Part 6

The Corrina of Dryden (Mrs. Thomas) during her life, has recorded one of these delusions of Alchymy. From the circumstances, it is very probable the sage was not less deceived than his patroness. An infatuated lover of this delusive art met one who pretended to have the power of transmuting lead to gold; that is, in their language, the _imperfect_ metals to the _perfect_ one. This Hermetic philosopher required only the materials and time, to perform his golden operations. He was taken to the country residence of his patroness, a long laboratory was built, and that his labours might not be impeded by any disturbance, no one was permitted to enter into it. His door was contrived to turn on a pivot; so that, unseen and unseeing, his meals were conveyed to him without distracting the sublime contemplations of the sage.

During a residence of two years he never condescended to speak but two or three times in the year to his infatuated patroness. When she was admitted into the laboratory, she saw with pleasing astonishment, stills, immense cauldrons, long flues, and three or four Vulcanian fires, blazing at different corners of this magical mine: nor did she behold with less reverence the venerable figure of the dusty philosopher. Pale and emaciated with daily operations and nightly vigils, he revealed to her, in unintelligible jargon, his progress; and having sometimes condescended to explain the mysteries of the Arcana, she beheld or seemed to behold, streams of fluid, and heaps of solid ore, scattered around the laboratory. Sometimes he required a new still, and sometimes vast quantities of lead. She began now to lower her imagination to the standard of reason. Two years had now elapsed, vast quantities of lead had gone in, and nothing but lead had come out. She disclosed her sentiments to the philosopher; he candidly confessed he was himself surprised at his tardy processes; but that now he would exert himself to the utmost, and that he would venture to perform a laborious operation, which hitherto he had hoped not to have been necessitated to employ. His patroness retired, and the golden visions of expectation resumed all their lustre.

One day as they sat at dinner, a terrible shriek, and one crack followed by another loud as the report of cannon, assailed their ears. They hastened to the laboratory; two of the greatest stills had burst, and one part of the laboratory and the house were in flames. We are told that after another adventure of this kind, this victim to Alchymy, after ruining another patron, in despair swallowed poison.

Even more recently we have a history of an Alchymist in the life of Romney, the painter. This Alchymist, after bestowing much time and money on preparations for the grand projection, and being near the decisive hour, was induced, by the too earnest request of his wife, to quit his furnace one evening, to attend some of her company at the tea-table. While the projector was attending the ladies, his furnace blew up! In consequence of this event, he conceived such an antipathy against his wife, that he could not endure the idea of living with her again.

Henry IV. was so reduced by his extravagancies, that Evelyn observes in his Numismata, he endeavoured to recruit his empty coffers by an Alchymical speculation. The _record_ of this singular proposition, contains “the most solemn and serious account of the feasibility and virtues of the _philosopher’s stone_, encouraging the search after it, and dispensing with all statutes and prohibitions to the contrary.” This _record_ was very probably communicated (says an ingenious antiquary) by Mr. Selden to his beloved friend Ben Jonson, when he was writing his comedy of the Alchymist.

After this patent was published, many promised to answer the King’s expectations so effectually (adds the same writer) that the next year he published another patent; wherein he tells his subjects, that the _happy hour_ was drawing nigh, and by means of the STONE, which he should be master of, he would pay all the debts of the nation in _real gold_ and silver. The persons picked out for his new operations were as remarkable as the patent itself, being a most “miscellaneous rabble” of friars, grocers, mercers, and fishmongers!

This patent was likewise granted _authoritate parliamenti_.

Prynne, who has given this patent in his _Aurum Reginæ_, p. 135, concludes with this sarcastic observation:—“A project never so seasonable and necessary as now!” And this we repeat, and our successors will no doubt imitate us!

Alchymists were formerly called _multipliers_; as appears from a statute of Henry IV. repealed in the preceding record. The statute being extremely short, we shall give it for the reader’s satisfaction.

“None from henceforth shall use to multiply gold or silver, or use the _craft of multiplication_; and if any the same do, he shall incur the pain of felony.”

