of God looke thou fulfull: In fyer conteinue thy glas styll, And Multeply thy Medcyns ay more and more, For wyse men done say _store ys no sore_.”[59]

[59] Sir GEORGE RIPLEY: _The Compound of Alchemy_ (see _Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum_, edited by Elias Ashmole, 1652, p. 186).

At the conclusion of the work he tells us that in all that he wrote before he was mistaken; he says:--

“I made _Solucyons_ full many a one, Of Spyrytts, Ferments, Salts, Yerne and Steele; Wenyng so to make the Phylosophers Stone: But fynally I lost eche dele, After my Boks yet wrought I well; Whych evermore untrue I provyd, That made me oft full sore agrevyd.”[60]

[60] _Ibid._ p. 189.

Ripley did much to popularise the works of Raymond Lully in England, but does not appear to have added to the knowledge of practical chemistry. His _Bosom Book_, which contains an alleged method for preparing the Stone, will be found in the _Collectanea Chemica_ (1893).

Thomas Norton (15th Century).

§ =45.= =Thomas Norton=, the author of the celebrated _Ordinall of Alchemy_, was probably born shortly before the commencement of the fifteenth century. The _Ordinall_, which is written in verse (and which will be found in Ashmole’s _Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum_),[61] is anonymous, but the author’s identity is revealed by a curious device. The initial syllables of the proem and of the first six chapters, together with the first line of the seventh chapter, give the following couplet:--

“Tomais Norton of Briseto, A parfet _Master_ ye maie him call trowe.”

[61] A prose version will be found in _The Hermetic Museum_ translated back into English from a Latin translation by Maier.

Samuel Norton, the grandson of Thomas, who was also an alchemist, says that Thomas Norton was a member of the privy chamber of Edward IV. Norton’s distinctive views regarding the generation of the metals we have already mentioned (see § 20). He taught that true knowledge of the Art of Alchemy could only be obtained by word of mouth from an adept, and in his _Ordinall_ he gives an account of his own initiation. He tells us that he was instructed by his master (probably Sir George Ripley) and learnt the secrets of the Art in forty days, at the age of twenty-eight. He does not, however, appear to have reaped the fruits of this knowledge. Twice, he tells us, did he prepare the Elixir, and twice was it stolen from him; and he is said to have died in 1477, after ruining himself and his friends by his unsuccessful experiments.

Chapter IV

THE ALCHEMISTS (_continued_)

(B. Paracelsus And After)

Paracelsus (1493-1541.)

§ =46.= That erratic genius, =Paracelsus=--or, to give him his correct name, Philip (?) Aureole (?) =Theophrast Bombast von Hohenheim=--whose portrait forms the frontispiece to the present work--was born at Einsiedeln in Switzerland in 1493. He studied the alchemistic and medical arts under his father, who was a physician, and continued his studies later at the University of Basle. He also gave some time to the study of magic and the occult sciences under the famous Trithemius of Spanheim. Paracelsus, however, found the merely theoretical “book learning” of the university curriculum unsatisfactory and betook himself to the mines, where he might study the nature of metals at first hand. He then spent several years in travelling, visiting some of the chief countries of Europe. At last he returned to Basle, the chair of Medical Science of his old university being bestowed upon him. The works of Isaac of Holland had inspired him with the desire to improve upon the medical science of his day, and in his lectures (which were, contrary to the usual custom, delivered not in Latin, but in the German language) he denounced in violent terms the teachings of Galen and Avicenna, who were until then the accredited authorities on medical matters. His use of the German tongue, his coarseness in criticism and his intense self-esteem, combined with the fact that he did lay bare many of the medical follies and frauds of his day, brought him into very general dislike with the rest of the physicians, and the municipal authorities siding with the aggrieved apothecaries and physicians, whose methods Paracelsus had exposed, he fled from Basle and resumed his former roving life. He was, so we are told, a man of very intemperate habits, being seldom sober (a statement seriously open to doubt); but on the other hand, he certainly accomplished a very large number of most remarkable cures, and, judging from his writings, he was inspired by lofty and noble ideals and a fervent belief in the Christian religion. He died in 1541.

