The History of Chemistry_ Volume 1 (of 2) Thomas Thomson 1393 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The History of Chemistry,
Volume 1 (of 2)

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The History of Chemistry, Volume 1 (of 2)

Author: Thomas Thomson

Release date: November 27, 2015 [eBook #50565]
Most recently updated: October 22, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50565

Credits: Produced by MWS, Wayne Hammond and the Online
Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE HISTORY
OF CHEMISTRY, VOLUME 1 (OF 2) ***

The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

Raeburn. pinxt. Dean, sculpt.

JOSEPH BLACK, M.D. F.R.S.E.
London. Published by Henry Colburn & Richard Bentley. 1830.

THE

HISTORY
OF

CHEMISTRY.
BY

THOMAS THOMSON, M.D. F.R.S.E.
PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.

IN TWO VOLUMES.

VOL. I.
LONDON:

HENRY COLBURN, AND RICHARD BENTLEY,

NEW BURLINGTON STREET.

1830.

C. WHITING, BEAUFORT HOUSE, STRAND.

PREFACE.

It may be proper, perhaps, to state here, in a very few words, the
objects which the author had in view in drawing up the following History of
Chemistry. Alchymy, or the art of making gold, with which the science
originated, furnishes too curious a portion of the aberrations of the human
intellect to be passed over in silence. The writings of the alchymists are so
voluminous and so mystical, that it would have afforded materials for a
very long work. But I was prevented from extending this part of the subject
to any greater length than I have done, by considering the small quantity of
information which could have been gleaned from the reveries of these
fanatics or impostors; I thought it sufficient to give a general view of the
nature of their pursuits: but in order to put it in the power of those who feel
inclined to prosecute such investigations, I have given a catalogue of the
most eminent of the alchymists and a list of their works, so far as I am
acquainted with them. This catalogue might have been greatly extended.
Indeed it would have been possible to have added several hundred names.
But I think the works which I have quoted are more than almost any
reasonable man would think it worth his while to peruse; and I can state,
from experience, that the information gained by such a perusal will very
seldom repay the trouble.

The account of the chemical arts, with which the ancients were
acquainted, is necessarily imperfect; because all arts and trades were held in
so much contempt by them that they did not think it worth their while to
make themselves acquainted with the processes. My chief guide has been
Pliny, but many of his descriptions are unintelligible, obviously from his
ignorance of the arts which he attempts to describe. Thus circumstanced, I

thought it better to be short than to waste a great deal of paper, as some
have done, on hypothesis and conjecture.

The account of the Chemistry of the Arabians is almost entirely limited
to the works of Geber, which I consider to be the first book on Chemistry
that ever was published, and to constitute, in every point of view, an
exceedingly curious performance. I was much struck with the vast number
of facts with which he was acquainted, and which have generally been
supposed to have been discovered long after his time. I have, therefore,
been at some pains in endeavouring to convey a notion of Geber’s opinions
to the readers of this history; but am not sure that I have succeeded. I have
generally given his own words, as literally as possible, and, wherever it
would answer the purpose, have employed the English translation of 1678.

Paracelsus gave origin to so great a revolution in medicine and the
sciences connected with it, that it would have been unpardonable not to
have attempted to lay his opinions and views before the reader; but, after
perusing several of his most important treatises, I found it almost
impossible to form accurate notions on the subject. I have, therefore,
endeavoured to make use of his own words as much as possible, that the
want of consistency and the mysticism of his opinions may fall upon his
own head. Should the reader find any difficulty in understanding the
philosophy of Paracelsus, he will be in no worse a situation than every one
has been who has attempted to delineate the principles of this prince of
quacks and impostors. Van Helmont’s merits were of a much higher kind,
and I have endeavoured to do him justice; though his weaknesses are so
visible that it requires much candour and patience to discriminate accurately
between his excellencies and his foibles.

The history of Iatro-chemistry forms a branch of our subject scarcely
less extraordinary than Alchymy itself. It might have been extended to a
much greater length than I have done. The reason why I did not enter into

longer details was, that I thought the subject more intimately connected
with the history of medicine than of chemistry: it undoubtedly contributed
to the improvement of chemistry; not, however, by the opinions or the
physiology of the iatro-chemists, but by inducing their contemporaries and
successors to apply themselves to the discovery of chemical medicines.

The History of Chemistry, after a theory of combustion had been
introduced by Beccher and Stahl, becomes much more important. It now
shook off the trammels of alchymy, and ventured to claim its station among
the physical sciences. I have found it necessary to treat of its progress
during the eighteenth century rather succinctly, but I hope so as to be easily
intelligible. This made it necessary to omit the names of many meritorious
individuals, who supplied a share of the contributions which the science
was continually receiving from all quarters. I have confined myself to those
who made the most prominent figure as chemical discoverers. I had no
other choice but to follow this plan, unless I had doubled the size of this
little work, which would have rendered it less agreeable and less valuable to
the general reader.

With respect to the History of Chemistry during that portion of the
nineteenth century which is already past, it was beset with several
difficulties. Many of the individuals, of whose labours I had occasion to
speak, are still actively engaged in the prosecution of their useful works.
Others have but just left the arena, and their friends and relations still
remain to appreciate their merits. In treating of this branch of the science
(by far the most important of all) I have followed the same plan as in the
history of the preceding century. I have found it necessary to omit many
names that would undoubtedly have found a place in a larger work, but
which the limited extent to which I was obliged to confine myself,
necessarily compelled me to pass over. I have been anxious not to injure the
character of any one, while I have rigidly adhered to truth, so far as I was
acquainted with it. Should I have been so unfortunate as to hurt the feelings

of any individual by any remarks of mine in the following pages, it will
give me great pain; and the only alleviation will be the consciousness of the
total absence on my part of any malignant intention. To gratify the wishes
of every individual may, perhaps, be impossible; but I can say, with truth,
that my uniform object has been to do justice to the merits of all, so far as
my own limited knowledge put it in my power to do.

CONTENTS
OF
THE FIRST VOLUME.

Page
Introduction 1

CHAPTER I.
Of Alchymy 3

CHAPTER II.
Of the chemical knowledge possessed by the Ancients 49

CHAPTER III.
Chemistry of the Arabians 110

CHAPTER IV.
Of the progress of Chemistry under Paracelsus and his disciples 140

CHAPTER V.
Of Van Helmont and the Iatro-Chemists 179

CHAPTER VI.
Of Agricola and metallurgy 219

CHAPTER VII.

Of Glauber, Lemery, and some other chemists of the end of the
226
seventeenth century

CHAPTER VIII.
Of the attempts to establish a theory in chemistry 246

CHAPTER IX.
Of the foundation and progress of scientific chemistry in Great
303
Britain

HISTORY OF CHEMISTRY.

INTRODUCTION.

Chemistry, unlike the other sciences, sprang originally from delusion
and superstition, and was at its commencement exactly on a level with
magic and astrology. Even after it began to be useful to man, by furnishing
him with better and more powerful medicines than the ancient physicians
were acquainted with, it was long before it could shake off the trammels of
alchymy, which hung upon it like a nightmare, cramping and blunting all its
energies, and exposing it to the scorn and contempt of the enlightened part
of mankind. It was not till about the middle of the eighteenth century that it
was able to free itself from these delusions, and to venture abroad in all the
native dignity of a useful science. It was then that its utility and its
importance began to attract the attention of the world; that it drew within its
vortex some of the greatest and most active men in every country; and that
it advanced towards perfection with an accelerated pace. The field which it
now presents to our view is vast and imposing. Its paramount utility is
universally acknowledged. It has become a necessary part of education. It
has contributed as much to the progress of society, and has done as much to
augment the comforts and conveniences of life, and to increase the power
and the resources of mankind, as all the other sciences put together.

It is natural to feel a desire to be acquainted with the origin and the
progress of such a science; and to know something of the history and
character of those numerous votaries to whom it is indebted for its progress
and improvement. The object of this little work is to gratify these laudable
wishes, by taking a rapid view of the progress of Chemistry, from its first
rude and disgraceful beginnings till it has reached its present state of
importance and dignity. I shall divide the subject into fifteen chapters. In
the first I shall treat of Alchymy, which may be considered as the
inauspicious commencement of the science, and which, in fact, consists of
little else than an account of dupes and impostors; every where so full of
fiction and obscurity, that it is a hopeless and almost impossible task to

reach the truth. In the second chapter I shall endeavour to point out the few
small chemical rills, which were known to the ancients. These I shall follow
in their progress, in the succeeding chapters, till at last, augmented by an
infinite number of streams flowing at once from a thousand different
quarters, they have swelled to the mighty river, which now flows on
majestically, wafting wealth and information to the civilized world.

CHAPTER I.
OF ALCHYMY.

The word chemistry (χημεια, chemeia) first occurs in Suidas, a Greek
writer, who is supposed to have lived in the eleventh century, and to have
written his lexicon during the reign of Alexius Comnenus.1 Under the word
χημεια in his dictionary we find the following passage:

“Chemistry, the preparation of silver and gold. The books on it were
sought out by Dioclesian and burnt, on account of the new attempts made
by the Egyptians against him. He treated them with cruelty and harshness,
as he sought out the books written by the ancients on the chemistry (Περι
χημειας) of gold and silver, and burnt them. His object was to prevent the
Egyptians from becoming rich by the knowledge of this art, lest,
emboldened by abundance of wealth, they might be induced afterwards to
resist the Romans.”2

Under the word Δερας, deras (a skin), in the lexicon, occurs the
following passage: “Δερας, the golden fleece, which Jason and the
Argonauts (after a voyage through the Black Sea to Colchis) took, together
with Medea, daughter of Ætes, the king. But this was not what the poets
represent, but a treatise written on skins (δερμασι), teaching how gold
might be prepared by chemistry. Probably, therefore, it was called by those
who lived at that time, golden, on account of its great importance.”3

From these two passages there can be no doubt that the word chemistry
was known to the Greeks in the eleventh century; and that it signified, at
that time, the art of making gold and silver. It appears, further, that in
Suidas’s opinion, this art was known to the Egyptians in the time of
Dioclesian; that Dioclesian was convinced of its reality; and that, to put an
end to it, he collected and burnt all the chemical writings to be found in

Egypt. Nay, Suidas affirms that a book, describing the art of making gold,
existed at the time of the Argonauts: and that the object of Jason and his
followers was to get possession of that invaluable treatise, which the poets
disguised under the term golden fleece.

The first meaning, then, of chemistry, was the art of making gold. And
this art, in the opinion of Suidas, was understood at least as early as one
thousand two hundred and twenty-five years before the Christian era: for
that is the period at which the Argonautic expedition is commonly fixed by
chronologists.

Though the lexicon of Suidas be the first printed book in which the
word Chemistry occurs, yet it is said to be found in much earlier tracts,
which still continue in manuscript. Thus Scaliger informs us that he perused
a Greek manuscript of Zosimus, the Panapolite, written in the fifth century,
and deposited in the King of France’s library. Olaus Borrichius mentions
this manuscript; but in such terms that it is difficult to know whether he had
himself read it; though he seems to insinuate as much.4 The title of this
manuscript is said to be “A faithful Description of the sacred and divine Art
of making Gold and Silver, by Zosimus, the Panapolite.”5 In this treatise,
Zosimus distinguishes the art by the name χημια, chemia. From a passage in
this manuscript, quoted by Scaliger, and given also by Olaus Borrichius, it
appears that Zosimus carries the antiquity of the art of making gold and
silver, much higher than Suidas has ventured to do. The following is a
literal translation of this curious passage:

“The sacred Scriptures inform us that there exists a tribe of genii, who
make use of women. Hermes mentions this circumstance in his Physics; and
almost every writing (λογος), whether sacred (φανερος) or apocryphal,
states the same thing. The ancient and divine Scriptures inform us, that the
angels, captivated by women, taught them all the operations of nature.
Offence being taken at this, they remained out of heaven, because they had
taught mankind all manner of evil, and things which could not be
advantageous to their souls. The Scriptures inform us that the giants sprang
from these embraces. Chema is the first of their traditions respecting these
arts. The book itself they called Chema; hence the art is called Chemia.”

Zosimus is not the only Greek writer on Chemistry. Olaus Borrichius
has given us a list of thirty-eight treatises, which he says exist in the
libraries of Rome, Venice, and Paris: and Dr. Shaw has increased this list to
eighty-nine.6 But among these we find the names of Hermes, Isis, Horus,
Democritus, Cleopatra, Porphyry, Plato, &c.—names which undoubtedly
have been affixed to the writings of comparatively modern and obscure
authors. The style of these authors, as Borrichius informs us, is barbarous.
They are chiefly the production of ecclesiastics, who lived between the fifth
and twelfth centuries. In these tracts, the art of which they treat is
sometimes called chemistry (χημεια); sometimes the chemical art
(χημευτικα); sometimes the holy art; and the philosopher’s stone.

It is evident from this, that between the fifth century and the taking of
Constantinople in the fifteenth century, the Greeks believed in the
possibility of making gold and silver artificially; and that the art which
professed to teach these processes was called by them Chemistry.

These opinions passed from the Greeks to the Arabians, when, under
the califs of the family of Abassides, they began to turn their attention to
science, about the beginning of the ninth century; and when the enlightened
zeal of the Fatimites in Africa, and the Ommiades in Spain, encouraged the
cultivation of the sciences. From Spain they gradually made their way into
the different Christian kingdoms of Europe. From the eleventh to the
sixteenth century, the art of making gold and silver was cultivated in
Germany, Italy, France, and England, with considerable assiduity. The
cultivators of it were called Alchymists; a name obviously derived from the
Greek word chemia, but somewhat altered by the Arabians. Many
alchymistical tracts were written during that period. A considerable number
of them were collected by Lazarus Zetzner, and published at Strasburg in
1602, under the title of “Theatrum Chemicum, præcipuos selectorum
auctorum tractatus de Chemiæ et Lapidis Philosophici Antiquitate, veritate,
jure, præstantia, et operationibus continens in gratiam veræ Chemiæ et
Medicinæ Chemicæ Studiosorum (ut qui uberrimam unde optimorum
remediorum messem facere poterunt) congestum et in quatuor partes seu
volumina digestum.” This book contains one hundred and five different
alchymistical tracts.

In the year 1610 another collection of alchymistical tracts was
published at Basil, in three volumes, under the title of “Artis Auriferæ quam
Chemiam vocant volumina tria.” It contains forty-seven different tracts.

In the year 1702 Mangetus published at Geneva two very large folio
volumes, under the name of “Bibliotheca Chemica Curiosa, seu rerum ad
Alchymiam pertinentium thesaurus instructissimus, quo non tantum Artis
Auriferæ ac scriptorum in ea nobiliorum Historia traditur; lapidis veritas
Argumentis et Experimentis innumeris, immo et Juris Consultorum Judiciis
evincitur; Termini obscuriores explicantur; Cautiones contra Impostores et
Difficultates in Tinctura Universali conficienda occurrentes declarantur:
verum etiam Tractatus omnes Virorum Celebriorum, qui in Magno sudarunt
Elixyre, quique ab ipso Hermete, ut dicitur, Trismegisto, ad nostra usque
tempora de Chrysopoea scripserunt, cum præcipuis suis Commentariis,
concinno ordine dispositi exhibentur.” This Bibliotheca contains one
hundred and twenty-two alchymistical treatises, many of them of
considerable length.

Two additional volumes of the Theatrum Chemicum were afterwards
published; but these I have never had an opportunity of seeing.

From these collections, which exhibit a pretty complete view of the
writings of the alchymists, a tolerably accurate notion may be formed of
their opinions. But before attempting to lay open the theories and notions by
which the alchymists were guided, it will be proper to state the opinions
which were gradually adopted respecting the origin of Alchymy, and the
contrivances by which these opinions were supported.

Zosimus, the Panapolite, in a passage quoted above informs us, that
the art of making gold and silver was not a human invention; but was
communicated to mankind by angels or demons. These angels, he says, fell
in love with women, and were induced by their charms to abandon heaven
altogether, and take up their abode upon earth. Among other pieces of
information which these spiritual beings communicated to their paramours,
was the sublime art of Chemistry, or the fabrication of gold and silver.

It is quite unnecessary to refute this extravagant opinion, obviously
founded on a misunderstanding of a passage in the sixth chapter of Genesis.

“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth,
and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters
of men, that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they
chose.—There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that,
when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare
children to them; the same became mighty men, which were of old, men of
renown.”

There is no mention whatever of angels, or of any information on
science communicated by them to mankind.

Nor is it necessary to say much about the opinion advanced by some,
and rather countenanced by Olaus Borrichius, that the art of making gold
was the invention of Tubal-cain, whom they represent as the same as
Vulcan. All the information which we have respecting Tubal-cain, is simply
that he was an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron.7 No allusion
whatever is made to gold. And that in these early ages of the world there
was no occasion for making gold artificially, we have the same authority for
believing. For in the second chapter of Genesis, where the garden of Eden is
described, it is said, “And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and
from thence it was parted, and came into four heads: the name of the first is
Pison, that is it which encompasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there
is gold. And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and onyx-
stone.”

But the most generally-received opinion is, that alchymy originated in
Egypt; and the honour of the invention has been unanimously conferred
upon Hermes Trismegistus. He is by some supposed to be the same person
with Chanaan, the son of Ham, whose son Mizraim first occupied and
peopled Egypt. Plutarch informs us, that Egypt was sometimes called
Chemia.8 This name is supposed to be derived from Chanaan (‫ ;)ןענכ‬thence
it was believed that Chanaan was the true inventor of alchymy, to which he
affixed his own name. Whether the Hermes (Ἑρμης) of the Greeks was the
same person with Chanaan or his son Mizraim, it is impossible at this
distance of time to decide; but to Hermes is assigned the invention of
alchymy, or the art of making gold, by almost the unanimous consent of the
adepts.

Albertus Magnus informs us, that “Alexander the Great discovered the
sepulchre of Hermes, in one of his journeys, full of all treasures, not
metallic, but golden, written on a table of zatadi, which others call
emerald.” This passage occurs in a tract of Albertus de secretis chemicis,
which is considered as supposititious. Nothing is said of the source whence
the information contained in this passage was drawn: but, from the
quotations produced by Kriegsmann, it would appear that the existence of
this emerald table was alluded to by Avicenna and other Arabian writers.
According to them, a woman called Sarah took it from the hands of the
dead body of Hermes, some ages after the flood, in a cave near Hebron. The
inscription on it was in the Phœnician language. The following is a literal
translation of this famous inscription, from the Latin version of
Kriegsmann:9

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

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

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

4. Its father is Sol, its mother Luna; the wind carried it in its belly, the
earth is its nurse.

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

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

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

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

9. This thing has more fortitude than fortitude itself; because it will
overcome every subtile thing, and penetrate every solid thing.

10. By it this world was formed.

11. Hence proceed wonderful things, which in this wise were
established.

12. For this reason I am called Hermes Trismegistus, because I possess
three parts of the philosophy of the whole world.

13. What I had to say about the operation of Sol is completed.

Such is a literal translation of the celebrated inscription of Hermes
Trismegistus upon the emerald tablet. It is sufficiently obscure to put it in
the power of commentators to affix almost any explanation to it that they
choose. The two individuals who have devoted most time to illustrate this
tablet, are Kriegsmann and Gerard Dorneus, whose commentaries may be
seen in the first volume of Mangetus’s Bibliotheca Chemica. They both
agree that it refers to the universal medicine, which began to acquire
celebrity about the time of Paracelsus, or a little earlier.

This exposition, which appears as probable as any other, betrays the
time when this celebrated inscription seems to have been really written.
Had it been taken out of the hands of the dead body of Hermes by Sarah
(obviously intended for the wife of Abraham) as is affirmed by Avicenna, it
is not possible that Herodotus, and all the writers of antiquity, both Pagan
and Christian, should have entirely overlooked it; or how could Avicenna
have learned what was unknown to all those who lived nearest the time
when the discovery was supposed to have been made? Had it been
discovered in Egypt by Alexander the Great, would it have been unknown
to Aristotle, and to all the numerous tribe of writers whom the Alexandrian
school produced, not one of whom, however, make the least allusion to it?
In short, it bears all the marks of a forgery of the fifteenth century. And
even the tract ascribed to Albertus Magnus, in which the tablet of Hermes is
mentioned, and the discovery related, is probably also a forgery; and
doubtless a forgery of the same individual who fabricated the tablet itself, in
order to throw a greater air of probability upon a story which he wished to

palm upon the world as true. His object was in some measure
accomplished; for the authenticity of the tablet was supported with much
zeal by Kriegsmann, and afterwards by Olaus Borrichius.

There is another tract of Hermes Trismegistus, entitled “Tractatus
Aureus de Lapidis Physici Secreto;” on which no less elaborate
commentaries have been written. It professes to teach the process of making
the philosopher’s stone; and, from the allusions in it, to the use of this stone,
as a universal medicine, was probably a forgery of the same date as the
emerald tablet. It would be in vain to attempt to extract any thing
intelligible out of this Tractatus Aureus: it may be worth while to give a
single specimen, that the reader may be able to form some idea of the nature
of the style.

“Take of moisture an ounce and a half; of meridional redness, that is
the soul of the sun, a fourth part, that is half an ounce; of yellow seyr,
likewise half an ounce; and of auripigmentum, a half ounce, making in all
three ounces. Know that the vine of wise men is extracted in threes, and its
wine at last is completed in thirty.”10

Had the opinion, that gold and silver could be artificially formed
originated with Hermes Trismegistus, or had it prevailed among the ancient
Egyptians, it would certainly have been alluded to by Herodotus, who spent
so many years in Egypt, and was instructed by the priests in all the science
of the Egyptians. Had chemistry been the name of a science, real or
fictitious, which existed as early as the expedition of the Argonauts, and had
so many treatises on it, as Suidas alleges existed in Egypt before the reign
of Dioclesian, it could hardly have escaped the notice of Pliny, who was so
curious and so indefatigable in his researches, and who has collected in his
natural history a kind of digest of all the knowledge of the ancients in every
department of practical science. The fact that the term chemistry (χημεια)
never occurs in any Greek or Roman writer prior to Suidas, who wrote so
late as the eleventh century, seems to overturn all idea of the existence of
that pretended science among the ancients, notwithstanding the elaborate
attempts of Olaus Borrichius to prove the contrary.

I am disposed to believe, that chemistry or alchymy, understanding by
the term the art of making gold and silver, originated among the Arabians,
when they began to turn their attention to medicine, after the establishment
of the caliphs; or if it had previously been cultivated by Greeks (as the
writings of Zosimus, the Panapolite, if genuine, would lead us to suppose),
that it was taken up by the Arabians, and reduced by them into regular form
and order. If the works of Geber be genuine, they leave little doubt on this
point. Geber is supposed to have been a physician, and to have written in
the seventh century. He admits, as a first principle, that metals are
compounds of mercury and sulphur. He talks of the philosopher’s stone;
professes to give the mode of preparing it; and teaches the way of
converting the different metals, known in his time, into medicines, on
whose efficacy he bestows the most ample panegyrics. Thus the principles
which lie at the bottom of alchymy were implicitly adopted by him. Yet I
can nowhere find in him any attempt to make gold artificially. His
chemistry was entirely devoted to the improvement of medicine. The
subsequent pretensions of the alchymists to convert the baser metals into
gold are no where avowed by him. I am disposed from this to suspect, that
the theory of gold-making was started after Geber’s time, or at least that it
was after the seventh century, before any alchymist ventured to affirm that
he himself was in possession of the secret, and could fabricate gold
artificially at pleasure. For there is a wide distance between the opinion that
gold may be made artificially and the affirmation that we are in possession
of a method by which this transmutation of the baser metals into gold can
be accomplished. The first may be adopted and defended with much
plausibility and perfect honesty; but the second would require a degree of
skill far exceeding that of the most scientific votary of chemistry at present
existing.

The opinion of the alchymists was, that all the metals are compounds;
that the baser metals contain the same constituents as gold, contaminated,
indeed, with various impurities, but capable, when their impurities are
removed or remedied, of assuming all the properties and characters of gold.
The substance possessing this wonderful power they distinguish by the
name of lapis philosophorum, or, philosopher’s stone, and they usually
describe it as a red powder, having a peculiar smell. Few of the alchymists
who have left writings behind them boast of being possessed of the

philosopher’s stone. Paracelsus, indeed, affirms, that he was acquainted
with the method of making it, and gives several processes, which, however,
are not intelligible. But many affirm that they had seen the philosopher’s
stone; that they had portions of it in their possession; and that they had seen
several of the inferior metals, especially lead and quicksilver, converted by
means of it into gold. Many stories of this kind are upon record, and so well
authenticated, that we need not be surprised at their having been generally
credited. It will be sufficient if we state one or two of those which depend
upon the most unexceptionable evidence. The following relation is given by
Mangetus, on the authority of M. Gros, a clergyman of Geneva, of the most
unexceptionable character, and at the same time a skilful physician and
expert chemist:

“About the year 1650 an unknown Italian came to Geneva, and took
lodgings at the sign of the Green Cross. After remaining there a day or two,
he requested De Luc, the landlord, to procure him a man acquainted with
Italian, to accompany him through the town and point out those things
which deserved to be examined. De Luc was acquainted with M. Gros, at
that time about twenty years of age, and a student in Geneva, and knowing
his proficiency in the Italian language, requested him to accompany the
stranger. To this proposition he willingly acceded, and attended the Italian
every where for the space of a fortnight. The stranger now began to
complain of want of money, which alarmed M. Gros not a little—for at that
time he was very poor—and he became apprehensive, from the tenour of
the stranger’s conversation, that he intended to ask the loan of money from
him. But instead of this, the Italian asked him if he was acquainted with any
goldsmith, whose bellows and other utensils they might be permitted to use,
and who would not refuse to supply them with the different articles
requisite for a particular process which he wanted to perform. M. Gros
named a M. Bureau, to whom the Italian immediately repaired. He readily
furnished crucibles, pure tin, quicksilver, and the other things required by
the Italian. The goldsmith left his workshop, that the Italian might be under
the less restraint, leaving M. Gros, with one of his own workmen, as an
attendant. The Italian put a quantity of tin into one crucible, and a quantity
of quicksilver into another. The tin was melted in the fire and the mercury
heated. It was then poured into the melted tin, and at the same time a red
powder enclosed in wax was projected into the amalgam. An agitation took

place, and a great deal of smoke was exhaled from the crucible; but this
speedily subsided, and the whole being poured out, formed six heavy
ingots, having the colour of gold. The goldsmith was called in by the
Italian, and requested to make a rigid examination of the smallest of these
ingots. The goldsmith, not content with the touchstone and the application
of aqua fortis, exposed the metal on the cupel with lead, and fused it with
antimony, but it sustained no loss. He found it possessed of the ductility and
specific gravity of gold; and full of admiration, he exclaimed that he had
never worked before upon gold so perfectly pure. The Italian made him a
present of the smallest ingot as a recompence, and then, accompanied by M.
Gros, he repaired to the Mint, where he received from M. Bacuet, the
mintmaster, a quantity of Spanish gold coin, equal in weight to the ingots
which he had brought. To M. Gros he made a present of twenty pieces, on
account of the attention that he had paid to him; and, after paying his bill at
the inn, he added fifteen pieces more, to serve to entertain M. Gros and M.
Bureau for some days, and in the mean time he ordered a supper, that he
might, on his return, have the pleasure of supping with these two
gentlemen. He went out, but never returned, leaving behind him the greatest
regret and admiration. It is needless to add, that M. Gros and M. Bureau
continued to enjoy themselves at the inn till the fifteen pieces, which the
stranger had left, were exhausted.”11

Mangetus gives also the following relation, which he states upon the
authority of an English bishop, who communicated it to him in the year
1685, and at the same time gave him about half an ounce of the gold which
the alchymist had made:

A stranger, meanly dressed, went to Mr. Boyle, and after conversing
for some time about chemical processes, requested him to furnish him with
antimony, and some other common metallic substances, which then
fortunately happened to be in Mr. Boyle’s laboratory. These were put into a
crucible, which was then placed in a melting-furnace. As soon as these
metals were fused, the stranger showed a powder to the attendants, which
he projected into the crucible, and instantly went out, directing the servants
to allow the crucible to remain in the furnace till the fire went out of its own
accord, and promising at the same time to return in a few hours. But, as he
never fulfilled this promise, Boyle ordered the cover to be taken off the

crucible, and found that it contained a yellow-coloured metal, possessing all
the properties of pure gold, and only a little lighter than the weight of the
materials originally put into the crucible.12

The following strange story is related by Helvetius, physician to the
Prince of Orange, in his Vitulus Aureus: Helvetius was a disbeliever of the
philosopher’s stone, and the universal medicine, and even turned Sir
Kenelm Digby’s sympathetic powder into ridicule. On the 27th of
December, 1666, a stranger called upon him, and after conversing for some
time about a universal medicine, showed a yellow powder, which he
affirmed to be the philosopher’s stone, and at the same time five large plates
of gold, which had been made by means of it. Helvetius earnestly entreated
that he would give him a little of this powder, or at least that he would make
a trial of its power; but the stranger refused, promising however to return in
six weeks. He returned accordingly, and after much entreaty he gave to
Helvetius a piece of the stone, not larger than the size of a rape-seed. When
Helvetius expressed his doubt whether so small a portion would be
sufficient to convert four grains of lead into gold, the adept broke off one
half of it, and assured him that what remained was more than sufficient for
the purpose. Helvetius, during the first conference, had concealed a little of
the stone below his nail. This he threw into melted lead, but it was almost
all driven off in smoke, leaving only a vitreous earth. When he mentioned
this circumstance, the stranger informed him that the powder must be
enclosed in wax, before it be thrown into the melted lead, lest it should be
injured by the smoke of the lead. The stranger promised to return next day,
and show him the method of making the projection; but having failed to
make his appearance, Helvetius, in the presence of his wife and son, put six
drachms of lead into a crucible, and as soon as it was melted he threw into it
the fragment of philosopher’s stone in his possession, previously covered
over with wax. The crucible was now covered with its lid, and left for a
quarter of an hour in the fire, at the end of which time he found the whole
lead converted into gold. The colour was at first a deep green; being poured
into a conical vessel, it assumed a blood-red colour; but when cold, it
acquired the true tint of gold. Being examined by a goldsmith, he
considered it as pure gold. He requested Porelius, who had the charge of the
Dutch mint, to try its value. Two drachms of it being subjected to
quartation, and solution in aqua fortis, were found to have increased in

weight by two scruples. This increase was doubtless owing to the silver,
which still remained enveloped in the gold, after the action of the aqua
fortis. To endeavour to separate the silver more completely, the gold was
again fused with seven times its weight of antimony, and treated in the
usual manner; but no alteration took place in the weight.13

It would be easy to relate many other similar narratives; but the three
which I have given are the best authenticated of any that I am acquainted
with. The reader will observe, that they are all stated on the authority, not of
the persons who were the actors, but of others to whom they related them;
and some of these, as the English bishop, perhaps not very familiar with
chemical processes, and therefore liable to leave out or misstate some
essential particulars. The evidence, therefore, though the best that can be
got, is not sufficient to authenticate these wonderful stories. A little latent
vanity might easily induce the narrators to suppress or alter some
particulars, which, if known, would have stripped the statements of every
thing marvellous which they contain, and let us into the secret of the origin
of the gold, which these alchymists boasted that they had fabricated.
Whoever will read the statements of Paracelsus, respecting his knowledge
of the philosopher’s stone, which he applied not to the formation of gold but
to medicine, or whoever will examine his formulas for making the stone,
will easily satisfy himself that Paracelsus possessed no real knowledge on
the subject.14

But to convey as precise ideas on this subject as possible, it may be
worth while to state a few of the methods by which the alchymists
persuaded themselves that they could convert the baser metals into gold.

In the year 1694 an old gentleman called upon Mr. Wilson, at that time
a chemist in London, and informed him that at last, after forty years’ search,
he had met with an ample recompence for all his trouble and expenses. This
he confirmed with some oaths and imprecations; but, considering his great
weakness and age, he looked upon himself as incapable to undergo the
fatigues of the process. “I have here,” says he, “a piece of sol (gold) that I
made from silver, about four years ago, and I cannot trust any man but you
with so rare a secret. We will share equally the charges and profit, which
will render us wealthy enough to command the world.” The nature of the

process being stated, Mr. Wilson thought it not unreasonable, especially as
he aimed at no peculiar advantage for himself. He accordingly put it to the
trial in the following manner:

1. Twelve ounces of Japan copper were beat into thin plates, and laid
stratum super stratum with three ounces of flowers of sulphur, in a crucible.
It was exposed in a melting-furnace to a gentle heat, till the sulphureous
flames expired. When cold, the æs ustum (sulphuret of copper) was
pounded, and stratified again; and this process was repeated five times. Mr.
Wilson does not inform us whether the powder was mixed with flowers of
sulphur every time that it was heated; but this must have been the case,
otherwise the sulphuret would have been again converted into metallic
copper, which would have melted into a mass. By this first process, then,
bisulphuret of copper was formed, composed of equal weights of sulphur
and copper.

2. Six pounds of iron wire were put into a large glass body, and twelve
pounds of muriatic acid poured upon it. Six days elapsed (during which it
stood in a gentle heat) before the acid was saturated with the iron. The
solution was then decanted off, and filtered, and six pounds of new muriatic
acid poured on the undissolved iron. This acid, after standing a sufficient
time, was decanted off, and filtered. Both liquids were put into a large
retort, and distilled by a sand-heat. Towards the end, when the drops from
the retort became yellow, the receiver was changed, and the fire increased to
the highest degree, in which the retort was kept between four and six hours.
When all was cold, the receiver was taken off, and a quantity of flowers was
found in the neck of the retort, variously coloured, like the rainbow. The
yellow liquor in the receiver weighed ten ounces and a half; the flowers
(chloride of iron), two ounces and three drams. The liquid and flowers were
put into a clean bottle.

3. Half a pound of sal enixum (sulphate of potash) and a pound and a
half of nitric acid were put into a retort. When the salt had dissolved in the
acid, ten ounces of mercury (previously distilled through quicklime and salt
of tartar) were added. The whole being distilled to dryness, a fine yellow
mass (pernitrate of mercury) remained in the bottom of the retort. The
liquor was returned, with half a pound of fresh nitric acid, and the

distillation repeated. The distillation was repeated a third time, urging this
last cohobation with the highest degree of fire. When all was cold, a
various-coloured mass was found in the bottom of the retort: this mass was
doubtless a mixture of sulphate of potash, and pernitrate of mercury, with
some oxide of mercury.

4. Four ounces of fine silver were dissolved in a pound of aqua fortis;
to the solution was added, of the bisulphuret of copper four ounces; of the
mixture of sulphate of potash, pernitrate of mercury, and oxide of mercury
one ounce and a half, and of the solution of perchloride of iron two ounces
and a half. When these had stood in a retort twenty-four hours, the liquor
was decanted off, and four ounces of nitric acid were poured upon the little
matter that was not dissolved. Next morning a total dissolution was
obtained. The whole of this dissolution was put into a retort and distilled
almost to dryness. The liquid was poured back, and the distillation repeated
three times; the last time the retort being urged by a very strong fire till no
fumes appeared, and not a drop fell.

5. The matter left in the bottom of the retort was now put into a
crucible, all the corrosive fumes were gently evaporated, and the residue
melted down with a fluxing powder.

This process was expected to yield five ounces of pure gold; but on
examination the silver was the same (except the loss of half a pennyweight)
as when dissolved in the aqua fortis: there were indeed some grains among
the scoria, which appeared like gold, and would not dissolve in aqua fortis.
No doubt they consisted of peroxide of iron, or, perhaps, persulphuret of
iron.15

Mr. Wilson’s alchymistical friend, not satisfied with this first failure,
insisted upon a repetition of the process, with some alteration in the method
and the addition of a certain quantity of gold. The whole was accordingly
gone through again; but it is unnecessary to say that no gold was obtained,
or at least, the two drams of gold employed had increased in weight by only
two scruples and thirteen grains; this addition was doubtless owing to a
little silver from which it had not been freed.16

I shall now give a process for making the philosopher’s stone, which
was considered by Mangetus as of great value, and on that account was
given by him in the preface to his Bibliotheca Chemica.

1. Prepare a quantity of spirit of wine, so free from water that it is
wholly combustible, and so volatile that when a drop of it is let fall it
evaporates before it reaches the ground;—this constitutes the first
menstruum.

2. Take pure mercury, revived in the usual manner from cinnabar, put it
into a glass vessel with common salt and distilled vinegar; agitate violently,
and when the vinegar acquires a black colour pour it off and add new
vinegar; agitate again, and continue these repeated agitations and additions
till the vinegar ceases to acquire a black colour from the mercury: the
mercury is now quite pure and very brilliant.

3. Take of this mercury four parts; of sublimed mercury17 (mercurii
meteoresati), prepared with your own hands, eight parts; triturate them
together in a wooden mortar with a wooden pestle, till all the grains of
running mercury disappear. This process is tedious and rather difficult.

4. The mixture thus prepared is to be put into an aludel, or a sand-bath,
and exposed to a subliming heat, which is to be gradually raised till the
whole sublimes. Collect the sublimed matter, put it again into the aludel,
and sublime a second time; this process must be repeated five times. Thus a
very sweet and crystallized sublimate is obtained: it constitutes the salt of
wise men (sal sapientum), and possesses wonderful properties.18

5. Grind it in a wooden mortar, and reduce it to powder; put it into a
glass retort, and pour upon it the spirit of wine (No. 1) till it stands about
three finger-breadths above the powder; seal the retort hermetically, and
expose it to a very gentle heat for seventy-four hours, shaking it several
times a-day; then distil with a gentle heat and the spirit of wine will pass
over, together with spirit of mercury. Keep this liquid in a well-stopped
bottle, lest it should evaporate. More spirit of wine is to be poured upon the
residual salt, and after digestion it must be distilled off as before; and this
process must be repeated till the whole salt is dissolved, and distilled over

with the spirit of wine. You have now performed a great work. The mercury
is now rendered in some measure volatile, and it will gradually become fit
to receive the tincture of gold and silver. Now return thanks to God, who
has hitherto crowned your wonderful work with success; nor is this great
work involved in Cimmerian darkness, but clearer than the sun; though
preceding writers have imposed upon us with parables, hieroglyphics,
fables, and enigmas.

6. Take this mercurial spirit, which contains our magical steel in its
belly, put it into a glass retort, to which a receiver must be well and
carefully luted: draw off the spirit by a very gentle heat, there will remain in
the bottom of the retort the quintessence or soul of mercury; this is to be
sublimed by applying a stronger heat to the retort that it may become
volatile, as all the philosophers express themselves—

Si fixum solvas faciesque volare solutum,
Et volucrum figas faciet te vivere tutum.

This is our luna, our fountain, in which the king and queen may bathe.
Preserve this precious quintessence of mercury, which is very volatile, in a
well-shut vessel for further use.

8. Let us now proceed to the operation of common gold, which we
shall communicate clearly and distinctly, without digression or obscurity;
that from vulgar gold we may obtain our philosophical gold, just as from
common mercury we obtained, by the preceding processes, philosophical
mercury.

In the name of God, then, take common gold, purified in the usual way
by antimony, convert it into small grains, which must be washed with salt
and vinegar, till it be quite pure. Take one part of this gold, and pour on it
three parts of the quintessence of mercury; as philosophers reckon from
seven to ten, so we also reckon our number as philosophical, and we begin
with three and one; let them be married together like husband and wife, to
produce children of their own kind, and you will see the common gold sink
and plainly dissolve. Now the marriage is consummated; now two things
are converted into one: thus the philosophical sulphur is at hand, as the
philosophers say, the sulphur being dissolved the stone is at hand. Take

then, in the name of God, our philosophical vessel, in which the king and
queen embrace each other as in a bedchamber, and leave it till the water is
converted into earth, then peace is concluded between the water and fire,
then the elements have no longer any thing contrary to each other; because,
when the elements are converted into earth they no longer oppose each
other; for in earth all elements are at rest. For the philosophers say, “When
you shall have seen the water coagulate itself, think that your knowledge is
true, and that your operations are truly philosophical.” The gold is now no
longer common, but ours is philosophical, on account of our processes: at
first exceedingly fixed; then exceedingly volatile, and finally exceedingly
fixed; and the whole science depends upon the change of the elements. The
gold at first was a metal, now it is a sulphur, capable of converting all
metals into its own sulphur. Now our tincture is wholly converted into
sulphur, which possesses the energy of curing all diseases: this is our
universal medicine against all the most deplorable diseases of the human
body; therefore, return infinite thanks to Almighty God for all the good
things which he has bestowed upon us.

9. In this great work of ours, two modes of fermenting and projecting
are wanting, without which the uninitiated will not easily follow our
process. The mode of fermenting is as follows: Take of our sulphur above
described one part, and project it upon three parts of very pure gold fused in
a furnace; in a moment you will see the gold, by the force of the sulphur,
converted into a red sulphur of an inferior quality to the first sulphur; take
one part of this, and project it upon three parts of fused gold, the whole will
be again converted into a sulphur, or a friable mass; mixing one part of this
with three parts of gold, you will have a malleable and extensible metal. If
you find it so, well; if not add other sulphur and it will again pass into
sulphur. Now the sulphur will be sufficiently fermented, or our medicine
will be brought into a metallic nature.

10. The mode of projecting is this: Take of the fermented sulphur one
part, and project it upon ten parts of mercury, heated in a crucible, and you
will have a perfect metal; if its colour is not sufficiently deep, fuse it again,
and add more fermented sulphur, and thus it will acquire colour. If it
becomes frangible, add a sufficient quantity of mercury and it will be
perfect.

Thus, friend, you have a description of the universal medicine, not
only for curing diseases and prolonging life, but also for transmuting all
metals into gold. Give therefore thanks to Almighty God, who, taking pity
on human calamities, has at last revealed this inestimable treasure, and
made it known for the common benefit of all.19

Such is the formula (slightly abridged) of Carolus Musitanus, by which
the philosopher’s stone, according to him, may be formed. Compared with
the formulas of most of the alchymists, it is sufficiently plain. What the
sublimed mercury is does not appear; from the process described we should
be apt to consider it as corrosive sublimate; on that supposition, the sal
sapientum formed in No. 5, would be calomel: the only objection to this
supposition is the process described in No. 5; for calomel is not soluble in
alcohol. The philosopher’s stone prepared by this elaborate process could
hardly have been any thing else than an amalgam of gold; it could not have
contained chloride of gold, because such a preparation, instead of acting
medicinally, would have proved a most virulent poison. There is no doubt
that amalgam of gold, if projected into melted lead or tin, and afterwards
cupellated, would leave a portion of gold—all the gold of course that
existed previously in the amalgam. It might therefore have been employed
by impostors to persuade the ignorant that it was really the philosopher’s
stone; but the alchymists who prepared the amalgam could not be ignorant
that it contained gold.

There is another process given in the same preface of a very different
nature, but too long to be transcribed here, and the nature of the process is
not sufficiently intelligible to render an account of it of much
consequence.20

The preceding observations will give the reader some notion of the
nature of the pursuits which occupied the alchymists: their sole object was
the preparation of a substance to which they gave the name of the
philosopher’s stone, which possessed the double property of converting the
baser metals into gold, and of curing all diseases, and of preserving human
life to an indefinite extent. The experiments of Wilson, and the formula of
Musitanus, which have been just inserted, will give the reader some notion
of the way in which they attempted to manufacture this most precious

substance. Being quite ignorant of the properties of bodies, and of their
action on each other, their processes were guided by no scientific analogies,
and one part of the labour not unfrequently counteracted another; it would
be a waste of time, therefore, to attempt to analyze their numerous
processes, even though such an attempt could be attended with success. But
in most cases, from the unintelligible terms in which their books are
written, it is impossible to divine the nature of the processes by which they
endeavoured to manufacture the philosopher’s stone, or the nature of the
substances which they obtained.21

In consequence of the universality of the opinion that gold could be
made by art, there was a set of impostors who went about pretending that
they were in possession of the philosopher’s stone, and offering to
communicate the secret of making it for a suitable reward. Nothing is more
astonishing than that persons should be found credulous enough to be the
dupes of such impostors. The very circumstance of their claiming a reward
was a sufficient proof that they were ignorant of the secret which they
pretended to reveal; for what motive could a man have for asking a reward
who was in possession of a method of creating gold at pleasure? To such a
person money could be no object, as he could procure it in any quantity.
Yet, strange as it may appear, they met with abundance of dupes credulous
enough to believe their asseverations, and to supply them with money to
enable them to perform the wished-for processes. The object of these
impostors was either to pocket the money thus furnished, or they made use
of it to purchase various substances from which they extracted oils, acids,
or similar products, which they were enabled to sell at a profit. To keep the
dupes, who thus supplied them with the means of carrying on these
processes, in good spirits, it was necessary to show them occasionally small
quantities of the baser metals converted into gold; this they performed in
various ways. M. Geoffroy, senior, who had an opportunity of witnessing
many of their performances, has given us an account of a number of their
tricks. It may be worth while to state a few by way of specimen.

Sometimes they made use of crucibles with a false bottom; at the real
bottom they put a quantity of oxide of gold or silver, this was covered with
a portion of powdered crucible, glued together by a little gummed water or
a little wax; the materials being put into this crucible, and heat applied, the

false bottom disappears, the oxide of gold or silver is reduced, and at the
end of the process is found at the bottom of the crucible, and considered as
the product of the operation.

Sometimes they make a hole in a piece of charcoal and fill it with
oxide of gold or silver, and stop up the mouth with a little wax; or they soak
charcoal in solutions of these metals; or they stir the mixtures in the
crucible with hollow rods containing oxide of gold or silver within, and the
bottom shut with wax: by these means the gold or silver wanted is
introduced during the process, and considered as a product of the operation.

Sometimes they have a solution of silver in nitric acid, or of gold in
aqua regia, or an amalgam of gold or silver, which being adroitly
introduced, furnishes the requisite quantity of metal. A common exhibition
was to dip nails into a liquid, and take them out half converted into gold.
The nails consisted of one-half gold, neatly soldered to the iron, and
covered with something to conceal the colour, which the liquid removed.
Sometimes they had metals one-half gold the other half silver, soldered
together, and the gold side whitened with mercury; the gold half was dipped
into the transmuting liquid and then the metal heated; the mercury was
dissipated, and the gold half of the metal appeared.22

As the alchymists were assiduous workmen—as they mixed all the
metals, salts, &c. with which they were acquainted, in various ways with
each other, and subjected such mixtures to the action of heat in close
vessels, their labours were occasionally repaid by the discovery of new
substances, possessed of much greater activity than any with which they
were previously acquainted. In this way they were led to the discovery of
sulphuric, nitric, and muriatic acids. These, when known, were made to act
upon the metals; solutions of the metals were obtained, and this gradually
led to the knowledge of various metalline salts and preparations, which
were introduced with considerable advantage into medicine. Thus the
alchymists, by their absurd pursuits, gradually formed a collection of facts,
which led ultimately to the establishment of scientific chemistry. On this
account it will be proper to notice, in this place, such of them as appeared in
Europe during the darker ages, and acquired the highest reputation either on
account of their skill as physicians, or their celebrity as chemists.23

1. The first alchymist who deserves notice is Albertus Magnus, or
Albert Groot, a German, who was born, it is supposed, in the year 1193, at
Bollstaedt, and died in the year 1282.24 When very young he is said to have
been so remarkable for his dulness, that he became the jest of his
acquaintances. He studied the sciences at Padua, and afterwards taught at
Cologne, and finally in Paris. He travelled through all Germany as
Provincial of the order of Dominican Monks, visited Rome, and was made
bishop of Ratisbon: but his passion for science induced him to give up his
bishopric, and return to a cloister at Cologne, where he continued till his
death.

