Part 7

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

ALKAHEST, OR ALCAHEST,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. It does not destroy the seminal virtues of the bodies thereby dissolved.—For instance,—gold, by its action, is reduced to a salt of gold; antimony, to a salt of antimony; saffron, to a salt of saffron, &c. of the same seminal virtues, or characters with the original concrete. By seminal virtues, Van Helmont means those virtues which depend upon the structure or mechanism of a body, and which constitutes it what it actually is. Hence an actual and general _aurum_ potabile might readily be gained by the alkahest, as converting the whole body of gold into salt, retaining its seminal virtues, and being withal soluble in water.

3. Whatever it dissolves may be rendered volatile by a sand-heat; and if, after volatilizing the solvent, it be distilled therefrom, the body is left pure insipid water, equal in quantity to its original self, but deprived of its seminal virtues. Then, if gold be dissolved by the Alkahest, the metal first becomes salt, which is potable gold; but when the menstruum, by a further application of fire, is distilled therefrom, it is left mere elementary water. Whence it appears, that pure water is the last production or effect of the alkahest.

4. It suffers no change or diminution of force by dissolving the bodies it works in; consequently sustains no reaction from them; being the only immutable menstruum in nature.

5. It is incapable of mixture, and therefore remains free from fermentation and putrefaction; coming off as pure from the body it has dissolved, as when first applied to it; without leaving the least foulness behind.

MAGICIAN.

_One who practises the art of Magic._ (_Vide Divination, Sorcery, and Magic._)

The ancient magicians pretended to extraordinary powers of interpreting dreams, foretelling future events, and accomplishing many wonderful things, by their superior knowledge of the secret powers of nature, of the virtues of plants and minerals, and of the motions and influences of the stars. And as the art of magic among Pagan nations was founded on their system of theology, and the magi who first exercised it were the priests of the gods, they pretended to derive these extraordinary powers from the assistance of the gods, which assistance they sought by a variety of rites and sacrifices, adapted to their respective natures, by the use of charms and superstitious words, and also by ceremonies and supplications: they pretended, likewise, in the proper use of their art, to a power of compelling the gods to execute their desires and commands. An excellent writer has shewn, that the Scripture brands all these powers as a shameless imposture, and reproaches those who assumed them with an utter inability of discovering, or accomplishing, any thing supernatural. (See Isaiah, xlvii. 11, 12, 13. chap. xli. 23, 24. chap. xliv. 25. Jeremiah, x. 2, 3, 8, 14. chap xiv. 14. chap, xxvii. 9, 10. chap. i. 36. Ps. xxi. 6. Jonah, ii. 8.) Nevertheless, many of the Christian fathers, as well as some of the heathen philosophers, ascribed the efficacy of magic to evil dæmons; and it was a very prevailing opinion in the primitive, that magicians and necromancers, both among the Gentiles and heretical Christians, had each their particular dæmons perpetually attending on their persons, and obsequious to their commands, by whose help they could call up the souls of the dead, foretel future events, and perform miracles. In support of this opinion, it has been alleged that the names by which the several sorts of diviners are described in scripture, imply a communication with spiritual beings; that the laws of Moses (Exod. xxii. 18. Lev. xix. 26, 31. chap. xx. 27. Deut. xviii. 10, 11.) against divination and witchcraft, prove the efficacy of these arts, though in reality they prove nothing more than their execrable wickedness and impiety; and that pretensions to divination could not have supported their credit in all the heathen nations, and through all ages, if some instances of true divination had not occurred. But the strongest argument is derived from the scripture history of the Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses. With regard to the works performed by these magicians, some have supposed that God himself empowered them to perform true miracles, and gave them an unexpected success; but the history expressly ascribes the effects they produced, not to God, but to their own enchantments. Others imagine, that the devil assisted the magicians, not in performing true miracles, but in deceiving the senses of the spectators, or in presenting before them delusive appearances of true miracles: against which opinion it has been urged, that it tends to disparage the credit of the works of Moses. The most common opinion, since the time of St. Austin, has been, that they were not only performed by the power of the devil, but were genuine miracles, and real imitations of those of Moses. In a late elaborate enquiry into the true sense and design of this part of scripture history, it has been shewn that the names given to magicians seem to express their profession, their affectation of superior knowledge, and their pretensions both to explain and effect signs and wonders, by observing the rules of their art; and therefore, that they are the persons, whose ability of discovering or effecting any thing supernatural, the scripture expressly denies. The learned author farther investigates the design for which Pharaoh employed them on this occasion: which, he apprehends, was to learn from them, whether the sign given by Moses was truly supernatural, or only such as their art was able to accomplish. Accordingly it is observed, that they did not undertake to outdo Moses, or to controul him, by superior or opposite arts of power, but merely to imitate him, or to do the same works with his, with a view of invalidating the argument which he drew from his miracles, in support of the sole divinity of Jehovah, and of his own mission. The question on this was not, are the gods of Egypt superior to the gods of Israel, or can any evil spirits perform greater miracles than those which Moses performed by the assistance of Jehovah? but the question is, are the works of Moses proper proofs, that the god of Israel is Jehovah, the only sovereign of nature, and consequently that Moses acts by his commission; or, are they merely the wonders of nature, and the effects of magic? In this light Philo, (de Vita Mosis, lib. i. p. 616.) and Josephus, (Antiq. Jud. lib. ii. cap. 13.) place the subject. Moreover, it appears from the principles and conduct of Moses, that he could not have allowed the magicians to have performed real miracles; because the scripture represents the whole body of magicians as impostors; the sacred writers, Moses in particular, describe all the heathen deities, in the belief of whose existence and influence the magic art was founded, as unsupported by any invisible spirit, and utterly impotent and senseless: the religion of Moses was built on the unity and sole dominion of God, and the sole divinity of Jehovah was the point which Moses was now about to establish, in direct opposition to the principles of idolatry; so that if he had allowed that the heathen idols, or any evil spirit supporting their cause, enabled the magicians to turn rods into serpents, and water into blood, and to create frogs, he would have contradicted the great design of his mission, and overthrown the whole fabric of his religion; besides, Moses appropriates all Miracles to God, and urges his own, both in general and separately, as an absolute and authentic proof, both of the sole divinity of Jehovah, and of his own mission; which he could not justly have done, if his opposers performed miracles, and even the same with his. On the other hand, it has been urged, that Moses describes the works of the magicians in the very same language as he does his own, (Exod. vii. 11, 12. chap. v. 22. chap. viii. 7.) and hence it is concluded, that they were equally miraculous. To this objection it is replied, that it is common to speak of professed Jugglers, as doing what they pretend and appear to do; but that Moses does not affirm that there was a perfect conformity between his works and those of the magicians, but they did _so_, or in like manner, using a word which expresses merely a general similitude; and he expressly refers all they did, or attempted in imitation of himself, not to the invocation of the power of dæmons, or of any superior beings, but to human artifice and imposture. The original words, translated _enchantments_, (Exod. vii. 11, 22. and chap. viii. 7, 18.) import deception and concealment, and ought to have been rendered, _secret slights_ or jugglings. Our learned writer farther shews, that the works performed by the magicians did not exceed the cause, or human artifice, to which they are ascribed. Farmer’s _Diss._ on Miracles, 1771, chap. 3. § 3. chap. 4. § 1. (See MAGII.)