Paracelsus combined in himself such opposite characteristics that it is a matter of difficulty to criticise him aright. As says Professor Ferguson: “It is most difficult . . . to ascertain what his true character really was, to appreciate aright this man of fervid imagination, of powerful and persistent conviction, of unbated honesty and love of truth, of keen insight into the errors (as he thought them) of his time, of a merciless will to lay bare these errors and to reform the abuses to which they gave rise, who in an instant offends by his boasting, his grossness, his want of self-respect. It is a problem how to reconcile his ignorance, his weakness, his superstition, his crude notions, his erroneous observations, his ridiculous inferences and theories, with his grasp of method, his lofty views of the true scope of medicine, his lucid statements, his incisive and epigrammatic criticisms of men and motives.”[62] It is also a problem of considerable difficulty to determine which of the many books attributed to him are really his genuine works, and consequently what his views on certain points exactly were.

[62] JOHN FERGUSON, M.A.: Article “Paracelsus,” _Encyclopædia Britannica_, 9th edition (1885), vol. xviii. p. 236.

Views of Paracelsus.

§ =47.= Paracelsus was the first to recognise the desirability of investigating the physical universe with a motive other than alchemistic. He taught that “the object of chemistry is not to make gold, but to prepare medicines,” and founded the school of Iatro-chemistry or Medical Chemistry. This synthesis of chemistry with medicine was of very great benefit to each science; new possibilities of chemical investigation were opened up now that the aim was not purely alchemistic. Paracelsus’s central theory was that of the analogy between man, the microcosm, and the world or macrocosm. He regarded all the actions that go on in the human body as of a chemical nature, and he thought that illness was the result of a disproportion in the body between the quantities of the three great principles--sulphur, mercury, and salt--which he regarded as constituting all things; for example, he considered an excess of sulphur as the cause of fever, since sulphur was the fiery principle, &c. The basis of the iatro-chemical doctrines, namely, that the healthy human body is a particular combination of chemical substances: illness the result of some change in this combination, and hence curable only by chemical medicines, expresses a certain truth, and is undoubtedly a great improvement upon the ideas of the ancients. But in the elaboration of his medical doctrines Paracelsus fell a prey to exaggeration and the fantastic, and many of his theories appear to be highly ridiculous. This extravagance is also very pronounced in the alchemistic works attributed to him; for example, the belief in the artificial creation of minute living creatures resembling men (called “homunculi”)--a belief of the utmost absurdity, if we are to understand it literally. On the other hand, his writings do contain much true teaching of a mystical nature; his doctrine of the correspondence of man with the universe considered as a whole, for example, certainly being radically true, though fantastically stated and developed by Paracelsus himself.

Iatro-Chemistry.

§ =48.= Between the pupils of Paracelsus and the older school of medicine, as might well be supposed, a battle royal was waged for a considerable time, which ultimately concluded, if not with a full vindication of Paracelsus’s teaching, yet with the acceptance of the fundamental iatro-chemical doctrines. Henceforward it is necessary to distinguish between the chemists and the alchemists--to distinguish those who pursued chemical studies with the object of discovering and preparing useful medicines, and later those who pursued such studies for their own sake, from those whose object was the transmutation of the “base” metals into gold, whether from purely selfish motives, or with the desire to demonstrate on the physical plane the validity of the doctrines of Mysticism. However, during the following century or two we find, very often, the chemist and the alchemist united in one and the same person. Men such as Glauber and Boyle, whose names will ever be remembered by chemists, did not doubt the possibility of performing the _magnum opus_. In the present chapter, however, we shall confine our attention for the most part to those men who may be regarded, for one reason or another, particularly as _alchemists_. And the alchemists of the period we are now considering present a very great diversity. On the one hand, we have men of much chemical knowledge and skill such as Libavius and van Helmont, on the other hand we have those who stand equally as high as exponents of mystic wisdom--men such as Jacob Boehme and, to a less extent, Thomas Vaughan. We have those, who, although they did not enrich the science of Chemistry with any new discoveries, were, nevertheless, regarded as masters of the Hermetic Art; and, finally, we have alchemists of the Edward Kelley and “Cagliostro” type, whose main object was their own enrichment at their neighbours’ expense. Before, however, proceeding to an account of the lives and teachings of these men, there is one curious matter--perhaps the most remarkable of all historical curiosities--that calls for some brief consideration. We refer to the “far-famed” Rosicrucian Society.

