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).
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