MAGI, OR MAGEANS,

A title which the ancient Persians gave to their wise men or philosophers.

The learned are in great perplexity about the word _magus_, μαγ ος. Plato, Xenophon, Herodotus, Strabo, &c. derive it from the Persian language, in which it signifies a priest, or person appointed to officiate in holy things; as _druid_ among the Gauls; _gymnosophist_ among the Indians; and _Levite_, among the Hebrews. Others derive it from the Greek μεγας, great; which they say, being borrowed of the Greeks, by the Persians, was returned in the form μαγος; but Vossius, with more probability, brings it from the Hebrew ‏הגה‎ _haga_, to meditate; whence ‏מהגים‎, maaghim, in Latin, meditabundi, q. d. people addicted to meditation.

Magi, among the Persians, answers to σοφοι, or φιλοσοφοι, among the Greeks; _sapientes_, among the Latins; _druids_, among the Gauls; _gymnosophists_, among the Indians; and _prophets_ or _priests_ among the Egyptians.

The ancient _magi_, according to Aristotle and Laertius, were the sole authors and conservators of the Persian philosophy; and the philosophy principally cultivated by them, was theology and politics; they being always esteemed as the interpreters of all law, both divine and human; on which account they were wonderfully revered by the people. Hence, Cicero observes, that none were admitted to the crown of Persia, but such as were well instructed in the discipline of the _magi_; who taught τα βασιλικα, and showed princes how to govern.

Plato, Apuleius, Laertius, and others, agree, that the philosophy of the _magi_ related principally to the worship of the gods: they were the persons who were to offer prayers, supplications, and sacrifices, as if the gods would be heard by them alone. But according to Lucian, Suidas, &c. this theology, or worship of the gods, as it was called, about which the magi were employed, was little more than the diabolical art of divination; for that μαγεια, strictly taken, was the art of divination.