Albertus was acquainted with all the sciences cultivated in his time. He
was at once a theologian, a physician, and a man of the world: he was an
astronomer and an alchymist, and even dipped into magic and necromancy.
His works are very voluminous. They were collected by Petr. Jammy, and
published at Leyden in twenty-one folio volumes, in 1651. His principal
alchymistical tracts are the following:

1. De Rebus Metallicis et Mineralibus.
2. De Alchymia.
3. Secretorum Tractatus.
4. Breve Compendium de Ortu Metallorum.
5. Concordantia Philosophorum de Lapide.
6. Compositum de Compositis.
7. Liber octo Capitum de Philosophorum Lapide.

Most of these tracts have been inserted in the Theatrum Chemicum.
They are in general plain and intelligible. In his treatise De Alchymia, for
example, he gives a distinct account of all the chemical substances known
in his time, and of the manner of obtaining them. He mentions also the
apparatus then employed by chemists, and the various processes which they
had occasion to perform. I may notice the most remarkable facts and
opinions which I have observed in turning over these treatises.

He was of opinion that all metals are composed of sulphur and
mercury; and endeavoured to account for the diversity of metals partly by
the difference in the purity, and partly by the difference in the proportions

of the sulphur and mercury of which they are composed. He thought that
water existed also as a constituent of all metals.

He was acquainted with the water-bath, employed alembics for
distillation, and aludels for sublimation; and he was in the habit of
employing various lutes, the composition of which he describes.

He mentions alum and caustic alkali, and seems to have known the
alkaline basis of cream of tartar. He knew the method of purifying the
precious metals by means of lead and of gold, by cementation; and likewise
the method of trying the purity of gold, and of distinguishing pure from
impure gold.

He mentions red lead, metallic arsenic, and liver of sulphur. He was
acquainted with green vitriol and iron pyrites. He knew that arsenic renders
copper white, and that sulphur attacks all the metals except gold.

It is said by some that he was acquainted with gunpowder; but nothing
indicating any such knowledge occurs in any of his writings that I have had
an opportunity of perusing.25

2. Albertus is said to have had for a pupil, while he taught in Paris, the
celebrated Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican, who studied at Bologna, Rome,
and Naples, and distinguished himself still more in divinity and scholastic
philosophy than in alchymy. He wrote,

1. Thesaurum Alchymiæ Secretissimum.
2. Secreta Alchymiæ Magnalia.
3. De Esse et Essentia Mineralium; and perhaps some other
works, which I have not seen.

These works, so far as I have perused them, are exceedingly obscure,
and in various places unintelligible. Some of the terms still employed by
modern chemists occur, for the first time, in the writings of Thomas
Aquinas. Thus the term amalgam, still employed to denote a compound of
mercury with another metal, occurs in them, and I have not observed it in
any earlier author.

3. Soon after Albertus Magnus, flourished Roger Bacon, by far the
most illustrious, the best informed, and the most philosophical of all the
alchymists. He was born in 1214, in the county of Somerset. After studying
in Oxford, and afterwards in Paris, he became a cordelier friar; and,
devoting himself to philosophical investigations, his discoveries,
notwithstanding the pains which he took to conceal them, made such a
noise, that he was accused of magic, and his brethren in consequence threw
him into prison. He died, it is said, in the year 1284, though Sprengel fixes
the year of his death to be 1285.

His writings display a degree of knowledge and extent of thought
scarcely credible, if we consider the time when he wrote, the darkest period
of the dark ages. In his small treatise De Mirabili Potestate Artis et Naturæ,
he begins by pointing out the absurdity of believing in magic, necromancy,
charms, or any of those similar opinions which were at that time universally
prevalent. He points out the various ways in which mankind are deceived
by jugglers, ventriloquists, &c.; mentions the advantages which physicians
may derive from acting on the imaginations of their patients by means of
charms, amulets, and infallible remedies: he affirms that many of those
things which are considered as supernatural, are merely so because mankind
in general are unacquainted with natural philosophy. To illustrate this he
mentions a great number of natural phenomena, which had been reckoned
miraculous; and concludes with several secrets of his own, which he affirms
to be still more extraordinary imitations of some of the most singular
processes of nature. These he delivers in the enigmatical style of the times;
induced, as he tells us, partly by the conduct of other philosophers, partly
by the propriety of the thing, and partly by the danger of speaking too
plainly.

From an attentive perusal of his works, many of which have been
printed, it will be seen that Bacon was a great linguist, being familiar with
Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic; and that he had perused the most
important books at that time existing in all these languages. He was also a
grammarian; he was well versed in the theory and practice of perspective;
he understood the use of convex and concave glasses, and the art of making
them. The camera obscura, burning-glasses, and the powers of the
telescope, were known to him. He was well versed in geography and

astronomy. He knew the great error in the Julian calendar, assigned the
cause, and proposed the remedy. He understood chronology well; he was a
skilful physician, and an able mathematician, logician, metaphysician, and
theologist; but it is as a chemist that he claims our attention here. The
following is a list of his chemical writings, as given by Gmelin, the whole
of which I have never had an opportunity of seeing:

1. Speculum Alchymiæ.26
2. Epistola de Secretis Operibus Artis et Naturæ et de Nullitate
Magiæ.
3. De Mirabili Potestate Artis et Naturæ.
4. Medulla Alchymiæ.
5. De Arte Chemiæ.
6. Breviorium Alchymiæ.
7. Documenta Alchymiæ.
8. De Alchymistarum Artibus.
9. De Secretis.
10. De Rebus Metallicis.
11. De Sculpturis Lapidum.
12. De Philosophorum Lapide.
13. Opus Majus, or Alchymia Major.
14. Breviarium de Dono Dei.
15. Verbum abbreviatum de Leone Viridi.
16. Secretum Secretorum.
17. Tractatus Trium Verborum.
18. Speculum Secretorum.

A number of these were collected together, and published at Frankfort in
1603, under the title of “Rogeri Baconis Angli de Arte Chemiæ Scripta,” in
a small duodecimo volume. The Opus Majus was published in London in
1733, by Dr. Jebb, in a folio volume. Several of his tracts still continue in
manuscript in the Harleian and Bodleian libraries at Oxford. He considered
the metals as compound of mercury and sulphur. Gmelin affirms that he
was aware of the peculiar nature of manganese, and that he was acquainted
with bismuth; but after perusing the whole of the Speculum Alchymiæ, the
third chapter of which he quotes as containing the facts on which he founds
his opinion, I cannot find any certain allusion either to manganese or

bismuth. The term magnesia indeed occurs, but nothing is said respecting
its nature: and long after the time of Paracelsus, bismuth (bisematum) was
considered as an impure kind of lead. That he was acquainted with the
composition and properties of gunpowder admits of no doubt. In the sixth
chapter of his epistle De Secretis Operibus Artis et Naturæ et de Nullitate
Magiæ, the following passage occurs:

“For sounds like thunder, and coruscations like lightning, may be made
in the air, and they may be rendered even more horrible than those of nature
herself. A small quantity of matter, properly manufactured, not larger than
the human thumb, may be made to produce a horrible noise and
coruscation. And this may be done many ways, by which a city or an army
may be destroyed, as was the case when Gideon and his men broke their
pitchers and exhibited their lamps, fire issuing out of them with inestimable
noise, destroyed an infinite number of the army of the Midianites.” And in
the eleventh chapter of the same epistle occurs the following passage: “Mix
together saltpetre, luru vopo vir con utriet, and sulphur, and you will make
thunder and lightning, if you know the method of mixing them.” Here all
the ingredients of gunpowder are mentioned except charcoal, which is
doubtless concealed under the barbarous terms luru vopo vir con utriet.

But though Bacon was acquainted with gunpowder, we have no
evidence that he was the inventor. How far the celebrated Greek fire,
concerning which so much has been written, was connected with
gunpowder, it is impossible to say; but there is good evidence to prove that
gunpowder was known and used in China before the commencement of the
Christian era; and Lord Bacon is of opinion that the thunder and lightning
and magic stated by the Macedonians to have been exhibited in Oxydrakes,
when it was besieged by Alexander the Great, was nothing else than
gunpowder. Now as there is pretty good evidence that the use of gunpowder
had been introduced into Spain by the Moors, at least as early as the year
1343, and as Roger Bacon was acquainted with Arabic, it is by no means
unlikely that he might have become acquainted with the mode of making
the composition, and with its most remarkable properties, by perusing some
Arabian writer, with whom we are at present unacquainted. Barbour, in his
life of Bruce, informs us that guns were first employed by the English at the

battle of Werewater, which was fought in 1327, about forty years after the
death of Bacon.

Two novelties that day they saw,
That forouth in Scotland had been nene;
Timbers for helmes was the ane
That they thought then of great beautie,
And also wonder for to see.
The other crakys were of war
That they before heard never air.

In another part of the same book we have the phrase gynnys for crakys,
showing that the term crakys was used to denote a gun or musket of some
form or other. It is curious that the English would seem to have been the
first European nation that employed gunpowder in war; they used it in the
battle of Crecy, fought in 1346, when it was unknown to the French, and it
is supposed to have contributed materially to the brilliant victory which was
obtained.

4. Raymond Lully is said to have been a scholar and a friend of Roger
Bacon. He was a most voluminous writer, and acquired as high a reputation
as any of the alchymists. According to Mutius he was born in Majorca in
the year 1235. His father was seneschal to King James the First of Arragon.
In his younger days he went into the army; but afterwards held a situation in
the court of his sovereign. Devoting himself to science he soon acquired a
competent knowledge of Latin and Arabic. After studying in Paris he got
the degree of doctor conferred upon him. He entered into the order of
Minorites, and induced King James to establish a cloister of that order in
Minorca. He afterwards travelled through Italy, Germany, England,
Portugal, Cyprus, Armenia and Palestine. He is said by Mutius to have died
in the year 1315, and to have been buried in Majorca. The following epitaph
is given by Olaus Borrichius as engraven on his tomb:

Raymundus Lulli, cujus pia dogmata nulli
Sunt odiosa viro, jacet hic in marmore miro
Hic M. et CC. Cum P. cœpit sine sensibus esse.

M C C C in these lines denote 1300, and P which is the 15th letter of
the alphabet denotes 15, so that if this epitaph be genuine it follows that his
death took place in the year 1315.

It seems scarcely necessary to notice the story that Raymond Lully
made a present to Edward, King of England, of six millions of pieces of
gold, to enable him to make war on the Saracens, which sum that monarch
employed, contrary to the intentions of the donor, in his French wars. This
story cannot apply to Edward III., because in 1315, at the time of
Raymond’s death, that monarch was only three years of age. It can scarcely
apply to Edward II., who ascended the throne in 1305: but who had no
opportunity of making war, either on the Saracens or French, being totally
occupied in opposing the intrigues of his queen and rebellious subjects, to
whom he ultimately fell a sacrifice. Edward the First made war both upon
the Saracens and the French, and lived during the time of Raymond: but his
wars with the Saracens were finished before he ascended the throne, and
during the whole of his reign he was too much occupied with his projected
conquest of Scotland, to pay much serious attention to any French war
whatever. The story, therefore, cannot apply to any of the three Edwards,
and cannot be true. Raymond Lully is said to have been stoned to death in
Africa for preaching Christianity in the year 1315. Others will have it that
he was alive in England in the year 1332, at which time his age would have
been 97.

The following table exhibits a list of his numerous writings, most of
which are to be found in the Theatrum Chemicum, the Artis Auriferæ, or the
Biblotheca Chemica.

1. Praxis Universalis Magni Operis.
2. Clavicula.
3. Theoria et Practica.
4. Compendium Animæ Transmutationis Artis Metallorum.

5. Ultimum Testamentum. Of this work, which professes to give
the whole doctrine of alchymy, there is an English
translation.
6. Elucidatio Testamenti.
7. Potestas Divitiorum cum Expositione Testamenti Hermetis.
8. Compendium Artis Magicæ, quoad Compositionem Lapidis.
9. De Lapide et Oleo Philosophorum.
10. Modus accipiendi Aurum Potabile.
11. Compendium Alchymiæ et Naturalis Philosophiæ.
12. Lapidarium.
13. Lux Mercuriorum.
14. Experimenta.
15. Ars Compendiosa vel Vademecum.
16. De Accurtatione Lapidis.

Several other tracts besides these are named by Gmelin; but I have
never seen any of them. I have attempted several times to read over the
works of Raymond Lully, particularly his Last Will and Testament, which is
considered the most important of them all. But they are all so obscure, and
filled with such unintelligible jargon, that I have found it impossible to
understand them. In this respect they form a wonderful contrast with the
works of Albertus Magnus and Roger Bacon, which are comparatively plain
and intelligible. For an account, therefore, of the chemical substances with
which he was acquainted, I am obliged to depend on Gmelin; though I put
no great confidence in his accuracy.

Like his predecessors, he was of opinion that all the metals are
compounds of sulphur and mercury. But he seems first to have introduced
those hieroglyphical figures or symbols, which appear in such profusion in
the English translation of his Last Will and Testament, and which he
doubtless intended to illustrate his positions. Though what other purpose
they could serve, than to induce the reader to consider his statements as
allegorical, it is not easy to conjecture. Perhaps they may have been
designed to impose upon his contemporaries by an air of something very
profound and inexplicable. For that he possessed a good deal of charlatanry
is pretty evident, from the slightest glance at his performances.

He was acquainted with cream of tartar, which he distilled: the residue
he burnt, and observed that the alkali extracted deliquesced when exposed
to the air. He was acquainted with nitric acid, which he obtained by
distilling a mixture of saltpetre and green vitriol. He mentions its power of
dissolving, not merely mercury, but likewise other metals. He could form
aqua regia by adding sal ammoniac or common salt to nitric acid, and he
was aware of the property which it had of dissolving gold.

Spirit of wine was well known to him, and distinguished by him by the
names of aqua vitæ ardens and argentum vivum vegetabile. He knew the
method of rendering it stronger by an admixture of dry carbonate of potash,
and of preparing vegetable tinctures by means of it. He mentions alum from
Rocca, marcasite, white and red mercurial precipitate. He knew the volatile
alkali and its coagulations by means of alcohol. He was acquainted with
cupellated silver, and first obtained rosemary oil by distilling the plant with
water. He employed a mixture of flour and white of egg spread upon a linen
cloth to cement cracked glass vessels, and used other lutes for similar
purposes.27

5. Arnoldus de Villa Nova is said to have been born at Villeneuve, a
village of Provence, about the year 1240. Olaus Borrichius assures us, that
in his time his posterity lived in the neighbourhood of Avignon; that he was
acquainted with them, and that they were by no means destitute of chemical
knowledge. He is said to have been educated at Barcelona, under John
Casamila, a celebrated professor of medicine. This place he was obliged to
leave, in consequence of foretelling the death of Peter of Arragon. He went
to Paris, and likewise travelled through Italy. He afterwards taught publicly
in the University of Montpelier. His reputation as a physician became so
great, that his attendance was solicited in dangerous cases by several kings,
and even by the pope himself. He was skilled in all the sciences of his time,
and was besides a proficient in Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic. When at Paris
he studied astrology, and calculating the age of the world, he found that it
was to terminate in the year 1335. The theologians of Paris exclaimed
against this and several other of his opinions, and condemned our astrologer
as a heretic. This obliged him to leave France; but the pope protected him.
He died in the year 1313, on his way to visit Pope Clement V. who lay sick
at Avignon. The following table exhibits a pretty full list of his works:

1. Antidotorium
2. De Vinis.
3. De Aquis Laxativis.
4. Rosarius Philosophorum.
5. Lumen Novum.
6. De Sigillis.
7. Flos Florum.
8. Epistolæ super Alchymia ad Regem Neapolitanum.
9. Liber Perfectionis Magisterii.
10. Succosa Carmina.
11. Questiones de Arte Transmutationis Metallorum.
12. Testamentum.
13. Lumen Luminum.
14. Practica.
15. Speculum Alchymiæ.
16. Carmen.
17. Questiones ad Bonifacium.
18. Semita Semitæ.
19. De Lapide Philosophorum.
20. De Sanguine Humano.
21. De Spiritu Vini, Vino Antimonii et Gemmorum Viribus.

Perhaps the most curious of all these works is the Rosarium, which is
intended as a complete compend of all the alchymy of his time. The first
part of it on the theory of the art is plain enough; but the second part on the
practice, which is subdivided into thirty-two chapters, and which professes
to teach the art of making the philosopher’s stone, is in many places quite
unintelligible to me.

He considered, like his predecessors, mercury as a constituent of
metals, and he professed a knowledge of the philosopher’s stone, which he
could increase at pleasure. Gold and gold-water was, in his opinion, one of
the most precious of medicines. He employed mercury in medicine. He
seems to designate bismuth under the name marcasite. He was in the habit
of preparing oil of turpentine, oil of rosemary, and spirit of rosemary, which
afterwards became famous under the name of Hungary-water. These
distillations were made in a glazed earthen vessel with a glass top and helm.

His works were published at Venice in a single folio volume, in the
year 1505. There were seven subsequent editions, the last of which
appeared at Strasburg in 1613.

6. John Isaac Hollandus and his countryman of the same name, were
either two brothers or a father and son; it is uncertain which. For very few
circumstances respecting these two laborious and meritorious men have
been handed down to posterity. They were born in the village of Stolk in
Holland, it is supposed in the 13th century. They certainly were after
Arnoldus de Villa Nova, because they refer to him in their writings. They
wrote many treatises on chemistry, remarkable, considering the time when
they wrote, for clearness and precision, describing their processes with
accuracy, and even giving figures of the instruments which they employed.
This makes their books intelligible, and they deserve attention because they
show that various processes, generally supposed of a more modern date
were known to them. Their treatises are written partly in Latin and partly in
German. The following list contains the names of most of them:

1. Opera Vegetabilia ad ejus alia Opera Intelligenda Necessaria.
2. Opera Mineralia seu de Lapide Philosophico Libri duo.
3. Tractat vom stein der Weisen.
4. Fragmenta Quædam Chemica.
5. De Triplice Ordine Elixiris et Lapidis Theorea.
6. Tractatus de Salibus et Oleis Metallorum.
7. Fragmentum de Opere Philosophorum.
8. Rariores Chemiæ Operationes.
9. Opus Saturni.
10. De Spiritu Urinæ.
11. Hand der Philosopher.

Olaus Borrichius complains that their opera mineralia abound with
processes; but that they are ambiguous, and such that nothing certain can be
deduced from them even after much labour. Hence they draw on the unwary
tyro from labour to labour. I am disposed myself to draw a different
conclusion, from what I have read of that elaborate work. It is true that the
processes which profess to make the philosopher’s stone, are fallacious, and
do not lead to the manufacture of gold, as the author intended, and

expected: but it is a great deal when alchymistical processes are delivered in
such intelligible language that you know the substances employed. This
enables us easily to see the results in almost every case, and to know the
new compounds which were formed during a vain search for the
philosopher’s stone. Had the other alchymists written as plainly, the
absurdity of their researches would have been sooner discovered, and thus a
useless or pernicious investigation would have sooner terminated.

7. Basil Valentine is said to have been born about the year 1394, and is,
perhaps, the most celebrated of all the alchymists, if we except Paracelsus.
He was a Benedictine monk, at Erford, in Saxony. If we believe Olaus
Borrichius, his writings were enclosed in the wall of a church at Erford, and
were discovered long after his death, in consequence of the wall having
been driven down by a thunderbolt. But this story is not well authenticated,
and is utterly improbable. Much of his time seems to have been taken up in
the preparation of chemical medicines. It was he that first introduced
antimony into medicine; and it is said, though on no good authority, that he
first tried the effects of antimonial medicines upon the monks of his
convent, upon whom it acted with such violence that he was induced to
distinguish the mineral from which these medicines had been extracted, by
the name of antimoine (hostile to monks). What shows the improbability of
this story is, that the works of Basil Valentine, and in particular his Currus
triumphalis Antimonii, were written in the German language. Now the
German name for antimony is not antimoine, but speissglass. The Currus
triumphalis Antimonii was translated into Latin by Kerkringius, who
published it, with an excellent commentary, at Amsterdam, in 1671.

Basil Valentine writes with almost as much virulence against the
physicians of his time, as Paracelsus himself did afterwards. As no
particulars of his life have been handed down to posterity, I shall satisfy
myself with giving a catalogue of his writings, and then pointing out the
most striking chemical substances with which he was acquainted.

The books which have appeared under the name of Basil Valentine, are
very numerous; but how many of them were really written by him, and how
many are supposititious, is extremely doubtful. The following are the
principal:

1. Philosophia Occulta.
2. Tractat von naturlichen und ubernaturlichen Dingen; auch von
der ersten tinctur, Wurzel und Geiste der Metallen.
3. Von dern grossen stein der Uhralten.
4. Vier tractatlein vom stein der Weisen.
5. Kurzer anhang und klare repetition oder Wiederholunge vom
grosen stein der Uhralten.
6. De prima Materia Lapidis Philosophici.
7. Azoth Philosophorum seu Aureliæ occultæ de Materia Lapidis
Philosophorum.
8. Apocalypsis Chemica.
9. Claves 12 Philosophiæ.
10. Practica.
11. Opus præclarum ad utrumque, quod pro Testamento dedit
Filio suo adoptivo.
12. Letztes Testament.
13. De Microcosmo.
14. Von der grosen Heimlichkeit der Welt und ihrer Arzney.
15. Von der Wissenschaft der sieben Planeten.
16. Offenbahrung der verborgenen Handgriffe.
17. Conclusiones or Schlussreden.
18. Dialogus Fratris Alberti cum Spiritu.
19. De Sulphure et fermento Philosophorum.
20. Haliographia.
21. Triumph wagen Antimonii.
22. Einiger Weg zur Wahrheit.
23. Licht der Natur.

The only one of these works that I have read with care, is
Kerkringius’s translation and commentary on the Currus triumphalis
Antimonii. It is an excellent book, written with clearness and precision, and
contains every thing respecting antimony that was known before the
commencement of the 19th century. How much of this is owing to
Kerkringius I cannot say, as I have never had an opportunity of seeing a
copy of the original German work of Basil Valentine.

Basil Valentine, like Isaac Hollandus, was of opinion that the metals
are compounds of salt, sulphur, and mercury. The philosopher’s stone was
composed of the same ingredients. He affirmed, that there exists a great
similarity between the mode of purifying gold and curing the diseases of
men, and that antimony answers best for both. He was acquainted with
arsenic, knew many of its properties, and mentions the red compound which
it forms with sulphur. Zinc seems to have been known to him, and he
mentions bismuth, both under its own name, and under that of marcasite.
He was aware that manganese was employed to render glass colourless. He
mentions nitrate of mercury, alludes to corrosive sublimate, and seems to
have known the red oxide of mercury. It would be needless to specify the
preparations of antimony with which he was acquainted; scarcely one was
unknown to him which, even at present, exists in the European
Pharmacopœias. Many of the preparations of lead were also familiar to him.
He was aware that lead gives a sweet taste to vinegar. He knew sugar of
lead, litharge, yellow oxide of lead, white carbonate of lead; and mentions
that this last preparation was often adulterated in his time. He knew the
method of making green vitriol, and the double chloride of iron and
ammonia. He was aware that iron could be precipitated from its solution by
potash, and that iron has the property of throwing down copper. He was
aware that tin sometimes contains iron, and ascribed the brittleness of
Hungarian iron to copper. He knew that oxides of copper gave a green
colour to glass; that Hungarian silver contained gold; that gold is
precipitated from aqua regia by mercury, in the state of an amalgam. He
mentions fulminating gold. But the important facts contained in his works
are so numerous, while we are so uncertain about the genuineness of the
writings themselves, that it will scarcely be worth while to proceed further
with the catalogue.

Thus I have brought the history of alchymy to the time of Paracelsus,
when it was doomed to undergo a new and important change. It will be
better, therefore, not to pursue the history of alchymy further, but to take up
the history of true chemistry; and in the first place to endeavour to
determine what chemical facts were known to the Ancients, and how far the
science had proceeded to develop itself before the time of Paracelsus.

CHAPTER II.
OF THE CHEMICAL KNOWLEDGE POSSESSED BY THE
ANCIENTS.

Notwithstanding the assertions of Olaus Borrichius, and various other
writers who followed him on the same side, nothing is more certain than
that the ancients have left no chemical writings behind them, and that no
evidence whatever exists to prove that the science of chemistry was known
to them. Scientific chemistry, on the contrary, took its origin from the
collection and comparison of the chemical facts, made known by the
practice and improvement of those branches of manufactures which can
only be conducted by chemical processes. Thus the smelting of ores, and
the reduction of the metals which they contain, is a chemical process;
because it requires, for its success, the separation of certain bodies which
exist in the ore chemically combined with the metals; and it cannot be done,
except by the application or mixture of a new substance, having an affinity
for these substances, and capable, in consequence, of separating them from
the metal, and thus reducing the metal to a state of purity. The manufacture
of glass, of soap, of leather, are all chemical, because they consist of
processes, by means of which bodies, having an affinity for each other, are
made to unite in chemical combination. Now I shall in this chapter point out
the principal chemical manufactures that were known to the ancients, that
we may see how much they contributed towards laying the foundation of
the science. The chief sources of our information on this subject are the
writings of the Greeks and Romans. Unfortunately the arts and
manufactures stood in a very different degree of estimation among the
ancients from what they do among the moderns. Their artists and
manufacturers were chiefly slaves. The citizens of Greece and Rome
devoted themselves to politics or war. Such of them as turned their attention
to learning confined themselves to oratory, which was the most fashionable

and the most important study, or to history, or poetry. The only scientific
pursuits which ever engaged their attention, were politics, ethics, and
mathematics. For, unless Archimedes is to be considered as an exception,
scarcely any of the numerous branches of physics and mechanical
philosophy, which constitute so great a portion of modern science, even
attracted the attention of the ancients.

In consequence of the contemptible light in which all mechanical
employments were viewed by the ancients, we look in vain in any of their
writings for accurate details respecting the processes which they followed.
The only exception to this general neglect and contempt for all the arts and
trades, is Pliny the Elder, whose object, in his natural history, was to collect
into one focus, every thing that was known at the period when he lived. His
work displays prodigious reading, and a vast fund of erudition. It is to him
that we are chiefly indebted for the knowledge of the chemical arts which
were practised by the ancients. But the low estimation in which these arts
were held, appears evident from the wonderful want of information which
Pliny so frequently displays, and the erroneous statements which he has
recorded respecting these processes. Still a great deal may be drawn from
the information which has been collected and transmitted to us by this
indefatigable natural historian.

I.—The ancients were acquainted with SEVEN METALS; namely,
gold, silver, mercury, copper, iron, tin, and lead. They knew and employed
various preparations of zinc, and antimony, and arsenic; though we have no
evidence that these bodies were known to them in the metallic state.

1. Gold is spoken of in the second chapter of Genesis as existing and
familiarly known before the flood.

“The name of the first is Pison; that is it which encompasseth the
whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is
good: there is bdellium and the onyx-stone.” The Hebrew word for gold,
‫( בהז‬zahav) signifies to be clear, to shine; alluding, doubtless, to the
brilliancy of that metal. The term gold occurs frequently in the writings of
Moses, and the metal must have been in common use among the Egyptians,
when that legislator led the children of Israel out of Egypt.28 Gold is found

in the earth almost always in a native state. There can be no doubt that it
was much more abundant on the surface of the earth, and in the beds of
rivers in the early periods of society, than it is at present: indeed this is
obvious, from the account which Pliny gives of the numerous places in Asia
and Greece, and other European countries, where gold was found in his
time.

Gold, therefore, could hardly fail to attract the attention of the very
first inhabitants of the globe; its beauty, its malleability, its indestructibility,
would give it value: accident would soon discover the possibility of melting
it by heat, and thus of reducing the grains or small pieces of it found on the
surface of the earth into one large mass. It would be speedily made into
ornaments and utensils of various kinds, and thus gradually would come
into common use. This we find to have occurred in America, when it was
discovered by Columbus. The inhabitants of the tropical parts of that vast
continent were familiarly acquainted with gold; and in Mexico and Peru it
existed in great abundance; indeed the natives of these countries seem to
have been acquainted with no other metal, or at least no other metal was
brought into such general use, except silver, which in Peru was, it is true,
still more common than gold.

Gold, then, was probably the first metal with which man became
acquainted; and that knowledge must have preceded the commencement of
history, since it is mentioned as a common and familiar substance in the
Book of Genesis, the oldest book in existence, of the authenticity of which
we possess sufficient evidence. The period of leading the children of Israel
out of Egypt by Moses, is generally fixed to have been one thousand six
hundred and forty-eight years before the commencement of the Christian
era. So early, then, we are certain, that not only gold, but the other six
malleable metals known to the ancients, were familiar to the inhabitants of
Egypt. The Greeks ascribe the discovery of gold to the earliest of their
heroes. According to Pliny, it was discovered on Mount Pangæus by
Cadmus, the Phœnician: but Cadmus’s voyage into Greece was nearly
coeval with the exit of the Israelites out of Egypt, at which time we learn
from Moses that gold was in common use in Egypt. All that can be meant,
then, is, that Cadmus first discovered gold in Greece; not that he made
mankind first acquainted with it. Others say that Thoas and Eaclis, or Sol,

the son of Oceanus, first found gold in Panchaia. Thoas was a contemporary
of the heroes of the Trojan war, or at least was posterior to the Argonautic
expedition, and consequently long posterior to Moses and the departure of
the children of Israel from Egypt.

2. Silver also was not only familiarly known to the Egyptians in the
time of Moses, but, as we learn from Genesis, was coined into money
before Joseph was set over the land of Egypt by Pharaoh, which happened
one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two years before the
commencement of the Christian era, and consequently two hundred and
twenty-four years before the departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt.

“And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of
Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought; and
Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh’s house.”29 The Hebrew word ‫ףםכ‬
(keseph), translated money, signifies silver, and was so called from its pale
colour. Silver occurs in many other passages of the writings of Moses.30
The Greeks inform us, that Erichthonius the Athenian, or Ceacus, were the
discoverers of silver; but both of these individuals were long posterior to
the time of Joseph.

Silver, like gold, occurs very frequently in the metallic state. This, no
doubt, was a still more frequent occurrence in the early ages of the world; it
would therefore attract the attention of mankind as early as gold, and for the
same reason. It is very ductile, very beautiful, and much more easily fused
than gold: it would be therefore more easily reduced into masses, and
formed into different utensils and ornaments than even gold itself. The ores
of it which occur in the earth are heavy, and would therefore draw the
attention of even rude men to them: they have, most of them at least, the
appearance of being metallic, and the most common of them may be
reduced to the state of metallic silver, simply by keeping them a sufficient
time in fusion. Accordingly we find that the Peruvians, before they were
overrun by the Spaniards, had made themselves acquainted with the mode
of digging out and smelting the ores of silver which occur in their country,
and that many of their most common utensils were made of that metal.

Silver and gold approached each other nearer in value among the
ancients than at present: an ounce of fine gold was worth from ten to twelve
ounces of fine silver, the variation depending upon the accidental relation of
the supply of both metals. But after the discovery of America, the quantity
of silver found in that continent, especially in Mexico, was so great,
compared with that of the gold found, that silver became considerably
cheaper; so that an ounce of fine gold came to be equivalent to about
fourteen ounces and a half of fine silver. Of course these relative values
have fluctuated a little according to the abundance of the supply of silver.
Though the revolution in the Spanish American colonies has considerably
diminished the supply of silver from the mines, that deficiency seems to
have been supplied by other ways, and thus the relative proportion between
the value of gold and silver has continued nearly unaltered.

3. That copper must have been known in the earliest ages of society, is
sufficiently evident. It occurs frequently native, and could not fail to attract
the attention of mankind, from its colour, weight, and malleability. It would
not be difficult to fuse it even in the rudest ages: and when melted into
masses, as it is malleable and ductile, it would not require much skill to
convert it into useful and ornamental utensils. The Hebrew word ‫תשחנ‬
(nechooshat) translated brass, obviously means copper. We have the
authority of the Book of Genesis to satisfy us that copper was known before
the flood, and probably as early as either silver or gold.

“And Zillah, she also bore Tubal-cain, an instructor of every artificer
in brass (copper) and iron.”31

The word copper occurs in many other passages of the writings of
Moses.32 That the Hebrew word translated brass must have meant copper is
obvious, from the following passage: “Out of whose hills thou mayest dig
brass.”33 Brass does not exist in the earth, nor any ore of it, it is always
made artificially; it must therefore have been copper, or an ore of copper,
that was alluded to by Moses.

Copper must have been discovered and brought into common use long
before iron or steel; for Homer represents his heroes of the Trojan war as
armed with swords, &c. of copper. Copper itself is too soft to be made into

cutting instruments; but the addition of a little tin gives it the requisite
hardness. Now we learn from the analyses of Klaproth, that the copper
swords of the ancients were actually hardened by the addition of tin.34

Copper was the metal in common use in the early part of the Roman
commonwealth. Romulus coined copper money alone. Numa established a
college of workers in copper (ærariorum fabrum).35

The Latin word æs sometimes signifies copper, and sometimes brass. It
is plain from what Pliny says on the subject, that he did not know the
difference between copper and brass; he says, that an ore of æs occurs in
Cyprus, called chalcitis, where æs was first discovered. Here æs obviously
means copper. In another place he says, that æs is obtained from a mineral
called cadmia. Now from the account of cadmia by Pliny and Dioscorides,
there cannot be a doubt that it is the ore to which the moderns have given
the name of calamine, by means of which brass is made. It is sometimes a
silicate and sometimes a carbonate of zinc; for both of these ores are
confounded together under the name of cadmia, and both are employed in
the manufacture of brass.

Solinus says, that æs was first made at Chalcis, a town in Eubœa.
Hence the Greek name, χαλκος (chalkos), by which copper was
distinguished.

The proper name for brass, by which is meant an alloy of copper and
zinc, was aurichalcum, or golden, or yellow copper. Pliny says, that long
before his time, the ore of aurichalcum was exhausted, so that no more of
that beautiful alloy was made. Are we to conclude from this, that there once
existed an ore consisting of calamine and ore of copper, mixed or united
together? After the exhaustion of the aurichalcum mine, the salustianum
became the most famous; but it soon gave place to the livianum, a copper-
mine in Gaul, named after Livia, the wife of Augustus. Both these mines
were exhausted in the time of Pliny. The æs marianum, or copper of
Cordova, was the most celebrated in his time. This last æs, he says, absorbs
most cadmia, and acquires the greatest resemblance to aurichalcum. We see
from this, that in Pliny’s time brass was made artificially, and by a process
similar to that still followed by the moderns.

The most celebrated alloy of copper among the ancients, was the æs
corinthium, or Corinthian copper, formed accidentally, as Pliny informs us,
during the burning of Corinth by Mummius in the year 608, after the
building of Rome, or one hundred and forty-five years before the
commencement of the Christian era. There were four kinds of it, of which
Pliny gives the following description; not, however, very intelligible:

1. White. It resembled silver much in its lustre, and contained an
excess of that metal.
2. Red. In this kind there is an excess of gold.
3. In the third kind, gold, silver, and copper are mixed in equal
proportions.
4. The fourth kind is called hepatizon, from its having a liver
colour. It is this colour which gives it its value.36

Copper was put by the ancients to almost all the uses to which it is put
by the moderns. One of the great sources of consumption was bronze
statues, which were first introduced into Rome after the conquest of Asia
Minor. Before that time, the statues of the Romans were made of wood or
stoneware. Pliny gives various formulas for making bronze for statues. Of
these it may be worth while to put down the most material.

1. To new copper add a third part of old copper. To every hundred
pounds of this mixture, twelve pounds and a half of tin37 are added, and the
whole melted together.

2. Another kind of bronze for statues was formed, by melting together

100lbs.copper,
10lbs.lead,
5lbs.tin.

3. Their copper-pots for boiling consisted of 100lbs. of copper, melted
with three or four pounds of tin.

The four celebrated statues of horses which, during the reign of
Theodosius II. were transported from Chio to Constantinople; and, when
Constantinople was taken and plundered by the Crusaders and Venetians in

1204, were sent by Martin Zeno and set up by the doge, Peter Ziani, in the
portal of St. Mark; were in 1798, transported by the French to Paris; and
finally, after the overthrow of Buonaparte, and the restoration of the
Bourbons in 1815, returned to Venice and placed upon their ancient
pedestals. The metal of which these horses had been made was examined by
Klaproth, and found by him composed of

Copper, 993
Tin, 7
100038

Klaproth also analyzed an ancient bronze statue in one of the German
cabinets, and found it composed of

Copper, 916
Tin, 75
Lead, 97
100039

Several other old brass and bronze pieces of metal, very ancient, but
found in Germany, were also analyzed by Klaproth. The result of his
analyses was as follows:

The metal of which the altar of Krodo was made consisted of

Copper, 69
Zinc, 18
Lead, 13
10040

The emperor’s chair, which had in the eleventh century been
transported from Harzburg to Goslar, where it still remains, was found to be
composed of

Copper,92·5
Tin, 5·0
Lead, 2·5

10041

Another piece of metal, which enclosed the high altar in a church in
Germany, was composed of

Copper,75·0
Tin, 12·5
Lead, 12·5
10042

These analyses, though none of them corresponds exactly with the
proportions given by Pliny, confirms sufficiently his general statement, that
the bronze of the ancients employed for statues was copper, alloyed with
lead and tin.

Some of the bronze statues cast by the ancients were of enormous
dimensions, and show decisively the great progress which had been made
by them in the art of working and casting metals. The addition of the lead
and tin would not only add greatly to the hardness of the alloy, but would at
the same time render it more easily fusible. The bronze statue of Apollo,
placed in the capitol at the time of Pliny, was forty-five feet high, and cost
500 talents, equivalent to about £50,000 of our money. It was brought from
Apollonia, in Pontus, by Lucullus. The famous statue of the sun at Rhodes
was the work of Chares, a disciple of Lysippus; it was ninety feet high, was
twelve years in making, and cost 300 talents (about £30,000). It was made
out of the engines of war left by Demetrius when he raised the siege of
Rhodes. After standing fifty-six years, it was overthrown by an earthquake.
It lay on the ground 900 years, and was sold by Mauvia, king of the
Saracens, to a merchant, who loaded 900 camels with the fragments of it.

Copper was introduced into medicine at rather an early period of
society, and various medicinal preparations of it are described by
Dioscorides and Pliny. It remains for us to notice the most remarkable of
these. Pliny mentions an institution, to which he gives the name of Seplasia;
the object of which was, to prepare medicines for the use of medical men. It
seems, therefore, to have been similar to our apothecaries’ shops of the
present day. Pliny reprobates the conduct of the persons who had the charge

of these Seplasiæ in his time. They were in the habit of adulterating
medicines to such a degree, that nothing good or genuine could be procured
from them.43

Both the oxides of copper were known to the ancients, though they
were not very accurately distinguished from each other: they were known
by the names flos æris and scoria æris, or squama æris. They were obtained
by heating bars of copper red-hot and letting them cool, exposed to the air.
What fell off during the cooling was the flos, what was driven off by blows
of a hammer was the squama or scoria æris. It is obvious, that all these
substances were nearly of the same nature, and that they were in reality
mixtures of the black and red oxides of copper.

Stomoma seems also to have been an oxide of copper, which was
gradually formed upon the surface of the metal, when it was kept in a state
of fusion.

These oxides of copper were used as external applications in cases of
polypi of the nose, diseases of the anus, ear, mouth, &c., seemingly as
escharotics.

Ærugo, verdigris, was a subacetate of copper, doubtless often mixed
with subacetate of zinc, as not only copper but brass also was used for
preparing it. The mode of preparing this substance was similar to the
process still followed. Whether verdigris was employed as a paint by the
ancients does not appear; for Pliny takes no notice of any such use of it.

Chalcantum, called also atramentum sutorium, was probably a mixture
of sulphate of copper and sulphate of iron. Pliny’s account of the mode of
procuring it is too imperfect to enable us to form precise ideas concerning
it; but it was crystallized on strings, which were extended for the purpose in
the solution: its colour was blue, and it was transparent like glass. This
description might apply to sulphate of copper; but as the substance was
used for blackening leather, and on that account was called atramentum
sutorium, it is obvious that it must have contained also sulphate of iron.

Chalcitis was the name for an ore of copper. The account given of it by
Pliny agrees best with copper pyrites, which is now known to be a sulphur

salt, composed of one atom of sulphide of copper (the acid) united to one
atom of sulphide of iron (the base). Pliny informs us, that it is a mixture of
copper, misy, and sory: its colour is that of honey. By age, he says, it
changes into sory. I think it most probable that native sory, of which Pliny
speaks, was sulphuret of copper, and artificial sory sulphate of copper. The
native sory is said to constitute black veins in chalcitis. Pliny’s description
of misy (μισυ) best agrees with copper pyrites. Dioscorides describes it as
hard, as having the colour of gold, and as shining like a star.44 All this
agrees pretty well with copper pyrites.

Scoleca (so called because it assumed the shape of a worm) was
formed by triturating alumen, carbonate of soda, and white vinegar, till the
matter became green. It was probably a mixture of sulphate of soda, acetate
of soda, acetate of alumina, and acetate of copper, probably with more or
less oxide of copper, &c., depending upon the proportions of the respective
constituents employed.

Such are the preparations of copper, employed by the ancients. They
were only used as external applications, partly as escharotics, and partly to
induce ulcers to put on a healthy appearance. It does not appear that copper
was ever used by the ancients as an internal remedy.

4. Though zinc in the metallic state was unknown to the ancients, yet
as they knew some of its ores, and employed preparations of it in medicine,
and were in the habit of alloying copper with it, and converting it into brass,
it will be proper to state here what was known to them concerning it.

Pliny nowhere makes us acquainted with the process by which copper
was converted into brass, nor does he seem to have been acquainted with it;
but from several facts incidentally mentioned by him, it is obvious that their
process was similar to that which is followed at present by modern brass-
makers. The copper in grains is mixed with a certain quantity of calamine
(cadmia) and charcoal, and exposed for some time to a moderate heat in a
covered crucible. The calamine is reduced to the metallic state, and imbibed
by the copper grains. When the copper is thus converted into brass, the
temperature is raised sufficiently high to melt the whole: it is then poured
out and cast into a slab or ingot.

The cadmia employed by the ancients in medicine was not calamine,
but oxide of zinc, which sublimed during the fusion of brass in an open
vessel. It was distinguished by a variety of names, according to the state in
which it was obtained: the lighter portion was called capnitis. Botryitis was
the name of the portion in the interior of the chimney: the name was derived
from some resemblance which it was supposed to have to a bunch of
grapes. It had two colours, ash and red. The red variety was reckoned best.
This red colour it might derive from some copper mixed with it, but more
probably from iron; for a small quantity of oxide of iron is sufficient to give
oxide of zinc a rather beautiful red colour. The portion collected on the
sides of the furnace was called placitis: it constituted a crust, and was
distinguished by different names, according to its colour; onychitis when it
was blue externally, but spotted internally: ostracitis, when it was black and
dirty-looking. This last variety was considered as an excellent application to
wounds. The best cadmia in Pliny’s time was furnished by the furnaces of
the Isle of Cyprus: it was used as an external application in ulcers,
inflammations, eruptions, &c., so that its use in medicine was pretty much
the same as at present. Sulphate and acetate of zinc were unknown to the
ancients. No attempt seems to have been made by them to introduce any
preparations of zinc as internal medicines.

Pompholyx was the name given to oxide of zinc, sublimed by the
combustion of the zinc which exists in brass. Spodos seems to have been a
mixture of oxides of zinc and copper. There were different varieties of it
distinguished by various names.45

5. Iron exists very rarely in the earth in a metallic state, but most
commonly in the state of an oxide; and the processes necessary to extract
metallic iron from these ores are much more complicated, and require much
greater skill, than the reduction of gold, silver, or copper from their
respective ores. This would lead us to expect that iron would have been
much longer in being discovered than the three metals whose names have
been just given. But we learn from the Book of Genesis that iron, like
copper and gold, was known before the flood, Tubal-cain being represented
as an artificer in copper and iron.46 The Hebrew word for iron, ‫לזרב‬
(barzel), is said to be derived from ‫( רב‬bar), bright, ‫( לזנ‬nazal), to melt; and
would lead one to the suspicion, that it referred to cast iron rather than

malleable iron. It is possible that in these early times native iron may have
existed as well as native gold, silver, and copper; and in this way Tubal-cain
may have become acquainted with the existence and properties of this
metal. In the time of Moses, who was learned in all the wisdom of the
Egyptians, iron must have been in common use in Egypt: for he mentions
furnaces for working iron;47 ores from which it was extracted;48 and tells us
that swords,49 knives,50 axes,51 and tools for cutting stones,52 were then
made of that metal. Now iron in its pure metallic state is too soft to be
applied to these uses: it is obvious, therefore, that in Moses’s time, not only
iron but steel also must have been in common use in Egypt. From this we
see how much further advanced the Egyptians were than the Greeks in the
knowledge of the manufacture of this most important metal: for during the
Trojan war, which was several centuries after the time of Moses, Homer
represents his heroes as armed with swords of copper, hardened by tin, and
as never using any weapons of iron whatever. Nay, in such estimation was it
held, that Achilles, when he celebrated games in honour of Patrocles,
proposes a ball of iron as one of his most valuable prizes.53

“Then hurl’d the hero, thundering on the ground,
A mass of iron (an enormous round),
Whose weight and size the circling Greeks admire,
Rude from the furnace and but shaped by fire.
This mighty quoit Ætion wont to rear,
And from his whirling arm dismiss’d in air;
The giant by Achilles slain, he stow’d
Among his spoils this memorable load.
For this he bids those nervous artists vie
That teach the disk to sound along the sky.
Let him whose might can hurl this bowl, arise;
Who farthest hurls it, takes it as his prize:
If he be one enrich’d with large domain
Of downs for flocks and arable for grain,
Small stock of iron needs that man provide,
His hinds and swains whole years shall be supplied
From hence: nor ask the neighbouring city’s aid
For ploughshares, wheels, and all the rural trade.”

