{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_43240/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_43240","id":"gutenberg_43240","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/43240","summary":null,"tags":["Alchemy -- History","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Chemistry/Biochemistry"],"text":"Transcriber\u2019s Notes\n\n    Texts printed in italics in the original work have been transcribed\n    as _text_, bold face texts as =text=. Small caps texts have been\n    transcribed as ALL CAPITALS. [U] represents a U-shape rather than\n    the letter U.\n\n    Depending on the hard- and software used to read this text and their\n    settings, not all characters and symbols may display as intended.\n\n    More Transcriber\u2019s Notes may be found at the ned of this text.\n\n\n\n\n  ALCHEMY: ANCIENT AND MODERN\n\n\n\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 1.\n\nPORTRAIT OF PARACELSUS\n\n[_Frontispiece_]\n\n\n\n\n  ALCHEMY:\n\n  ANCIENT AND MODERN\n\n  BEING A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE ALCHEMISTIC DOCTRINES,\n  AND THEIR RELATIONS, TO MYSTICISM ON\n  THE ONE HAND, AND TO RECENT DISCOVERIES IN\n  PHYSICAL SCIENCE ON THE OTHER HAND; TOGETHER\n  WITH SOME PARTICULARS REGARDING THE LIVES\n  AND TEACHINGS OF THE MOST NOTED ALCHEMISTS\n\n  BY\n\n  H. STANLEY REDGROVE, B.Sc. (Lond.), F.C.S.\n\n  AUTHOR OF \u201cON THE CALCULATION OF THERMO-CHEMICAL CONSTANTS,\u201d\n  \u201cMATTER, SPIRIT AND THE COSMOS,\u201d ETC.\n\n  WITH 16 FULL-PAGE ILLUSTRATIONS\n\n  SECOND AND REVISED EDITION\n\n\n  LONDON\n\n  WILLIAM RIDER & SON, LTD.\n\n  8 PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C. 4\n\n  1922\n\n\n\n\n  _First published_      1911\n  _Second Edition_       1922\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION\n\n\nIt is exceedingly gratifying to me that a second edition of this book\nshould be called for. But still more welcome is the change in the\nattitude of the educated world towards the old-time alchemists and their\ntheories which has taken place during the past few years.\n\nThe theory of the origin of Alchemy put forward in Chapter I has led to\nconsiderable discussion; but whilst this theory has met with general\nacceptance, some of its earlier critics took it as implying far more\nthan is actually the case. As a result of further research my conviction\nof its truth has become more fully confirmed, and in my recent work\nentitled _Bygone Beliefs_ (Rider, 1920), under the title of \u201cThe Quest\nof the Philosopher\u2019s Stone,\u201d I have found it possible to adduce further\nevidence in this connection. At the same time, whilst I became\nincreasingly convinced that the main alchemistic hypotheses were drawn\nfrom the domain of mystical theology and applied to physics and\nchemistry by way of analogy, it also became evident to me that the crude\nphysiology of bygone ages and remnants of the old phallic faith formed a\nfurther and subsidiary source of alchemistic theory. I have barely, if\nat all, touched on this matter in the present work; the reader who is\ninterested will find it dealt with in some detail in \u201cThe Phallic\nElement in Alchemical Doctrine\u201d in my _Bygone Beliefs_.\n\nIn view of recent research in the domain of Radioactivity and the\nconsequent advance in knowledge that has resulted since this book was\nfirst published, I have carefully considered the advisability of\nrewriting the whole of the last chapter, but came to the conclusion that\nthe time for this was not yet ripe, and that, apart from a few minor\nemendations, the chapter had better remain very much as it originally\nstood. My reason for this course was that, whilst considerably more is\nknown to-day, than was the case in 1911, concerning the very complex\ntransmutations undergone spontaneously by the radioactive\nelements--knowledge helping further to elucidate the problem of the\nconstitution of the so-called \u201celements\u201d of the chemist--the problem\nreally cognate to my subject, namely that of effecting a transmutation\nof one element into another at will, remains in almost the same state of\nindeterminateness as in 1911. In 1913, Sir William Ramsay[1] thought he\nhad obtained evidence for the transmutation of hydrogen into helium by\nthe action of the electric discharge, and Professors Collie and\nPatterson[2] thought they had obtained evidence of the transmutation of\nhydrogen into neon by similar means. But these observations (as well as\nSir William Ramsay\u2019s earlier transmutational experiments) failed to be\nsatisfactorily confirmed;[3] and since the death of the latter, little,\nif anything, appears to have been done to settle the questions raised by\nhis experiments. Reference must, however, be made to a very interesting\ninvestigation by Sir Ernest Rutherford on the \u201cCollision of \u03b1-Particles\nwith Light Atoms,\u201d[4] from which it appears certain that when bombarded\nwith the swiftly-moving \u03b1-particles given off by radium-C, the atoms of\nnitrogen may be disintegrated, one of the products being hydrogen. The\nother product is possibly helium,[5] though this has not been proved. In\nview of Rutherford\u2019s results a further repetition of Ramsay\u2019s\nexperiments would certainly appear to be advisable.\n\n    [1] See his \u201cThe Presence of Helium in the Gas from the Interior of\n    an X-Ray Bulb,\u201d _Journal of the Chemical Society_, vol. ciii.\n    (1913), pp. 264 _et seq._\n\n    [2] See their \u201cThe Presence of Neon in Hydrogen after the Passage of\n    the Electric Discharge through the latter at Low Pressures,\u201d\n    _ibid._, pp. 419 _et seq._; and \u201cThe Production of Neon and Helium\n    by the Electric Discharge,\u201d _Proceedings of the Royal Society_, _A_,\n    vol. xci. (1915), pp. 30 _et seq._\n\n    [3] See especially the report of negative experiments by Mr. A. C.\n    G. Egerton, published in _Proceedings of the Royal Society_, _A_,\n    vol. xci. (1915), pp. 180 _et seq._\n\n    [4] See the _Philosophical Magazine_ for June, 1919, 6th Series,\n    vol. xxxvii. pp. 537-587.\n\n    [5] Or perhaps an isotope of helium (see below).\n\nAs concerns the spontaneous transmutations undergone by the radioactive\nelements, the facts appear to indicate (or, at least, can be brought\ninto some sort of order by supposing) the atom to consist of a central\nnucleus and an outer shell, as suggested by Sir Ernest Rutherford. The\nnucleus may be compared to the sun of a solar system. It is excessively\nsmall, but in it the mass of the atom is almost entirely concentrated.\nIt is positively charged, the charge being neutralised by that of the\nfree electrons which revolve like planets about it, and which by their\norbits account for the volume of the atom. The atomic weight of the\nelement depends upon the central sun; but the chemical properties of the\nelement are determined by the number of electrons in the shell; this\nnumber is the same as that representing the position of the element in\nthe periodic system. Radioactive change originates in the atomic\nnucleus. The expulsion of an \u03b1-particle therefrom decreases the atomic\nweight by 4 units, necessitates (since the \u03b1-particle carries two\npositive charges) the removal of two electrons from the shell in order\nto maintain electrical neutrality, and hence changes the chemical nature\nof the body, transmuting the element into one occupying a position two\nplaces to the left in the periodic system (for example, the change of\nradium into niton). But radioactivity sometimes results in the expulsion\nof a \u03b2-particle from the nucleus. This results in the addition of an\nelectron to the shell, and hence changes the chemical character of the\nelement, transmuting it into one occupying a position one place to the\nright in the periodic system, but _without altering its atomic weight_.\nConsequently, the expulsion of one \u03b1- and two \u03b2-particles from the\nnucleus, whilst decreasing the atomic weight of the element by 4, leaves\nthe number of electrons in the shell, and thus the chemical properties\nof the element, unaltered. These remarkable conclusions are amply borne\nout by the facts, and the discovery of elements (called \u201cisobares\u201d)\nhaving the same atomic weight but different chemical properties, and of\nthose (called \u201cisotopes\u201d) having identical chemical characters but\ndifferent atomic weights, must be regarded as one of the most\nsignificant and important discoveries of recent years. Some further\nreference to this theory will be found in \u00a7\u00a7 77 and 81: the reader who\nwishes to follow the matter further should consult the fourth edition of\nProfessor Frederick Soddy\u2019s _The Interpretation of Radium_ (1920), and\nthe two chapters on the subject in his _Science and Life_ (1920), one of\nwhich is a popular exposition and the other a more technical one.\n\nThese advances in knowledge all point to the possibility of effecting\ntransmutations at will, but so far attempts to achieve this, as I have\nalready indicated, cannot be regarded as altogether satisfactory.\nSeveral methods of making gold, or rather elements chemically identical\nwith gold, once the method of controlling radioactive change is\ndiscovered (as assuredly it will be) are suggested by Sir Ernest\nRutherford\u2019s theory of the nuclear atom. Thus, the expulsion of two\n\u03b1-particles from bismuth or one from thallium would yield the required\nresult. Or lead could be converted into mercury by the expulsion of one\n\u03b1-particle, and this into thallium by the expulsion of one \u03b2-particle,\nyielding gold by the further expulsion of an \u03b1-particle. But, as\nProfessor Soddy remarks in his _Science and Life_ just referred to, \u201cif\nman ever achieves this further control over Nature, it is quite certain\nthat the last thing he would want to do would be to turn lead or mercury\ninto gold--_for the sake of gold_. The energy that would be liberated,\nif the control of these sub-atomic processes were as possible as is the\ncontrol of ordinary chemical changes, such as combustion, would far\nexceed in importance and value the gold. Rather it would pay to\ntransmute gold into silver or some base metal.\u201d\n\nIn \u00a7 101 of the book I suggest that the question of the effect on the\nworld of finance of the discovery of an inexpensive method of\ntransmuting base metal into gold on a large scale is one that should\nappeal to a novelist specially gifted with imagination. Since the words\nwere first written a work has appeared in which something approximating\nto what was suggested has been attempted and very admirably achieved. My\nreference is to Mr. H. G. Wells\u2019s novel, _The World Set Free_, published\nin 1914.\n\nIn conclusion I should like to thank the very many reviewers who found\nso many good things to say concerning the first edition of this book.\nFor kind assistance in reading the proofs of this edition my best thanks\nare due also and are hereby tendered to my wife, and my good friend\nGerald Druce, Esq., M.Sc.\n\n  H. S. R.\n\n  191, CAMDEN ROAD, LONDON, N.W. 1.\n  _October_, 1921.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThe number of books in the English language dealing with the interesting\nsubject of Alchemy is not sufficiently great to render an apology\nnecessary for adding thereto. Indeed, at the present time there is an\nactual need for a further contribution on this subject. The time is gone\nwhen it was regarded as perfectly legitimate to point to Alchemy as an\ninstance of the aberrations of the human mind. Recent experimental\nresearch has brought about profound modifications in the scientific\nnotions regarding the chemical elements, and, indeed, in the scientific\nconcept of the physical universe itself; and a certain resemblance can\nbe traced between these later views and the theories of bygone Alchemy.\nThe spontaneous change of one \u201celement\u201d into another has been witnessed,\nand the recent work of Sir William Ramsay suggests the possibility of\nrealising the old alchemistic dream--the transmutation of the \u201cbase\u201d\nmetals into gold.\n\nThe basic idea permeating all the alchemistic theories appears to have\nbeen this: All the metals (and, indeed, all forms of matter) are one in\norigin, and are produced by an evolutionary process. The Soul of them\nall is one and the same; it is only the Soul that is permanent; the\nbody or outward form, _i.e._, the mode of manifestation of the Soul, is\ntransitory, and one form may be transmuted into another. The similarity,\nindeed it might be said, the identity, between this view and the modern\netheric theory of matter is at once apparent.\n\nThe old alchemists reached the above conclusion by a theoretical method,\nand attempted to demonstrate the validity of their theory by means of\nexperiment; in which, it appears, they failed. Modern science, adopting\nthe reverse process, for a time lost hold of the idea of the unity of\nthe physical universe, to gain it once again by the experimental method.\nIt was in the elaboration of this grand fundamental idea that Alchemy\nfailed. If I were asked to contrast Alchemy with the chemical and\nphysical science of the nineteenth century I would say that, whereas the\nlatter abounded in a wealth of much accurate detail and much relative\ntruth, it lacked philosophical depth and insight; whilst Alchemy,\ndeficient in such accurate detail, was characterised by a greater degree\nof philosophical depth and insight; for the alchemists did grasp the\nfundamental truth of the Cosmos, although they distorted it and made it\nappear grotesque. The alchemists cast their theories in a mould entirely\nfantastic, even ridiculous--they drew unwarrantable analogies--and hence\ntheir views cannot be accepted in these days of modern science. But if\nwe cannot approve of their theories _in toto_, we can nevertheless\nappreciate the fundamental ideas at the root of them. And it is\nprimarily with the object of pointing out this similarity between these\nancient ideas regarding the physical universe and the latest products\nof scientific thought, that this book has been written.\n\nIt is a regrettable fact that the majority of works dealing with the\nsubject of Alchemy take a one-sided point of view. The chemists\ngenerally take a purely physical view of the subject, and instead of\ntrying to understand its mystical language, often (I do not say always)\nprefer to label it nonsense and the alchemist a fool. On the other hand,\nthe mystics, in many cases, take a purely transcendental view of the\nsubject, forgetting the fact that the alchemists were, for the most\npart, concerned with operations of a physical nature. For a proper\nunderstanding of Alchemy, as I hope to make plain in the first chapter\nof this work, a synthesis of both points of view is essential; and,\nsince these two aspects are so intimately and essentially connected with\none another, this is necessary even when, as in the following work, one\nis concerned primarily with the physical, rather than the purely\nmystical, aspect of the subject.\n\nNow, the author of this book may lay claim to being a humble student of\nboth Chemistry and what may be generalised under the terms Mysticism and\nTranscendentalism; and he hopes that this perhaps rather unusual\ncombination of studies has enabled him to take a broad-minded view of\nthe theories of the alchemists, and to adopt a sympathetic attitude\ntowards them.\n\nWith regard to the illustrations, the author must express his thanks to\nthe authorities of the British Museum for permission to photograph\nengraved portraits and illustrations from old works in the British\nMuseum Collections, and to G. H. Gabb, Esq., F.C.S., for permission to\nphotograph engraved portraits in his possession.\n\nThe author\u2019s heartiest thanks are also due to Frank E. Weston, Esq.,\nB.Sc., F.C.S., and W. G. Llewellyn, Esq., for their kind help in reading\nthe proofs, &c.\n\n  H. S. R.\n\n  THE POLYTECHNIC, LONDON, W.\n  _October, 1910._\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n                                                           PAGE\n  CHAPTER I. THE MEANING OF ALCHEMY                           1\n\n    \u00a7 1.  The Aim of Alchemy                                  1\n    \u00a7 2.  The Transcendental Theory of Alchemy                2\n    \u00a7 3.  Failure of the Transcendental Theory                3\n    \u00a7 4.  The Qualifications of the Adept                     4\n    \u00a7 5.  Alchemistic Language                                5\n    \u00a7 6.  Alchemists of a Mystical Type                       7\n    \u00a7 7.  The Meaning of Alchemy                              7\n    \u00a7 8.  Opinions of other Writers                           8\n    \u00a7 9.  The Basic Idea of Alchemy                          10\n   \u00a7 10.  The Law of Analogy                                 12\n   \u00a7 11.  The Dual Nature of Alchemy                         13\n   \u00a7 12.  \u201cBody, Soul and Spirit\u201d                            14\n   \u00a7 13.  Alchemy, Mysticism and Modern Science              15\n\n\n  CHAPTER II. THE THEORY OF PHYSICAL ALCHEMY                 17\n\n   \u00a7 14.  Supposed Proofs of Transmutation                   17\n   \u00a7 15.  The Alchemistic Elements                           18\n   \u00a7 16.  Aristotle\u2019s Views regarding the Elements           19\n   \u00a7 17.  The Sulphur-Mercury Theory                         20\n   \u00a7 18.  The Sulphur-Mercury-Salt Theory                    22\n   \u00a7 19.  Alchemistic Elements and Principles                23\n   \u00a7 20.  The Growth of the Metals                           25\n   \u00a7 21.  Alchemy and Astrology                              26\n   \u00a7 22.  Alchemistic View of the Nature of Gold             27\n   \u00a7 23.  The Philosopher\u2019s Stone                            29\n   \u00a7 24.  The Nature of the Philosopher\u2019s Stone              30\n   \u00a7 25.  The Theory of Development                          32\n   \u00a7 26.  The Powers of the Philosopher\u2019s Stone              34\n   \u00a7 27.  The Elixir of Life                                 35\n   \u00a7 28.  The Practical Methods of the Alchemists            36\n\n\n  CHAPTER III. THE ALCHEMISTS (A. BEFORE PARACELSUS)         39\n\n   \u00a7 29.  Hermes Trismegistos                                39\n   \u00a7 30.  The Smaragdine Table                               40\n   \u00a7 31.  Zosimus of Panopolis                               42\n   \u00a7 32.  Geber                                              42\n   \u00a7 33.  Other Arabian Alchemists                           44\n   \u00a7 34.  Albertus Magnus                                    44\n   \u00a7 35.  Thomas Aquinas                                     44\n   \u00a7 36.  Roger Bacon                                        45\n   \u00a7 37.  Arnold de Villanova                                47\n   \u00a7 38.  Raymond Lully                                      47\n   \u00a7 39.  Peter Bonus                                        49\n   \u00a7 40.  Nicolas Flamel                                     51\n   \u00a7 41.  \u201cBasil Valentine\u201d and the _Triumphal Chariot of\n          Antimony_.                                         52\n   \u00a7 42.  Isaac of Holland                                   53\n   \u00a7 43.  Bernard Tr\u00e9visan                                   54\n   \u00a7 44.  Sir George Ripley                                  55\n   \u00a7 45.  Thomas Norton                                      56\n\n\n  CHAPTER IV. THE ALCHEMISTS (B. PARACELSUS AND AFTER)       58\n\n   \u00a7 46.  Paracelsus                                         58\n   \u00a7 47.  Views of Paracelsus                                60\n   \u00a7 48.  Iatro-chemistry                                    61\n   \u00a7 49.  The Rosicrucian Society                            62\n   \u00a7 50.  Thomas Charnock                                    65\n   \u00a7 51.  Andreas Libavius                                   66\n   \u00a7 52.  Edward Kelley and John Dee                         67\n   \u00a7 53.  Henry Khunrath                                     70\n   \u00a7 54.  Alexander Sethon and Michael Sendivogius           70\n   \u00a7 55.  Michael Maier                                      72\n   \u00a7 56.  Jacob Boehme                                       74\n   \u00a7 57.  J. B. van Helmont and F. M. van Helmont            75\n   \u00a7 58.  Johann Rudolf Glauber                              77\n   \u00a7 59.  Thomas Vaughan (\u201cEugenius Philalethes\u201d)            77\n   \u00a7 60.  \u201cEiren\u00e6us Philalethes\u201d and George Starkey          79\n\n\n  CHAPTER V. THE OUTCOME OF ALCHEMY                          81\n\n   \u00a7 61.  Did the Alchemists achieve the _Magnum Opus_?      81\n   \u00a7 62.  The Testimony of van Helmont                       82\n   \u00a7 63.  The Testimony of Helvetius                         83\n   \u00a7 64.  Helvetius obtains the Philosopher\u2019s Stone          85\n   \u00a7 65.  Helvetius performs a Transmutation                 87\n   \u00a7 66.  Helvetius\u2019s Gold Assayed                           88\n   \u00a7 67.  Helvetius\u2019s Gold Further Tested                    88\n   \u00a7 68.  The Genesis of Chemistry                           89\n   \u00a7 69.  The Degeneracy of Alchemy                          90\n   \u00a7 70.  \u201cCount Cagliostro\u201d                                 91\n\n\n  CHAPTER VI. THE AGE OF MODERN CHEMISTRY                    94\n\n   \u00a7 71.  The Birth of Modern Chemistry                      94\n   \u00a7 72.  The Phlogiston Theory                              94\n   \u00a7 73.  Boyle and the Definition of an Element             96\n   \u00a7 74.  The Stoichiometric Laws                            96\n   \u00a7 75.  Dalton\u2019s Atomic Theory                             99\n   \u00a7 76.  The Determination of the Atomic Weights of the\n          Elements                                          102\n   \u00a7 77.  Prout\u2019s Hypothesis                                102\n   \u00a7 78.  The \u201cPeriodic Law\u201d                                105\n   \u00a7 79.  The Corpuscular Theory of Matter                  109\n   \u00a7 80.  Proof that the Electrons are not Matter           110\n   \u00a7 81.  The Electronic Theory of Matter                   112\n   \u00a7 82.  The Etheric Theory of Matter                      113\n   \u00a7 83.  Further Evidence of the Complexity of the Atoms   114\n   \u00a7 84.  Views of Wald and Ostwald                         115\n\n\n  CHAPTER VII. MODERN ALCHEMY                               117\n\n   \u00a7 85.  \u201cModern Alchemy\u201d                                  117\n   \u00a7 86.  X-Rays and Becquerel Rays                         117\n   \u00a7 87.  The Discovery of Radium                           118\n   \u00a7 88.  Chemical Properties of Radium                     119\n   \u00a7 89.  The Radioactivity of Radium                       120\n   \u00a7 90.  The Disintegration of the Radium Atom             122\n   \u00a7 91.  \u201cInduced Radioactivity\u201d                           123\n   \u00a7 92.  Properties of Uranium and Thorium                 123\n   \u00a7 93.  The Radium Emanation                              124\n   \u00a7 94.  The Production of Helium from Emanation           125\n   \u00a7 95.  Nature of this Change                             127\n   \u00a7 96.  Is this Change a true Transmutation?              128\n   \u00a7 97.  The Production of Neon from Emanation             130\n   \u00a7 98.  Ramsay\u2019s Experiments on Copper                    132\n   \u00a7 99.  Further Experiments on Radium and Copper          134\n  \u00a7 100.  Ramsay\u2019s Experiments on Thorium and allied Metals 134\n  \u00a7 101.  The Possibility of Making Gold                    136\n  \u00a7 102.  The Significance of \u201cAllotropy\u201d                   136\n  \u00a7 103.  Conclusion                                        142\n\n\n\n\nLIST OF PLATES\n\n\n  PLATE 1. Portrait of Paracelsus                        _Frontispiece_\n\n                                                           TO FACE PAGE\n\n  PLATE  2. Symbolical Illustration representing the Trinity of\n            Body, Soul and Spirit                                    15\n\n  PLATE  3. Symbolical Illustrations representing--\n            (A) The Fertility of the Earth           }               26\n            (B) The Amalgamation of Mercury and Gold }\n\n  PLATE  4. Symbolical Illustrations representing--\n            (A) The Coction of Gold-Amalgam in a Closed Vessel }     33\n            (B) The Transmutation of the Metals                }\n\n  PLATE  5. Alchemistic Apparatus--\n            (A) (B) Two forms of apparatus for sublimation           37\n\n  PLATE  6. Alchemistic Apparatus--\n            (A) An Athanor }                                         38\n            (B) A Pelican  }\n\n  PLATE  7. Portrait of Albertus Magnus                              44\n\n  PLATE  8. Portraits of--\n            (A) Thomas Aquinas }                                     52\n            (B) Nicolas Flamel }\n\n  PLATE  9. Portraits of--\n            (A) Edward Kelley }                                      68\n            (B) John Dee      }\n\n  PLATE 10. Portrait of Michael Maier                                72\n\n  PLATE 11. Portrait of Jacob Boehme                                 74\n\n  PLATE 12. Portraits of J. B. and F. M. van Helmont                 76\n\n  PLATE 13. Portrait of J. F. Helvetius                              84\n\n  PLATE 14. Portrait of \u201cCagliostro\u201d                                 92\n\n  PLATE 15. Portrait of Robert Boyle                                 94\n\n  PLATE 16. Portrait of John Dalton                                 100\n\n\n  TABLE SHOWING THE PERIODIC CLASSIFICATION OF THE CHEMICAL\n  ELEMENTS                                               Pages 106, 107\n\n\n\n\nALCHEMY:\n\nANCIENT AND MODERN\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nTHE MEANING OF ALCHEMY\n\n\nThe Aim of Alchemy.\n\n\u00a7 =1.= Alchemy is generally understood to have been that art whose end\nwas the transmutation of the so-called base metals into gold by means of\nan ill-defined something called the Philosopher\u2019s Stone; but even from a\npurely physical standpoint, this is a somewhat superficial view. Alchemy\nwas both a philosophy and an experimental science, and the transmutation\nof the metals was its end only in that this would give the final proof\nof the alchemistic hypotheses; in other words, Alchemy, considered from\nthe physical standpoint, was the attempt to demonstrate experimentally\non the material plane the validity of a certain philosophical view of\nthe Cosmos. We see the genuine scientific spirit in the saying of one of\nthe alchemists: \u201cWould to God .\u00a0.\u00a0. all men might become adepts in our\nArt--for then gold, the great idol of mankind, would lose its value, and\nwe should prize it only for its scientific teaching.\u201d[6] Unfortunately,\nhowever, not many alchemists came up to this ideal; and for the majority\nof them, Alchemy did mean merely the possibility of making gold cheaply\nand gaining untold wealth.\n\n    [6] \u201cEIREN\u00c6US PHILALETHES\u201d: _An Open Entrance to the Closed Palace\n    of the King_ (see _The Hermetic Museum, Restored and Enlarged_,\n    edited by A. E. Waite, 1893, vol. ii. p. 178).\n\n\nThe Transcendental Theory of Alchemy.\n\n\u00a7 =2.= By some mystics, however, the opinion has been expressed that\nAlchemy was not a physical art or science at all, that in no sense was\nits object the manufacture of material gold, and that its processes were\nnot carried out on the physical plane. According to this transcendental\ntheory, Alchemy was concerned with man\u2019s soul, its object was the\nperfection, not of material substances, but of man in a spiritual sense.\nThose who hold this view identify Alchemy with, or at least regard it as\na branch of, Mysticism, from which it is supposed to differ merely by\nthe employment of a special language; and they hold that the writings of\nthe alchemists must not be understood literally as dealing with chemical\noperations, with furnaces, retorts, alembics, pelicans and the like,\nwith salt, sulphur, mercury, gold and other material substances, but\nmust be understood as grand allegories dealing with spiritual truths.\nAccording to this view, the figure of the transmutation of the \u201cbase\u201d\nmetals into gold symbolised the salvation of man--the transmutation of\nhis soul into spiritual gold--which was to be obtained by the\nelimination of evil and the development of good by the grace of God; and\nthe realisation of which salvation or spiritual transmutation may be\ndescribed as the New Birth, or that condition of being known as union\nwith the Divine. It would follow, of course, if this theory were true,\nthat the genuine alchemists were pure mystics, and hence, that the\ndevelopment of chemical science was not due to their labours, but to\npseudo-alchemists who so far misunderstood their writings as to have\ninterpreted them in a literal sense.\n\n\nFailure of the Transcendental Theory.\n\n\u00a7 =3.= This theory, however, has been effectively disposed of by Mr.\nArthur Edward Waite, who points to the lives of the alchemists\nthemselves in refutation of it. For their lives indisputably prove that\nthe alchemists were occupied with chemical operations on the physical\nplane, and that for whatever motive, they toiled to discover a method\nfor transmuting the commoner metals into actual, material gold. As\nParacelsus himself says of the true \u201cspagyric physicians,\u201d who were the\nalchemists of his period: \u201cThese do not give themselves up to ease and\nidleness .\u00a0.\u00a0. But they devote themselves diligently to their labours,\nsweating whole nights over fiery furnaces. These do not kill the time\nwith empty talk, but find their delight in their laboratory.\u201d[7] The\nwritings of the alchemists contain (mixed, however, with much that from\nthe physical standpoint appears merely fantastic) accurate accounts of\nmany chemical processes and discoveries, which cannot be explained away\nby any method of transcendental interpretation. There is not the\nslightest doubt that chemistry owes its origin to the direct labours of\nthe alchemists themselves, and not to any who misread their writings.\n\n    [7] PARACELSUS: \u201cConcerning the Nature of Things\u201d (see _The Hermetic\n    and Alchemical Writings of Paracelsus_, edited by A. E. Waite, 1894,\n    vol. i. p. 167).\n\n\nThe Qualifications of the Adept.\n\n\u00a7 =4.= At the same time, it is quite evident that there is a\nconsiderable element of Mysticism in the alchemistic doctrines; this has\nalways been recognised; but, as a general rule, those who have\napproached the subject from the scientific point of view have considered\nthis mystical element as of little or no importance. However, there are\ncertain curious facts which are not satisfactorily explained by a purely\nphysical theory of Alchemy, and, in our opinion, the recognition of the\nimportance of this mystical element and of the true relation which\nexisted between Alchemy and Mysticism is essential for the right\nunderstanding of the subject. We may notice, in the first place, that\nthe alchemists always speak of their Art as a Divine Gift, the highest\nsecrets of which are not to be learnt from any books on the subject; and\nthey invariably teach that the right mental attitude with regard to God\nis the first step necessary for the achievement of the _magnum opus_. As\nsays one alchemist: \u201cIn the first place, let every devout and\nGod-fearing chemist and student of this Art consider that this arcanum\nshould be regarded, not only as a truly great, but as a most holy Art\n(seeing that it typifies and shadows out the highest heavenly good).\nTherefore, if any man desire to reach this great and unspeakable\nMystery, he must remember that it is obtained not by the might of man,\nbut by the grace of God, and that not our will or desire, but only the\nmercy of the Most High, can bestow it upon us. For this reason you must\nfirst of all cleanse your heart, lift it up to Him alone, and ask of\nHim this gift in true, earnest, and undoubting prayer. He alone can give\nand bestow it.\u201d[8] And \u201cBasil Valentine\u201d: \u201cFirst, there should be the\ninvocation of God, flowing from the depth of a pure and sincere heart,\nand a conscience which should be free from all ambition, hypocrisy, and\nvice, as also from all cognate faults, such as arrogance, boldness,\npride, luxury, worldly vanity, oppression of the poor, and similar\niniquities, which should all be rooted up out of the heart--that when a\nman appears before the Throne of Grace, to regain the health of his\nbody, he may come with a conscience weeded of all tares, and be changed\ninto a pure temple of God cleansed of all that defiles.\u201d[9]\n\n    [8] _The Sophic Hydrolith; or, Water Stone of the Wise_ (see _The\n    Hermetic Museum_, vol. i. p. 74).\n\n    [9] _The Triumphal Chariot of Antimony_ (Mr. A. E. Waite\u2019s\n    translation, p. 13). See \u00a7 41.\n\n\nAlchemistic Language.\n\n\u00a7 =5.= In the second place, we must notice the nature of alchemistic\nlanguage. As we have hinted above, and as is at once apparent on opening\nany alchemistic book, the language of Alchemy is very highly mystical,\nand there is much that is perfectly unintelligible in a physical sense.\nIndeed, the alchemists habitually apologise for their vagueness on the\nplea that such mighty secrets may not be made more fully manifest. It is\ntrue, of course, that in the days of Alchemy\u2019s degeneracy a good deal of\npseudo-mystical nonsense was written by the many impostors then\nabounding, but the mystical style of language is by no means confined to\nthe later alchemistic writings. It is also true that the alchemists, no\ndoubt, desired to shield their secrets from vulgar and profane eyes, and\nhence would necessarily adopt a symbolic language. But it is past belief\nthat the language of the alchemist was due to some arbitrary plan;\nwhatever it is to us, it was very real to him. Moreover, this argument\ncuts both ways, for those, also, who take a transcendental view of\nAlchemy regard its language as symbolical, although after a different\nmanner. It is also, to say the least, curious, as Mr. A. E. Waite points\nout, that this mystical element should be found in the writings of the\nearlier alchemists, whose manuscripts were not written for publication,\nand therefore ran no risk of informing the vulgar of the precious\nsecrets of Alchemy. On the other hand, the transcendental method of\ntranslation does often succeed in making sense out of what is otherwise\nunintelligible in the writings of the alchemists. The above-mentioned\nwriter remarks on this point: \u201cWithout in any way pretending to assert\nthat this hypothesis reduces the literary chaos of the philosophers into\na regular order, it may be affirmed that it materially elucidates their\nwritings, and that it is wonderful how contradictions, absurdities, and\ndifficulties seem to dissolve wherever it is applied.