Every philosophical mind must be convinced that Alchymy is not an art, which some have fancifully traced to the _remotest times_; it may rather be regarded, when opposed to such a distance of time, as a modern imposture. Cæsar commanded the treatises of Alchymy to be burnt throughout the Roman dominions—Cæsar, who is not less to be admired as a philosopher than as a monarch.

Mr. Gibbon has the following succinct passage relative to Alchymy: “The ancient books of Alchymy, so liberally ascribed to Pythagoras, to Solomon, or to Hermes, were the pious frauds of more recent adepts. The Greeks were inattentive either to the use or abuse of chemistry. In that immense register, where Pliny has deposited the discoveries, the arts and the errors of mankind, there is not the least mention of the transmutation of metals; and the persecution of Dioclesian is the first authentic event in the history of Alchymy. The conquest of Egypt by the Arabs diffused that vain science over the globe. Congenial to the avarice of the human heart, it was studied in China as in Europe, with equal eagerness and equal success. The darkness of the middle ages ensured a favourable reception to every tale of wonder; and the revival of learning gave new vigour to hope, and suggested more specious arts to deception. Philosophy, with the aid of experience, has at length banished the study of Alchymy; and the present age, however desirous of riches, is content to seek them by the humbler means of commerce and industry.”

Elias Ashmole writes in his diary—“May 13, 1653. My father Backhouse (an Astrologer who had adopted him for his son—a common practice with these men) lying sick in Fleet Ditch, over against St. Dunstan’s church, and not knowing whether he should live or die, about eleven of the clock told me in _Syllables_ the true matter of the _Philosopher’s Stone_, which he bequeathed to me as a legacy.” By this we learn that a miserable wretch knew the art of _making gold_, yet always lived a beggar; and that Ashmole really imagined he was in possession of the _Syllables of a secret_! he has however built a curious monument of the learned follies of the last century, in his “Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum.” Though Ashmole is rather the historian of this vain science than an adept, it may amuse literary leisure to turn over his quarto volume, in which he has collected the works of several English Alchymists, to which he has subjoined his Commentary. It affords a curious specimen of Rosicrucian Mysteries; and Ashmole relates stories, which vie for the miraculous, with the wildest fancies of Arabian invention. Of the Philosopher’s Stone, he says, he knows enough to hold his tongue, but not enough to speak. This Stone has not only the power of transmuting any imperfect earthy matter into its utmost degree of perfection, and can convert the basest metals into gold, flints into stones, &c. but it has still more occult virtues, when the arcana have been entered into, by the choice fathers of hermetic mysteries. The vegetable stone has power over the natures of man, beast, fowls, fishes, and all kinds of trees and plants, to make them flourish and bear fruit at any time. The magical stone discovers any person wherever he is concealed; while the angelical stone gives the apparitions of angels, and a power of conversing with them. These great mysteries are supported by occasional facts, and illustrated by prints of the most divine and incomprehensible designs, which we would hope were intelligible to the initiated. It may be worth shewing, however, how liable even the latter were to blunder on these Mysterious Hieroglyphics. Ashmole, in one of his chemical works, prefixed a frontispiece, which, in several compartments, exhibited Phœbus on a lion, and opposite to him a lady, who represented Diana, with the moon in one hand and an arrow in the other, sitting on a crab; Mercury on a tripod, with the scheme of the heavens in one hand, and his caduceus in the other. They were intended to express the materials of the Stone, and the season for the process. Upon the altar is the bust of a man, his head covered by an astrological scheme dropped from the clouds; and on the altar are these words, MERCURIOPHILUS ANGLICUS, _i. e._ the English lover of hermetic philosophy. There is a tree and a little creature gnawing the root, a pillar adorned with musical and mathematical instruments, and another with military ensigns. This strange composition created great inquiry among the chemical sages. Deep mysteries were conjectured to be veiled by it. Verses were written in the highest strain of the Rosicrucian language. _Ashmole_ confessed he meant nothing more than a kind of pun on his own name, for the tree was the _ash_, and the creature was a _mole_. One pillar tells his love of music and freemasonry, and the other his military preferment and astrological studies! He afterwards regretted that no one added a second volume to his work, from which he himself had been hindered, for the honour of the family of Hermes, and “to shew the world what excellent men we had once of our nation, famous for this kind of philosophy, and masters of so transcendant a secret.”