The Rosicrucian Society.

§ =49.= The exoteric history of the Rosicrucian Society commences with the year 1614. In that year there was published at Cassel in Germany a pamphlet entitled _The Discovery of the Fraternity of the Meritorious Order of the Rosy Cross, addressed to the Learned in General and the Governors of Europe_. After a discussion of the momentous question of the general reformation of the world, which was to be accomplished through the medium of a secret confederacy of the wisest and most philanthropic men, the pamphlet proceeds to inform its readers that such an association is in existence, founded over one hundred years ago by the famous C.R.C., grand initiate in the mysteries of Alchemy, whose history (which is clearly of a fabulous or symbolical nature) is given. The book concludes by inviting the wise men of the time to join the Fraternity, directing those who wished to do so to indicate their desire by the publication of printed letters, which should come into the hands of the Brotherhood. As might well be expected, the pamphlet was the cause of considerable interest and excitement, but although many letters were printed, apparently none of them were vouchsafed a reply. The following year a further pamphlet appeared, _The Confession of the Rosicrucian Fraternity, addressed to the Learned in Europe_, and in 1616, _The Chymical Nuptials of Christian Rosencreutz_. This latter book is a remarkable allegorical romance, describing how an old man, a lifelong student of the alchemistic Art, was present at the accomplishment of the _magnum opus_ in the year 1459. An enormous amount of controversy took place; it was plain to some that the Society had deluded them, whilst others hotly maintained its claims; but after about four years had passed, the excitement had subsided, and the subject ceased, for the time being, to arouse any particular interest.

Some writers, even in recent times, more gifted for romance than for historical research, have seen in the Rosicrucian Society a secret confederacy of immense antiquity and of stupendous powers, consisting of the great initiates of all ages, supposed to be in possession of the arch secrets of alchemistic art. It is abundantly evident, however, that it was nothing of the sort. It is clear from an examination of the pamphlets already mentioned that they are animated by Lutheran ideals; and it is of interest to note that Luther’s seal contained both the cross and the rose--whence the term “Rosicrucian.” The generally accepted theory regards the pamphlets as a sort of elaborate hoax perpetrated by Valentine Andreä, a young and benevolent Lutheran divine; but more, however, than a mere hoax. As the late Mr. R. A. Vaughan wrote: “. . . this Andreä writes the _Discovery of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood, a jeu-d’esprit_ with a serious purpose, just as an experiment to see whether something cannot be done by combined effort to remedy the defect and abuses--social, educational, and religious, so lamented by all good men. He thought there were many Andreäs scattered throughout Europe--how powerful would be their united systematic action! . . . He hoped that the few nobler minds whom he desired to organize would see through the veil of fiction in which he had invested his proposal; that he might communicate personally with some such, if they should appear; or that his book might lead them to form among themselves a practical philanthropic confederacy, answering to the serious purpose he had embodied in his fiction.”[63] His scheme was a failure, and on seeing its result, Andreä, not daring to reveal himself as the author of the pamphlets, did his best to put a stop to the folly by writing several works in criticism of the Society and its claims. Mr. A. E. Waite, however, whose work on the subject should be consulted for further information, rejects this theory, and suggests that the Rosicrucian Society was probably identical with the _Militia Crucifera Evangelica_, a secret society founded in Nuremburg by the Lutheran alchemist and mystic, Simon Studion.[64]

[63] ROBERT ALFRED VAUGHAN, B.A.: _Hours with the Mystics_ (7th edition, 1895), vol. ii. bk. 8, chap. ix. p. 134.

[64] ARTHUR EDWARD WAITE: _The Real History of the Rosicrucians_, (1887).

Thomas Charnock (1524-1581).

§ =50.= We must now turn our attention to the lives and teachings of the alchemists of the period under consideration, treating them, as far as possible, in chronological order; whence the first alchemist to come under our notice is Thomas Charnock.