\u201d[10]\n\n    [10] ARTHUR EDWARD WAITE: _The Occult Sciences_ (1891), p. 91.\n\nThe alchemists\u2019 love of symbolism is also conspicuously displayed in the\ncurious designs with which certain of their books are embellished. We\nare not here referring to the illustrations of actual apparatus employed\nin carrying out the various operations of physical Alchemy, which are\nnot infrequently found in the works of those alchemists who at the same\ntime were practical chemists (Glauber, for example), but to pictures\nwhose meaning plainly lies not upon the surface and whose import is\nclearly symbolical, whether their symbolism has reference to physical or\nto spiritual processes. Examples of such symbolic illustrations, many of\nwhich are highly fantastic, will be found in plates 2, 3, and 4. We\nshall refer to them again in the course of the present and following\nchapters.\n\n\nAlchemists of a Mystical Type.\n\n\u00a7 =6.= We must also notice that, although there cannot be the slightest\ndoubt that the great majority of alchemists were engaged in problems and\nexperiments of a physical nature, yet there were a few men included\nwithin the alchemistic ranks who were entirely, or almost entirely,\nconcerned with problems of a spiritual nature; Thomas Vaughan, for\nexample, and Jacob Boehme, who boldly employed the language of Alchemy\nin the elaboration of his system of mystical philosophy. And\nparticularly must we notice, as Mr. A. E. Waite has also indicated, the\nsignificant fact that the Western alchemists make unanimous appeal to\nHermes Trismegistos as the greatest authority on the art of Alchemy,\nwhose alleged writings are of an undoubtedly mystical character (see \u00a7\n29). It is clear, that in spite of its apparently physical nature,\nAlchemy must have been in some way closely connected with Mysticism.\n\n\nThe Meaning of Alchemy.\n\n\u00a7 =7.= If we are ever to understand the meaning of Alchemy aright we\nmust look at the subject from the alchemistic point of view. In modern\ntimes there has come about a divorce between Religion and Science in\nmen\u2019s minds (though more recently a unifying tendency has set in); but\nit was otherwise with the alchemists, their religion and their science\nwere closely united. We have said that \u201cAlchemy was the attempt to\ndemonstrate experimentally on the material plane the validity of a\ncertain philosophical view of the Cosmos\u201d; now, this \u201cphilosophical view\nof the Cosmos\u201d was Mysticism. =Alchemy had its origin in the attempt to\napply, in a certain manner, the principles of Mysticism to the things of\nthe physical plane=, and was, therefore, of a dual nature, on the one\nhand spiritual and religious, on the other, physical and material. As\nthe anonymous author of _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_ (1815)\nremarks, \u201cThe universal chemistry, by which the science of alchemy opens\nthe knowledge of all nature, being founded on _first principles_ forms\nanalogy with whatever knowledge is founded on the _same first\nprinciples_.\u00a0.\u00a0.\u00a0. Saint John describes the redemption, or the new\ncreation of the fallen soul, on the _same first principles_, until the\nconsummation of the work, in which the Divine tincture transmutes the\nbase metal of the soul into a perfection, that will pass the fire of\neternity;\u201d[11] that is to say, Alchemy and the mystical regeneration of\nman (in this writer\u2019s opinion) are analogous processes on different\nplanes of being, because they are founded on the same first principles.\n\n    [11] F. B.: _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_ (1815), Preface,\n    p. 3.\n\n\nOpinions of other Writers.\n\n\u00a7 =8.= We shall here quote the opinions of two modern writers, as to the\nsignificance of Alchemy; one a mystic, the other a man of science. Says\nMr. A. E. Waite, \u201cIf the authors of the \u2018Suggestive Inquiry\u2019 and of\n\u2018Remarks on Alchemy and the Alchemists\u2019 [two books putting forward the\ntranscendental theory] had considered the lives of the symbolists, as\nwell as the nature of the symbols, their views would have been very much\nmodified; they would have found that the true method of Hermetic\ninterpretation lies in a middle course; but the errors which originated\nwith merely typographical investigations were intensified by a\nconsideration of the great alchemical theorem, which, _par excellence_,\nis one of universal development, which acknowledges that every substance\ncontains undeveloped resources and potentialities, and can be brought\noutward and forward into perfection. They [the generality of alchemists]\napplied their theory only to the development of metallic substances from\na lower to a higher order, but we see by their writings that the grand\nhierophants of Oriental and Western alchemy alike were continually\nhaunted by brief and imperfect glimpses of glorious possibilities for\nman, if the evolution of his nature were accomplished along the lines of\ntheir theory.\u201d[12] Mr. M. M. Pattison Muir, M.A., says: \u201c.\u00a0.\u00a0. alchemy\naimed at giving experimental proof of a certain theory of the whole\nsystem of nature, including humanity. The practical culmination of the\nalchemical quest presented a threefold aspect; the alchemists sought the\nstone of wisdom, for by gaining that they gained the control of wealth;\nthey sought the universal panacea, for that would give them the power of\nenjoying wealth and life; they sought the soul of the world, for thereby\nthey could hold communion with spiritual existences, and enjoy the\nfruition of spiritual life. The object of their search was to satisfy\ntheir material needs, their intellectual capacities, and their spiritual\nyearnings. The alchemists of the nobler sort always made the first of\nthese objects subsidiary to the other two. .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u201d[13]\n\n    [12] ARTHUR EDWARD WAITE: _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_\n    (1888), pp. 30, 31. As says another writer of the mystical school of\n    thought: \u201cIf we look upon the subject [of Alchymy] from the point\n    which affords the widest view, it may be said that Alchymy has two\n    aspects: the simply material, and the religious. The dogma that\n    Alchymy was only a form of chemistry is untenable by any one who has\n    read the works of its chief professors. The doctrine that Alchymy\n    was religion only, and that its chemical references were all blinds,\n    is equally untenable in the face of history, which shows that many\n    of its most noted professors were men who had made important\n    discoveries in the domain of common chemistry, and were in no way\n    notable as teachers either of ethics or religion\u201d (\u201cSapere Aude,\u201d\n    _The Science of Alchymy, Spiritual and Material_ (1893), pp. 3 and\n    4).\n\n    [13] M. M. PATTISON MUIR, M.A.: _The Story of Alchemy and the\n    Beginnings of Chemistry_ (1902), pp. 105 and 106.\n\n\nThe Basic Idea of Alchemy.\n\n\u00a7 =9.= The famous axiom beloved by every alchemist--\u201c_What is above is\nas that which is below, and what is below is as that which is\nabove_\u201d--although of questionable origin, tersely expresses the basic\nidea of Alchemy. The alchemists postulated and believed in a very real\nsense in the essential unity of the Cosmos. Hence, they held that there\nis a correspondence or analogy existing between things spiritual and\nthings physical, the same laws operating in each realm. As writes\nSendivogius \u201c.\u00a0.\u00a0. the Sages have been taught of God that this natural\nworld is only an image and material copy of a heavenly and spiritual\npattern; that the very existence of this world is based upon the reality\nof its celestial archetype; and that God has created it in imitation of\nthe spiritual and invisible universe, in order that men might be the\nbetter enabled to comprehend His heavenly teaching, and the wonders of\nHis absolute and ineffable power and wisdom. Thus the Sage sees heaven\nreflected in Nature as in a mirror; and he pursues this Art, not for the\nsake of gold or silver, but for the love of the knowledge which it\nreveals; he jealously conceals it from the sinner and the scornful, lest\nthe mysteries of heaven should be laid bare to the vulgar gaze.\u201d[14]\n\n    [14] MICHAEL SENDIVOGIUS: _The New Chemical Light, Pt. II.,\n    Concerning Sulphur_ (_The Hermetic Museum_, vol. ii. p. 138).\n\nThe alchemists held that the metals are one in essence, and spring from\nthe same seed in the womb of nature, but are not all equally matured and\nperfect, gold being the highest product of Nature\u2019s powers. In gold, the\nalchemist saw a picture of the regenerate man, resplendent with\nspiritual beauty, overcoming all temptations and proof against evil;\nwhilst he regarded lead--the basest of the metals--as typical of the\nsinful and unregenerate man, stamped with the hideousness of sin and\neasily overcome by temptation and evil; for whilst gold withstood the\naction of fire and all known corrosive liquids (save _aqua regia_\nalone), lead was most easily acted upon. We are told that the\nPhilosopher\u2019s Stone, which would bring about the desired grand\ntransmutation, is of a species with gold itself and purer than the\npurest; understood in the mystical sense this means that the\nregeneration of man can be effected only by Goodness itself--in terms of\nChristian theology, by the Power of the Spirit of Christ. The\nPhilosopher\u2019s Stone was regarded as symbolical of Christ Jesus, and in\nthis sense we can understand the otherwise incredible powers attributed\nto it.\n\n\nThe Law of Analogy.\n\n\u00a7 =10.= With the theories of physical Alchemy we shall deal at length in\nthe following chapter, but enough has been said to indicate the analogy\nexisting, according to the alchemistic view, between the problem of the\nperfection of the metals, _i.e._, the transmutation of the \u201cbase\u201d metals\ninto gold, and the perfection or transfiguration of spiritual man; and\nit might also be added, between these problems and that of the\nperfection of man considered physiologically. To the alchemistic\nphilosopher these three problems were one: the same problem on different\nplanes of being; and the solution was likewise one. He who held the key\nto one problem held the key to all three, provided he understood the\nanalogy between matter and spirit. The point is not, be it noted,\nwhether these problems are in reality one and the same; the main\ndoctrine of analogy, which is, indeed, an essential element in all true\nmystical philosophy, will, we suppose, meet with general consent; but it\nwill be contended (and rightly, we think) that the analogies drawn by\nthe alchemists are fantastic and by no means always correct, though\npossibly there may be more truth in them than appears at first sight.\nThe point is not that these analogies are correct, but that they were\nregarded as such by all true alchemists. Says the author of _The Sophic\nHydrolith_: \u201c.\u00a0.\u00a0. the practice of this Art enables us to understand,\nnot merely the marvels of Nature, but the nature of God Himself, in all\nits unspeakable glory. It shadows forth, in a wonderful manner .\u00a0.\u00a0. all\nthe articles of the Christian faith, and the reason why man must pass\nthrough much tribulation and anguish, and fall a prey to death, before\nhe can rise again to a new life.\u201d[15] A considerable portion of this\ncurious alchemistic work is taken up in expounding the analogy believed\nto exist between the Philosopher\u2019s Stone and \u201cthe Stone which the\nbuilders rejected,\u201d Christ Jesus; and the writer concludes: \u201cThus .\u00a0.\u00a0.\nI have briefly and simply set forth to you the perfect analogy which\nexists between our earthly and chemical and the true and heavenly Stone,\nJesus Christ, whereby we may attain unto certain beatitude and\nperfection, not only in earthly but also in eternal life.\u201d[16] And\nlikewise says Peter Bonus: \u201cI am firmly persuaded that any unbeliever\nwho got truly to know this Art, would straightway confess the truth of\nour Blessed Religion, and believe in the Trinity and in our Lord Jesus\nChrist.\u201d[17]\n\n    [15] _The Sophic Hydrolith; or, Water Stone of the Wise_ (see _The\n    Hermetic Museum_, vol. i. p. 88).\n\n    [16] _Ibid._ p. 114.\n\n    [17] PETER BONUS: _The New Pearl of Great Price_ (Mr. A. E. Waite\u2019s\n    translation, p. 275).\n\n\nThe Dual Nature of Alchemy.\n\n\u00a7 =11.= For the most part, the alchemists were chiefly engaged with the\ncarrying out of the alchemistic theory on the physical plane, _i.e._,\nwith the attempt to transmute the \u201cbase\u201d metals into the \u201cnoble\u201d ones;\nsome for the love of knowledge, but alas! the vast majority for the love\nof mere wealth. But all who were worthy of the title of \u201calchemist\u201d\nrealised at times, more or less dimly, the possibility of the\napplication of the same methods to man and the glorious result of the\ntransmutation of man\u2019s soul into spiritual gold. There were a few who\nhad a clearer vision of this ideal, those who devoted their activities\nentirely, or almost so, to the attainment of this highest goal of\nalchemistic philosophy, and concerned themselves little if at all with\nthe analogous problem on the physical plane. The theory that Alchemy\noriginated in the attempt to demonstrate the applicability of the\nprinciples of Mysticism to the things of the physical realm brings into\nharmony the physical and transcendental theories of Alchemy and the\nvarious conflicting facts advanced in favour of each. It explains the\nexistence of the above-mentioned, two very different types of\nalchemists. It explains the appeal to the works attributed to Hermes,\nand the presence in the writings of the alchemists of much that is\nclearly mystical. And finally, it is in agreement with such statements\nas we have quoted above from _The Sophic Hydrolith_ and elsewhere, and\nthe general religious tone of the alchemistic writings.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 2.\n\nSYMBOLICAL ILLUSTRATION\n\nRepresenting the Trinity of Body, Soul and Spirit.\n\n[_To face page 15_]\n\n\n\u201cBody, Soul and Spirit.\u201d\n\n\u00a7 =12.= In accordance with our primary object as stated in the preface,\nwe shall confine our attention mainly to the physical aspect of Alchemy;\nbut in order to understand its theories, it appears to us to be\nessential to realise the fact that Alchemy was an attempted application\nof the principles of Mysticism to the things of the physical world. The\nsupposed analogy between man and the metals sheds light on what\notherwise would be very difficult to understand. It helps to make plain\nwhy the alchemists attributed moral qualities to the metals--some are\ncalled \u201cimperfect,\u201d \u201cbase\u201d; others are said to be \u201cperfect,\u201d \u201cnoble.\u201d\nAnd especially does it help to explain the alchemistic notions\nregarding the nature of the metals. The alchemists believed that the\nmetals were constructed after the manner of man, into whose constitution\nthree factors were regarded as entering: body, soul, and spirit. As\nregards man, mystical philosophers generally use these terms as follows:\n\u201cbody\u201d is the outward manifestation and form; \u201csoul\u201d is the inward\nindividual spirit[18]; and \u201cspirit\u201d is the universal Soul in all men.\nAnd likewise, according to the alchemists, in the metals, there is the\n\u201cbody\u201d or outward form and properties, \u201cmetalline soul\u201d or spirit,[19]\nand finally, the all-pervading essence of all metals. As writes the\nauthor of the exceedingly curious tract entitled _The Book of\nLambspring_: \u201cBe warned and understand truly that two fishes are\nswimming in our sea,\u201d illustrating his remark by the symbolical picture\nreproduced in plate 2, and adding in elucidation thereof, \u201cThe Sea is\nthe Body, the two Fishes are Soul and Spirit.\u201d[20] The alchemists,\nhowever, were not always consistent in their use of the term \u201cspirit.\u201d\nSometimes (indeed frequently) they employed it to denote merely the more\nvolatile portions of a chemical substance; at other times it had a more\ninterior significance.\n\n    [18] Which, in virtue of man\u2019s self-consciousness, is, by the grace\n    of God, immortal.\n\n    [19] See the work _Of Natural and Supernatural Things_, attributed\n    to \u201cBasil Valentine,\u201d for a description of the \u201cspirits\u201d of the\n    metals in particular.\n\n    [20] _The Book of Lambspring_, translated by Nicholas Barnaud\n    Delphinas (see the _Hermetic Museum_, vol. i. p. 277). This work\n    contains many other fantastic alchemistic symbolical pictures,\n    amongst the most curious series in alchemistic literature.\n\n\nAlchemy, Mysticism and Modern Science.\n\n\u00a7 =13.= We notice the great difference between the alchemistic theory\nand the views regarding the constitution of matter which have dominated\nChemistry since the time of Dalton. But at the present time Dalton\u2019s\ntheory of the chemical elements is undergoing a profound modification.\nWe do not imply that Modern Science is going back to any such fantastic\nideas as were held by the alchemists, but we are struck with the\nremarkable similarity between this alchemistic theory of a soul of all\nmetals, a one primal element, and modern views regarding the ether of\nspace. In its attempt to demonstrate the applicability of the\nfundamental principles of Mysticism to the things of the physical realm\nAlchemy apparently failed and ended its days in fraud. It appears,\nhowever, that this true aim of alchemistic art--particularly the\ndemonstration of the validity of the theory that all the various forms\nof matter are produced by an evolutionary process from some one primal\nelement or _quintessence_--is being realised by recent researches in the\ndomain of physical and chemical science.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE THEORY OF PHYSICAL ALCHEMY\n\n\nSupposed Proofs of Transmutation.\n\n\u00a7 =14.= It must be borne in mind when reviewing the theories of the\nalchemists, that there were a number of phenomena known at the time, the\nsuperficial examination of which would naturally engender a belief that\nthe transmutation of the metals was a common occurrence. For example,\nthe deposition of copper on iron when immersed in a solution of a copper\nsalt (_e.g._, blue vitriol) was naturally concluded to be a\ntransmutation of iron into copper,[21] although, had the alchemists\nexamined the residual liquid, they would have found that the two metals\nhad merely exchanged places; and the fact that white and yellow alloys\nof copper with arsenic and other substances could be produced, pointed\nto the possibility of transmuting copper into silver and gold. It was\nalso known that if water (and this is true of distilled water which does\nnot contain solid matter in solution) was boiled for some time in a\nglass flask, some solid, earthy matter was produced; and if water could\nbe transmuted into earth, surely one metal could be converted into\nanother.[22] On account of these and like phenomena the alchemists\nregarded the transmutation of the metals as an experimentally proved\nfact. Even if they are to be blamed for their superficial observation of\nsuch phenomena, yet, nevertheless, their labours marked a distinct\nadvance upon the purely speculative and theoretical methods of the\nphilosophers preceding them. Whatever their faults, the alchemists\n_were_ the forerunners of modern experimental science.\n\n    [21] Cf. _The Golden Tract concerning the Stone of the Philosophers_\n    (_The Hermetic Museum_, vol. i. p. 25).\n\n    [22] Lavoisier (eighteenth century) proved this apparent\n    transmutation to be due to the action of the water on the glass\n    vessel containing it.\n\n\nThe Alchemistic Elements.\n\n\u00a7 =15.= The alchemists regarded the metals as composite, and granting\nthis, then the possibility of transmutation is only a logical\nconclusion. In order to understand the theory of the elements held by\nthem we must rid ourselves of any idea that it bears any close\nresemblance to Dalton\u2019s theory of the chemical elements; this is clear\nfrom what has been said in the preceding chapter. Now, it is a fact of\nsimple observation that many otherwise different bodies manifest some\nproperty in common, as, for instance, combustibility. Properties such as\nthese were regarded as being due to some principle or element common to\nall bodies exhibiting such properties; thus, combustibility was thought\nto be due to some elementary principle of combustion--the \u201csulphur\u201d of\nthe alchemists and the \u201cphlogiston\u201d of a later period. This is a view\nwhich _\u00e0 priori_ appears to be not unlikely; but it is now known that,\nalthough there are relations existing between the properties of bodies\nand their constituent chemical elements (and also, it should be noted,\nthe relative arrangement of the particles of these elements), it is the\nless obvious properties which enable chemists to determine the\nconstitution of bodies, and the connection is very far from being of the\nsimple nature imagined by the alchemists.\n\n\nAristotle\u2019s Views regarding the Elements.\n\n\u00a7 =16.= For the origin of the alchemistic theory of the elements it is\nnecessary to go back to the philosophers preceding the alchemists, and\nit is not improbable that they derived it from some still older source.\nIt was taught by Empedocles of Agrigent (440 B.C. _circa_), who\nconsidered that there were four elements--earth, water, air, and fire.\nAristotle added a fifth, \u201cthe ether.\u201d These elements were regarded, not\nas different kinds of matter, but rather as different forms of the one\noriginal matter, whereby it manifested different properties. It was\nthought that to these elements were due the four primary properties of\ndryness, moistness, warmth, and coldness, each element being supposed to\ngive rise to two of these properties, dryness and warmth being thought\nto be due to fire, moistness and warmth to air, moistness and coldness\nto water, and dryness and coldness to earth. Thus, moist and cold bodies\n(liquids in general) were said to possess these properties in\nconsequence of the aqueous element, and were termed \u201cwaters,\u201d &c. Also,\nsince these elements were not regarded as different kinds of matter,\ntransmutation was thought to be possible, one being convertible into\nanother, as in the example given above (\u00a7 14).\n\n\nThe Sulphur-Mercury Theory.\n\n\u00a7 =17.= Coming to the alchemists, we find the view that the metals are\nall composed of two elementary principles--sulphur and mercury--in\ndifferent proportions and degrees of purity, well-nigh universally\naccepted in the earlier days of Alchemy. By these terms \u201csulphur\u201d and\n\u201cmercury,\u201d however, must not be understood the common bodies ordinarily\ndesignated by these names; like the elements of Aristotle, the\nalchemistic principles were regarded as properties rather than as\nsubstances, though it must be confessed that the alchemists were by no\nmeans always clear on this point themselves. Indeed, it is not\naltogether easy to say exactly what the alchemists did mean by these\nterms, and the question is complicated by the fact that very frequently\nthey make mention of different sorts of \u201csulphur\u201d and \u201cmercury.\u201d\nProbably, however, we shall not be far wrong in saying that \u201csulphur\u201d\nwas generally regarded as the principle of combustion and also of\ncolour, and was said to be present on account of the fact that most\nmetals are changed into earthy substances by the aid of fire; and to the\n\u201cmercury,\u201d the metallic principle _par excellence_, was attributed such\nproperties as fusibility, malleability and lustre, which were regarded\nas characteristic of the metals in general. The pseudo-Geber (see \u00a7 32)\nsays that \u201cSulphur is a fatness of the Earth, by temperate Decoction in\nthe Mine of the Earth thickened, until it be hardned and made dry.\u201d[23]\nHe considered an excess of sulphur to be a cause of imperfection in the\nmetals, and he writes that one of the causes of the corruption of the\nmetals by fire \u201cis the Inclusion of a burning Sulphuriety in the\nprofundity of their Substance, diminishing them by Inflamation, and\nexterminating also into Fume, with extream Consumption, whatsoever\nArgentvive in them is of good Fixation.\u201d[24] He assumed, further, that\nthe metals contained an incombustible as well as a combustible sulphur,\nthe latter sulphur being apparently regarded as an impurity.[25] A later\nalchemist says that sulphur is \u201cmost easily recognised by the vital\nspirit in animals, the colour in metals, the odour in plants.\u201d[26]\nMercury, on the other hand, according to the pseudo-Geber, is the cause\nof perfection in the metals, and endows gold with its lustre. Another\nalchemist, quoting Arnold de Villanova, writes: \u201cQuicksilver is the\nelementary form of all things fusible; for all things fusible, when\nmelted, are changed into it, and it mingles with them because it is of\nthe same substance with them. Such bodies differ from quicksilver in\ntheir composition only so far as itself is or is not free from the\nforeign matter of impure sulphur.\u201d[27] The obtaining of \u201cphilosophical\nmercury,\u201d the imaginary virtues of which the alchemists never tired of\nrelating, was generally held to be essential for the attainment of the\n_magnum opus_. It was commonly thought that it could be prepared from\nordinary quicksilver by purificatory processes, whereby the impure\nsulphur supposed to be present in this sort of mercury might be purged\naway.\n\n    [23] _Of the Sum of Perfection_ (see _The Works of Geber_,\n    translated by Richard Russel, 1678, pp. 69 and 70).\n\n    [24] _Of the Sum of Perfection_ (see _The Works of Geber_, p. 156).\n\n    [25] See _The Works of Geber_, p. 160. This view was also held by\n    other alchemists.\n\n    [26] _The New Chemical Light_, Part II., _Concerning Sulphur_ (see\n    _The Hermetic Museum_, vol. ii. p. 151).\n\n    [27] See _The Golden Tract concerning the Stone of the Philosophers_\n    (_The Hermetic Museum_, vol. i. p. 17).\n\nThe sulphur-mercury theory of the metals was held by such famous\nalchemists as Roger Bacon, Arnold de Villanova and Raymond Lully. Until\nrecently it was thought to have originated to a great extent with the\nArabian alchemist, Geber; but the late Professor Berthelot showed that\nthe works ascribed to Geber, in which the theory is put forward, are\nforgeries of a date by which it was already centuries old (see \u00a7 32).\nOccasionally, arsenic was regarded as an elementary principle (this view\nis to be found, for example, in the work _Of the Sum of Perfection_, by\nthe pseudo-Geber), but the idea was not general.\n\n\nThe Sulphur-Mercury-Salt Theory.\n\n\u00a7 =18.= Later in the history of Alchemy, the mercury-sulphur theory was\nextended by the addition of a third elementary principle, salt. As in\nthe case of philosophical sulphur and mercury, by this term was not\nmeant common salt (sodium chloride) or any of those substances commonly\nknown as salts. \u201cSalt\u201d was the name given to a supposed basic principle\nin the metals, a principle of fixity and solidification, conferring the\nproperty of resistance to fire. In this extended form, the theory is\nfound in the works of Isaac of Holland and in those attributed to \u201cBasil\nValentine,\u201d who (see the work _Of Natural and Supernatural Things_)\nattempts to explain the differences in the properties of the metals as\nthe result of the differences in the proportion of sulphur, salt, and\nmercury they contain. Thus, copper, which is highly coloured, is said to\ncontain much sulphur, whilst iron is supposed to contain an excess of\nsalt, &c. The sulphur-mercury-salt theory was vigorously championed by\nParacelsus, and the doctrine gained very general acceptance amongst the\nalchemists. Salt, however, seems generally to have been considered a\nless important principle than either mercury or sulphur.\n\nThe same germ-idea underlying these doctrines is to be found much later\nin Stahl\u2019s phlogistic theory (eighteenth century), which attempted to\naccount for the combustibility of bodies by the assumption that such\nbodies all contain \u201cphlogiston\u201d--the hypothetical principle of\ncombustion (see \u00a7 72)--though the concept of \u201cphlogiston\u201d approaches\nmore nearly to the modern idea of an element than do the alchemistic\nelements or principles. It was not until still later in the history of\nChemistry that it became quite evident that the more obvious properties\nof chemical substances are not specially conferred on them in virtue of\ncertain elements entering into their constitution.\n\n\nAlchemistic Elements and Principles.\n\n\u00a7 =19.= The alchemists combined the above theories with Aristotle\u2019s\ntheory of the elements. The latter, namely, earth, air, fire and water,\nwere regarded as more interior, more primary, than the principles, whose\nsource was said to be these same elements. As writes Sendivogius in Part\nII. of _The New Chemical Light_: \u201cThe three Principles of things are\nproduced out of the four elements in the following manner: Nature, whose\npower is in her obedience to the Will of God, ordained from the very\nbeginning, that the four elements should incessantly act on one another\nso, in obedience to her behest, fire began to act on air, and produced\nSulphur; air acted on water, and produced Mercury; water, by its action\non the earth, produced Salt. Earth, alone, having nothing to act upon,\ndid not produce anything, but became the nurse, or womb, of these three\nPrinciples. We designedly speak of three Principles; for though the\nAncients mention only two, it is clear that they omitted the third\n(Salt) not from ignorance, but from a desire to lead the uninitiated\nastray.\u201d[28]\n\n    [28] _The New Chemical Light_, Part II., _Concerning Sulphur_ (see\n    _The Hermetic Museum_, vol. ii. pp. 142-143).\n\nBeneath and within all these coverings of outward properties, taught the\nalchemists, is hidden the secret essence of all material things. \u201c.\u00a0.\u00a0.\nthe elements and compounds,\u201d writes one alchemist, \u201cin addition to crass\nmatter, are composed of a subtle substance, or intrinsic radical\nhumidity, diffused through the elemental parts, simple and wholly\nincorruptible, long preserving the things themselves in vigour, and\ncalled the Spirit of the World, proceeding from the Soul of the World,\nthe one certain life, filling and fathoming all things, gathering\ntogether and connecting all things, so that from the three genera of\ncreatures, Intellectual, Celestial, and Corruptible, there is formed the\nOne Machine of the whole world.\u201d[29] It is hardly necessary to point out\nhow nearly this approaches modern views regarding the Ether of Space.\n\n    [29] ALEXANDER VON SUCHTEN: _Man, the best and most perfect of God\u2019s\n    creatures. A more complete Exposition of this Medical Foundation for\n    the less Experienced Student._ (See BENEDICTUS FIGULUS: _A Golden\n    and Blessed Casket of Nature\u2019s Marvels_, translated by A. E. Waite,\n    1893, pp. 71 and 72.)\n\n\nThe Growth of the Metals.\n\n\u00a7 =20.= The alchemists regarded the metals as growing in the womb of the\nearth, and a knowledge of this growth as being of very great importance.\nThomas Norton (who, however, contrary to the generality of alchemists,\ndenied that metals have seed and that they grow in the sense of\nmultiply) says:--\n\n    \u201c_Mettalls_ of kinde grow lowe under ground,\n    For above erth rust in them is found;\n    Soe above erth appeareth corruption,\n    Of mettalls, and in long tyme destruction,\n    Whereof noe Cause is found in this Case,\n    Buth that above Erth thei be not in their place\n    Contrarie places to nature causeth strife\n    As Fishes out of water losen their Lyfe:\n    And Man, with Beasts, and Birds live in ayer,\n    But Stones and Mineralls under Erth repaier.\u201d[30]\n\n    [30] THOMAS NORTON: _Ordinall of Alchemy_ (see _Theatrum Chemicum\n    Britannicum_, edited by Elias Ashmole, 1652, p. 18).\n\nNorton here expresses the opinion, current among the alchemists, that\neach and every thing has its own peculiar environment natural to it; a\nview controverted by Robert Boyle (\u00a7 71). So firm was the belief in the\ngrowth of metals, that mines were frequently closed for a while in order\nthat the supply of metal might be renewed. The fertility of Mother Earth\nforms the subject of one of the illustrations in _The Twelve Keys_ of\n\u201cBasil Valentine\u201d (see \u00a7 41). We reproduce it in plate 3, fig. A.\nRegarding this subject, the author writes: \u201cThe quickening power of the\nearth produces all things that grow forth from it, and he who says that\nthe earth has no life makes a statement which is flatly contradicted by\nthe most ordinary facts. For what is dead cannot produce life and\ngrowth, seeing that it is devoid of the quickening spirit. This spirit\nis the life and soul that dwell in the earth, and are nourished by\nheavenly and sidereal influences. For all herbs, trees, and roots, and\nall metals and minerals, receive their growth and nutriment from the\nspirit of the earth, which is the spirit of life. This spirit is itself\nfed by the stars, and is thereby rendered capable of imparting nutriment\nto all things that grow, and of nursing them as a mother does her child\nwhile it is yet in the womb. The minerals are hidden in the womb of the\nearth, and nourished by her with the spirit which she receives from\nabove.\n\n\u201cThus the power of growth that I speak of is imparted not by the earth,\nbut by the life-giving spirit that is in it. If the earth were deserted\nby this spirit, it would be dead, and no longer able to afford\nnourishment to anything. For its sulphur or richness would lack the\nquickening spirit without which there can be neither life nor\ngrowth.\u201d[31]\n\n    [31] \u201cBASIL VALENTINE\u201d: _The Twelve Keys_ (see _The Hermetic\n    Museum_, vol. i. pp. 333-334).\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 3.\n\nA.\n\nSYMBOLICAL ILLUSTRATION\n\nRepresenting the Fertility of the Earth.\n\nB.\n\nSYMBOLICAL ILLUSTRATION\n\nRepresenting the Amalgamation of Gold with Mercury.\n\n(See page 33.)\n\n_To face page 26_]]\n\n\nAlchemy and Astrology.\n\n\u00a7 =21.