The mass of iron was large enough to supply a shepherd or a
ploughman with iron for five years. This circumstance is a sufficient proof
of the high estimation in which iron was held during the time of Homer.
Were a modern poet to represent his hero as holding out a large lump of iron
as a prize, and were he to represent this prize as eagerly contended for by
kings and princes, it would appear to us perfectly ridiculous.

Hesiod informs us, that the knowledge of iron was brought over from
Phrygia to Greece by the Dactyli, who settled in Crete during the reign of
Minos I., about 1431 years before the commencement of the Christian era,
and consequently about sixty years before the departure of the children of
Israel from Egypt: and it does not appear, that in Homer’s time, which was
about five hundred years later, the art of smelting iron had been so much
improved, as to enable men to apply it to the common purposes of life, as
had long before been done by the Egyptians. The general opinion of the
ancients was, that the method of smelting iron ore had been brought to

perfection by the Chalybes, a small nation situated near the Black Sea,54
and that the name chalybs, occasionally used for steel, was derived from
that people.

Pliny informs us, that the ores of iron are scattered very profusely
almost every where: that they exist in Elba; that there was a mountain in
Cantabria composed entirely of iron ore; and that the earth in Cappadocia,
when watered from a certain river, is converted into iron.55 He gives no
account of the mode of smelting iron ores; nor does he appear to have been
acquainted with the processes; for he says that iron is reduced from its ore
precisely in the same way as copper is. Now we know, that the processes
for smelting copper and iron are quite different, and founded upon different
principles. He says, that in his time many different kinds of iron existed,
and they were stricturæ, in Latin a stringenda acie.

That steel was well known and in common use when Pliny wrote is
obvious from many considerations; but he seems to have had no notion of
what constituted the difference between iron and steel, or of the method
employed to convert iron into steel. In his opinion it depended upon the
nature of the water, and consisted in heating iron red-hot, and plunging it,
while in that state, into certain waters. The waters at Bilbilis and Turiasso,
in Spain, and at Comum, in Italy, possessed this extraordinary virtue. The
best steel in Pliny’s time came from China; the next best, in point of quality,
was manufactured in Parthia.

It would appear, that at Noricum steel was manufactured directly from
the ore of iron. This process was perfectly practicable, and it is said still to
be practised in certain cases.

The ancients were acquainted with the method of rendering iron, or
rather steel, magnetic; as appears from a passage in the fourteenth chapter
of the thirty-fourth book of Pliny. Magnetic iron was distinguished by the
name of ferrum vivum.

When iron is dabbed over with alumen and vinegar it becomes like
copper, according to Pliny. Cerussa, gypsum, and liquid pitch, keep it from
rusting. Pliny was of opinion that a method of preventing iron from rusting

had been once known, but had been lost before his time. The iron chains of
an old bridge over the Euphrates had not rusted in Pliny’s time; but a few
new links, which had been added to supply the place of some that had
decayed, were become rusty.

It would appear from Pliny, that the ancients made use of something
very like tractors; for he says that pain in the side is relieved by holding
near it the point of a dagger that has wounded a man. Water in which red-
hot iron had been plunged was recommended as a cure for the dysentery;
and the actual cautery with red-hot iron, Pliny informs us, prevents
hydrophobia, when a person has been bitten by a mad dog.

Rust of iron and scales of iron were used by the ancients as astringent
medicines.

6. Tin, also, must have been in common use in the time of Moses; for it
is mentioned without any observation as one of the common metals.56 And
from the way in which it is spoken of by Isaiah and Ezekiel, it is obvious
that it was considered as of far inferior value to silver and gold. Now tin,
though the ores of it where it does occur are usually abundant, is rather a
scarce metal: that is to say, there are but few spots on the face of the earth
where it is known to exist. Cornwall, Spain, in the mountains of Gallicia,
and the mountains which separate Saxony and Bohemia, are the only
countries in Europe where tin occurs abundantly. The last of these localities
has not been known for five centuries. It was from Spain and from Britain
that the ancients were supplied with tin; for no mines of tin exist, or have
ever been known to exist, in Africa or Asia, except in the East Indies. The
Phœnicians were the first nation which carried on a great trade by sea.
There is evidence that at a very early period they traded with Spain and
with Britain, and that from these countries they drew their supplies of tin. It
was doubtless the Phœnicians that supplied the Egyptians with this metal.
They had imbibed strongly a spirit of monopoly; and to secure the whole
trade of tin they carefully concealed the source from which they drew that
metal. Hence, doubtless, the reason why the Grecian geographers, who
derived their information from the Phœnicians, represented the Insulæ
Cassiterides, or tin islands, as a set of islands lying off the north coast of
Spain. We know that in fact the Scilly islands, in these early ages, yielded

tin, though doubtless the great supply was drawn from the neighbouring
province of Cornwall. It was probably from these islands that the Greek
name for tin was derived (κασσιτερος). Even Pliny informs us, that in his
time tin was obtained from the Cassiterides, and from Lusitania and
Gallicia. It occurs, he says, in grains in alluvial soil, from which it is
obtained by washing. It is in black grains, the metallic nature of which is
only recognisable by the great weight. This is a pretty accurate description
of stream tin, which we know formerly constituted the only ore of that
metal wrought in Cornwall. He says that the ore occurs also along with
grains of gold; that it is separated from the soil by washing along with the
grains of gold, and afterwards smelted separately.

Pliny gives no particulars about the mode of reducing the ore of tin to
the metallic state; nor is it at all likely that he was acquainted with the
process.

The Latin term for tin was plumbum album. Stannum is also used by
Pliny; but it is impossible to understand the account which he gives of it.
There is, he says, an ore consisting of lead, united to silver. When this ore is
smelted, the first metal that flows out is stannum. What flows next is silver.
What remains in the furnace is galena. This being smelted, yields lead.

Were we to admit the existence of an ore composed of lead and silver,
it is obvious that no such products could be obtained by simply smelting it.

Cassiteros, or tin, is mentioned by Homer; and, from the way in which
the metal is said by him to have been used, it is obvious that in his time it
bore a much higher price, and, consequently, was more valued than at
present. In his description of the breastplate of Agamemnon, he says that it
contained ten bands of steel, twelve of gold, and twenty of tin
(κασσιτεροιο).57 And in the twenty-third book of the Iliad (line 561),
Achilles describes a copper breastplate surrounded with shining tin
(φαεινου κασσιτεροιο). Pliny informs us, that in his time tin was adulterated
by adding to it about one-third of white copper. A pound of tin, when Pliny
lived, cost ten denarii. Now, if we reckon a denarius at 7¾d., with Dr.
Arbuthnot, this would make a Roman pound of tin to cost 6s. 5½d. But, as
the Roman pound was only equal to three-fourths of our avoirdupois pound,

it is plain that in the time of Pliny an avoirdupois pound of tin was worth 8s.
7¼d., which is almost seven times the price of tin in the present day.

Tin, in the time of Pliny, was used for covering the inside of copper
vessels, as it is at this day. And, no doubt, the process still followed is of the
same nature as the process used by the ancients for tinning copper. Pliny
remarks, with surprise, that copper thus tinned does not increase in weight.
Now Bayen ascertained that a copper pan, nine inches in diameter, and
three inches three lines in depth, when tinned, only acquired an additional
weight of twenty-one grains. These measures and weights are French. When
we convert them into English, we have a copper pan 9·59 inches in
diameter, and 3·46 inches deep, which, when tinned, increased in weight
17·23 troy grains. Now the surface of the copper pan, thus tinned, was
176·468 square inches. Hence it follows, that a square inch of copper, when
tinned, increases in weight only 0·097 grains. This increase is so small, that
we may excuse Pliny, who probably had never seen the increase of weight
determined, except by means of a rude Roman statera, for concluding that
there was no increase of weight whatever.

Tin was employed by the ancients for mirrors: but mirrors of silver
were gradually substituted; and these in Pliny’s time had become so
common, that they were even employed by female servants or slaves.

That Pliny’s knowledge of the properties of tin was very limited, and
far from accurate, is obvious from his assertion that tin is less fusible than
silver.58 It is true that the ancients had no measure to determine the different
degrees of heat; but as tin melts at a heat under redness, while silver
requires a bright red heat to bring it into fusion, a single comparative trial
would have shown him which was most fusible. This trial, it is obvious, had
never been made by him.

The ancients seem to have been ignorant of the method of tinning iron.
At least, no reference to tin plate is made by Pliny, or by any other ancient
author, that I have had an opportunity of consulting.

It would appear from Pliny, that both copper and brass were tinned by
the Gauls at an early period. Tinned brass was called æra coctilia, and was
so beautiful that it almost passed for silver. Plating (or covering the metal

with plates of silver), was gradually substituted for tinning; and finally
gilding took the place of plating. The trappings of horses, chariots, &c.,
were thus ornamented. Pliny nowhere gives a description of the process of
plating; but there can be little doubt that it was similar to that at present
practised. Gilding was accomplished by laying an amalgam of gold on the
copper or brass, as at present.

7. Lead appears also to have been in common use among the
Egyptians, at the time of Moses.59 It was distinguished among the Romans
by the name of plumbum nigrum. In Pliny’s time the lead-mines existed
chiefly in Spain and Britain. In Britain lead was so abundant, that it was
prohibited to extract above a certain quantity in a year. The mines lay on the
surface of the earth. Derbyshire was the county in which lead ores were
chiefly wrought by the Romans. The rich mines in the north of England
seem to have been unknown to them.

Pliny was of opinion that if a lead-mine, after being exhausted, be shut
up for some time, the ore will be again renewed.

In the time of Pliny leaden pipes were commonly used for conveying
water. The vulgar notion that the ancients did not know that water will
always rise in pipes as high as the source from which it proceeds, and that it
was this ignorance which led to the formation of aqueducts, is quite
unfounded. Nobody can read Pliny without seeing that this important fact
was well known in his time.

Sheet lead was also used in the time of Pliny, and applied to the same
purposes as at present. But lead was much higher priced among the ancients
than it is at present. Pliny informs us that its price was to that of tin as 7 to
10. Hence it must have sold at the rate of 6s. 0¼d. per pound. The present
price of lead does not much exceed three halfpence the pound. It is
therefore only 1-48th part of the price which it bore in the time of Pliny.
This difference must be chiefly owing to the improvements made by the
moderns in working the mines and smelting the ores of lead.

Tin, in Pliny’s time, was used as a solder for lead. For this purpose it is
well adapted, as it is so much easier smelted than lead. But when he says
that lead is used also as a solder for tin, his meaning is not so clear.

Probably he means an alloy of lead and tin, which, fusing at a lower point
than tin, may be used to solder that metal. The addition of some bismuth
reduces the fusing point materially; but that metal was unknown to the
ancients.

Argentarium is an alloy of equal parts of lead and tin. Tertiarium, of
two parts lead and one part tin. It was used as a solder.

Some preparations of lead were used by the ancients in medicine, as
we know from the description of them given us by Dioscorides and Pliny.
These preparations consisted chiefly of protoxide of lead and lead reduced
to powder, and partially oxidized by triturating it with water in a mortar.
They were applied to ulcers, and employed externally as astringents.

Molybdena was also employed in medicine. Pliny says it was the same
as galena. From his description it is obvious that it was litharge; for it was
in scales, and was more valued the nearer its colour approached to that of
gold. It was employed, as it still is, for making plasters. Pliny gives us the
process for making the plaster employed by the Roman surgeons. It was
made by heating together

3lbs. molybdena or litharge,
1lb. wax,
3heminæ, or 1½ pint, of olive oil.

This process is very nearly the same as the one at present followed by
apothecaries for making adhesive plaster.

Psimmythium, or cerussa, was the same as our white lead. It was made
by exposing lead in sheets to the fumes of vinegar. It would seem probable
from Pliny’s account, though it is confused and inaccurate, that the ancients
were in the habit of dissolving cerussa in vinegar, and thus making an
impure acetate of lead.

Cerussa was used in medicine. It constituted also a common white
paint. At one time, Pliny says, it was found native; but in his time all that
was used was prepared artificially.

Cerussa usta seems to have been nearly the same as our red lead. It
was formed accidentally from cerussa during the burning of the Pyræus.
The colour was purple. It was imitated at Rome by burning silis
marmarosus, which was probably a variety of some of our ochres.

8. Besides the metals above enumerated, the ancients were also
acquainted with quicksilver. Nothing is known about the first discovery of
this metal; though it obviously precedes the commencement of history. I am
not aware that the term occurs in the writings of Moses. We have therefore
no evidence that it was known to the Egyptians at that early period; nor do I
find any allusion to it in the works of Herodotus. But this is not surprising,
as that author confines himself chiefly to subjects connected with history.
Dioscorides and Pliny both mention it as common in their time. Dioscorides
gives a method of obtaining it by sublimation from cinnabar. It is
remarkable, because it constitutes the first example of a process which
ultimately led to distillation.60

Cinnabar is also described by Theophrastus. The term minium was
applied to it also, till in consequence of the adulteration of cinnabar with
red lead, the term minium came at last to be restricted to that preparation of
lead. Theophrastus describes an artificial cinnabar, which came from the
country above Ephesus. It was a shining red-coloured sand, which was
collected and reduced to a fine powder by pounding it in vessels of stone.
We do not know what it was. The native cinnabar was found in Spain, and
was used chiefly as a paint. Dioscorides employs minium as the name for
what we at present call cinnabar, or bisulphuret of mercury. His cinnabar
was a red paint from Africa, produced in such small quantity that painters
could scarcely procure enough of it to answer their purposes.

Mercury is described by Pliny as existing native in the mines of Spain,
and Dioscorides gives the process for extracting it from cinnabar. It was
employed in gilding precisely as it is by the moderns. Pliny was aware of its
great specific gravity, and of the readiness with which it dissolves gold. The
amalgam was squeezed through leather, which separated most of the
quicksilver. When the solid amalgam remaining was heated, the mercury
was driven off and pure gold remained.

It is obvious from what Dioscorides says, that the properties of
mercury were very imperfectly known to him. He says that it may be kept
in vessels of glass, or of lead, or of tin, or of silver.61 Now it is well known
that it dissolves lead, tin, and silver with so much rapidity, that vessels of
these metals, were mercury put into them, would be speedily destroyed.
Pliny’s account of quicksilver is rather obscure. It seems doubtful whether
he was aware that native argentum vivum and the hydrargyrum extracted
from cinnabar were the same.

Cinnabar was occasionally used as an external medicine; but Pliny
disapproves of it, assuring his readers that quicksilver and all its
preparations are virulent poisons. No other mercurial preparations except
cinnabar and the amalgam of mercury seem to have been known to the
ancients.62

9. The ancients were unacquainted with the metal to which we at
present give the name of antimony; but several of the ores of that metal, and
of the products of these ores were not altogether unknown to them. From
the account of stimmi and stibium, by Dioscorides63 and Pliny,64 there can
be little doubt that these names were applied to the mineral now called
sulphuret of antimony or crude antimony. It is found most commonly, Pliny
says, among the ores of silver, and consists of two kinds, the male and the
female; the latter of which is most valued.

This pigment was known at a very early period, and employed by the
Asiatic ladies in painting their eyelashes, or rather the insides of their
eyelashes, black. Thus it is said of Jezebel, that when Jehu came to Jezreel
she painted her face. The original is, she put her eyes in sulphuret of
antimony.65 A similar expression occurs in Ezekiel, “For whom thou didst
wash thyself, paintedst thy eyes”—literally, put thy eyes in sulphuret of
antimony.66 This custom of painting the eyes black with antimony was
transferred from Asia to Greece, and while the Moors occupied Spain it was
employed by the Spanish ladies also. It is curious that the term alcohol, at
present confined to spirit of wine, was originally applied to the powder of
sulphuret of antimony.67 The ancients were in the habit of roasting
sulphuret of antimony, and thus converting it into an impure oxide. This
preparation was also called stimmi and stibium. It was employed in

medicine as an external application, and was conceived to act chiefly as an
astringent; Dioscorides describes the method of preparing it. We see, from
Pliny’s account of stibium, that he did not distinguish between sulphuret of
antimony and oxide of antimony.68

9. Some of the compounds of arsenic were also known to the ancients;
though they were neither acquainted with this substance in the metallic
state, nor with its oxide; the nature of which is so violent that had it been
known to them it could not have been omitted by Dioscorides and Pliny.

The word σανδαραχη (sandarache) occurs in Aristotle, and the term
αρῥενιχον (arrhenichon) in Theophrastus.69 Dioscorides uses likewise the
same name with Aristotle. It was applied to a scarlet-coloured mineral,
which occurs native, and is now known by the name of realgar. It is a
compound of arsenic and sulphur. It was employed in medicine both
externally and internally, and is recommended by Dioscorides, as an
excellent remedy for an inveterate cough.

Auripigmentum and arsenicum were names given to the native yellow
sulphuret of arsenic. It was used in the same way, and considered by
Dioscorides and Pliny as of the same nature with realgar. But there is no
reason for supposing that the ancients were acquainted with the
compositions of either of these bodies; far less that they had any suspicion
of the existence of the metal to which we at present give the name of
arsenic.

Such is a sketch of the facts known to the ancients respecting metals.
They knew the six malleable metals which are still in common use, and
applied them to most of the purposes to which the moderns apply them.
Scarcely any information has been left us of the methods employed by them
to reduce these metals from their ores. But unless the ores were of a much
simpler nature than the modern ores of these metals, of which we have no
evidence, the smelting processes with which the ancients were familiar,
could scarcely have been contrived without a knowledge of the substances
united with the different metals in their ores, and of the means by which
these foreign bodies could be separated, and the metals isolated from all
impurities. This doubtless implied a certain quantity of chemical

knowledge, which having been handed down to the moderns, served as a
foundation upon which the modern science of chemistry was gradually
reared: at the same time it will be admitted that this foundation was very
slender, and would of itself have led to little. Most of the oxides, sulphurets,
&c., and almost all the salts into which these metallic bodies enter, were
unknown to the ancients.

Besides the working in metals there were some other branches of
industry practised by the ancients, so intimately connected with chemical
science, that it would be improper to pass them over in silence. The most
important of these are the following:

II.—COLOURS USED BY PAINTERS.

It is well known that the ancient Grecian artists carried the art of
painting to the highest degree of perfection, and that their paintings were
admired and sought after by the most eminent and accomplished men of
antiquity; and Pliny gives us a catalogue of a great number of first-rate
pictures, and a historical account of a vast many celebrated painters of
antiquity. In his own time, he says, the art of painting had lost its
importance, statues and tablets having came in place of pictures.

Two kinds of colours were employed by the ancients; namely, the
florid and the austere. The florid colours, as enumerated by Pliny, were
minium, armenium, cinnaberis, chrysocolla, purpurissum, and indicum
purpurissum.

The word minium as used by Pliny means red lead; though
Dioscorides employs it for bisulphuret of mercury or cinnabar.

Armenium was obviously an ochre, probably of a yellow or orange
colour.

Cinnaberis was bisulphuret of mercury, which is known to have a
scarlet colour. Dioscorides employs it to denote a vegetable red colour,
probably similar to the resin at present called dragon’s blood.

Chrysocolla was a green-coloured paint, and from Pliny’s description
of it, could have been nothing else than carbonate of copper or malachite.

Purpurissum was a lake, as is obvious from the account of its
formation given by Pliny. The colouring matter is not specified, but from
the term used there can be little doubt that it was the liquor from the
shellfish that yielded the celebrated purple dye of the Tyrians.

Indicum purpurissum was probably indigo. This might be implied
from the account of it given by Pliny.

The austere colours used by the ancient painters were of two kinds,
native and artificial. The native were sinopis, rubrica, parætonium,
melinum, eretria, auripigmentum. The artificial were, ochra, cerussa usta,
sandaracha, sandyx, syricum, atramentum.

Sinopis is the red substance now known by the name of reddle, and
used for marking. On that account it is sometimes called red chalk. It was
found in Pontus, in the Balearian islands, and in Egypt. The price was three
denarii, or 1s. 11¼d. the pound weight. The most famous variety of sinopis
was from the isle of Lemnos; it was sold sealed and stamped: hence it was
called sphragis. It was employed to adulterate minium. In medicine it was
used to appease inflammation, and as an antidote to poison.

Ochre is merely sinopis heated in a covered vessel. The higher the
temperature to which it has been exposed the better it is.

Leucophorum is a compound of

6 lbs. sinopis of Pontus,
10 lbs. siris,
2 lbs. melinum,

triturated together for thirty days. It was used to make gold adhere to wood.

Rubrica from the name, was probably a red ochre.

Parætonium was a white colour, so called from a place in Egypt,
where it was found. It was obtained also in the island of Crete, and in
Cyrene. It was said to be a combination of the froth of the sea consolidated
with mud. It consisted probably of carbonate of lime. Six pounds of it cost
only one denarius.

Melinum was also a white-coloured powder found in Melos and Samos
in veins. It was most probably a carbonate of lime.

Eretria was named from the place where it was found. Pliny gives its
medical properties, but does not inform us of its colour. It is impossible to
say what it was.

Auripigmentum was yellow sulphuret of arsenic. It was probably but
little used as a pigment by the ancient painters.

Cerussa usta was red lead.

Sandaracha was red sulphuret of arsenic. The pound of sandaracha
cost 5 as.: it was imitated by red lead. Both it and ochra were found in the
island Topazos in the Red Sea.

Sandyx was made by torrefying equal parts of true sandaracha and
sinopis. It cost half the price of sandaracha. Virgil mistook this pigment for
a plant, as is obvious from the following line:

Sponte sua sandix, pascentes vestiet agnos.70

Siricum is made by mixing sinopis and sandyx.

Atramentum was obviously from Pliny’s account of it lamp-black. He
mentions ivory-black as an invention of Apelles: it was called
elephantinum. There was a native atramentum, which had the colour of
sulphur, and got a black colour artificially. It is not unlikely that it contained
sulphate of iron, and that it got its black colour from the admixture of some
astringent substance.

The ink of the ancients was lamp-black mixed with water, containing
gum or glue dissolved in it. Atramentum indicum was the same as our
China ink.

The purpurissum was a high-priced pigment. It was made by putting
creta argentaria (a species of white clay) into the caldrons containing the
ingredients for dying purple. The creta imbibed the purple colour and
became purpurissum. The first portion of creta put in constituted the finest
and highest-priced pigment. The portions put in afterwards became
successively worse, and were, of consequence lower priced. We see, from
this description, that it was a lake similar to our modern cochineal lakes.71

That the purpurissum indicum was indigo is obvious from the
statement of Pliny, that when thrown upon hot coals it gives out a beautiful
purple flame. This constitutes the character of indigo. Its price in Pliny’s
time was ten denarii, or six shillings and five-pence halfpenny the Roman
pound; which is equivalent to 8s. 7⅓d. the avoirdupois.

Though few or none of the ancient pictures have been preserved, yet
several specimens of the colours used by them still remain in Rome and in
the ruins of Herculaneum. Among others the fresco paintings, in the baths
of Titus, still remain; and as these were made for a Roman emperor, we
might expect to find the most beautiful and costly colours employed in
them. These paints, and some others, were examined by Sir Humphrey
Davy, in 1813, while he was in Rome. From his researches we derive some

pretty accurate information respecting the colours employed by the painters
of Greece and Rome.

1. Red paints. Three different kinds of red were found in a chamber
opened in 1811, in the baths of Titus, namely, a bright orange red, a dull
red, and a brown red. The bright orange red was minium, or red lead; the
other two were merely two varieties of iron ochres. Another still brighter
red was observed on the walls; it proved, on examination, to be vermilion or
cinnabar.

2. Yellow paints. All the yellows examined by Davy proved to be iron
ochres, sometimes mixed with a little red lead. Orpiment was undoubtedly
employed, as is obvious from what Pliny says on the subject: but Davy
found no traces of it among the yellow colours which he examined. A very
deep yellow, approaching orange, which covered a piece of stucco in the
ruins near the monument of Caius Cestius, proved to be protoxide of lead,
or massicot, mixed with some red lead. The yellows in the Aldobrandini
pictures were all ochres, and so were those in the pictures on the walls of
the houses at Pompeii.

3. Blue paints. Different shades of blues are used in the different
apartments of the baths of Titus, which are darker or lighter, as they contain
more or less carbonate of lime with which the blue pigment had been mixed
by the painter. This blue pigment turned out, on examination, to be a frit
composed of alkali and silica, fused together with a certain quantity of
oxide of copper. This was the colour called χυανος (kyanos) by the Greeks,
and cæruleum by the Romans. Vitruvius gives the method of preparing it by
heating strongly together sand, carbonate of soda, and filings of copper.
Davy found that fifteen parts by weight of anhydrous carbonate of soda,
twenty parts of powdered opaque flints, and three parts of copper filings,
strongly heated together for two hours, gave a substance exactly similar to
the blue pigment of the ancients, and which, when powdered, produced a
fine deep blue colour. This cæruleum has the advantage of remaining
unaltered even when the painting is exposed to the actions of the air and
sun.

There is reason to suspect, from what Vitruvius and Pliny say, that
glass rendered blue by means of cobalt constituted the basis of some of the

blue pigments of the ancients; but all those examined by Davy consisted of
glass tinged blue by copper, without any trace of cobalt whatever.

4. Green paints. All the green paints examined by Davy proved to be
carbonates of copper, more or less mixed with carbonate of lime. I have
already mentioned that verdigris was known to the ancients. It was no doubt
employed by them as a pigment, though it is not probable that the acetic
acid would be able to withstand the action of the atmosphere for a couple of
thousand years.

5. Purple paints. Davy ascertained that the colouring matter of the
ancient purple was combustible. It did not give out the smell of ammonia, at
least perceptibly. There is little doubt that it was the purpurissum of the
ancients, or a clay coloured by means of the purple of the buccinum
employed by the Syrians in the celebrated purple dye.

6. Black and brown paints. The black paints were lamp-black: the
browns were some of them ochres and some of them oxides of manganese.

7. White paints. All the ancient white paints examined by Davy were
carbonates of lime.72 We know from Pliny that white lead was employed by
the ancients as a pigment; but it might probably become altered in its nature
by long-continued exposure to the weather.

III.—GLASS.

It is admitted by some that the word which in our English Bible is
translated crystal, means glass, in the following passage of Job: “The gold
and the crystal cannot equal it.”73 Now although the exact time when Job
was written is not known, it is admitted on all hands to be one of the oldest
of the books contained in the Old Testament. There are strong reasons for
believing that it existed before the time of Moses; and some go so far as to
affirm that there are several allusions to it in the writings of Moses. If
therefore glass were known when the Book of Job was written, it is obvious
that the discovery of it preceded the commencement of history. But even

though the word used in Job should not refer to glass, there can be no doubt
that it was known at a very early period; for glass beads are frequently
found on the Egyptian mummies, and they are known to have been
embalmed at a very remote period. The first Greek author who uses the
word glass (ὑαλος, hyalos) is Aristophanes. In his comedy of The Clouds,
act ii. scene 1, in the ridiculous dialogue between Socrates and Strepsiades,
the latter announces a method which had occurred to him to pay his debts.
“You know,” says he, “the beautiful transparent stone used for kindling
fire.” “Do you mean glass (τον ὕαλον, ton hyalon)?” replied Socrates. “I
do,” was the answer. He then describes how he would destroy the writings
by means of it, and thus defraud his creditors. Now this comedy was acted
about four hundred and twenty-three years before the beginning of the
Christian era. The story related by Pliny, respecting the discovery of this
beautiful and important substance, is well known. Some Phœnician
merchants, in a ship loaded with carbonate of soda from Egypt, stopped,
and went ashore on the banks of the river Belus: having nothing to support
their kettles while they were dressing their food, they employed lumps of
carbonate of soda for that purpose. The fire was strong enough to fuse some
of this soda, and to unite it with the fine sand of the river Belus: the
consequence of this was the formation of glass.74 Whether this story be
entitled to credit or not, it is clear that the discovery must have originated in
some such accident. Pliny’s account of the manufacture of glass, like his
account of every other manufacture, is very imperfect: but we see from it
that in his time they were in the habit of making coloured glasses; that
colourless glasses were most highly prized, and that glass was rendered
colourless then as it is at present, by the addition of a certain quantity of
oxide of manganese. Colourless glass was very high priced in Pliny’s time.
He relates, that for two moderate-sized colourless drinking-glasses the
Emperor Nero paid 6000 sistertii, which is equivalent to 25l. of our money.

Pliny relates the story of the man who brought a vessel of malleable
glass to the Emperor Tiberius, and who, after dimpling it by dashing it
against the floor, restored it to its original shape and beauty by means of a
hammer; Tiberius, as a reward for this important discovery, ordered the
artist to be executed, in order, as he alleged, to prevent gold and silver from
becoming useless. But though Pliny relates this story, it is evident that he
does not give credit to it; nor does it deserve credit. We can assign no

reason why malleable substances may not be transparent; but all of them
hitherto known are opaque. Chloride of silver, chloride of lead and iron
constitute no exception, for they are not malleable, though by peculiar
contrivances they may be extended; and their transparency is very
imperfect.

Many specimens of the coloured glasses made by the ancients still
remain, particularly the beads employed as ornaments to the Egyptian
mummies. Of these ancient glasses several have been examined chemically
by Klaproth, Hatchett, and some other individuals, in order to ascertain the
substances employed to give colour to the glass. The following are the facts
that have been ascertained:

1. Red glass. This glass was opaque, and of a lively copper-red colour.
It was probably the kind of red glass to which Pliny gave the name of
hæmatinon. Klaproth analyzed it, and obtained from 100 grains of it the
following constituents:

Silica 71·0
Oxide of lead 10·0
Oxide of copper 7·5
Oxide of iron 1·0
Alumina 2·5
Lime 1·5
93·575

No doubt the deficiency was owing to the presence of an alkali. From this
analysis we see that the colouring matter of this glass was red oxide of
copper.

2. Green glass. The colour was light verdigris-green, and the glass, like
the preceding, was opaque. The constituents from 100 grains were,

Silica 65·0
Black oxide of copper10·0
Oxide of lead 7·5
Oxide of iron 3·5
Lime 6·5

Alumina 5·5
98·076

Thus it appears that both the red and green glass are composed of the same
ingredients, though in different proportions. Both owe their colour to
copper. The red glass is coloured by the red oxide of that metal; the green
by the black oxide, which forms green-coloured compounds, with various
acids, particularly with carbonic acid and with silica.

3. Blue glass. The variety analyzed by Klaproth had a sapphire-blue
colour, and was only translucent on the edges. The constituents from 100
grains of it were,

Silica 81·50
Oxide of iron 9·50
Alumina 1·50
Oxide of copper 0·50
Lime 0·25
93·2577

From this analysis it appears that the colouring matter of this glass was
oxide of iron: it was therefore analogous to the lapis lazuli, or ultramarine,
in its nature.

Davy, as has been formerly noticed, found another blue glass, or frit,
coloured by means of copper; and he showed that the blue paint of the
ancients was often made from this glass, simply by grinding it to powder.

Klaproth could find no cobalt in the blue glass which he examined; but
Davy found the transparent blue glass vessels, which are along with the
vases, in the tombs of Magna Græcia, tinged with cobalt; and he found
cobalt in all the transparent ancient blue glasses with which Mr. Millingen
supplied him. The mere fusion of these glasses with alkali, and subsequent
digestion of the product with muriatic acid, was sufficient to produce a
sympathetic ink from them.78 The transparent blue beads which
occasionally adorn the Egyptian mummies have also been examined, and
found coloured by cobalt. The opaque glass beads are all tinged by means

of oxide of copper. It is probable from this that all the transparent blue
glasses of the ancients were coloured by cobalt; yet we find no allusion to
cobalt in any of the ancient authors. Theophrastus says that copper (χαλκος,
chalcos) was used to give glass a fine colour. Is it not likely that the impure
oxide of cobalt, in the state in which they used it, was confounded by them
with χαλκος (chalcos)?

IV.—VASA MURRHINA.

The Romans obtained from the east, and particularly from Egypt, a set
of vessels which they distinguished by the name of vasa murrhina, and
which were held by them in very high estimation. They were never larger
than to be capable of containing from about thirty-six to forty cubic inches.
One of the largest size cost, in the time of Pliny, about 7000l. Nero actually
gave for one 3000l. They began to be known in Rome about the latter days
of the republic. The first six ever seen in Rome were sent by Pompey from
the treasures of Mithridates. They were deposited in the temple of Jupiter in
the capitol. Augustus, after the battle of Actium, brought one of these
vessels from Egypt, and dedicated it also to the gods. In Nero’s time they
began to be used by private persons; and were so much coveted that
Petronius, the favourite of that tyrant, being ordered for execution, and
conceiving that his death was owing to a wish of Nero to get possession of a
vessel of this kind which he had, broke the vessel in pieces in order to
prevent Nero from gaining his object.

There appear to have been two kinds of these vasa murrhina; those that
came from Asia, and those that were made in Egypt. The latter were much
more common, and much lower priced than the former, as appears from
various passages in Martial and Propertius.

Many attempts have been made, and much learning displayed by the
moderns to determine the nature of these celebrated vessels; but in general
these attempts were made by individuals too little acquainted with
chemistry and with natural history in general to qualify them for researches
of so difficult a nature. Some will have it that they consisted of a kind of

gum; others that they were made of glass; others, of a particular kind of
shell. Cardan and Scaliger assure us that they were porcelain vessels; and
this opinion was adopted likewise by Whitaker, who supported it with his
usual violence and arrogance. Many conceive them to have been made of
some precious stone, some that they were of obsidian; Count de Veltheim
thinks that they were made of the Chinese agalmatolite, or figure stone; and
Dr. Hager conceives that they were made from the Chinese stone yu.
Bruckmann was of opinion that these vessels were made of sardonyx, and
the Abbé Winckelmann joins him in the same conclusion.

Pliny informs us that these vasa murrhina were formed from a species
of stone dug out of the earth in Parthia, and especially in Carimania, and
also in other places but little known.79 They must have been very abundant
at Rome in the time of Nero; for Pliny informs us that a man of consular
rank, famous for his collection of vasa murrhina, having died, Nero forcibly
deprived his children of these vessels, and they were so numerous that they
filled the whole inside of a theatre, which Nero hoped to have seen filled
with Romans when he came to it to sing in public.

It is clear that the value of these vessels depended on their size. Small
vessels bore but a small price, while that of large vessels was very high; this
shows us that it must have been difficult to procure a block of the stone out
of which they were cut, of a size sufficiently great to make a large vessel.

These vessels were so soft that an impression might be made upon
them with the teeth; for Pliny relates the story of a man of consular rank,
who drank out of one, and was so enamoured with it that he bit pieces out
of the lip of the cup: “Potavit ex eo ante hos annos consularis, ob amorem
abraso ejus margine.” And what is singular, the value of the cup, so far from
being injured by this abrasure, was augmented: “ut tamen injuria ilia
pretium augeret; neque est hodie murrhini alterius præstantior indicatura.”80
It is clear from this that the matter of these vessels was neither rock crystal,
agate, nor any precious stone whatever, all of which are too hard to admit of
an impression from the teeth of a man.

The lustre was vitreous to such a degree that the name vitrum
murrhinum was given to the artificial fabric, in Egypt.

The splendour was not very great, for Pliny observes, “Splendor his
sine viribus nitorque verius quam splendor.”

The colours, from their depth and richness, were what gave these
vessels their value and excited admiration. The principal colours were
purple and white, disposed in undulating bands, and usually separated by a
third band, in which the two colours being mixed, assumed the tint of
flame: “Sed in pretio varietas colorum, subinde circumagentibus se maculis
in purpuram candoremque, et tertium ex utroque ignescentem, velut per
transitum coloris, purpura rubescente, aut lacte candescente.”

Perfect transparency was considered as a defect, they were merely
translucent; this we learn not merely from Pliny, but from the following
epigram of Martial:

Nos bibimus vitro, tu murra, Pontice: quare?
Prodat perspicuus ne duo vina calix.

Some specimens, and they were the most valued, exhibited a play of colour
like the rainbow: Pliny says they were very commonly spotted with “sales,
verrucæque non eminentes, sed ut in corpore etiam plerumque sessiles.”
This, no doubt, refers to foreign bodies, such as grains of pyrites, antimony,
galena, &c., which were often scattered through the substances of which the
vessels were made.

Such are all the facts respecting the vasa murrhina to be found in the
writings of the ancients; they all apply to fluor spar, and to nothing else; but
to it they apply so accurately as to leave little doubt that they were in reality
vessels of fluor spar, similar to those at present made in Derbyshire.81

The artificial vasa murrhina made at Thebes, in Egypt, were doubtless
of glass, coloured to imitate fluor spar as much as possible, and having the
semi-transparency which distinguishes that mineral. The imitations being
imperfect, these factitious vessels were not much prized nor sought after by
the Romans, they were rather distributed among the Arabians and
Ethiopians, who were supplied with glass from Egypt.

Rock crystal is compared by Pliny with the stone from which the vasa
murrhina were made; the former, in his opinion, had been coagulated by
cold, the latter by heat. Though the ancients, as we have seen, were
acquainted with the method of colouring glass, yet they prized colourless
glass highest on account of its resemblance to rock crystal; cups of it, in
Pliny’s time, had supplanted those of silver and gold; Nero gave for a
crystal cup 150,000 sistertii, or 625l.

V.—DYEING AND CALICO-PRINTING.

Very little has been handed down by the ancients respecting the
processes of dyeing. It is evident, from Pliny, that they were acquainted
with madder, and that preparations of iron were used in the black dyes. The
most celebrated dye of all, the purple, was discovered by the Tyrians about
fifteen centuries before the Christian era. This colour was given by various
kinds of shellfish which inhabit the Mediterranean. Pliny divides them into
two genera; the first, comprehending the smaller species, he called
buccinum, from their resemblance to a hunting-horn; the second, included
those called purpura: Fabius Columna thinks that these were distinguished
also by the name of murex.

These shellfish yielded liquor of different shades of colour; they were
often mixed in various proportions to produce particular shades of colour.
One, or at most two drops of this liquor were obtained from each fish, by
extracting and opening a little reservoir placed in the throat. To avoid this
trouble, the smaller species were generally bruised whole, in a mortar; this
was also frequently done with the large, though the other liquids of the fish
must have in some degree injured the colour. The liquor, when extracted,
was mixed with a considerable quantity of salt to keep it from putrifying; it
was then diluted with five or six times as much water, and kept moderately
hot in leaden or tin vessels, for eight or ten days, during which the liquor
was often skimmed to separate all the impurities. After this, the wool to be
dyed, being first well washed, was immersed and kept therein for five
hours; then taken out, cooled, and again immersed, and continued in the
liquor till all the colour was exhausted.82

To produce particular shades of colour, carbonate of soda, urine, and a
marine plant called fucus, were occasionally added: one of these colours
was a very dark reddish violet—“Nigrantis rosæ colore sublucens.”83 But
the most esteemed, and that in which the Tyrians particularly excelled,
resembled coagulated blood—“laus ei summa in colore sanguinis concreti,
nigricans aspectu, idemque suspectu refulgens.”84

Pliny says that the Tyrians first dyed their wool in the liquor of the
purpura, and afterwards in that of the buccinum; and it is obvious from
Moses that this purple was known to the Egyptians in his time.85 Wool
which had received this double Tyrian dye (dia bapha) was so very costly
that, in the reign of Augustus, it sold for about 36l. the pound. But lest this
should not be sufficient to exclude all from the use of it but those invested
with the very highest dignities of the state, laws were made inflicting severe
penalties, and even death, upon all who should presume to wear it under the
dignity of an emperor. The art of dyeing this colour came at length to be
practised by a few individuals only, appointed by the emperors, and having
been interrupted about the beginning of the twelfth century all knowledge
of it died away, and during several ages this celebrated dye was considered
and lamented as an irrecoverable loss.86 How it was afterwards recovered
and made known by Mr. Cole, of Bristol, M. Jussieu, M. Reaumur, and M.
Duhamel, would lead us too far from our present object, were we to relate
it: those who are interested in the subject will find an historical detail in
Bancroft’s work on Permanent Colours, just referred to.

There is reason to suspect that the Hebrew word translated fine linen in
the Old Testament, and so celebrated as a production of Egypt, was in
reality cotton, and not linen. From a curious passage in Pliny, there is
reason to believe that the Egyptians in his time, and probably long before,
were acquainted with the method of calico-printing, such as is still practised
in India and the east. The following is a literal translation of the passage in
question:

“There exists in Egypt a wonderful method of dyeing. The white cloth
is stained in various places, not with dye stuffs, but with substances which
have the property of absorbing (fixing) colours, these applications are not
visible upon the cloth; but when they are dipped into a hot caldron of the

dye they are drawn out an instant after dyed. The remarkable circumstance
is, that though there be only one dye in the vat, yet different colours appear
upon the cloth; nor can the colour be afterwards removed.”87

It is evident enough that these substances applied were different
mordants which served to fix the dye upon the cloth; the nature of these
mordants cannot be discovered, as nothing specific seems to have been
known to Pliny. The modern mordants are solutions of alumina; of the
oxide of tin, oxide of iron, oxide of lead, &c.: and doubtless these, or
something equivalent to these, were the substances employed by the
ancients. The purple dye required no mordant, it fixed itself to the cloth in
consequence of the chemical affinity which existed between them. Whether
indigo was used by the ancients as a dye does not appear, but there can be
no doubt, at least, that its use was known to the Indians at a very remote
period.

From these facts, few as they are, there can be little doubt that dyeing,
and even calico-printing, had made considerable progress among the
ancients; and this could not have taken place without a considerable
knowledge of colouring matters, and of the mordants by which these
colouring matters were fixed. These facts, however, were probably but
imperfectly understood, and could not be the means of furnishing the
ancients with any accurate chemical knowledge.

VI.—SOAP.

Soap, which constitutes so important and indispensable an article in
the domestic economy of the moderns, was quite unknown to the ancient
inhabitants of Asia, and even of Greece. No allusion to it occurs in the Old
Testament. In Homer, we find Nausicaa, the daughter of the King of the
Phæacians, using nothing but water to wash her nuptial garments:

They seek the cisterns where Phæacian dames
Wash their fair garments in the limped streams;
Where gathering into depth from falling rills,
The lucid wave a spacious bason fills.
The mules unharness’d range beside the main,
Or crop the verdant herbage of the plain.
Then emulous the royal robes they lave,
And plunge the vestures in the cleansing wave.
Odyssey, vi. 1. 99.

We find, in some of the comic poets, that the Greeks were in the habit
of adding wood-ashes to water to make it a better detergent. Wood-ashes
contain a certain portion of carbonate of potash, which of course would
answer as a detergent; though, from its caustic qualities, it would be
injurious to the hands of the washerwomen. There is no evidence that
carbonate of soda, the nitrum of the ancients, was ever used as a detergent;
this is the more surprising, because we know from Pliny that it was
employed in dyeing, and one cannot see how a solution of it could be
employed by the dyers in their processes without discovering that it acted
powerfully as a detergent.

The word soap (sapo) occurs first in Pliny. He informs us that it was
an invention of the Gauls, who employed it to render their hair shining; that
it was a compound of wood-ashes and tallow, that there were two kinds of
it, hard and soft (spissus et liquidus); and that the best kind was made of the
ashes of the beech and the fat of goats. Among the Germans it was more
employed by the men than the women.88 It is curious that no allusion
whatever is made by Pliny to the use of soap as a detergent; shall we
conclude from this that the most important of all the uses of soap was
unknown to the ancients?

It was employed by the ancients as a pomatum; and, during the early
part of the government of the emperors, it was imported into Rome from
Germany, as a pomatum for the young Roman beaus. Beckmann is of

opinion that the Latin word sapo is derived from the old German word sepe,
a word still employed by the common people of Scotland.89

It is well known that the state of soap depends upon the alkali
employed in making it. Soda constitutes a hard soap, and potash a soft soap.
The ancients being ignorant of the difference between the two alkalies, and
using wood-ashes in the preparation of it, doubtless formed soft soap. The
addition of some common salt, during the boiling of the soap, would
convert the soft into hard soap. As Pliny informs us that the ancients were
acquainted both with hard and soft soap, it is clear that they must have
followed some such process.

VII.—STARCH.

The manufacture of starch was known to the ancients. Pliny informs us
that it was made from wheat and from siligo, which was probably a variety
or sub-species of wheat. The invention of starch is ascribed by Pliny to the
inhabitants of the island of Chio, where in his time the best starch was still
made. Pliny’s description of the method employed by the ancients of
making starch is tolerably exact. Next to the China starch that of Crete was
most celebrated; and next to it was the Egyptian. The qualities of starch
were judged of by the weight; the lightest being always reckoned the best.

VIII.—BEER.

That the ancients were acquainted with wine is universally known.
This knowledge must have been nearly coeval with the origin of society; for
we are informed in Genesis that Noah, after the flood, planted a vineyard,
and made wine, and got intoxicated by drinking the liquid which he had
manufactured.90 Beer also is a very old manufacture. It was in common use
among the Egyptians in the time of Herodotus, who informs us that they
made use of a kind of wine made from barley, because no vines grew in
their country.91 Tacitus informs us, that in his time it was the drink of the

Germans.92 Pliny informs us that it was made by the Gauls, and by other
nations. He gives it the name of cerevisia or cervisia; the name obviously
alluding to the grain from which it was made.

But though the ancients seem acquainted with both wine and beer,
there is no evidence of their having ever subjected these liquids to
distillation, and of having collected the products. This would have furnished
them with ardent spirits or alcohol, of which there is every reason to believe
they were entirely ignorant. Indeed, the method employed by Dioscorides to
obtain mercury from cinnabar, is a sufficient proof that the true process of
distillation was unknown to them. He mixed cinnabar with iron filings, put
the mixture into a pot, to the top of which a cover of stoneware was luted.
Heat was applied to the pot, and when the process was at an end, the
mercury was found adhering to the inside of the cover. Had they been aware
of the method of distilling the quicksilver ore into a receiver, this imperfect
mode of collecting only a small portion of the quicksilver, separated from
the cinnabar, would never have been practised. Besides, there is not the
smallest allusion to ardent spirits, either in the writings of the poets,
historians, naturalists, or medical men of ancient Greece; a circumstance
not to be accounted for had ardent spirits been known, and applied even to
one-tenth of the uses to which they are put by the moderns.

IX.—STONEWARE.

The manufacture of stoneware vessels was known at a very early
period of society. Frequent allusions to the potter’s wheel occur in the Old
Testament, showing that the manufacture must have been familiar to the
Jewish nation. The porcelain of the Chinese boasts of a very high antiquity
indeed. We cannot doubt that the processes of the ancients were similar to
those of the moderns, though I am not aware of any tolerably accurate
account of them in any ancient author whatever.

Moulds of plaster of Paris were used by the ancients to take casts
precisely as at present.93

The sand of Puzzoli was used by the Romans, as it is by the moderns,
to form a mortar capable of hardening under water.