=Thomas Charnock= was born at Faversham (Kent), either in the year 1524 or in 1526. After some travels over England he settled at Oxford, carrying on experiments in Alchemy. In 1557 he wrote his _Breviary of Philosophy_. This work is almost entirely autobiographical, describing Charnock’s alchemistic experiences. He tells us that he was initiated into the mysteries of the Hermetic Art by a certain James S. of Salisbury; he also had another master, an old blind man, who on his death-bed instructed Charnock. Unfortunately, however, Thomas was doomed to failure in his experiments. On the first attempt his apparatus caught fire and his work was destroyed. His next experiments were ruined by the negligence of a servant. His final misfortune shall be described in his own words. He had started the work for a third time, and had spent much money on his fire, hoping to be shortly rewarded. . . .

“Then a _Gentleman_ that oughte me great mallice Caused me to be prest to goe serve at _Callys_: When I saw there was no other boote, But that I must goe spight of my heart roote; In my fury I tooke a Hatchet in my hand, And brake all my Worke whereas it did stand.”[65]

[65] THOMAS CHARNOCK: _The Breviary of Naturall Philosophy_ (see _Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum_, edited by Ashmole, 1652, p. 295.)

Thomas Charnock married in 1562 a Miss Agnes Norden. He died in 1581. It is, perhaps, unnecessary to say that his name does not appear in the history of Chemistry.

Andreas Libavius (1540-1616.)

§ =51.= =Andreas Libavius= was born at Halle in Germany in 1540, where he studied medicine and practiced for a short time as a physician. He accepted the fundamental iatro-chemical doctrines, at the same time, however, criticising certain of the more extravagant views expressed by Paracelsus. He was a firm believer in the transmutation of the metals, but his own activities were chiefly directed to the preparation of new and better medicines. He enriched the science of Chemistry by many valuable discoveries, and tin tetra-chloride, which he was the first to prepare, is still known by the name of _spiritus fumans Libavii_. Libavius was a man possessed of keen powers of observation; and his work on Chemistry, which contains a full account of the knowledge of the science of his time, may be regarded as the first text-book of Chemistry. It was held in high esteem for a considerable time, being reprinted on several occasions.

[Illustration: PLATE 9.

Portrait Of Edward Kelley.

Portrait Of John Dee.

_To face page 68_]]

Edward Kelley (1555-1595) and John Dee (1527-1608.)

§ =52.= Edward Kelley or Kelly (see plate 9) was born at Worcester on August 1, 1555. His life is so obscured by various traditions that it is very difficult to arrive at the truth concerning it. The latest, and probably the best, account will be found in Miss Charlotte Fell Smith’s _John Dee_ (1909). Edward Kelley, according to some accounts, was brought up as an apothecary.[66] He is also said to have entered Oxford University under the pseudonym of Talbot.[67] Later, he practised as a notary in London. He is said to have committed a forgery, for which he had his ears cropped; but another account, which supposes him to have avoided this penalty by making his escape to Wales, is not improbable. Other crimes of which he is accused are coining and necromancy. He was probably not guilty of all these crimes, but that he was undoubtedly a charlatan and profligate the sequel will make plain. We are told that about the time of his alleged escape to Wales, whilst in the neighbourhood of Glastonbury Abbey, he became possessed, by a lucky chance, of a manuscript by St. Dunstan setting forth the grand secrets of Alchemy, together with some of the two transmuting tinctures, both white and red,[68] which had been discovered in a tomb near by. His friendship with John Dee, or Dr. Dee as he is generally called, commenced in 1582. Now, =John Dee= (see plate 9) was undoubtedly a mathematician of considerable erudition. He was also an astrologer, and was much interested in experiments in “crystal-gazing,” for which purpose he employed a speculum of polished cannel-coal, and by means of which he believed that he had communication with the inhabitants of spiritual spheres. It appears that Kelley, who probably did possess some mediumistic powers, the results of which he augmented by means of fraud, interested himself in these experiments, and not only became the doctor’s “scryer,” but also gulled him into the belief that he was in the possession of the arch-secrets of Alchemy. In 1583, Kelley and his learned dupe left England together with their wives and a Polish nobleman, staying firstly at Cracovia and afterwards at Prague, where it is not unlikely that the Emperor Rudolph II. knighted Kelley. As instances of the belief which the doctor had in Kelley’s powers as an alchemist, we may note that in his Private Diary under the date December 19, 1586, Dee records that Kelley performed a transmutation for the benefit of one Edward Garland and his brother Francis;[69] and under the date May 10, 1588, we find the following recorded: “E.K. did open the great secret to me, God be thanked!”[70] That he was not always without doubts as to Kelley’s honesty, however, is evident from other entries in his Diary. In 1587 occurred an event which must be recorded to the partners’ lasting shame. To cap his former impositions, Kelley informed the doctor that by the orders of a spirit which had appeared to him in the crystal, they were to share “their two wives in common”; to which arrangement, after some further persuasion, Dee consented. Kelley’s profligacy and violent temper, however, had already been the cause of some disagreement between him and the doctor, and this incident leading to a further quarrel, the erstwhile friends parted. In 1589, the Emperor Rudolph imprisoned Kelley, the price of his freedom being the transmutative secret, or a substantial quantity of gold, at least, prepared by its aid. He was, however, released in 1593; but died in 1595; according to one account, as the result of an accident incurred while attempting to escape from a second imprisonment. Dee merely records that he received news to the effect that Kelley “was slayne.”