= The idea that the growth of each metal was under the influence\nof one of the heavenly bodies (a theory in harmony with the alchemistic\nview of the unity of the Cosmos), was very generally held by the\nalchemists; and in consequence thereof, the metals were often referred\nto by the names or astrological symbols of their peculiar planets. These\nparticulars are shown in the following table:--\n\n  -----------+----------------------+--------------\n  Metals.    |   Planets, &c.[32]   |   Symbols.\n  -----------+----------------------+--------------\n  Gold       |        Sun           |      \u2609\n  Silver     |        Moon          |      \u263d\n  Mercury    |        Mercury       |      \u263f\n  Copper     |        Venus         |      \u2640\n  Iron       |        Mars          |      \u2642\n  Tin        |        Jupiter       |      \u2643\n  Lead       |        Saturn        |      \u2644\n  -----------+----------------------+--------------\n\nMoreover, it was thought by some alchemists that a due observance of\nastrological conditions was necessary for successfully carrying out\nimportant alchemistic experiments.\n\n    [32] This supposed connection between the metals and planets also\n    played an important part in Talismanic Magic.\n\n\nAlchemistic View of the Nature of Gold.\n\n\u00a7 =22.= The alchemists regarded gold as the most perfect metal, silver\nbeing considered more perfect than the rest. The reason of this view is\nnot difficult to understand: gold is the most beautiful of all the\nmetals, and it retains its beauty without tarnishing; it resists the\naction of fire and most corrosive liquids, and is unaffected by sulphur;\nit was regarded, as we have pointed out above (see \u00a7 9), as symbolical\nof the regenerate man. Silver, on the other hand, is, indeed, a\nbeautiful metal which wears well in a pure atmosphere and resists the\naction of fire; but it is attacked by certain corrosives (_e.g._, _aqua\nfortis_ or nitric acid) and also by sulphur. Through all the metals,\nfrom the one seed, Nature, according to the alchemists, works\ncontinuously up to gold; so that, in a sense, all other metals are gold\nin the making; their existence marks the staying of Nature\u2019s powers; as\n\u201cEiren\u00e6us Philalethes\u201d says: \u201cAll metallic seed is the seed of gold; for\ngold is the intention of Nature in regard to all metals. If the base\nmetals are not gold, it is only through some accidental hindrance; they\nare all potentially gold.\u201d[33] Or, as another alchemist puts it: \u201cSince\n.\u00a0.\u00a0. the substance of the metals is _one_, and common to all, and since\nthis substance is (either at once, or after laying aside in course of\ntime the foreign and evil sulphur of the baser metals by a process of\ngradual digestion) changed by the virtue of its own indwelling sulphur\ninto GOLD, which is the goal of all the metals, and the true intention\nof Nature--we are obliged to admit, and freely confess that in the\nmineral kingdom, as well as in the vegetable and animal kingdoms, Nature\nseeks and demands a gradual attainment of perfection, and a gradual\napproximation to the highest standard of purity and excellence.\u201d[34]\nSuch was the alchemistic view of the generation of the metals; a theory\nwhich is admittedly crude, but which, nevertheless, contains the germ of\na great principle of the utmost importance, namely, the idea that all\nthe varying forms of matter are evolved from some one primordial\nstuff--a principle of which chemical science lost sight for awhile, for\nits validity was unrecognised by Dalton\u2019s Atomic Theory (at least, as\nenunciated by him), but which is being demonstrated, as we hope to show\nhereinafter, by recent scientific research. The alchemist was certainly\na fantastic evolutionist, but he _was_ an evolutionist, and, moreover,\nhe did not make the curious and paradoxical mistake of regarding the\nfact of evolution as explaining away the existence of God--the alchemist\nrecognised the hand of the Divine in nature--and, although, in these\ndays of modern science, we cannot accept his theory of the growth of\nmetals, we can, nevertheless, appreciate and accept the fundamental\ngerm-idea underlying it.\n\n    [33] \u201cEIREN\u00c6US PHILALETHES\u201d: _The Metamorphosis of Metals_ (see _The\n    Hermetic Museum_, vol. ii. p. 239).\n\n    [34] _The Golden Tract Concerning the Stone of the Philosophers_\n    (see _The Hermetic Museum_, vol. i. p. 19).\n\n\nThe Philosopher\u2019s Stone.\n\n\u00a7 =23.= The alchemist strove to assist Nature in her gold-making, or, at\nleast, to carry out her methods. The pseudo-Geber taught that the\nimperfect metals were to be perfected or cured by the application of\n\u201cmedicines.\u201d Three forms of medicines were distinguished; the first\nbring about merely a temporary change, and the changes wrought by the\nsecond class, although permanent, are not complete. \u201cA Medicine of the\nthird Order,\u201d he writes, \u201cI call every Preparation, which, when it comes\nto Bodies, with its projection, takes away all Corruption, and perfects\nthem with the Difference of all Compleatment. But this is one only.\u201d[35]\nThis, the true medicine that would produce a real and permanent\ntransmutation, is the =Philosopher\u2019s Stone=, the Masterpiece of\nalchemistic art. Similar views were held by all the alchemists, though\nsome of them taught that it was necessary first of all to reduce the\nmetals to their first substance. Often, two forms of the Philosopher\u2019s\nStone were distinguished, or perhaps we should say, two degrees of\nperfection in the one Stone; that for transmuting the \u201cimperfect\u201d metals\ninto silver being said to be white, the stone or \u201cpowder of projection\u201d\nfor gold being said to be of a red colour. In other accounts (see\nChapter V.) the medicine is described as of a pale brimstone hue.\n\n    [35] _Of the Sum of Perfection_ (see _The Works of Geber_,\n    translated by Richard Russel, 1678, p. 192).\n\nMost of the alchemists who claimed knowledge of the Philosopher\u2019s Stone\nor the _materia prima_ necessary for its preparation, generally kept its\nnature most secret, and spoke only in the most enigmatical and\nallegorical language, the majority of their recipes containing words of\nunknown meaning. In some cases gold or silver, as the case may be, was\nemployed in preparing the \u201cmedicine\u201d; and, after projection had been\nmade, this was, of course, obtained again in the metallic form, the\nalchemist imagining that a transmutation had been effected. In the case\nof the few other recipes that are intelligible, the most that could be\nobtained by following out their instructions is a white or yellow\nmetallic alloy superficially resembling silver or gold.\n\n\nThe Nature of the Philosopher\u2019s Stone.\n\n\u00a7 =24.= The mystical as distinguished from the pseudo-practical\ndescriptions of the Stone and its preparation are by far the more\ninteresting of the two. Paracelsus, in his work on _The Tincture of the\nPhilosophers_, tells us that all that is necessary for us to do is to\nmix and coagulate the \u201crose-coloured blood from the Lion\u201d and \u201cthe\ngluten from the Eagle,\u201d by which he probably meant that we must combine\n\u201cphilosophical sulphur\u201d with \u201cphilosophical mercury.\u201d This opinion,\nthat the Philosopher\u2019s Stone consists of \u201cphilosophical sulphur and\nmercury\u201d combined so as to constitute a perfect unity, was commonly held\nby the alchemists, and they frequently likened this union to the\nconjunction of the sexes in marriage. \u201cEiren\u00e6us Philalethes\u201d tells us\nthat for the preparation of the Stone it is necessary to extract the\nseed of gold, though this cannot be accomplished by subjecting gold to\ncorrosive liquids, but only by a homogeneous water (or liquid)--the\nMercury of the Sages. In the _Book of the Revelation of Hermes,\ninterpreted by Theophrastus Paracelsus, concerning the Supreme Secret of\nthe World_, the Medicine, which is here, as not infrequently, identified\nwith the alchemistic essence of all things or Soul of the World, is\ndescribed in the following suggestive language: \u201cThis is the Spirit of\nTruth, which the world cannot comprehend without the interposition of\nthe Holy Ghost, or without the instruction of those who know it. The\nsame is of a mysterious nature, wondrous strength, boundless power.\n.\u00a0.\u00a0. By Avicenna this Spirit is named the Soul of the World. For, as\nthe Soul moves all the limbs of the Body, so also does this Spirit move\nall bodies. And as the Soul is in all the limbs of the Body, so also is\nthis Spirit in all elementary created things. It is sought by many and\nfound by few. It is beheld from afar and found near; for it exists in\nevery thing, in every place, and at all times. It has the powers of all\ncreatures; its action is found in all elements, and the qualities of all\nthings are therein, even in the highest perfection .\u00a0.\u00a0. it heals all\ndead and living bodies without other medicine, .\u00a0.\u00a0. converts all\nmetallic bodies into gold, and there is nothing like unto it under\nHeaven.\u201d[36]\n\n    [36] See BENEDICTUS FIGULUS: _A Golden and Blessed Casket of\n    Nature\u2019s Marvels_ (translated by A. E. Waite, 1893, pp. 36, 37, and\n    41).\n\n\nThe Theory of Development.\n\n\u00a7 =25.= From the ascetic standpoint (and unfortunately, most mystics\nhave been somewhat overfond of ascetic ideas), the development of the\nsoul is only fully possible with the mortification of the body; and all\ntrue Mysticism teaches that if we would reach the highest goal possible\nfor man--union with the Divine--there must be a giving up of our own\nindividual wills, an abasement of the soul before the Spirit. And so the\nalchemists taught that for the achievement of the _magnum opus_ on the\nphysical plane, we must strip the metals of their outward properties in\norder to develop the essence within. As says Helvetius: \u201c.\u00a0.\u00a0. the\nessences of metals are hidden in their outward bodies, as the kernel is\nhidden in the nut. Every earthly body, whether animal, vegetable, or\nmineral, is the habitation and terrestrial abode of that celestial\nspirit, or influence, which is its principle of life or growth. The\nsecret of Alchemy is the destruction of the body, which enables the\nArtist to get at, and utilise for his own purposes, the living\nsoul.\u201d[37] This killing of the outward nature of material things was to\nbe brought about by the processes of putrefaction and decay; hence the\nreason why such processes figure so largely in alchemistic recipes for\nthe preparation of the \u201cDivine Magistery.\u201d It must be borne in mind,\nhowever, that the alchemists used the terms \u201cputrefaction\u201d and \u201cdecay\u201d\nrather indiscriminately, applying them to chemical processes which are\nno longer regarded as such. Pictorial symbols of death and decay\nrepresentative of such processes are to be found in several alchemistic\nbooks. There is a curious series of pictures in _A Form and Method of\nPerfecting Base Metals_, by Janus Lacinus, the Calabrian (a short tract\nprefixed to _The New Pearl of Great Price_ by Peter Bonus--see \u00a7 39), of\nwhich we show three examples in plates 3 and 4. In the first picture of\nthe series (not shown here) we enter the palace of the king (gold) and\nobserve him sitting crowned upon his throne, surrounded by his son\n(mercury) and five servants (silver, copper, tin, iron and lead). In the\nnext picture (plate 3, fig. B), the son, incited by the servants, kills\nhis father; and, in the third, he catches the blood of his murdered\nparent in his robes; whereby we understand that an amalgam of gold and\nmercury is to be prepared, the gold apparently disappearing or dying,\nwhilst the mercury is coloured thereby. The next picture shows us a\ngrave being dug, _i.e._, a furnace is to be made ready. In the fifth\npicture in the series, the son \u201cthought to throw his father into the\ngrave, and to leave him there; but .\u00a0.\u00a0. both fell in together\u201d; and in\nthe sixth picture (plate 4, fig. A), we see the son being prevented from\nescaping, both son and father being left in the grave to decay. Here we\nhave instructions in symbolical form to place the amalgam in a sealed\nvessel in the furnace and to allow it to remain there until some change\nis observed. So the allegory proceeds. Ultimately the father is\nrestored to life, the symbol of resurrection being (as might be\nexpected) of frequent occurrence in alchemistic literature. By this\nresurrection we understand that the gold will finally be obtained in a\npure form. Indeed, it is now the \u201cgreat medicine\u201d and, in the last\npicture of the series (plate 4, fig. B), the king\u2019s son and his five\nservants are all made kings in virtue of its powers.\n\n    [37] J. F. HELVETIUS: _The Golden Calf_, ch. iv. (see _The Hermetic\n    Museum_, vol. ii. p. 298).\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 4.\n\nA.\n\nSYMBOLICAL ILLUSTRATION\n\nRepresenting the Coction of Gold Amalgam in a Closed Vessel.\n\nB.\n\nSYMBOLICAL ILLUSTRATION\n\nRepresenting the Transmutation of the Metals.\n\n[_To face page 33_]\n\n\nThe Powers of the Philosopher\u2019s Stone.\n\n\u00a7 =26.= The alchemists believed that a most minute proportion of the\nStone projected upon considerable quantities of heated mercury, molten\nlead, or other \u201cbase\u201d metal, would transmute practically the whole into\nsilver or gold. This claim of the alchemists, that a most minute\nquantity of the Stone was sufficient to transmute considerable\nquantities of \u201cbase\u201d metal, has been the object of much ridicule.\nCertainly, some of the claims of the alchemists (understood literally)\nare out of all reason; but on the other hand, the disproportion between\nthe quantities of Stone and transmuted metal cannot be advanced as an _\u00e0\npriori_ objection to the alchemists\u2019 claims, inasmuch that a class of\nchemical reactions (called \u201ccatalytic\u201d) is known, in which the presence\nof a small quantity of some appropriate form of matter--the\ncatalyst--brings about a chemical change in an indefinite quantity of\nsome other form or forms; thus, for example, cane-sugar in aqueous\nsolution is converted into two other sugars by the action of small\nquantities of acid; and sulphur-dioxide and oxygen, which will not\ncombine under ordinary conditions, do so readily in the presence of a\nsmall quantity of platinized asbestos, which is obtained unaltered\nafter the reaction is completed and may be used over and over again\n(this process is actually employed in the manufacture of sulphuric acid\nor oil of vitriol). However, whether any such catalytic transmutation of\nthe chemical \u201celements\u201d is possible is merely conjecture.\n\n\nThe Elixir of Life.\n\n\u00a7 =27.= The Elixir of Life, which was generally described as a solution\nof the Stone in spirits of wine, or identified with the Stone itself,\ncould be applied, so it was thought, under certain conditions to the\nalchemist himself, with an entirely analogous result, _i.e._, it would\nrestore him to the flower of youth. The idea, not infrequently\nattributed to the alchemists, that the Elixir would endow one with a\nlife of endless duration on the material plane is not in strict accord\nwith alchemistic analogy. From this point of view, the effect of the\nElixir is physiological perfection, which, although ensuring long life,\nis not equivalent to endless life on the material plane. \u201cThe\nPhilosophers\u2019 Stone,\u201d says Paracelsus, \u201cpurges the whole body of man,\nand cleanses it from all impurities by the introduction of new and more\nyouthful forces which it joins to the nature of man.\u201d[38] And in another\nwork expressive of the opinions of the same alchemist, we read: \u201c.\u00a0.\u00a0.\nthere is nothing which might deliver the mortal body from death; but\nthere is One Thing which may postpone decay, renew youth, and prolong\nshort human life .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u201d[39] In the theory that a solution of the\nPhilosopher\u2019s Stone (which, it must be remembered, was thought to be of\na species with gold) constituted the _Elixir Vit\u00e6_, can be traced,\nperhaps, the idea that gold in a potable form was a veritable cure-all:\nin the latter days of Alchemy any yellow-coloured liquid was foisted\nupon a credulous public as a medicinal preparation of gold.\n\n    [38] THEOPHRASTUS PARACELSUS: _The Fifth Book of the Archidoxies_\n    (see _The Hermetic and Alchemical Writings of Paracelsus_,\n    translated by A. E. Waite, 1894, vol. ii. p. 39).\n\n    [39] _The Book of the Revelation of Hermes, interpreted by\n    Theophrastus Paracelsus, concerning the Supreme Secret of the\n    World._ (See BENEDICTUS FIGULUS: _A Golden Casket of Nature\u2019s\n    Marvels_, translated by A. E. Waite, 1893, pp. 33 and 34.)\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 5.\n\nALCHEMISTIC APPARATUS. A and B.--Two forms of Apparatus for Sublimation.\n\n_To face page 37_]]\n\n\nThe Practical Methods of the Alchemists.\n\n\u00a7 =28.= We will conclude this chapter with some few remarks regarding\nthe practical methods of the alchemists. In their experiments, the\nalchemists worked with very large quantities of material compared with\nwhat is employed in chemical researches at the present day. They had\ngreat belief in the efficacy of time to effect a desired change in their\nsubstances, and they were wont to repeat the same operation (such as\ndistillation, for example) on the same material over and over again;\nwhich demonstrated their unwearied patience, even if it effected little\ntowards the attainment of their end. They paid much attention to any\nchanges of colour they observed in their experiments, and many\ndescriptions of supposed methods to achieve the _magnum opus_ contain\ndetailed directions as to the various changes of colour which must be\nobtained in the material operated upon if a successful issue to the\nexperiment is desired.[40] In plates 5 and 6 we give illustrations of\nsome characteristic pieces of apparatus employed by the alchemists.\nPlate 5, fig. A, and plate 6, fig. A, are from a work known as\n_Alchemiae Gebri_ (1545); plate 5, fig. B, is from Glauber\u2019s work on\nFurnaces (1651); and plate 6, fig. B, is from a work by Dr. John French\nentitled _The Art of Distillation_ (1651). The first figure shows us a\nfurnace and alembics. The alembic proper is a sort of still-head which\ncan be luted on to a flask or other vessel, and was much used for\ndistillations. In the present case, however, the alembics are employed\nin conjunction with apparatus for subliming difficultly volatile\nsubstances. Plate 5, fig. B, shows another apparatus for sublimation,\nconsisting of a sort of oven, and three detachable upper chambers,\ngenerally called aludels. In both forms of apparatus the vapours are\ncooled in the upper part of the vessel, and the substance is deposited\nin the solid form, being thereby purified from less volatile impurities.\nPlate 6, fig. A, shows an athanor (or digesting furnace) and a couple of\ndigesting vessels. A vessel of this sort was employed for heating bodies\nin a closed space, the top being sealed up when the substances to be\noperated upon had been put inside, and the vessel heated in ashes in an\nathanor, a uniform temperature being maintained. The pelican,\nillustrated in plate 6, fig. B, was used for a similar purpose, the two\narms being added in the idea that the vapours would be circulated\nthereby.\n\n    [40] As writes Espagnet in his _Hermetic Arcanum_, canons 64 and 65:\n    \u201cThe Means or demonstrative signs are Colours, successively and\n    orderly affecting the matter and its affections and demonstrative\n    passions, whereof there are also three special ones (as critical) to\n    be noted; to these some add a Fourth. The first is black, which is\n    called the Crow\u2019s head, because of its extreme blackness, whose\n    crepusculum sheweth the beginning of the action of the fire of\n    nature and solution, and the blackest midnight sheweth the\n    perfection of liquefaction, and confusion of the elements. Then the\n    grain putrefies and is corrupted, that it may be the more apt for\n    generation. The white colour succeedeth the black, wherein is given\n    the perfection of the first degree, and of the White Sulphur. This\n    is called the blessed stone; this Earth is white and foliated,\n    wherein Philosophers do sow their gold. The third is Orange colour,\n    which is produced in the passage of the white to the red, as the\n    middle, and being mixed of both is as the dawn with his saffron\n    hair, a forerunner of the Sun. The fourth colour is Ruddy and\n    Sanguine, which is extracted from the white fire only. Now because\n    whiteness is easily altered by any other colour before day it\n    quickly faileth of its candour. But the deep redness of the Sun\n    perfecteth the work of Sulphur, which is called the Sperm of the\n    male, the fire of the Stone, the King\u2019s Crown, and the Son of Sol,\n    wherein the first labour of the workman resteth.\n\n    \u201cBesides these decretory signs which firmly inhere in the matter,\n    and shew its essential mutations, almost infinite colours appear,\n    and shew themselves in vapours, as the Rainbow in the clouds, which\n    quickly pass away and are expelled by those that succeed, more\n    affecting the air than the earth: the operator must have a gentle\n    care of them, because they are not permanent, and proceed not from\n    the intrinsic disposition of the matter, but from the fire painting\n    and fashioning everything after its pleasure, or casually by heat in\n    slight moisture\u201d (see _Collectanea Hermetica_, edited by W. Wynn\n    Westcott, vol. i., 1893, pp. 28 and 29). Very probably this is not\n    without a mystical meaning as well as a supposed application in the\n    preparation of the physical Stone.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 6.\n\nALCHEMISTIC APPARATUS. A.--An Athanor. B.--A Pelican.\n\n_To face page 38_]]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE ALCHEMISTS[41]\n\n(A. BEFORE PARACELSUS)\n\n\nHermes Trismegistos.\n\n\u00a7 =29.= Having now considered the chief points in the theory of Physical\nAlchemy, we must turn our attention to the lives and individual\nteachings of the alchemists themselves. The first name which is found in\nthe history of Alchemy is that of =Hermes Trismegistos=. We have already\nmentioned the high esteem in which the works ascribed to this personage\nwere held by the alchemists (\u00a7 6). He has been regarded as the father of\nAlchemy; his name has supplied a synonym for the Art--the Hermetic\nArt--and even to-day we speak of _hermetically_ sealing flasks and the\nlike. But who Hermes actually was, or even if there were such a\npersonage, is a matter of conjecture. The alchemists themselves supposed\nhim to have been an Egyptian living about the time of Moses. He is now\ngenerally regarded as purely mythical--a personification of Thoth, the\nEgyptian God of learning; but, of course, some person or persons must\nhave written the works attributed to him, and the first of such writers\n(if, as seems not unlikely, there were more than one) may be considered\nto have a right to the name. Of these works, the _Divine Pymander_,[42]\na mystical-religious treatise, is the most important. The _Golden\nTractate_, also attributed to Hermes, which is an exceedingly obscure\nalchemistic work, is now regarded as having been written at a\ncomparatively late date.\n\n    [41] It is perhaps advisable to mention here that the lives of the\n    alchemists, for the most part, are enveloped in considerable\n    obscurity, and many points in connection therewith are in dispute.\n    The authorities we have followed will be found, as a rule,\n    specifically mentioned in what follows; but we may here acknowledge\n    our general indebtedness to the following works, though, as the\n    reader will observe, many others have been consulted as well: Thomas\n    Thomson\u2019s _The History of Chemistry_, Meyer\u2019s _A History of\n    Chemistry_, the anonymous _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_\n    (1815), the works of Mr. A. E. Waite, the _Dictionary of National\n    Biography_, and certain articles in the _Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica_.\n    This must not be taken to mean, however, that we have always\n    followed the conclusions reached in these works, for so far as the\n    older of them are concerned, recent researches by various\n    authorities--to whom reference will be found in the following pages,\n    and to whom, also, we are indebted--have shown, in certain cases,\n    that such are not tenable.\n\n    [42] Dr. Everard\u2019s translation of this work forms vol. ii. of the\n    _Collectanea Hermetica_, edited by W. Wynn Westcott, M.B., D.P.H. It\n    is now, however, out of print.\n\n\nThe Smaragdine Table.\n\n\u00a7 =30.= In a work attributed to Albertus Magnus, but which is probably\nspurious, we are told that Alexander the Great found the tomb of Hermes\nin a cave near Hebron. This tomb contained an emerald table--\u201cThe\nSmaragdine Table\u201d--on which were inscribed the following thirteen\nsentences in Ph\u0153nician characters:--\n\n1. I speak not fictitious things, but what is true and most certain.\n\n2. What is below is like that which is above, and what is above is like\nthat which is below, to accomplish the miracles of one thing.\n\n3. And as all things were produced by the mediation of one Being, so all\nthings were produced from this one thing by adaptation.\n\n4. Its father is the Sun, its mother the Moon; the wind carries it in\nits belly, its nurse is the earth.\n\n5. It is the cause of all perfection throughout the whole world.\n\n6. Its power is perfect if it be changed into earth.\n\n7. Separate the earth from the fire, the subtle from the gross, acting\nprudently and with judgment.\n\n8. Ascend with the greatest sagacity from the earth to heaven, and then\nagain descend to the earth, and unite together the powers of things\nsuperior and things inferior. Thus you will obtain the glory of the\nwhole world, and all obscurity will fly far away from you.\n\n9. This thing is the fortitude of all fortitude, because it overcomes\nall subtle things, and penetrates every solid thing.\n\n10. Thus were all things created.\n\n11. Thence proceed wonderful adaptations which are produced in this way.\n\n12. Therefore am I called Hermes Trismegistos, possessing the three\nparts of the philosophy of the whole world.\n\n13. That which I had to say concerning the operation of the Sun is\ncompleted.\n\nThese sentences clearly teach the doctrine of the alchemistic essence or\n\u201cOne Thing,\u201d which is everywhere present, penetrating even solids (this\nwe should note is true of the ether of space), and out of which all\nthings of the physical world are made by adaptation or modification. The\nterms Sun and Moon in the above passage probably stand for Spirit and\nMatter respectively, not gold and silver.\n\n\nZosimus of Panopolis.\n\n\u00a7 =31.= One of the earliest of the alchemists of whom record remains was\n=Zosimus of Panopolis=, who flourished in the fifth century, and was\nregarded by the later alchemists as a master of the Art. He is said to\nhave written many treatises dealing with Alchemy, but only fragments\nremain. Of these fragments, Professor Venable says: \u201c.\u00a0.\u00a0. they give us\na good idea of the learning of the man and of his times. They contain\ndescriptions of apparatus, of furnaces, studies of minerals, of alloys,\nof glass making, of mineral waters, and much that is mystical, besides a\ngood deal referring to the transmutation of metals.\u201d[43] Zosimus is said\nto have been the author of the saying, \u201clike begets like,\u201d but whether\nall the fragments ascribed to him were really his work is doubtful.\n\n    [43] F. P. VENABLE, Ph.D.: _A Short History of Chemistry_ (1896), p.\n    13.\n\nAmong other early alchemists we may mention also =Africanus=, the\nSyrian; =Synesius=, Bishop of Ptolemais, and the historian,\n=Olympiodorus= of Thebes.\n\n\nGeber.\n\n\u00a7 =32.= In the seventh century the Arabians conquered Egypt; and\nstrangely enough, Alchemy flourished under them to a remarkable degree.\nOf all the Arabian alchemists, =Geber= has been regarded as the\ngreatest; as Professor Meyer says: \u201cThere can be no dispute that with\nthe name _Geber_ was propagated the memory of a personality with which\nthe chemical knowledge of the time was bound up.\u201d[44] Geber is supposed\nto have lived about the ninth century, but of his life nothing definite\nis known. A large number of works have been ascribed to him, of which\nthe majority are unknown, but the four Latin MSS. which have been\nprinted under the titles _Summa Perfectionis Mettalorum_, _De\nInvestigatione Perfectionis Metallorum_, _De Inventione Veritatis_ and\n_De Fornacibus Construendis_, were, until a few years ago, regarded as\ngenuine. On the strength of these works, Geber has ranked high as a\nchemist. In them are described the preparation of many important\nchemical compounds; the most essential chemical operations, such as\nsublimation, distillation, filtration, crystallisation (or coagulation,\nas the alchemists called it), &c.; and also important chemical\napparatus, for example, the water-bath, improved furnaces, &c. However,\nit was shown by the late Professor Berthelot that _Summa Perfectionis\nMettalorum_ is a forgery of the fourteenth century, and the other works\nforgeries of an even later date. Moreover, the original Arabic MSS. of\nGeber have been brought to light. These true writings of Geber are very\nobscure; they give no warrant for believing that the famous\nsulphur-mercury theory was due to this alchemist, and they prove him not\nto be the expert chemist that he was supposed to have been. The spurious\nwritings mentioned above show that the pseudo-Geber was a man of wide\nchemical knowledge and experience, and play a not inconsiderable part in\nthe history of Alchemy.\n\n    [44] ERNST VON MEYER: _A History of Chemistry_ (translated by Dr.\n    McGowan, 1906), p. 31.\n\n\nOther Arabian Alchemists.\n\n\u00a7 =33.= Among other Arabian alchemists the most celebrated were\n=Avicenna= and =Rhasis=, who are supposed to have lived some time after\nGeber; and to whom, perhaps, the sulphur-mercury theory may have been to\nsome extent due.\n\nThe teachings of the Arabian alchemists gradually penetrated into the\nWestern world, in which, during the thirteenth century, flourished some\nof the most eminent of the alchemists, whose lives and teachings we must\nnow briefly consider.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 7.\n\n[by de Bry]\n\nPORTRAIT OF ALBERTUS MAGNUS.\n\n_To face page 44_]]\n\n\nAlbertus Magnus (1193-1280).\n\n\u00a7 =34.= =Albertus Magnus=, Albert Groot or Albert von Bollst\u00e4dt (see\nplate 7), was born at Lauingen, probably in 1193. He was educated at\nPadua, and in his later years he showed himself apt at acquiring the\nknowledge of his time. He studied theology, philosophy and natural\nscience, and is chiefly celebrated as an Aristotelean philosopher. He\nentered the Dominican order, taught publicly at Cologne, Paris and\nelsewhere, and was made provincial of this order. Later he had the\nbishopric of Regensburg conferred on him, but he retired after a few\nyears to a Dominican cloister, where he devoted himself to philosophy\nand science. He was one of the most learned men of his time and,\nmoreover, a man of noble character. The authenticity of the alchemistic\nworks attributed to him has been questioned.\n\n\nThomas Aquinas (1225-1274).\n\n\u00a7 =35.= The celebrated Dominican, =Thomas Aquinas= (see plate 8), was\nprobably a pupil of Albertus Magnus, from whom it is thought he imbibed\nalchemistic learning. It is very probable, however, that the alchemistic\nworks attributed to him are spurious. The author of these works\nmanifests a deeply religious tone, and, according to Thomson\u2019s _History\nof Chemistry_, he was the first to employ the term \u201camalgam\u201d to\ndesignate an alloy of mercury with some other metal.[45]\n\n    [45] THOMAS THOMSON: _The History of Chemistry_, vol. i. (1830), p.\n    33.\n\n\nRoger Bacon (1214-1294).\n\n\u00a7 =36.= =Roger Bacon=, the most illustrious of the medi\u00e6val alchemists,\nwas born near Ilchester in Somerset, probably in 1214. His erudition,\nconsidering the general state of ignorance prevailing at this time, was\nmost remarkable. Professor Meyer says: \u201cHe is to be regarded as the\nintellectual originator of experimental research, if the departure in\nthis direction is to be coupled with any one name--a direction which,\nfollowed more and more as time went on, gave to the science [of\nChemistry] its own peculiar stamp, and ensured its steady\ndevelopment.\u201d[46] Roger Bacon studied theology and science at Oxford and\nat Paris; and he joined the Franciscan order, at what date, however, is\nuncertain. He was particularly interested in optics, and certain\ndiscoveries in this branch of physics have been attributed to him,\nthough probably erroneously. It appears, also, that he was acquainted\nwith gunpowder, which was, however, not employed in Europe until many\nyears later.[47] Unfortunately, he earned the undesirable reputation of\nbeing in communication with the powers of darkness, and as he did not\nhesitate to oppose many of the opinions current at the time, he\nsuffered much persecution. He was a firm believer in the powers of the\nPhilosopher\u2019s Stone to transmute large quantities of \u201cbase\u201d metal into\ngold, and also to extend the life of the individual. \u201c_Alchimy_,\u201d he\nsays, \u201cis a Science, teaching how to transforme any kind of mettall into\nanother: and that by a proper medicine, as it appeareth by many\nPhilosophers Bookes. _Alchimy_ therefore is a science teaching how to\nmake and compound a certaine medicine, which is called _Elixir_, the\nwhich when it is cast upon mettals or imperfect bodies, doth fully\nperfect them in the verie projection.\u201d[48] He also believed in\nAstrology; but, nevertheless, he was entirely opposed to many of the\nmagical and superstitious notions held at the time, and his tract, _De\nSecretis Operibus Artis et Natur\u00e6, et de Nullitate Magi\u00e6_, was an\nendeavour to prove that many so-called \u201cmiracles\u201d could be brought about\nsimply by the aid of natural science. Roger Bacon was a firm supporter\nof the Sulphur-Mercury theory: he says: \u201c.\u00a0.\u00a0. the natural principles in\nthe mynes, are _Argent-vive_, and _Sulphur_. All mettals and minerals,\nwhereof there be sundrie and divers kinds, are begotten of these two:\nbut I must tel you, that nature alwaies intendeth and striveth to the\nperfection of Gold: but many accidents coming between, change the\nmetalls. .\u00a0.