Modern chemistry is not without a _hope_, not to say a _certainty_, of verifying the golden visions of the Alchymists. Dr. Gertänner, of Gottingen, has lately adventured the following prophecy: “In the _nineteenth century_ the transmutation of metals will be generally known and practised. Every chemist and every artist will _make gold_; kitchen materials will be of silver, and even gold, which will contribute more than any thing else to _prolong life_, poisoned at present by the oxyds of copper, lead, and iron, which we daily swallow with our food[23].” This sublime chemist, though he does not venture to predict that universal _Elixir_[24], which is to prolong life at pleasure, yet approximates to it. A chemical friend observed, that “the metals seem to be _composite_ bodies, which nature is perpetually preparing; and it may be reserved for the future researches of Science to trace, and perhaps to imitate, some of these curious operations.”

_Origin, Objects, and Practice of Alchymy, &c._

We find the word Alchymy occurring, for the first time, in JULIUS FIRMICUS MATERNUS, an author who lived under Constantine the Great, who in his _Mathesis_, iii. 35, speaking of the influence of the heavenly bodies, affirms, “that if the Moon be in the house of Saturn, at the time a child is born, he shall be skilled in Alchymy.”

The great objects or ends pursued by Alchymy, are, 1st, To make gold; which is attempted by separation, maturation; and by transmutation, which is to be effected by means of the Philosopher’s stone. With a view to this end, Alchymy, in some writers, is also called ποιητκη, _poetice_, and χρυσοποιητικη, _chryso poetice_, _i. e._ the art of making gold; and hence also, by a similar derivation, the artists themselves are called gold-makers.

2d. An universal medicine, adequate to all diseases.

3d. An universal dissolvent or alkahest. (See ALKAHEST.)

4. An universal ferment, or a matter, which being applied to any seed, shall increase its fecundity to infinity. If, for example, it be applied to gold, it shall change the gold into the philosopher’s stone of gold,— if to silver, into the philosopher’s stone of silver,—and if to a tree, the result is, the philosopher’s stone of the tree; which transmutes every thing it is applied to, into trees.

The origin and antiquity of Alchymy have been much controverted. If we may credit legend and tradition, it must be as old as the flood; nay, Adam himself, is represented by the Alchymist, as an adept. A great part, not only of the heathen mythology, but of the Jewish and Christian Revelations, are supposed to refer to it. Thus SUIDAS will have the fable of the Philosopher’s Stone, to be alluded to in the fable of the Argonauts; and others find it in the book of MOSES, &c. But if the æra of the art be examined by the monument of history, it will lose much of this fancied antiquity. The learned Dane, Borrichius, has taken immense pains to prove that it was not unknown to the ancient Greeks and Egyptians. Crounguis, on the contrary, with equal address, undertakes to show its novelty. Still not one of the ancient poets, philosophers, or physicians, from the time of Homer till four hundred years after the birth of Christ, mention any thing about it.

The first author who speaks of making gold, is Zosimus the Pomopolite, who lived about the beginning of the fifth century, and who has a treatise express upon it, called, “the divine art of making gold and silver,” in manuscript, and is, as formerly, in the King of France’s library. The next is Æneas Gazeus, another Greek writer, towards the close of the same century, in whom we find the following passage:—“Such as are skilled in the ways of nature, can take silver and tin, and changing their nature, can turn them into gold.” The same writer tells us, that he was “wont to call himself χρυσοχοος, gold melter, and χημευτης, chemist.” Hence we may conclude, that a notion of some such art as Alchymy was in being at that age; but as neither of these artists inform us how long it had been previously known, their testimony will not carry us back beyond the age in which they lived.