[66] See, for example, WILLIAM LILLY: _History of His Life and Times_ (1715, reprinted in 1822, p. 227).

[67] See ANTHONY À WOOD’S account of Kelley’s life in _Athenæ Oxonienses_ (3rd edition, edited by Philip Bliss, vol. i. col. 639.)

[68] William Lilly, the astrologer, in his _History of His Life and Times_ (1822 reprint, pp. 225-226), relates a different story regarding the manner in which Kelley is supposed to have obtained the Great Medicine, but as it is told at third hand, it is of little importance. We do not suppose that there can be much doubt that the truth was that Dee and others were deceived by some skilful conjuring tricks, for whatever else Kelley may have been, he certainly was a very ingenious fellow.

[69] _The Private Diary of Dr. John Dee_ (The Camden Society, 1842), p. 22.

[70] _The Private Diary of Dr. John Dee_ (The Camden Society, 1842), p. 27.

It was during his incarceration that he wrote an alchemistic work entitled _The Stone of the Philosophers_, which consists largely of quotations from older alchemistic writings. His other works on Alchemy were probably written at an earlier period.[71]

[71] An English translation of Kelley’s alchemistic works were published under the editorship of Mr. A. E. Waite, in 1893.

Henry Khunrath (1560-1605).

§ =53.= =Henry Khunrath= was born in Saxony in the second half of the sixteenth century. He was a follower of Paracelsus, and travelled about Germany, practising as a physician. “This German alchemist,” says Mr. A. E. Waite, “. . . is claimed as a hierophant of the psychic side of the _magnum opus_, and . . . was undoubtedly aware of the larger issues, of Hermetic theorems”; he describes Khunrath’s chief work, _Amphitheatrum Sapientiæ Æternæ_, &c., as “purely mystical and magical.”[72]

[72] A. E. WAITE: _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_ (1888), p. 159.

Alexander Sethon (?-1604) and Michael Sendivogius (1566?-1646).