\u00a0. For according to the puritie and impuritie of the two\naforesaide principles, _Argent-vive_ and _Sulphur_, pure, and impure\nmettals are ingendred.\u201d[49] He expresses surprise that any should employ\nanimal and vegetable substances in their attempts to prepare the Stone,\na practice common to some alchemists but warmly criticised by others.\nHe says: \u201cNothing may be mingled with mettalls which hath not beene made\nor sprung from them, it remaineth cleane inough, that no strange thing\nwhich hath not his originall from these two [viz., sulphur and mercury],\nis able to perfect them, or to make a chaunge and new transmutation of\nthem: so that it is to be wondered at, that any wise man should set his\nmind upon living creatures, or vegetables which are far off, when there\nbe minerals to bee found nigh enough: neither may we in any wise thinke,\nthat any of the Philosophers placed the Art in the said remote things,\nexcept it were by way of comparison.\u201d[50] The one process necessary for\nthe preparation of the Stone, he tells us, is \u201ccontinuall concoction\u201d in\nthe fire, which is the method that \u201cGod hath given to nature.\u201d[51] He\ndied about 1294.\n\n    [46] ERNST VON MEYER: _A History of Chemistry_ (translated by Dr.\n    McGowan, 1906), p. 35.\n\n    [47] See ROGER BACON\u2019S _Discovery of Miracles_, chaps. vi. and xi.\n\n    [48] ROGER BACON: _The Mirror of Alchimy_ (1597), p. 1.\n\n    [49] _Ibid._ p. 2.\n\n    [50] ROGER BACON: _The Mirror of Alchimy_ (1597), p. 4.\n\n    [51] _Ibid._ p. 9.\n\n\nArnold de Villanova (12--?-1310?).\n\n\u00a7 =37.= The date and birthplace of =Arnold de Villanova=, or Villeneuve,\nare both uncertain. He studied medicine at Paris, and in the latter part\nof the thirteenth century practised professionally in Barcelona. To\navoid persecution at the hands of the Inquisition, he was obliged to\nleave Spain, and ultimately found safety with Frederick II. in Sicily.\nHe was famous not only as an alchemist, but also as a skilful physician.\nHe died (it is thought in a shipwreck) about 1310-1313.\n\n\nRaymond Lully (1235?-1315).\n\n\u00a7 =38.= =Raymond Lully=, the son of a noble Spanish family, was born at\nPalma (in Majorca) about 1235. He was a man of somewhat eccentric\ncharacter--in his youth a man of pleasure; in his maturity, a mystic\nand ascetic. His career was of a roving and adventurous character. We\nare told that, in his younger days, although married, he became\nviolently infatuated with a lady of the name of Ambrosia de Castello,\nwho vainly tried to dissuade him from his profane passion. Her efforts\nproving futile, she requested Lully to call upon her, and in the\npresence of her husband, bared to his sight her breast, which was almost\neaten away by a cancer. This sight--so the story goes--brought about\nLully\u2019s conversion. He became actuated by the idea of converting to\nChristianity the heathen in Africa, and engaged the services of an\nArabian whereby he might learn the language. The man, however,\ndiscovering his master\u2019s object, attempted to assassinate him, and Lully\nnarrowly escaped with his life. But his enthusiasm for missionary work\nnever abated--his central idea was the reasonableness and\ndemonstrability of Christian doctrine--and unhappily he was, at last,\nstoned to death by the inhabitants of Bugiah (in Algeria) in 1315.[52]\n\n    [52] See _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_ (1815), pp. 17 _et\n    seq._\n\nA very large number of alchemistic, theological and other treatises are\nattributed to Lully, many of which are undoubtedly spurious; and it is a\ndifficult question to decide exactly which are genuine. He is supposed\nto have derived a knowledge of Alchemy from Roger Bacon and Arnold de\nVillanova. It appears more probable, however, either that Lully the\nalchemist was a personage distinct from the Lully whose life we have\nsketched above, or that the alchemistic writings attributed to him are\nforgeries of a similar nature to the works of pseudo-Geber (\u00a7 32). Of\nthese alchemical writings we may here mention the _Clavicula_. This he\nsays is the key to all his other books on Alchemy, in which books the\nwhole Art is fully declared, though so obscurely as not to be\nunderstandable without its aid. In this work an alleged method for what\nmay be called the multiplication of the \u201cnoble\u201d metals rather than\ntransmutation is described in clear language; but it should be noticed\nthat the stone employed is itself a compound either of silver or gold.\nAccording to Lully, the secret of the Philosopher\u2019s Stone is the\nextraction of the mercury of silver or gold. He writes: \u201cMetals cannot\nbe transmuted .\u00a0.\u00a0. in the Minerals, unless they be reduced into their\nfirst Matter. .\u00a0.\u00a0. Therefore I counsel you, O my Friends, that you do\nnot work but about _Sol_ and _Luna_, reducing them into the first\nMatter, our _Sulphur_ and _Argent vive_: therefore, Son, you are to use\nthis venerable Matter; and I swear unto you and promise, that unless you\ntake the _Argent vive_ of these two, you go to the Practick as blind men\nwithout eyes or sense. .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u201d[53]\n\n    [53] RAYMOND LULLY: _Clavicula, or, A Little Key_ (see _Aurifontina\n    Chymica_, 1680, p. 167).\n\n\nPeter Bonus (14th Century).\n\n\u00a7 =39.= In 1546, a work was published entitled _Magarita Pretiosa_,\nwhich claimed to be a \u201cfaithful abridgement,\u201d by \u201cJanus Lacinus\nTherapus, the Calabrian,\u201d of a MS. written by =Peter Bonus= in the\nfourteenth century. An abridged English translation of this book by Mr.\nA. E. Waite was published in 1894. Of the life of Bonus, who is said to\nhave been an inhabitant of Pola, a seaport of Istria, nothing is known;\nbut the _Magarita Pretiosa_ is an alchemistic work of considerable\ninterest. The author commences, like pseudo-Geber in his _Sum of\nPerfection_, by bringing forward a number of very ingenious arguments\nagainst the validity of the Art; he then proceeds with arguments in\nfavour of Alchemy and puts forward answers in full to the former\nobjections; further difficulties, &c., are then dealt with. In all this,\ncompared with many other alchemists, Bonus, though somewhat prolix, is\nremarkably lucid. All metals, he argues, following the views of\npseudo-Geber, consist of mercury and sulphur; but whilst the mercury is\nalways one and the same, different metals contain different sulphurs.\nThere are also two different kinds of sulphurs--inward and outward.\nSulphur is necessary for the development of the mercury, but for the\nfinal product, gold, to come forth, it is necessary that the outward and\nimpure sulphur be purged off. \u201cEach metal,\u201d says Bonus, \u201cdiffers from\nall the rest, and has a certain perfection and completeness of its own;\nbut none, except gold, has reached that highest degree of perfection of\nwhich it is capable. For all common metals there is a transient and a\nperfect state of inward completeness, and this perfect state they attain\neither through the slow operation of Nature, or through the sudden\ntransformatory power of our Stone. We must, however, add that the\nimperfect metals form part of the great plan and design of Nature,\nthough they are in course of transformation into gold. For a large\nnumber of very useful and indispensable tools and utensils could not be\nprovided at all if there were no copper, iron, tin, or lead, and if all\nmetals were either silver or gold. For this beneficent reason Nature\nhas furnished us with the metallic substance in all its different stages\nof development, from iron, or the lowest, to gold, or the highest state\nof metallic perfection. Nature is ever studying variety, and, for that\nreason, instead of covering the whole face of the earth with water, has\nevolved out of that elementary substance a great diversity of forms,\nembracing the whole animal, vegetable and mineral world. It is, in like\nmanner, for the use of men that Nature has differentiated the metallic\nsubstance into a great variety of species and forms.\u201d[54] According to\nthis interesting alchemistic work, the Art of Alchemy consists, not in\nreducing the imperfect metals to their first substance, but in carrying\nforward Nature\u2019s work, developing the imperfect metals to perfection and\nremoving their impure sulphur.\n\n    [54] PETER BONUS: _The New Pearl of Great Price_ (Mr. A. E. Waite\u2019s\n    translation, pp. 176-177).\n\n\nNicolas Flamel (1330-1418).\n\n\u00a7 =40.= Nicolas Flamel (see plate 8) was born about 1330, probably in\nParis. His parents were poor, and Nicolas took up the trade of a\nscrivener. In the course of time, Flamel became a very wealthy man and,\nat the same time, it appears, one who exhibited considerable\nmunificence. This increase in Flamel\u2019s wealth has been attributed to\nsupposed success in the Hermetic Art. We are told that a remarkable book\ncame into the young scrivener\u2019s possession, which, at first, he was\nunable to understand, until, at last, he had the good fortune to meet an\nadept who translated its mysteries for him. This book revealed the\noccult secrets of Alchemy, and by its means Nicolas was enabled to\nobtain immense quantities of gold. This story, however, appears to be of\na legendary nature, and it seems more likely that Flamel\u2019s riches\nresulted from his business as a scrivener and from moneylending. At any\nrate, all of the alchemistic works attributed to Flamel are of more or\nless questionable origin. One of these, entitled _A Short Tract, or\nPhilosophical Summary_, will be found in _The Hermetic Museum_. It is a\nvery brief work, supporting the sulphur-mercury theory.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 8.\n\nPORTRAIT OF THOMAS AQUINAS.\n\nPORTRAIT OF NICOLAS FLAMEL.\n\n_To face page 52_]]\n\n\n\u201cBasil Valentine\u201d and \u201cThe Triumphal Chariot of Antimony.\u201d\n\n\u00a7 =41.= Probably the most celebrated of all alchemistic books is the\nwork known as _Triumph-Wagen des Antimonii_. A Latin translation with a\ncommentary by Theodore Kerckringius was published in 1685, and an\nEnglish translation of this version by Mr. A. E. Waite appeared in 1893.\nThe author describes himself as \u201c=Basil Valentine=, a Benedictine monk.\u201d\nIn his \u201c_Practica_,\u201d another alchemistic work, he says: \u201cWhen I had\nemptied to the dregs the cup of human suffering, I was led to consider\nthe wretchedness of this world, and the fearful consequences of our\nfirst parents\u2019 disobedience .\u00a0.\u00a0. I made haste to withdraw myself from\nthe evil world, to bid farewell to it, and to devote myself to the\nService of God.\u201d[55] He proceeds to relate that he entered a monastery,\nbut finding that he had some time on his hands after performing his\ndaily work and devotions, and not wishing to pass this time in idleness,\nhe took up the study of Alchemy, \u201cthe investigation of those natural\nsecrets by which God has shadowed out eternal things,\u201d and at last\nhis labours were rewarded by the discovery of a Stone most potent in the\ncuring of diseases. In _The Triumphal Chariot of Antimony_ are\naccurately described a large number of antimonial preparations, and as\nBasil was supposed to have written this work some time in the fifteenth\ncentury, these preparations were accordingly concluded to have been, for\nthe most part, his own discoveries. He defends with the utmost vigour\nthe medicinal values of antimony, and criticises in terms far from mild\nthe physicians of his day. On account of this work Basil Valentine has\nranked very high as an experimental chemist; but from quite early times\nits date and authorship have been regarded alike as doubtful; and it\nappears from the researches of the late Professor Schorlemmer \u201cto be an\nundoubted forgery dating from about 1600, the information being culled\nfrom the works of other writers. .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u201d[56] Probably the other works\nascribed to Basil Valentine are of a like nature. _The Triumphal Chariot\nof Antimony_ does, however, give an accurate account of the knowledge of\nantimony of this time, and the pseudo-Valentine shows himself to have\nbeen a man of considerable experience with regard to this subject.\n\n    [55] \u201cBASIL VALENTINE\u201d: _The \u201cPractica\u201d_ (see _The Hermetic Museum_,\n    vol. i. p. 313).\n\n    [56] Sir H. E. ROSCOE, F.R.S., and C. SCHORLEMMER, F.R.S.: _A\n    Treatise on Chemistry_, vol. i. (1905), p. 9.\n\n\nIsaac of Holland (15th Century).\n\n\u00a7 =42.= Isaac of Holland and a countryman of the same name, probably his\nson, are said to have been the first Dutch alchemists. They are supposed\nto have lived during the fifteenth century, but of their lives nothing\nis known. Isaac, although not free from superstitious opinions, appears\nto have been a practical chemist, and his works, which abound in\nrecipes, were held in great esteem by Paracelsus and other alchemists.\nHe held that all things in this world are of a dual nature, partly good\nand partly bad. \u201c.\u00a0.\u00a0. All that God hath created good in the upper part\nof the world,\u201d he writes, \u201care perfect and uncorruptible, as the heaven:\nbut whatsoever in these lower parts, whether it be in beasts, fishes,\nand all manner of sensible creatures, hearbs or plants, it is indued\nwith a double nature, that is to say, perfect, and unperfect; the\nperfect nature is called the Quintessence, the unperfect the Feces or\ndreggs, or the venemous or combustible oile. .\u00a0.\u00a0. God hath put a secret\nnature or influence in every creature, and .\u00a0.\u00a0. to every nature of one\nsort or kind he hath given one common influence and vertue, whether it\nbee on Physick or other secret works, which partly are found out by\nnaturall workmanship. And yet more things are unknown than are apparent\nto our senses.\u201d[57] He gives directions for extracting the Quintessence,\nfor which marvellous powers are claimed, out of sugar and other organic\nsubstances; and he appears to be the earliest known writer who makes\nmention of the famous sulphur-mercury-salt theory.\n\n    [57] _One hundred and Fourteen Experiments and Cures of the Famous\n    Physitian Theophrastus Paracelsus, whereunto is added .\u00a0.\u00a0. certain\n    Secrets of Isaac Hollandus, concerning the Vegetall and Animall\n    Work_ (1652), p. 35.\n\n\nBernard Tr\u00e9visan (1406-1490).\n\n\u00a7 =43.= =Bernard Tr\u00e9visan=, a French count of the fifteenth century,\nsquandered enormous sums of money in the search for the Stone, in which\nthe whole of his life and energies were engaged. He seems to have become\nthe dupe of one charlatan after another, but at last, at a ripe old\nage, he says that his labours were rewarded, and that he successfully\nperformed the _magnum opus_. In a short, but rather obscure work, he\nspeaks of the Philosopher\u2019s Stone in the following words: \u201cThis Stone\nthen is compounded of a Body and Spirit, or of a volatile and fixed\nSubstance, and that is therefore done, because nothing in the World can\nbe generated and brought to light without these two Substances, to wit,\na Male and Female: From whence it appeareth, that although these two\nSubstances are not of one and the same species, yet one Stone doth\nthence arise, and although they appear and are said to be two\nSubstances, yet in truth it is but one, to wit, _Argent-vive_.\u201d[58] He\nappears, however, to have added nothing to our knowledge of chemical\nscience.\n\n    [58] BERNARD, EARL OF TR\u00c9VISAN: _A Treatise of the Philosophers\n    Stone_, 1683 (see _Collectanea Chymica: A Collection of Ten Several\n    Treatises in Chemistry_, 1684, p. 91).\n\n\nSir George Ripley (14--?-1490?).\n\n\u00a7 =44.= =Sir George Ripley=, an eminent alchemistic philosopher of the\nfifteenth century, entered upon a monastic life when a youth, becoming\none of the canons regular of Bridlington. After some travels he returned\nto England and obtaining leave from the Pope to live in solitude, he\ndevoted himself to the study of the Hermetic Art. His chief work is _The\nCompound of Alchymie .\u00a0.\u00a0. conteining twelve Gates_, which was written\nin 1471. In this curious work, we learn that there are twelve processes\nnecessary for the achievement of the _magnum opus_, namely, Calcination,\nSolution, Separation, Conjunction, Putrefaction, Congelation, Cibation,\nSublimation, Fermentation, Exaltation, Multiplication, and Projection.\nThese are likened to the twelve gates of a castle which the philosopher\nmust enter. At the conclusion of the twelfth gate, Ripley says:--\n\n      \u201cNow thou hast conqueryd the _twelve Gates_,\n    And all the Castell thou holdyst at wyll,\n    Keep thy Secretts in store unto thy selve;\n    And the commaundements of God looke thou fulfull:\n    In fyer conteinue thy glas styll,\n      And Multeply thy Medcyns ay more and more,\n      For wyse men done say _store ys no sore_.\u201d[59]\n\n    [59] Sir GEORGE RIPLEY: _The Compound of Alchemy_ (see _Theatrum\n    Chemicum Britannicum_, edited by Elias Ashmole, 1652, p. 186).\n\nAt the conclusion of the work he tells us that in all that he wrote\nbefore he was mistaken; he says:--\n\n      \u201cI made _Solucyons_ full many a one,\n    Of Spyrytts, Ferments, Salts, Yerne and Steele;\n    Wenyng so to make the Phylosophers Stone:\n    But fynally I lost eche dele,\n    After my Boks yet wrought I well;\n      Whych evermore untrue I provyd,\n      That made me oft full sore agrevyd.\u201d[60]\n\n    [60] _Ibid._ p. 189.\n\nRipley did much to popularise the works of Raymond Lully in England, but\ndoes not appear to have added to the knowledge of practical chemistry.\nHis _Bosom Book_, which contains an alleged method for preparing the\nStone, will be found in the _Collectanea Chemica_ (1893).\n\n\nThomas Norton (15th Century).\n\n\u00a7 =45.= =Thomas Norton=, the author of the celebrated _Ordinall of\nAlchemy_, was probably born shortly before the commencement of the\nfifteenth century. The _Ordinall_, which is written in verse (and which\nwill be found in Ashmole\u2019s _Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum_),[61] is\nanonymous, but the author\u2019s identity is revealed by a curious device.\nThe initial syllables of the proem and of the first six chapters,\ntogether with the first line of the seventh chapter, give the following\ncouplet:--\n\n    \u201cTomais Norton of Briseto,\n    A parfet _Master_ ye maie him call trowe.\u201d\n\n    [61] A prose version will be found in _The Hermetic Museum_\n    translated back into English from a Latin translation by Maier.\n\nSamuel Norton, the grandson of Thomas, who was also an alchemist, says\nthat Thomas Norton was a member of the privy chamber of Edward IV.\nNorton\u2019s distinctive views regarding the generation of the metals we\nhave already mentioned (see \u00a7 20). He taught that true knowledge of the\nArt of Alchemy could only be obtained by word of mouth from an adept,\nand in his _Ordinall_ he gives an account of his own initiation. He\ntells us that he was instructed by his master (probably Sir George\nRipley) and learnt the secrets of the Art in forty days, at the age of\ntwenty-eight. He does not, however, appear to have reaped the fruits of\nthis knowledge. Twice, he tells us, did he prepare the Elixir, and twice\nwas it stolen from him; and he is said to have died in 1477, after\nruining himself and his friends by his unsuccessful experiments.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nTHE ALCHEMISTS (_continued_)\n\n(B. PARACELSUS AND AFTER)\n\n\nParacelsus (1493-1541.)\n\n\u00a7 =46.= That erratic genius, =Paracelsus=--or, to give him his correct\nname, Philip (?) Aureole (?) =Theophrast Bombast von Hohenheim=--whose\nportrait forms the frontispiece to the present work--was born at\nEinsiedeln in Switzerland in 1493. He studied the alchemistic and\nmedical arts under his father, who was a physician, and continued his\nstudies later at the University of Basle. He also gave some time to the\nstudy of magic and the occult sciences under the famous Trithemius of\nSpanheim. Paracelsus, however, found the merely theoretical \u201cbook\nlearning\u201d of the university curriculum unsatisfactory and betook himself\nto the mines, where he might study the nature of metals at first hand.\nHe then spent several years in travelling, visiting some of the chief\ncountries of Europe. At last he returned to Basle, the chair of Medical\nScience of his old university being bestowed upon him. The works of\nIsaac of Holland had inspired him with the desire to improve upon the\nmedical science of his day, and in his lectures (which were, contrary\nto the usual custom, delivered not in Latin, but in the German language)\nhe denounced in violent terms the teachings of Galen and Avicenna, who\nwere until then the accredited authorities on medical matters. His use\nof the German tongue, his coarseness in criticism and his intense\nself-esteem, combined with the fact that he did lay bare many of the\nmedical follies and frauds of his day, brought him into very general\ndislike with the rest of the physicians, and the municipal authorities\nsiding with the aggrieved apothecaries and physicians, whose methods\nParacelsus had exposed, he fled from Basle and resumed his former roving\nlife. He was, so we are told, a man of very intemperate habits, being\nseldom sober (a statement seriously open to doubt); but on the other\nhand, he certainly accomplished a very large number of most remarkable\ncures, and, judging from his writings, he was inspired by lofty and\nnoble ideals and a fervent belief in the Christian religion. He died in\n1541.\n\nParacelsus combined in himself such opposite characteristics that it is\na matter of difficulty to criticise him aright. As says Professor\nFerguson: \u201cIt is most difficult .\u00a0.\u00a0. to ascertain what his true\ncharacter really was, to appreciate aright this man of fervid\nimagination, of powerful and persistent conviction, of unbated honesty\nand love of truth, of keen insight into the errors (as he thought them)\nof his time, of a merciless will to lay bare these errors and to reform\nthe abuses to which they gave rise, who in an instant offends by his\nboasting, his grossness, his want of self-respect. It is a problem how\nto reconcile his ignorance, his weakness, his superstition, his crude\nnotions, his erroneous observations, his ridiculous inferences and\ntheories, with his grasp of method, his lofty views of the true scope of\nmedicine, his lucid statements, his incisive and epigrammatic criticisms\nof men and motives.\u201d[62] It is also a problem of considerable difficulty\nto determine which of the many books attributed to him are really his\ngenuine works, and consequently what his views on certain points exactly\nwere.\n\n    [62] JOHN FERGUSON, M.A.: Article \u201cParacelsus,\u201d _Encyclop\u00e6dia\n    Britannica_, 9th edition (1885), vol. xviii. p. 236.\n\n\nViews of Paracelsus.\n\n\u00a7 =47.= Paracelsus was the first to recognise the desirability of\ninvestigating the physical universe with a motive other than\nalchemistic. He taught that \u201cthe object of chemistry is not to make\ngold, but to prepare medicines,\u201d and founded the school of\nIatro-chemistry or Medical Chemistry. This synthesis of chemistry with\nmedicine was of very great benefit to each science; new possibilities of\nchemical investigation were opened up now that the aim was not purely\nalchemistic. Paracelsus\u2019s central theory was that of the analogy between\nman, the microcosm, and the world or macrocosm. He regarded all the\nactions that go on in the human body as of a chemical nature, and he\nthought that illness was the result of a disproportion in the body\nbetween the quantities of the three great principles--sulphur, mercury,\nand salt--which he regarded as constituting all things; for example, he\nconsidered an excess of sulphur as the cause of fever, since sulphur was\nthe fiery principle, &c. The basis of the iatro-chemical doctrines,\nnamely, that the healthy human body is a particular combination of\nchemical substances: illness the result of some change in this\ncombination, and hence curable only by chemical medicines, expresses a\ncertain truth, and is undoubtedly a great improvement upon the ideas of\nthe ancients. But in the elaboration of his medical doctrines Paracelsus\nfell a prey to exaggeration and the fantastic, and many of his theories\nappear to be highly ridiculous. This extravagance is also very\npronounced in the alchemistic works attributed to him; for example, the\nbelief in the artificial creation of minute living creatures resembling\nmen (called \u201chomunculi\u201d)--a belief of the utmost absurdity, if we are to\nunderstand it literally. On the other hand, his writings do contain much\ntrue teaching of a mystical nature; his doctrine of the correspondence\nof man with the universe considered as a whole, for example, certainly\nbeing radically true, though fantastically stated and developed by\nParacelsus himself.\n\n\nIatro-Chemistry.\n\n\u00a7 =48.= Between the pupils of Paracelsus and the older school of\nmedicine, as might well be supposed, a battle royal was waged for a\nconsiderable time, which ultimately concluded, if not with a full\nvindication of Paracelsus\u2019s teaching, yet with the acceptance of the\nfundamental iatro-chemical doctrines. Henceforward it is necessary to\ndistinguish between the chemists and the alchemists--to distinguish\nthose who pursued chemical studies with the object of discovering and\npreparing useful medicines, and later those who pursued such studies for\ntheir own sake, from those whose object was the transmutation of the\n\u201cbase\u201d metals into gold, whether from purely selfish motives, or with\nthe desire to demonstrate on the physical plane the validity of the\ndoctrines of Mysticism. However, during the following century or two we\nfind, very often, the chemist and the alchemist united in one and the\nsame person. Men such as Glauber and Boyle, whose names will ever be\nremembered by chemists, did not doubt the possibility of performing the\n_magnum opus_. In the present chapter, however, we shall confine our\nattention for the most part to those men who may be regarded, for one\nreason or another, particularly as _alchemists_. And the alchemists of\nthe period we are now considering present a very great diversity. On the\none hand, we have men of much chemical knowledge and skill such as\nLibavius and van Helmont, on the other hand we have those who stand\nequally as high as exponents of mystic wisdom--men such as Jacob Boehme\nand, to a less extent, Thomas Vaughan. We have those, who, although they\ndid not enrich the science of Chemistry with any new discoveries, were,\nnevertheless, regarded as masters of the Hermetic Art; and, finally, we\nhave alchemists of the Edward Kelley and \u201cCagliostro\u201d type, whose main\nobject was their own enrichment at their neighbours\u2019 expense. Before,\nhowever, proceeding to an account of the lives and teachings of these\nmen, there is one curious matter--perhaps the most remarkable of all\nhistorical curiosities--that calls for some brief consideration. We\nrefer to the \u201cfar-famed\u201d Rosicrucian Society.\n\n\nThe Rosicrucian Society.\n\n\u00a7 =49.= The exoteric history of the Rosicrucian Society commences with\nthe year 1614. In that year there was published at Cassel in Germany a\npamphlet entitled _The Discovery of the Fraternity of the Meritorious\nOrder of the Rosy Cross, addressed to the Learned in General and the\nGovernors of Europe_. After a discussion of the momentous question of\nthe general reformation of the world, which was to be accomplished\nthrough the medium of a secret confederacy of the wisest and most\nphilanthropic men, the pamphlet proceeds to inform its readers that such\nan association is in existence, founded over one hundred years ago by\nthe famous C.R.C., grand initiate in the mysteries of Alchemy, whose\nhistory (which is clearly of a fabulous or symbolical nature) is given.\nThe book concludes by inviting the wise men of the time to join the\nFraternity, directing those who wished to do so to indicate their desire\nby the publication of printed letters, which should come into the hands\nof the Brotherhood. As might well be expected, the pamphlet was the\ncause of considerable interest and excitement, but although many letters\nwere printed, apparently none of them were vouchsafed a reply. The\nfollowing year a further pamphlet appeared, _The Confession of the\nRosicrucian Fraternity, addressed to the Learned in Europe_, and in\n1616, _The Chymical Nuptials of Christian Rosencreutz_. This latter book\nis a remarkable allegorical romance, describing how an old man, a\nlifelong student of the alchemistic Art, was present at the\naccomplishment of the _magnum opus_ in the year 1459. An enormous amount\nof controversy took place; it was plain to some that the Society had\ndeluded them, whilst others hotly maintained its claims; but after about\nfour years had passed, the excitement had subsided, and the subject\nceased, for the time being, to arouse any particular interest.\n\nSome writers, even in recent times, more gifted for romance than for\nhistorical research, have seen in the Rosicrucian Society a secret\nconfederacy of immense antiquity and of stupendous powers, consisting of\nthe great initiates of all ages, supposed to be in possession of the\narch secrets of alchemistic art. It is abundantly evident, however, that\nit was nothing of the sort. It is clear from an examination of the\npamphlets already mentioned that they are animated by Lutheran ideals;\nand it is of interest to note that Luther\u2019s seal contained both the\ncross and the rose--whence the term \u201cRosicrucian.\u201d The generally\naccepted theory regards the pamphlets as a sort of elaborate hoax\nperpetrated by Valentine Andre\u00e4, a young and benevolent Lutheran divine;\nbut more, however, than a mere hoax. As the late Mr. R. A. Vaughan\nwrote: \u201c.\u00a0.\u00a0. this Andre\u00e4 writes the _Discovery of the Rosicrucian\nBrotherhood, a jeu-d\u2019esprit_ with a serious purpose, just as an\nexperiment to see whether something cannot be done by combined effort to\nremedy the defect and abuses--social, educational, and religious, so\nlamented by all good men. He thought there were many Andre\u00e4s scattered\nthroughout Europe--how powerful would be their united systematic action!\n.\u00a0.\u00a0. He hoped that the few nobler minds whom he desired to organize\nwould see through the veil of fiction in which he had invested his\nproposal; that he might communicate personally with some such, if they\nshould appear; or that his book might lead them to form among themselves\na practical philanthropic confederacy, answering to the serious purpose\nhe had embodied in his fiction.\u201d[63] His scheme was a failure, and on\nseeing its result, Andre\u00e4, not daring to reveal himself as the author of\nthe pamphlets, did his best to put a stop to the folly by writing\nseveral works in criticism of the Society and its claims. Mr. A. E.\nWaite, however, whose work on the subject should be consulted for\nfurther information, rejects this theory, and suggests that the\nRosicrucian Society was probably identical with the _Militia Crucifera\nEvangelica_, a secret society founded in Nuremburg by the Lutheran\nalchemist and mystic, Simon Studion.[64]\n\n    [63] ROBERT ALFRED VAUGHAN, B.A.: _Hours with the Mystics_ (7th\n    edition, 1895), vol. ii. bk. 8, chap. ix. p. 134.\n\n    [64] ARTHUR EDWARD WAITE: _The Real History of the Rosicrucians_,\n    (1887).\n\n\nThomas Charnock (1524-1581).\n\n\u00a7 =50.= We must now turn our attention to the lives and teachings of the\nalchemists of the period under consideration, treating them, as far as\npossible, in chronological order; whence the first alchemist to come\nunder our notice is Thomas Charnock.\n\n=Thomas Charnock= was born at Faversham (Kent), either in the year 1524\nor in 1526. After some travels over England he settled at Oxford,\ncarrying on experiments in Alchemy. In 1557 he wrote his _Breviary of\nPhilosophy_. This work is almost entirely autobiographical, describing\nCharnock\u2019s alchemistic experiences. He tells us that he was initiated\ninto the mysteries of the Hermetic Art by a certain James S. of\nSalisbury; he also had another master, an old blind man, who on his\ndeath-bed instructed Charnock. Unfortunately, however, Thomas was doomed\nto failure in his experiments. On the first attempt his apparatus caught\nfire and his work was destroyed. His next experiments were ruined by the\nnegligence of a servant. His final misfortune shall be described in his\nown words. He had started the work for a third time, and had spent much\nmoney on his fire, hoping to be shortly rewarded. .\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\n    \u201cThen a _Gentleman_ that oughte me great mallice\n    Caused me to be prest to goe serve at _Callys_:\n    When I saw there was no other boote,\n    But that I must goe spight of my heart roote;\n    In my fury I tooke a Hatchet in my hand,\n    And brake all my Worke whereas it did stand.\u201d[65]\n\n    [65] THOMAS CHARNOCK: _The Breviary of Naturall Philosophy_ (see\n    _Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum_, edited by Ashmole, 1652, p. 295.)\n\nThomas Charnock married in 1562 a Miss Agnes Norden. He died in 1581. It\nis, perhaps, unnecessary to say that his name does not appear in the\nhistory of Chemistry.\n\n\nAndreas Libavius (1540-1616.)\n\n\u00a7 =51.= =Andreas Libavius= was born at Halle in Germany in 1540, where\nhe studied medicine and practiced for a short time as a physician. He\naccepted the fundamental iatro-chemical doctrines, at the same time,\nhowever, criticising certain of the more extravagant views expressed by\nParacelsus. He was a firm believer in the transmutation of the metals,\nbut his own activities were chiefly directed to the preparation of new\nand better medicines. He enriched the science of Chemistry by many\nvaluable discoveries, and tin tetra-chloride, which he was the first to\nprepare, is still known by the name of _spiritus fumans Libavii_.\nLibavius was a man possessed of keen powers of observation; and his work\non Chemistry, which contains a full account of the knowledge of the\nscience of his time, may be regarded as the first text-book of\nChemistry. It was held in high esteem for a considerable time, being\nreprinted on several occasions.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 9.\n\nPORTRAIT OF EDWARD KELLEY.\n\nPORTRAIT OF JOHN DEE.\n\n_To face page 68_]]\n\n\nEdward Kelley (1555-1595) and John Dee (1527-1608.)\n\n\u00a7 =52.= Edward Kelley or Kelly (see plate 9) was born at Worcester on\nAugust 1, 1555. His life is so obscured by various traditions that it is\nvery difficult to arrive at the truth concerning it. The latest, and\nprobably the best, account will be found in Miss Charlotte Fell Smith\u2019s\n_John Dee_ (1909). Edward Kelley, according to some accounts, was\nbrought up as an apothecary.