Pliny gives us some idea of the Roman bricks, which are known to
have been of an excellent quality. There were three sizes of bricks used by
the Romans.

1. Lydian, which were 1½ foot long and 1 foot broad.

2. Tetradoron, which was a square of 16 inches each side.

3. Pentadoron, which was a square, each side of which was 20 inches
long.

Doron signifies the palm of the hand: of course it was equivalent to 4
inches.

X.—PRECIOUS STONES AND MINERALS.

Pliny has given a pretty detailed description of the precious stones of
the ancients; but it is not very easy to determine the specific minerals to
which he alludes.

1. The description of the diamond is tolerably precise. It was found in
Ethiopia, India, Arabia, and Macedonia. But the Macedonian diamond, as
well as the adamas cyprius and siderites, were obviously not diamonds, but
soft stones.

2. The emerald of the ancients (smaragdus) must have varied in its
nature. It was a green, transparent, hard stone; and, as colour was the
criterion by which the ancients distinguished minerals and divided them
into species, it is obvious that very different minerals must have been
confounded together, under the name of emerald. Sapphire, beryl, doubtless
fluor spar when green, and probably even serpentine, nephrite, and some
ores of copper, seem to have occasionally got the same name. There is no
reason to believe that the emerald of the moderns was known before the

discovery of America. At least it has been only found in modern times in
America. Some of the emeralds described by Pliny as losing their colour by
exposure to the sun, must have been fluor spars. There is a remarkably deep
and beautiful green fluor spar, met with some years ago in the county of
Durham, in one of the Weredale mines that possesses this property. The
emeralds of the ancients were of such a size (13½ feet, large enough to be
cut into a pillar), that we can consider them in no other light than as a
species of rock.

3. Topaz of the ancients had a green colour, which is never the case
with the modern topaz. It was found in the island Topazios, in the Red
Sea.94 It is generally supposed to have been the chrysolite of the moderns.
But Pliny mentions a statue of it six feet long. Now chrysolite never occurs
in such large masses. Bruce mentions a green substance in an emerald
island in the Red Sea, not harder than glass. Might not this be the emerald
of the ancients?

4. Calais, from the locality and colour was probably the Persian
turquoise, as it is generally supposed to be.

5. Whether the prasius and chrysoprasius of Pliny were the modern
stones to which these names are given, we have no means of determining. It
is generally supposed that they are, and we have no evidence to the
contrary.

6. The chrysolite of Pliny is supposed to be our topaz: but we have no
other evidence of this than the opinion of M. Du Tems.

7. Asteria of Pliny is supposed by Saussure to be our sapphire. The
lustre described by Pliny agrees with this opinion. The stone is said to have
been very hard and colourless.

8. Opalus seems to have been our opal. It is called, Pliny says,
pæderos by many, on account of its beauty. The Indians called it sangenon.

9. Obsidian was the same as the mineral to which we give that name. It
was so called because a Roman named Obsidianus first brought it from
Egypt. I have a piece of obsidian, which the late Mr. Salt brought from the

locality specified by Pliny, and which possesses all the characters of that
mineral in its purest state.

10. Sarda was the name of carnelian, so called because it was first
found near Sardis. The sardonyx was also another name for carnelian.

11. Onyx was a name sometimes given to a rock, gypsum; sometimes it
was a light-coloured chalcedony. The Latin name for chalcedony was
carchedonius, so called because Carthage was the place where this mineral
was exposed to sale. The Greek name for Carthage was Καρχηδων
(carchedon).

12. Carbunculus was the garnet; and anthrax was a name for another
variety of the same mineral.

13. The oriental amethyst of Pliny was probably a sapphire. The fourth
species of amethyst described by Pliny, seems to have been our amethyst.
Pliny derives the name from α (a) and μυθη (mythe), wine, because it has
not quite the colour of wine. But the common derivation is from α and
μυθυω, to intoxicate, because it was used as an amulet to prevent
intoxication.

14. The sapphire is described by Pliny as always opaque, and as unfit
for engraving on. We do not know what it was.

15. The hyacinth of Pliny is equally unknown. From its name it was
obviously of a blue colour. Our hyacinth has a reddish-brown colour, and a
great deal of hardness and lustre.

16. The cyanus of Pliny may have been our cyanite.

17. Astrios agrees very well, as far as the description of Pliny goes,
with the variety of felspar called adularia.

18. Belioculus seems to have been our catseye.

19. Lychnites was a violet-coloured stone, which became electric by
heat. Unless it was a blue tourmalin, I do not know what it could be.

20. The jasper of the ancients was probably the same as ours.

21. Molochites may have been our malachite. The name comes from
the Greek word μολοχη, mallow, or marshmallow.

22. Pliny considers amber as the juice of a tree concreted into a solid
form. The largest piece of it that he had ever seen weighed 13 lbs. Roman
weight, which is nearly equivalent to 9¾ lbs. avoirdupois. Indian amber, of
which he speaks, was probably copal, or some transparent resin. It may be
dyed, he says, by means of anchusa and the fat of kids.

23. Lapis specularis was foliated sulphate of lime, or selenite.

24. Pyrites had the same meaning among the ancients that it has
among the moderns; at least as far as iron pyrites or bisulphuret of iron is
concerned. Pliny describes two kind of pyrites; namely, the white (arsenical
pyrites), and the yellow (iron pyrites). It was used for striking fire with
steel, in order to kindle tinder. Hence the name pyrites or firestone.

25. Gagates, from the account given of it by Pliny, was obviously pit-
coal or jet.

26. Marble had the same meaning among the ancients that it has
among the moderns. It was sawed by the ancients into slabs, and the action
of the saw was facilitated by a sand brought for the purpose from Ethiopia
and the isle of Naxos. It is obvious that this sand was powdered corundum,
or emery.

27. Creta was a name applied by the ancients not only to chalk, but to
white clay.

28. Melinum was an oxide of iron. Pliny gives a list of one hundred and
fifty-one species of stones in the order of the alphabet. Very few of the
minerals contained in this list can be made out. He gives also a list of fifty-
two species of stones, whose names are derived from a fancied resemblance
which the stones are supposed to bear to certain parts of animals. Of these,
also, very few can be made out.

XI.—MISCELLANEOUS OBSERVATIONS.

The ancients seem to have been ignorant of the nature and properties
of air, and of all gaseous bodies. Pliny’s account of air consists of a single
sentence: “Aër densatur nubibus; furit procellis.” “Air is condensed in
clouds, it rages in storms.” Nor is his description of water much more
complete, since it consists only of the following phrases: “Aquæ subeunt in
imbres, rigescunt in grandines, tumescunt in fluctus, præcipitantur in
torrentes.”95 “Water falls in showers, congeals in hail, swells in waves, and
rushes down in torrents.” In the thirty-eighth chapter of the second book,
indeed, he professes to treat of air; but the chapter contains merely an
enumeration of meteorological phenomena, without once touching upon the
nature and properties of air.

Pliny, with all the philosophers of antiquity, admitted the existence of
the four elements, fire, air, water, and earth; but though he enumerates these
in the fifth chapter of his first book, he never attempts to explain their
nature or properties. Earth, among the ancients, had two meanings, namely,
the planet on which we live, and the soil upon which vegetables grow.
These two meanings still exist in common language. The meaning
afterwards given to the term, earth, by the chemists, did not exist in the days
of Pliny, or, at least, was unknown to him; a sufficient proof that chemistry,
in his time, had made no progress as a science; for some notions respecting
the properties and constituents of those supposed four elements must have
constituted the very foundation of scientific chemistry.

The ancients were acquainted with none of the acids which at present
constitute so numerous a tribe, except vinegar, or acetic acid; and even this
acid was not known to them in a state of purity. They knew none of the
saline bases, except lime, soda, and potash, and these very imperfectly. Of
course the whole tribe of salts was unknown to them, except a very few,
which they found ready formed in the earth, or which they succeeded in
forming by the action of vinegar on lead and copper. Hence all that
extensive and most important branch of chemistry, consisting of the
combinations of the acids and bases, on which scientific chemistry mainly
depends, must have been unknown to them.

Sulphur occurring native in large quantities, and being remarkable for
its easy combustibility, and its disagreeable smell when burning, was
known in the very earliest ages. Pliny describes four kinds of sulphur,
differing from each other, probably, merely in their purity. These were

1. Sulphur vivum, or apyron. It was dug out of the earth solid,
and was doubtless pure, or nearly so. It alone was used in
medicine.
2. Gleba—used only by fullers.
3. Egula—used also by fullers.
Pliny says, it renders woollen stuffs white and soft. It is obvious
from this, that the ancients knew the method of bleaching
flannel by the fumes of sulphur, as practised by the moderns.
4. The fourth kind was used only for sulphuring matches.

Sulphur, in Pliny’s time, was found native in the Æolian islands, and in
Campania. It is curious that he never mentions Sicily, whence the great
supply is drawn for modern manufacture.

In medicine, it seems to have been only used externally by the
ancients. It was considered as excellent for removing eruptions. It was used
also for fumigating.

The word alumen, which we translate alum, occurs often in Pliny; and
is the same substance which the Greeks distinguished by the name of
στυπτηρια (stypteria). It is described pretty minutely by Dioscorides, and
also by Pliny. It was obviously a natural production, dug out of the earth,
and consequently quite different from our alum, with which the ancients
were unacquainted. Dioscorides says that it was found abundantly in Egypt;
that it was of various kinds, but that the slaty variety was the best. He
mentions also many other localities. He says that, for medical purposes, the
most valued of all the varieties of alumen were the slaty, the round, and the
liquid. The slaty alumen is very white, has an exceedingly astringent taste, a
strong smell, is free from stony concretions, and gradually cracks and emits
long capillary crystals from these rifts; on which account it is sometimes
called trichites. This description obviously applies to a kind of slate-clay,
which probably contained pyrites mixed with it of the decomposing kind.
The capillary crystals were probably similar to those crystals at present

called hair-salt by mineralogists, which exude pretty abundantly from the
shale of the coal-beds, when it has been long exposed to the air. Hair-salt
differs very much in its nature. Klaproth ascertained by analysis, that the
hair-salt from the quicksilver-mines in Idria is sulphate of magnesia, mixed
with a small quantity of sulphate of iron.96 The hair-salt from the
abandoned coal-pits in the neighbourhood of Glasgow is a double salt,
composed of sulphate of alumina, and sulphate of iron, in definite
proportions; the composition being

1 atom protosulphate of iron,
1½atom sulphate of alumina,
15 atoms water.

I suspect strongly that the capillary crystals from the schistose alumen
of Dioscorides were nearly of the same nature.

From Pliny’s account of the uses to which alumen was applied, it is
quite obvious that it must have varied very much in its nature. Alumen
nigrum was used to strike a black colour, and must therefore have contained
iron. It was doubtless an impure native sulphate of iron, similar to many
native productions of the same nature still met with in various parts of the
world, but not employed; their use having been superseded by various
artificial salts, more definite in their nature, and consequently more certain
in their application, and at the same time cheaper and more abundant than
the native.

The alumen employed as a mordant by the dyers, must have been a
sulphate of alumina more or less pure; at least it must have been free from
all sulphate of iron, which would have affected the colour of the cloth, and
prevented the dyer from accomplishing his object.97

What the alumen rotundum was, is not easily conjectured. Dioscorides
says, that it was sometimes made artificially; but that the artificial alumen
rotundum was not much valued. The best, he says, was full of air-bubbles,
nearly white, and of a very astringent taste. It had a slaty appearance, and
was found in Egypt or the Island of Melos.

The liquid alumen was limpid, milky, of an equal colour, free from
hard concretions, and having a fiery shade of colour.98 In its nature, it was
similar to the alumen candidum; it must therefore have consisted chiefly, at
least, of sulphate of alumina.

Bitumen and naphtha were known to the ancients, and used by them to
give light instead of oil; they were employed also as external applications in
cases of disease, and were considered as having the same virtues as sulphur.
It is said, that the word translated salt in the New Testament—“Ye are the
salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be
salted? It is henceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be
trodden under foot of men”99—it is said, that the word salt in this passage
refers to asphalt, or bitumen, which was used by the Jews in their sacrifices,
and called salt by them. But I have not been able to find satisfactory
evidence of the truth of this opinion. It is obvious from the context, that the
word translated salt could not have had that meaning among the Jews;
because salt never can be supposed to lose its savour. Bitumen, while liquid,
has a strong taste and smell, which it loses gradually by exposure to the air,
as it approaches more and more to a solid form.

Asphalt was one of the great constituents of the Greek fire. A great bed
of it still existing in Albania, supplied the Greeks with this substance.
Concerning the nature of the Greek fire, it is clear that many exaggerated
and even fabulous statements have been published. The obvious intention of
the Greeks being, probably, to make their invention as much dreaded as
possible by their enemies. Nitre was undoubtedly one of the most important
of its constituents; though no allusion whatever is ever made. We do not
know when nitrate of potash, the nitre of the moderns, became known in
Europe. It was discovered in the east; and was undoubtedly known in China
and India before the commencement of the Christian era. The property of
nitre, as a supporter of combustion, could not have remained long unknown
after the discovery of the salt. The first person who threw a piece of it upon
a red-hot coal would observe it. Accordingly we find that its use in
fireworks was known very early in China and India; though its prodigious
expansive power, by which it propels bullets with so great and destructive
velocity, is a European invention, posterior to the time of Roger Bacon.

The word nitre (‫ )רתנ‬had been applied by the ancients to carbonate of
soda, a production of Egypt, where it is still formed from sea-water, by
some unknown process of nature in the marshes near Alexandria. This is
evident, not merely from the account given of it by Dioscorides and Pliny;
for the following passage, from the Old Testament, shows that it had the
same meaning among the Jews: “As he that taketh away a garment in cold
weather, is as vinegar upon nitre: so is he that singeth songs to a heavy
heart.”100 Vinegar poured upon saltpetre produces no sensible effect
whatever, but when poured upon carbonate of soda, it occasions an
effervescence. When saltpetre came to be imported to Europe, it was natural
to give it the same name as that applied to carbonate of soda, to which both
in taste and appearance it bore some faint resemblance. Saltpetre possessing
much more striking properties than carbonate of soda much more attention
was drawn to it, and it gradually fixed upon itself the term nitre, at first
applied to a different salt. When this change of nomenclature took place
does not appear; but it was completed before the time of Roger Bacon, who
always applies the term nitrum to our nitrate of potash and never to
carbonate of soda.

In the preceding history of the chemical facts known to the ancients, I
have taken no notice of a well-known story related of Cleopatra. This
magnificent and profligate queen boasted to Antony that she would herself
consume a million of sistertii at a supper. Antony smiled at the proposal,
and doubted the possibility of her performing it. Next evening a
magnificent entertainment was provided, at which Antony, as usual, was
present, and expressed his opinion that the cost of the feast, magnificent as
it was, fell far short of the sum specified by the queen. She requested him to
defer computing till the dessert was finished. A vessel filled with vinegar
was placed before her, in which she threw two pearls, the finest in the
world, and which were valued at ten millions of sistertii; these pearls were
dissolved by the vinegar,101 and the liquid was immediately drunk by the
queen. Thus she made good her boast, and destroyed the two finest pearls in
the world.102 This story, supposing it true, shows that Cleopatra was aware
that vinegar has the property of dissolving pearls. But not that she knew the
nature of these beautiful productions of nature. We now know that pearls
consist essentially of carbonate of lime, and that the beauty is owing to the
thin concentric laminæ, of which they are composed.

Nor have I taken any notice of lime with which the ancients were well
acquainted, and which they applied to most of the uses to which the
moderns put it. Thus it constituted the base of the Roman mortar, which is
known to have been excellent. They employed it also as a manure for the
fields, as the moderns do. It was known to have a corrosive nature when
taken internally; but was much employed by the ancients externally, and in
various ways as an application to ulcers. Whether they knew its solubility in
water does not appear; though, from the circumstance of its being used for
making mortar, this fact could hardly escape them. These facts, though of
great importance, could scarcely be applied to the rearing of a chemical
structure, as the ancients could have no notion of the action of acids upon
lime, or of the numerous salts which it is capable of forming. Phenomena
which must have remained unknown till the discovery of the acids enabled
experimenters to try their effects upon limestone and quicklime. Not even a
conjecture appears in any ancient writer that I have looked into, about the
difference between quicklime and limestone. This difference is so great that
it must have been remarked by them, yet nobody seems ever to have
thought of attempting to account for it. Even the method of burning or
calcining lime is not described by Pliny; though there can be no doubt that
the ancients were acquainted with it.

Nor have I taken any notice of leather or the method of tanning it.
There are so many allusions to leather and its uses by the ancient poets and
historians, that the acquaintance of the ancients with it is put out of doubt.
But so far as I know, there is no description of the process of tanning in any
ancient author whatever.

CHAPTER III.
CHEMISTRY OF THE ARABIANS.

Hitherto I have spoken of Alchymy, or of the chemical manufactures
of the ancients. The people to whom scientific chemistry owes its origin are
the Arabians. Not that they prosecuted scientific chemistry themselves; but
they were the first persons who attempted to form chemical medicines. This
they did by mixing various bodies with each other, and applying heat to the
mixture in various ways. This led to the discovery of some of the mineral
acids. These they applied to the metals, &c., and ascertained the effects
produced upon that most important class of bodies. Thus the Arabians
began those researches which led gradually to the formation of scientific
chemistry. We must therefore endeavour to ascertain the chemical facts for
which we are indebted to the Arabians.

When Mahomet first delivered his dogmas to his countrymen they
were not altogether barbarous. Possessed of a copious and expressive
language, and inhabiting a burning climate, their imaginations were lively
and their passions violent. Poetry and fiction were cultivated by them with
ardour, and with considerable success. But science and inductive
philosophy, had made little or no progress among them. The fatalism
introduced by Mahomet, and the blind enthusiasm which he inculcated,
rendered them furious bigots and determined enemies to every kind of
intellectual improvement. The rapidity with which they overran Asia,
Africa, and even a portion of Europe, is universally known. At that period
the western world, was sunk into extreme barbarism, and the Greeks, with
whom the remains of civilization still lingered, were sadly degenerated
from those sages who graced the classic ages. Bent to the earth under the
most grinding but turbulent despotism that ever disgraced mankind, and
having their understandings sealed up by the most subtle and absurd, and
uncompromising superstition, all the energy of mind, all the powers of

invention, all the industry and talent, which distinguished their ancestors,
had completely forsaken them. Their writers aimed at nothing new or great,
and were satisfied with repeating the scientific facts determined by their
ancestors. The lamp of science fluttered in its socket, and was on the eve of
being extinguished.

Nothing good or great could be expected from such a state of society.
It was, therefore, wisely determined by Providence that the Mussulman
conquerors, should overrun the earth, sweep out those miserable governors,
and free the wretched inhabitants from the trammels of despotism and
superstition. As a despotism not less severe, and a superstition still more
gloomy and uncompromising, was substituted in their place, it may seem at
first sight, that the conquests of the Mahometans brought things into a
worse state than they found them. But the listless inactivity, the almost
deathlike torpor which had frozen the minds of mankind, were effectually
roused. The Mussulmans displayed a degree of energy and activity which
have few parallels in the history of the world: and after the conquests of the
Mahometans were completed, and the Califs quietly seated upon the
greatest and most powerful throne that the world had ever seen; after
Almanzor, about the middle of the eighth century, had founded the city of
Bagdad, and settled a permanent and flourishing peace, the arts and
sciences, which usually accompany such a state of society, began to make
their appearance.

That calif founded an academy at Bagdad, which acquired much
celebrity, and gradually raised itself above all the other academies in his
dominions. A medical college was established there with powers to examine
all those persons who intended to devote themselves to the medical
profession. So many professors and pupils flocked to this celebrated
college, from all parts of the world, that at one time their number amounted
to no fewer than six thousand. Public hospitals and laboratories were
established to facilitate a knowledge of diseases, and to make the students
acquainted with the method of preparing medicines. It was this last
establishment which originated with the califs that gave a first beginning to
the science of chemistry.

In the thirteenth century the calif Mostanser re-established the
academy and the medical college at Bagdad: for both had fallen into decay,
and had been replaced by an infinite number of Jewish seminaries.
Mostanser gave large salaries to the professors, collected a magnificent
library, and established a new school of pharmacy. He was himself often
present at the public lectures.

The successor of Mostanser was the calif Haroun-Al-Raschid, the
perpetual hero of the Arabian tales. He not only carried his love for the
sciences further than his predecessors, but displayed a liberality and a
tolerance for religious opinions, which was not quite consistent with
Mahometan bigotry and superstition. He drew round him the Syrian
Christians, who translated the Greek classics, rewarded them liberally, and
appointed them instructors of his Mahometan subjects, especially in
medicine and pharmacy. He protected the Christian school of
Dschondisabour, founded by the Nestorian Christians, before the time of
Mahomet, and still continuing in a flourishing state: always surrounded by
literary men, he frequently condescended to take a part in their discussions,
and not unfrequently, as might have been expected from his rank, came off
victorious.

The most enlightened of all the califs was Almamon, who has rendered
his name immortal by his exertions in favour of the sciences. It was during
his reign that the Arabian schools came to be thoroughly acquainted with
Greek science; he procured the translation of a great number of important
works. This conduct inflamed the religious zeal of the faithful, who devoted
him to destruction, and to the divine wrath, for favouring philosophy, and in
that way diminishing the authority of the Koran. Almamon purchased the
ancient classics, from all quarters, and recommended the care of doing so in
a particular manner to his ambassadors at the court of the Greek emperors.
To Leo, the philosopher, he made the most advantageous offers, to induce
him to come to Bagdad; but that philosopher would not listen to his
invitation. It was under the auspices of this enlightened prince, that the
celebrated attempt was made to determine the size of the earth by
measuring a degree of the meridian. The result of this attempt it does not
belong to this work to relate.

Almotassem and Motawakkel, who succeeded Almamon, followed his
example, favoured the sciences, and extended their protection to men of
science who were Christians. Motawakkel re-established the celebrated
academy and library of Alexandria. But he acted with more severity than his
predecessors with regard to the Christians, who may perhaps have abused
the tolerance which they enjoyed.

The other vicars of the prophet, in the different Mahometan states,
followed the fine example set them by Almamon. Already in the eighth
century the sovereigns of Mogreb and the western provinces of Africa
showed themselves the zealous friends of the sciences. One of them called
Abdallah-Ebn-Ibadschab rendered commerce and industry flourishing at
Tunis. He himself cultivated poetry and drew numerous artists and men of
science into his state. At Fez and in Morocco the sciences flourished,
especially during the reign of the Edrisites, the last of whom, Jahiah, a
prince possessed of genius, sweetness, and goodness, changed his court into
an academy, and paid attention to those only who had distinguished
themselves by their scientific knowledge.

But Spain was the most fortunate of all the Mahometan states, and had
arrived at such a degree of prosperity both in commerce, manufactures,
population, and wealth, as is hardly to be credited. The three Abdalrahmans
and Alhakem carried, from the eighth to the tenth century, the country
subject to the Calif of Cordova to the highest degree of splendour. They
protected the sciences, and governed with so much mildness, that Spain was
probably never so happy under the dominion of any Christian prince.
Alhakem established at Cordova an academy, which for several ages was
the most celebrated in the whole world. All the Christians of Western
Europe repaired to this academy in search of information. It contained, in
the tenth century, a library of 280,000 volumes. The catalogue of this
library filled no less than forty-four volumes. Seville, Toledo, and Murcia,
had likewise their schools of science and their libraries, which retained their
celebrity as long as the dominion of the Moors lasted. In the twelfth century
there were seventy public libraries in that part of Spain which belonged to
the Mahometans. Cordova had produced one hundred and fifty authors,
Almeria fifty-two, and Murcia sixty-two.

The Mahometan states of the east continued also to favour the
sciences. An emir of Irak, Adad-El-Daula by name, distinguished himself
towards the end of the tenth century by the protection which he afforded to
men of science. To him almost all the philosophers of the age dedicated
their works. Another emir of Irak, Saif-Ed-Daula, established schools at
Kufa and at Bussora, which soon acquired great celebrity. Abou-Mansor-
Baharam, established a public library at Firuzabad in Curdistan, which at its
very commencement contained 7000 volumes. In the thirteenth century
there existed a celebrated school of medicine in Damascus. The calif
Malek-Adel endowed it richly, and was often present at the lectures with a
book under his arm.

Had the progress of the sciences among the Arabians been proportional
to the number of those who cultivated them, we might hail the Saracens as
the saviours of literature during the dark and benighted ages of Christianity;
but we must acknowledge with regret, that notwithstanding the enlightened
views of the califs, notwithstanding the multiplicity of academies and
libraries, and the prodigious number of writers, the sciences received but
little improvement from the Arabians. There are very few Arabian writers in
whose works we find either philosophical ideas, successful researches, new
facts, or great and new and important truths. How, indeed, could such things
be expected from a people naturally hostile to mental exertion; professing a
religion which stigmatizes all exercise of the judgment as a crime, and
weighed down by the heavy yoke of despotism? It was the religion of the
Arabians, and the despotism of their princes, that opposed the greatest
obstacles to the progress of the sciences, even during the most flourishing
period of their civilization.103 Fortunately chemistry was the branch of
science least obnoxious to the religious prejudices of the Mahometans. It
was in it, therefore, that the greatest improvements were made: of these
improvements it will be requisite now to endeavour to give the reader some
idea. Astrology and alchymy, they both derived from the Greeks: neither of
them were inconsistent with the taste of the nation—neither of them were
anathematized by the Mahometan creed, though Islamism prohibited magic
and all the arts of divination. Alchymy may have suggested the chemical
processes—but the Arabians applied them to the preparation of medicines,
and thus opened a new and most copious source of investigation.

The chemical writings of the Arabians which I have had an opportunity
of seeing and perusing in a Latin dress, being ignorant of the original
language in which they were written, are those of Geber and Avicenna.

Geber, whose real name was Abou-Moussah-Dschafar-Al-Soli, was a
Sabean of Harran, in Mesopotamia, and lived during the eighth century.
Very little is known respecting the history of this writer, who must be
considered as the patriarch of chemistry. Golius, professor of the oriental
languages in the University of Leyden, made a present of Geber’s work in
manuscript to the public library. He translated it into Latin, and published it
in the same city in folio, and afterwards in quarto, under the title of “Lapis
Philosophorum.”104 It was translated into English by Richard Russel in
1678, under the title of, “The Works of Geber, the most famous Arabian
Prince and Philosopher.”105 The works of Geber, so far as they appeared in
Latin or English, consist of four tracts. The first is entitled, “Of the
Investigation or Search of Perfection.” The second is entitled, “Of the Sum
of Perfection, or of the perfect Magistery.” The third, “Of the Invention of
Verity or Perfection.” And the last, “Of Furnaces, &c.; with a Recapitulation
of the Author’s Experiments.”

The object of Geber’s work is to teach the method of making the
philosopher’s stone, which he distinguishes usually by the name of
medicine of the third class. The whole is in general written with so much
plainness, that we can understand the nature of the substances which he
employed, the processes which he followed, and the greater number of the
products which he obtained. It is, therefore, a book of some importance,
because it is the oldest chemical treatise in existence,106 and because it
makes us acquainted with the processes followed by the Arabians, and the
progress which they had made in chemical investigations. I shall therefore
lay before the reader the most important facts contained in Geber’s work.

1. He considered all the metals as compounds of mercury and sulphur:
this opinion did not originate with him. It is evident from what he says, that
the same notion had been adopted by his predecessors—men whom he
speaks of under the title of the ancients.

2. The metals with which he was acquainted were gold, silver, copper,
iron, tin, and lead. These are usually distinguished by him under the names
of Sol, Luna, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Whether these names of the
planets were applied to the metals by Geber, or only by his translators, I
cannot say; but they were always employed by the alchymists, who never
designated the metals by any other appellations.

3. Gold and silver he considered as perfect metals; but the other four
were imperfect metals. The difference between them depends, in his
opinion, partly upon the proportions of mercury and sulphur in each, and
partly upon the purity or impurity of the mercury and sulphur which enters
into the composition of each.

Gold, according to him, is created of the most subtile substance of
mercury and of most clear fixture, and of a small substance of sulphur,
clean and of pure redness, fixed, clear, and changed from its own nature,
tinging that; and because there happens a diversity in the colours of that
sulphur, the yellowness of gold must needs have a like diversity.107 His
evidence that gold consisted chiefly of mercury, is the great ease with which
mercury dissolves gold. For mercury, in his opinion, dissolves nothing that
is not of its own nature. The lustre and splendour of gold is another proof of
the great proportion of mercury which it contains. That it is a fixed
substance, void of all burning sulphur, he thinks evident by every operation
in the fire, for it is neither diminished nor inflamed. His other reasons are
not so intelligible.108

Silver, like gold, is composed of much mercury and a little sulphur; but
in the gold the sulphur is red; whereas the sulphur that goes to the formation
of silver is white. The sulphur in silver is also clean, fixed, and clear. Silver
has a purity short of that of gold, and a more gross inspissation. The proof
of this is, that its parts are not so condensed, nor is it so fixed as gold; for it
may be diminished by fire, which is not the case with gold.109

Iron is composed of earthy mercury and earthy sulphur, highly fixed,
the latter in by far the greatest quantity. Sulphur, by the work of fixation,
more easily destroys the easiness of liquefaction than mercury. Hence the
reason why iron is not fusible, as is the case with the other metals.110

Sulphur not fixed melts sooner than mercury; but fixed sulphur
opposes fusion. What contains more fixed sulphur, more slowly admits of
fusion than what partakes of burning sulphur, which more easily and sooner
flows.111

Copper is composed of sulphur unclean, gross and fixed as to its
greater part; but as to its lesser part not fixed, red, and livid, in relation to
the whole not overcoming nor overcome and of gross mercury.112

When copper is exposed to ignition, you may discern a sulphureous
flame to arise from it, which is a sign of sulphur not fixed; and the loss of
the quantity of it by exhalation through the frequent combustion of it, shows
that it has fixed sulphur. This last being in abundance, occasions the
slowness of its fusion and the hardness of its substance. That copper
contains red and unclean sulphur, united to unclean mercury, is, he thinks,
evident, from its sensible qualities.113

Tin consists of sulphur of small fixation, white with a whiteness not
pure, not overcoming but overcome, mixed with mercury partly fixed and
partly not fixed, white and impure.114 That this is the constitution of tin he
thinks evident; for when calcined, it emits a sulphureous stench, which is a
sign of sulphur not fixed: it yields no flame, not because the sulphur is
fixed, but because it contains a great portion of mercury. In tin there is a
twofold sulphur and also a twofold mercury. One sulphur is less fixed,
because in calcining it gives out a stench as sulphur. The fixed sulphur
continues in the tin after it is calcined. He thinks that the twofold mercury
in tin is evident, from this, that before calcination it makes a crashing noise
when bent, but after it has been thrice calcined, that crashing noise can no
longer be perceived.115 Geber says, that if lead be washed with mercury,
and after its washing melted in a fire not exceeding the fire of its fusion, a
portion of the mercury will remain combined with the lead, and will give it
the crashing noise and all the qualities of tin. On the other hand, you may
convert tin into lead. By manifold repetition of its calcination, and the
administration of fire convenient for its reduction, it is turned into lead.116

Lead, in Geber’s opinion, differs from tin only in having a more
unclean substance commixed of the two more gross substances, sulphur and

mercury. The sulphur in it is burning and more adhesive to the substance of
its own mercury, and it has more of the substance of fixed sulphur in its
composition than tin has.117

Such are the opinions which Geber entertained respecting the
composition of the metals. I have been induced to state them as nearly in his
own words as possible, and to give the reasons which he has assigned for
them, even when his facts were not quite correct, because I thought that this
was the most likely way of conveying to the reader an accurate notion of
the sentiments of this father of the alchymists, upon the very foundation of
the whole doctrine of the transmutation of metals. He was of opinion that
all the imperfect metals might be transformed into gold and silver, by
altering the proportions of the mercury and sulphur of which they are
composed, and by changing the nature of the mercury and sulphur so as to
make them the same with the mercury and sulphur which constitute gold
and silver. The substance capable of producing these important changes he
calls sometimes the philosopher’s stone, but generally the medicine. He
gives the method of preparing this important magistery, as he calls it. But it
is not worth while to state his process, because he leaves out several
particulars, in order to prevent the foolish from reaping any benefit from his
writings, while at the same time those readers who possess the proper
degree of sagacity will be able, by studying the different parts of his
writings, to divine the nature of the steps which he omits, and thus profit by
his researches and explanations. But it will be worth while to notice the
most important of his processes, because this will enable us to judge of the
state of chemistry in his time.

4. In his book on furnaces, he gives a description of a furnace proper
for calcining metals, and from the fourteenth chapter of the fourth part of
the first book of his Sum of Perfection, it is obvious that the method of
calcining or oxidizing iron, copper, tin, and lead, and also mercury and
arsenic were familiarly known to him.

He gives a description of a furnace for distilling, and a pretty minute
account of the glass or stoneware, or metallic aludel and alembic, by means
of which the process was conducted. He was in the habit of distilling by
surrounding his aludel with hot ashes, to prevent it from being broken. He

was acquainted also with the water-bath. These processes were familiar to
him. The description of the distillation of many bodies occurs in his work;
but there is not the least evidence that he was acquainted with ardent spirits.
The term spirit occurs frequently in his writings, but it was applied to
volatile bodies in general, and in particular to sulphur and white arsenic,
which he considered as substances very similar in their properties. Mercury
also he considered as a spirit.

The method of distilling per descensum, as is practised in the smelting
of zinc, was also known to him. He describes an apparatus for the purpose,
and gives several examples of such distillations in his writings.

He gives also a description of a furnace for melting metals, and
mentions the vessels in which such processes were conducted. He was
acquainted with crucibles; and even describes the mode of making cupels,
nearly similar to those used at present. The process of cupellating gold and
silver, and purifying them by means of lead, is given by him pretty minutely
and accurately: he calls it cineritium, or at least that is the term used by his
Latin translator.

He was in the habit of dissolving salts in water and acetic acid, and
even the metals in different menstrua. Of these menstrua he nowhere gives
any account; but from our knowledge of the properties of the different
metals, and from some processes which he notices, it is easy to perceive
what his solvents must have been; namely, the mineral acids which were
known to him, and to which there is no allusion whatever in any preceding
writer that I have had an opportunity of consulting. Whether Geber was the
discoverer of these acids cannot be known, as he nowhere claims the
discovery: indeed his object was to slur over these acids, as much as
possible, that their existence, or at least their remarkable properties, might
not be suspected by the uninitiated. It was this affectation of secrecy and
mystery that has deprived the earliest chemists of that credit and reputation
to which they would have been justly entitled, had their discoveries been
made known to the public in a plain and intelligible manner.

The mode of purifying liquids by filtration, and of separating
precipitates from liquids by the same means, was known to Geber. He
called the process distillation through a filter.

Thus the greater number of chemical processes, such as they were
practised almost to the end of the eighteenth century, were known to Geber.
If we compare his works with those of Dioscorides and Pliny, we shall
perceive the great progress which chemistry or rather pharmacy had made.
It is more than probable that these improvements were made by the Arabian
physicians, or at least by the physicians who filled the chairs in the medical
schools, which were under the protection of the califs: for as no notice is
taken of these processes by any of the Greek or Roman writers that have
come down to us, and as we find them minutely described by the earliest
chemical writers among the Arabians, we have no other alternative than to
admit that they originated in the east.

I shall now state the different chemical substances or preparations
which were known to Geber, or which he describes the method of preparing
in his works.

1. Common salt. This substance occurring in such abundance in the
earth, and being indispensable as a seasoner of food, was known from the
earliest ages. But Geber describes the method which he adopted to free it
from impurities. It was exposed to a red heat, then dissolved in water,
filtered, crystallized by evaporation, and the crystals being exposed to a red
heat, were put into a close vessel, and kept for use.118 Whether the identity
of sal-gem (native salt) and common salt was known to Geber is nowhere
said. Probably not, as he gives separate directions for purifying each.

2. Geber gives an account of the two fixed alkalies, potash and soda,
and gives processes for obtaining them. Potash was obtained by burning
cream of tartar in a crucible, dissolving the residue in water, filtering the
solution, and evaporating to dryness.119 This would yield a pure carbonate
of potash.

Carbonate of soda he calls sagimen vitri, and salt of soda. He mentions
plants which yield it when burnt, points out the method of purifying it, and
even describes the method of rendering it caustic by means of quicklime.120

3. Saltpetre, or nitrate of potash, was known to him; and Geber is the
first writer in whom we find an account of this salt. Nothing is said

respecting its origin; but there can be little doubt that it came from India,
where it was collected, and known long before Europeans were acquainted
with it. The knowledge of this salt was probably one great cause of the
superiority of the Arabians over Europeans in chemical knowledge; for it
enabled them to procure nitric acid, by means of which they dissolved all
the metals known in their time, and thus acquired a knowledge of various
important saline compounds, which were of considerable importance.

There is a process for preparing saltpetre artificially, in several of the
Latin copies of Geber, though it does not appear in our English translation.
The method was to dissolve sagimen vitri, or carbonate of soda, in aqua
fortis, to filter and crystallize by evaporation.121 If this process be genuine,
it is obvious that Geber must have been acquainted with nitrate of soda; but
I have some doubts about the genuineness of the passage, because the term
aqua fortis occurs in it. Now this term occurs nowhere else in Geber’s
work: even when he gives the process for procuring nitric acid, he calls it
simply water; but observes, that it is a water possessed of much virtue, and
that it constitutes a precious instrument in the hands of the man who
possesses sagacity to use it aright.

4. Sal ammoniac was known to Geber, and seems to have been quite
common in his time. There is no evidence that it was known to the Greeks
or Romans, as neither Dioscorides nor Pliny make any allusion to it. The
word in old books is sometimes sal armoniac, sometimes sal ammoniac. It
is supposed to have been brought originally from the neighbourhood of the
temple of Jupiter Ammon: but had this been the case, and had it occurred
native, it could scarcely have been unknown to the Romans, under whose
dominions that part of Africa fell. In the writings of the alchymists, sal
ammoniac is mentioned under the following whimsical names:

Anima sensibilis,
Aqua duorum fratrum ex sorore,
Aquila,
Lapis aquilinis,
Cancer,
Lapis angeli conjungentis,
Sal lapidum,

Sal alocoph.

Geber not only knew sal ammoniac, but he was aware of its volatility;
and gives various processes for subliming it, and uses it frequently to
promote the sublimation of other bodies, as of oxides of iron and copper. He
gives also a method of procuring it from urine, a liquid which, when
allowed to run into putrefaction, is known to yield it in abundance. Sal
ammoniac was much used by Geber, in his various processes to bring the
inferior metals to a state of greater perfection. By adding it or common salt
to aqua fortis, he was enabled to dissolve gold, which certainly could not be
accomplished in the time of Dioscorides or Pliny. The description, indeed,
of Geber’s process for dissolving gold is left on purpose in a defective state;
but an attentive reader will find no great difficulty in supplying the defects,
and thus understanding the whole of the process.

5. Alum, precisely the same as the alum of the moderns, was familiarly
known to Geber, and employed by him in his processes. The manufacture of
this salt, therefore, had been discovered between the time when Pliny
composed his Natural History and the eighth century, when Geber wrote;
unless we admit that the mode of making it had been known to the Tyrian
dyers, but that they had kept the secret so well, that no suspicion of its
existence was entertained by the Greeks and Romans. That they employed
alumina as a mordant in some of their dyes, is evident; but there is no proof
whatever that alum, in the modern sense of the word, was known to them.

Geber mentions three alums which he was in the habit of using;
namely, icy alum, or Rocca alum; Jamenous alum, or alum of Jameni, and
feather alum. Rocca, or Edessa, in Syria, is admitted to have been the place
where the first manufactory of alum was established; but at what time, or by
whom, is quite unknown: we know only that it must have been posterior to
the commencement of the Christian era, and prior to the eighth century,
when Geber wrote. Jameni must have been another locality where, at the
time of Geber, a manufactory of alum existed. Feather alum was
undoubtedly one of the native impure varieties of alum, known to the
Greeks and Romans. Geber was in the habit of distilling alum by a strong
heat, and of preserving the water which came over as a valuable
menstruum. If alum be exposed to a red heat in glass vessels, it will give out

a portion of sulphuric acid: hence water distilled from alum by Geber was
probably a weak solution of sulphuric acid, which would undoubtedly act
powerfully as a solvent of iron, and of the alkaline carbonates. It was
probably in this way that he used it.

6. Sulphate of iron or copperas, as it is called (cuperosa), in the state of
a crystalline salt, was well known to Geber, and appears in his time to have
been manufactured.

7. Baurach, or borax, is mentioned by him, but without any description
by which we can know whether or not it was our borax: the probability is
that it was. Both glass and borax were used by him when the oxides of
metals were reduced by him to the metallic state.

8. Vinegar was purified by him by distilling it over, and it was used as
a solvent in many of his processes.

9. Nitric acid was known to him by the name of dissolving water. He
prepared it by putting into an alembic one pound of sulphate of iron of
Cyprus, half a pound of saltpetre, and a quarter of a pound of alum of
Jameni: this mixture was distilled till every thing liquid was driven over. He
mentions the red fumes which make their appearance in the alembic during
the process.122 This process, though not an economical one, would certainly
yield nitric acid; and it is remarkable, because it is here that we find the first
hint of the knowledge of chemists of this most important acid, without
which many chemical processes of the utmost importance could not be
performed at all.

10. This acid, thus prepared, he made use of to dissolve silver: the
solution was concentrated till the nitrate of silver was obtained by him in a
crystallized state. This process is thus described by him: “Dissolve silver
calcined in solutive water (nitric acid), as before; which being done, coct it
in a phial with a long neck, the orifice of which must be left unstopped, for
one day only, until a third part of the water be consumed. This being
effected, set it with its vessel in a cold place, and then it is converted into
small fusible stones, like crystal.”123

11. He was in the habit also of dissolving sal ammoniac in this nitric
acid, and employing the solution, which was the aqua regia of the old
chemists, to dissolve gold.124 He assures us that this aqua regia would
dissolve likewise sulphur and silver. The latter assertion is erroneous. But
sulphur is easily converted into sulphuric acid by the action of aqua regia,
and of course it disappears or dissolves.

12. Corrosive sublimate is likewise described by Geber in a very
intelligible manner. His method of preparing it was as follows: “Take of
mercury one pound, of dried sulphate of iron two pounds, of alum calcined
one pound, of common salt half a pound, and of saltpetre a quarter of a
pound: incorporate altogether by trituration and sublime; gather the white,
dense, and ponderous portions which shall be found about the sides of the
vessel. If in the first sublimation you find it turbid or unclean (which may
happen by reason of your own negligence), sublime a second time with the
same fuses.”125 Still more minute directions are given in other parts of the
work: we have even some imperfect account of the properties of corrosive
sublimate.

13. Corrosive sublimate is not the only preparation of mercury
mentioned by Geber. He informs us that when mercury is combined with
sulphur it assumes a red colour, and becomes cinnabar.126 He describes the
affinities of mercury for the different metals. It adheres easily to three
metals; namely, lead, tin, and gold; to silver with more difficulty. To copper
with still more difficulty than to silver; but to iron it unites in nowise unless
by artifice.127 This is a tolerably accurate account of the matter. He says,
that mercury is the heaviest body in nature except gold, which is the only
metal that will sink in it.128 Now this was true, applied to all the substances
known when Geber lived.

He gives an account of the method of forming the peroxide of mercury
by heat; that variety of it formerly distinguished by the name of red
precipitati per se. “Mercury,” he says, “is also coagulated by long and
constant retention in fire, in a glass vessel with a very long neck and round
belly; the orifice of the neck being kept open, that the humidity may vanish
thereby.”129 He gives another process for preparing this oxide, possible,
perhaps, though certainly requiring very cautious regulation of the fire.

“Take,” says he, “of mercury one pound, of vitriol (sulphate of iron)
rubified two pounds, and of saltpetre one pound. Mortify the mercury with
these, and then sublime it from rock alum and saltpetre in equal
weights.”130

14. Geber was acquainted with several of the compounds of metals
with sulphur. He remarks that sulphur when fused with metals increases
their weight.131 Copper combined with sulphur becomes yellow, and
mercury red.132 He knew the method of dissolving sulphur in caustic
potash, and again precipitating it by the addition of an acid. His process is
as follows: “Grind clear and gummose sulphur to a most subtile powder,
which boil in a lixivium made of ashes of heartsease and quicklime,
gathering from off the surface its oleaginous combustibility, until it be
discerned to be clear. This being done, stir the whole with a stick, and then
warily take off that which passeth out with the lixivium, leaving the more
gross parts in the bottom. Permit that extract to cool a little, and upon it
pour a fourth part of its own quantity of distilled vinegar, and then will the
whole suddenly be congealed as milk. Remove as much of the clear
lixivium as you can; but dry the residue with a gentle fire and keep it.”133

15. It would appear from various passages in Geber’s works that he
was acquainted with arsenic in the metallic state. He frequently mentions its
combustibility, and considers it as the compeer of sulphur. And in his book
on Furnaces, chapter 25 (or 28 in some copies), he expressly mentions
metallic arsenic (arsenicum metallinum), in a preparation not very
intelligible, but which he considered of great importance. The white oxide
of arsenic or arsenious acid, was obviously well known to him. He gives
more than one process for obtaining it by sublimation.134 He observes in his
Sum of Perfection, book i. part iv. chap. 2, which treats of sublimation,
“Arsenic, which before its sublimation was evil and prone to adustion, after
its sublimation, suffers not itself to be inflamed; but only resides without
inflammation.”

Geber states the fact, that when arsenic is heated with copper that
metal becomes white.135 He gives also a process by which the white
arseniate of iron is obviously made. “Grind one pound of iron filings with
half a pound of sublimed arsenic (arsenious acid). Imbibe the mixture with

the water of saltpetre, and salt-alkali, repeating this imbibation thrice. Then
make it flow with a violent fire, and you will have your iron white. Repeat
this labour till it flow sufficiently with peculiar dealbation.”136

16. He mentions oxide of copper under the name of æs ustum, the red
oxide of iron under the name of crocus of iron. He mentions also litharge
and red lead.137 But as all these substances were known to the Greeks and
Romans, it is needless to enter into any particular details.