Porphyry defines the _magi_ well; Cicero calls them _divina sapientes_, &c. in iisdem ministrantes; adding, that the word _magus_ implied as much in the Persian tongue. These people, he says, are held in such veneration among the Persians, that Darius, the son of Hystaspes, among other things, had it engraved on his monument, that he was master of the _magi_.

Philo Judas describe the _magi_ to be diligent enquirers into nature, out of the love they bear to truth; and who, setting themselves apart from other things, contemplate the divine virtues the more clearly, and initiate others in the same mysteries.

Their descendants, the modern _magi_, or fire worshippers, are divided into three classes; whereof the first and most learned, neither ate nor kill animals; but adhere to the old institution of abstaining from living creatures. The _magi_ of the second class, refrain only from tame animals; nor do the last kill all indifferently, it being the firm distinguishing dogma of them all, τκν μετεμχυωσιυ ειναι, _that there is a transmigration of souls_.

To intimate the similitude between animals and men, they used to call the latter by the name of the former; thus, their fellow priests they called lions; the priestesses, lionesses; the servants, cows, &c.

MAGIC, MAGIA, MATEIA,

In its ancient sense, implies the science, or discipline, or doctrine, of the _magi_, or wise men of Persia. The origin of _magic_, and the _magi_, is ascribed to Zoroaster; Salmasius derives the very name from Zoroaster, who, he says, was surnamed _Mog_, whence _magus_. Others, instead of making him the author of the Persian philosophy, make him only the restorer and improver thereof; alleging, that many of the Persian rites in use among the _magi_, were borrowed from the Zabii, among the Chaldeans, who agreed in many things with the magi of the Persians; whence some make the name _magus_ common to both the Chaldeans and Persians. Thus Plutarch mentions, that Zoroaster instituted _magi_ among the Chaldeans; in imitation whereof the Persians had theirs too.

MAGIC, in a more modern sense, is a science which teaches to perform wonderful and surprising effects.

The word _magic_ originally carried along with it a very innocent, nay, a very laudable meaning; being used purely to signify the study of wisdom, and the more sublime parts of knowledge; but in regard to the ancient _magi_, engaged themselves in astrology, divination, sorcery, &c. the term magic in time became odious, and was only used to signify an unlawful and diabolical kind of science, depending on the devil and departed souls.

If any wonder how vain and deceitful a science should gain so much credit and authority over men’s minds, Pliny gives the reason of it. ’Tis, says he, because it has possessed itself of three sciences of the most esteem among men, taking from each all that is great and marvellous in it. Nobody doubts but that it had its first origin in medicine, and that it insinuated itself into the minds of the people, under pretence of affording extraordinary remedies. To these fine promises it added every thing in religion that is pompous and splendid, and that appears calculated to blind and captivate mankind. And, lastly, it mingled judiciary astrology with the rest, persuading people curious of futurity, that it saw every thing to come in the heavens. Agrippa divided _magic_ into three kinds, _natural_, _celestial_, and _ceremonial_ or _superstitious_.

NATURAL MAGIC, is no more than the application of natural active causes to passive things, or subjects; by means whereof many surprising, but yet natural effects are produced.

Baptista Porta has a treatise of _natural magic_, or of secrets for performing very extraordinary things by natural causes. The _natural magic_ of the Chaldæans was nothing but the knowledge of the powers of simples and minerals. The _magic_ which they call _theurgia_, consisted wholly in the knowledge of the ceremonies to be observed in the worship of the gods, in order to be acceptable to them. By the virtue of these ceremonies, they believed they could converse with spiritual beings and cure diseases.

CELESTIAL MAGIC borders nearly on judiciary astrology; it attributes to spirits a kind of rule or dominion over the planets; and to the planets, a dominion over men; and, on these principles, builds a ridiculous kind of system.

SUPERSTITIOUS, or GEOTIC MAGIC, consists in the invocation of devils: its effects are usually evil and wicked, though very strange, and seemingly surpassing the powers of nature: they are supposed to be produced by virtue of some compact, either tacit or express, with evil spirits; but the truth is, these supposed compacts have not the power that is usually imagined; nor do they produce half those effects ordinarily ascribed to them.

Naude has published an apology for all the great men suspected of _magic_. Agrippa says, that the words used by those in compact with the devil, to invoke him, and to succeed in what they undertake, are, _dies_, _mies_, _jesquet_, _benedoefet_, _douvima_, _enitemaus_. There are a hundred other superstitious formulæ of words prescribed for the same occasion, composed of pleasure, or gathered from several different languages; or patched from the Hebrew, or framed in imitation of it.

_Magic of the Eastern nations,—a brief view of the origin and progress of Magic, &c._