[66] He is also said to have entered Oxford\nUniversity under the pseudonym of Talbot.[67] Later, he practised as a\nnotary in London. He is said to have committed a forgery, for which he\nhad his ears cropped; but another account, which supposes him to have\navoided this penalty by making his escape to Wales, is not improbable.\nOther crimes of which he is accused are coining and necromancy. He was\nprobably not guilty of all these crimes, but that he was undoubtedly a\ncharlatan and profligate the sequel will make plain. We are told that\nabout the time of his alleged escape to Wales, whilst in the\nneighbourhood of Glastonbury Abbey, he became possessed, by a lucky\nchance, of a manuscript by St. Dunstan setting forth the grand secrets\nof Alchemy, together with some of the two transmuting tinctures, both\nwhite and red,[68] which had been discovered in a tomb near by. His\nfriendship with John Dee, or Dr. Dee as he is generally called,\ncommenced in 1582. Now, =John Dee= (see plate 9) was undoubtedly a\nmathematician of considerable erudition. He was also an astrologer, and\nwas much interested in experiments in \u201ccrystal-gazing,\u201d for which\npurpose he employed a speculum of polished cannel-coal, and by means of\nwhich he believed that he had communication with the inhabitants of\nspiritual spheres. It appears that Kelley, who probably did possess some\nmediumistic powers, the results of which he augmented by means of fraud,\ninterested himself in these experiments, and not only became the\ndoctor\u2019s \u201cscryer,\u201d but also gulled him into the belief that he was in\nthe possession of the arch-secrets of Alchemy. In 1583, Kelley and his\nlearned dupe left England together with their wives and a Polish\nnobleman, staying firstly at Cracovia and afterwards at Prague, where it\nis not unlikely that the Emperor Rudolph II. knighted Kelley. As\ninstances of the belief which the doctor had in Kelley\u2019s powers as an\nalchemist, we may note that in his Private Diary under the date December\n19, 1586, Dee records that Kelley performed a transmutation for the\nbenefit of one Edward Garland and his brother Francis;[69] and under\nthe date May 10, 1588, we find the following recorded: \u201cE.K. did open\nthe great secret to me, God be thanked!\u201d[70] That he was not always\nwithout doubts as to Kelley\u2019s honesty, however, is evident from other\nentries in his Diary. In 1587 occurred an event which must be recorded\nto the partners\u2019 lasting shame. To cap his former impositions, Kelley\ninformed the doctor that by the orders of a spirit which had appeared to\nhim in the crystal, they were to share \u201ctheir two wives in common\u201d; to\nwhich arrangement, after some further persuasion, Dee consented.\nKelley\u2019s profligacy and violent temper, however, had already been the\ncause of some disagreement between him and the doctor, and this incident\nleading to a further quarrel, the erstwhile friends parted. In 1589, the\nEmperor Rudolph imprisoned Kelley, the price of his freedom being the\ntransmutative secret, or a substantial quantity of gold, at least,\nprepared by its aid. He was, however, released in 1593; but died in\n1595; according to one account, as the result of an accident incurred\nwhile attempting to escape from a second imprisonment. Dee merely\nrecords that he received news to the effect that Kelley \u201cwas slayne.\u201d\n\n    [66] See, for example, WILLIAM LILLY: _History of His Life and\n    Times_ (1715, reprinted in 1822, p. 227).\n\n    [67] See ANTHONY \u00c0 WOOD\u2019S account of Kelley\u2019s life in _Athen\u00e6\n    Oxonienses_ (3rd edition, edited by Philip Bliss, vol. i. col. 639.)\n\n    [68] William Lilly, the astrologer, in his _History of His Life and\n    Times_ (1822 reprint, pp. 225-226), relates a different story\n    regarding the manner in which Kelley is supposed to have obtained\n    the Great Medicine, but as it is told at third hand, it is of little\n    importance. We do not suppose that there can be much doubt that the\n    truth was that Dee and others were deceived by some skilful\n    conjuring tricks, for whatever else Kelley may have been, he\n    certainly was a very ingenious fellow.\n\n    [69] _The Private Diary of Dr. John Dee_ (The Camden Society, 1842),\n    p. 22.\n\n    [70] _The Private Diary of Dr. John Dee_ (The Camden Society, 1842),\n    p. 27.\n\nIt was during his incarceration that he wrote an alchemistic work\nentitled _The Stone of the Philosophers_, which consists largely of\nquotations from older alchemistic writings. His other works on Alchemy\nwere probably written at an earlier period.[71]\n\n    [71] An English translation of Kelley\u2019s alchemistic works were\n    published under the editorship of Mr. A. E. Waite, in 1893.\n\n\nHenry Khunrath (1560-1605).\n\n\u00a7 =53.= =Henry Khunrath= was born in Saxony in the second half of the\nsixteenth century. He was a follower of Paracelsus, and travelled about\nGermany, practising as a physician. \u201cThis German alchemist,\u201d says Mr. A.\nE. Waite, \u201c.\u00a0.\u00a0. is claimed as a hierophant of the psychic side of the\n_magnum opus_, and .\u00a0.\u00a0. was undoubtedly aware of the larger issues, of\nHermetic theorems\u201d; he describes Khunrath\u2019s chief work, _Amphitheatrum\nSapienti\u00e6 \u00c6tern\u00e6_, &c., as \u201cpurely mystical and magical.\u201d[72]\n\n    [72] A. E. WAITE: _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_ (1888), p.\n    159.\n\n\nAlexander Sethon (?-1604) and Michael Sendivogius (1566?-1646).\n\n\u00a7 =54.= The date and birthplace of =Alexander Sethon=, a Scottish\nalchemist, do not appear to have been recorded, but =Michael\nSendivogius= was probably born in Moravia about 1566. Sethon, we are\ntold, was in possession of the arch-secrets of Alchemy. He visited\nHolland in 1602, proceeded after a time to Italy, and passed through\nBasle to Germany; meanwhile he is said to have performed many\ntransmutations. Ultimately arriving at Dresden, however, he fell into\nthe clutches of the young Elector, Christian II., who, in order to\nextort his secret, cast him into prison, and put him to the torture, but\nwithout avail. Now, it so happened that Sendivogius, who was in quest of\nthe Philosopher\u2019s Stone, was staying at Dresden, and hearing of Sethon\u2019s\nimprisonment obtained permission to visit him. Sendivogius offered to\neffect Sethon\u2019s escape in return for assistance in his alchemistic\npursuits, to which arrangement the Scottish alchemist willingly agreed.\nAfter some considerable outlay of money in bribery, Sendivogius\u2019s plan\nof escape was successfully carried out, and Sethon found himself a free\nman; but he refused to betray the high secrets of Hermetic philosophy to\nhis rescuer. However, before his death, which occurred shortly\nafterwards, he presented him with an ounce of the transmutative powder.\nSendivogius soon used up this powder, we are told, in effecting\ntransmutations and cures, and, being fond of expensive living, he\nmarried Sethon\u2019s widow, in the hope that she was in the possession of\nthe transmutative secret. In this, however, he was disappointed; she\nknew nothing of the matter, but she had the manuscript of an alchemistic\nwork written by her late husband. Shortly afterwards Sendivogius printed\nat Prague a book entitled _The New Chemical Light_ under the name of\n\u201cCosmopolita,\u201d which is said to be this work of Sethon\u2019s but which\nSendivogius claimed for his own by the insertion of his name on the\ntitle-page, in the form of an anagram. The tract _On Sulphur_ which was\nprinted at the end of later editions, however, is said to have been the\ngenuine work of the Moravian. Whilst his powder lasted, Sendivogius\ntravelled about, performing, we are told, many transmutations. He was\ntwice imprisoned in order to extort the secrets of Alchemy from him, on\none occasion escaping, and on the other occasion obtaining his release\nfrom the Emperor Rudolph. Afterwards, he appears to have degenerated\ninto an impostor, but this is said to have been a _finesse_ to hide his\ntrue character as an alchemistic adept. He died in 1646.[73]\n\n    [73] See F. B.: _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_ (1815), pp.\n    66-69.\n\nThe _New Chemical Light_ was held in great esteem by the alchemists. The\nfirst part treats at length of the generation of the metals and also of\nthe Philosopher\u2019s Stone, and claims to be based on practical experience.\nThe seed of Nature, we are told, is one, but various products result on\naccount of the different conditions of development. An imaginary\nconversation between Mercury, an Alchemist and Nature which is appended,\nis not without a touch of humour. Says the Alchemist, in despair, \u201cNow I\nsee that I know nothing; only I must not say so. For I should lose the\ngood opinion of my neighbours, and they would no longer entrust me with\nmoney for my experiments. I must therefore go on saying that I know\neverything; for there are many that expect me to do great things for\nthem. .\u00a0.\u00a0. There are many countries, and many greedy persons who will\nsuffer themselves to be gulled by my promises of mountains of gold. Thus\nday will follow day, and in the meantime the King or the donkey will\ndie, or I myself.\u201d[74] The second part treats of the Elements and\nPrinciples (see \u00a7\u00a7 17 and 19).\n\n    [74] _The New Chemical Light_, Part I. (see _The Hermetic Museum_,\n    vol. ii. p. 125).\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 10.\n\n[by J. Brunn]\n\nPORTRAIT OF MICHAEL MAIER.\n\n_To face page 72_]]\n\n\nMichael Maier (1568-1622).\n\n\u00a7 =55.= =Michael Maier= (see plate 10) was born at Rendsberg (in\nHolstein) about 1568. He studied medicine assiduously, becoming a most\nsuccessful physician, and he was ennobled by Rudolf II. Later on,\nhowever, he took up the subject of Alchemy, and is said to have ruined\nhis health and wasted his fortune in the pursuit of the alchemistic\n_ignis fatuus_--the Stone of the Philosophers--travelling about Germany\nand elsewhere in order to have converse with those who were regarded as\nadepts in the Art. He took a prominent part in the famous Rosicrucian\ncontroversy (see \u00a7 49), defending the claims of the alleged society in\nseveral tracts. He is said, on the one hand, to have been admitted as a\nmember of the fraternity; and on the other hand, to have himself founded\na similar institution. A full account of his views will be found in the\nRev. J. B. Craven\u2019s _Count Michael Maier: Life and Writings_ (1910). He\nwas a very learned man, but his works are somewhat obscure and abound in\nfanciful allegories. He read an alchemistic meaning into the ancient\nfables concerning the Egyptian and Greek gods and heroes. Like most\nalchemists, he held the supposed virtues of mercury in high esteem. In\nhis _Lusus Serius: or, Serious Passe-time_, for example, he supposes a\nParliament of the various creatures of the world to meet, in order that\nMan might choose the noblest of them as king over all the rest. The\ncalf, the sheep, the goose, the oyster, the bee, the silkworm, flax and\nmercury are the chosen representatives, each of which discourses in\nturn. It will be unnecessary to state that Mercury wins the day. Thus\ndoes Maier eulogise it: \u201cThou art the miracle, splendour and light of\nthe world. Thou art the glory, ornament, and supporter of the Earth.\nThou art the Asyle, Anchor, and tye of the Universe. Next to the minde\nof Man, God Created nothing more Noble, more Glorious, or more\nProfitable.\u201d[75] His _Subtle Allegory concerning the Secrets of Alchemy,\nvery useful to possess and pleasant to read_, will be found in the\n_Hermetic Museum_, together with his _Golden Tripod_, consisting of\ntranslations of \u201cValentine\u2019s\u201d \u201c_Practica_\u201d and _Twelve Keys_, Norton\u2019s\n_Ordinal_ and Cremer\u2019s spurious _Testament_.\n\n    [75] MICHAEL MAIER: _Lusus Serius: or Serious Passe-time_ (1654), p.\n    138.\n\n[Illustration: Plate 11.\n\nPORTRAIT OF JACOB BOEHME.\n\n_To face page 74_]]\n\n\nJacob Boehme (1575-1624.)\n\n\u00a7 =56.= =Jacob Boehme=, or Behmen (see plate 11), was born at Alt\nSeidenberg, a village near G\u00f6rlitz, in 1575. His parents being poor, the\neducation he received was of a very rudimentary nature, and when his\nschooling days were over, Jacob was apprenticed to a shoemaker. His\nreligious nature caused him often to admonish his fellow-apprentices,\nwhich behaviour ultimately caused him to be dismissed. He travelled\nabout as a journeyman shoemaker, returning, however, to G\u00f6rlitz in 1594,\nwhere he married and settled in business. He claims to have experienced\na wonderful vision in 1598, and to have had a similar vision two years\nlater. In these visions, the first of which lasted for several days, he\nbelieved that he saw into the inmost secrets of nature; but what at\nfirst appeared dim and vague became clear and coherent in a third\nvision, which he tells us was vouchsafed to him in 1610. It was then\nthat he wrote his first book, the _Aurora_, which he composed for\nhimself only, in order that he should not forget the mysteries disclosed\nto him. At a later period he produced a large number of treatises of a\nmystical-religious nature, having spent the intervening years in\nimproving his early education. These books aroused the ire of the\nnarrow-minded ecclesiastical authorities of the town, and Jacob suffered\nconsiderable persecution in consequence. He visited Dresden in 1624, and\nin the same year was there taken ill with a fever. Returning to G\u00f6rlitz,\nhe expired in a condition of ecstasy.\n\nJacob Boehme was an alchemist of a purely transcendental order. He had,\nit appears, acquired some knowledge of Chemistry during his apprentice\ndays, and he employed the language of Alchemy in the elaboration of his\nsystem of mystical philosophy. With this lofty mystical-religious system\nwe cannot here deal; Boehme is, indeed, often accounted the greatest of\ntrue Christian mystics; but although conscious of his superiority over\nmany minor lights, we think this title is due to Emanuel Swedenborg. The\nquestion of the validity of his visions is also one which lies beyond\nthe scope of the present work;[76] we must confine our attention to\nBoehme as an alchemist. The Philosopher\u2019s Stone, in Boehme\u2019s\nterminology, is the Spirit of Christ which must \u201ctincture\u201d the\nindividual soul. In one place he says, \u201c_The Phylosophers Stone_ is a\nvery dark disesteemed Stone, of a _Gray_ colour, but therein lyeth the\nhighest Tincture.\u201d[77] In the transcendental sense, this is reminiscent\nof the words of Isaiah: \u201cHe hath no form nor comeliness; and when we see\nhim, there is no beauty that we should desire him. .\u00a0.\u00a0. He was despised\nand we esteemed him not,\u201d &c.[78]\n\n    [76] For a general discussion of spiritual visions see the present\n    writer\u2019s _Matter, Spirit and the Cosmos_ (Rider, 1910), Chapter IV.,\n    \u201cOn Matter and Spirit.\u201d Undoubtedly Boehme\u2019s visions involved a\n    valuable element of truth, but at the same time much that was purely\n    relative and subjective.\n\n    [77] JACOB BOEHME: _Epistles_ (translated by J. E., 1649), Ep. iv. \u00a7\n    111, p. 65.\n\n    [78] _The Book of the Prophet Isaiah_, chap, liii., vv. 2 and 3,\n    R.V.\n\n\nJ. B. van Helmont (1577-1644) and F. M. van Helmont (1618-1699.)\n\n\u00a7 =57.= =John Baptist van Helmont= (see plate 12) was born in Brussels\nin 1577. He devoted himself to the study of medicine, at first following\nGalen, but afterwards accepting in part the teachings of Paracelsus;\nand he helped to a large extent in the overthrow of the old medical\ndoctrines. His purely chemical researches were also of great value to\nthe science. He was a man of profound knowledge, of a religious\ntemperament, and he possessed a marked liking for the mystical. He was\ninspired by the writings of Thomas \u00e0 Kempis to imitate Christ in all\nthings, and he practised medicine, therefore, as a work of benevolence,\nasking no fee for his services. At the same time, moreover, he was a\nfirm believer in the powers of the Philosopher\u2019s Stone, claiming to have\nhimself successfully performed the transmutation of the metals on more\nthan one occasion, though unacquainted with the composition of the\nmedicine employed (see \u00a7 62). Many of his theoretical views are highly\nfantastical. He lived a life devoted to scientific research, and died in\n1644.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 12.\n\nPORTRAITS OF J. B. AND F. M. VAN HELMONT.\n\n(From the Frontispiece to J. B. van Helmont\u2019s _Oriatrike_).\n\n_To face page 76_]]\n\nVan Helmont regarded water as the primary element out of which all\nthings are produced. He denied that fire was an element or anything\nmaterial at all, and he did not accept the sulphur-mercury-salt theory.\nTo him is due the word \u201cgas\u201d--before his time various gases were looked\nupon as mere varieties of air--and he also made a distinction between\ngases (which could not be condensed)[79] and vapours (which give liquids\non cooling). In particular he investigated the gas that is now known as\ncarbon-dioxide (carbonic anhydride), which he termed _gas sylvestre_;\nbut he lacked suitable apparatus for the collection of gases, and\nhence was led in many cases to erroneous conclusions.\n\n    [79] It has since been discovered that all gases can be condensed,\n    given a sufficient degree of cold and pressure.\n\n=Francis Mercurius van Helmont= (see plate 12), the son of John Baptist,\nborn in 1618, gained the reputation of having also achieved the _magnum\nopus_, since he appeared to live very luxuriously upon a limited income.\nHe was a skilled chemist and physician, but held many queer theories,\nmetempsychosis included.\n\n\nJohann Rudolf Glauber (1604-1668).\n\n\u00a7 =58.= =Johann Rudolf Glauber= was born at Karlstadt in 1604. Of his\nlife little is known. He appears to have travelled about Germany a good\ndeal, afterwards visiting Amsterdam, where he died in 1668. He was of a\nvery patriotic nature, and a most ardent investigator in the realm of\nChemistry. He accepted the main iatro-chemical doctrines, but gave most\nof his attention to applied Chemistry. He enriched the science with many\nimportant discoveries; and crystallised sodium sulphate is still called\n\u201cGlauber\u2019s Salt.\u201d Glauber, himself, attributed remarkable medicinal\npowers to this compound. He was a firm believer in the claims of\nAlchemy, and held many fantastic ideas.\n\n\nThomas Vaughan (\u201cEugenius Philalethes\u201d) (1622-1666.)\n\n\u00a7 =59.= =Thomas Vaughan=, who wrote under the name of \u201c=Eugenius\nPhilalethes=,\u201d was born at Newton in Brecknockshire in 1622. He was\neducated at Jesus College, Oxford, graduating as a Bachelor of Arts, and\nbeing made a fellow of his college. He appears also to have taken holy\norders and to have had the living of St. Bridget\u2019s (Brecknockshire)\nconferred on him.[80] During the civil wars he bore arms for the king,\nbut his allegiance to the Royalist cause led to his being accused of\n\u201cdrunkenness, swearing, incontinency and bearing arms for the King\u201d; and\nhe appears to have been deprived of his living. He retired to Oxford and\ngave himself up to study and chemical research. He is to be regarded as\nan alchemist of the transcendental order. His views as to the nature of\nthe true Philosopher\u2019s Stone may be gathered from the following\nquotation: \u201cThis, reader,\u201d he says, speaking of the mystical\nillumination, \u201cis the Christian Philosopher\u2019s Stone, a Stone so often\ninculcated in Scripture. This is the Rock in the wildernesse, because in\ngreat obscurity, and few there are that know the right way unto it. This\nis the Stone of Fire in Ezekiel; this is the Stone with Seven Eyes upon\nit in Zacharie, and this is the White Stone with the New Name in the\nRevelation. But in the Gospel, where Christ himself speakes, who was\nborn to discover mysteries and communicate Heaven to Earth, it is more\nclearly described.\u201d[81] At the same time he appears to have carried out\nexperiments in physical Alchemy, and is said to have met with his death\nin 1666 through accidentally inhaling the fumes of some mercury with\nwhich he was experimenting.\n\n    [80] See ANTHONY \u00c0 WOOD: _Athen\u00e6 Oxonienses_, edited by Philip\n    Bliss, vol. iii. (1817), cols. 722-726.\n\n    [81] THOMAS VAUGHAN (\u201cEugenius Philalethes\u201d): _Anima Magica\n    Abscondita_ (see _The Magical Writings of Thomas Vaughan_, edited by\n    A. E. Waite, 1888, p. 71).\n\nThomas Vaughan was an ardent disciple of Cornelius Agrippa, the\nsixteenth-century theosophist. He held the peripatetic philosophy in\nvery slight esteem. He was a man devoted to God, though probably guilty\nof some youthful follies, full of love towards his wife, and with an\nintense desire for the solution of the great problems of Nature. Amongst\nhis chief works, which are by no means wanting in flashes of mystic\nwisdom, may be mentioned _Anthroposophia Theomagica_, _Anima Magica\nAbscondita_ (which were published together), and _Magia Adamica; or, the\nAntiquitie of Magic_. With regard to his views as expressed in the first\ntwo of these books, a controversy ensued between Vaughan and Henry\nMoore, which was marked by considerable acrimony.\n\n\n\u201cEiren\u00e6us Philalethes\u201d (1623?-?) and George Starkey (?-1665).\n\n\u00a7 =60.= The use of the pseudonym \u201cPhilalethes\u201d has not been confined to\none alchemist. The cosmopolitan adept who wrote under the name of\n\u201c=Eiren\u00e6us Philalethes=,\u201d has been confused, on the one hand, with\nThomas Vaughan, on the other hand with George Starkey (?-1665). He has\nalso been identified with Dr. Robert Child (1613-1654); but his real\nidentity remains shrouded in mystery.[82] =George Starkey= (or Stirk),\nthe son of George Stirk, minister of the Church of England in Bermuda,\ngraduated at Harvard in 1646 and practised medicine in the United States\nof America from 1647 to 1650. In 1651 he came to England and practised\nmedicine in London. He died of the plague in 1665. In 1654-5 he\npublished _The Marrow of Alchemy_, by \u201cEiren\u00e6us Philoponos\nPhilalethes,\u201d which some think he had stolen from his Hermetic Master.\nOther works by \u201cEiren\u00e6us Philalethes\u201d appeared after Starkey\u2019s death and\nbecame immensely popular. The _Open Entrance to the Closed Palace of the\nKing_ (the most famous of these) and the _Three Treatises_ of the same\nauthor will be found in _The Hermetic Museum_. Some of his views have\nalready been noted (see \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 22). On certain points he differed from\nthe majority of the alchemists. He denied that fire was an element, and,\nalso, that bodies are formed by mixture of the elements. According to\nhim there is one principle in the metals, namely, mercury, which arises\nfrom the aqueous element, and is termed \u201cmetalically differentiated\nwater, _i.e._, it is water passed into that stage of development, in\nwhich it can no longer produce anything but mineral substances.\u201d[83]\nPhilalethes\u2019s views as to \u201cmetallic seed\u201d are also of considerable\ninterest. Of the seed of gold, which he regarded as the seed, also, of\nall other metals, he says: \u201cThe seed of animals and vegetables is\nsomething separate, and may be cut out, or otherwise separately\nexhibited; but metallic seed is diffused throughout the metal, and\ncontained in all its smallest parts; neither can it be discerned from\nits body: its extraction is therefore a task which may well tax the\ningenuity of the most experienced philosopher. .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u201d[84] Well might\nthis have been said of the electron of modern scientific theory.\n\n    [82] See Mr. A. E. Waite\u2019s _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_,\n    art. \u201cEiren\u00e6us Philalethes,\u201d and the Biographical Preface to his\n    _The Works of Thomas Vaughan_ (1919); also the late Professor\n    Ferguson\u2019s \u201c\u2018The Marrow of Alchemy\u2019,\u201d _The Journal of The Alchemical\n    Society_, vol. iii. (1915), pp. 106 _et seq._, and Professor G. L.\n    Kittredge\u2019s _Doctor Robert Child, The Remonstrant_ (Camb., Mass.,\n    1919). The last mentioned writer strongly urges the identification\n    of \u201cEiren\u00e6us Philalethes\u201d with George Starkey.\n\n    [83] \u201cEIREN\u00c6US PHILALETHES\u201d: _The Metamorphosis of Metals_ (see _The\n    Hermetic Museum_, vol. ii. p. 236). Compare with van Helmont\u2019s\n    views, \u00a7 57.\n\n    [84] _Ibid._, p. 240.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE OUTCOME OF ALCHEMY\n\n\nDid the Alchemists achieve the \u201cMagnum Opus\u201d?\n\n\u00a7 =61.= The alchemists were untiring in their search for the Stone of\nthe Philosophers, and we may well ask whether they ever succeeded in\neffecting a real transmutation. That many _apparent_ transmutations\noccurred, the observers being either self-deceived by a superficial\nexamination--certain alloys resemble the \u201cnoble metals\u201d--or deliberately\ncheated by impostors, is of course undoubted. But at the same time we\nmust not assume that, because we know not the method now, real\ntransmutations have never taken place. Modern research indicates that it\nmay be possible to transmute other metals, such as lead or bismuth, into\ngold, and consequently we must admit the possibility that amongst the\nmany experiments carried out, a real transmutation was effected. On the\nother hand, the method which is suggested by the recent researches in\nquestion could not have been known to the alchemists or accidentally\nemployed by them; and, moreover, the quantity of gold which is hoped\nfor, should such a method prove successful, is far below the smallest\namount that would have been detected in the days of Alchemy. But if\nthere be one method whereby the metals may be transmuted, there may be\nother methods. And it is not altogether an easy task to explain away the\ntestimony of eminent men such as were van Helmont and Helvetius.\n\n\nThe Testimony of van Helmont.\n\n\u00a7 =62.= =John Baptist van Helmont= (see \u00a7 57), who was celebrated alike\nfor his skill as a physician and chemist and for his nobility of\ncharacter, testified in more than one place that he had himself carried\nout the transmutation of mercury into gold. But, as we have mentioned\nabove, the composition of the Stone employed on these occasions was\nunknown to him. He says: \u201c.\u00a0.\u00a0. For truly, I have divers times seen it\n[the Stone of the Philosophers], and handled it with my hands: but it\nwas of colour, such as is in Saffron in its Powder, yet weighty, and\nshining like unto powdered Glass: There was once given unto me one\nfourth part of one Grain: But I call a Grain the six hundredth part of\none Ounce: This quarter of one Grain therefore, being rouled up in\nPaper, I projected upon eight Ounces of Quick-silver made hot in a\nCrucible; and straightway all the Quick-silver, with a certain degree of\nNoise, stood still from flowing, and being congealed, setled like unto a\nyellow Lump: but after pouring it out, the Bellows blowing, there were\nfound eight Ounces, and a little less than eleven Grains [eight Ounces\nless eleven Grains] of the purest Gold: Therefore one only Grain of that\nPowder, had transchanged 19186 [19156] Parts of Quick-silver, equal to\nitself, into the best Gold.\u201d[85]\n\n    [85] J. B. VAN HELMONT: _Life Eternal_ (see _Oriatrike_, translated\n    by J. C., 1662; or _van Helmont\u2019s Workes_, translated by J. C.,\n    1664, which is merely the former work with a new title-page and\n    preliminary matter, pp. 751 and 752).\n\nAnd again: \u201cI am constrained to believe that there is the Stone which\nmakes Gold, and which makes Silver; because I have at distinct turns,\nmade projection with my hand, of one grain of the Powder, upon some\nthousand grains of hot Quick-silver; and the buisiness succeeded in the\nFire, even as Books do promise; a Circle of many People standing by,\ntogether with a tickling Admiration of us all. .\u00a0.\u00a0. He who first gave\nme the Gold-making Powder, had likewise also, at least as much of it, as\nmight be sufficient for changing two hundred thousand Pounds of Gold:\n.\u00a0.\u00a0. For he gave me perhaps half a grain of that Powder, and nine\nounces and three quarters of Quick-silver were thereby transchanged: But\nthat Gold, a strange man [a stranger], being a Friend of one evenings\nacquaintance, gave me.\u201d[86]\n\n    [86] J. B. VAN HELMONT: _The Tree of Life_ (see _Oriatrike_ or _Van\n    Helmont\u2019s Workes_, p. 807).\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 13.\n\n_To face page 84_]]\n\n\nThe Testimony of Helvetius.\n\n\u00a7 =63.= =John Frederick Helvetius= (see plate 13), an eminent doctor of\nmedicine, and physician to the Prince of Orange, published at the Hague\nin 1667 the following remarkable account of a transmutation he claimed\nto have effected. Certain points of resemblance between this account and\nthat of van Helmont (_e.g._, in each case the Stone is described as a\nglassy substance of a pale yellow colour) are worth noticing: \u201cOn the 27\nDecember, 1666, in the forenoon, there came to my house a certain man,\nwho was a complete stranger to me, but of an honest, grave countenance,\nand an authoritative mien, clothed in a simple garb like that of a\nMemnonite. .\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\n\u201cAfter we had exchanged salutations, he asked me whether he might have\nsome conversation with me. He wished to say something to me about the\nPyrotechnic Art, as he had read one of my tracts (directed against the\nsympathetic Powder of Dr. Digby), in which I hinted a suspicion whether\nthe Grand Arcanum of the Sages was not after all a gigantic hoax. He,\ntherefore, took that opportunity of asking me whether I could not\nbelieve that such a grand mystery might exist in the nature of things,\nby means of which a physician could restore any patient whose vitals\nwere not irreparably destroyed. I answered: \u2018Such a Medicine would be a\nmost desirable acquisition for any physician; nor can any man tell how\nmany secrets there may be hidden in Nature; yet, though I have read much\nabout the truth of this Art, it has never been my good fortune to meet\nwith a real Master of the Alchemical Science.\u2019 I also enquired whether\nhe was a medical man. .\u00a0.\u00a0. In reply, he .\u00a0.\u00a0. described himself as a\nbrassfounder. .\u00a0.\u00a0. After some further conversation, the Artist Elias\n(for it was he) thus addressed me: \u2018Since you have read so much in the\nworks of the Alchemists about this Stone, its substance, its colour, and\nits wonderful effects, may I be allowed the question, whether you have\nnot yourself prepared it?\u2019 On my answering his question in the negative,\nhe took out of his bag a cunningly-worked ivory box, in which there were\nthree large pieces of a substance resembling glass, or pale sulphur, and\ninformed me that here was enough of the Tincture for the production of\n20 tons of gold. When I had held the precious treasure in my hand for\na quarter of an hour (during which time I listened to a recital of its\nwonderful curative properties), I was compelled to restore it to its\nowner, which I could not help doing with a certain degree of reluctance.\nAfter thanking him for his kindness in shewing it to me, I then asked\nhow it was that his Stone did not display that ruby colour, which I had\nbeen taught to regard as characteristic of the Philosopher\u2019s Stone. He\nreplied that the colour made no difference, and that the substance was\nsufficiently mature for all practical purposes. My request that he would\ngive me a piece of his Stone (though it were no larger than a coriander\nseed), he somewhat brusquely refused, adding, in a milder tone, that he\ncould not give it me for all the wealth I possessed, and that not on\naccount of its great preciousness, but for some other reason which it\nwas not lawful for him to divulge; .\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\n\nHelvetius obtains the Philosopher\u2019s Stone.\n\n\u00a7 =64.= \u201cWhen my strange visitor had concluded his narrative, I besought\nhim to give me a proof of his assertion, by performing the transmutatory\noperation on some metals in my presence. He answered evasively, that he\ncould not do so then, but that he would return in three weeks, and that,\nif he was then at liberty to do so, he would shew me something that\nwould make me open my eyes. He appeared punctually to the promised day,\nand invited me to take a walk with him, in the course of which we\ndiscoursed profoundly on the secrets of Nature in fire, though I noticed\nthat my companion was very chary in imparting information about the\nGrand Arcanum. .\u00a0.\u00a0. At last I asked him point-blank to show me the\ntransmutation of metals. I besought him to come and dine with me, and to\nspend the night at my house; I entreated; I expostulated; but in vain.\nHe remained firm. I reminded him of his promise. He retorted that his\npromise had been conditional upon his being permitted to reveal the\nsecret to me. At last, however, I prevailed upon him to give me a piece\nof his precious Stone--a piece no larger than a grain of rape seed. He\ndelivered it to me as if it were the most princely donation in the\nworld. Upon my uttering a doubt whether it would be sufficient to tinge\nmore than four grains of lead, he eagerly demanded it back. I complied,\nin the hope that he would exchange it for a larger piece; instead of\nwhich he divided it in two with his thumb, threw away one-half and gave\nme back the other, saying: \u2018Even now it is sufficient for you.\u2019 Then I\nwas still more heavily disappointed, as I could not believe that\nanything could be done with so small a particle of the Medicine. He,\nhowever, bade me take two drachms, or half an ounce of lead, or even a\nlittle more, and to melt it in the crucible; for the Medicine would\ncertainly not tinge more of the base metal than it was sufficient for. I\nanswered that I could not believe that so small a quantity of Tincture\ncould transform so large a mass of lead. But I had to be satisfied with\nwhat he had given me, and my chief difficulty was about the application\nof the Tincture. I confessed that when I held his ivory box in my hand,\nI had managed to extract a few crumbs of his Stone, but that they had\nchanged my lead, not into gold, but only into glass. He laughed, and\nsaid that I was more expert at theft than at the application of the\nTincture. \u2018You should have protected your spoil with \u201cyellow wax,\u201d then\nit would have been able to penetrate the lead and to transmute it into\ngold.