17. I am not sure what substance Geber understood by the word
marchasite. It was a substance which must have been abundant, and in
common use, for he refers to it frequently, and uses it in many of his
processes; but he nowhere informs us what it is. I suspect it may have been
sulphuret of antimony, which was certainly in common use in Asia long
before the time of Geber. But he also makes mention of antimony by name,
or at least the Latin translator has made use of the word antimonium. When
speaking of the reduction of metals after heating them with sulphur, he says,
“The reduction of tin is converted into clear antimony; but of lead, into a
dark-coloured antimony, as we have found by proper experience.”138 It is
not easy to conjecture what meaning the word antimony is intended to
convey in this passage. In another passage he says, “Antimony is calcined,
dissolved, clarified, congealed, and ground to powder, so it is prepared.”139

18. Geber’s description of the metals is tolerably accurate, considering
the time when he wrote. As an example I shall subjoin his account of gold.
“Gold is a metallic body, yellow, ponderous, mute, fulged, equally digested
in the bowels of the earth, and very long washed with mineral water; under
the hammer extensible, fusible, and sustaining the trial of the cupel and
cementation.”140 He gives an example of copper being changed into gold.
“In copper-mines,” he says, “we see a certain water which flows out, and
carries with it thin scales of copper, which (by a continual and long-
continued course) it washes and cleanses. But after such water ceases to
flow, we find these thin scales with the dry sand, in three years time to be
digested with the heat of the sun; and among these scales the purest gold is
found: therefore we judge those scales were cleansed by the benefit of the
water, but were equally digested by heat of the sun, in the dryness of the
sand, and so brought to equality.”141 Here we have an example of plausible

reasoning from defective premises. The gold grains doubtless existed in the
sand before, while the scales of copper in the course of three years would be
oxidized and converted into powder, and disappear, or at least lose all their
metallic lustre.

Such are the most remarkable chemical facts which I have observed in
the works of Geber. They are so numerous and important, as to entitle him
with some justice to the appellation of the father and founder of chemistry.
Besides the metals, sulphur and salt, with which the Greeks and Romans
were acquainted, he knew the method of preparing sulphuric acid, nitric
acid, and aqua regia. He knew the method of dissolving the metals by
means of these acids, and actually prepared nitrate of silver and corrosive
sublimate. He was acquainted with potash and soda, both in the state of
carbonates and caustic. He was aware that these alkalies dissolve sulphur,
and he employed the process to obtain sulphur in a state of purity.

But notwithstanding the experimental merit of Geber, his spirit of
philosophy did not much exceed that of his countrymen. He satisfied
himself with accounting for phenomena by occult causes, as was the
universal custom of the Arabians; a practice quite inconsistent with real
scientific progress. That this was the case will appear from the following
passage, in which Geber attempts to give an explanation of the properties of
the great elixir or philosopher’s stone: “Therefore, let him attend to the
properties and ways of action of the composition of the greater elixir. For
we endeavour to make one substance, yet compounded and composed of
many, so permanently fixed, that being put upon the fire, the fire cannot
injure; and that it may be mixed with metals in flux and flow with them,
and enter with that which in them is of an ingressible substance, and be
fermented with that which in them is of a permixable substance; and be
consolidated with that which in them is of a consolidable substance; and be
fixed with that which in them is of a fixable substance; and not be burnt by
those things which burn not gold and silver; and take away consolidation
and weights with due ignition.”142

The next Arabian whose name I shall introduce into this history, is Al-
Hassain-Abou-Ali-Ben-Abdallah-Ebn-Sina, surnamed Scheik Reyes, or
prince of physicians, vulgarly known by the name of Avicenna. Next to

Aristotle and Galen, his reputation was the highest, and his authority the
greatest of all medical practitioners; and he reigned paramount, or at least
shared the medical sceptre till he was hurled from his throne by the rude
hands of Paracelsus.

Avicenna was born in the year 978, at Bokhara, to which place his
father had retired during the emirate of the calif Nuhh, one of the sons of
the celebrated Almansor. Ali, his father, had dwelt in Balkh, in the
Chorazan. After the birth of Avicenna he went to Asschena in Bucharia,
where he continued to live till his son had reached his fifteenth year. No
labour nor expense was spared on the education of Avicenna, whose
abilities were so extraordinary that he is said to have been able to repeat the
whole Koran by heart at the age of ten years. Ali gave him for a master
Abou-Abdallah-Annatholi, who taught him grammar, dialectics, the
geometry of Euclid, and the astronomy of Ptolemy. But Avicenna quitted
his tuition because he could not give him the solution of a problem in logic.
He attached himself to a merchant, who taught him arithmetic, and made
him acquainted with the Indian numerals from which our own are derived.
He then undertook a journey to Bagdad, where he studied philosophy under
the great Peripatician, Abou-Nasr-Alfarabi, a disciple of Mesue the elder. At
the same time he applied himself to medicine, under the tuition of the
Nestorian, Abou-Sahel-Masichi. He informs us himself that he applied with
an extraordinary ardour to the study of the sciences. He was in the habit of
drinking great quantities of liquids during the night, to prevent him from
sleeping; and he often obtained in a dream a solution of those problems at
which he had laboured in vain while he was awake. When the difficulties to
be surmounted appeared to him too great, he prayed to God to communicate
to him a share of his wisdom; and these prayers, he assures us, were never
offered in vain. The metaphysics of Aristotle was the only book which he
could not comprehend, and after reading them over forty times, he threw
them aside with great anger at himself.

Already, at the age of sixteen, he was a physician of eminence; and at
eighteen he performed a brilliant cure on the calif Nuhh, which gave him
such celebrity that Mohammed, Calif of Chorazan, invited him to his
palace; but Avicenna rather chose to reside at Dschordschan, where he
cured the nephew of the calif Kabus of a grievous distemper.

Afterwards he went to Ray, where he was appointed physician to
Prince Magd-Oddaula. Here he composed a dictionary of the sciences.
Sometime after this he was raised to the dignity of vizier at Hamdan; but he
was speedily deprived of his office and thrown into prison for having
favoured a sedition. While incarcerated he wrote many works on medicine
and philosophy. By-and-by he was set at liberty, and restored to his dignity;
but after the death of his protector, Schems-Oddaula, being afraid of a new
attempt to deprive him of his liberty, he took refuge in the house of an
apothecary, where he remained long concealed and completely occupied
with his literary labours. Being at last discovered he was thrown into the
castle of Berdawa, where he was confined for four months. At the end of
that time a fortunate accident enabled him to make his escape, in the
disguise of a monk. He repaired to Ispahan, where he lived much respected
at the court of the calif Ola-Oddaula. He did not live to a great age, because
he had worn out his constitution by too free an indulgence of women and
wine. Having been attacked by a violent colic, he caused eight injections,
prepared from long pepper, to be thrown up in one day. This excessive use
of so irritating a remedy, occasioned an excoriation of the intestines, which
was followed by an attack of epilepsy. A journey to Hamdan, in company
with the calif, and the use of mithridate, into which his servant by mistake
had put too much opium, contributed still further to put an end to his life.
He had scarcely arrived at the town when he died in the fifty-eighth year of
his age, in the year 1036.

Avicenna was the author of the immense work entitled “Canon,” which
was translated into Latin, and for five centuries constituted the great
standard, the infallible guide, the confession of faith of the medical world.
All medical knowledge was contained in it; and nothing except what was
contained in it was considered by medical men as of any importance. When
we take a view of the Canon, and compare it with the writings of the
Greeks, and even of the Arabians, that preceded it, we shall find some
difficulty in accounting for the unbounded authority which he acquired over
the medical world, and for the length of time during which that authority
continued.

But it must be remembered, that Avicenna’s reign occupies the darkest
and most dreary period of the history of the human mind. The human race

seems to have been asleep, and the mental faculties in a state of complete
torpor. Mankind, accustomed in their religious opinions to obey blindly the
infallible decisions of the church, and to think precisely as the church
enjoined them to think, would naturally look for some means to save them
the trouble of thinking on medical subjects; and this means they found
fortunately in the canons of Avicenna. These canons, in their opinion, were
equally infallible with the decisions of the holy father, and required to be as
implicitly obeyed. The whole science of medicine was reduced to a simple
perusal of Avicenna’s Canon, and an implicit adherence to his rules and
directions.

When we compare this celebrated work with the medical writings of
the Greeks, and even of the Arabians, the predecessors of Avicenna, we
shall be surprised that it contains little or nothing which can be considered
as original; the whole is borrowed from the writings of Galen, or Ætius, or
Rhazes: scarcely ever does he venture to trust his own wings, but rests
entirely on the sagacity of his Greek and Arabian predecessors. Galen is his
great guide; or, if he ever forsake him, it is to place himself under the
direction of Aristotle.

The Canon contains a collection of most of the valuable information
contained in the writings of the ancient Greek physicians, arranged, it must
be allowed, with great clearness. The Hhawi of Razes is almost as
complete; but it wants the lucidus ordo which distinguishes the Canon of
Avicenna. I conceive that the high reputation which Avicenna acquired, was
owing to the care which he bestowed upon his arrangement. He was
undoubtedly a man of abilities, but not of inventive genius. There is little
original matter in the Canon. But the physicians in the west, while Avicenna
occupied the medical sceptre, had no opportunity of judging of the
originality of their oracle, because they were unacquainted with the Greek
language, and could not therefore consult the writings of Galen or Ætius,
except through the corrupt medium of an Arabian version.

But it is not the medical reputation of Avicenna that induced me to
mention his name here. Like all the Arabian physicians, he was also a
chemist; and his chemical tracts having been translated into Latin, and
published in Western Europe, we are enabled to judge of their merit, and to

estimate the effect which they may have had upon the progress of
chemistry. The first Latin translation of the chemical writings of Avicenna
was published at Basil in 1572; they consist of two separate books; the first,
under the name of “Porta Elementorum,” consists of a dialogue between a
master and his pupil, respecting the mysteries of Alchymy. He gives an
account of the four elements, fire, air, water, earth, and gives them their
usual qualities of dry, moist, hot, and cold. He then treats of air, which, he
says, is the food of fire, of water, of honey, of the mutual conversion of the
elements into each other; of milk and cheese, of the mixture of fire and
water, and that all things are composed of the four elements. There is
nothing in this tract which has any pretension to novelty; he merely retails
the opinions of the Greek philosophers.

The other treatise is much larger, and professes to teach the whole art
of alchymy; it is divided into ten parts, entitled “Dictiones.” The first
diction treats of the philosopher’s stone in general; the second diction treats
of the method of converting light things into heavy, hard things into soft; of
the mutation of the elements; and of some other particulars of a nature not
very intelligible. The third diction treats of the formation of the elixir; and
the same subject is continued in the fourth.

The fifth diction is one of the most important in the whole treatise; it is
in general intelligible, which is more than can be said of those that precede
it. This diction is divided into twenty-eight chapters: the first chapter treats
of copper, which, he says, is of three kinds; permenian copper, natural
copper, and Navarre copper. But of these three varieties he gives no account
whatever; though he enlarges a good deal on the qualities of copper—not its
properties, but its supposed medicinal action. It is hot and dry, he says, but
in the calx of it there is humidity. His account of the composition of copper
is the same with that of Geber.

The second chapter treats of lead, the third of tin, and in the remaining
chapters he treats successively of brass, iron, gold, silver, marcasite,
sulphuret of antimony, which is distinguished by the name of alcohol; of
soda, which he says is the juice of a plant called sosa. And he gives an
unintelligible process by which it is extracted from that plant, without

mentioning a syllable about the combustion to which it is obvious that it
must have been subjected.

In the twelfth chapter he treats of saltpetre, which, he says, is brought
from Sicily, from India, from Egypt, and from Herminia. He describes
several varieties of it, but mentions nothing about its characteristic property
of deflagrating upon burning coals. He then treats successively of common
salt, of sal-gem, of vitriol, of sulphur, of orpiment, and of sal ammoniac,
which, he says, comes from Egypt, from India, and from Forperia. In the
nineteenth and subsequent chapters he treats of aurum vivum, of hair, of
urine, of eggs, of blood, of glass, of white linen, of horse-dung, and of
vinegar.

The sixth diction, in thirty-three chapters, treats of the calcination of
the metals, of sublimation, and of some other processes. I think it
unnecessary to be more particular, because I cannot perceive any thing in it
that had not been previously treated of by Geber.

The seventh diction treats of the preparation of blood and eggs, and the
method of dividing them into their four elements. It treats also of the elixir
of silver, and the elixir of gold; but it contains no chemical fact of any
importance.

The eighth diction treats of the preparation of the ferment of silver, and
of gold. The ninth diction treats of the whole magistery, and of the nuptials
of the sun and moon; that is, of gold and silver. The tenth diction treats of
weights.

The chemical writings of Avicenna are of little value, and apply
chemistry rather to the supposed medical qualities of the different
substances treated of, than to the advancement of the science. All the
chemical knowledge which he possesses is obviously drawn from Geber.
Geber, then, may be looked upon as the only chemist among the Arabians to
whom we are indebted for any real improvements and new facts. It is true
that the Arabian physicians improved considerably the materia medica of
the Greeks, and introduced many valuable medicines into common use
which were unknown before their time. It is enough to mention corrosive
sublimate, manna, opium, asafœtida. It would be difficult to make out many

of the vegetable substances used by the Arabian chemists; because the
plants which they designated by particular names, can very seldom be
identified. Botany at that time had made so little progress, that no method
was known of describing plants so as to enable other persons to determine
what they were.

CHAPTER IV
OF THE PROGRESS OF CHEMISTRY UNDER PARACELSUS
AND HIS DISCIPLES.

Hitherto we have witnessed only the first rude beginnings, or, as it
were, the early dawn of the chemical day. It is from the time of Paracelsus
that the true commencement of chemical investigations is to be dated. Not
that Paracelsus or his followers understood the nature of the science, or
undertook any regular or successful investigation. But Paracelsus shook the
medical throne of Galen and Avicenna to its very foundation; he roused the
latent energies of the human mind, which had for so long a period lain
torpid; he freed medical men from those trammels, and put an end to that
despotism which had existed for five centuries. He pointed out the
importance of chemical medicines, and of chemical investigations, to the
physician. This led many laborious men to turn their attention to the subject.
Those metals which were considered as likely to afford useful medicines,
mercury for example, and antimony, were exposed to the action of an
infinite number of reagents, and a prodigious collection of new products
obtained and introduced into medicine. Some of these were better, and some
worse, than the preparations formerly employed; but all of them led to an
increase of the stock of chemical knowledge, which now began to
accumulate with considerable rapidity. It will be proper, therefore, to give a
somewhat particular account of the life and opinions of Paracelsus, so far as
they can be made out from his writings, because, though he was not himself
a scientific chemist, he may be truly considered as the man through whose
means the stock of chemical knowledge was accumulated, which was
afterwards, by the ingenuity of Beccher, and Stahl, moulded into a scientific
form.

Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Paracelsus Bombast ab Hohenheim
(as he denominates himself) was born at Einsideln, two German miles from

Zurich. His father was called William Bombast von Hohenheim. He was a
very near relation of George Bombast von Hohenheim, who became
afterwards grand master of the order of Johannites. William Bombast von
Hohenheim practised medicine at Einsideln.143 After receiving the first
rudiments of his education in his native city, he became a wandering
scholastic, as was then the custom with poor scholars. He wandered from
province to province, predicting the future by the position of the stars, and
the lines on the hand, and exhibiting all the chemical processes which he
had learned from founders and alchymists. For his initiation in alchymy,
astrology, and medicine, he was indebted to his father, who was much
devoted to these three sciences. Paracelsus mentions also the names of
several ecclesiastics from whom he received chemical information; among
others, Tritheimius, abbot of Spanheim; Bishop Scheit, of Stettbach; Bishop
Erhart, of Laventall; Bishop Nicolas, of Hippon; and Bishop Matthew
Schacht. He seems also to have served some years as an army surgeon, for
he mentions many cures which he performed in the Low Countries, in the
States of the Church, in the kingdom of Naples, and during the wars against
the Venetians, the Danes, and the Dutch.

There is some uncertainty whether he received a regular college
education, as was then the practice with all medical men. He acknowledges
himself that his medical antagonists reproached him with never having
frequented their schools; and he is perpetually affirming, that a physician
should receive all his knowledge from God, and not from man. But if we
can trust his own assertions, there can be no doubt that he took a regular
medical degree, which implies a regular college education. He tells us, in
his preface to his Chirurgia Magna, that he visited the universities of
Germany, France, and Italy. He assures his readers, that he was the
ornament of the schools where he studied. He even speaks of the oath
which he was obliged to take when he received his medical degree; but
where he studied, or where and when he received his medical degree, are
questions which neither Paracelsus nor his disciples, nor his biographers,
have enabled us to solve. If he ever attended a university, he must have
neglected his studies, otherwise he could not have been ignorant, as he
confessedly was, of the very first elements of the most common kinds of
knowledge. But if he neglected the universities, he laboured long and

assiduously with the rich Sigismond Fuggerus, of Schwartz, in order to
learn the true secret of forming the philosopher’s stone.

He gives us some details of the numerous journeys that he made, as
was customary with the alchymists of the time, into the mountains of
Bohemia, the East, and Sweden, to inspect the mines, to get himself
initiated into the mysteries of the eastern adepts, to inspect the wonders of
nature, and to view the celebrated diamond mountain, the position of which,
however, he unfortunately forgets to specify.

In the preface to his Chirurgia Magna, he informs us that he traversed
Spain, Portugal, England, Prussia, Poland, and Transylvania; where he not
only profited by the information of the medical men with whom he became
acquainted, but that he drew much precious information from old women,
gipsies, conjurors, and chemists.144 He spent several years in Hungary; and
informs us that at Weissenburg, in Croatia, and in Stockholm, he was taught
by several old women to prepare drinks capable of curing ulcers. He is said
also to have made a voyage into Egypt, and even into Tartary; and he
accompanied the son of the Kan of the Tartars to Constantinople, in order to
learn the secret of the philosopher’s stone from Trismogin, who inhabited
that capital. This prodigious activity, this constant motion from place to
place, left him but little leisure for reading: accordingly he informs us
himself, that during the space of ten years he never opened a book, and that
his whole library consisted only of six sheets. The inventory of his books,
drawn up after his death, confirms this recital; for they consisted only of the
Bible, the Concordance to the Bible, the New Testament, and the
Commentaries of St. Jerome on the Evangelists.

We know not at what period he returned back to Germany; but at the
age of thirty-three the great number of fortunate cures which he had
performed rendered him an object of admiration to the people, and of
jealousy to the rival physicians of the time. He assures us that he cured
eighteen princes whose diseases had been aggravated by the practitioners
devoted to the system of Galen. Among others he cured Philip, Margrave of
Baden, of a dysentery, who promised him a great reward, but did not keep
his promise, and even treated him in a way unworthy of that prince. This
cure, however, and others of a similar nature, added greatly to his celebrity;

and in order to raise his reputation to the highest possible pitch, he
announced publicly that he was able to cure all the diseases hitherto
reckoned incurable; and that he had discovered an elixir, by means of which
the life of man might be prolonged at pleasure to any extent whatever. He
began the practice, which has since been so successfully followed in this
country, of dispensing medicines gratuitously to the poor, in order to induce
the rich to apply to him for assistance when they were overtaken with
diseases.

In the year 1526 Paracelsus was appointed professor of physic and
surgery in the University of Basil. This appointment was given him, it is
said, by the recommendation of Œcolampadius. He introduced the custom
of lecturing in the common language of the country, as is at present the
universal practice: but during the time of Paracelsus, and long after indeed,
all lectures were delivered in Latin. The new method which he followed in
explaining the theory and practice of the art; the numerous fortunate cures
which he stated in confirmation of his method of treatment; the emphasis
with which he spoke of his secrets for prolonging life, and for curing every
kind of disease without distinction, but still more his lecturing in a language
which was understood by the whole population, drew to Bâle an immense
crowd of idle, enthusiastic, and credulous hearers.

The lectures which he delivered on Practical Medicine still remain,
written in a confused mixture of German and barbarous Latin, and
containing little or nothing except a farrago of empirical remedies,
advanced with the greatest confidence. They have a much greater
resemblance to a collection of quack advertisements than to the sober
lectures of a professor in a university. In the month of November, 1526, he
wrote to Christopher Clauser, a physician in Zurich, that as Hippocrates was
the first physician among the Greeks, Avicenna among the Arabians, Galen
among the Pergamenians, and Marsilius among the Italians, so he was
beyond dispute the greatest physician among the Germans. Every country
produces an illustrious physician, whose medicines are adapted to the
climate in which he lived, but not suited to other countries. The remedies of
Hippocrates were good to the Greeks, but not suitable to the Germans; thus
it was necessary that an inspired physician should spring up in every

country, and that he was the person destined to teach the Germans the art of
curing all diseases.145

Paracelsus began his professorial career by burning publicly, in his
class-room, and in the presence of his pupils, the works of Galen and
Avicenna, assuring his hearers that the strings of his shoes possessed more
knowledge than those two celebrated physicians. All the universities united
had not, he assured them, as much knowledge as was contained in his own
beard, and the hairs upon his neck were better informed than all the writers
that ever existed put together. To give the reader an idea of the arrogant
absurdity of his pretensions, I shall translate a few sentences of the preface
to his tract, entitled “Paragranum,” where he indulges in his usual strain of
rodomontade: “Me, me you shall follow, you Avicenna, you Galen, you
Rhazes, you Montagnana, you Mesue. I shall not follow you, but you shall
follow me. You, I say, you inhabitants of Paris, you inhabitants of
Montpelier, you Suevi, you Misnians, you inhabitants of Cologne, you
inhabitants of Vienna; all you whom the Rhine and the Danube nourish, you
who inhabit the islands of the sea; you also Italy, you Dalmatia, you Athens,
you Greek, you Arabian, you Israelite—I shall not follow you, but you shall
follow me. Nor shall any one lurk in the darkest and most remote corner
whom the dogs shall not piss upon. I shall be the monarch, the monarchy
shall be mine. If I administer, and I bind up your loins, is he with whom you
are at present delighted a Cacophrastus? This ordure must be eaten by you.”

“What will your opinion be when you see your Cacophrastus
constituted the chief of the monarchy? What will you think when you see
the sect of Theophrastus leading on a solemn triumph, if I make you pass
under the yoke of my philosophy? your Pliny will you call Cacopliny, and
your Aristotle, Cacoaristotle? If I plunge them together with your Porphyry,
Albertus, &c., and the whole of their compatriots into my necessary.” But
the terms become now so coarse and indelicate, that I cannot bring myself
to proceed further with the translation. Enough has been given to show the
extreme arrogance and folly of Paracelsus.

So far, however, was this impudence and grossness from injuring the
interest of Paracelsus, that we are assured by Ramus and Urstisius that it
contributed still further to increase it. The coarseness of his language was

well suited to the vulgarity of the age; and his arrogance and boasting were
considered, as usual, as a proof of superior merit. The cure which he
performed on Frobenius, drew the attention of Erasmus himself, who
consulted him about the diseases with which he was afflicted; and the letters
that passed between them are still preserved. The epistle of Paracelsus is
short, enigmatical, and unintelligible; that of Erasmus is distinguished by
that clearness and elegance which characterize his writings.146 But
Frobenius died in the month of October, 1527, and the antagonists of
Paracelsus attributed his death (and probably with justice) to the violent
remedies which had been administered to a man whose constitution had
been destroyed by the gout.

His death contributed not a little to tarnish the glory of Paracelsus: but
he suffered the greatest injury from the habits of intoxication in which he
indulged, and from the vulgarity of the way in which he spent his time. He
hardly ever went into his class-room to deliver a lecture till he was half
intoxicated, and scarcely ever dictated to his secretaries till he had lost the
use of his reason by a too liberal indulgence in wine. If he was summoned
to visit a patient, he scarcely ever went but in a state of intoxication. Not
unfrequently he passed the whole night in the alehouse, in the company of
peasants, and when morning came, was quite incapable of performing the
duties of his station. On one occasion, after a debauch, which lasted the
whole night, he was called next morning to visit a patient; on entering the
room, he inquired if the sick person had taken any thing: “Nothing,” was
the answer, “except the body of our Lord.” “Since you have already,” says
he, “provided yourself with another physician, my presence here is
unnecessary,” and he left the apartment instantly. When Albertus Basa,
physician to the king of Poland, visited Paracelsus in the city of Basel, he
carried him to see a patient whose strength was completely exhausted, and
which, in his opinion, it was impossible to restore; but Paracelsus, wishing
to make a parade of his skill, administered to him three drops of his
laudanum, and invited him to dine with him next day.147 The invitation was
accepted, and the sick man dined next day with his physician.

Towards the end of the year 1527 a disgraceful dispute into which he
entered brought his career, as a professor, to a sudden termination. The
canon Cornelius, of Lichtenfels, who had been long a martyr to the gout,

employed him as his physician, and promised him one hundred florins if he
could cure him. Paracelsus made him take three pills of laudanum, and
having thus freed him from pain, demanded the sum agreed upon; but
Lichtenfels refused to pay him the whole of it. Paracelsus summoned him
before the court, and the magistrate of Basle decided that the canon was
bound to pay only the regular price of the medicine administered. Irritated
at this decision, our intoxicated professor uttered a most violent invective
against the magistrate, who threatened to punish him for his outrageous
conduct. His friends advised him to save himself by flight. He took their
advice, and thus abdicated his professorship. But, by this time, his celebrity
as a teacher had been so completely destroyed by his foolish and immoral
conduct, that he had lost all his hearers. In consequence of this state of
things, his flight from Basle produced no sensation whatever in that
university.

Paracelsus betook himself, in the first place, to Alsace, and sent for his
faithful follower, the bookseller, Operinus, together with the whole of his
chemical apparatus. In 1528 we find him at Colmar, where he recommenced
his ambulating life of a theosophist, which he had led during his youth. His
book upon syphilis, known at that time by the name of Morbus Gallicus,
was dedicated at Colmar, to the chief magistrate of Colmar, Hieronymus
Bonerus.148 In 1531 he was at Saint-Gallen; in 1535, at Pfeffersbade, and in
1536, at Augsburg, where he dedicated his Chirurgia Magna to Malhausen.
At the request of John de Leippa, Marshal of Bohemia, he undertook a
journey into Moravia; as that nobleman, having been informed that
Paracelsus understood the method of curing the gout radically, was anxious
to put himself under his care. Paracelsus lived for a long time at Kroman,
and its environs. John de Leippa, instead of receiving any benefit from the
medicines administered to him, became daily worse, and at last died. This
was the fate also of the lady of Zerotin, in whom the remedies of Paracelsus
produced no fewer than twenty-four epileptic fits in one day. Paracelsus,
instead of waiting the disgrace with which the death of this lady would have
overwhelmed him, announced his intention of going to Vienna, that he
might see how they would treat him in that capital.

It is said, that from Vienna he went into Hungary; but in 1538, we find
him in Villach, where he dedicated his Chronica et Origo Carinthiæ to the

states of Carinthia.149 His book, De Natura Rerum, had been dedicated to
Winkelstein, and the dedication is dated also at Villach, in the year 1537.150
In 1540 he was at Mindelheim, and in 1541, at Strasburg, where he died, in
St. Stephen’s hospital, in the forty-eighth year of his age.

To form an accurate idea of this most extraordinary man, we must
attend to his habits, and to the situation in which he was placed. He had
acquired such a habit of moving about, that he assures us himself he found
it impossible for him to continue for any length of time in one place. He
was always surrounded by a number of followers, whom neither his habits
of intoxication, nor the foolish and immoral conduct in which he was
accustomed to indulge, could induce to forsake him. The most celebrated of
these was Operinus, a printer at Basle, on whom Paracelsus lavishes the
most excessive praises, in his book De Morbo Gallico. But Operinus loaded
his master with obloquy, being provoked at him because he had not made
him acquainted with the secret of the philosopher’s stone, as he had
promised to do. We must therefore be cautious in believing the stories that
he relates to the discredit of his master. We know the names of two others of
his followers; Francis, who assures us that Paracelsus was devoted to the
transmutation of metals; and George Vetter, who considered him as a
magician; as was the opinion also of Operinus. Paracelsus himself, speaks
of Dr. Cornelius, whom he calls his secretary, and in honour of whom he
wrote several of his libels. Other libels are dedicated to Doctors Peter,
Andrew, and Ursinus, to the licentiate Pancrace, and to Mr. Raphael. On
this occasion he complains bitterly of the infidelity of his servants, who, he
says, had succeeded in stealing from him several of his secrets; and had by
this means been enabled to establish their reputation. He accuses equally
the barbers and bathers that followed him, and is no less severe upon the
physicians of every country through which he travelled.

When we attempt to form an accurate conception of the medical and
philosophical opinions of this singular man, we find ourselves beset with
almost insurmountable difficulties. His statements are so much at variance
with each other, in his different pieces, and so much confusion reigns with
respect to the order of publication, that we know not what to fix on as his
last and maturest opinions. His style is execrable; filled with new words of
his own coining, and of mysticisms either introduced to excite the

admiration of the ignorant, or from the fanaticism and credulity of the
writer, who was undoubtedly, to a considerable extent, the dupe of his own
impostures. That he was in possession of the philosopher’s stone, or of a
medicine capable of prolonging life to an indefinite length, as he all along
asserted, he could not himself believe; but he had boasted so long and so
loudly of his wonderful cures, and of the efficacy of his medicines, that
there can be no doubt that he ultimately placed implicit faith in them. The
blunders of the transcribers whom he employed to copy his works, may
perhaps account for some of the contradictions which they contain. But how
can we look for a regular system of opinions from a man who generally
dictated his works when in a state of intoxication, and thus laboured under
an almost constant deprivation of reason.

His obscurity was partly the effect of design, and no doubt was
intended to exalt the notions entertained of his profundity. He uses common
words in new significations, without giving any indication of the change
which he introduced. Thus anatomy, in the writings of Paracelsus, signifies
not the dissection of dead animals to determine their structure, but it means
the nature, force, and magical designation of a thing. And as, according to
the Platonic and Cabalistic theory, every earthly body is formed after the
model of a heavenly body, Paracelsus calls anatomy the knowledge of that
model, of that ideal, or of that paradigm after which all things are created.
He terms the fundamental force of a thing a star, and defines alchymy the
art of drawing out the stars of metals. The star is the source of all
knowledge. When we eat, we introduce into our bodies the star, which is
then modified, and favours nutrition.

It is probable that many of his obscure and unintelligible expressions
are the fruit of ignorance. Thus he uses the term pagoyus, instead of
paganus. He gives the name of pagoyæ to the four entities, or causes of
diseases, founded on the influence of the stars, to the elementary qualities;
to the occult qualities, and to the influence of spirits; because these had
been already admitted by the Pagans. But the fifth entity, or cause of
disease, which has God immediately for its author, is non pagoya. The
undimia of Paracelsus is our œdema; only he applies the name to every kind
of dropsy. The Latin word tonitru, we find is declined by Paracelsus. Thus
he says, lapis tonitrui. The well-known line of Ovid,

Tollere nodosam nescit medicina podagram,

He travestied into

Nescit tartaream Roades curare podagram.151

Roades, he says, means medicines for horses; and if any person wishes a
more elegant verse, he may make it for himself.152 He employs, also, a
great number of words to which no meaning whatever can be attached; and
to which, in all probability, he himself had affixed none.

As is the case with all fanatics, he treated with contempt every kind of
knowledge acquired by labour and application; and boasted that his wisdom
was communicated to him directly by God Almighty. The theosophist who
is worthy of partaking of the divine light, has no occasion for adopting a
positive religion, nor of subjecting himself to any kind of religious
ceremony. The divine light within, which assimilates him to the Deity, more
than compensates for all these vulgar usages, and raises the illuminated
votary far above the beggarly elements of external worship. Accordingly,
Paracelsus has been accused of treating the public worship of the Deity with
contempt. Not satisfied with the plain sense of the book, he attempted to
explain in a mystical manner the words and syllables of the Bible. He
accused Luther of not going far enough. “Luther,” says he, “is not worthy of
untying the strings of my shoes: should I undertake a reformation, I would
begin by sending the pope and the reformers themselves to school.” God,
says Paracelsus, is the first and most excellent of writers. The Holy
Scripture conducts us to all truth, and teaches us all things. But medicine,
philosophy, and astronomy, are among the number of things. Therefore,
when we want to know what magical medicine is, we must consult the
Apocalypse. The Bible, with its paraphrases, is the key to the theory of
diseases. It puts it in our power to understand St. John, who, like Daniel,
Ezekiel, Moses, &c., was a magician, a cabalist, a diviner. The first duty of
a physician is to study the Cabala, without which he must every moment
commit a thousand blunders. “Learn,” says he, “the cabalistic art, which
includes under it all the others.” “Man invents nothing, the devil invents
nothing; it is God alone who unveils to us the light of nature.” “God
honoured at first with his illumination the blind pagans, Apollo,

Æsculapius, Machaon, Podalirius, and Hippocrates, and imparted to them
the genius of medicine; their successors were the sophists.” One would
suppose, from this passage, that Paracelsus had read and studied
Hippocrates, and that he held him in high estimation. But the commentaries
which he has left on some of the aphorisms, show evidently that he did not
even understand the Greek physician. “The compassion of God,” says he,
“is the only foundation of medical science, and not a knowledge of the great
masters, or of the writings which they have left in Greek and Latin.” “God
often acts in dreams by the light of nature, and points out to man the
manner of curing diseases.” “This knowledge renders all those objects
visible which would otherwise escape the sight; and when faith is joined
with it, nothing is then impossible to the theosophist, who may transport the
ocean to the top of Mount Ætna, and Olympus into the Red Sea.”
Paracelsus predicts that by the year 1590 Christian theosophy would be
generally spread over the world, and that the Galenical schools would be
almost or entirely overthrown.

We find in Paracelsus some traces of the opinions of the Gnostics and
Arians, who considered Christ as the first emanation of the Deity. He calls
the first man parens hominis; and makes all spirits emanate from him. He is
the limbus minor, or the last creature, into whom enters the great limbus, or
the seed of all the creatures, the infinite being. All the sciences, and all the
arts of man, are derived from this great limbus; and he who can sink himself
in the little limbus, that is to say, in Adam, and who can communicate by
faith with Jesus Christ, may invoke all spirits. Those who owe their science
to this limbus, are the best informed; those who derive it from the stars,
occupy the last rank; and those who owe it to the light of nature, are
intermediate between the preceding. Jesus Christ, in his capacity of limbus
minor and first man, being always an emanation of the Divinity; and,
consequently, a subordinate personage. These ideas explain to us why
Paracelsus passed for an Arian, and was supposed not to believe in the
Divinity of Jesus Christ. He was of opinion that the faithful performed
miracles, and operated magical cures by their simple confidence in God the
Father, and not by their faith in Christ; but he adds, however, that we ought
to pray to Jesus, in order to obtain his intercession.

From the preceding attempt to explain the opinions of Paracelsus, it
will be evident to the reader that he was both a fanatic and impostor, and
that his theory (if such a name can be given to the reveries of a drunkard),
consisted in uniting medicine with the doctrines of the Cabala. A few more
observations will be necessary to develop his dogmas still further.

Every body, in his opinion, and man in particular, is double, consisting
of a material and spiritual substance.153 The spiritual, which may be called
the sideric, results from the celestial influences; and we may trace after it a
figure capable of producing all kinds of magical effects. When we can act
upon the body itself, we act at the same time upon the spiritual form by
characters and conjurations.154 Yet, in another passage, he blames all
magical ceremonies, and ascribes them to want of faith. The celestial
intelligences impress upon material bodies certain signs, which manifest
their influence. The perfection of art consists in understanding the meaning
of these signs, and in determining from them the nature, qualities, and
essence of a body. Adam, the first man, had a perfect knowledge of the
Cabala; he could interpret the signatures of all things. It was this which
enabled him to assign to the animals names which suited them best. A man
who renounces all sensuality, and is blindly obedient to the will of God, is
capable of taking a share in the actions which celestial intelligences
perform; and consequently is possessed of the philosopher’s stone. Never
does he want any thing; all creatures in earth and in heaven are obedient to
him; he can cure all diseases, and prolong his life as long as he pleases;
because he possesses the tincture which Adam and the patriarch’s before the
flood employed to prolong the term of their existence.155 Beelzebub, the
chief of the demons, is also subject to the power of magic: and who can
blame the theosophist for believing in the devil? He ought, however, to take
care to prevent this malignant spirit from commanding him. Paracelsus was
often wont to say, “If God does not aid me, the devil will help me.”

Pantheism was one of the principal dogmas of the Cabala; and
Paracelsus adopts it in all its grossness. He affirms perpetually that every
thing is animated in the universe; that every thing which exists, eats, drinks,
and voids excrements: even minerals and liquids take food and void the
digested remains of their nourishment.156 This opinion leads necessarily to
the admission of a great number of spiritual substances, intermediate

between material and immaterial in every part of the sublunary world, in
water, air, earth, and fire; who, as well as man, eat, drink, converse, beget
children; but which approach pure spirits in this, that they are more
transparent, and infinitely more agile than all other animal bodies. Man
possesses a soul, of which these pure spirits are destitute. Hence it happens
that these spiritual substances are at once body and spirit without a soul.
When they die (for like the human race they are subject to death), no soul
remains. Like us they are exposed to diseases. Their names vary according
to the places that they occupy. When they inhabit the air, they are called
sylphs; when the water, nymphs; when the earth, pigmies; when the fire,
salamanders.157 The inhabitants of the waters are also called undinæ, and
those of the fire vulcani. The sylphs approach nearest to our nature, as they
live in the air like us. The sylphs, nymphs, and pigmies, sometimes obtain
permission from God to make themselves visible, to converse with men, to
indulge in carnal pleasures, and to produce children. But the salamanders
have no relation to man. These spiritual beings are acquainted with the
future, and capable of revealing it to man. They appear under the form of
ignes fatui. We have also the history of the fairies and the giants; and are
told how these spiritual beings are the guardians of concealed treasures; and
how these sylphs, nymphs, pigmies, and salamanders, may be charmed, and
their treasures taken from them.

This division of man into body and spirit, and of the things of nature
into visible and invisible, has in all ages of the world, been adopted by
fanatics, because it enabled them to explain the history of ghosts, and a
thousand similar prejudices. Hence the distinction between soul and spirit,
which is so very ancient; and hence the three following harmonies to which
the successors of Paracelsus paid a particular attention:

Soul, Spirit, Body,
Mercury,Sulphur,Salt,
Water, Air, Earth.

The will and the imagination of man acts principally by means of the spirit.
Hence the reason of the efficacy of sorcery and magic. The nævi materni
are the impressions of these vice-men, and Paracelsus calls them cocomica
signa. The sideric body of man draws to him, by imagination, all that

surrounds him, and particularly the stars, on which it acts like a magnet. In
this manner, women with child, and during the regular period of monthly
evacuation, having a diseased imagination, are not only capable of
poisoning a mirror by their breath, but of injuring the infants in their
wombs, and even also of poisoning the moon. But it seems needless to
continue this disagreeable detail of the absurd and ridiculous opinions
which Paracelsus has consigned to us in his different tracts.

The Physiology of Paracelsus (if such a name can be applied to his
reveries) is nothing else than an application of the laws of the Cabala to the
explanation of the functions of the body. There exists, he assures us, an
intimate connexion between the sun and the heart, the moon and the brain,
Jupiter and the liver, Saturn and the spleen, Mercury and the lungs, Mars
and the bile, Venus and the kidneys. In another part of his works, he informs
us that the sun acts on the umbilicus and the middle parts of the abdomen,
the moon on the spine, Mercury on the bowels, Venus on the organs of
generation, Mars on the face, Jupiter on the head, and Saturn on the
extremities. The pulse is nothing else than the measure of the temperature
of the body, according to the space of the six places which are in relation to
the planets. Two pulses under the sole of the feet belong to Saturn and
Jupiter, two at the elbow to Mars and Venus, two in the temples to the moon
and mercury. The pulse of the sun is found under the heart. The macrocosm
has also seven pulses, which are the revolutions of the seven planets, and
the irregularity or intermittence of these pulses, is represented by the
eclipses. The moon and Saturn are charged in the macrocosm with
thickening the water, which causes it to congeal. In like manner the moon of
the microcosm, that is to say the brain, coagulates the blood. Hence
melancholy persons, whom Paracelsus calls lunatics, have a thick blood.
We ought not to say of a man that he has such and such a complexion; but
that it is Mars, Venus, &c., so that a physician ought to know the planets of
the microcosm, the arctic and antarctic pole, the meridian, the zodiac, the
east and the west, before trying to explain the functions or cure the
diseases.158 This knowledge is acquired by a continual comparison of the
macrocosm with the microcosm. What must have been the state of medicine
at the time when Paracelsus wrote, when the propagator of such opinions
could be reckoned one of the greatest of its reformers?

The system of Galen had for its principal basis the doctrine of the four
elements, fire, air, water, and earth. Paracelsus neglected these elements,
and multiplied the substances of the disease itself. He admits, strictly
speaking, three or four elements; namely, the star, the root, the element, the
sperm, which he distinguishes by the name of the true seed. All these
elements were originally confounded together in the chaos or yliados. The
star is the active force which gives form to matter. The stars are reasonable
beings addicted to sodomy and adultery, like other creatures. Each of them
draws at pleasure out of the chaos, the plant and the metal to which it has an
affinity, and gives a sideric form to their root. There are two kinds of seed;
the sperm is the vehicle of the true seed. It is engendered by speculation, by
imagination, by the power of the star. The occult, invisible, sideric body
produces the true seed, and the Adamic man secretes only the visible
envelope of it. Putrefaction cannot give birth to a new body: the seed must
pre-exist, and it is developed during putrefaction by the power of the stars.
The generation of animals is produced by the concourse of the infinite
number of seeds which detach themselves from all parts of the body. Thus
the seed of the nose reproduces a nose, that of the eye the eye, and so on.

With respect to the elements themselves, Paracelsus admits
occasionally their influence on the functions of the body, and the theory of
diseases; but he deduces the faculties which they possess from the stars. It
was he that first shook the doctrine of the four elements, originally
contrived by Empedocles. Alchymy had introduced another set of elements,
and the alchymists maintained that salt, sulphur, and mercury, were the true
elements of things. Paracelsus endeavoured to reconcile these chemical
elements with his cabalistic ideas, and to show more clearly their utility in
the theory of medicine. He invented a sideric salt, which can only be
perceived by the exquisite senses of a theosophist, elevated by the
abnegation of all gross sensuality to a level with pure and spiritual demons.
This salt is the cause of the consistence of bodies, and it is it which gives
them the faculty of being reproduced from their ashes.

Paracelsus imagined also a sideric sulphur, which being vivified by the
influence of the stars, gives bodies the property of growing, and of being
combustible. He admits also a sideric mercury, the foundation of fluidity
and volatilization. The concourse of these three substances forms the body.

In different parts of his works, Paracelsus says, that the elements are
composed of these three principles. In plants he calls the salt balsam, the
sulphur resin and the mercury gotaronium. In other passages he opposes the
assertion of the Galenists, that fire is dry and hot, air cold and moist, earth
dry and cold, water moist and cold. Each of these elements, he says, is
capable of admitting all qualities, so that in reality there exists a dry water,
a cold fire, &c.

I must not omit another remarkable physiological doctrine of
Paracelsus, namely, that there exists in the stomach a demon called
Archæus, who presides over the chemical operations which take place in it,
separating the poisonous from the nutritive part of food, and furnishing the
alimentary substances with the tincture, in consequence of which they
become capable of being assimilated. This ruler of the stomach, who
changes bread into blood, is the type of the physician, who ought to keep up
a good understanding with him, and lend him his assistance. To produce a
change in the humours ought never to be the object of the true physician, he
should endeavour to concentrate all his operations on the stomach and the
ruler who reigns in it. This Archæus to whom the name of Nature may also
be given, produces all the changes by his own power. It is he alone who
cures diseases. He has a head and hands, and is nothing else than the spirit
of life, the sideric body of man, and no other spirit besides exists in the
body. Each part of the body has also a peculiar stomach in which the
secretions are elaborated.

There are, he informs us, five different causes of diseases. The first is
the ens astrorum. The constellations do not immediately induce diseases,
but they alter and infect the air. This is what, properly speaking constitutes
the entity of the stars. Some constellations sulphurize the atmosphere,
others communicate to it arsenical, saline, or mercurial qualities. The
arsenical astral entities injure the blood, the mercurial the head, the saline
the bones and the vessels. Orpiment occasions tumours and dropsies, and
the bitter stars induce fever.

The second morbific cause is the ens veneni, which proceeds from
alimentary substances: when the archeus is languid putrefaction ensues,
either localiter or emuncturaliter. This last takes place when those

evacuations, which ought to be expelled by the nose, the intestines, or the
bladder, are retained in the body. Dissolved mercury escapes through the
pores of the skin, white sulphur by the nose, arsenic by the ears, sulphur
diluted with water by the eyes, salt in solution by the urine, and sulphur
deliquesced by the intestines.

The third morbific cause of disease is the ens naturale; but Paracelsus
subjects to the ens astrorum the principles which the schools are in the habit
of arranging among the number of natural causes. The ens spirituale forms
the fourth species and the ens deale or Christian entity the fifth. This last
class comprehends all the immediate effects of divine predestination.

It would lead us too far if I were to point out the strange methods
which he takes to discover the cause of diseases. But his doctrine
concerning tartar is too important, and does our fanatic too much credit to
be omitted. It is without doubt the most useful of all the innovations which
he introduced. Tartar according to him, is the principle of all the maladies
proceeding from the thickening of the humours, the rigidity of the solids, or
the accumulation of earthy matter. Paracelsus thought the term stone not
suitable to indicate that matter, because it applies only to one species of it.
Frequently the principle proceeds from mucilage, and mucilage is tartar. He
calls this principle tartar (tartarus) because it burns like hellfire, and
occasions the most dreadful diseases. As tartar (bitartrate of potash) is
deposited at the bottom of the wine-cask, in the same way tartar in the
living body is deposited on the surface of the teeth. It is deposited on the
internal parts of the body when the archæus acts with too great impetuosity
and in an irregular manner, and when it separates the nutritive principle
with too much impetuosity. Then the saline spirit unites itself to it and
coagulates the earthy principle, which is always present, but often in the
state of materia prima without being coagulated.

In this manner tartar, in the state of materia prima, may be transmitted
from father to son. But it is not hereditary and transmittable when it has
already assumed the form of gout, of renal calculus, or of obstruction. The
saline spirit which gives it its form, and causes its coagulation, is seldom
pure and free from mixture; usually it contains alum, vitriol, or common
salt; and this mixture contributes also to modify the tartarous diseases. The

tartar may be likewise distinguished according as it comes from the blood
itself, or from foreign matters accumulated in the humours. The great
number of calculi which have been found in every part of the body, and the
obstructions, confirm the generality of this morbific cause, to which are due
most of the diseases of the liver. When the tartarous matter is increased by
certain articles of food, renal calculi are engendered, a calculous paroxysm
is induced, and violent pain is occasioned. It acts as an emetic, and may
even give occasion to death, when the saline spirit becomes corrosive; and
when the tartar coagulated by it becomes too irritating.

Tartar, then, is always an excrementitious substance, which in many
cases results from the too great activity of the digestive forces. It may make
its appearance in all parts of the body, from the irregularity and the activity,
too energetic or too indolent, of the archeus; and then it occasions particular
accidents relative to each of the functions. Paracelsus enumerates a great
number of diseases of the organs, which may be explained by that one
cause; and affirms, that the profession of medicine would be infinitely more
useful, if medical men would endeavour to discover the tartar before they
tried to explain the affections.