In fact, we find no earlier or plainer traces of the universal medicine mentioned any where else; nor among the physicians and naturalists, from Moses to Geber the Arab, who is supposed to have lived in the seventh century. In that author’s work, entitled the “_Philosopher’s Stone_,” mention is made of a medicine that cures all leprous diseases. This passage, some authors suppose, to have given the first hint of the matter; though Geber himself, perhaps, meant no such thing; for by attending to the Arabic style and diction of this author, which abounds in allegory, it is highly probable, that by man he means gold; and by leprous, or other diseases, the other metals; which, with relation to gold, are all impure.

The manner in which Suidas accounts for this total silence of old authors with regard to Alchymy, is, that Dioclesian procured all the books of the ancient Egyptians to be burnt; and that it was in these that the great mysteries of chymistry were contained. Corringius calls this statement in question, and asks how Suidas, who lived but five hundred years before us, should know what happened eight hundred years before him? To which Borrichius answers, that he had learnt it of Eudemus, Helladius, Zosimus, Pamphilius, &c. as Suidas himself relates.

Kercher asserts, that the theory of the Philosopher’s Stone, is delivered at large in the table of Hermes, and that the ancient Egyptians were not ignorant of the art, but declined to prosecute it. They did not appear to transmute gold; they had ways of separating it from all kinds of bodies, from the very mud of the Nile, and stones of all kinds: but, he adds, these secrets were never written down, or made public, but confined to the royal family, and handed down traditionally from father to son.

The chief point advanced by Borrichius, and in which he seems to lay the principal stress, is, the attempt of Caligula, mentioned by Pliny, for procuring gold from Orpiment, (Hist. Nat. 1. xxxiii. c. 4.) But this, it may be observed, makes very little for that author’s pretensions; there being no transmutations, no hint of any Philosopher’s Stone, but only a little gold was extracted or separated from the mineral.

The principal authors on Alchymy are, Geber, Friar Bacon, Sully, John and Isaac Hallandus, Basil Valentine, Paracelsus, Van Zuchter, and Sendirogius.

ALKAHEST, OR ALCAHEST,

In Chemistry, means a most pure and universal menstruum or dissolvent, with which some chemists have pretended to resolve all bodies into their first matter, and perform other extraordinary and unaccountable operations.

Paracelsus and Van Helmont, expressly declare, that there is a certain fluid in nature, capable of reducing all sublunary bodies, as well hemogeneous as mixed, into their _ens primum_, or original matter of which they are composed; or into an uniform equable and potable liquor, that will unite with water, and the juices of our bodies, yet will retain its radical virtues; and if mixed with itself again, will thereby be converted into pure elementary water. This declaration, seconded by the asseveration of Van Helmont, who solemnly declared himself possessed of the secret, excited succeeding Chemists and Alchymists to the pursuit of so noble a menstruum. Mr. Boyle was so much attracted with it, that he frankly acknowledged he had rather been master of it, than of the Philosopher’s Stone. In short, it is not difficult to conceive, that bodies might originally arise from some first matter, which was once in a fluid form. Thus, the primitive matter of gold is, perhaps, nothing more than a ponderous fluid, which, from its own nature, or a strong cohesion or attraction between its particles, acquires afterwards a solid form. And hence there does not appear any absurdity in the notion of an universal ens, that resolves all bodies into their Ens Genitate.

The Alcahest is a subject that has been embraced by many anthers; _e. g._ Pantatem, Philalettes, Tachenius, Ludovicus, &c. Boerhaave says, a library of them might be collected; and Werdenfelt, in his treatise de Secretis Adeptorum, has given all the opinions that have been entertained concerning it.