\u2019 .\u00a0.\u00a0.\n\n\nHelvetius performs a Transmutation.\n\n\u00a7 =65.= \u201c.\u00a0.\u00a0. With .\u00a0.\u00a0. a promise to return at nine o\u2019clock the next\nmorning, he left me. But at the stated hour on the following day he did\nnot make his appearance; in his stead, however, there came, a few hours\nlater, a stranger, who told me that his friend the Artist was\nunavoidably detained, but that he would call at three o\u2019clock in the\nafternoon. The afternoon came; I waited for him till half-past seven\no\u2019clock. He did not appear. Thereupon my wife came and tempted me to try\nthe transmutation myself. I determined, however, to wait till the\nmorrow, and in the meantime, ordered my son to light the fire, as I was\nnow almost sure that he was an impostor. On the morrow, however, I\nthought that I might at least make an experiment with the piece of\n\u2018Tincture\u2019 which I had received; if it turned out a failure, in spite of\nmy following his directions closely, I might then be quite certain that\nmy visitor had been a mere pretender to a knowledge of this Art. So I\nasked my wife to put the Tincture in wax, and I myself, in the meantime,\nprepared six drachms of lead; I then cast the Tincture, enveloped as it\nwas in wax, on the lead; as soon as it was melted, there was a hissing\nsound and a slight effervescence, and after a quarter of an hour I found\nthat the whole mass of lead had been turned into the finest gold. Before\nthis transmutation took place, the compound became intensely green, but\nas soon as I had poured it into the melting pot it assumed a hue like\nblood. When it cooled, it glittered and shone like gold. We immediately\ntook it to the goldsmith, who at once declared it to be the finest gold\nhe had ever seen, and offered to pay fifty florins an ounce for it.\n\n\nHelvetius\u2019s Gold Assayed.\n\n\u00a7 =66.= \u201cThe rumour, of course, spread at once like wildfire through the\nwhole city; and in the afternoon, I had visits from many illustrious\nstudents of this Art; I also received a call from the Master of the Mint\nand some other gentlemen, who requested me to place at their disposal a\nsmall piece of the gold, in order that they might subject it to the\nusual tests. I consented, and we betook ourselves to the house of a\ncertain silversmith, named Brechtil, who submitted a small piece of my\ngold to the test called \u2018the fourth\u2019: three or four parts of silver are\nmelted in the crucible with one part of gold, and then beaten out into\nthin plates, upon which some strong _aqua fortis_ [nitric acid] is\npoured. The usual result of this experiment is that the silver is\ndissolved, while the gold sinks to the bottom in the shape of a black\npowder, and after the _aqua fortis_ has been poured off, [the gold,]\nmelted once again in the crucible, resumes its former shape. .\u00a0.\u00a0. When\nwe now performed this experiment, we thought at first that one-half of\nthe gold had evaporated; but afterwards we found that this was not the\ncase, but that, on the contrary, two scruples of the silver had\nundergone a change into gold.\n\n\nHelvetius\u2019s Gold Further Tested.\n\n\u00a7 =67.= \u201cThen we tried another test, _viz._, that which is performed by\nmeans of a septuple of Antimony; at first it seemed as if eight grains\nof the gold had been lost, but afterwards, not only had two scruples of\nthe silver been converted into gold, but the silver itself was greatly\nimproved both in quality and malleability. Thrice I performed this\ninfallible test, discovering that every drachm of gold produced an\nincrease of a scruple of gold, but the silver is excellent and extremely\nflexible. Thus I have unfolded to you the whole story from beginning to\nend. The gold I still retain in my possession, but I cannot tell you\nwhat has become of the Artist Elias. Before he left me, on the last day\nof our friendly intercourse, he told me that he was on the point of\nundertaking a journey to the Holy Land. May the Holy Angels of God watch\nover him wherever he is, and long preserve him as a source of blessing\nto Christendom! This is my earnest prayer on his and our behalf.\u201d[87]\n\n    [87] J. F. HELVETIUS: _The Golden Calf_, ch. iii. (see _The Hermetic\n    Museum_, vol. ii. pp. 283 _et seq._).\n\nTestimony such as this warns us not to be too sure that a real\ntransmutation has never taken place. On the whole, with regard to this\nquestion, an agnostic position appears to be the more philosophical.\n\n\nThe Genesis of Chemistry.\n\n\u00a7 =68.= But even if the alchemists did not discover the Grand Arcanum of\nNature, they did discover very many scientifically important facts. Even\nif they did not prepare the Philosopher\u2019s Stone, they did prepare a very\nlarge number of new and important chemical compounds. Their labours were\nthe seeds out of which modern Chemistry developed, and this highly\nimportant science is rightfully included under the expression \u201cThe\nOutcome of Alchemy.\u201d As we have already pointed out (\u00a7 48), it was the\niatro-chemists who first investigated chemical matters with an object\nother than alchemistic, their especial end in view being the\npreparation of useful medicines, though the medical-chemist and the\nalchemist were very often united in the one person, as in the case of\nParacelsus himself and the not less famous van Helmont. It was not until\nstill later that Chemistry was recognised as a distinct science separate\nfrom medicine.\n\n\nThe Degeneracy of Alchemy.\n\n\u00a7 =69.= In another direction the Outcome of Alchemy was of a very\ndistressing nature. Alchemy was in many respects eminently suitable as a\ncloak for fraud, and those who became \u201calchemists\u201d with the sole object\nof accumulating much wealth in a short space of time, finding that the\nlegitimate pursuit of the Art did not enable them to realise their\nexpectations in this direction, availed themselves of this fact. There\nis, indeed, some evidence that the degeneracy of Alchemy had commenced\nas early as the fourteenth century, but the attainment of the _magnum\nopus_ was regarded as possible for some three or more centuries.\n\nThe alchemistic promises of health, wealth and happiness and a\npseudo-mystical style of language were effectively employed by these\nimpostors. Some more or less ingenious tricks--such as the use of hollow\nstirring-rods, in which the gold was concealed, &c.--convinced a\ncredulous public of the validity of their claims. Of these\npseudo-alchemists we have already made the acquaintance of Edward\nKelley, but chief of them all is generally accounted the notorious\n\u201cCount Cagliostro.\u201d That \u201cCagliostro\u201d is rightfully placed in the\ncategory of pseudo-alchemists is certain, but it also appears equally\ncertain that, charlatan though he was, posterity has not always done\nhim that justice which is due to all men, however bad they may be.\n\n\n\u201cCount Cagliostro\u201d (--?-1795).\n\n\u00a7 =70.= Of the birth and early life of the personage calling himself\n\u201c=Count Cagliostro=\u201d nothing is known with any degree of certainty, even\nhis true name being enveloped in mystery. It has, indeed, been usual to\nidentify him with the notorious Italian swindler, Giuseppe Balsamo, who,\nborn at Palermo in 1743 (or 1748), apparently disappeared from mortal\nken after some thirty years, of which the majority were spent in\ncommitting various crimes. \u201cCagliostro\u2019s\u201d latest biographer,[88] who\nappears to have gone into the matter very thoroughly, however, throws\nvery grave doubts on the truth of this theory.\n\n    [88] W. R. H. TROWBRIDGE: _Cagliostro_: _The Splendour and Misery of\n    a Master of Magic_ (1910). We must acknowledge our indebtedness for\n    many of the particulars which follow to this work. It is, however,\n    unfortunately marred by a ridiculous attempt to show a likeness\n    between \u201cCagliostro\u201d and Swedenborg, for which, by the way, Mr.\n    Trowbridge has already been criticised by the _Spectator_. It may\n    justly be said of Swedenborg that he was scrupulously honest and\n    sincere in his beliefs as well as in his actions; and, as a\n    philosopher, it is only now being discovered how really great he\n    was. He did, indeed, claim to have converse with spiritual beings;\n    but the results of modern psychical research have robbed such claims\n    of any inherent impossibility, and in Swedenborg\u2019s case there is\n    very considerable evidence for their validity.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 14.\n\n_To face page 92_]]\n\nIf the earlier part of \u201cCagliostro\u2019s\u201d life is unknown, the latter part\nis so overlaid with legends and lies, that it is almost impossible to\nget at the truth concerning it. In 1776 Cagliostro and his wife were in\nLondon, where \u201cCagliostro\u201d became a Freemason, joining a lodge connected\nwith \u201cThe Order of Strict Observance,\u201d a secret society incorporated\nwith Freemasonry, and which (on the Continent, at least) was concerned\nlargely with occult subjects. \u201cCagliostro,\u201d however, was unsatisfied\nwith its rituals and devised a new system which he called Egyptian\nMasonry. Egyptian Masonry, he taught, was to reform the whole world, and\nhe set out, leaving England for the Continent, to convert Masons and\nothers to his views. We must look for the motive power of his\nextraordinary career in vanity and a love of mystery-mongering, without\nany true knowledge of the occult; it is probable, indeed, that\nultimately his unbounded vanity triumphed over his reason and that he\nactually believed in his own pretensions. That he did possess hypnotic\nand clairvoyant powers is, we think, at least probable; but it is none\nthe less certain that, when such failed him, he had no scruples against\nemploying other means of convincing the credulous of the validity of his\nclaims. This was the case on his visit to Russia, which occurred not\nlong afterwards. At St. Petersburg a youthful medium he was employing,\nto put the matter briefly, \u201cgave the show away,\u201d and at Warsaw, where he\nfound it necessary to turn alchemist, he was detected in the process of\nintroducing a piece of gold in the crucible containing the base metal he\nwas about to \u201ctransmute.\u201d At Strasburg, which he reached in 1780,\nhowever, he was more successful. Here he appeared as a miraculous healer\nof all diseases, though whether his cures are to be ascribed to some\nsimple but efficacious medicine which he had discovered, to hypnotism,\nto the power of the imagination on the part of his patients, or to the\npower of imagination on the part of those who have recorded the alleged\ncures, is a question into which we do not propose to enter. At\nStrasburg \u201cCagliostro\u201d came into contact with the Cardinal de Rohan, and\na fast friendship sprang up between the two, which, in the end, proved\n\u201cCagliostro\u2019s\u201d ruin. The \u201cCount\u201d next visited Bordeaux and Lyons,\nsuccessfully founding lodges of Egyptian Masonry. From the latter town\nhe proceeded to Paris, where he reached the height of his fame. He\nbecame extraordinarily rich, although he is said to have asked, and to\nhave accepted, no fee for his services as a healer. On the other hand,\nthere was a substantial entrance-fee to the mysteries of Egyptian\nMasonry, which, with its alchemistic promises of health and wealth,\nprospered exceedingly. At the summit of his career, however, fortune\nforsook him. As a friend of de Rohan, he was arrested in connection with\nthe Diamond Necklace affair, on the word of the infamous Countess de\nLamotte; although, of whatever else he may have been guilty, he was\nperfectly innocent of this charge. After lying imprisoned in the\nBastille for several months, he was tried by the French Parliament,\npronounced innocent, and released. Immediately, however, the king\nbanished him, and he left Paris for London, where he seems to have been\npersistently persecuted by agents of the French king. He returned to the\nContinent, ultimately reaching Italy, where he was arrested by the\nInquisition and condemned to death on the charge of being a Freemason (a\ndire offence in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church). The sentence,\nhowever, was modified to one of perpetual imprisonment, and he was\nconfined in the Castle of San Leo, where he died in 1795, after four\nyears of imprisonment, in what manner is not known.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHE AGE OF MODERN CHEMISTRY\n\n\nThe Birth of Modern Chemistry.\n\n\u00a7 =71.= Chemistry as distinct from Alchemy and Iatro-chemistry commenced\nwith Robert Boyle (see plate 15), who first clearly recognised that its\naim is neither the transmutation of the metals nor the preparation of\nmedicines, but the observation and generalisation of a certain class of\nphenomena; who denied the validity of the alchemistic view of the\nconstitution of matter, and enunciated the definition of an element\nwhich has since reigned supreme in Chemistry; and who enriched the\nscience with observations of the utmost importance. Boyle, however, was\na man whose ideas were in advance of his times, and intervening between\nthe iatro-chemical period and the Age of Modern Chemistry proper came\nthe period of the Phlogistic Theory--a theory which had a certain\naffinity with the ideas of the alchemists.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 15.\n\nPORTRAIT OF ROBERT BOYLE.\n\n_To face page 94_]]\n\n\nThe Phlogiston Theory.\n\n\u00a7 =72.= The phlogiston theory was mainly due to Georg Ernst Stahl\n(1660-1734). Becher (1635-1682) had attempted to revive the once\nuniversally accepted sulphur-mercury-salt theory of the alchemists in a\nsomewhat modified form, by the assumption that all substances consist of\nthree earths--the combustible, mercurial, and vitreous; and herein is\nto be found the germ of Stahl\u2019s phlogistic theory. According to Stahl,\nall combustible bodies (including those metals that change on heating)\ncontain _phlogiston_, the principle of combustion, which escapes in the\nform of flame when such substances are burned. According to this theory,\ntherefore, the metals are compounds, since they consist of a metallic\ncalx (what we now call the \u201coxide\u201d of the metal) combined with\nphlogiston; and, further, to obtain the metal from the calx it is only\nnecessary to act upon it with some substance rich in phlogiston. Now,\ncoal and charcoal are both almost completely combustible, leaving very\nlittle residue; hence, according to this theory, they must consist very\nlargely of phlogiston; and, as a matter of fact, metals can be obtained\nby heating their calces with either of these substances. Many other\nfacts of a like nature were explicable in terms of the phlogiston\ntheory, and it became exceedingly popular. Chemists at this time did not\npay much attention to the balance; it was observed, however, that metals\nincreased in weight on calcination, but this was \u201cexplained\u201d on the\nassumption that phlogiston possessed negative weight. Antoine Lavoisier\n(1743-1794), utilising Priestley\u2019s discovery of oxygen (called\n\u201cdephlogisticated air\u201d by its discoverer) and studying the weight\nrelations accompanying combustion, demonstrated the non-validity of the\nphlogistic theory[89] and proved combustion to be the combination of the\nsubstance burnt with a certain constituent of the air, the oxygen. By\nthis time Alchemy was to all intents and purposes defunct, Boerhave\n(1668-1738) was the last eminent chemist to give any support to its\ndoctrines, and the new chemistry of Lavoisier gave it a final\ndeath-blow. We now enter upon the Age of Modern Chemistry, but we shall\ndeal in this chapter with the history of chemical theory only so far as\nis necessary in pursuance of our primary object, and hence our account\nwill be very far from complete.\n\n    [89] It should be noted, however, that if by the term \u201cphlogiston\u201d\n    we were to understand energy and not some form of matter, most of\n    the statements of the phlogistics would be true so far as they go.\n\n\nBoyle and the Definition of an Element.\n\n\u00a7 =73.= Robert Boyle (1626-1691) had defined an element as a substance\nwhich could not be decomposed, but which could enter into combination\nwith other elements giving compounds capable of decomposition into these\noriginal elements. Hence, the metals were classed among the elements,\nsince they had defied all attempts to decompose them. Now, it must be\nnoted that this definition is of a negative character, and, although it\nis convenient to term \u201celements\u201d all substances which have so far defied\ndecomposition, it is a matter of impossibility to decide what substances\nare true elements with absolute certainty; and the possibility, however\nfaint, that gold and other metals are of a compound nature, and hence\nthe possibility of preparing gold from the \u201cbase\u201d metals or other\nsubstances, must always remain. This uncertainty regarding the elements\nappears to have generally been recognised by the new school of chemists,\nbut this having been so, it is the more surprising that their criticism\nof alchemistic art was not less severe.\n\n\nThe Stoichiometric Laws.\n\n\u00a7 =74.= With the study of the relative weights in which substances\ncombine, certain generalisations or \u201cnatural laws\u201d of supreme importance\nwere discovered. These stoichiometric laws, as they are called, are as\nfollows:--\n\n1. \u201cThe Law of Constant Proportion\u201d--_The same chemical compound always\ncontains the same elements, and there is a constant ratio between the\nweights of the constituent elements present._\n\n2. \u201cThe Law of Multiple Proportions\u201d--_If two substances combine\nchemically in more than one proportion, the weights of the one which\ncombine with a given weight of the other, stand in a simple rational\nratio to one another._\n\n3. \u201cThe Law of Combining Weights\u201d--_Substances combine either in the\nratio of their combining numbers, or in simple rational multiples or\nsubmultiples of these numbers._ (The weights of different substances\nwhich combine with a given weight of some particular substance, which is\ntaken as the unit, are called the combining numbers of such substances\nwith reference to this unit. The usual unit now chosen is 8 grammes of\nOxygen.)[90]\n\n    [90] In order that these laws may hold good, it is, of course,\n    necessary that the substances are weighed under precisely similar\n    conditions. To state these laws in a more absolute form, we can\n    replace the term \u201cweight\u201d by \u201cmass,\u201d or in preference, \u201cinertia\u201d;\n    for the inertias of bodies are proportional to their weights,\n    providing that they are weighed under precisely similar conditions.\n    For a discussion of the exact significance of these terms \u201cmass\u201d and\n    \u201cinertia,\u201d the reader is referred to the present writer\u2019s _Matter,\n    Spirit and the Cosmos_ (Rider, 1910), Chapter I., \u201cOn the Doctrine\n    of the Indestructibility of Matter.\u201d\n\nAs examples of these laws we may take the few following simple facts:--\n\n1. Pure water is found always to consist of oxygen and hydrogen combined\nin the ratio of 1\u00b7008 parts by weight of the latter to 8 parts by weight\nof the former; and pure sulphur-dioxide, to take another example, is\nfound always to consist of sulphur and oxygen combined in the ratio of\n8\u00b702 parts by weight of sulphur to 8 parts by weight of oxygen. (The Law\nof Constant Proportion.)\n\n2. Another compound is known consisting only of oxygen and hydrogen,\nwhich, however, differs entirely in its properties from water. It is\nfound always to consist of oxygen and hydrogen combined in the ratio of\n1\u00b7008 parts by weight of the latter to 16 parts by weight of the former,\n_i.e._, in it a definite weight of hydrogen is combined with an amount\nof oxygen _exactly twice_ that which is combined with the same weight of\nhydrogen in water. No definite compound has been discovered with a\nconstitution intermediate between these two. Other compounds consisting\nonly of sulphur and oxygen are also known. One of these (viz.,\nsulphur-trioxide, or sulphuric anhydride) is found always to consist of\nsulphur and oxygen combined in the ratio of 5\u00b735 parts by weight of\nsulphur to 8 parts by weight of oxygen. We see, therefore, that the\nweights of sulphur combined with a definite weight of oxygen in the two\ncompounds called respectively \u201csulphur-dioxide\u201d and \u201csulphur-trioxide,\u201d\nare in the proportion of 8\u00b702 to 5\u00b735, _i.e._, 3\u00a0:\u00a02. Similar simple\nratios are obtained in the case of all the other compounds. (The Law of\nMultiple Proportions.)\n\n3. From the data given in (1) above we can fix the combining number of\nhydrogen as 1\u00b7008, that of sulphur as 8\u00b702. Now, compounds are known\ncontaining sulphur and hydrogen, and, in each case, the weight of\nsulphur combined with 1\u00b7008 grammes of hydrogen is found always to be\neither 8\u00b702 grammes or some multiple or submultiple of this quantity.\nThus, in the simplest compound of this sort, containing only hydrogen\nand sulphur (viz., sulphuretted-hydrogen or hydrogen sulphide), 1\u00b7008\ngrammes of hydrogen is found always to be combined with 16\u00b704 grammes of\nsulphur, _i.e._, exactly twice the above quantity. (The Law of Combining\nWeights.)\n\nBerthollet (1748-1822) denied the truth of the law of constant\nproportion, and a controversy ensued between this chemist and Proust\n(1755-1826), who undertook a research to settle the question, the\nresults of which were in entire agreement with the law, and were\nregarded as completely substantiating it.\n\n[Illustration: PLATE 16.\n\n[by Worthington, after Allen]\n\nPORTRAIT OF JOHN DALTON.\n\n_To face page 100_]]\n\n\nDalton\u2019s Atomic Theory.\n\n\u00a7 =75.= At the beginning of the nineteenth century, John Dalton (see\nplate 15) put forward his Atomic Theory in explanation of these facts.\nThis theory assumes (1) that all matter is made up of small indivisible\nand indestructible particles, called \u201catoms\u201d; (2) that all atoms are\n_not_ alike, there being as many different sorts of atoms as there are\nelements; (3) that the atoms constituting any one element are exactly\nalike and are of definite weight; and (4) that compounds are produced by\nthe combination of different atoms. Now, it is at once evident that if\nmatter be so constituted, the stoichiometric laws must necessarily\nfollow. For the smallest particle of any definite compound (now called a\n\u201cmolecule\u201d) must consist of a definite assemblage of different atoms,\nand these atoms are of definite weight: whence the law of constant\nproportion. One atom of one substance may combine with 1, 2, 3 .\u00a0.\u00a0.\natoms of some other substance, but it cannot combine with some\nfractional part of an atom, since the atoms are indivisible: whence the\nlaw of multiple proportions. And these laws holding good, and the atoms\nbeing of definite weight, the law of combining weights necessarily\nfollows. Dalton\u2019s Atomic Theory gave a simple and intelligible\nexplanation of these remarkable facts regarding the weights of\nsubstances entering into chemical combination, and, therefore, gained\nuniversal acceptance. But throughout the history of Chemistry can be\ndiscerned a spirit of revolt against it as an explanation of the\nabsolute constitution of matter. The tendency of scientific philosophy\nhas always been towards Monism as opposed to Dualism, and here were not\nmerely two eternals, but several dozen; Dalton\u2019s theory denied the unity\nof the Cosmos, it lacked the unifying principle of the alchemists. It is\nonly in recent times that it has been recognised that a scientific\nhypothesis may be very useful without being altogether true. As to the\nusefulness of Dalton\u2019s theory there can be no question; it has\naccomplished that which no other hypothesis could have done; it rendered\nthe concepts of a chemical element, a chemical compound and a chemical\nreaction definite; and has, in a sense, led to the majority of the\ndiscoveries in the domain of Chemistry that have been made since its\nenunciation. But as an expression of absolute truth, Dalton\u2019s theory, as\nis very generally recognised nowadays, fails to be satisfactory. In the\npast, however, it has been the philosophers of the materialistic school\nof thought, rather than the chemists _qu\u00e2_ chemists, who have\ninsisted on the absolute truth of the Atomic Theory; Kekul\u00e9, who by\ndeveloping Franklin\u2019s theory of atomicity or valency[91] made still more\ndefinite the atomic view of matter, himself expressed grave doubts as to\nthe absolute truth of Dalton\u2019s theory; but he regarded it as\n_chemically_ true, and thus voices what appears to be the opinion of the\nmajority of chemists nowadays, namely, there are such things as chemical\natoms and chemical elements, incapable of being decomposed by purely\nchemical means, but that such are not absolute atoms or absolute\nelements, and consequently not impervious to all forms of action. But\nof this more will be said later.\n\n    [91] The term \u201cvalency\u201d is not altogether an easy one to define; we\n    will, however, here do our best to make plain its significance. In a\n    definite chemical compound we must assume that the atoms\n    constituting each molecule are in some way bound together (though\n    not, of course, rigidly), and we may speak of \u201cbonds\u201d or \u201clinks of\n    affinity,\u201d taking care, however, not to interpret such terms too\n    literally. Now, the number of \u201caffinity links\u201d which one atom can\n    exert is not unlimited; indeed, according to the valency theory as\n    first formulated, it is fixed and constant. It is this number which\n    is called the \u201cvalency\u201d of the element; but it is now known that the\n    \u201cvalency\u201d in most cases can vary between certain limits. Hydrogen,\n    however, appears to be invariably univalent, and is therefore taken\n    as the unit of valency. Thus, Carbon is quadrivalent in the\n    methane-molecule, which consists of one atom of carbon combined\n    with four atoms of hydrogen; and Oxygen is divalent in the\n    water-molecule, which consists of one atom of oxygen combined with\n    two atoms of hydrogen. Hence, we should expect to find one atom of\n    carbon combining with two of oxygen, which is the case in the\n    carbon-dioxide--(carbonic anhydride)--molecule. For a development of\n    the thesis, so far as the compounds of carbon are concerned, that\n    each specific \u201caffinity link\u201d corresponds in general to a definite\n    and constant amount of energy, which is evolved as heat on\n    disruption of the bond, the reader is referred to the present\n    writer\u2019s monograph _On the Calculation of Thermo-Chemical Constants_\n    (Arnold, 1909). The phenomena of valency find their explanation in\n    modern views concerning the constitution of atoms (see \u00a7 81).\n\n\nThe Determination of the Atomic Weights of the Elements.\n\n\u00a7 =76.= With the acceptance of Dalton\u2019s Atomic Theory, it became\nnecessary to determine the atomic weights of the various elements,\n_i.e._, not the absolute atomic weights, but the relative weights of the\nvarious atoms with reference to one of them as unit.[92] We cannot in\nthis place enter upon a discussion of the various difficulties, both of\nan experimental and theoretical nature, which were involved in this\nproblem, save to remark that the correct atomic weights could be arrived\nat only with the acceptance of Avogadro\u2019s Hypothesis. This hypothesis,\nwhich is to the effect that equal volumes of different gases measured at\nthe same temperature and pressure contain an equal number of gaseous\nmolecules, was put forward in explanation of a number of facts connected\nwith the physical behaviour of gases; but its importance was for some\ntime unrecognised, owing to the fact that the distinction between atoms\nand molecules was not yet clearly drawn. A list of those chemical\nsubstances at present recognised as \u201celements,\u201d together with their\natomic weights, will be found on pp. 106, 107.\n\n    [92] Since hydrogen is the lightest of all known substances, the\n    unit, Hydrogen = 1, was at one time usually employed. However, it\n    was seen to be more convenient to express the atomic weights in\n    terms of the weight of the oxygen-atom, and the unit, Oxygen = 16 is\n    now always employed. This value for the oxygen-atom was chosen so\n    that the approximate atomic weights would in most cases remain\n    unaltered by the change.\n\n\nProut\u2019s Hypothesis.\n\n\u00a7 =77.= It was observed by a chemist of the name of Prout, that, the\natomic weight of hydrogen being taken as the unit, the atomic weights\nof nearly all the elements approximated to whole numbers; and in 1815 he\nsuggested as the reason for this regularity, that all the elements\nconsist solely of hydrogen. Prout\u2019s Hypothesis received on the whole a\nvery favourable reception; it harmonised Dalton\u2019s Theory with the grand\nconcept of the unity of matter--all matter was hydrogen in essence; and\nThomas Thomson undertook a research to demonstrate its truth. On the\nother hand, however, the eminent Swedish chemist, Berzelius, who had\ncarried out many atomic weight determinations, criticised both Prout\u2019s\nHypothesis and Thomson\u2019s research (which latter, it is true, was\nworthless) in most severe terms; for the hypothesis amounted to\nthis--that the decimals in the atomic weights obtained experimentally by\nBerzelius, after so much labour, were to be regarded as so many errors.\nIn 1844, Marignac suggested half the hydrogen atom as the unit, for the\nelement chlorine, with an atomic weight of 35\u00b75, would not fit in with\nProut\u2019s Hypothesis as originally formulated; and later, Dumas suggested\none-quarter. With this theoretical division of the hydrogen-atom, the\nhypothesis lost its simplicity and charm, and was doomed to downfall.\nRecent and most accurate atomic weight determinations show clearly that\nthe atomic weights are not exactly whole numbers, but that,\nnevertheless, the majority of them (if expressed in terms of O = 16 as\nthe unit) do approximate very closely to such. The Hon. R. J. Strutt has\nrecently calculated that the probability of this occurring, in the case\nof certain of the commoner elements, by mere chance is exceedingly small\n(about 1 in 1,000),[93] and several attempts to explain this remarkable\nfact have been put forward. Modern scientific speculations concerning\nthe constitution of atoms tend towards a modified form of Prout\u2019s\nhypothesis, or to the view that the atoms of other elements are, in a\nmanner, polymerides of hydrogen and helium atoms. As has been pointed\nout, it is possible, according to modern views, for elements of\ndifferent atomic weight to have identical chemical properties, since\nthese latter depend only upon the number of free electrons in the atom\nand not at all upon the massive central nucleus. By a method somewhat\nsimilar to that used for determining the mass of kathode particles (see\n\u00a7 79), but applied to positively charged particles, Sir Joseph Thomson\nand Dr. F. W. Aston discovered that the element neon was a mixture of\ntwo isotopic elements in unequal proportions, one having an atomic mass\nof 20, the other (present only to a slight extent) having an atomic mass\nof 22. Dr. Aston has perfected this method of analysing mixtures of\nisotopes and determining their atomic masses.[94] The results are of\ngreat interest. The atomic weight of hydrogen, 1\u00b7008, is confirmed. The\nelements helium, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, fluorine, phosphorus,\nsulphur, arsenic, iodine and sodium are found to be simple bodies with\nwhole-number atomic weights. On the other hand, boron, neon, silicon,\nchlorine, bromine, krypton, xenon, mercury, lithium, potassium and\nrubidium are found to be mixtures. What is specially of interest is that\nthe indicated atomic mass of each of the constituents is a whole number.\nThus chlorine, whose atomic weight is 35\u00b746, is found to be a mixture of\ntwo chemically-identical elements whose atomic weights are 35 and 37.\nSome of the elements, _e.g._, xenon, are mixtures of more than two\nisotopes.\n\n    [93] Hon. R. J. STRUTT: \u201cOn the Tendency of the Atomic Weights to\n    approximate to Whole Numbers,\u201d _Philosophical Magazine_, [6], vol.\n    i. (1901), pp. 311 _et seq._\n\n    [94] F. W. ASTON: \u201cMass-spectra and Atomic Weights,\u201d _Journal of the\n    Chemical Society_, vol. cix. (1921), pp. 677 _et seq._\n\nIt is highly probable that what is true of the elements investigated by\nDr. Aston is true of the remainder. It appears, therefore, that the\nirregularities presented by the atomic weights of the ordinary elements,\nwhich have so much puzzled men of science in the past, are due to the\nfact that these elements are, in many cases, mixtures. As concerns\nhydrogen, it is only reasonable to suppose that the close packing of\nelectrically charged particles should give rise to a slight decrease in\ntheir total mass, so that the atomic weights of other elements referred\nto H = 1 should be slightly less than whole numbers, or, what is the\nsame thing, that the atomic weight of hydrogen referred to O = 16 should\nbe slightly more than unity.\n\n\nThe \u201cPeriodic Law.\u201d\n\n\u00a7 =78.= A remarkable property of the atomic weights was discovered, in\nthe sixties, independently by Lothar Meyer and Mendel\u00e9eff. They found\nthat the elements could be arranged in rows in the order of their atomic\nweights so that similar elements would be found in the same columns. A\nmodernised form of the Periodic Table will be found on pp. 106, 107. It\nwill be noticed, for example, that the \u201calkali\u201d metals, Lithium, Sodium,\nRubidium and C\u00e6sium, which resemble one another very closely, fall in\nColumn 1; the \u201calkaline earth\u201d metals occur together in Column 2; though\nin each case these are accompanied by certain elements with somewhat\ndifferent properties. Much the same holds good in the case of the other\ncolumns of this Table; there is manifested a remarkable regularity, with\ncertain still more remarkable divergences (see notes appended to Table\non pp. 106, 107). This regularity exhibited by the \u201celements\u201d is of\nconsiderable importance, since it shows that, in general, the properties\nof the \u201celements\u201d are _periodic_ functions of their atomic weights; and,\ntogether with certain other remarkable properties of the \u201celements,\u201d\ndistinguishes them sharply from the \u201ccompounds.