Paracelsus points out, also, the means by which we can distinguish the
presence of tartar in urine. For this it is necessary, not merely to inspect the
urine, but to subject it to a chemical analysis. He declaims violently against
the ordinary ouroscopy. He divides urine into internal and external; the
internal comes from the blood, and the external announces the nature of the
food and drink which has been employed. To the sediment of urine he gives
the new name of alcola, and admits three species of it, namely, hypostasis,
divulsio, and sedimen. The first is connected with the stomach, the second
with the liver, and the third with the kidneys; and tartar predominates in all
the three.

The Cabala constantly directs Paracelsus in his therapeutics and
materia medica. As all terrestrial things have their image in the region of the
stars, and as diseases depend also on the influence of the stars, we have
nothing more to do, in order to obtain a certain cure for these diseases, than
to discover, by means of the Cabala, the harmony of the constellations.
Gold is a specific against all diseases of the heart, because, in the mystic

scale, it is in harmony with that viscus. The liquor of the moon and crystal
cure the diseases of the brain. The liquor alkahest and cheiri are efficacious
against those of the liver. When we employ vegetable substances, we must
consider their harmony with the constellations, and their magical harmony
with the parts of the body and the diseases, each star drawing, by a sort of
magical virtue, the plant for which it has an affinity, and imparting to it its
activity. So that plants are a kind of sublunary stars. To discover the virtues
of plants, we must study their anatomy and cheiromancy; for the leaves are
their hands, and the lines observable on them enable us to appreciate the
virtues which they possess. Thus the anatomy of the chelidonium shows us
that it is a remedy for jaundice. These are the celebrated signatures by
means of which we deduce the virtues of vegetables, and the medicines of
analogy which they present in relation to their form. Medicines, like
women, are known by the forms which they affect. He who calls in question
this principle, accuses the Divinity of falsehood, the infinite wisdom of
whom has contrived these external characters to bring the study of them
more upon a level with the weakness of the human understanding. On the
corolla of the euphrasia there is a black dot; from this we may conclude that
it furnishes an excellent remedy against all diseases of the eye. The lizard
has the colour of malignant ulcers, and of the carbuncle; this points out the
efficacy which that animal possesses as a remedy.

These signatures were exceedingly convenient for the fanatics, since
they saved them the trouble of studying the medical virtues of plants, but
enabled them to decide the subject à priori. Paracelsus acted very
considerately, when he ascribed these virtues principally to the stars, and
affirmed that the observation of favourable constellations is an
indispensable condition in the employment of these medicines. “The
remedies are subjected to the will of the stars, and directed by them; you
ought therefore to wait till heaven is favourable, before ordering a
medicine.”

Paracelsus considered all the effects of plants as specifics, and the use
of them as secrets. The same notions explain the eulogy which he bestowed
on the elixir of long life, and upon all the means which he employed to
prolong the term of existence. He believed that these methods, which
contained the materia prima, served to repair the constant waste of that

matter in the human body. He was acquainted, he says, with four of these
arcana, to which he applied the mystic terms, mercury of life, philosopher’s
stone, &c. The polygonum persicaria was an infallible specific against all
the effects of magic. The method of using it is, to apply it to the suffering
part, and then to bury it in the earth. It draws out the malignant spirits like a
magnet, and it is buried to prevent these malignant spirits from making their
escape.

The reformation of Paracelsus had the great advantage of representing
chemistry as an indispensable art in the preparation of medicines. The
disgusting decoctions and useless syrups gave place to tinctures, essences,
and extracts. Paracelsus says, expressly, that the true use of chemistry is to
prepare medicines, and not to make gold. He takes that opportunity of
declaiming against cooks and innkeepers, who drown medicines in soup,
and thus destroy all their properties. He blames medical men for prescribing
simples, or mixtures of simples, and affirms that the object should always
be to extract the quintessence of each substance; and he describes at length
the method of extracting this quintessence. But he was very little scrupulous
about the substances from which this quintessence was to be extracted. The
heart of a hare, the bones of a hare, the bone of the heart of a stag, mother-
of-pearl, coral, and various other bodies may, he says, be used
indiscriminately to furnish a quintessence capable of curing some of the
most grievous diseases.

Paracelsus combats with peculiar energy the method of cure employed
by the disciples of Galen, directed solely against the predominating
humours, and the elementary qualities. He blames them for attempting to
correct the action of their medicines, by the addition of useless ingredients.
Fire and chemistry, he affirmed, are the sole correctives. It was Paracelsus
that first introduced tin as a remedy for worms, though his mode of
employing it was not good.

I have been thus particular in pointing out the philosophical and
medical opinions of Paracelsus, because they were productive of such
important consequences, by setting medical men free from the slavish
deference which they had been accustomed to pay to the dogmas of Galen
and Avicenna. But it was the high rank to which he raised chemistry, by

making a knowledge of it indispensable to all medical men; and by insisting
that the great importance of chemistry did not consist in the formation of
gold, but in the preparation of medicines, that rendered the era of Paracelsus
so important in the history of chemistry; for after his time the art of
chemistry was cultivated by medical men in general—it became a necessary
part of their education, and began to be taught in colleges and medical
schools. The object of chemistry came to be, not to discover the
philosopher’s stone, but to prepare medicines; and a great number of new
medicines, both from the mineral and vegetable kingdom—some of more,
some of less, consequence, soon issued from the laboratories of the
chemical physicians.

There can be little doubt that many chemical preparations were either
first introduced into medicine by Paracelsus, or at least were first openly
prescribed by him: though from the nature of his writings, and the secrecy
in which he endeavoured to keep his most valuable remedies, it is not easy
to point out what these remedies were. Mercury is said to have been
employed in medicine by Basil Valentine; but it was Paracelsus who first
used it openly as a cure for the venereal disease, and who drew general
attention to it by his encomiums on its medical virtues, and by the eclat of
the cures which he performed by means of it, after all the Galenical
prescriptions of the schools had been tried in vain.

He ascertained that alum contains, united to an acid, not a metallic
oxide, but an earth. He mentions metallic arsenic; but there is some reason
for believing that this metal was known to Geber and the Arabian
physicians. Zinc is mentioned by him, and likewise bismuth, as substances
not truly metallic, but approaching to metals in their properties: for
malleability and ductility were considered by him as essential to the
metals.159 I cannot be sure of any other chemical fact which appears in
Paracelsus, and which was not known before his time. The use of sal
ammoniac in subliming several metallic calces, was familiar to him, but it
had long ago been explained by Geber. It is clear also that Geber was
acquainted with aqua regia, and that he employed it to dissolve gold.
Paracelsus’s reputation as a chemist, therefore, depends not upon any
discoveries which he actually made, but upon the great importance which

he attached to the knowledge of it, and to his making an acquaintance with
chemistry an indispensable requisite of a medical education.

Paracelsus, as the founder of a new system of medicine, the object of
which was to draw chemistry out of that state of obscurity and degradation
into which it had been plunged, and to give it the charge of the preparation
of medicine, and presiding over the whole healing art, deserved a particular
notice; and I have even endeavoured, at some length, to lay his system of
opinions, absurd as it is, before the reader. But the same attention is not due
to the herd of followers who adopted his absurdities, and even carried them,
if possible, still further than their master: at the same time there are one or
two particulars connected with the Paracelsian sect which it would be
improper to omit.

The most celebrated of his followers was Leonhard Thurneysser-zum-
Thurn, who was born in 1530, at Basle, where his father was a goldsmith.
His life, like that of his master, was checkered with very extraordinary
vicissitudes. In 1560 he was sent to Scotland to examine the lead-mines in
that country. In 1558 he commenced miner and sulphur extractor at Tarenz
on the Inn, and was so successful, that he acquired a great reputation. He
had turned his attention to medicine on the Paracelsian plan, and in 1568
made himself distinguished by several important cures which he performed.
In 1570 he published his Quinta Essentia, with wooden cuts, in Munster;
from thence he went to Frankfort on the Oder, and published his Piso, a
work which treats of waters, rivers, and springs. John George, Elector of
Brandenburg, was at that time in Frankfort, and was informed that the
treatise of Thurneysser pointed out the existence of a great deal of riches in
the March of Brandenburg, till that time unknown. His courtiers, who were
anxious to establish mines in their possessions, united in recommending the
author. He was consulted about a disease under which the wife of the
elector was labouring, and having performed a cure, he was immediately
named physician to this prince.

He turned this situation to the best account. He sold Spanish white, and
other cosmetics, to the ladies of the court; and instead of the disgusting
decoctions of the Galenists, he administered the remedies of Paracelsus
under the pompous titles of tincture of gold, magistery of the sun, potable

gold, &c. By these methods he succeeded in amassing a prodigious fortune,
but was not fortunate enough to be able to keep it. Gaspard Hoffmann,
professor at Frankfort, a well-informed and enlightened man, published a
treatise, the object of which was to expose the extravagant pretensions and
ridiculous ignorance of Thurneysser. This book drew the attention of the
courtiers, and opened the eyes of the elector. Thurneysser lost much of his
reputation; and the methods by which he attempted to bolster himself up,
served only to sink him still lower in the estimation of men of sense.
Among other things, he gave out that he was the possessor of a devil, which
he carried about with him in a bottle. This pretended devil was nothing else
than a scorpion, preserved in a phial of oil. The trick was discovered, and
the usual consequences followed. He lost a process with his wife, from
whom he was separated; this deprived him of the greatest part of his
fortune. In 1584 he fled to Italy, where he occupied himself with the
transmutation of metals, and he died at Cologne in 1595.

Thurneysser extols Paracelsus as the only true physician that ever
existed. His Quintessence is written in verse. In the first book The Secret is
the speaker. He is represented with a padlock in his mouth, a key in his
hand, and seated on a coffer in a chamber, the windows of which are shut.
This personage teaches that all things are composed of salt, sulphur, and
mercury, or of earth, air, and water; and consequently that fire is excluded
from the number of the elements. We must search for the secret in the Bible,
and then in the stars and the spirits. In the second book, Alchymy is the
speaker. She points out the mode of performing the processes; and says that
to endeavour to fix volatile substances, is the same thing as to endeavour to
trace white letters on a wall with a piece of charcoal. She prohibits all long
processes, because God created the world in six days.

His method of judging of the diseases from the urine of the patient
deserves to be mentioned. He distilled the urine, and fixed to the receiver a
tube furnished with a scale, the degrees of which consisted of all the parts
of the body. The phenomena which he observed during the distillation of
the urine, enabled him to draw inferences respecting the state of all these
different organs.

I pass over Bodenstein, Taxites, and Dorn, who distinguished
themselves as partisans of Paracelsus. Dorn derived the whole of chemistry
from the first chapter of Genesis, the words of which he explained in an
alchymistical sense. These words in particular, “And God made the
firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from
the waters which were above the firmament,” appeared to him to be an
account of the great work. Severinus, physician to the King of Denmark,
and canon of Roskild, was also a celebrated partisan of Paracelsus; but his
writings do not show either that knowledge or stretch of thought which
would enable us to account for the reputation which he acquired and
enjoyed.

There were very few partisans of Paracelsus out of Germany. The most
celebrated of his followers among the French, was Joseph du Chesne, better
known by the name of Quercitanus, who was physician to Henry IV. He
was a native of Gascony, and drew many enemies upon himself by his
arrogant and overbearing conduct. He pretended to be acquainted with the
method of making gold. He was a thorough-going Paracelsian. He affirmed
that diseases, like plants, spring from seeds. The word alchymy, according
to him, is composed of the two Greek words ἁλς (salt) and χημεια, because
the great secret is concealed in salt. All bodies are composed of three
principles, as God is of three substances. These principles are contained in
saltpetre, the salts of sulphur solid and volatile, and the volatile mercurial
salt. He who possesses sal generalis may easily produce philosophical gold,
and draw potable gold from the three kingdoms of nature. To prove the
possibility of this transmutation, he cites an experiment very often repeated
after him, and which some theologians have even employed as analogous to
the resurrection of the dead; namely, the faculty which plants have of being
produced from their ashes. His materia medica is founded on the signatures
of plants, which he carries so far as to assert that male plants are more
suitable to men, and female plants to women. Sulphuric acid, he says, has a
magnetic virtue, in consequence of which it is capable of curing the
epilepsy. He recommends the magisterium cranii humani as an excellent
medicine, and boasts much of the virtues of antimony.

Du Chesne was opposed by Riolanus, who attacked chemical remedies
with much bitterness. The medical faculty of Paris took up the cause of the

Galenists with much zeal, and prohibited their fellows and licentiates from
using any chemical medicines whatever. He had to sustain a dispute with
Aubert relative to the origin and the transmutation of metals. Fenot came to
the assistance of Aubert, and affirmed that gold possesses no medical
properties whatever, that crabs’ eyes are of no use when administered in
intermittents, and that the laudanum of Paracelsus (being an opiate) is in
reality hurtful instead of being beneficial.

The decree of the medical faculty of Paris which placed antimony
among the poisons, and which occasioned that of the Parliament of Paris,
was composed by Simon Pietre, the elder, a man of great erudition and the
most unimpeachable probity. Had it been literally obeyed it would have
occasioned very violent proceedings; because chemical remedies, as they
act more promptly and with greater energy, were getting daily into more
general use. In 1603 the celebrated Theodore Turquet de Mayenne was
prosecuted, because, in spite of the prohibition, he had sold antimonial
preparations. The decree of the faculty against him exhibits a remarkable
proof of the bigotry and intolerance of the times.160 However Turquet does
not seem to have been molested notwithstanding this decree. He ceased
indeed to be professor of chemistry, but continued to practise medicine as
formerly; and two members of the faculty, Seguin and Akakia, even wrote
an apology for him. At last he went to England, whither he had been
invited, to accept an honourable appointment.

The mystical doctrines of Paracelsus are supposed to have given origin
to the sect of Rosecrucians, concerning which so much has been written and
so little certain is known. It is not at all unlikely that the greatest part, if not
the whole that has been stated about the antiquity, and extent, and
importance of this sect, is mere fiction, and that the origin of the whole was
nothing else than a ludicrous performance of Valentine Andreæ, an
ecclesiastic of Calwe, in the country of Wirtemburg, a man of much
learning, genius, and philanthropy. From his life, written by himself, and
preserved in the library of Wolfenbuttel, we learn that in the year 1603 he
drew up the celebrated Noce Chimique of Christian Rosenkreuz, in order to
counteract the alchymistical and the theosophistical dogmas so common at
that period. He was unable to restrain his risible faculties when he saw this
ludibrium juvenilis ingenii adopted as a true history, while he meant it

merely as a satire. It is believed that the Fama Fraternitatis is a production
of this ecclesiastic, and that he published it in order to correct the chemists
and enthusiasts of the time. He himself was called Andreæ, Knight of the
Rose-cross (rosæ crucis) because he had engraven on his seal a cross with
four roses.

It is true that Andreæ instituted, in 1620, a fraternitas christiana, but
with quite other views than those which are supposed to have actuated the
Rosecrucians. His object was to correct the religious opinions of the times,
and to separate Christian theology from scholastic controversies, with
which it had been unhappily intermixed. He himself, in different parts of his
writings, distinguishes carefully between the Rosecrucians and his own
society, and amuses himself with the credulity of the German theosophists,
who adopted so readily his fiction for a series of truths. It would appear,
therefore, that this secret order of Rosecrucians, notwithstanding the
brilliant origin assigned to it, really owes its birth to the pleasantry of a
clergyman of Wirtemburg, who endeavoured by that means to set bounds to
the chimeras of theosophy, but who unfortunately only increased still more
the adherents of this absurd science.

A crowd of enthusiasts found it too advantageous to propagate the
principles of the rosa crux not to endeavour to unite them into a sect.
Valentine Weigel, a fanatical preacher at Tschoppau, near Chemnitz, left at
his death a prodigious number of followers, who were already
Rosecrucians, without bearing the name. Egidius Gutmann, of Suabia, was
equally a Rosecrucian, without bearing the name; he condemned all pagan
medicines, and affirmed that he possessed the universal remedy which
ennobles man, cures all diseases, and gives man the power of fabricating
gold. “To fly in the air, to transmute metals, and to know all the sciences,”
says he, “nothing more is requisite than faith.”

Oswald Crollius, of Hesse, must also take his station in this honourable
fraternity of enthusiasts. He was physician to the Prince of Anhalt, and
afterwards a counsellor of the Emperor Rodolphus II. The introduction to
his Basilica Chymica, contains a short but exact epitome of the opinions of
Paracelsus. It is not worth while to give the reader a notion of his own
opinions, which are quite as absurd and unintelligible as those of Paracelsus

and his followers. As a preparer of chemical medicines he deserves more
credit; antimonium diaphoreticum was a favourite preparation of his, and so
was sulphate of potash, which was known at the time by the name of
specificum purgans Paracelsi: he knew chloride of silver well, and first
gave it the name of luna cornea, or horn silver: fulminating gold was
known to him, and called by him aurum volatile.

This is the place to mention Andrew Libavius, of Halle, in Saxony,
where he was a physician, and a professor in the gymnasium of Coburg,
who was one of the most successful opponents of the school of Paracelsus,
and whose writings do him much credit. As a chemist, he deserves perhaps
to occupy a higher rank than any of his contemporaries: he was, it is true, a
believer in the possibility of transmuting metals, and boasted of the
wonderful powers of aurum potabile; but he always distinguishes between
rational alchymy and the mental alchymy of Paracelsus. He separated, with
great care, chemistry from the reveries of the theosophists, and stands at the
head of those who opposed most successfully the progress of superstition
and fanaticism, which was making such an overwhelming progress in his
time. His writings are very numerous and various, and were collected and
published at Frankfort, in 1615, in three folio volumes, under the title of
“Opera omnia Medico-chymica.” Libavius himself died in 1616. It would
occupy more space than we have room for, to attempt an abstract of his very
multifarious works. A few observations will be sufficient: he wrote no fewer
than five different tracts to expose the quackery of George Amwald, who
had boasted that he was in possession of a panacea, by means of which he
was enabled to perform the most wonderful cures, and which he was in the
habit of selling to his patients at an enormous price; Libavius showed that
this boasted panacea was nothing else than cinnabar, which neither
possessed the virtues ascribed to it by Amwald, nor deserved to be
purchased at so high a price. He entered also into a controversy with
Crollius, and exposed his fanatical and absurd opinions. He engaged
likewise in a dispute with Henning Scheunemann, a physician in Bamberg,
who was a Rosecrucian, and, like the rest of his brethren, profoundly
ignorant not merely of all science, but even of philology. The expressions of
Scheunemann are so obscure, that we learn more of his opinions from
Libavius than from his own writings. He divides the internal nature of man
into seven different degrees, from the seven changes it undergoes: these are,

combustion, sublimation, dissolution, putrefaction, distillation, coagulation,
and tincture. He gives us likewise an account of ten modifications which the
three elements undergo; but as they are quite unintelligible, it is not worth
while to state them. Libavius had the patience to analyze and expose all
these gallimatias.

Libavius’s system of chemistry, entitled “Alchymia è dispersis passim
optimorum auctorum, veterum et recentiorum exemplis potissimum, tum
etiam preceptis quibusdam operose collecta, adhibitisque ratione et
experientia quanta potuit esse methodo accurate explicata et in integrum
corpus redacta. Accesserunt tractati nonnulli physici chymici item
methodistici.” Frankfort, 1595, folio, 1597, 4to.—is really an excellent
book, considering the period in which it was written, and deserves the
attention of every person who is interested in the history of chemistry. I
shall notice some of the most remarkable chemical facts which occur in
Libavius, and which I have not observed in any preceding writer; who the
actual discoverer of these facts really was, it is impossible to say, in
consequence of the secrecy which at that time was affected, and the obscure
terms in which chemical facts are in general stated.

He was aware that the fumes of sulphur have the property of
blackening white lead. He was in the habit of purifying cinnabar by means
of arsenic and oxide of lead. He knew the method of giving glass a red
colour by means of gold or its oxide, and was aware of the method of
making artificial gems, such as ruby, topaz, hyacinth, garnet, balass, by
tinging glass by means of metallic oxides. He points out fluor spar as an
excellent flux for various metals and their oxides. He knew that when
metals were fused along with alkaline bodies, a certain portion of them was
converted into slags, and this portion he endeavoured to recover by the
addition of iron filings. He was aware of the mode of acidifying sulphur by
means of nitric acid. He knew that camphor is soluble in nitric acid, and
forms with it a kind of oil. Of the perchloride of tin he was undoubtedly the
discoverer, as it has continued ever since his time to pass by his name;
namely, fuming liquor of Libavius. He was aware, that alcohol or spirits
could be obtained by distilling the fermented juice of a great variety of
sweet fruits. He procured sulphuric acid by the distillation of alum and
sulphate of iron, as Geber had done long before his time; but he determined

the nature of the acid with more care than had been done, and showed, that
it was the same as that obtained by the combustion of sulphur along with
saltpetre. To him, therefore, in some measure, are we indebted for the
process of preparing sulphuric acid which is at present practised by
manufacturers.

Libavius found a successor in Angelus Sala, of Vicenza, physician to
the Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, worthy of his enlightened views and
indefatigable exertions to oppose the torrent of fanaticism which threatened
to overwhelm all Europe. Sala was still more addicted to chemical remedies
than Libavius himself; but he had abjured a multitude of prejudices which
had distinguished the school of Paracelsus. He discarded aurum potabile,
and considered fulminating gold as the only remedy of that metal that
deserved to be prescribed by medical men. He treated the notion of the
existence of a universal remedy with contempt. He described sulphuret of
gold and glass of antimony with a good deal of precision. He recommended
sulphuric acid as an excellent remedy, and showed that it might be formed
indifferently from sulphur, or by distilling blue vitriol or green vitriol. He
affirmed, that the essential salts obtained from plants had not the same
virtues as the plants from which they are obtained. He showed that sal
ammoniac is a compound of muriatic acid and ammonia. To him, therefore,
we are indebted for the first accurate mention of ammonia. It could not but
have been noticed before by chemists, as it is procured with so much ease
by the distillation of animal substances; but Sala is the first person who
seems to have examined it with attention, and to have recognised its
peculiar properties, and the readiness with which it saturates the different
acids. He showed that iron has the property of precipitating copper from
acid solutions: he pointed out also various precipitations of metals by other
metals. He seems to have been acquainted with calomel, and to have been
aware of at least some of its medical properties. He says, that fulminating
gold loses its fulminating property when mixed with its own weight of
sulphur, and the sulphur is burnt off it. Many other curious chemical facts
occur in his writings, which it would be too tedious to particularize here.
His works were collected and published in a quarto volume at Frankfort, in
1647, under the title of “Opera Medico-chymica, quæ extant omnia.” There
was another edition in the same place in 1682, and an edition was published
at Rome in 1650.

CHAPTER V.
OF VAN HELMONT AND THE IATRO-CHEMISTS.

Paracelsus first raised the dignity of chemistry, by pointing out the
necessity of it for medical men, and by showing the superiority of chemical
medicines over the disgusting decoctions of the Galenists. Libavius and
Angelus Sala had carefully separated chemistry from the fanatical opinions
of the followers of Paracelsus and the Rosecrucians. But matters were not
doomed to remain in this state. Chemistry underwent a new revolution at
this period, which shook the Spagirical system to its foundation; substituted
other principles, and gave to medicine an aspect entirely new. This
revolution was in a great measure due to the labours of Van Helmont.

John Baptist Van Helmont was a gentleman of Brabant, and Lord of
Merode, of Royenboch, of Oorschot, and of Pellines. He was born in
Brussels in 1577, and studied scholastic philosophy in Louvain till the age
of seventeen. After having finished his humanity (as it was termed), he
ought, according to the usage of the place, to have taken his degree of
master of arts; but, having reflected on the futility of these ceremonies, he
resolved never to solicit any academical honour. He next associated himself
to the Jesuits, who then delivered courses of philosophy at Louvain, to the
great displeasure of the professors of that city. One of the most celebrated
of the Jesuits, Martin del Rio, even taught him magic. But Van Helmont was
disappointed in his expectations: instead of that true wisdom which he
hoped to acquire, he met with nothing but scholastic dialectics, with all its
usual subtilties. He was no better satisfied with the doctrines of the Stoics,
who taught him his own weakness and misery.

At last the works of Thomas à Kempis, and John Taulerus fell into his
hands. These sacred books of mysticism attracted his attention: he thought
that he perceived that wisdom is the gift of the Supreme Being; that it must

be obtained by prayer; and that we must renounce our own will, if we wish
to participate in the influence of the divine grace. From this moment he
imitated Jesus Christ, in his humility. He abandoned all his property to his
sister, renouncing the privileges of his birth, and laying aside the rank
which he had hitherto occupied in society. It was not long before he reaped
the fruit of these abnegations. A genius appeared to him in all the important
circumstances of his life. In the year 1633 his own soul appeared to him
under the figure of a resplendent crystal.

The desire which he had of imitating in every respect the conduct of
Christ, suggested to him the idea of practising medicine as a work of charity
and benevolence. He began, as was then the custom of the time, by studying
the art of healing in the writings of the ancients. He read the works of
Hippocrates and Galen with avidity; and made himself so well acquainted
with their opinions, that he astonished all the medical men by the profundity
of his knowledge. But as his taste for mysticism was insatiable, he soon
became disgusted with the writings of the Greeks; an accident led him to
abandon them for ever. Happening to take up the glove of a young girl
afflicted with the itch, he caught that disagreeable disease. The Galenists
whom he consulted, attributed it to the combustion of the bile, and the
saline state of the phlegm. They prescribed a course of purgatives which
weakened him considerably, without effecting a cure. This circumstance
disgusted him with the system of the humorists, and led him to form the
resolution of reforming medicine, as Paracelsus had done. The works of this
reformer, which he read with attention, awakened in him a spirit of
reformation, but did not satisfy him; because his knowledge, being much
greater than that of Paracelsus, he could not avoid despising the disgusting
egotism, and the ridiculous ignorance of that fanatic. Though he had already
refused a canonicate, he took the degree of doctor of medicine, in 1599, and
afterwards travelled through the greatest part of France and Italy; and he
assures us, that during his travels, he performed a great number of cures. On
his return, he married a rich Brabantine lady, by whom he had several
children; among others a son, afterwards celebrated under the name of
Francis Mercurius, who edited his father’s works, and who went a good
deal further than his father had done, in all the branches of theosophy. Van
Helmont passed the rest of his life on his estate at Vilvorde, almost
constantly occupied with the processes of his laboratory. He died in the year

1644, on the 13th of December, at six o’clock in the evening, after having
nearly reached the age of sixty-seven years.

The system of Van Helmont has for its basis the opinions of the
spiritualists. He arranged even the influence of evil genii, the efforts of
sorcerers, and the power of magicians among the causes which produce
diseases. The archeus of Paracelsus constituted one of the capital points of
his theory; but he ascribed to it a more substantial nature than Paracelsus
had done. This archeus is independent of the elements; it has no form; for
form constitutes the object of generation, or of production. These ideas are
obviously borrowed from the ancients. The form of Aristotle is not the
μορφη, but the ενεργεια (the power of acting) which matter does not
possess.

The archeus draws all the corpuscles of matter to the aid of
fermentation. There are, properly speaking, only two causes of things; the
cause ex qua, and the cause per quam. The first of these causes is water.
Van Helmont considered water as the true principle of every thing which
exists; and he brought forward very specious arguments in favour of his
opinion, drawn both from the animal and vegetable kingdom. The reader
will find his arguments on the subject, in his treatise entitled
“Complexionum atque Mistionum elementalium Figmentum.”161 The only
one of his experiments that, in the present state of our knowledge, possesses
much plausibility, is the following: He took a large earthen vessel, and put
into it 200 lbs. of earth, previously dried in an oven. This earth he
moistened with rain-water, and planted in it a willow which weighed five
pounds. After an interval of five years, he pulled up his willow and found
that its weight amounted to 169 pounds, and about three ounces. During
these five years, the earth in the pot was duly watered with rain or distilled
water. To prevent the earth in which the willow grew from being mixed
with new earth blown upon it by the winds, the pot was covered with tin
plate, pierced with a great number of holes to admit the air freely. The
leaves which fell every autumn during the vegetation of the willow in the
pot, were not reckoned in the 169 lbs. 3 oz. The earth in the pot being again
dried in the oven, was found to have lost about two ounces of its original
weight. Thus 164 lbs. of wood, bark, roots, &c., were produced from water
alone.162 This, and several other experiments which it is needless to state,

satisfied him that all vegetable substances are produced from water alone.
He takes it for granted that fish live (ultimately at least) on water alone; but
they contain almost all the peculiar animal substances that exist in the
animal kingdom. Hence he concludes that animal substances are derived
also from pure water.163 His reasoning with respect to sulphur, glass, stone,
metals, &c., all of which he thinks may ultimately be resolved into water, is
not so satisfactory.

Water produces elementary earth, or pure quartz; but this elementary
earth does not enter into the composition of organic bodies. Van Helmont
excludes fire from the number of elements, because it is not a substance,
nor even the essential form of a substance. The matter of fire is compound,
and differs entirely from the matter of light. Water gives origin also to the
three chemical principles, salt, sulphur, and mercury, which cannot be
considered as elements or active principles. I do not see clearly how he gets
rid of air; for he says, that though water may be elevated in the form of
vapour, yet that these vapours are no more air than the dust of marble is
water.

According to Van Helmont, a particular disposition of matter, or a
particular mixture of that matter is not necessary for the formation of a
body. The archeus, by its sole power, draws all bodies from water, when the
ferment exists. This ferment, in its quality of a mean which determines the
action of the archeus, is not a formal being; it can neither be called a
substance, nor an accident. It pre-exists in the seed which is developed by
it, and which contains in itself a second ferment of the seed, the product of
the first. The ferment exhales an odour, which attracts the generating spirit
of the archeus. This spirit consists in an aura vitalis, and it creates the
bodies of nature in its own image, after its own idea. It is the true
foundation of life, and of all the functions of organized bodies; it disappears
only at the instant of death to produce a new creation of the body, which
enters then, for the second time, into fermentation. The seed, then, is not
indispensable to enable an animal to propagate its species; it is merely
necessary that the archeus should act upon a suitable ferment. Animals
produced in this manner are as perfect as those which spring from eggs.

When water, as an element, ferments, it develops a vapour, to which
Van Helmont gave the name of gas, and which he endeavours to distinguish
from air. This gas contains the chemical principles of the body from which
it escapes in an aerial form by the impulse of the archeus. It is a substance
intermediate between spirit and matter, the principle of action of life, and of
generation of all bodies; for its production is the first result of the action of
the vital spirit on the torpid ferment, and it may be compared to the chaos
of the ancients.

The term gas, now in common use among chemists, and applied by
them to all elastic fluids which differ in their properties from common air,
was first employed by Van Helmont: and it is evident, from different parts
of his writings, that he was aware that different species of gas exist. His gas
sylvestre was evidently our carbonic acid gas, for he says, that it is evolved
during the fermentation of wine and beer; that it is formed when charcoal is
burnt in air; and that it exists in the Grotto del Cane. He was aware that this
gas extinguishes a lighted candle. But he says that the gases from dung, and
those formed in the large intestines, when passed through a candle, catch
fire, and exhibit a variety of colours, like the rainbow.164 To these
combustible gases he gave the names of gas pingue, gas siccum, gas
fuliginosum, or endimicum.

Sal ammoniac, he says, may be distilled alone, without danger, and so
may aqua fortis (aqua chrysulca), but if they be mixed together so much
gas sylvestre is produced, that the vessels employed, however strong, will
burst asunder, unless an opening be left for the escape of this gas.165 In the
same way cream of tartar cannot be distilled in close vessels without
breaking them in pieces, an opening must be left for the escape of the gas
sylvestre, which is generated in such abundance.166 He says, also, that when
carbonate of lime is dissolved in distilled vinegar, or silver in nitric acid,
abundance of gas sylvestre is extricated. From these, and many other
passages which might be quoted, it is evident that Van Helmont was aware
of the evolution of gas during the solution of carbonates and metals in
acids, and during the distillation of various animal and vegetable
substances, that he had anticipated the experiments made so many years
after by Dr. Hales, and for which that philosopher got so much credit. But it
would be going too far to say, as some have done, that Van Helmont knew

accurately the differences which characterize the different gases which he
produced, or indeed that he distinguished accurately between them. For it is
evident, from the passages quoted and from many others which occur in his
treatise, De Flatibus, that carbonic acid, protoxide of azote, and deutoxide
of azote, and probably also muriatic acid gas were all considered by him as
constituting one and the same gas. How, indeed, could he distinguish
between different gases when he was not acquainted with the method of
collecting them, or of determining their properties? These observations of
Van Helmont, then, though they do him much credit, and show how far his
chemical knowledge was superior to that of the age in which he lived, take
nothing from the merit or the credit of those illustrious chemists who, in the
latter half of the eighteenth century, devoted themselves to the investigation
of this part of chemistry, at that time attended with much difficulty, but
intimately connected with the subsequent progress which the science has
made.

Van Helmont was aware, also, that the bulk of air is diminished when
bodies are burnt in it. He considered respiration to be necessary in this way:
the air was drawn into the blood by the pulmonary arteries and veins, and
occasioned a fermentation in it requisite for the continuance of life.

Gas, according to Van Helmont, has an affinity with the principle of
the movement of the stars, to which he gave the name of blas. It had, he
supposed, much influence on all sublunary bodies. He admitted in the
ferment which gives birth to plants, a substance which, after the example of
Paracelsus, he called pessas, and to the metallic ferment he gave the name
of bur.167

The archeus of Van Helmont, like that of Paracelsus, has its seat in the
stomach. It is the same thing as the sentient soul. This notion of the nature
and seat of the archeus was founded on the following experiment: He
swallowed a quantity of aconitum (henbane). In two hours he experienced
the most disagreeable sensation in his stomach. His feeling and
understanding seemed to be concentrated in that organ, for he had no longer
the free use of his mental faculties. This feeling induced him to place the
seat of understanding in the stomach, of volition in the heart, and of
memory in the brain. The faculty of desire, to which the ancients had

assigned the liver as its organ, he placed in the spleen. What confirmed him
still more in the idea that the stomach is the seat of the soul, is the fact, that
life sometimes continues after the destruction of the brain, but never, he
alleges, after that of the stomach. The sentient soul acts constantly by means
of the vital spirits, which are of a resplendent nature, and the nerves serve
merely to moisten these spirits which constitute the mediums of sensation.
By virtue of the archeus man is much nearer to the realm of spirits and the
father of all the genii, than to the world. He thinks that Paracelsus’s constant
comparison of the human body with the world is absurd. Yet Van Helmont,
at least in his youth, was a believer in magnetism, which he employed as a
method of explaining the effect of sympathy.

The archeus exercises the greatest influence on digestion, and he has
chiefly the stomach and spleen under his superintendence. These two
organs form a duumvirate in the body; for the stomach cannot act alone and
without the concurrence of the spleen. Digestion is produced by means of
an acid liquor, which dissolves the food, under the superintendence of the
archeus. Van Helmont assures us that he had himself tasted this acid liquor
in the stomach of birds. Heat, strictly speaking, does not favour digestion;
for we see no increase of the digestive powers during the most ardent fever.
Nor are the powers of digestion wanting in fishes, although they want the
animal heat which is requisite for mammiferous animals. Certain birds even
digest fragments of glass, which, certainly, simple heat would not enable
them to do. The pylorus is, in some measure, the director of digestion. It
acts by a peculiar and immaterial power, in virtue of a blas, and not as a
muscle. It opens and shuts the stomach according to the orders of the
archeus. It is in it, therefore, that the causes of derangement of digestion
must be sought for.

The duumvirate just spoken of is the cause of natural sleep, which does
not belong to the soul, as far as it resides in the stomach. Sleep is a natural
action, and one of the first vital actions. Hence the reason why the embryo
sleeps without ceasing. At any rate it is not true that sleep is owing to
vapours which mount to the brain. During sleep the soul is naturally
occupied, and it is then that the deity approaches most intimately to man.
Accordingly, Van Helmont informs us, that he received in dreams the
revelation of several secrets, which he could not have learnt otherwise.

The duumvirate operates the first digestion, of which, Van Helmont
enumerates six different species. When the acid, which is prepared for
digestion, passes into the duodenum it is neutralized by the bile of the gall-
bladder. This constitutes the second digestion. To the bile of the gall-
bladder, Van Helmont gave the name of fel, and he carefully distinguished it
from the biliary principle in the mass of the blood. This last he called bile.
The fel is not an excrementitious matter, but a humour necessary to life, a
true vital balsam. Van Helmont endeavoured to show by various
experiments that it is not bitter.

The third digestion takes place in the vessels of the mesentery, into
which the gall-bladder sends the prepared fluid. The fourth digestion is
operated in the heart, where the red blood becomes more yellow and more
volatile by the addition of the vital spirits. This is owing to the passage of
the vital spirit from the posterior to the anterior ventricle, through the pores
of the septum. At the same time the pulse is produced, which of itself
develops heat; but does not regulate it in any manner, as the ancients
pretended that it did. The fifth digestion consists in the conversion of the
arterial blood into vital spirit. It takes place principally in the brain, but is
produced also throughout all the body. The sixth digestion consists in the
elaboration of the nutritive principle in each member, where the archeus
prepares its own nourishment by means of the vital spirits. Thus, there are
six digestions: the number seven has been chosen by nature for a state of
repose.

From the preceding sketch of the physiology of Van Helmont, it is
evident that he paid little or no regard to the structure of the parts in
explaining the functions. In his pathology we find the same passion for
spiritualism. He admitted, indeed, the importance of anatomy, but he
regretted that the pathological part of that science had been so little
cultivated. As the archeus is the foundation of life and of all the functions, it
is plain that the diseases can neither be derived from the four cardinal
humours, nor from the disposition or the action of opposite things; the
proximate cause of diseases must be sought for in the sufferings, the anger,
the fear, and the other affections of the archeus, and their remote cause may
be considered as the ideal seed of the archeus. Disease, in his opinion, is not
a negative state or a mere absence of health, it is a substantial and active

thing as well as a state of health. Most of the diseases which attack certain
parts or members of the body result from an error in the archeus, who sends
his ferment from the stomach in which he resides into the other parts of the
body. Van Helmont explained in this way not only the epilepsy and
madness, but likewise the gout, which does not proceed from a flux, and
has not its seat in the limb in which the pain resides, but is always owing to
an error in the vital spirit. It is true that the character of the gout acts upon
the semen in which the vital spirit principally manifests its action, and that
in this way diseases are propagated in the act of generation; but if, during
life instead of altering the semen it is carried to the liquid of the
articulations, this is a proof of the prudence of nature, which lavishes all her
cares on the preservation of the species, and loves better to alter the
humours of the articulations than the semen itself. The gout acidifies the
liquors of the articulations, which is then coagulated by the acids. The
duumvirate is the cause of apoplexy, vertigo, and particularly of a species of
asthma, which Van Helmont calls caducus pulmonalis. Pleurisy is produced
in a similar way. The archeus, in a movement of rage, sends acrid acids to
the lungs, which occasion an inflammation. Dropsy is also owing to the
anger of the archeus, who prevents the secretions of the kidneys from going
on in the usual way.

Of all the diseases, fever appeared to him most conformable to his
notions of the unlimited power of the archeus. The causes of fever are all
much more proper to offend the archeus, than to alter the structure of parts
and the mixture of humours. The cold fit is owing to a state of fear and
consternation, into which the archeus is thrown, and the hot stage results
from his disordered movements. All fevers have their peculiar seat in the
duumvirate.

Van Helmont was in general much more successful in refuting the
scholastic opinions by which the practice of medicine was regulated in his
time, than in establishing his own. We are struck with the force of his
arguments against the Galenical doctrine of fever, and against the influence
of the cardinal humours on the different kinds of fever. He refuted no less
vehemently the idea of the putridity of the blood, while that liquid circulates
in the vessels. Perhaps he carried the opposite doctrine too far; but his
opinions have had a good effect upon subsequent medical theory, and

medical men learned from them to make less use of the term putridity. The
phrase mixture of humours, not more intelligible, however, came to be
substituted for it.

Van Helmont’s theory of urinary calculi deserves peculiar attention,
because it exhibits the germ of a more rational explanation of these
concretions than had been previously attempted by physiologists. Van
Helmont was aware that Paracelsus, who ascribed these concretions to
tartar, had formed an idea of their nature, which a careful chemical analysis
would immediately refute. He satisfied himself that urinary calculi differ
completely from common stones, and that they do not exist in the food or
drink which the calculous person had taken. Tartar, he says, precipitates
from wine, not as an earth, but as a crystallized salt. In like manner, the
natural salt of urine precipitates from that liquid, and gives origin to calculi.
We may imitate this natural process by mixing spirit of urine with rectified
alcohol. Immediately an offa alba is precipitated.

It is needless to observe that Van Helmont was mistaken, in supposing
that this offa was the matter of calculus. Spirit of urine was a strong solution
of carbonate of ammonia. The alcohol precipitated this salt; so that his offa
was merely carbonate of ammonia. Nor is there the shadow of evidence that
alcohol, as Van Helmont thought it did, ever makes its way into the mass of
humours; yet his notion of the origin of calculi is not less accurate, though
of course he was ignorant of the chemical nature of the various substances
which constitute these calculi. From this reasoning Van Helmont was
induced to reject the term tartar, employed by Paracelsus. To avoid all false
interpretations he substitutes the word duelech, to denote the state in which
the spirit of urine precipitates and gives origin to these calculous
concretions.

As all diseases proceeded in his opinion from the archeus, the object of
his treatment was to calm the archeus, to stimulate it, and to regulate its
movements. To accomplish these objects he relied upon dietetics, and upon
acting on the imaginations of his patients. He considered certain words as
very efficacious in curing the diseases of the archeus. He admitted the
existence of the universal medicine, to which he gave the names of liquor
alkahest, ens primum salium, primus metallus. Mercurials, antimonials,

opium, and wine, are particularly agreeable to the archeus, when in a state
of delirium from fever.

Among the mercurial preparations, he praises what he calls mercurius
diaphoreticus as the best. He gives no account of the mode of preparing it;
but from some circumstances I think it must have been calomel. He
considers it as a sovereign remedy in fevers, dropsies, diseases of the liver,
and ulcers of the lungs. He employed the red oxide of mercury as an
external application to ulcers. The principal antimonial preparations which
he employed were the hydrosulphuret, or golden sulphur, and the
deutoxide, or antimonium diaphoreticum. This last medicine was used in
scruple doses—a proof of its great inertness compared with the protoxide of
antimony.

Opium he considered as a fortifying and calming medicine. It contains
an acrid salt and a bitter oil, which give it the virtue of putting a stop to the
errors of the archeus, when it was sending its acid ferment into other acid
parts of the body. Van Helmont assures us that he wrought many important
cures by the employment of wine.

Such is a very short statement of the opinions of a man, who,
notwithstanding his attachment to the fanatical opinions which
distinguished the time in which he lived, had the merit of overturning a vast
number of errors, both theoretical and practical; and of laying down many
principles, which, for want of erudition, have been frequently assigned to
modern writers. Van Helmont has been frequently placed on the same level
with Paracelsus, and treated like him with contempt. But his claims upon
the medical world are much higher, and his merits infinitely greater. His
notions, it is true, were fanatical; but his erudition was great, his
understanding excellent, and his industry indefatigable. His writings did not
become known till rather a late period; for, with the exception of a single
tract, they were not published till 1648, by his son, after his death.

The decided preference given to chemical medicines by Van Helmont,
and the uses to which he applies chemical theory, had a natural tendency to
raise chemistry to a higher rank in the eyes of medical men than it had yet
reached. But the man to whom the credit of founding the iatro-chemical sect
is due, is Francis de le Boé Sylvius, who was born in the year 1614. While a

practitioner of medicine at Amsterdam, he studied with profound attention
the system of Van Helmont, and the rival and much more popular theory of
Descartes: upon these he founded his own theory, which, in reality, contains
little entitled to the name of original, notwithstanding the tone in which he
speaks of it, and his repeated declarations that he had borrowed from no
one. He was appointed professor of the theory and practice of medicine in
the University of Leyden, where he taught with such eclat, and drew after
him so great a number of pupils, that Boerhaave alone surpassed him in this
respect. It was he that first introduced the practice of giving clinical lectures
in the hospitals, on the cases treated in the presence of the pupils. This
admirable innovation has been productive of much benefit to medicine. He
greatly promoted anatomical studies, and inspected, himself, a vast number
of dead bodies. This is the more remarkable, because his own system, like
that of Van Helmont, from whom it was borrowed, was quite independent of
the structure of the parts.

Every thing was explained by him according to the principles of
chemistry, as they were then understood. The celebrity of the university in
which he taught, and the vast number of his pupils, contributed to spread
this theory into every part of the world, and to give it an eclat which is
really surprising, when we consider it with attention. But he possessed the
talents just suited for securing the reception of his opinions by his pupils as
infallible oracles, and of being the idol of the university. Yet it is
melancholy to be obliged to add, that few persons ever more abused the
favours of nature, or the advantages of situation and elocution.

To form a clear idea of the principles of this founder of iatro-
chemistry, we have only to call to mind the ferments of Van Helmont,
which constitute the foundation-stone of the whole system. We cannot, says
he, conceive a single change in the mixture of the humours, which is not the
consequence of fermentation; and yet he assigns to this fermentation
conditions which are scarcely to be found united in the living body.
Digestion, in his opinion, is a true fermentation produced by the application
of a ferment. Like Van Helmont, he admits a triumvirate; but places it in the
humours; the effervescence or fermentation of which enabled him to
explain most of the functions of the body. Digestion is the result of the
mixture of the saliva with the pancreatic juice and the bile, and the

fermentation of these humours. The saliva, as well as the pancreatic juice,
contains an acidulous salt easily recognised by the taste. Here Sylvius
derives advantage from the experiments of Regnier de Graaf on the
pancreatic juice, which he had constantly found acid.

Sylvius, who affirmed that the bile contained an alkali, united with an
oil and a volatile spirit, supposes an effervescence from the union of the
alkali of the bile with the acid of the pancreatic juice, and this fermentation
he considered as the cause of digestion. By this fermentation the chyle is
produced, which is nothing else than the volatile spirit of the food
accompanied by an oil and an alkali, neutralized by a weak acid. The blood
is more than completed (plus quam perficitur) in the spleen. It acquires its
highest perfection by the addition of a certain quantity of vital spirits. The
bile is not drawn from the blood in the liver, but pre-exists in the circulating
fluid. It mixes with that fluid anew to be carried to the heart together with
the lymph, equally mixed with the blood, and there it gives origin to a vital
fermentation. In this way the blood becomes the centre of reunion of all the
humours of the secretions, which mix together or separate, without the
solids taking the smallest share in the operations. Indeed, so completely are
the solids banished from the system of Sylvius that he attends to nothing
whatever except the humours.