§ =54.= The date and birthplace of =Alexander Sethon=, a Scottish alchemist, do not appear to have been recorded, but =Michael Sendivogius= was probably born in Moravia about 1566. Sethon, we are told, was in possession of the arch-secrets of Alchemy. He visited Holland in 1602, proceeded after a time to Italy, and passed through Basle to Germany; meanwhile he is said to have performed many transmutations. Ultimately arriving at Dresden, however, he fell into the clutches of the young Elector, Christian II., who, in order to extort his secret, cast him into prison, and put him to the torture, but without avail. Now, it so happened that Sendivogius, who was in quest of the Philosopher’s Stone, was staying at Dresden, and hearing of Sethon’s imprisonment obtained permission to visit him. Sendivogius offered to effect Sethon’s escape in return for assistance in his alchemistic pursuits, to which arrangement the Scottish alchemist willingly agreed. After some considerable outlay of money in bribery, Sendivogius’s plan of escape was successfully carried out, and Sethon found himself a free man; but he refused to betray the high secrets of Hermetic philosophy to his rescuer. However, before his death, which occurred shortly afterwards, he presented him with an ounce of the transmutative powder. Sendivogius soon used up this powder, we are told, in effecting transmutations and cures, and, being fond of expensive living, he married Sethon’s widow, in the hope that she was in the possession of the transmutative secret. In this, however, he was disappointed; she knew nothing of the matter, but she had the manuscript of an alchemistic work written by her late husband. Shortly afterwards Sendivogius printed at Prague a book entitled _The New Chemical Light_ under the name of “Cosmopolita,” which is said to be this work of Sethon’s but which Sendivogius claimed for his own by the insertion of his name on the title-page, in the form of an anagram. The tract _On Sulphur_ which was printed at the end of later editions, however, is said to have been the genuine work of the Moravian. Whilst his powder lasted, Sendivogius travelled about, performing, we are told, many transmutations. He was twice imprisoned in order to extort the secrets of Alchemy from him, on one occasion escaping, and on the other occasion obtaining his release from the Emperor Rudolph. Afterwards, he appears to have degenerated into an impostor, but this is said to have been a _finesse_ to hide his true character as an alchemistic adept. He died in 1646.[73]

[73] See F. B.: _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_ (1815), pp. 66-69.

The _New Chemical Light_ was held in great esteem by the alchemists. The first part treats at length of the generation of the metals and also of the Philosopher’s Stone, and claims to be based on practical experience. The seed of Nature, we are told, is one, but various products result on account of the different conditions of development. An imaginary conversation between Mercury, an Alchemist and Nature which is appended, is not without a touch of humour. Says the Alchemist, in despair, “Now I see that I know nothing; only I must not say so. For I should lose the good opinion of my neighbours, and they would no longer entrust me with money for my experiments. I must therefore go on saying that I know everything; for there are many that expect me to do great things for them. . . . There are many countries, and many greedy persons who will suffer themselves to be gulled by my promises of mountains of gold. Thus day will follow day, and in the meantime the King or the donkey will die, or I myself.”[74] The second part treats of the Elements and Principles (see §§ 17 and 19).

[74] _The New Chemical Light_, Part I. (see _The Hermetic Museum_, vol. ii. p. 125).

[Illustration: PLATE 10.

[by J. Brunn]

Portrait Of Michael Maier.

_To face page 72_]]

Michael Maier (1568-1622).

§ =55.= =Michael Maier= (see plate 10) was born at Rendsberg (in Holstein) about 1568. He studied medicine assiduously, becoming a most successful physician, and he was ennobled by Rudolf II. Later on, however, he took up the subject of Alchemy, and is said to have ruined his health and wasted his fortune in the pursuit of the alchemistic _ignis fatuus_--the Stone of the Philosophers--travelling about Germany and elsewhere in order to have converse with those who were regarded as adepts in the Art. He took a prominent part in the famous Rosicrucian controversy (see § 49), defending the claims of the alleged society in several tracts. He is said, on the one hand, to have been admitted as a member of the fraternity; and on the other hand, to have himself founded a similar institution. A full account of his views will be found in the Rev. J. B. Craven’s _Count Michael Maier: Life and Writings_ (1910). He was a very learned man, but his works are somewhat obscure and abound in fanciful allegories. He read an alchemistic meaning into the ancient fables concerning the Egyptian and Greek gods and heroes. Like most alchemists, he held the supposed virtues of mercury in high esteem. In his _Lusus Serius: or, Serious Passe-time_, for example, he supposes a Parliament of the various creatures of the world to meet, in order that Man might choose the noblest of them as king over all the rest. The calf, the sheep, the goose, the oyster, the bee, the silkworm, flax and mercury are the chosen representatives, each of which discourses in turn. It will be unnecessary to state that Mercury wins the day. Thus does Maier eulogise it: “Thou art the miracle, splendour and light of the world. Thou art the glory, ornament, and supporter of the Earth. Thou art the Asyle, Anchor, and tye of the Universe. Next to the minde of Man, God Created nothing more Noble, more Glorious, or more Profitable.”[75] His _Subtle Allegory concerning the Secrets of Alchemy, very useful to possess and pleasant to read_, will be found in the _Hermetic Museum_, together with his _Golden Tripod_, consisting of translations of “Valentine’s” “_Practica_” and _Twelve Keys_, Norton’s _Ordinal_ and Cremer’s spurious _Testament_.