\u201d It may be concluded\nwith tolerable certainty, therefore, that if the \u201celements\u201d are in\nreality of a compound nature, they are all, in general, compounds of a\nlike nature distinct from that of other compounds.\n\nTHE PERIODIC TABLE OF THE CHEMICAL ELEMENTS.\n\n  +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+\n  |   0   |   1   |   2   |   3   |   4   |   5   |   6   |   7   |   8    |\n  +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+\n  |       |[Hydro-|       |       |       |       |       |Hydro- |        |\n  |       |gen][a]|       |       |       |       |       |gen    |        |\n  |       |[H =   |       |       |       |       |       |H =    |        |\n  |       |1\u00b7008] |       |       |       |       |       |1\u00b7008  |        |\n  +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+\n  |Helium |Lithium|Gluci- |Boron  |Carbon |Nitro- |Oxygen |Fluo-  |        |\n  |       |       |num    |       |       |gen    |       |rine   |        |\n  |He =   |Li =   |Gl =   |B =    |C =    |N =    |O =    |F =    |        |\n  |4\u00b700   |6\u00b794   |9\u00b71    |10\u00b79   |12\u00b7005 |14\u00b7008 |16\u00b700  |19\u00b70   |        |\n  +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+\n  |Neon   |Sodium |Magne- |Alumin-|Silicon|Phos-  |Sulphur|Chlo-  |        |\n  |       |       |sium   |ium    |       |phorus |       |rine   |        |\n  |Ne =   |Na =   |Mg =   |Al =   |Si =   |P =    |S =    |Cl =   |        |\n  |20\u00b72   |23\u00b700  |24\u00b732  |27\u00b71   |28\u00b73   |31\u00b704  |32\u00b706  |35\u00b746  |        |\n  +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+\n  |Argon  |Potas- |Calcium|Scan-  |Tita-  |Vana-  |Chro-  |Manga- |Iron    |\n  |       |sium[b]|       |dium   |nium   |dium   |mium   |nese   |Fe =    |\n  |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |55\u00b784[c]|\n  |A =    |K =    |Ca =   |Sc =   |Ti =   |V =    |Cr =   |Mn =   |Cobalt  |\n  |39\u00b79   |39\u00b710  |40\u00b707  |45\u00b71   |48\u00b71   |51\u00b70   |52\u00b70   |54\u00b793  |Co =    |\n  |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |58\u00b797   |\n  |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |Nickel  |\n  |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |Ni =    |\n  |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |58\u00b768   |\n  +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+\n  |       |Copper |Zinc   |Gallium|Germa- |Arsenic|Sele-  |Bromine|        |\n  |       |       |       |       |nium   |       |nium   |       |        |\n  |       |Cu =   |Zn =   |Ga =   |Ge =   |As =   |Se =   |Br =   |        |\n  |       |63\u00b757  |65\u00b737  |70\u00b71   |72\u00b75   |74\u00b796  |79\u00b72   |79\u00b792  |        |\n  +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+\n  |Krypton|Rubi-  |Stron- |Yttrium|Zirco- |Colum- |Molyb- |   ?   |Ruthe-  |\n  |       |dium   |tium   |       |nium   |bium   |denum  |       |nium    |\n  |Kr =   |Rb =   |Sr =   |Y =    |Zr =   |Cb =   |Mo =   |       |Ru =    |\n  |82\u00b792  |85\u00b745  |87\u00b763  |89\u00b733  |90\u00b76   |93\u00b71   |96\u00b70   |       |101\u00b77   |\n  |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |Rhodium |\n  |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |Rh =    |\n  |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |102\u00b79   |\n  |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |Palla-  |\n  |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |dium    |\n  |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |Pd =    |\n  |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |106\u00b77   |\n  +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+\n  |       |Silver |Cadmium|Indium |Tin    |Antimo-|Tellu- |Iodine |        |\n  |       |       |       |       |       |ny     |rium   |[d]    |        |\n  |       |Ag =   |Cd =   |In =   |Sn =   |Sb =   |Te =   |I (or  |        |\n  |       |107\u00b788 |112\u00b740 |114\u00b78  |118\u00b77  |120\u00b72  |127\u00b75  |J) =   |        |\n  |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |126\u00b792 |        |\n  +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+\n  |Xenon  |C\u00e6sium |Barium |Lantha-|Cerium |   ?   |   ?   |   ?   |   ?    |\n  |       |       |       |num    |[e]    |       |       |       |        |\n  |Xe =   |Cs =   |Ba =   |La =   |Ce =   |       |       |       |        |\n  |130\u00b72  |132\u00b781 |137\u00b737 |139\u00b70  |140\u00b725 |       |       |       |        |\n  +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+\n  |       |   ?   |   ?   |   ?   |   ?   |   ?   |   ?   |   ?   |        |\n  +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+\n  |   ?   |   ?   |   ?   |   ?   |   ?   |Tanta- |Tung-  |   ?   |Osmium  |\n  |       |       |       |       |       |lum    |sten   |       |Os =    |\n  |       |       |       |       |       |Ta =   |W =    |       |190\u00b79   |\n  |       |       |       |       |       |181\u00b75  |184\u00b70  |       |Iridium |\n  |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |Ir =    |\n  |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |193\u00b71   |\n  |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |Platinum|\n  |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |Pt =    |\n  |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |195\u00b72   |\n  +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+\n  |       |Gold   |Mercury|Thal-  |Lead   |Bismuth|Polo-  |   ?   |        |\n  |       |       |       |lium   |       |       |nium   |       |        |\n  |       |Au =   |Hg =   |Tl =   |Pb =   |Bi =   |(210)  |       |        |\n  |       |197\u00b72  |200\u00b76  |204\u00b70  |207\u00b720 |208\u00b70  |       |       |        |\n  +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+\n  |Emana- |   ?   |Radium |Acti-  |Thorium|Ekatan-|Uranium|   ?   |   ?    |\n  |tion   |       |       |nium   |       |talum  |       |       |        |\n  |(Niton)|       |Ra =   |  ?    |Th =   |   ?   |U =    |       |        |\n  | 222\u00b70 |       |226\u00b70  |       |232\u00b715 |       |238\u00b72  |       |        |\n  +-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+-------+--------+\n\n    NOTES.\n\n    There are several somewhat different forms of this Periodic Table.\n    This is one of the simplest, but it lacks certain advantages of some\n    of the more complicated forms. The atomic weights given are those of\n    the International Atomic Weights Committee for 1920-1. They are\n    calculated on the basis, Oxygen = 16. The number of decimal places\n    given in each case indicates the degree of accuracy with which each\n    atomic weight has been determined. The letter or letters underneath\n    the name of each element is the symbol by which it is invariably\n    designated by chemists.\n\n    The number above each column indicates the valency which the\n    elements of each group exhibit towards oxygen. Many of the elements\n    are exceptional in this respect.\n\n    [a]: The exact position of Hydrogen is in dispute.\n\n    [b]: The positions of Argon and Potassium have been inverted in\n    order that these elements may fall in the right columns with the\n    elements they resemble; [d]: so also have the positions of Tellurium\n    and Iodine.\n\n    [c]: The whole of \u201cGroup 8\u201d forms an exception to the Table.\n\n    [e]: There are a number of ill-defined rare earth metals with atomic\n    weights lying between those of Cerium and Tantalum. They all appear\n    to resemble the elements of \u201cGroup 3,\u201d so that their positions in\n    the Table cannot be decided with accuracy.\n\nIt is now some years since the late Sir William Crookes attempted to\nexplain the periodicity of the properties of the elements on the theory\nthat they have all been evolved by a conglomerating process from some\nprimal stuff--the protyle--consisting of very small particles. He\nrepresented the action of this generative cause by means of a \u201cfigure of\neight\u201d spiral, along which the elements are placed at regular intervals,\nso that similar elements come underneath one another, as in Mendel\u00e9eff\u2019s\ntable, though the grouping differs in some respects. The slope of the\ncurve is supposed to represent the decline of some factor (_e.g._,\ntemperature) conditioning the process, which process is assumed to be of\na recurrent nature, like the swing of a pendulum. After the completion\nof one swing (to keep to the illustration of a pendulum) whereby one\nseries of elements is produced, owing to the decline of the\nabove-mentioned factor, the same series of elements is not again the\nresult as would otherwise be the case, but a somewhat different series\nis produced, each member of which resembles the corresponding member of\nthe former series. Thus, if the first series contains, for example,\nhelium, lithium, carbon, &c., the second series will contain instead,\nargon, potassium, titanium, &c. The whole theory, though highly\ninteresting, is, however, by no means free from defects.\n\n\nThe Corpuscular Theory of Matter.\n\n\u00a7 =79.= We must now turn our attention to those recent views of the\nconstitution of matter which originated to a great extent in the\ninvestigations of the passage of electricity through gases at very low\npressures. It will be possible, however, on the present occasion, to\ngive only the very briefest account of the subject; but a fuller\ntreatment is rendered unnecessary by the fact that these and allied\ninvestigations and the theories to which they have given rise have been\nfully treated in several well-known works, by various authorities on the\nsubject, which have appeared during the last few years.[95]\n\n    [95] We have found Prof. Harry Jones\u2019 _The Electrical Nature of\n    Matter and Radioactivity_ (1906), Mr. Soddy\u2019s _Radioactivity_\n    (1904), and Mr. Whetham\u2019s _The Recent Development of Physical\n    Science_ (1909) particularly interesting. Mention, of course, should\n    also be made of the standard works of Prof. Sir J. J. Thomson and\n    Prof. Rutherford.\n\nWhen an electrical discharge is passed through a high-vacuum tube,\ninvisible rays are emitted from the kathode, generally with the\nproduction of a greenish-yellow fluorescence where they strike the\nglass walls of the tube. These rays are called \u201ckathode rays.\u201d At one\ntime they were regarded as waves in the ether, but it was shown by Sir\nWilliam Crookes that they consist of small electrically charged\nparticles, moving with a very high velocity. Sir J. J. Thomson was able\nto determine the ratio of the charge carried by these particles to their\nmass or inertia; he found that this ratio was constant whatever gas was\ncontained in the vacuum tube, and much greater than the corresponding\nratio for the hydrogen ion (electrically charged hydrogen atom) in\nelectrolysis. By a skilful method, based on the fact discovered by Mr.\nC. T. R. Wilson, that charged particles can serve as nuclei for the\ncondensation of water-vapour, he was further able to determine the value\nof the electrical charge carried by these particles, which was found to\nbe constant also, and equal to the charge carried by univalent ions,\n_e.g._, hydrogen, in electrolysis. Hence, it follows that the mass of\nthese kathode particles must be much smaller than the hydrogen ion, the\nactual ratio being about 1\u00a0:\u00a01700. The first theory put forward by Sir\nJ. J. Thomson in explanation of these facts, was that these kathode\nparticles (\u201ccorpuscles\u201d as he termed them) were electrically charged\nportions of matter, much smaller than the smallest atom; and since the\nsame sort of corpuscle is obtained whatever gas is contained in the\nvacuum tube, it is reasonable to conclude that the corpuscle is the\ncommon unit of all matter.\n\n\nProof that the Electrons are not Matter.\n\n\u00a7 =80.= This eminent physicist, however, had shown mathematically that a\ncharged particle moving with a very high velocity (approaching that of\nlight) would exhibit an appreciable increase in mass or inertia due to\nthe charge, the magnitude of such inertia depending on the velocity of\nthe particle. This was experimentally verified by Kaufmann, who\ndetermined the velocities, and the ratios between the electrical charge\nand the inertia, of various kathode particles and similar particles\nwhich are emitted by compounds of radium (see \u00a7\u00a7 89 and 90). Sir J. J.\nThomson calculated these values on the assumption that the inertia of\nsuch particles is entirely of electrical origin, and thereby obtained\nvalues in remarkable agreement with the experimental. There is,\ntherefore, no reason for supposing the corpuscle to be matter at all;\nindeed, if it were, the above agreement would not be obtained. As\nProfessor Jones says: \u201cSince we know things only by their properties,\nand since all the properties of the corpuscle are accounted for by the\nelectrical charge associated with it, why assume that the corpuscle\ncontains anything but the electrical charge? It is obvious that there is\nno reason for doing so.\n\n\u201c_The corpuscle is, then, nothing but a disembodied electrical charge_,\ncontaining nothing material, as we have been accustomed to use that\nterm. It is electricity, and nothing but electricity. With this new\nconception a new term was introduced, and, now, instead of speaking of\nthe corpuscle we speak of the _electron_.\u201d[96] Applying this\nmodification to the above view of the constitution of matter, we have\nwhat is called \u201cthe electronic theory,\u201d namely, that the material atoms\nconsist of electrons, or units of electricity in rapid motion; which\namounts to this--that matter is simply an electrical phenomenon.\n\n    [96] H. C. JONES: _The Electrical Nature of Matter and\n    Radioactivity_ (1906), p. 21.\n\n\nThe Electronic Theory of Matter.\n\n\u00a7 =81.= Sir J. J. Thomson has elaborated this theory of the nature and\nconstitution of matter; he has shown what systems of electrons would be\nstable, and has attempted to find therein the significance of\nMendel\u00e9eff\u2019s generalisation and the explanation of valency. There can be\nno doubt that there is a considerable element of truth in the electronic\ntheory of matter; the one characteristic property of matter, _i.e._,\ninertia, can be accounted for electrically. The fundamental difficulty\nis that the electrons are units of negative electricity, whereas matter\nis electrically neutral. Several theories have been put forward to\nsurmount this difficulty. Certainly the electron is a constituent of\nmatter; but is it the sole constituent? Recent research indicates that,\nas already pointed out, all atoms consist of two distinct portions, a\nmassive central nucleus, whose net charge is positive, surrounded by a\nnumber of electrons, just sufficient to neutralize this charge. The\npoint of greatest interest is that the indicated number of free\nelectrons is exactly the number which expresses the position of the\nelement in the Periodic Table, reckoning helium as 2, lithium as 3, and\nso on; and it would seem that the chemical properties of the elements\nare determined entirely by these electrons, and are, therefore, not,\nstrictly speaking, periodic functions of their atomic weights, as was\nformerly thought (\u00a7 78), but of their atomic numbers. The exact nature\nof the nuclei of the various atoms has yet to be determined: in the\ncase of the atoms heavier than helium they would appear to be made up of\nthe nuclei of hydrogen and (or) helium atoms together with--in many\ncases--electrons insufficient in number to neutralize the positive\ncharges associated with these.\n\n\nThe Etheric Theory of Matter.\n\n\u00a7 =82.= The analysis of matter has been carried a step further. A\nphilosophical view of the Cosmos involves the assumption of an\nabsolutely continuous and homogeneous medium filling all space, for an\nabsolute vacuum is unthinkable, and if it were supposed that the stuff\nfilling all space is of an atomic structure, the question arises, What\noccupies the interstices between its atoms? This ubiquitous medium is\ntermed by the scientists of to-day \u201cthe Ether of Space.\u201d Moreover, such\na medium as the Ether is demanded by the phenomena of light. It appears,\nhowever, that the ether of space has another and a still more important\nfunction than the transmission of light: the idea that matter has its\nexplanation therein has been developed by Sir Oliver Lodge. The evidence\ncertainly points to the conclusion that matter is some sort of\nsingularity in the ether, probably a stress centre. We have been too\nmuch accustomed to think of the ether as something excessively light and\nquite the reverse of massive or dense, in which it appears we have been\nwrong. Sir Oliver Lodge calculates that the density of the ether is far\ngreater than that of the most dense forms of matter; not that matter is\nto be thought of as a rarefaction of the ether, for the ether within\nmatter is as dense as that without. What we call matter, however, is not\na continuous substance; it consists, rather, of a number of widely\nseparated particles, whence its comparatively small density compared\nwith the perfectly continuous ether. Further, if there is a difficulty\nin conceiving how a perfect fluid like the ether can give rise to a\nsolid body possessed of such properties as rigidity, impenetrability and\nelasticity, we must remember that all these properties can be produced\nby means of motion. A jet of water moving with a sufficient velocity\nbehaves like a rigid and impenetrable solid, whilst a revolving disc of\npaper exhibits elasticity and can act as a circular saw.[97] It appears,\ntherefore, that the ancient doctrine of the alchemistic essence is\nfundamentally true after all, that out of the \u201cOne Thing\u201d all material\nthings have been produced by adaptation or modification; and, as we have\nalready noticed (\u00a7 60), there also appears to be some resemblance\nbetween the concept of the electron and that of the seed of gold, which\nseed, it should be borne in mind, was regarded by the alchemists as the\ncommon seed of all metals.\n\n    [97] See Sir OLIVER LODGE, F.R.S.: _The Ether of Space_ (1909).\n\n\nFurther Evidence of the Complexity of the Atoms.\n\n\u00a7 =83.= There are also certain other facts which appear to demand such a\nmodification of Dalton\u2019s Atomic Theory as is found in the Electronic\nTheory. One of the characteristics of the chemical elements is that each\none gives a spectrum peculiar to itself. The spectrum of an element\nmust, therefore, be due to its atoms, which in some way are able, at a\nsufficiently high temperature, to act upon the ether so as to produce\nvibrations of definite and characteristic wave-length. Now, in many\ncases the number of lines of definite wave-length observed in such a\nspectrum is considerable, for example, hundreds of different lines have\nbeen observed in the arc-spectrum of iron. But it is incredible that an\natom, if it were a simple unit, would give rise to such a number of\ndifferent and definite vibrations, and the only reasonable conclusion is\nthat the atoms must be complex in structure. We may here mention that\nspectroscopic examination of various heavenly bodies leads to the\nconclusion that there is some process of evolution at work building up\ncomplex elements from simpler ones, since the hottest nebul\u00e6 appear to\nconsist of but a few simple elements, whilst cooler bodies exhibit a\ngreater complexity.\n\n\nViews of Wald and Ostwald.\n\n\u00a7 =84.= Such modifications of the atomic theory as those we have briefly\ndiscussed above, although profoundly modifying, and, indeed,\ncontroverting the philosophical significance of Dalton\u2019s theory as\noriginally formulated, leave its chemical significance practically\nunchanged. The atoms can be regarded no longer as the eternal,\nindissoluble gods of Nature that they were once supposed to be; thus,\nMaterialism is deprived of what was thought to be its scientific\nbasis.[98] But the science of Chemistry is unaffected thereby; the atoms\nare not the ultimate units out of which material things are built, but\nthe atoms cannot be decomposed by purely chemical means; the \u201celements\u201d\nare not truly elemental, but _they are chemical elements_. However, the\natomic theory has been subjected to a far more searching criticism. Wald\nargues that substances obey the law of definite proportions because of\nthe way in which they are prepared; chemists refuse, he says, to admit\nany substance as a definite chemical compound unless it does obey this\nlaw. Wald\u2019s opinions have been supported by Professor Ostwald, who has\nattempted to deduce the other stoichiometric laws on these grounds\nwithout assuming any atomic hypothesis[99]; but these new ideas do not\nappear to have gained the approval of chemists in general. It is not to\nbe supposed that chemists will give up without a struggle a mental tool\nof such great utility as Dalton\u2019s theory, in spite of its defects, has\nproved itself to be. There does seem, however, to be logic in the\narguments of Wald and Ostwald, but the trend of recent scientific theory\nand research does not appear to be in the direction of Wald\u2019s views.\nCertainly, however, it appears that, on the one hand, the atomic theory\nis not necessitated by the so-called \u201cstoichiometric laws\u201d; but, on the\nother hand, a molecular constitution of matter seems to be demanded by\nthe phenomenon known as the \u201cBrownian Movement,\u201d _i.e._, the\nspontaneous, irregular and apparently perpetual movement of microscopic\nportions of solid matter when immersed in a liquid medium; such movement\nappearing to be explicable only as the result of the motion of the\nmolecules of which the liquid in question is built up.[100]\n\n    [98] For a critical examination of Materialism, the reader is\n    referred to the present writer\u2019s _Matter, Spirit and the Cosmos_\n    (Rider, 1910), especially Chapters I. and IV.\n\n    [99] W. OSTWALD: \u201cFaraday Lecture,\u201d _Journal of the Chemical\n    Society_, vol. lxxxv. (1904), pp. 506 _et seq._ See also W. OSTWALD:\n    _The Fundamental Principles of Chemistry_ (translated by H. W.\n    Morse, 1909), especially Chapters VI., VII. and VIII.\n\n    [100] For an account of this singular phenomenon, see Prof. JEAN\n    PERRIN: _Brownian Movement and Molecular Reality_ (translated from\n    the _Annales de Chimie et de Physique_, 8me S\u00e9ries, September, 1909,\n    by F. Soddy, M.A., F.R.S., 1910).\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nMODERN ALCHEMY\n\n\n\u201cModern Alchemy.\u201d\n\n\u00a7 =85.= Correctly speaking, there is no such thing as \u201cModern Alchemy\u201d;\nnot that Mysticism is dead, or that men no longer seek to apply the\nprinciples of Mysticism to phenomena on the physical plane, but they do\nso after another manner from that of the alchemists. A new science,\nhowever, is born amongst us, closely related on the one hand to\nChemistry, on the other to Physics, but dealing with changes more\nprofound and reactions more deeply seated than are dealt with by either\nof these; a science as yet without a name, unless it be the not\naltogether satisfactory one of \u201cRadioactivity.\u201d It is this science, or,\nperhaps we should say, a certain aspect of it, to which we refer (it may\nbe fantastically) by the expression \u201cModern Alchemy\u201d: the aptness of the\ntitle we hope to make plain in the course of the present chapter.\n\n\nX-rays and Becquerel rays.\n\n\u00a7 =86.= As is commonly known, what are called X-rays are produced when\nan electric discharge is passed through a high-vacuum tube. It has been\nshown that these rays are a series of irregular pulses in the ether,\nwhich are set up when the kathode particles strike the walls of the\nglass vacuum tube,[101] and it was found that more powerful effects can\nbe produced by inserting a disc of platinum in the path of the kathode\nparticles. It was M. Becquerel who first discovered that there are\nsubstances which naturally emit radiations similar to X-rays. He found\nthat uranium compounds affected a photographic plate from which they\nwere carefully screened, and he also showed that these uranium\nradiations, or \u201cBecquerel rays,\u201d resemble X-rays in other particulars.\nIt was already known that certain substances fluoresce (emit light) in\nthe dark after having been exposed to sunlight, and it was thought at\nfirst that the above phenomenon exhibited by uranium salts was of a like\nnature, since certain uranium salts are fluorescent; but M. Becquerel\nfound that uranium salts which had never been exposed to sunlight were\nstill capable of affecting a photographic plate, and that this\nremarkable property was possessed by all uranium salts, whether\nfluorescent or not. This phenomenon is known as \u201cradioactivity,\u201d and\nbodies which exhibit it are said to be \u201cradioactive.\u201d Schmidt found that\nthorium compounds possess a similar property, and Professor Rutherford\nshowed that thorium compounds evolved also something resembling a gas.\nHe called this an \u201cemanation.\u201d\n\n    [101] They must not be confused with the greenish-yellow\n    phosphorescence which is also produced: the X-rays are invisible.\n\n\nThe Discovery of Radium.\n\n\u00a7 =87.= Mme. Curie[102] determined the radioactivity of many uranium and\nthorium compounds, and found that there was a proportion between the\nradioactivity of such compounds and the quantity of uranium or thorium\nin them, with the remarkable exception of certain natural ores, which\nhad a radioactivity much in excess of the normal, and, indeed, in\ncertain cases, much greater than pure uranium. In order to throw some\nlight on this matter, Mme. Curie prepared one of these ores by a\nchemical process and found that it possessed a normal radioactivity. The\nonly logical conclusion to be drawn from these facts was that the ores\nin question must contain some unknown, highly radioactive substance, and\nthe Curies were able, after very considerable labour, to extract from\npitchblende (the ore with the greatest radioactivity) minute quantities\nof the salts of two new elements--which they named \u201cPolonium\u201d and\n\u201cRadium\u201d respectively--both of which were extremely radioactive.\n\n    [102] See Madame SKLODOWSKA CURIE\u2019S _Radio-active Substances_ (2nd\n    ed., 1904).\n\nM. Debierne has obtained a third radioactive substance from pitchblende,\nwhich he has called \u201cActinium.\u201d\n\n\nChemical Properties of Radium.\n\n\u00a7 =88.= Radium is an element resembling calcium, strontium, and barium\nin chemical properties; its atomic weight was determined by Mme. Curie,\nand found to be about 225, according to her first experiments; a\nredetermination gave a slightly higher value, which has been confirmed\nby a further investigation carried out by Sir T. E. Thorpe.[103] Radium\ngives a characteristic spectrum, and is intensely radioactive. It\nshould be noted that up to the middle of the year 1910 the element\nradium itself had not been prepared; in all the experiments carried out\nradium salts were employed (_i.e._, certain compounds of radium with\nother elements), generally radium chloride and radium bromide. In that\nyear, however, Mme. Curie, in conjunction with M. Debierne, obtained the\nfree metal. It is described as a white, shining metal resembling the\nother alkaline earth metals. It reacts very violently with water, chars\npaper with which it is allowed to come in contact, and blackens in the\nair, probably owing to the formation of a nitride. It fuses at 700\u00b0 C.,\nand is more volatile than barium.[104]\n\n    [103] See Sir T. E. THORPE: \u201cOn the Atomic Weight of Radium\u201d\n    (Bakerian Lecture for 1907. Delivered before the Royal Society, June\n    20, 1907), _Proceedings of the Royal Society of London_, vol. lxxx.\n    pp. 298 _et seq._; reprinted in _The Chemical News_, vol. xcvii. pp.\n    229 _et seq._ (May 15, 1908).\n\n    [104] Madame P. CURIE and M. A. DEBIERNE: \u201cSur le radium\n    m\u00e9tallique,\u201d _Comptes Rendus hebdomadaires des S\u00e9ances de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie\n    des Sciences_, vol. cli. (1910), pp. 523-525. (For an English\n    translation of this paper see _The Chemical News_, vol. cii. p.\n    175.)\n\n\nThe Radioactivity of Radium.\n\n\u00a7 =89.= Radium salts give off three distinct sorts of rays, referred to\nby the Greek letters \u03b1, \u03b2, \u03b3. The \u03b1-rays have been shown to consist of\nelectrically charged (positive) particles, with a mass approximately\nequal to that of four hydrogen atoms; they are slightly deviated by a\nmagnetic field, and do not possess great penetrative power. The \u03b2-rays\nare similar to the kathode rays, and consist of (negative) electrons;\nthey are strongly deviated by a magnetic field, in a direction opposite\nto that in which the \u03b1-particles are deviated, and possess medium\npenetrative power, passing for the most part through a thin sheet of\nmetal. The \u03b3-rays resemble X-rays; they possess great penetrative\npower, and are not deviated by a magnetic field. The difference in the\neffect of the magnetic field on these rays, and the difference in their\npenetrative power, led to their detection and allows of their separate\nexamination. Radium salts emit also an emanation, which tends to become\noccluded in the solid salt, but can be conveniently liberated by\ndissolving the salt in water, or by heating it. The emanation exhibits\nthe characteristic properties of a gas, it obeys Boyle\u2019s Law (_i.e._,\nits volume varies inversely with its pressure), and it can be condensed\nto a liquid at low temperatures; its density as determined by the\ndiffusion method is about 100. Attempts to prepare chemical compounds of\nthe emanation have failed, and in this respect it resembles the rare\ngases of the atmosphere--helium, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon--whence\nit is probable that its molecules are monatomic, so that a density of\n100 would give its atomic weight as 200.[105] As can be seen from the\ntable on pp. 106, 107, an atomic weight of about 220 corresponds to a\nposition in the column containing the rare gases in the periodic system.\nThat the emanation actually has an atomic weight of these dimensions was\nconfirmed by further experiments carried out by the late Sir William\nRamsay and Dr. R. W. Gray.[106] These chemists determined the density of\nthe emanation by actually weighing minute quantities of known volume of\nthe substance, sealed up in small capillary tubes, a specially\nsensitive balance being employed. Values for the density varying from\n108 to 113\u00bd, corresponding to values for the atomic weight varying from\n216 to 227, were thereby obtained. Sir William Ramsay, therefore,\nconsidered that there could no longer be any doubt that the emanation\nwas one of the elements of the group of chemically inert gases. He\nproposed to call it _Niton_, and, for reasons which we shall note later,\nconsidered that in all probability it had an atomic weight of about\n222\u00bd.\n\n    [105] This follows from Avogadro\u2019s Hypothesis, see \u00a7 76.\n\n    [106] Sir WILLIAM RAMSAY and Dr. R. W. GRAY: \u201cLa densit\u00e9 de\n    l\u2019\u00e9manation du radium,\u201d _Comptes Rendus hebdomadaires des S\u00e9ances de\n    l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie des Sciences_, vol. cvi. (1910), pp. 126 _et seq._\n\n\nThe Disintegration of the Radium Atom.\n\n\u00a7 =90.= Radium salts possess another very remarkable property, namely,\nthat of continuously emitting light and heat. It seemed, at first, that\nhere was a startling contradiction to the law of the conservation of\nenergy, but the whole mystery becomes comparatively clear in terms of\nthe corpuscular or the electronic theory of matter. The radium-atom is a\nsystem of a large number (see \u00a7 81) of corpuscles or electrons, and\ncontains in virtue of their motion an enormous amount of energy. But it\nis known from Chemistry that atomic systems (_i.e._, molecules) which\ncontain very much energy are unstable and liable to explode. The same\nlaw holds good on the more interior plane--the radium-atom is liable to,\nand actually does, explode. And the result? Energy is set free, and\nmanifests itself partly as heat and light. Some free electrons are shot\noff (the \u03b2-rays), which, striking the undecomposed particles of salt,\ngive rise to pulses in the ether (the \u03b3-rays),[107] just as the kathode\nparticles give rise to X-rays when they strike the walls of the vacuum\ntube or a platinum disc placed in their path. The \u03b2- and \u03b3-rays do not,\nhowever, result immediately from the exploding radium-atoms, the initial\nproducts being the emanation and one \u03b1-particle from each radium-atom\ndestroyed.\n\n    [107] This view regarding the \u03b3-rays is not, however, universally\n    accepted, some scientists regarding them as consisting of a stream\n    of particles moving with very high velocities.\n\n\n\u201cInduced Radioactivity.\u201d\n\n\u00a7 =91.= Radium salts have the property of causing surrounding objects to\nbecome temporally radioactive. This \u201cinduced radioactivity,\u201d as it may\nbe called, is found to be due to the emanation, which is itself\nradioactive (it emits \u03b1-rays only), and is decomposed into minute traces\nof solid radioactive deposits. By examining the rate of decay of the\nactivity of the deposit, it has been found that it is undergoing a\nseries of sub-atomic changes, the products being termed Radium A, B, C,\n&c. It has been proved that all the \u03b2- and \u03b3-rays emitted by radium\nsalts are really due to certain of these secondary products. Radium F is\nthought to be identical with Polonium (\u00a7 87). Another product is also\nobtained by these decompositions, with which we shall deal later (\u00a7 94).\n\n\nProperties of Uranium and Thorium.\n\n\u00a7 =92.= Uranium and thorium differ in one important respect from radium,\ninasmuch as the first product of the decomposition of the uranium and\nthorium atoms is in both cases solid. Sir William Crookes[108] was able\nto separate from uranium salts by chemical means a small quantity of an\nintensely radioactive substance, which he called Uranium X, the residual\nuranium having lost most of its activity; and M. Becquerel, on\nrepeating the experiment, found that the activity of the residual\nuranium was slowly regained, whilst that of the uranium X decayed. This\nis most simply explained by the theory that uranium first changes into\nuranium X. It has been suggested that radium may be the final product of\nthe breaking up of the uranium-atom; at any rate, it is quite certain\nthat radium must be evolved in some way, as otherwise there would be\nnone in existence--it would all have decomposed. This suggestion has\nbeen experimentally confirmed, the growth of radium in large quantities\nof a solution of purified uranyl nitrate having been observed. Uranium\ngives no emanation. Thorium probably gives at least three solid\nproducts--Meso-thorium, Radio-thorium, and Thorium X, the last of which\nyields an emanation resembling that obtained from radium, but not\nidentical with it.