The formation and motion of the blood is explained by the
fermentation of the oily volatile salt of the bile, and the dulcified acid of the
lymph, which develops the vital heat, by which the blood is attenuated and
becomes capable of circulating. This vital fire, quite different from ordinary
fire is kept up in its turn by the uniform mixture of the blood. It attenuates
the humours, not because it is heat but because it is composed of pyramids.
This last notion is obviously borrowed from Descartes, just as the
fermentation in the heart, as the cause of the motion of the blood, reminds
us of the opinions of Van Helmont.

Sylvius explains the preparation of the vital spirits in the encephalos
by distillation, and he finds a great resemblance between their properties
and those of spirit of wine. The nerves conduct these spirits to the different
parts, and they spread themselves in the substance of the organs to render
them sensible. When they insinuate themselves into the glands the addition
of the acid of the blood produces a liquid analogous to naphtha, which
constitutes the lymph. Lymph, then, is a compound of the vital spirit and the
acid of the blood. Milk is formed in the mammæ by the afflux of a very
mild acid, which gives a white colour to the red humour of the blood.

The theory of the natural functions was no less chemical. Even the
diseases themselves were explained upon chemical principles. Sylvius first
introduced the word acridity to denote a predominance of the chemical
elements of the humours, and he looked upon these acridities as the
proximate cause of all diseases. But as every thing acrid may be referred to
one or other of two classes, acids and alkalies, there are only two great
classes of diseases; namely, those proceeding from an acid acridity, and
those proceeding from an alkaline.

Sylvius was not altogether ignorant of the constituent parts of the
animal humours; but it is obvious, from the account of his opinions just
given, that this knowledge was very incomplete; indeed the whole of his
chemical science resolves itself into a comparison of the humours of the
living body with chemical liquids. Perhaps his notions respecting such of
the gases, as he had occasion to observe, were somewhat clearer than those
of Van Helmont. He called them halitus, and takes some notice of their
different chemical properties, and states the influence which he supposes
them to exert in certain diseases.

In the human body he saw nothing but a magna of humours
continually in fermentation, distillation, effervescence, or precipitation; and
the physician was degraded by him to the rank of a distiller or a brewer.

Bile acquires different acridities, when bad food, altered air, or other
similar causes act apon the body. It becomes acid or alkaline. In the former
case it thickens and occasions obstructions; in the latter it excites febrile
heat; and the viscid vapours elevated from it are the cause of the cold fit
with which fever commences. All acute and continued fevers have their
origin in this acridity of the bile. The vicious mixture of the bile with the
blood, or its specific acridity, produces jaundice, which is far from being
always owing to obstructions in the liver. The vicious effervescence of the
bile with the pancreatic juice produces almost all other diseases. But all
these assertions of Sylvius are unsupported by evidence.

The acid acridity of the pancreatic juice, and the obstruction of the
pancreatic ducts, which are produced by it, are considered by him as the
cause of intermittent fevers. When the acid of the pancreatic juice acquires
still more acridity, hypochondriasis and hysteria are the consequences of it.

If, during the morbid effervescence of the pancreatic juice with the bile an
acid and viscid humour arise, the vital spirits of the heart are overwhelmed
during a certain time. This occasions syncope, palpitation of the heart, and
other nervous affections.

When the acid acridity of the pancreatic juice or of the lymph (for both
are similar) is deposited on the nerves, the consequence is spasms or
convulsions; epilepsy in particular depends upon the acrid vapours
produced by the morbid effervescence of the pancreatic juice with acrid
bile. Gout has the same origin as intermittent fevers, for we must look for it
in the obstruction of the pancreas and the lymphatic glands, accompanied
with an acid acridity of the lymph. Rheumatism is owing to the acrid acid,
deprived of the oil which dulcifies it. The smallpox is occasioned by an acid
acridity in the lymph, which gives origin to the pustules. Indeed all
suppuration in general is owing to a coagulating acid in the lymph. Syphilis
results from a caustic acid in the lymph. The itch is produced by an acid
acridity of the lymph. Dropsies are produced by the same acid acridity of
the lymph. Urinary calculi are the consequences of a coagulating acid
existing in the lymph and the pancreatic juice. Corrosive acids, and the loss
of volatile spirits, occasion leucorrhœa.

From the preceding statement it would appear that almost all diseases
proceed from acids. However, Sylvius informs us that malignant fevers are
owing to a superabundance of volatile salts and to a too great tenuity of the
blood. The vital spirits themselves give occasion to diseases. They are
sometimes too aqueous, sometimes they effervesce too violently, and
sometimes not at all. Hence all the nervous diseases, which Sylvius never
considers as existing by themselves; but as always derived from the acid,
acrid, or alkaline vapours which trouble the vital spirits.

The method of cure which Sylvius deduced from these absurd and
contemptible hypotheses, was worthy of the hypotheses themselves; and
certainly constitute the most detestable mode of treatment that ever has
disgraced medical science. To diseases produced by the effervescence of the
bile he opposed purgatives; because in his opinion emetics produced
injurious effects. The reason was, that the emetics which he employed were
too violent, consisting of antimonial preparations, particularly powder of

Algerotti, or an impure protoxide of antimony. For though emetic tartar had
been discovered in 1630, it does not seem to have come into use till a much
later period. We do not find any notice of it in the praxis chymiatrica of
Hartmann published in 1647, at Geneva.

He endeavoured to moderate the acridity of the bile by opiates and
other narcotics. It will scarcely be believed, though it was a natural
consequence of his opinions, when we state that he recommended
ammoniacal preparations, particularly his oleaginous volatile salt, and spirit
of hartshorn, &c., as cures for almost all diseases. Sometimes they were
employed to correct the acidity of the lymph, sometimes to destroy the acid
acridity of the pancreatic juice, sometimes to correct the inertness of the
vital spirits, sometimes to promote the secretions, and to induce a flow of
the menses. Volatile spirit of amber and opium were prescribed by him in
intermittent fevers; and volatile salts in almost all acute diseases. He united
them with antivenomous potions, angelica, contrayerva, bezoard, crabs’
eyes, and other similar substances. These absorbents seemed to him very
necessary to correct the acidity of the pancreatic juice, and the acridity of
the bile. In administering them he paid no attention to the regular course
which acute diseases usually run; he neither inquired into the remote nor
proximate causes of disease, nor to the symptoms: every thing was
neglected connected with induction, and his whole proceedings regulated
by wild speculations and absurd theories, quite inconsistent with the
phenomena of nature.

To attempt to refute these wild notions of Sylvius would be loss of
time. It is extraordinary, and almost incredible, that he could have regulated
his practice by them: and it is a still more incredible thing, and exhibits a
very humiliating view of human nature, that these crudities and absurdities
were swallowed with avidity by crowds of students, who placed a blind
reliance on the dogmas of their master, and were initiated by him into a
method of treating their patients, better calculated than any other that could
easily have been devised, to aggravate all their diseases, and put an end to
their lives. If any of the patients of the iatro-chemists ever recovered their
health, well might it be said that their recovery was not the consequence of
the prescriptions of their physicians, but that it took place in spite of
them.168

It is a very remarkable circumstance, and shows clearly that mankind
in general had become disgusted with the dogmas of the Galenists, that
iatro-chemistry was adopted more or less completely by almost all
physicians. There were, indeed, a few individuals who raised their voices
against it; but, what is curious and inexplicable, they never attempted to
start objections against the principles of the iatro-chemists, or to point out
the futility of their hypothesis, and their inconsistency with fact. They
combated them by arguments not more solid than those of their antagonists.

During the presidency of Riolan over the Medical College of Paris,
that learned body set itself against all innovations. Guy Patin, who was a
medical professor in the University of Paris, and a man of great celebrity,
opposed the chemical system of medicine with much zeal. In his
Martyrologium Antimonii he collects all the cases in which the use of
antimony, as a medicine, had proved injurious to the patient. But in the year
1666, the dispute relative to antimony, and particularly relative to tartar
emetic, became so violent, that all the doctors of the faculty of Paris were
assembled by an order of the parliament, under the presidency of Dean
Vignon, and after a long deliberation, it was concluded by a majority of
ninety-two votes, that tartar emetic, and other antimonials, should not only
be permitted, but even recommended. Patin after this decision pretended no
longer to combat chemical medicine; but he did not remain inactive. One of
his friends, Francis Blondel, demanded the resolution to be cancelled; but
his exertions were unsuccessful; nor were the writings of Guillemeau and
Menjot, who were also keen partisans of the views of Patin, attended with
better success.

In England iatro-chemistry assumed a direction quite peculiar. It was
embraced by a set of men who had cultivated anatomy with the most
marked success, and who were quite familiar with the experimental method
of investigating nature. The most eminent of all the English supporters of
iatro-chemistry was Thomas Willis, who was a contemporary of Sylvius.

Dr. Willis was born at Great Bodmin, in Wiltshire, in 1621. He was a
student at Christchurch College, in Oxford, when that city was garrisoned
for King Charles I. Like the other students, he bore arms for his Majesty,
and devoted his leisure hours to the study of physic. After the surrender of

Oxford to the parliament, he devoted himself to the practice of medicine,
and soon acquired reputation. He appropriated a room as an oratory for
divine service, according to the forms of the church of England, to which
most of the loyalists of Oxford daily resorted. In 1660, he became Sedleian
professor of natural philosophy, and the same year he took the degree of
doctor of physic. He settled ultimately in London, and soon acquired a
higher reputation, and a more extensive practice, than any of his
contemporaries. He died in 1675, and was buried in Westminster Abbey. He
was a first-rate anatomist. To him we are indebted for the first accurate
description of the brain and nerves.

But it is as an iatro-chemist that he claims a place in this work. His
notions approach nearer to those of Paracelsus than to the hypotheses of
Van Helmont and Sylvius. He admits the three chemical elements of
Paracelsus, salt, sulphur, and mercury, in all the bodies in nature, and
employs them to explain their properties and changes; but he gives the
name of spirit to the mercury of Paracelsus. He ascribes to it the virtue of
volatilizing all the constituent parts of bodies: salt, on the other hand, is the
cause of fixity in bodies; sulphur produces colour and heat, and unites the
spirit to the salt. In the stomach there occurs an acid ferment, which forms
the chyle with the sulphur of the aliments: this chyle enters into
effervescence in the heart, because the salt and sulphur take fire together.
From this results the vital flame, which penetrates every thing. The vital
spirits are secreted in the brain by a real distillation. The vessels of the
testes draw an elixir from the constituent parts of the blood; but the spleen
retains the earthy part, and communicates a new igneous ferment to the
circulating fluid. On this account the blood must be considered as a humour,
constantly disposed to fermentation, and in this respect it may be compared
to wine. Every humour in which salt, sulphur, and spirit predominates in a
certain manner, may be converted into a ferment. All diseases proceed from
a morbid state or action of this ferment; and a physician may be compared
to a wine-merchant; for, like him, he has nothing to do but to watch that the
necessary fermentations take place with regularity, and that no foreign
substance come to derange the operation.

At this period the mania of explaining every thing had proceeded to
such a length, that no distinction was made between dead and living bodies.

The chemical facts which were at that time known, were applied without
hesitation to explain all the functions and all the diseases of the living body.
According to Willis, fever is the simple result of a violent and preternatural
effervescence of the blood and the other humours of the body, either
produced by external causes, or by internal ferments, into which the chyle is
converted when it mixes with the blood. The effervescence of the vital
spirits is the source of quotidians; that of salt and sulphur produces
continued fever; and external ferments of a malignant nature produce
malignant fevers. Thus the smallpox is owing to the seeds of fermentation
set in activity by an external principle of contagion. Spasms and
convulsions are produced by an explosion of the salt and sulphur with the
animal spirits. Hypochondriacal affections and hysteria depend originally
on the morbid putrifaction of the blood in the spleen, or on a bad
fermentescible principle, loaded with salt and sulphur, which unites with the
vital spirits and deranges them. Scurvy is owing to an alteration of the
blood, which may then be compared to vapid or stale wine. The gout is
merely the coagulation of the nutritive juices altered by the acidified animal
spirits; just as sulphuric acid forms a coagulum with carbonate of potash.

The action of medicines is easily explained by the effects which they
produce on the nourishing principles. Sudorifics are considered as cordials,
because they augment the sulphur of the blood, which is the true food of the
vital flame. Cordials purify the animal spirits, and fix the too volatile blood.
Willis disagrees with the other iatro-chemists of his time in one thing: he
recommends bleeding in the greater number of diseases, as an excellent
method of diminishing unnatural fermentation.

Dr. Croone, a celebrated Fellow of the Royal Society, was another
English iatro-chemist, who attempted to explain muscular motion by the
effervescence of the nervous fluid, or animal spirits.

It is not worth while to notice the host of writers—English, French,
Italian, Dutch, and German, who exerted themselves to maintain, improve,
and defend, the chemical doctrines of medicine. The first person who
attempted to overturn these absurd doctrines, and to introduce something
more satisfactory in their place, was Mr. Boyle, at that time in the height of
his celebrity.

Robert Boyle was born at Youghall, in the province of Munster, on the
25th of January, 1627. He was the seventh son, and the fourteenth child of
Richard, Earl of Cork. He was partly educated at home, and partly at Eton,
where he was under the tuition of Sir Henry Wotton. At the age of eleven,
he travelled with his brother and a French tutor through France to Geneva,
where he pursued his studies for twenty-one months, and then went to Italy.
During this period, he acquired the French and Italian languages; and,
indeed, talked in the former with so much fluency and correctness, that he
passed, when he thought proper, for a Frenchman. In 1642, his father’s
finances were deranged, by the breaking out of the great Irish rebellion. His
tutor, who was a Genevese, was obliged to borrow, on his own credit, a sum
of money sufficient to carry him home. On his arrival, he found his father
dead; and, though two estates had been left to him, such was the state of the
times, that several years elapsed before he could command the requisite
sum of money to supply his exigencies. He retired to an estate at Stalbridge,
in Dorsetshire.

In 1654 he went to Oxford, where he associated himself with a number
of eminent men (Dr. Willis among others), who had constituted themselves
into a combination for experimental investigations, distinguished by the
name of the Philosophical College. This society was transferred to London;
and, in 1663, was incorporated by Charles II. under the name of the Royal
Society. In 1668 Mr. Boyle took up his residence in London, where he
continued till the last day of December, 1691, assiduously occupied in
experimental investigations, on which day he died, in the sixty-fifth year of
his age.

We are indebted to Mr. Boyle for the first introduction of the air-pump
and the thermometer into Britain, and for contributing so much, by means
of Dr. Hooke, to the improvement of both. His hydrostatical and
pneumatical investigations and experiments constitute the foundation of
these two sciences. The thermometer was first made an accurate instrument
of investigation by Sir Isaac Newton, in 1701. This he did by selecting as
two fixed points the temperatures at which water freezes and boils; marking
these upon the stem of the thermometer, and dividing the interval between
them into a certain number of degrees. All thermometers made in this way
will stand at the same point when plunged into bodies of the same

temperature. The number of divisions between the freezing and boiling
points constitute the cause of the differences between different
thermometers. In Fahrenheit’s thermometer, which is used in Great Britain,
the number of degrees, between the freezing and boiling points of water, is
180; in Reaumur’s it is 80; in Celsius’s, or the centigrade, it is 100; and in
De Lisle’s it is 150.

But my reason for mentioning Mr. Boyle here was, the attempt which
he made in 1661, by the publication of his Sceptical Chemist, to overturn
the absurd opinions of the iatro-chemists. He raises doubts, not only
respecting the existence of the elements of the Peripatetics, but even of
those of the chemists. The first elements of bodies, in his opinion, are
atoms, of different shapes and sizes; the union of which gives origin to what
we vulgarly call elements. We cannot restrain the number of these to four,
as the Peripatetics do; nor to three, with the chemists: neither are they
immutable, but convertible into each other. Fire is not the means that ought
to be employed to obtain them; for the salt and sulphur are formed during
its action by the union of different simple bodies.

Boyle shows, besides, that the chemical theory of qualities is
exceedingly inaccurate and uncertain; because it takes for granted things
which are very doubtful, and in many cases directly contrary to the
phenomena of nature. He endeavours to prove the truth of these ideas, and
particularly the production of the chemical principles, by a great number of
convincing and conclusive experiments.

In another treatise, entitled “The Imperfections of the Chemical
Doctrine of Qualities,”169 he points out, in the second section, the
insufficiency of the hypotheses of Sylvius relative to the generality of acids
and alkalies. He shows that the offices ascribed to them are arbitrary, and
the notions respecting them unsettled; that the hypotheses respecting them
are needless, and insufficient, and afford but an unsatisfactory solution of
the phenomena.

These arguments of Boyle did not immediately shake the credit of the
chemical system. In the year 1691, a chemical academy was founded at
Paris by Nicolas de Blegny, the express object of which was to examine

these objections of Boyle, which by this time had attracted great attention.
Boyle’s experiments were repeated and confirmed; but the academicians,
notwithstanding, came to the conclusion, that it is unnecessary to have
recourse to the true elements of bodies; and that the phenomena which
occur in the animal economy may be explained by the predominance of
acids or alkalies. Various other publications appeared, all on the same side.

In Germany, Hermann Conringius, the most skilful physician of his
time, opposed the chemical theory; and his opinions were impugned by
Olaus Borrichius, who defended not only alchymy, but the chemical theory
of medicine, with equal erudition and zeal.170

Towards the end of the sixteenth century, the chemists thought of
examining the liquids of the living body, to ascertain whether they really
contained the acids and alkalies which had been assigned them, and
considered as the cause of all diseases. But at that time chemistry had made
so little progress, and such was the want of skill of those who undertook
these investigations, that they readily obtained every thing that was wanted
to confirm their previous notions. John Viridet, a physician of Geneva,
announced that he had found an acid in the saliva and the pancreatic juice,
and an alkali in the gastric juice and the bile. But the most celebrated
experiments of that period were those of Raimond Vieussens, undertaken in
1698, in order to discover the presence of an acid spirit in the blood. His
method was, to mix blood with a species of clay, called bole, and to subject
the mixture to distillation. He found that the liquid distilled over was acid.
Charmed with this discovery, which he considered as of first-rate
importance, he announced it by letter to the different academies and
colleges in Europe. Some doubts being raised about the accuracy of his
experiment, it having been alleged that the acid came from the clay which
he had mixed with the blood, and not from the blood itself, Vieussens
purified the bole from all the acid which it could contain, and repeated his
experiment again. The result was the same—the acrid salt of the fluid
yielded an acid spirit.

It would be needless in the present state of our knowledge to point out
the inaccuracy of such an experiment, or how little it contributed to prove
that blood contains a free acid. It is now well known to chemists, that blood

is remarkably free from acids; and, that if we except a little common salt,
which exists in all the liquids of the human body, there is neither any acid
nor salt whatever in that liquid.

Michael Ettmuller, at Leipsic, who was a chemist of some eminence in
his day, and published a small treatise on the science, which was much
sought after, was also a zealous iatro-chemist; but his opinions were
obviously regulated by the researches of Boyle. He denies the existence of
acids and alkalies in certain bodies, and distinguishes carefully between
acid and putrid fermentation.

One of the most formidable antagonists to the iatro-chemical doctrines
was Dr. Archibald Pitcairne, first a professor of medicine in the University
of Leyden, and afterwards of Edinburgh, and one of the most eminent
physicians of his time. He was born in Edinburgh, on the 25th of December,
1652. After finishing his school education in Dalkeith, he went to the
University of Edinburgh, where he improved himself in classical learning,
and completed a regular course of philosophy. He turned his attention to the
law, and prosecuted his studies with so much ardour and intensity that his
health began to suffer. He was advised to travel, and set out accordingly for
the South of France: by the time he reached Paris he was so far recovered
that he determined to renew his studies; but as there was no eminent
professor of law in that city, and as several gentlemen of his acquaintance
were engaged in the study of medicine, he went with them to the lectures
and hospitals, and employed himself in this way for several months, till his
affairs called him home.

On his return he applied himself chiefly to mathematics, in which,
under the auspices of his friend, the celebrated Dr. David Gregory, he made
uncommon progress. Struck with the charms of this science, and hoping by
the application of it to medicine to reduce the healing art under the rigid
rules of mathematical demonstration, he formed the resolution of devoting
himself to the study of medicine. There was at that time no medical school
in Edinburgh, and no hospital at which he could improve himself; he
therefore repaired to Paris, and devoted himself to his studies with a degree
of ardour that ensured an almost unparalleled success. In 1680 he received

from the faculty of Rheims the degree of doctor of medicine, a degree also
conferred on him in 1699 by the University of Aberdeen.

In the year 1691 his reputation was so high that the University of
Leyden solicited him to fill the medical chair, at that time vacant; he
accepted the invitation, and delivered a course of lectures at Leyden, which
was greatly admired by all his auditors, among whom were Boerhaave and
Mead. At the close of the session he set out for Scotland, to marry the
daughter of Sir Archibald Stevenson: his friends in his own country would
not consent to part with him, and thus he was reluctantly obliged to resign
his chair in the University of Leyden.

He settled as a physician in Edinburgh, where he was appointed titular
professor of medicine. His practice extended beyond example, and he was
more consulted by foreigners than any Edinburgh physician either before or
after his time. He died in October, 1713, admired and regretted by the
whole country. He was a zealous supporter of iatro-mathematics, and as
such a professed antagonist of the iatro-chemists. He refuted their opinions
with much strength of reasoning, while his high reputation gave his
opinions an uncommon effect; so that he contributed perhaps as much as
any one, to put a period to the most disgraceful, as well as dangerous, set of
opinions that ever overspread the medical horizon.

Into the merits of the iatro-mathematicians it is not the business of this
work to enter; they at least display science, and labour, and erudition, and in
all these respects are far before the iatro-chemists. Perhaps their own
opinions were not more agreeable to the real structure of the human body,
nor their practice more conformable to reason, or more successful than
those of the chemists. Probably the most valuable of all Dr. Pitcairne’s
writings, is his vindication of the claims of Hervey to the great discovery of
the circulation.

Boerhaave, the pupil of Pitcairne, and afterwards a professor in
Leyden, was a no less zealous or successful opponent of the iatro-chemists.

Herman Boerhaave, perhaps the most celebrated physician that ever
existed, if we except Hippocrates, was born at Voorhout, a village near
Leyden, in 1668, where his father was the parish clergyman. At the age of

sixteen he was left without parents, protection, advice, or fortune. He had
already studied theology, and the other branches of knowledge that are
considered as requisite for a clergyman, to which situation he aspired; and
while occupied with these studies he supported himself at Leyden by
teaching mathematics to the students—a branch of knowledge to which he
had devoted himself with considerable ardour while living in his father’s
house. But, a report being raised that he was attached to the doctrines of
Spinoza, the clamour against him was so loud that he thought it requisite to
renounce his intention of going into orders.171 He turned his studies to
medicine, and the branches of science connected with that pursuit, and these
delightful subjects soon engrossed the whole of his attention. In 1693 he
was created doctor of medicine, and began to practise. He continued to
teach mathematics for some time, till his practice increased sufficiently to
enable him to live by his fees. His spare money was chiefly laid out upon
books; he also erected a chemical laboratory, and though he had no garden
he paid great attention to the study of plants. His reputation increased with
considerable rapidity; but his fortune rather slowly. He was invited to the
Hague by a nobleman, who stood high in the favour of William III., King of
Great Britain; but he declined the invitation. His three great friends, to
whom he was in some measure indebted for his success, were James
Trigland, professor of theology, Daniel Alphen, and John Van den Berg,
both of them successively chief magistrates of Leyden, and men of great
influence.

Van den Berg recommended him to the situation of professor of
medicine in the University of Leyden, to which chair he was raised,
fortunately for the reputation of the university, on the death of Drelincourt,
in 1702. He not only gave public lectures on medicine, but was in the habit
also of giving private instructions to his pupils. His success as a teacher was
so great, that a report having been spread of his intention to quit Leyden,
the curators of the university added considerably to his salary on condition
that he would not leave them.

This first step towards fortune and eminence having been made, others
followed with great rapidity. He was appointed successively professor of
botany and of chemistry, while rectorships and deanships were showered
upon him with an unsparing hand. And such was the activity, the zeal, and

the ability with which he filled all these chairs, that he raised the University
of Leyden to the very highest rank of all the universities of Europe.
Students flocked to him from all quarters—every country of Europe
furnished him with pupils; Leyden was filled and enriched by an unusual
crowd of strangers. Though his class-rooms were large, yet so great was the
number of students, that it was customary for them to keep places, just as is
done in a theatre when a first-rate actor is expected to perform. He died in
the year 1738, while still filling the three different chairs with undiminished
reputation.

It is not our object here to speak of Boerhaave as a physician, or as a
teacher of medicine, or of botany; though in all these capacities he is
entitled to the very highest eulogium; his practice was as unexampled as his
success as a teacher. It is solely as a chemist that he claims our attention
here. His system of chemistry, published in two quarto volumes in 1732,
and of which we have an excellent English translation by Dr. Shaw, printed
in 1741, was undoubtedly the most learned and most luminous treatise on
chemistry that the world had yet seen; it is nothing less than a complete
collection of all the chemical facts and processes which were known in
Boerhaave’s time, collected from a thousand different sources, and from
writings equally disgusting from their obscurity and their mysticism. Every
thing is stated in the plainest way, stripped of all mystery, and chemistry is
shown as a science and an art of the first importance, not merely to
medicine, but to mankind in general. The processes given by him are too
numerous and too tedious to have been all repeated by one man, how
laborious soever he may have been: many of them have been taken upon
trust, and, as no distinction is made in the book, between those which are
stated upon his own authority and those which are merely copied from
others, this treatise has been accused, and with some justice, as not always
to be depended on. But the real information which it communicates is
prodigious, and when we compare it with any other system of chemistry
that preceded it, the superiority of Boerhaave’s information will appear in a
very conspicuous point of view.

After a short but valuable historical introduction he divides his work
into two parts; the first treats of the theory of chemistry, the second of the
practical processes.

He defines chemistry as follows: “Chemistry is an art which teaches
the manner of performing certain physical operations, whereby bodies
cognizable to the senses, or capable of being rendered cognizable, and of
being contained in vessels, are so changed by means of proper instruments,
as to produce certain determinate effects; and at the same time discover the
causes thereof; for the service of various arts.”

This definition is not calculated to throw much light on chemistry to
those who are unacquainted with its nature and object. Neither is it
conformable to the modern notions entertained of chemistry; but it is
requisite to keep in mind Boerhaave’s definition of chemistry, when we
examine his system, that we may not accuse him of omissions and
imperfections, which are owing merely to the state of the science when he
gave his system to the world.

In his theory of chemistry he begins with the metals, which he treats of
in the following order: Gold, mercury, lead, silver, copper, iron, tin. The
account of them, though imperfect, is much fuller and more satisfactory
than any that preceded it. He then treats of the salts, which are, common
salt, saltpetre, borax, sal ammoniac and alum. This it will be admitted is but
a meagre list. However other salts occur in different parts of the book which
are not described here. He next gives an account of sulphur. Here he
introduces white arsenic, obtained, he says, from cobalt, and not known for
more than two hundred years. He considers it as a real sulphur, and takes no
notice of metallic arsenic, though it had been already alluded to by
Paracelsus. He then treats of bitumens, including under the name not merely
bitumens liquid and solid, but likewise pit-coal, amber, and ambergris. An
account of stones and earths comes next, and constitutes the most defective
part of the book. It is very surprising that in this part of his work he takes no
notice of lime. The semi-metals come next: they are, antimony, bismuth,
zinc. Here he gives an account of the three vitriols or sulphates of iron,
copper, and zinc. He knew the composition of sulphate of iron; but was
ignorant of that of sulphate of copper and sulphate of zinc. He considers
semi-metals as compounds of a true metal and sulphur, and therefore
enumerates cinnabar among the semi-metals. Lastly he treats of vegetables
and animals; and it is needless to say that his account is very imperfect.

He next treats of the utility of chemistry, and shows its importance in
natural philosophy, medicine, and the arts. Afterwards he describes the
instruments of chemistry. This constitutes the longest and the most
important part of the whole work. He first treats of fire at great length. Here
we have an account of the thermometer, of the expansion produced by heat,
of steam, and in fact the germ of many of the most important parts of the
science of heat, which have since been expanded and applied to the
improvement, not merely of chemistry, but of the arts and resources of
human industry. The experiments of Fahrenheit related by him, on the
change of temperature induced by agitating water and mercury together at
different degrees of heat, gave origin to the whole doctrine of specific heats.
Though Boerhaave himself seemed not aware of the importance of these
experiments, or indeed even to have considered them with any attention.
But when afterwards analyzed by Dr. Black, these experiments gave origin
to one of the most important parts of the whole science of heat.

He next treats at great length on fuel. Here his opinions are often very
erroneous, from his ignorance of a vast number of facts which have since
come to light. It is curious that during the whole of his very long account of
combustion he makes no allusion to the peculiar opinions of Stahl on the
subject; though they were known to the public, and had been admitted by
chemists in general, before his work was published. To what are we to
ascribe this omission? It could scarcely have been owing to ignorance,
Stahl’s reputation being too high to allow his opinions to be treated with
neglect. We must suppose, I think, that Boerhaave did not adopt Stahl’s
doctrine of combustion; but at the same time did not think it proper to enter
into any controversy on the subject.

He next treats of the heat produced when different liquids are mixed,
as alcohol and water, &c. He gives many examples of such increase of
temperature, and describes the phenomena very correctly. But he was
unable to assign the cause of the evolution of this heat. The subject was
elucidated many years after by Dr. Irvine, who showed that it was owing to
a diminution of the specific heat which takes place when liquids combine
chemically together. It is in this part of his work that he gives an account of
phosphorus, of the action of nitric acid on volatile oils, and he concludes,
from all the facts which he states, that elementary fire is a corporeal body.

His explanation of the combustion of Homberg’s pyrophorus and of
common phosphorus, shows clearly that he had no correct notion of the
reason why air is necessary to maintain combustion, nor of the way in
which that elastic fluid performs its part in the great phenomena of nature.

He next treats of the mode of regulating fire for chemical purposes:
then he treats of air, his account being chiefly taken from Boyle. He
ascribes the discovery of the law of the elasticity of air both to Boyle and
Mariotte. Boyle, I believe, was the first discoverer of it. The French are in
the habit of calling it the law of Mariotte. He then treats of water, and lastly
of earth; but even here no mention whatever is made of lime. In the last part
of the theory of chemistry he treats at great length of menstruums. These are
water, oils, alcohol, alkalies, acids, and neutral salts. He mentions potash
and ammonia, but takes no notice of soda; the difference between potash
and soda not being accurately known. Nor can we expect any particular
account of the difference between the properties of mild and caustic potash;
as this subject was not understood till the time of Dr. Black. The only acids
which he mentions are the acetic, sulphuric, nitric, muriatic, and aqua
regia. He subjoins a disquisition on the alcahest or universal solvent, which
it is obvious enough, however, from the way in which he speaks of it, that
he was not a believer in. The object of his practical part is to teach the
method of making all the different chemical substances known when he
wrote. This he does in two hundred and twenty-seven processes, in which
all the manipulations are described with considerable minuteness. This part
of the work must have been long considered as of great utility, and must
have been long resorted to by the student as a mine of practical information
upon almost every subject that could arrest his attention. So immense is the
progress that chemistry has made since the days of Boerhaave, and so
different are the researches that at present occupy chemists, and so much
greater the degree of precision requisite to be attained, that his processes
and directions are now of little or no use to a practical student of chemistry,
as they convey little or none of the knowledge which it is requisite for him
to possess.

Boerhaave made a set of most elaborate experiments, to refute the
ideas of the alchymists respecting the possibility of fixing mercury. He put a
quantity of pure mercury into a glass vessel, and kept it for fifteen years at a

temperature rather higher than 100°. It underwent no alteration whatever,
excepting that a small portion of it was converted into a black powder. But
this black powder was restored to the state of running mercury by trituration
in a mortar. In this experiment the air had free access to the mercury. It was
repeated in a close vessel with the same result, excepting that the mercury
was kept hot for only six months instead of fifteen years.

To show that mercury cannot be obtained from metals by the processes
recommended by the alchymists, he dissolved pure nitrate of lead in water,
and, mixing the solution with sal ammoniac, chloride of lead precipitated.
Of this chloride he put a quantity into a retort, and poured over it a strong
lixivium of caustic potash, The whole was digested at the temperature of
96° for six months and six days. It was then distilled in a glass retort, by a
temperature gradually raised to redness, but not a particle of mercury was
evaporated, as it had been alleged by the alchymists would be the case.

Isaac Hollandus had stated that mercury could be easily obtained from
the salt of lead made by means of distilled vinegar. To prove this he
calcined a quantity of acetate of lead, ground the residue to powder, and
triturated it with a very strong alkaline lixivium, and kept the lixivium over
it covered with paper for months, taking care to add water in proportion as
it evaporated. The calx was then distilled in a heat gradually raised to
redness; but not a particle of mercury was obtained.172

These were not the only laborious experiments which he made with
this metal. He distilled it above five hundred times, and found that it
underwent no alteration. When long agitated in a glass bottle it is
convertible into a black acrid powder, obviously protoxide of mercury. This
black powder, when distilled, is converted into running mercury. Exposure
of mercury for some months in a heat of 180°, converts it also into
protoxide; and if the heat be higher than this, the mercury is converted into
a red acrid substance, obviously peroxide of mercury. But this peroxide, by
simple distillation, is again reduced into the state of running mercury.173

Boerhaave combated the opinions of the iatro-chemists with great
eloquence, and with a weight derived from his high reputation, and the
extraordinary veneration in which his opinions were held by his disciples.

His efforts were assisted by those of Bohn, who combated the medical
opinions by arguments drawn both from experience and observation, and
perfectly irresistible; and the ruin of the chemical sect was consummated by
the exertions of the celebrated Frederick Hoffmann, the founder of the most
perfect and satisfactory system of medicine that has ever appeared. His
efforts were probably roused into action by a visit which he paid to England
in 1683, during which he got acquainted with Boyle and with Sydenham;
the former the greatest experimentalist, and the latter the greatest physician
of the time; and both of whom were declared enemies to iatro-chemistry.

CHAPTER VI.
OF AGRICOLA AND METALLURGY.

I have been induced by a wish to prosecute the history of the opinions
first supported by Paracelsus, and carried so much further by Van Helmont
and Sylvius, to give a connected view of their effects upon medical practice
and medical theory; and I have come to the commencement of the
eighteenth century, without taking notice of one of the most extraordinary
men, and one of the greatest promoters of chemistry that ever existed: I
mean George Agricola. I shall consecrate the whole of this chapter to his
labours, and those of his immediate successors.

George Agricola was born at Glaucha, in Misnia, in the year 1494.
When a young man he acquired such a passion for mining and minerals, by
frequenting the mountains of Bohemia, that he could not be persuaded to
relinquish the study. He settled, indeed, as a physician, at Joachimstal; but
his favourite study engrossed so much of his attention, that he succeeded
but ill in his medical capacity. This induced him to withdraw to Chemnitz,
where he devoted himself to his favourite pursuits. He studied the
mineralogical writings of the ancients with the most minute accuracy; but
not satisfied with this, he visited the mines in person, examined the
processes followed by the miners in extracting the different ores, and in
washing and sorting them. He made collections of all the different ores, and
studied their nature and properties attentively: he likewise collected
information about the methods of smelting them, and extracting from them
the metals in a state of purity. The information which he collected,
respecting the mines wrought in the different countries of Europe, is quite
wonderful, if we consider the period in which he lived, the little intercourse
which existed between nations, and the total want of all those newspapers
and journals which now carry every new scientific fact with such rapidity to
every part of the world.

Agricola died at Chemnitz in the year 1555, after he had reached the
sixty-first year of his age. Maurice, the celebrated Elector of Saxony, settled
on him a pension, the whole of which he devoted to his metallurgic
pursuits. To him we find him dedicating the edition of his works which he
published in the year of his death, and which is dated the fourteenth before
the calends of April, 1555. He even spent a considerable proportion of his
own estate in following out his favourite investigations. In the earlier part of
his life he had expressed himself rather favourable to the protestant
opinions; but in his latter days he had attacked the reformed religion. This
rendered him so odious to the Lutherans, at that time predominant in
Chemnitz, that they suffered his body to remain unburied for five days
together; so that it was necessary to remove it from Chemnitz to Zeitz,
where it was interred in the principal church.

His great work is his treatise De Re Metallica, in twelve books. In this
work he gives an account of the instruments and machines, and every thing
connected with mining and metallurgy; and even gives figures of all the
different pieces of apparatus employed in his time. He has also exhibited
the Latin and German names for all these different utensils. This work may
be considered as a very complete treatise on metallurgy, as it existed in the
sixteenth century. The first six books are occupied with an account of
mining and smelting. In the seventh book he treats of docimasy, or the
method of determining the quantity of metal which can be extracted from
every particular ore. This he does so completely, that most of his processes
are still followed by miners and smelters. He gives a minute and accurate
account of the furnaces, muffles, crucibles, &c., almost such as are still
employed, with minute directions for preparing the ores which are to be
subjected to examination, the fluxes with which they must be mixed, and
the precautions necessary in order to obtain a satisfactory result. In short,
this book may be considered as a complete manual of docimasy. How much
of the methods given originated with Agricola it is impossible to say. He
probably did little more than collect the scattered processes employed by
the smelters of metals, in different parts of the world, and reduce the whole
to a regular system. But this was a great deal. Perhaps it is not saying too
much, that the great progress made in the chemical investigation of the
metals, was owing in a great measure to the labours of Agricola. Certainly

the progress made by the moderns, in the difficult arts of mining and
metallurgy, must in a great measure be ascribed to the labours of Agricola.

In the eighth book he describes the mechanical preparation of the ores,
and the mode of roasting them, either in the open air or in furnaces. The
ninth book is occupied with an account of smelting-furnaces. It contains
also a description of the processes for obtaining mercury, antimony, and
bismuth, from their ores. The tenth book treats of the separation of silver
and gold from each other, by means of nitric acid and aqua regia: minute
directions for the preparation of which are given. The modes of purifying
the precious metals by means of sulphur, antimony, and cementations, are
also described. In the eleventh book he treats of the method of purifying
silver from copper and iron, by means of lead. He gives an account also of
the processes employed for smelting and purifying copper. In the twelfth
book he treats of the methods of preparing common salt, saltpetre, alum,
and green vitriol, or sulphate of iron: of the preparation and purification of
sulphur, and of the mode of manufacturing glass. In short, Agricola’s work
De Re Metallica is beyond comparison the most valuable chemical work
which the sixteenth century produced, and places the author very high
indeed among the list of the improvers of chemistry.

The other works of Agricola are his treatise De Natura Fossilium, in
ten books; De Ortu et Causis Subterraneorum, in five books; De Natura
eorum quæ effluunt ex Terra, in four books; De veteribus et novis Metallis,
in two books; and his Bermannus sive de re metallica Dialogus. The treatise
De veteribus et novis Metallis is amusing. He not only collects together all
the historical facts on record, respecting the first discoverers of the different
metals and the first workers of mines, but he gives many amusing anecdotes
nowhere else to be found, respecting the way in which some of the most
celebrated German mines were discovered. In the second book he takes a
geographical view of every part of the known world, and states the mines
wrought and the metals found in each. We must not suppose that all his
statements in this historical sketch are accurate: to admit it would be to
allow him a greater share of information than could possibly belong to any
one man. He frequently gives us the authority upon which his statements
are founded; but he often makes statements without any authority whatever.
Thus he says, that a mine of quicksilver had been recently discovered in

Scotland: the fact however, is, that no quicksilver-mine ever existed in any
part of Britain. There was, indeed, a foolish story circulated about thirty
years ago, about a vein of quicksilver found under the town of Berwick-
upon-Tweed; but it was an assertion unsupported by any authentic evidence.

Many years elapsed before much addition was made to the processes
described by Agricola. In the year 1566, Pedro Fernandes de Velasco
introduced a method of extracting gold and silver from their ores in Mexico
and Peru by means of quicksilver. But I have never seen a description of his
process. Alonzo Barba claims for himself, and seemingly with justice, the
method of amalgamating the ores of gold and silver by boiling. Barba was a
Spanish priest, who lived about the year 1609, at Tarabuco, a market-town
in the province of Charcso, eight miles from Plata, in South America. In the
year 1615 he was curate at Tiaguacano, in the Province of Pacayes, and in
1617, he lived at Lepas in Peru. He is said to have been a native of Lepe, a
small township in Andalusia, and had for many years the living of the
church of St. Bernard at Potosi. His work on the amalgamation of gold and
silver ores appeared at Madrid in the year 1640, in quarto.174 In the year
1629 a new edition of it appeared with an appendix, under the title of
“Trattado de las Antiquas Minas de España de Alonzo Carillo Lasso.” The
English minister at the Court of Madrid, the Earl of Sandwich, published
the first part of it in an English translation at London, in 1674, under the
title of “The First Book of the Art of Metals, in which is declared the
manner of their generation, and the concomitants of them, written in
Spanish by Albaro Alonzo Barba. By E. Earl of Sandwich.”

The next improver of metallurgic processes was Lazarus Erckern, who
was upper bar-master at Kuttenberg, in the year 1588, and was
superintendent of the mines in Germany, Hungary, Transylvania, the Tyrol,
&c., to three successive emperors. His work has been translated into
English under the title of “Heta Minor; or the laws of art and nature in
knowing, judging, assaying, fining, refining, and enlarging the bodies of
confined metals. To which are added essays on metallic words, illustrated
with sculptures. By Sir J. Pettus. London, 1683, folio.” But this translation
is a very bad one. Erckern gives a plain account of all the processes
employed in his time without a word of theory or reasoning. It is an
excellent practical book; though it is obvious enough that the author was

inferior in point of abilities to Agricola. His treatment of Don Juan de
Corduba, who offered, in 1588, to put the Court of Vienna in possession of
the Spanish method of extracting gold and silver from the ores by
amalgamation, as related by Baron Born in his work on amalgamation,
shows very clearly that Erckern was a very illiberal-minded man, and
puffed up with an undue conceit of his own superior knowledge.175 Had he
condescended to assist the Spaniard, and to furnish him with proper
materials to work upon, the Austrians might have been in possession of the
process of amalgamation with all its advantages a couple of centuries before
its actual introduction.

I need not take any notice of the docimastic treatises of Schindlers and
Schlutter, which are of a much later date, and both of which have been
translated into French, the former by Geoffroy, junior; the latter by Hellot.
This last translation, in two large quartos, published in 1764, constitutes a
very valuable book, and exhibits all the docimastic and metallurgic
processes known at that period with much fidelity and minuteness. Very
great improvements have taken place since that period, but I am not aware
of any work published in any of the European languages, that is calculated
to give us an exact idea of the present state of the various mining and
metallurgic processes—important as they are to civilized society.

Gellert’s Metallurgic Chemistry, so far as it goes, is an excellent book.

CHAPTER VII.
OF GLAUBER, LEMERY, AND SOME OTHER CHEMISTS OF
THE END OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.

Hitherto I have treated of the alchymists, or iatro-chemists, and have
brought the history of chemistry down to the beginning of the eighteenth
century. But during the seventeenth century there existed several laborious
chemists, who contributed very materially by their exertions, either to
extend the bounds of the science, or to increase its popularity and
respectability in the eyes of the world. Of some of the most eminent of
these it is my intention to give an account in this chapter.

Of John Rudolf Glauber, the first of these meritorious men in point of
time, I know very few particulars. He was a German and a medical man,
and spent most of his time at Salzburg, Ritzingen, Frankfort on the Maine,
and at Cologne. Towards the end of his life he went to Holland, but during
the greatest part of his residence in that country he was confined to a sick-
bed. He died at Amsterdam in 1668, after having reached a very advanced
age. Like Paracelsus, whom he held in high estimation, he was in open
hostility with the Galenical physicians of his time. This led him into various
controversies, and induced him to publish various apologies; most of which
still remain among his writings. One of the most curious of these apologies
is the one against Farmer. To this man Glauber had communicated certain
secrets of his own, which were at that time considered as of great value;
Farrner binding himself not to communicate them to any person. This
obligation he not only broke, but publicly deprecated the skill and integrity
of Glauber, and offered to communicate to others, for stipulated sums, a set
of secrets of his own, which he vaunted of as particularly valuable. Glauber
examines these secrets, and shows that every one of them possessed of any
value, had been communicated by himself to Farrner, and to put an end to

Farrner’s unfair attempt to make money by selling Glauber’s secrets, he in
this apology communicates the whole processes to the public.

Glauber’s works were published in Amsterdam, partly in Latin, and
partly in the German language. In the year 1689 an English translation of
them was published in London by Mr. Christopher Packe, in one large folio
volume. Glauber was an alchymist and a believer in the universal medicine.
But he did not confine his researches to these two particulars, but
endeavoured to improve medicine and the arts by the application of
chemical processes to them. In his treatise of philosophical furnaces he
does not confine himself to a description of the method of constructing
furnaces, and explaining the use of them, but gives an account of a vast
many processes, and medicinal and chemical preparations, which he made
by means of these furnaces. One of the most important of these preparations
was muriatic acid, which he obtained by distilling a mixture of common
salt, sulphate of iron, and alum, in one of the furnaces which he describes.

He makes known the method of dissolving most of the metals in
muriatic acid, and the resulting chlorides, which he denominates oils of the
respective metals, constitute in his opinion valuable medicines. He
mentions particularly the chloride of gold, and from the mode of preparing
it, the solution must have been strong. Yet he recommends it as an internal
medicine, which he says may be taken with safety, and is a sovereign
remedy in old ulcers of the mouth, tongue, and throat, arising from the
French pox, leprosy, scorbute, &c. Thus we see the use of gold as a remedy
for the venereal disease did not originate with M. Chretiens, of Montpelier.
This chloride of gold is so violent a poison that it is remarkable that
Glauber does not specify the dose that patients labouring under the diseases
for which he recommends it ought to take.—The sesqui-chloride of iron he
recommends as a most excellent application to ill-conditioned ulcers and
cancers. We see from this that the use of iron in cancers, lately
recommended, is not so new a remedy as has been supposed.

He mentions the violent action of chloride of mercury (obviously
corrosive sublimate), and says that he saw a woman suddenly killed by it,
being administered internally by a surgeon. Butter of antimony he first

recognised as nothing else than a combination of chlorine and antimony;
before his time it had been always supposed to contain mercury.