The term Alcahest is not peculiarly found in any language: Helmont declares, he first observed it in Paracelsus, as a word that was unknown before the time of that author, who in his second book, _De Viribus Membrorum_, treating of the liver, has these rather remarkable words: _Est etiam_ alkahest _liquor_, magnam sepates conservandi et confortandi, &c. “There is also the liquor _Alkerhest_, of great efficacy in preserving the liver; as also in curing hydropsical and all other diseases arising from disorders of that part. If it have once conquered its like, it becomes superior to all other hepatic medicines; and though the liver itself was broken and dissolved, this medicine should supply its place.”

It was this passage alone, quoted from Paracelsus, that stimulated succeeding chemists to an enquiry after the Alkahest; there being only another indirect expression, in all his work, relating to it.

As it was a frequent practice with Paracelsus to transpose the letters of his words, and to abbreviate or otherwise conceal them; _e. g._ for tartar, he would write _Sutratur_; for _Nitrum_, _Mutrin_, &c. it is supposed that Alcahest must be a word disguised in the same manner. Hence some imagine it, and with much probability, to be formed of _alkali est_; consequently that it was the Alkaline salt of tartar salatilized. This appears to have been Glauber’s opinion; who, in fact, performed surprising things with such a menstruum, upon subjects of all the three kingdoms. Others will have it derived from the German word _algeist_, that is, wholly spirituous or volatile; others are of opinion, that the word Alcahest is taken from saltz-geist, which signifies spirit of salt; for the universal menstruum, it is said, is to be wrought from water: and Paracelsus himself calls salt the centre of water, wherein metals ought to die, &c. In fact, spirit of salt was the great menstruum he used on most occasions.

The Commentator on Paracelsus, who gave a Latin edition of his works at Delft, assures us that the alcahest was mercury, converted into a spirit. Zwelfer judged it to be a spirit of vinegar rectified from verdigris, and Starkey thought he discovered it in his soap.

There have nevertheless been some synonimous and more significant words used for the Alkahest. Van Helmont, the elder, mentions it by the compound name of _ignis-aqua_, fire-water: but he here seems to allude to the circulated liquor of Paracelsus, which he terms fire, from its property of consuming all things; and water, on account of its liquid form. The same author calls it _liqoer Gehennæ_, infernal fire; a word also used by Paracelsus. He also entitles it, “Summun et felicismum omnium salium,” “the highest and most successful of all salts; which having obtained the supreme degree of simplicity, purity, and subtilty, enjoys alone the faculty of remaining unchanged and unimpaired by the subjects it works upon, and of dissolving the most stubborn and untractable bodies; as stones, gems, glass, earth, sulphur, metals, &c. into real salt, equal in weight to the matter dissolved; and this with as much ease as hot water melts down snow.”—“This salt,” continues he, “by being several times cohabited with Paracelsus’, Sal circulatum, loses all its fixedness, and at length becomes an insipid water, equal in quantity to the salt it was made from.”

Van Helmont positively expresses that this salt is the product of art and not of nature. “Though, says he, a homogeneal part of elementary earth may be artfully converted into water, yet I deny that the same can be done by nature alone; for no natural agent is able to transmute one element into another.” And this he offers as a reason why the Elements always remain the same.

It may throw some light into this affair, to observe, that Van Helmont, as well as Paracelsus, took water for the universal instrument of chymistry and natural philosophy; and earth for the unchangeable basis of all things—that fire was assigned as the sufficient cause of all things—that seminal impressions were lodged in the mechanism of the earth—that water, by dissolving and fermenting with this earth, as it does by means of fire, brings forth every thing; whence originally proceeded the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms: even man himself, according to Moses, was thus at first created.

The great characteristic or property of the Alkahest, as has already been observed, is to dissolve and change all sublunary bodies—water alone excepted.——The changes it induces proceed in the following manner, viz.

1. The subject exposed to its operation, is converted into its three principles, salt, sulphur, and mercury; and afterwards into salt alone, which then becomes volatile; and, at length, is wholly turned into insipid water.—The manner in which it is applied, is by touching the body proposed to be dissolved; _e. g._ gold, mercury, sand, glass, or the like, once or twice with the pretended alkahest; and if the liquor be genuine, the body will on this application be converted into its own quality of salt.