\n\n    [108] Sir WILLIAM CROOKES, F.R.S.: \u201cRadio-activity of Uranium,\u201d\n    _Proceedings of the Royal Society of London_, vol. lxvi. (1900), pp.\n    409 _et seq._\n\n\nThe Radium Emanation.\n\n\u00a7 =93.= We must now more fully consider the radium emanation--a\nsubstance with more astounding properties than even the radium compounds\nthemselves. By distilling off the emanation from some radium bromide,\nand measuring the quantities of heat given off by the emanation and the\nradium salt respectively, Professors Rutherford and Barnes[109] proved\nthat nearly three-fourths of the total amount of heat given out by a\nradium salt comes from the minute quantity of emanation that it\ncontains. The amount of energy liberated as heat during the decay of the\nemanation is enormous; one cubic centimetre liberates about four\nmillion times as much heat as is obtained by the combustion of an equal\nvolume of hydrogen. Undoubtedly this must indicate some profound change,\nand one may well ask, What is the ultimate product of the decomposition\nof the emanation?\n\n    [109] E. RUTHERFORD, F.R.S., and H. T. BARNES, D.Sc.: \u201cHeating\n    Effect of the Radium Emanation,\u201d _Philosophical Magazine_ [6], vol.\n    vii. (1904), pp. 202 _et seq._\n\n\nThe Production of Helium from Radium.\n\n\u00a7 =94.= It had been observed already that the radioactive minerals on\nheating give off Helium--a gaseous element, characterised by a\nparticular yellow line in its spectrum--and it seemed not unlikely that\nhelium might be the ultimate decomposition product of the emanation. A\nresearch to settle this point was undertaken by Sir William Ramsay and\nMr. Soddy,[110] and a preliminary experiment having confirmed the above\nspeculation, they carried out further very careful experiments. \u201cThe\nmaximum amount of the emanation obtained from 50 milligrams of radium\nbromide was conveyed by means of oxygen into a [U]-tube cooled in liquid\nair, and the latter was then extracted by the pump.\u201d The spectrum was\nobserved; it \u201cwas apparently a new one, probably that of the emanation\nitself. .\u00a0.\u00a0. After standing from July 17 to 21 the helium spectrum\nappeared, and the characteristic lines were observed.\u201d Sir William\nRamsay performed a further experiment with a similar result, in which\nthe radium salt had been first of all heated in a vacuum for some time,\nproving that the helium obtained could not have been occluded in it;\nthough the fact that the helium spectrum did not immediately appear, in\nitself proves this point. Sir William Ramsay\u2019s results were confirmed\nby further careful experiments by Sir James Dewar and other chemists. It\nwas suggested, therefore, that the \u03b1-particle consists of an\nelectrically charged helium-atom, and not only is this view in agreement\nwith the value of the mass of this particle as determined\nexperimentally, but it has been completely demonstrated by Professor\nRutherford and Mr. Royds. These chemists performed an experiment in\nwhich the emanation from about one-seventh of a gramme of radium was\nenclosed in a thin-walled tube, through the walls of which the\n\u03b1-particles could pass, but which were impervious to gases. This tube\nwas surrounded by an outer jacket, which was evacuated. After a time the\npresence of helium in the space between the inner tube and the outer\njacket was observed spectroscopically.[111] Now, the emanation-atom\nresults from the radium-atom by the expulsion of one \u03b1-particle; and\nsince this latter consists of an electrically charged helium-atom, it\nfollows that the emanation must have an atomic weight of 226 - 4,\n_i.e._, 222. This value is in agreement with Sir William Ramsay\u2019s\ndetermination of the density of the emanation. We may represent the\ndegradation of the radium-atom, therefore, by the following scheme:--\n\n               \u03b1-particle (Helium-atom)\n              /           4\n  Radium-atom                          \u03b1-particle (Helium-atom)\n      226     \\                       /           4\n                Emanation (Niton-atom)\n                         222          \\\n                                       Radium-A, &c.\n\n    [110] Sir WILLIAM RAMSAY and FREDERICK SODDY: \u201cExperiments in\n    Radioactivity and the Production of Helium from Radium,\u201d\n    _Proceedings of the Royal Society of London_, vol. lxxii. (1903),\n    pp. 204 _et seq._\n\n    [111] E. RUTHERFORD, F.R.S., and T. ROYDS, M.Sc.: \u201cThe Nature of the\n    \u03b1-Particle from Radio-active Substances,\u201d _Philosophical Magazine_\n    [6], vol. xvii. (1909), pp. 281 _et seq._\n\n\nNature of this Change.\n\n\u00a7 =95.= Here, then, for the first time in the history of Chemistry, we\nhave the undoubted formation of one chemical element from another, for,\nleaving out of the question the nature of the emanation, there can be no\ndoubt that radium is a chemical element. This is a point which must be\ninsisted upon, for it has been suggested that radium may be a compound\nof helium with some unknown element; or, perhaps, a compound of helium\nwith lead, since it has been shown that lead is probably one of the end\nproducts of the decomposition of radium. The following considerations,\nhowever, show this view to be altogether untenable: (i.) All attempts to\nprepare compounds of helium with other elements have failed. (ii.)\nRadium possesses all the properties of a chemical element; it has a\ncharacteristic spectrum, and falls in that column in the Periodic Table\nwith those elements which it resembles as to its chemical properties.\n(iii.) The quantity of heat liberated on the decomposition of the\nemanation is, as we have already indicated, out of all proportion to\nthat obtained even in the most violent chemical reactions; and (iv.) one\nvery important fact has been observed, namely, that the rate of decay of\nthe emanation is unaffected by even extreme changes of temperature,\nwhereas chemical actions are always affected in rate by changes of\ntemperature. It will also be advisable, perhaps, to indicate some of the\ndifferences between helium and the emanation. The latter is a heavy gas,\ncondensable to a liquid by liquid air (recently it has been\nsolidified[112]); whereas helium is the lightest of all known gases\nwith the exception of hydrogen and has been liquefied only by the most\npersistent effort.[113] The emanation, moreover, is radioactive, giving\noff \u03b1-particles, whereas helium does not possess this property.\n\n    [112] By Ramsay. See _Proceedings of the Chemical Society_, vol.\n    xxv. (1909), pp. 82 and 83.\n\n    [113] By Professor Onnes. See _Chemical News_, vol. xcviii. p. 37\n    (July 24, 1908).\n\n\nIs this Change a true Transmutation?\n\n\u00a7 =96.= It has been pointed out, however, that (in a sense) this change\n(viz., of emanation into helium) is not quite what has been meant by the\nexpression \u201ctransmutation of the elements\u201d; for the reason that it is a\n_spontaneous_ change; no effort of ours can bring it about or cause it\nto cease.[114] But the fact of the change does go to prove that the\nchemical elements are not the discrete units of matter that they were\nsupposed to be. And since it appears that all matter is radioactive,\nalthough (save in these exceptional cases) in a very slight degree,[115]\nwe here have evidence of a process of evolution at work among the\nchemical elements. The chemical elements are not permanent; they are all\nundergoing change; and the common elements merely mark those points\nwhere the rate of the evolutionary process is at its slowest. (See also\n\u00a7\u00a7 78 and 83.) Thus, the essential truth in the old alchemistic doctrine\nof the growth of metals is vindicated, for the metals do grow in the\nwomb of Nature, although the process may be far slower than appears to\nhave been imagined by certain of the alchemists,[116] and although gold\nmay not be the end product. As writes Professor Sir W. Tilden: \u201c.\u00a0.\u00a0. It\nappears that modern ideas as to the genesis of the elements, and hence\nof all matter, stand in strong contrast with those which chiefly\nprevailed among experimental philosophers from the time of Newton, and\nseem to reflect in an altered form the speculative views of the\nancients.\u201d \u201c.\u00a0.\u00a0. It seems probable,\u201d he adds, \u201cthat the chemical\nelements, and hence all material substances of which the earth, the sea,\nthe air, and the host of heavenly bodies are all composed, resulted from\na change, corresponding to condensation, in something of which we have\nno direct and intimate knowledge. Some have imagined this primal essence\nof all things to be identical with the ether of space. As yet we know\nnothing with certainty, but it is thought that by means of the\nspectroscope some stages of the operation may be seen in progress in the\nnebul\u00e6 and stars. .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u201d[117] We have next to consider whether there is\nany experimental evidence showing it to be possible (using the\nphraseology of the alchemists) for man to assist in Nature\u2019s work.\n\n    [114] See Professor H. C. JONES: _The Electrical Nature of Matter\n    and Radioactivity_ (1906), pp. 125-126.\n\n    [115] It has been definitely proved, for example, that the common\n    element potassium is radioactive, though very feebly so (it emits\n    \u03b2-rays). It is also interesting to note that many common substances\n    emit corpuscles at high temperatures.\n\n    [116] Says Peter Bonus, however, \u201c.\u00a0.\u00a0. we know that the generation\n    of metals occupies thousands of years .\u00a0.\u00a0. in Nature\u2019s workshop.\n    .\u00a0.\u00a0.\u201d (see _The New Pearl of Great Price_, Mr. A. E. Waite\u2019s\n    translation, p. 55), and certain others of the alchemists expressed\n    a similar view.\n\n    [117] Sir WILLIAM A. TILDEN: _The Elements: Speculations as to their\n    Nature and Origin_ (1910), pp. 108, 109, 133 and 134. With regard to\n    Sir William Tilden\u2019s remarks, it is very interesting to note that\n    Swedenborg (who was born when Newton was between forty and fifty\n    years old) not only differed from that great philosopher on those\n    very points on which modern scientific philosophy is at variance\n    with Newton, but, as is now recognised by scientific men,\n    anticipated many modern discoveries and scientific theories. It\n    would be a most interesting task to set forth the agreement existing\n    between Swedenborg\u2019s theories and the latest products of scientific\n    thought concerning the nature of the physical universe. Such,\n    however, would lie without the confines of the present work.\n\n\nThe Production of Neon from Emanation.\n\n\u00a7 =97.= As we have already indicated above (\u00a7 93), the radium emanation\ncontains a vast store of potential energy, and it was with the idea of\nutilising this energy for bringing about chemical changes that Sir\nWilliam Ramsay[118] undertook a research on the chemical action of this\nsubstance--a research with the most surprising and the most interesting\nresults, for the energy contained within the radium emanation appeared\nto behave like a veritable Philosopher\u2019s Stone. The first experiments\nwere carried out on distilled water. It had already been observed that\nthe emanation decomposes water into its gaseous elements, oxygen and\nhydrogen, and that the latter is always produced in excess. These\nresults were confirmed and the presence of hydrogen peroxide was\ndetected, explaining the formation of an excess of hydrogen; it was also\nshown that the emanation brings about the reverse change to some extent,\ncausing oxygen and hydrogen to unite with the production of water, until\na position of equilibrium is attained. On examining spectroscopically\nthe gas obtained by the action of the emanation on water, after the\nremoval of the ordinary gases, a most surprising result was\nobserved--the gas showed a brilliant spectrum of neon, accompanied with\nsome faint helium lines. A more careful experiment was carried out later\nby Sir William Ramsay and Mr. Cameron, in which a silica bulb was\nemployed instead of glass. The spectrum of the residual gas after\nremoving ordinary gases was successfully photographed, and a large\nnumber of the neon lines identified; helium was also present. The\npresence of neon could not be explained, in Ramsay\u2019s opinion, by leakage\nof air into the apparatus, as the percentage of neon in the air is not\nsufficiently high, whereas this suggestion might be put forward in the\ncase of argon. Moreover, the neon could not have come from the aluminium\nof the electrodes (in which it might be thought to have been occluded),\nas the sparking tube had been used and tested before the experiment was\ncarried out. The authors conclude: \u201cWe must regard the transformation of\nemanation into neon, in presence of water, as indisputably proved, and,\nif a transmutation be defined as a transformation brought about at will,\nby change of conditions, then _this is the first case of transmutation\nof which conclusive evidence is put forward_.\u201d[119] However, Professor\nRutherford and Mr. Royds have been unable to confirm this result. They\ndescribe[120] attempts to obtain neon by the action of emanation on\nwater. Out of five experiments no neon was obtained, save in one case in\nwhich a small air leak was discovered; and, since the authors find that\nvery minute quantities of this gas are sufficient to give a clearly\nvisible spectrum, they conclude that Ramsay\u2019s positive results are due,\nafter all, to leakage of air into the apparatus. But if this is the true\nexplanation of Ramsay\u2019s results, it is difficult to understand why, in\nthe case of the experiment with a solution of a copper salt described\nbelow, the presence of neon was not detected, for, if due to leakage,\nthe proportions of the rare gases present should presumably have been\nthe same in all the experiments. Further research seems necessary\nconclusively to settle the question.\n\n    [118] Sir WILLIAM RAMSAY: \u201cThe Chemical Action of the Radium\n    Emanation. Pt. I., Action on Distilled Water,\u201d _Journal of the\n    Chemical Society_, vol. xci. (1907), pp. 931 _et seq._ ALEXANDER T.\n    CAMERON and Sir WILLIAM RAMSAY, _ibid._ \u201cPt. II., On Solutions\n    containing Copper, and Lead, and on Water,\u201d _ibid._ pp. 1593 _et\n    seq._ \u201cPt. III., On Water and Certain Gases,\u201d _ibid._ vol. xciii.\n    (1908), pp. 966 _et seq._ \u201cPt. IV., On Water,\u201d _ibid._ pp. 992 _et\n    seq._\n\n    [119] _Journal of the Chemical Society_, vol. xciii. (1908), p. 997.\n\n    [120] E. RUTHERFORD, F.R.S., and T. ROYDS, M.Sc.: \u201cThe Action of\n    Radium Emanation on Water,\u201d _Philosophical Magazine_ [6], vol. xvi.\n    (1908), pp. 812 _et seq._\n\n\nRamsay\u2019s Experiments on Copper.\n\n\u00a7 =98.= The fact that an excess of hydrogen was produced when water was\ndecomposed by the emanation suggested to Sir William Ramsay and Mr.\nCameron that if a solution of a metallic salt was employed in place of\npure water, the free metal might be obtained. These \u201cmodern alchemists,\u201d\ntherefore, proceeded to investigate the action of radium emanation on\nsolutions of copper and lead salts, and again apparently effected\ntransmutations. They found on removing the copper from a solution of a\ncopper-salt which had been subjected to the action of the emanation, and\nspectroscopically examining the residue, that a considerable quantity of\nsodium was present, together with traces of lithium; and the gas evolved\nin the case of a solution of copper nitrate contained, along with much\nnitric oxide and a little nitrogen, argon (which was detected\nspectroscopically), but no helium. It certainly seemed like a dual\ntransformation of copper into lithium and sodium, and emanation into\nargon. They also observed that apparently carbon-dioxide is continually\nevolved from an acid solution of thorium nitrate (see below, \u00a7 100). It\nis worth while noticing that helium, neon and argon occur in the same\ncolumn in the Periodic Table with emanation; lithium and sodium with\ncopper, and carbon with thorium; in each case the elements produced\nbeing of lighter atomic weight than those decomposed.[121] The authors\nmake the following suggestions: \u201c(1) That helium and the \u03b1-particle are\nnot identical; (2) that helium results from the \u2018degradation\u2019 of the\nlarge molecule of emanation by its bombardment with \u03b1-particles; (3)\nthat this \u2018degradation,\u2019 when the emanation is alone or mixed with\noxygen and hydrogen, results in the lowest member of the inactive\nseries, namely, helium; (4) that if particles of greater mass than\nhydrogen or oxygen are associated with the emanation, namely, liquid\nwater, then the \u2018degradation\u2019 of the emanation is less complete, and\nneon is produced; (5) that when molecules of still greater weight and\ncomplexity are present, as is the case when the emanation is dissolved\nin a solution of copper sulphate, the product of \u2018degradation\u2019 of the\nemanation is argon. We are inclined to believe too [they say] that (6)\nthe copper also is involved in this process of degradation, and is\nreduced to the lowest term of its series, namely, lithium; and at the\nsame time, inasmuch as the weight of the residue of alkali, produced\nwhen copper nitrate is present, is double that obtained from the blank\nexperiment, or from water alone, the supposition is not excluded that\nthe chief product of the \u2018degradation\u2019 of copper is sodium.\u201d[122]\n\n    [121] See pp. 106, 107.\n\n    [122] _Journal of the Chemical Society_, vol. xci. (1907), pp.\n    1605-1606. More recent experiments, however, proved that the\n    \u03b1-particle does consist of an electrically charged helium-atom, and\n    this view was latterly accepted by Sir William Ramsay, so that the\n    above suggestions must be modified in accordance therewith. (See \u00a7\n    94.)\n\n\nFurther Experiments on Radium and Copper.\n\n\u00a7 =99.= A little later Madame Curie and Mademoiselle Gleditsch[123]\nrepeated Cameron and Ramsay\u2019s experiments on copper salts, using,\nhowever, platinum apparatus. They failed to detect lithium after the\naction of the emanation, and think that Cameron and Ramsay\u2019s results may\nbe due to the glass vessels employed. Dr. Perman[124] has investigated\nthe direct action of the emanation on copper and gold, and has failed to\ndetect any trace of lithium. The transmutation of copper into lithium,\ntherefore, must be regarded as unproved, but further research is\nnecessary before any conclusive statements can be made on the subject.\n\n    [123] Madame CURIE and Mademoiselle GLEDITSCH: \u201cAction de\n    l\u2019\u00e9manation du radium sur les solutions des sels de cuivre,\u201d\n    _Comptes Rendus hebdomadaires des S\u00e9ances de l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie des\n    Sciences_, vol. cxlvii. (1908), pp. 345 _et seq._ (For an English\n    translation of this paper, see _The Chemical News_, vol. xcviii. pp.\n    157 and 158.)\n\n    [124] EDGAR PHILIP PERMAN: \u201cThe Direct Action of Radium on Copper\n    and Gold,\u201d _Proceedings of the Chemical Society_, vol. xxiv. (1908),\n    p. 214.\n\n\nRamsay\u2019s Experiments on Thorium and allied Metals.\n\n\u00a7 =100.= In his presidential address to the Chemical Society, March 25,\n1909, after having brought forward some exceedingly interesting\narguments for the possibility of transmutation, Sir William Ramsay\ndescribed some experiments which he had carried out on thorium and\nallied elements.[125] It was found, as we have already stated (\u00a7 98),\nthat, apparently, carbon-dioxide was continually evolved from an acid\nsolution of thorium nitrate, precautions being taken that the gas was\nnot produced from the grease on the stop-cock employed, and it also\nappeared that carbon-dioxide was produced by the action of radium\nemanation on thorium nitrate. The action of radium emanation on\ncompounds (not containing carbon) of other members of the carbon group,\nnamely, silicon, zirconium and lead, was then investigated; in the cases\nof zirconium nitrate and hydro-fluosilicic acid, carbon-dioxide was\nobtained; but in the case of lead chlorate the amount of carbon dioxide\nwas quite insignificant. Curiously enough, the perchlorate of bismuth, a\nmetal which belongs to the nitrogen group of elements, also yielded\ncarbon-dioxide when acted on by emanation. Sir William Ramsay concludes\nhis discussion of these experiments as follows: \u201cSuch are the facts. No\none is better aware than I how insufficient the proof is. Many other\nexperiments must be made before it can confidently be asserted that\ncertain elements, when exposed to \u2018concentrated energy,\u2019 undergo\ndegradation into carbon.\u201d Some such confirmatory experiments were\ncarried out by Sir William Ramsay and Mr. Francis L. Usher, and they\nalso described an experiment with a compound of titanium. Their results\nconfirm Sir William Ramsay\u2019s former experiments. Carbon-dioxide was\nobtained in appreciable quantities by the action of emanation on\ncompounds of silicon, titanium, zirconium and thorium. In the case of\nlead, the amount of carbon dioxide obtained was inappreciable.[126]\n\n    [125] Sir WILLIAM RAMSAY: \u201cElements and Electrons,\u201d _Journal of the\n    Chemical Society_, vol. xcv. (1909), pp. 624 _et seq._\n\n    [126] For a brief account in English of these later experiments see\n    _The Chemical News_, vol. c. p. 209 (October 29, 1909).\n\n\nThe Possibility of Making Gold.\n\n\u00a7 =101.= It does not seem unlikely that if it is possible to \u201cdegrade\u201d\nelements, it may be possible to build them up. It has been suggested\nthat it might be possible to obtain, in this way, gold from silver,\nsince these two elements occur in the same column in the Periodic Table;\nbut the suggestion still awaits experimental confirmation. The question\narises, What would be the result if gold could be cheaply produced? That\ngold is a metal admirably adapted for many purposes, for which its\nscarcity prevents its use, must be admitted. But the financial chaos\nwhich would follow if it were to be cheaply obtained surpasses the\nordinary imagination. It is a theme that ought to appeal to a novelist\nof exceptional imaginative power. However, we need not fear these\nresults, for not only is radium extremely rare, far dearer than gold,\nand on account of its instability will never be obtained in large\nquantities, but, judging from the above-described experiments, if,\nindeed, the radium emanation is the true Philosopher\u2019s Stone, the\nquantity of gold that may be hoped for by its aid is extremely small.\n\n\nThe Significance of \u201cAllotropy.\u201d\n\n\u00a7 =102.= A very suggestive argument for the transmutation of the metals\nwas put forward by Professor Henry M. Howe, LL.D., in a paper entitled\n\u201cAllotropy or Transmutation?\u201d read before the British Association\n(Section B), Sheffield Meeting, 1910. Certain substances are known\nwhich, although differing in their physical properties very markedly,\nbehave chemically as if they were one and the same element, giving rise\nto the same series of compounds. Such substances, of which we may\nmention diamond, graphite and charcoal (_e.g._, lampblack)--all of which\nare known chemically as \u201ccarbon\u201d--or, to take another example, yellow\nphosphorus (a yellow, waxy, highly inflammable solid) and red phosphorus\n(a difficultly-inflammable, dark red substance, probably possessing a\nminutely crystalline structure), are, moreover, convertible one into the\nother.[127] It has been customary to refer to such substances as\ndifferent forms or allotropic modifications of the same element, and not\nto regard them as being different elements. As Professor Howe says, \u201cIf\nafter defining \u2018elements\u2019 as substances hitherto indivisible, and\ndifferent elements as those which differ in at least some one property,\nand after asserting that the elements cannot be transmuted into each\nother, we are confronted with the change from diamond into lampblack,\nand with the facts, first, that each is clearly indivisible hitherto\nand hence an element, and, second, that they differ in every property,\nwe try to escape in a circle by saying that they are not different\nelements because they do change into each other. In short, we limit the\nname \u2018element\u2019 to indivisible substances which cannot be transmuted into\neach other, and we define those which do transmute as _ipso facto_ one\nelement, and then we say that the elements cannot be transmuted. Is not\nthis very like saying that, if you call a calf\u2019s tail a leg, then a calf\nhas five legs? And if it is just to reply that calling a tail a leg does\nnot make it a leg, is it not equally just to reply that calling two\ntransmutable elements one element does not make them so?\n\n    [127] Diamond is transformed into graphite when heated by a powerful\n    electric current between carbon poles, and both diamond and graphite\n    can be indirectly converted into charcoal. The artificial production\n    of the diamond, however, is a more difficult process; but the late\n    Professor Moissan succeeded in effecting it, so far as very small\n    diamonds are concerned, by dissolving charcoal in molten iron or\n    silver and allowing it to crystallise from the solution under high\n    pressure. Graphite was also obtained. Red phosphorus is produced\n    from yellow phosphorus by heating the latter in absence of air. The\n    temperature 240-250\u00b0 C. is the most suitable; at higher temperatures\n    the reverse change sets in, red phosphorus being converted into\n    yellow phosphorus.\n\n\u201cIs it philosophical to point to the fact that two such transmutable\nelements yield but a single line of derivatives as proof that they are\none element? Is not this rather proof of the readiness, indeed\nirresistibleness, of their transmutation? Does not this simply mean that\nthe derivativeless element, whenever it enters into combination,\ninevitably transmutes into its mate which has derivatives?\u201d[128]\n\n    [128] Professor HENRY M. HOWE, LL.D.: \u201cAllotropy or Transmutation.\u201d\n    (See _The Chemical News_, vol. cii. pp. 153 and 154, September 23,\n    1910.)\n\nAccording to the atomic theory the differences between what are termed\n\u201callotropic modifications\u201d are generally ascribed to differences in the\nnumber and arrangement of the atoms constituting the molecules of such\n\u201cmodifications,\u201d and not to any differences in the atoms themselves. But\nwe cannot argue that two such \u201callotropic modifications\u201d or elements\nwhich are transmutable into one another are one and the same element,\nbecause they possess the same atomic weight, and different elements are\ndistinguished by different atomic weights; for the reason that, in the\ndetermination of atomic weights, derivatives of such bodies are\nemployed; hence, the value obtained is the atomic weight of the element\nwhich forms derivatives, from which that of its derivativeless mate may\ndiffer considerably for all we know to the contrary, if we do, indeed,\nregard the atomic weights of the elements as having any meaning beyond\nexpressing the inertia-ratios in which they combine one with another.\n\nIf we wish to distinguish between two such \u201callotropic modifications\u201d\napart from any theoretical views concerning the nature and constitution\nof matter, we can say that such \u201cmodifications\u201d are different because\nequal weights of them contain, or are equivalent to, different\nquantities of energy,[129] since the change of one \u201cform\u201d to another\ntakes place only with the evolution or absorption (as the case may be)\nof heat.[130] But, according to modern views regarding the nature of\nmatter, this is the sole fundamental difference between two different\nelements--such are different because equal weights of them contain or\nare equivalent to different quantities of energy. The so-called\n\u201callotropic modifications of an element,\u201d therefore, are just as much\ndifferent elements as any other different elements, and the change from\none \u201cmodification\u201d to another is a true transmutation of the elements;\nthe only distinction being that what are called \u201callotropic\nmodifications of the same element\u201d differ only slightly in respect of\nthe energy they contain, and hence are comparatively easy to convert one\ninto the other, whereas different elements (so called) differ very\ngreatly from one another in this respect, whence it is to be concluded\nthat the transmutation of one such element into another will only be\nattained by the utilisation of energy in a very highly concentrated\nform, such as is evolved simultaneously with the spontaneous\ndecomposition of the radium emanation.\n\n    [129] For a defence of the view that chemical substances may be\n    regarded as energy-complexes, and that this view is equally as valid\n    as the older notion of a chemical substance as an inertia-complex,\n    _i.e._, as something made up entirely of different units or atoms\n    each characterised by the possession of a definite and constant\n    weight at a fixed point on the earth\u2019s surface, see an article by\n    the present writer, entitled \u201cThe Claims of Thermochemistry,\u201d\n    _Knowledge and Scientific News_, vol. vii. (New Series), pp. 227 _et\n    seq._ (July, 1910).\n\n    [130] In some cases the heat change accompanying the transformation\n    of an element into an \u201callotropic modification\u201d can be measured\n    directly. More frequently, however, it is calculated as the\n    difference between the quantities of heat obtained when the two\n    \u201cforms\u201d are converted into one and the same compound.\n\n\nConclusion.\n\n\u00a7 =103.= We have shown that modern science indicates the essential truth\nof alchemistic doctrine, and our task is ended. Writing in 1904, Sir\nWilliam Ramsay said: \u201cIf these hypotheses [concerning the possibility of\ncausing the atoms of ordinary elements to absorb energy] are just, then\nthe transmutations of the elements no longer appears an idle dream. The\nphilosopher\u2019s stone will have been discovered, and it is not beyond the\nbounds of possibility that it may lead to that other goal of the\nphilosophers of the dark ages--the _elixir vit\u00e6_. For the action of\nliving cells is also dependent on the nature and direction of the energy\nwhich they contain; and who can say that it will be impossible to\ncontrol their action, when the means of imparting and controlling energy\nshall have been investigated?\u201d[131] Whatever may be the final verdict\nconcerning his own experiments, those of Sir Ernest Rutherford, referred\nto in the Preface to the present edition, demonstrate the fact of\ntransmutation; and it is worth noticing how many of the alchemists\u2019\nobscure descriptions of their Magistery well apply to that marvellous\nsomething which we call Energy, the true \u201cFirst Matter\u201d of the Universe.\nAnd of the other problem, the _Elixir Vit\u00e6_, who knows?\n\n    [131] Sir WILLIAM RAMSAY: \u201cRadium and its Products,\u201d _Harper\u2019s\n    Magazine_ (December 1904), vol. xlix. (European Edition), p. 57.\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n\n\n    _Printed in Great Britain by_\n\n    UNWIN BROTHERS, LIMITED\n\n    WOKING AND LONDON\n\n\n\n\n_Works by H. STANLEY REDGROVE, B.Sc. (Lond.), F.C.S._\n\n\n    =ON THE CALCULATION OF THERMO-CHEMICAL CONSTANTS.= (Arnold, 1909,\n    6s. net.)\n\n    =MATTER, SPIRIT AND THE COSMOS: Some Suggestions towards a better\n    Understanding of the Whence and Why of their Existence.= (Rider,\n    Popular Edition, 1916, 1s. net.)\n\n    =A MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF SPIRIT.= Being an Attempt to employ\n    certain Mathematical Principles in the Elucidation of some\n    Metaphysical Problems. (Rider, 1912, 2s. 6d. net.)\n\n    =EXPERIMENTAL MENSURATION.= An Elementary Text-Book of Inductive\n    Geometry. (Heinemann, 1912, 2s. 6d. net.)\n\n    =THE MAGIC OF EXPERIENCE.= A Contribution to the Theory of\n    Knowledge. With an Introduction by Sir WILLIAM F. BARRETT, F.R.S.\n    (Dent, 1916. _Out of print._)\n\n    =BYGONE BELIEFS.= A Series of Excursions in the Byways of Thought.\n    (Rider, 1920, 10s. 6d. net.)\n\n    =PURPOSE AND TRANSCENDENTALISM.= An Exposition of Swedenborg\u2019s\n    Philosophical Doctrine in Relation to Modern Thought. (Kegan Paul,\n    1920, 5s. net.)\n\n    =ROGER BACON, the Father of Experimental Science, and Medi\u00e6val\n    Occultism.= (Rider, 1920, 1s. 6d. net.)\n\n    =INDUSTRIAL GASES, together with the Liquefaction of Gases.= By\n    various authors, including H. S. REDGROVE. (Crosby Lockwood, Second\n    Impression, 1918, 9s. net.)\n\n    =THE INDICTMENT OF WAR.= An Anthology. Compiled by H. S. REDGROVE\n    and J. H. ROWBOTTOM. (Daniel, 1919, 10s. 6d. net.)\n\n    =JOSEPH GLANVILL, and Psychical Research in the Seventeenth\n    Century.= By H. S. REDGROVE and I. M. L. REDGROVE. (Rider, 1921, 2s.\n    net.)\n\n\n=London: WILLIAM RIDER & SON, Ltd., 8 Paternoster Row, E.C. 4=\n\n\n\n\n    Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n\n    The text of the original work has been retained, including\n    inconsistencies in spelling, hyphenation, punctuation, etc., except\n    as mentioned below.\n\n    Page 82, footnote [85]: the original work had a letter missing; \u201cor\u201d\n    seems to fit best (or van Helmont\u2019s Workes).\n\n    Page 84, Memnonite: possibly error for Mennonite.\n\n    Page 93, fulfull: possibly error for fulfill.\n\n\n    Changes made to the text:\n\n    Footnotes and illustrations have been moved outside text paragraphs.\n\n    Some minor obvious typographical and punctuation errors have been\n    corrected silently.\n\n    Page xvii: 142 changed to 140 (Table of Contents)\n\n    Page 10: quesable changed to questionable\n\n    Page 41: Trismegistus changed to Trismegistos as elsewhere\n\n    Page 66: Gentlemen changed to Gentleman\n\n    Page 120, footnote [104]: S\u00e9ances l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie changed to S\u00e9ances de\n    l\u2019Acad\u00e9mie\n\n    Page 140, footnote [130]: modication changed to modification.","title":"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","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":43121}