[75] MICHAEL MAIER: _Lusus Serius: or Serious Passe-time_ (1654), p. 138.

[Illustration: Plate 11.

Portrait Of Jacob Boehme.

_To face page 74_]]

Jacob Boehme (1575-1624.)

§ =56.= =Jacob Boehme=, or Behmen (see plate 11), was born at Alt Seidenberg, a village near Görlitz, in 1575. His parents being poor, the education he received was of a very rudimentary nature, and when his schooling days were over, Jacob was apprenticed to a shoemaker. His religious nature caused him often to admonish his fellow-apprentices, which behaviour ultimately caused him to be dismissed. He travelled about as a journeyman shoemaker, returning, however, to Görlitz in 1594, where he married and settled in business. He claims to have experienced a wonderful vision in 1598, and to have had a similar vision two years later. In these visions, the first of which lasted for several days, he believed that he saw into the inmost secrets of nature; but what at first appeared dim and vague became clear and coherent in a third vision, which he tells us was vouchsafed to him in 1610. It was then that he wrote his first book, the _Aurora_, which he composed for himself only, in order that he should not forget the mysteries disclosed to him. At a later period he produced a large number of treatises of a mystical-religious nature, having spent the intervening years in improving his early education. These books aroused the ire of the narrow-minded ecclesiastical authorities of the town, and Jacob suffered considerable persecution in consequence. He visited Dresden in 1624, and in the same year was there taken ill with a fever. Returning to Görlitz, he expired in a condition of ecstasy.

Jacob Boehme was an alchemist of a purely transcendental order. He had, it appears, acquired some knowledge of Chemistry during his apprentice days, and he employed the language of Alchemy in the elaboration of his system of mystical philosophy. With this lofty mystical-religious system we cannot here deal; Boehme is, indeed, often accounted the greatest of true Christian mystics; but although conscious of his superiority over many minor lights, we think this title is due to Emanuel Swedenborg. The question of the validity of his visions is also one which lies beyond the scope of the present work;[76] we must confine our attention to Boehme as an alchemist. The Philosopher’s Stone, in Boehme’s terminology, is the Spirit of Christ which must “tincture” the individual soul. In one place he says, “_The Phylosophers Stone_ is a very dark disesteemed Stone, of a _Gray_ colour, but therein lyeth the highest Tincture.”[77] In the transcendental sense, this is reminiscent of the words of Isaiah: “He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. . . . He was despised and we esteemed him not,” &c.[78]

[76] For a general discussion of spiritual visions see the present writer’s _Matter, Spirit and the Cosmos_ (Rider, 1910), Chapter IV., “On Matter and Spirit.” Undoubtedly Boehme’s visions involved a valuable element of truth, but at the same time much that was purely relative and subjective.

[77] JACOB BOEHME: _Epistles_ (translated by J. E., 1649), Ep. iv. § 111, p. 65.

[78] _The Book of the Prophet Isaiah_, chap, liii., vv. 2 and 3, R.V.

J. B. van Helmont (1577-1644) and F. M. van Helmont (1618-1699.)

§ =57.= =John Baptist van Helmont= (see plate 12) was born in Brussels in 1577. He devoted himself to the study of medicine, at first following Galen, but afterwards accepting in part the teachings of Paracelsus; and he helped to a large extent in the overthrow of the old medical doctrines. His purely chemical researches were also of great value to the science. He was a man of profound knowledge, of a religious temperament, and he possessed a marked liking for the mystical. He was inspired by the writings of Thomas à Kempis to imitate Christ in all things, and he practised medicine, therefore, as a work of benevolence, asking no fee for his services. At the same time, moreover, he was a firm believer in the powers of the Philosopher’s Stone, claiming to have himself successfully performed the transmutation of the metals on more than one occasion, though unacquainted with the composition of the medicine employed (see § 62). Many of his theo