He describes the method of obtaining sulphuric acid by distilling
sulphate of iron; gives an account of the mode of obtaining sulphate of iron
and sulphate of copper, in crystals: the method of obtaining nitric acid from
nitre by means of alum, was much improved by him. He gives a particular
detail of the way of obtaining fulminating gold. This fulminating gold he
says is of little use in medicine; but he gives a method of preparing from it a
red tincture of gold, which he considers as one of the most useful and
efficacious of all medicines: this tincture is nothing else than chloride of
gold. It would take up too much space to attempt an analysis of all the
curious facts and preparations described in this treatise on philosophical
furnaces; but it will repay the perusal of any person who will take the
trouble to look into it. All the different pharmacopœias of the seventeenth
century borrowed from it largely. The third part of this treatise is peculiarly
interesting. It will be seen that Glauber had already thought of the peculiar
efficacy of applying solutions of sulphur, &c. to the skin, and had
anticipated the various vapour and gaseous baths which have been
introduced in Vienna and other places, during the course of the present
century, and considered as new, and as constituting an important era in the
healing art. In the fourth part he not only treats of the docimastic processes,
so well described by Agricola and Erckern, but gives us the method of
making glass, and of imitating the precious stones by means of coloured
glasses. The fifth part is peculiarly valuable; in it he treats of the methods of
preparing lutes for glass vessels, of the construction and qualities of
crucibles, and of the vitrification of earthen vessels.

Another of his tracts is called “The Mineral Work;” the object of which
is to show the method of separating gold from flints, sand, clay, and other
minerals, by the spirit of salt (muriatic acid), which otherwise cannot be
purged; also a panacea, or universal antimonial medicine. This panacea was
a solution of deutoxide of antimony in pyrotartaric acid; Glauber gives a
most flattering account of its efficacy in removing the most virulent
diseases, particularly all kinds of cutaneous eruptions. The second and third
parts of The Mineral Work are entirely alchymistical. In the treatise called
“Miraculum Mundi,” his chief object is to write a panegyric on sulphate of

soda, of which he was the discoverer, and to which he gave the name of sal
mirabile. The high terms in which he speaks of this innocent salt are highly
amusing, and serve well to show the spirit of the age, and the dreams which
still continued to haunt the most laborious and sober-minded chemists. The
sal mirabile was not merely a purgative, a virtue which it certainly
possesses in a high degree, being as mild a purgative, perhaps the very best,
of all the saline preparations yet tried; but it was a universal medicine, a
panacea, a cure for all diseases: nor was Glauber contented with this, but
pointed out many uses in the various arts and manufactures for which in his
opinion it was admirably fitted. But by far the fullest account of this sal
mirabile is given by him in his treatise on the nature of salts.

I shall satisfy myself with giving the titles of his other tracts. Every
one of them contains facts of considerable importance, not to be found in
any chemical writings that preceded him; but to attempt to connect these
facts into one point of view would be needless, because they are not such as
would be likely to interest the general reader.

1. The Consolation of Navigators. This gives an account of a method
by which sailors may carry with them a great deal of nourishment in very
small bulk. The method consists in evaporating the wort of malt to dryness,
and carrying the dry extract to sea. This method has been had recourse to in
modern times, and has been found to furnish an effectual remedy against
the scurvy. He recommends also the use of muriatic acid as a remedy for
thirst, and a cure for the scurvy.

2. A true and perfect Description of the extracting good Tartar from the
Lees of Wine.

3. The first part of the Prosperity of Germany; in which is treated of
the concentration of wine, corn, and wood, and the more profitable use of
them than has hitherto been.

4. The second part of the Prosperity of Germany; wherein is shown by
what means minerals may be concentrated by nitre, and turned into metallic
and better bodies.

5. The third part of the Prosperity of Germany; in which is delivered
the way of most easily and plentifully extracting saltpetre out of various
subjects, every where obvious and at hand. Together with a succinct
explanation of Paracelsus’s prophecy; that is to say, in what manner it is to
be understood the northern lion will institute or plant his political or civil
monarchy; and that Paracelsus himself will not abide in his grave; and that a
vast quantity of riches will offer itself. Likewise who the artist Elias is, of
whose coming in the last days, and his disclosing abundance of secrets,
Paracelsus and others have predicted.

6. The fourth part of the Prosperity of Germany; in which are revealed
many excellent, useful secrets, and such as are serviceable to the country;
and withal several preparations of efficacious cates extracted out of the
metals and appointed to physical uses; as also various confections of golden
potions. To which is also adjoined a small treatise which maketh mention of
my laboratory; in which there shall be taught and demonstrated (for the
public good and benefit of mankind) wonderful secrets, and unto every
body most profitable but hitherto unknown.

7. The fifth part of the Prosperity of Germany; clearly and solidly
demonstrating and as it were showing with the fingers, what alchymy is,
and what benefit may, by the help thereof, be gotten every where and in
most places of Germany. Written and published to the honour of God, the
giver of all good things, primarily; and to the honour of all the great ones of
the country; and for the health, profit, and assistance against foreign
invasions, of all their inhabitants that are by due right and obedience subject
unto them.

8. The sixth and last part of the Prosperity of Germany; in which the
arcanas already revealed in the fifth part, are not only illustrated and with a
clear elucidation, but also such are manifested as are most highly necessary
to be known for the defence of the country against the Turks. Together with
an evident demonstration adjoined, showing, that both a particular and
universal transmutation of the imperfect metals into more perfect ones by
salt and fire, is most true; and withal, by what means any one, that is
endued with but a mean knowledge in managing the fire, may
experimentally try the truth hereof in twenty-four hours’ space.

9. The first century of Glauber’s wealthy Storehouse of Treasures.—
Many of the processes given in this treatise are mystically stated, or even
concealed.

10. The second, third, fourth, and fifth century of Glauber’s wealthy
Storehouse of Treasures.

11. New chemical Light; being a revelation of a certain new invented
secret, never before manifested to the world.—This was a method of
extracting gold from stones. Probably the gold found by Glauber in his
processes existed in some of the reagents employed; this, at least, is the
most natural way of accounting for the result of Glauber’s trials.

15. The spagyrical Pharmacopœia, or Dispensatory.—In this book he
treats chiefly of medicines peculiarly his own; one of those, on which he
bestows the greatest praise, is secret sal ammoniac, or sulphate of ammonia.
He describes the method of preparing this salt, by saturating sulphuric acid
with ammonia. He informs us that it was much employed by Paracelsus and
Van Helmont, who distinguished it by the name of alkahest.

13. Book of Fires.—Full of enigmas.

14. Treatise of the three Principles of Metals; viz. sulphur, mercury,
and salt of philosophers; how they may be profitably used in medicine,
alchymy, and other arts.

15. A short Book of Dialogues. Chiefly relating to alchymy.

16. Proserpine, or the Goddess of Riches.

17. Of Elias the Artist.

18. Of the three most noble Stones generated by three Fires.

19. Of the Purgatory of Philosophers.

20. Of the secret Fire of Philosophers.

21. A Treatise concerning the Animal Stone.

John Kunkel, who acquired a high reputation as a chemist, was born in
the Duchy of Sleswick; in the year 1630: his father was a trading chemist,
or apothecary; and Kunkel himself had, in his younger years, paid great
attention to the business of an apothecary: he had also diligently studied the
different processes of glass-making; and had paid particular attention to the
assaying of metals. In the year 1659, he was chamberlain, chemist, and
superintendent of apothecaries to the dukes Francis Charles and Julius
Henry, of Lauenburg. While in this situation, he examined many pretended
transmutations of metals, and undertook other researches of importance.
From this situation he was invited, by John George II., Elector of Saxony,
on the recommendation of Dr. Langelott and Counsellor Vogt, as
chamberlain and superintendent of the elector’s laboratory, with a
considerable salary. From this situation he went to Berlin, where he was
chemist to the elector Frederick William; after whose death, his laboratory
and glass-house were accidentally burnt. From Berlin he was invited to
Stockholm by Charles XI., King of Sweden, who gave him the title of
counsellor of metals, and raised him to the rank of a nobleman: here he
died, in 1702, in the seventy-second year of his age. Kunkel’s greatest
discovery was, the method of extracting phosphorus from urine. This
curious substance had been originally discovered by Brandt, a chemist, of
Hamburg, in the year 1669, as he was attempting to extract from human
urine a liquid capable of converting silver into gold. He showed a specimen
of it to Kunkel, with whom he was acquainted: Kunkel mentioned the fact
as a piece of news to one Kraft, a friend of his in Dresden, where he then
resided: Kraft immediately repaired to Hamburg, and purchased the secret
from Brandt for 200 rix-dollars, doubtless exacting from him, at the same
time, a promise not to reveal it to any other person. Soon after, he exhibited
the phosphorus publicly in Britain and in France; whether for money, or
not, does not appear. Kunkel, who had mentioned to his friend his intention
of getting possession of the process, being vexed at the treacherous conduct
of Kraft, attempted to discover it himself, and, after three or four years
labour, he succeeded, though all that he knew from Brandt was, that urine
was the substance from which the phosphorus was procured. In
consequence of this success, phosphorus was at first distinguished by the
epithet of Kunkel added to the name.

Kunkel published, in 1678, a treatise on phosphorus, in which he
describes the properties of this substance, at that time a subject of great
wonder and curiosity. In this treatise, he proposes phosphorus as a remedy
of some efficacy, and gives a formula for preparing pills of it, to be taken
internally. It is therefore erroneous to suppose, as has been done, that the
introduction of this dangerous remedy into medicine is a modern discovery.
Kunkel appears to have been acquainted with nitric ether. One of the most
valuable of his books, is his treatise on glass-making, which was translated
into French; and which, till nearly the end of the eighteenth century,
constituted by far the best account of glass-making in existence. The
following is a list of the most important of his works:

1. Observations on fixed and volatile Salts, potable Gold and Silver,
Spiritus Mundi, &c.; also of the colour and smell of metals, minerals, and
bitumens.—This tract was published at Hamburg, in 1678, and has been
several times reprinted since.

2. Chemical Remarks on the chemical Principles, acid, fixed and
volatile alkaline Salts, in the three kingdoms of nature, the mineral,
vegetable, and animal; likewise concerning their colour and smell, &c.;
with a chemical appendix against non-entia chymica.

3. Treatise of the Phosphorus mirabilis, and its wonderful shining Pills;
together with a discourse on what was formerly rightly named nitre, but is
now called the blood of nature.

4. An Epistle against Spirit of Wine without an acid.

5. Touchstone de Acido et Urinoso, Sale calido et frigido.

6. Ars Vitraria experimentalis.

7. Collegium Physico-chymicum experimentale, or Laboratorium
chymicum.176

Nicolas Lemery, the first Frenchman who completely stripped
chemistry of its mysticism, and presented it to the world in all its native
simplicity, deserves our particular attention, in consequence of the celebrity

which he acquired, and the benefits which he conferred on the science. He
was born at Rouen on the 17th of November, 1645. His father, Julian
Lemery, was procureur of the Parliament of Normandy, and a protestant.
His son, when very young, showed a decided partiality for chemistry, and
repaired to an apothecary in Rouen, a relation of his own, in hopes of being
initiated into the science; but finding that little information could be
procured from him, young Lemery left him in 1666, and went to Paris,
where he boarded himself with M. Glaser, at that time demonstrator of
chemistry at the Jardin du Roi.

Glaser was a true chemist, according to the meaning at that time
affixed to the term—full of obscure notions—unwilling to communicate
what knowledge he possessed—and not at all sociable. In two months
Lemery quitted his house in disgust, and set out with a resolution to travel
through France, and pick up chemical information as he best could, from
those who were capable of giving him information on the subject. He first
went to Montpelier, where he boarded in the house of M. Vershant, an
apothecary in that town. With his situation there he was so much pleased,
that he continued in it for three years: he employed himself assiduously in
the laboratory, and in teaching chemistry to a number of young students
who boarded with his host. Here his reputation gradually increased so
much, that he drew round him the professors of the faculty of medicine of
Montpelier, and all the curious of the place, to witness his experiments.
Here, too, he practised medicine with considerable success.

After travelling through all France, he returned to Paris in 1672. Here
he frequented the different scientific meetings at that time held in that
capital, and soon distinguished himself by his chemical knowledge. In a few
years he got a laboratory of his own, commenced apothecary, and began to
give public lectures on chemistry, which were speedily attended by great
crowds of students from foreign countries. For example, we are told that on
one occasion forty Scotchmen repaired to Paris on purpose to hear his
lectures, and those of M. Du Verney on anatomy. The medicines which he
prepared in his laboratory became fashionable, and brought him a great deal
of money. The magistery of bismuth (or pearl-white), which he prepared as
a cosmetic, was sufficient, we are told, to support the whole expense of his
house. In the year 1675 he published his Cours de Chimie, certainly one of

the most successful chemical books that ever appeared; it ran through a vast
number of editions in a few years, and was translated into Latin, German,
Spanish, and English.

In 1681 he began to be troubled in consequence of his religious
opinions. Louis XIV. was at that time in the height of his glory, entirely
under the control of his priests, and zealously bent upon putting an end to
the reformed religion in his dominions. Indeed, from the infamous conduct
of Charles II. of England, and the bigotry of his successor, a prospect was
opened to him, and of which he was anxious to avail himself, of
annihilating the reformed religion altogether, and of plunging Europe a
second time into the darkness of Roman Catholicism.

Lemery found it expedient, in 1683, to pass over into England. Here he
was well received by Charles II.: but England was at that time convulsed
with those religious and political struggles, which terminated five years
afterwards in the revolution. Lemery, in consequence of this state of things,
found it expedient to leave England, and return to France. He took a
doctor’s degree at Caen, in Normandy; and, returning to Paris, he
commenced all at once practitioner in medicine and surgery, apothecary,
and lecturer on chemistry. The edict of Nantes was revoked in 1685, when
James II. had assured Louis of his intention to overturn the established
religion, and bring Great Britain again under the dominion of the pope.
Lemery was obliged to give up practice and conceal himself, in order to
avoid persecution. Finding his success hopeless, as long as he continued a
protestant, he changed his religion in 1686, and declared himself a Roman
catholic. This step secured his fortune: he was now as much caressed and
protected by the court and the clergy, as he had been formerly persecuted by
them. In 1699 when the Academy of Sciences was new modelled, he was
appointed associated chemist, and, on the death of Bourdelin, before the
end of that year, he became a pensioner. He died on the 19th of June, 1715,
at the age of seventy, in consequence of an attack of palsy, which
terminated in apoplexy.

Besides his System of Chemistry, which has been already mentioned,
he published the following works:

1. Pharmacopée universelle, contenant toutes les Operations de
Pharmacie qui sont en usage dans la Médicine.

2. Traité universelle des Drogues simples mis en ordre alphabétique.

3. Traité de l’Antimoine, contenant l’analyse chimique de ce mineral.

Besides these works, five different papers by Lemery were printed in
the Memoirs of the French Academy, between 1700 and 1709 inclusive.
These are as follow:

1. Explication physique et chimique des Feux souterrains, des
tremblemens de Terre, des Ouragans, des Eclairs et du Tonnere.—This
explanation is founded on the heat and combustion produced by the mutual
action of iron filings and sulphur on each other, when mixed in large
quantities.

2. Du Camphre.

3. Du Miel et de son analyse chimique.

4. De l’Urine de Vache, de ses effets en médicine et de son analyse
chimique.

5. Reflexions et Experiences sur le Sublimé Corrosive.—It appears
from this paper, that in 1709, when Lemery wrote, corrosive sublimate was
considered as a compound of mercury with the sulphuric and muriatic
acids. Lemery’s statement, that he made corrosive sublimate simply by
heating a mixture of mercury and decrepitated salt, is not easily explained.
Probably the salt which he had employed was impure. This is the more
likely, because, from his account of the matter which remained at the
bottom of the matrass after sublimation, it must have either contained
peroxide of iron or peroxide of mercury, for its colour he says was red.

M. Lemery left a son, who was also a member of the French Academy;
an active chemist, and author of various papers, in which he endeavours to
give a mechanical explanation of chemical phenomena.

Another very active member of the French Academy, at the same time
with Lemery, was M. William Homberg, who was born on the 8th of
January, 1652, at Batavia, in the island of Java. His father, John Homberg,
was a Saxon gentleman, who had been stripped of all his property during
the thirty years war. After receiving some education by the care of a
relation, he went into the service of the Dutch East India Company, and got
the command of the arsenal at Batavia. There he married the widow of an
officer, by whom he had four children, of whom William was the second.

His father quitted the service of the India Company and repaired to
Amsterdam with his family. Young Homberg studied with avidity: he
devoted himself to the law, and in 1674 was admitted advocate of
Magdeburg; but his taste for natural history and science was great. He
collected plants in the neighbourhood, and made himself acquainted with
their names and uses. At night he studied the stars, and learned the names
and positions of the different constellations. Thus he became a self-taught
botanist and astronomer. He constructed a hollow transparent celestial
globe, on which, by means of a light placed within, the principal fixed stars
were seen in the same relative positions as in the heavens.

Otto Guericke was at that time burgomaster of Magdeburg. His
experiments on a vacuum, and his invention of the air-pump, are universally
known. Homberg attached himself to Otto Guericke, and this philosopher,
though fond of mystery, either explained to him his secrets, in consequence
of his admiration of his genius, or was unable to conceal them from his
penetration. At last Homberg, quite tired of his profession of advocate, left
Magdeburg and went to Italy. He sojourned for some time at Padua, where
he devoted himself to the study of medicine, anatomy, and botany. At
Bologna he examined the famous Bologna stone, the nature of which had
been almost forgotten, and succeeded in making a pyrophorus out of it. At
Rome he associated particularly with Marc-Antony Celio, famous for the
large glasses for telescopes which he was able to grind. Nor did he neglect
painting, sculpture, and music; pursuits in which, at that time, the Italians
excelled all other nations.

From Italy he went to France, and thence passed into England, where
he wrought for some time in the laboratory of Mr. Boyle, at that time one of

the most eminent schools of science in Europe. He then passed into
Holland, studied anatomy under De Graaf, and after visiting his family,
went to Wittemberg, where he took the degree of doctor of medicine.

After this he visited Baldwin and Kunkel, to get more accurate
information respecting the phosphorus which each had respectively
discovered. He purchased a knowledge of Kunkel’s phosphorus, by giving
in exchange a meteorological toy of Otto Guericke, now familiarly known,
by which the moisture or dryness of the air was indicated—a little man
came out of his house and stood at the door in dry weather, but retired under
cover in moist weather. He next visited the mines of Saxony, Bohemia, and
Hungary: he even went to Sweden, to visit the copper-mines of that country.
At Stockholm he wrought in the chemical laboratory, lately established by
the king, along with Hjerna, and contributed considerably to the success of
that new establishment.

He repaired a second time to France, where he spent some time,
actively engaged with the men of science in Paris. His father strongly
pressed him to return to Holland and settle as a physician: he at last
consented, and the day of his departure was come, when, just as he was
going into his carriage, he was stopped by a message from M. Colbert on
the part of the king. Offers of so advantageous a nature were made him if he
would consent to remain in France, that, after some consideration, he was
induced to embrace them.

In 1682 he changed his religion and became Roman catholic: this
induced his father to disinherit him. In 1688 he went to Rome, where he
practised medicine with considerable success. A few years after he returned
to Paris, where his knowledge and discoveries gave him a very high
reputation. In 1691 he became a member of the Academy of Sciences, and
got the direction of the laboratory belonging to the academy: this enabled
him to devote his undivided attention to chemical investigations. In 1702 he
was taken into the service of the Duke of Orleans, who gave him a pension,
and put him in possession of the most splendid and complete laboratory that
had ever been seen. He was presented with the celebrated burning-glass of
M. Tchirnhaus, by the Duke of Orleans, and was enabled by means of it to
determine many points that had hitherto been only conjectural.

In 1704 he was made first physician to the Duke of Orleans, who
honoured him with his particular esteem. This appointment obliging him to
reside out of Paris, would have made it necessary for him to resign his seat
in the academy, had not the king made a special exemption in his favour. In
1708 he married a daughter of the famous M. Dodart, to whom he had been
long attached. Some years after he was attacked by a dysentery, which was
cured, but returned from time to time. In 1715 it returned with great
violence, and Homberg died on the 24th of September.

His knowledge was uncommonly great in almost every department of
science. His chemical papers were very numerous; though there are few of
them, in this advanced period of the science, that are likely to claim much
attention from the chemical world. His pyrophorus, of which he has given a
description in the Mémoires de l’Académie,177 was made by mixing
together human fæces and alum, and roasting the mixture till it was reduced
to a dry powder. It was then exposed in a matrass to a red heat, till every
thing combustible was driven off. Any combustible will do as a substitute
for human fæces—gum, flour, sugar, charcoal, may be used. When a little
of this phosphorus is poured upon paper, it speedily catches fire and kindles
the paper. Davy first explained the nature of this phosphorus. The potash of
the alum is converted into potassium, which, by its absorption of oxygen
from the atmosphere, generates heat, and sets fire to the charcoal contained
in the powder.

Homberg’s papers printed in the Memoirs of the French Academy
amount to thirty-one. They are to be found in the volumes for 1699 to 1714
inclusive.

M. Geoffroy, who was a member of the academy about the same time
with Lemery and Homberg, though he outlived them both, and who was an
active chemist for a considerable number of years, deserves also to be
mentioned here.

Stephen Francis Geoffroy was born in Paris on the 13th of February,
1672, where his father was an apothecary. While a young man, regular
meetings of the most eminent scientific men of Paris were held in his
father’s house, at which he was always present. This contributed very much

to increase his taste for scientific pursuits. After this he studied botany,
chemistry, and anatomy in Paris. In 1692 his father sent him to Montpelier,
to study pharmacy in the house of a skilful apothecary, who at the same
time sent his son to Paris, to acquire the same art in the house of M.
Geoffroy, senior. Here he attended the different classes in the university,
and his name began to be known as a chemist. After spending some time in
Montpelier, he travelled round the coast to see the principal seaports, and
was at St. Malo’s in 1693, when it was bombarded by the British fleet.

In 1698 Count Tallard being appointed ambassador extraordinary to
London, made choice of M. Geoffroy as his physician, though he had not
taken a medical degree. Here he made many valuable acquaintances, and
was elected a fellow of the Royal Society. From London he went to
Holland, and thence into Italy, in 1700, where he went in the capacity of
physician to M. de Louvois. The great object of M. Geoffroy was always
natural history, and materia medica. In 1693 he had subjected himself to an
examination, and he had been declared qualified to act as an apothecary; but
his own object was to be a physician, while that of his father was that he
should succeed himself as an apothecary: this in some measure regulated
his education. At last he declared his intentions, and his father agreed to
them; he became bachelor of medicine in 1702, and doctor of medicine in
1704.

In 1709 he was made professor of medicine in the Royal College. In
1707 he began to lecture on chemistry, at the Jardin du Roi, in place of M.
Fagan, and continued to teach this important class during the remainder of
his life. In 1726 he was chosen dean of the faculty of medicine; and, after
the two years for which he was elected was finished, he was again chosen to
fill the same situation. There existed at that time a lawsuit between the
physicians and surgeons in Paris; a kind of civil war very injurious to both;
and the mildness and suavity of his manners fitted him particularly for
being at the head of the body of physicians during its continuance. He
became a member of the academy in 1699, and died on the 6th of January,
1731.

The most important of all his chemical labours, and for which he will
always be remembered in the annals of the science, was the contrivance

which he fell upon, in 1718, of exhibiting the order of chemical
decompositions under the form of a table.178 This method was afterwards
much enlarged and improved. Such tables are now usually known by the
name of tables of affinity; and, though they have been of late years
somewhat neglected, there can be but one opinion of their importance when
properly constructed.

M. Geoffroy first communicated to the French chemists the mode of
making Prussian blue, as Dr. Woodward did to the English.

Claude Joseph Geoffroy, the younger brother of the preceding, was
also a member of the Academy of Sciences, and a zealous cultivator of
chemistry. Many of his chemical papers are to be found in the memoirs of
the French Academy. He demonstrated the composition of sal ammoniac,
which however was known to Glauber. He made many experiments upon
the combustion of the volatile oils, by pouring nitric acid on them. He
explained the pretended property which certain waters have of converting
iron into copper, by showing that in such cases copper was held in solution
in the water by an acid, and that the iron merely precipitated the copper, and
was dissolved and combined with the acid in its place. He pointed out the
constituents of the three vitriols, the green, the blue, and the white; showing
that the two former were combinations of sulphuric acid with oxides of iron
and copper, and the latter a solution of lapis calaminaris (carbonate of zinc)
in the same acid. He has also a memoir on the emeticity of antimony, tartar
emetic, and kermes mineral; but it is rather medical than chemical. He
determined experimentally the nature of the salt of Seignette, or Rochelle
salt, and showed that it was obtained by saturating cream of tartar with
carbonate of soda, and crystallizing. It is curious that this discovery was
made about the same time by M. Boulduc. I have noticed only a few of the
papers of M. Geoffroy, junior; because, though they all do him credit, and
contributed to the improvement of chemistry, yet none of them contain any
of those great discoveries, which stand as landmarks in the progress of
science, and constitute an era in the history of mankind. For the same
reason I omit several other names that, in a more minute history of
chemistry, would deserve to be particularized.

CHAPTER VIII.
OF THE ATTEMPTS TO ESTABLISH A THEORY IN
CHEMISTRY.

Bacon, Lord Verulam, as early as the commencement of the 17th
century, had pointed out the importance of chemical investigations, and had
predicted the immense advantages which would result from the science,
when it came to be properly cultivated and extended; but he did not himself
attempt either to construct a theory of chemistry, or even to extend it
beyond the bounds which it had reached before he began to write. Neither
did Boyle, notwithstanding the importance of his investigations, and his
comparative freedom from the prejudices of the alchymists, attempt any
thing like a theory of chemistry; though the observations which he made in
his Sceptical Chemist, had considerable effect in overturning, or at least in
hastening the downfall of the absurd chemical opinions which at that time
prevailed, and the puerile hypotheses respecting the animal functions, and
the pathology and treatment of diseases founded on these opinions. The first
person who can with propriety be said to have attempted to construct a
theory of chemistry, was Beccher.

John Joachim Beccher, one of the most extraordinary men of the age in
which he lived, was born at Spires, in Germany, in the year 1635. His
father, as Beccher himself informs us, was a very learned Lutheran
preacher. As he lost his father when he was very young, and as that part of
Germany where he lived had been ruined by the thirty years’ war, his family
was reduced to great poverty. However, his passion for information was so
great, that he contrived to educate himself by studying what books he could
procure, and in this way acquired a great deal of knowledge. Afterwards he
travelled through the greatest part of Germany, Italy, Sweden, and Holland.

In the year 1666 he was appointed public professor of medicine in the
University of Mentz, and soon after chief physician to the elector. In that
capacity he took up his residence in Munich, where he was furnished by the
elector with an excellent laboratory: but he soon fell into difficulties, the
nature of which does not appear, and was obliged to leave the place. He
took refuge in Vienna, where, from his knowledge of finance, he was
appointed chamberlain to Count Zinzendorf, and through him acquired so
much importance in the eyes of the court, that he was named a member of
the newly-erected College of Commerce, and obtained the title of imperial
commercial counsellor and chamberlain. But here also he speedily raised up
so many enemies against himself, that he found it necessary to leave
Vienna, and to carry with him his wife and children. He repaired to
Holland, and settled at Haerlem in 1678. Here he was likely to have been
successful; but his enemies from Vienna followed him, and obliged him to
leave Holland. In 1680 we find him in Great Britain, where he examined the
Scottish lead-mines, and smelting-works; and in 1681, and 1682, he
traversed Cornwall, and studied the mines and smelting-works of that great
mining county; here he suggested several improvements and ameliorations.
Soon after this an advantageous proposal was made to him by the Duke of
Mecklenburg Gustrow, by means of Count Zinzendorf; but all his projects
were arrested by his death, which took place in the year 1682. It is said that
he died in London, but I have not been able to find any evidence of this.

It would be a difficult task to particularize his various discoveries,
which are scattered through a multiplicity of writings. He was undoubtedly
the first discoverer of boracic acid, though the credit of the discovery has
usually been given to Homberg.179 But then he gives no account of boracic
acid, nor does he seem to have attended to its qualities. The following is a
list of Beccher’s writings:

1. Metallurgia, or the Natural Science of Metals.

2. Institutiones Chymicæ.

3. Parnassus Medicinalis illustrata.

4. Œdipus Chymicus seu Institutiones Chymicæ.

5. Acta laboratorii Chymici Monacensis seu Physica Subterranea.—
This, which is the most important of all his works, is usually known by the
name of “Physica Subterranea.” This is the sole title affixed to it in the
edition published at Leipsic, in 1703, to which Stahl has prefixed a long
introduction. It is divided into seven sections. In the first he treats of the
creation of the world; in the second he gives a chemical account of the
motions and changes which are constantly going on in the earth; in the third
he treats of the three principles of all bodies, which he calls earths. The first
of these principles of metals and stones is the fusible or stony earth; the
second principle of minerals is the fat earth, improperly called sulphur; the
third principle is the fluid earth, improperly called mercury; in the fourth
section he treats of the action of subterraneous principles, or the formation
of mixts; in the fifth he treats of the solution of the three classes of mixts,
animals, vegetables, and metals; in the sixth he treats of mixts, in which he
gives their chemical constituents. This section is very curious, because it
gives Beccher’s views of the constitution of compound bodies. It will be
seen from it that he had much more correct notions of the real objects of
chemistry, than any of his contemporaries. In the seventh and last section he
treats of the accidents and physical affections of subterraneous bodies.

6. Experimentum Chymicum novum quo artificialis et instantanea
metallorum generatio et transmutatio, ad oculum demonstratur.—This
constitutes the first supplement to the Physica Subterranea.

7. Supplementum secundum in Physicam subterraneam, demonstratio
philosophica seu Theses Chymicæ, veritatem et possibilitatem
transmutationis metallorum in aurum evincentes.

8. Trifolium Beccherianum Hollandicum.

9. Experimentum novum et curiosum de Minera arenaria perpetua, sive
prodromus historiæ seu propositionis Præp. D.D. Hollandiæ ordinibus ab
authore factæ, circa auri extractionem mediante arena littorali per modum
mineræ perpetuæ seu operationis magnæ fusoriæ cum emolumento. Loco
supplementi tertii in Physicam suam subterraneam.

10. Chemical Luckpot, or great chemical agreement; in a collection of
one thousand five hundred chemical processes.

11. Foolish Wisdom and wise Folly.

12. Magnalia Naturæ.

13. Tripus Hermeticus fatidicus pandens oracula chemica; seu I.
Laboratorium portatile, cum methodo vere spagyricæ seu juxta exigentiam
naturæ laborandi. Accessit pro praxi et exemplo; II. Centrum mundi
concatenatum seu Duumviratus hermeticus s. magnorum duorum
productorum nitri et salis textura et anatomia atque in omnium
præcedentium confirmationem adjunctum est; III. Alphabetum Minerale seu
viginti quatuor theses de subterraneorum mineralium genesi, textura et
analysi; his accessit concordantia mercurii lunæ et menstruorum.

14. Chemical Rose-garden.

15. Pantaleon delarvatus.

16. Beccheri, Lancelotti, etc. Epistolæ quatuor Chemicæ.

Beccher’s great merit was the contrivance of a chemical theory, by
which all the known facts were connected together and deduced from one
general principle. But as this theory was adopted and considerably modified
by Stahl, it will be better to lay a sketch of it before the reader, after
mentioning a few particulars of the life and labours of one of the most
extraordinary men whom Germany has produced; a man who, in spite of the
moroseness and haughtiness of his character, and in spite of the barbarity of
his style, raised himself to the very first rank as a man of science; and had
the rare or almost unique fortune of giving laws at the same time to two
different and important sciences, which he cultivated together, without
letting his opinions respecting the one influence him with regard to the
other. These sciences were chemistry and medicine.

George Ernest Stahl was born at Anspach, in the year 1660. He studied
medicine at Jena under George Wolfgang Wedel; and got his doctor’s
degree at the age of twenty-three. Immediately after this he began his career
as a public lecturer. In 1687 the Duke of Weimar gave him the title of
physician to the court. In 1694 he was named, at the solicitation of
Frederick Hoffmann, second professor of medicine in the University of

Halle, which had just been established. Hoffmann and he were at that time
great friends, though they afterwards quarrelled. Both of them were men of
the very highest talents and both were the founders of medical systems
which, of course, each was anxious to support. Hoffmann had greatly the
superiority in elegance and clearness of style, and in all the amenities of
polite manners. But perhaps the moroseness of Stahl, and the obscurity, or
rather mysticism of his style, contributed equally with the more amiable
qualities of Hoffmann to excite the attention and produce the veneration
with which he was viewed by his pupils, and, indeed, by the world at large.

At Halle he continued as a teacher of medicine for twenty-two years.
In 1716 he was appointed physician to the King of Prussia. In consequence
of this appointment he left Halle, and resided in Berlin, where he died in the
year 1734, in the seventy-fifth year of his age. Notwithstanding the great
figure that Stahl made as a chemist, there is no evidence that he ever taught
that science in any public school. The Berlin Academy had been founded
under the superintendence of Leibnitz, who was its first president; and
therefore existed when Stahl was in Berlin: but, till it was renovated in 1745
by Frederick the Great, this academy possessed but little activity, and could
scarcely, therefore, have stimulated Stahl to attend to chemical science.
However, his Chymia rationalis et experimentalis was published in 1720,
while he resided in Berlin. The same date is appended to the preface of his
Fundamenta Chymiæ; but, from some expressions in that preface, it must, I
should think, have been written, not by Stahl, but by some other person.180 I
suspect that the book had been written by some of his pupils, from the
lectures of the author while at Halle. If this was really the case, it is obvious
that Stahl must have taught chemistry as well as medicine in the University
of Halle.

Stahl’s medical theory is not less deserving of notice than his
chemical. But it is not the object of this work to enter into medical
speculations. Like Van Helmont, he resolved all diseases into the actions of
the soul, which was not merely the former of the body, but its ruler and
regulator. When any of the functions are deranged, the soul exerts itself to
restore them again to their healthy state; and she accomplishes this by what
in common language is called disease. The business of a medical man, then,
is not to prevent diseases, or to stop them short when they appear; because

they are the efforts of the soul, the vis medicatrix naturæ, to restore the
deranged state of the functions: but he must watch these diseases, and
prevent the symptoms from becoming too violent. He must assist nature to
produce the intended effect, and check her exertions when they become
abnormal. It was a kind of modification of this theory, or rather a mixture of
the Stahlian and Hoffmannian theories, that Dr. Cullen afterwards taught in
Edinburgh with so much eclat. And these opinions, so far as medical
theories have any influence on practice, still continue in some measure
prevalent. Indeed, much of the vulgar practice followed by medical men,
chiefly in consequence of the education which they have received, is
deduced from these two theories. But it would be too great a digression
from the object of this work to enter into any details: suffice it to say, that
the rival theories of Hoffmann and Stahl for many years divided the medical
world in Germany, if not in the greater part of Europe. It was no small
matter of exultation to so young a medical school as Halle, to have at once
within its walls two such eminent teachers as Hoffmann and Stahl.

Let us turn our attention to the chemical writings of Stahl. Of these the
most important is his Fundamenta Chymiæ dogmaticæ et experimentalis. It
is divided, like the chemistry of Boerhaave, into a theoretical and practical
part. The perusal of it is very disagreeable, as it is full of German words and
phrases, and symbols are almost constantly substituted for words, as was at
that time the custom.

His definition of chemistry is much more exact than Boerhaave’s. It is,
according to him, the art of resolving compound bodies into their
constituents, and of again forming them by uniting these constituents
together.

He is inclined to believe with Beccher, that the simple principles are
four in number. The mixts are compounds of these principles; and he shows
by the doctrine of permutations that if we suppose the simple principles
four, then the number of mixts will be 40,340. He treats in the first place of
mixts, compounds, and aggregates.

The first object of chemistry is corruption, the second generation. Of
these he treats at considerable length, giving an account of the different
chemical processes, and of the apparatus employed.

He next treats of salts, which he defines mixts composed of water and
earth, both simple and pure, and intimately united. The salts are vitriol,
alum, nitre, common salt, and sal ammoniac. He next treats of more
compound salts. These are sugar, tartar, salts from the animal and salts from
the mineral kingdom, and quicklime.

After this comes sulphur, cinnabar, antimony, the sulphur of vitriol, the
sulphur of nitre, resins, and distilled oils. Then he treats of water, which he
divides into aqua humida or common water, and aqua sicca or mercury.
Next he treats of earths, which are of two kinds, viz., friable earths, such as
clay, loam, sand, &c., and metallic earths constituting the bases of the
metals.

He next treats of the metals; and, as a preliminary, we have a
description of the method of smelting, and operating upon the different
metals. The metals are then described successively in the following order:
Gold, silver, copper, iron, tin, lead, bismuth, zinc, antimony.

To this part of the system are added three sections. The first treats of
mercuries, the second of the philosopher’s stone, and the third of the
universal medicine. We must not suppose that Stahl was a believer in these
ideal compositions; his object is merely to give a history of the different
processes which had been recommended by the alchymists.

The second part of his work is divided into two tracts. The first tract
contains three sections. The first of these treats of the nature of solids and
fluids, of solutions and menstrua, of the effects of heat and fire, of
effervescence and boiling, of volatilization, of fusion and liquefaction, of
distillation, of precipitation, of calcination and incineration, of detonation,
of amalgamation, of crystallization and inspissation, and of the fixity and
firmness of bodies. In the second section we have an account of salts, and
of their generation and transmutation, of sulphur and inflammability, of
phosphorus, of colours, and of the nature of metals and minerals. In this
article he gives short definitions of these bodies, and shows how they may
be known. The bodies thus defined are gold, silver, iron, copper, lead, tin,
mercury, antimony, sulphur, arsenic, vitriol, common salt, nitre, alum, sal
ammoniac, alkalies, and salts; viz., muriatic acid, sulphuric, nitric, and
sulphurous.

In the third section he treats of the method of reducing metallic calces,
of the mode of separating metals from their scoriæ, of the mode of making
artificial gems, and finally of the mode of giving copper a golden colour.

The second tract is divided into two parts. The first part is subdivided
into four sections. In the first section he treats of the instruments of
chemical motion, of fire, of air, of water, of the most subtile earth or salt. In
the second section he treats de subjectis, under the several heads of
dissolving aggregates, of triturations and solutions, and of calcinations and
combustions. In the third section he treats of the object of chemistry under
the following heads: Of chemical corruption, consisting of compounds from
liquids, of the separation of solids and fluids, of mixts, of the solution of
compounds from solids. In the fourth section he treats of fermentation.

The second part of this second tract treats of chemical generation, and
is divided into two sections. In the first section he treats of the aggregate
collection of bodies into fluids and solids. The section treats of
compositions under the heads of volatile and solid bodies. He gives in the
last article an account of the combination of mixts.

The third and last part of this elaborate work discusses three subjects;
viz. zymotechnia or fermentation, halotechnia, or the production and
properties of salts, and pyrotechnia, in which the whole of the Stahlian
doctrine of phlogiston is developed. This third part has all the appearance of
having been notes written down by some person during the lectures of
Stahl: for it consists of alternate sentences of Latin and German. It is not at
all likely that Stahl himself would have produced such a piebald work; but
if he lectured in Latin, as was at that time the universal custom, it was
natural for a person occupied in taking down the lectures, to write as far as
was possible in Latin, but when any of the Latin phrases were lost, or did
not immediately occur to memory, it were equally natural to write down the
meaning of what the professor stated in the language most familiar to the
writer, which was undoubtedly the German.

Another of Stahl’s works is entitled “Opusculum Chymico-physico-
medicum,” published at Halle in a thick quarto volume, in the year 1715. It
contains a great number of tracts, partly chemical and partly medical, which
it is needless to specify. Perhaps the most curious of them all is his

dissertation to show the way in which Moses ground the golden calf to
powder, dissolved it in water, and obliged the children of Israel to drink it.
He shows that a solution of hepar sulphuris (sulphuret of potassium), has
the property of dissolving gold, and he draws as a conclusion from his
experiments that this was the artifice employed by Moses. We have in the
same volume a pretty detailed treatise on metallurgic pyrotechny and
docimasy. This is the more curious, because Stahl never appears to have
frequented the mines and smelting-houses of Germany. He must, therefore,
have drawn his information from books and from experiment.

Another of his books is entitled “Experimenta, Observationes,
Animadversiones, CCC. Numero.” An octavo volume, printed at Berlin in
1731. Another of his books is entitled “Specimen Beccherianum.” There are
also two chemical books of Stahl, which I have seen only in a French
translation, viz., Traité de Soufre and Traité de Sels. These are the only
chemical writings of Stahl that I have seen. There are probably others;
indeed I have seen the titles of several other chemical works ascribed to
him. But as it is doubtful whether he really wrote them or not, I think it
unnecessary to specify them here.

Stahl’s writings evince the great progress which chemistry had made
even since the time of Beccher. But it is difficult to say what particular new
facts, which appear first in his writings were discovered by himself, and
what by others. I shall not, therefore, attempt any enumeration of them. His
reasoning is more subtile, and his views much more extensive and profound
than those of his predecessors. The great improvement which he introduced
into chemistry was the employment of phlogiston, to explain the
phenomena of combustion and calcination. This theory had been originally
broached by Beccher, from whom Stahl evidently borrowed it, but he
improved and simplified it so much that the whole credit of it was given to
him. It was called the Stahlian theory, and raised him to the highest rank
among chemists. The sole objects of chemists for thirty or forty years after
his time was to illucidate and extend his theory. It applied so happily to all
the known facts, and was supported by experiments, which appeared so
decisive that nobody thought of calling it in question, or of interrogating
nature in any other way than he had pointed out. It will be requisite,

therefore, before proceeding further with this historical sketch, to lay the
outlines of the phlogistic theory before the reader.

It was conceived by Beccher and Stahl that all combustible bodies are
compounds. One of the constituents they supposed to be dissipated during
the combustion, while the other constituent remained behind. Now when
combustible bodies are subjected to combustion, some of them leave an
acid behind them; while others leave a fixed powdery matter, possessing the
properties of an earth, and called usually the calx of the combustible body.
The metals are the substances which leave a calx behind them when burnt,
and sulphur and phosphorus leave an acid. With respect to those bodies that
would not burn, chemists did not speculate much at first; but afterwards
they came to think that they consisted of the fixed substance that remained
after combustion. Hence the conclusion was natural, that they had already
undergone combustion. Thus quicklime possessed properties very similar to
the calces of metals. It was natural, therefore, to consider it as a calx, and to
believe that if the matter dissipated during combustion could be again
restored, lime would be converted into a substance similar to the metals.

Combustibility then, according to this view of the subject, depends
upon a principle or material substance, existing in every combustible body,
and dissipated during the combustion. This substance was considered to be
absolutely the same in all combustible bodies whatever; hence the
difference between combustible bodies proceeded from the other principle
or number of principles with which this common substance is combined. In
consequence of this identity Stahl invented the term phlogiston, by which
he denoted this common principle of combustible bodies. Inflammation,
with the several phenomena that attend it, depended on the gradual
separation of this principle, which being once separated, what remained of
the body could no longer be an inflammable substance, but must be similar
to the other kinds of matter. It was this opinion that combustibility is owing
to the presence of phlogiston, and inflammation to its escape, that
constituted the peculiar theory of Beccher, and which was afterwards
illustrated by Stahl with so much clearness, and experiments to prove its
truth were advanced by him of so much force, that it came to be
distinguished by the name of the Stahlian theory.

The identity of phlogiston in all combustible bodies was founded upon
observations and experiments of so decisive a nature, that after the
existence of the principle itself was admitted, they could not fail to be
satisfactory. When phosphorus is made to burn it gives out a strong flame,
much heat is evolved, and the phosphorus is dissipated in a white smoke:
but if the combustion be conducted within a glass vessel of a proper shape,
this white smoke will be deposited on the inside of the glass; it quickly
absorbs moisture from the atmosphere, and runs into an acid liquid, known
by the name of phosphoric acid. If this liquid be put into a platinum
crucible, and gradually heated to redness, the water is dissipated, and a
substance remains which, on cooling, congeals into a transparent colourless
body like glass: this is dry phosphoric acid. If now we mix phosphoric acid
with a quantity of charcoal powder, and heat it sufficiently in a glass retort,
taking care to exclude the external air, a portion or the whole of the charcoal
will disappear, and phosphorus will be formed possessed of the same
properties that it had before it was subjected to combustion. The conclusion
deduced from this process appeared irresistible; the charcoal, or a portion of
it, had combined with the phosphoric acid, and both together had
constituted phosphorus.

Now, in changing phosphoric acid into phosphorus, we may employ
almost any kind of combustible substance that we please, provided it be
capable of bearing the requisite heat; they will all equally answer, and will
all convert the acid into phosphorus. Instead of charcoal we may take lamp-
black, or sugar, or resin, or even several of the metals. Hence it was
concluded that all of these bodies contain a common principle which they
communicate to the phosphoric acid; and since the new body formed is in
all cases identical, the principle communicated must also be identical.
Hence combustible bodies contain an identical principle, and this principle
is phlogiston.

Sulphur by burning is converted into sulphuric acid; and if sulphuric
acid be heated with charcoal, or phosphorus, or even sulphur, it is again
converted into sulphur. Several of the metals produce the same effect. The
reasoning here was the same as with regard to phosphoric acid, and the
conclusion was similar.

When lead is kept nearly at a red heat in the open air for some time,
being constantly stirred to expose new surfaces to the air, it is converted
into the beautiful pigment called red lead; this is a calx of lead. To restore
this calx again to the state of metallic lead, we have only to heat it in
contact with almost any combustible matter whatever. Pit-coal, peat,
charcoal, sugar, flour, iron, zinc, &c., all these bodies then must contain one
common principle, which they communicate to red lead, and by so doing
convert it into lead. This common principle is phlogiston.

These examples are sufficient to show the reader the way in which
Stahl proved the identity of phlogiston in all combustible bodies. And the
demonstration was considered as so complete that the opinion was adopted
by every chemist without exception.

When we inquire further, and endeavour to learn what qualities
phlogiston was supposed to have in its separate state, we find this part of
the subject very unsatisfactory, and the opinions very unsettled. Beccher
and Stahl represented phlogiston as a dry substance, or of an earthy nature,
the particles of which are exquisitely subtile, and very much disposed to be
agitated and set in motion with inconceivable velocity. This was called by
Stahl motus verticillaris. When the particles of any body are agitated with
this kind of motion, the body exhibits the phenomena of heat or ignition, or
inflammation, according to the violence and rapidity of the motion.

This very crude opinion of the earthy nature of phlogiston, appears to
have been deduced from the insolubility of most combustible substances in
water. If we except alcohol, and ether, and gums, very few of them are
capable of being dissolved in that liquid. Thus the metals, sulphur,
phosphorus, oils, resins, bitumens, charcoal, &c., are well known to be
insoluble. Now, at the time that Beccher and Stahl lived, insolubility in
water was considered as a character peculiar to earthy bodies; and as those
bodies which contain a great deal of phlogiston are insoluble in water,
though the other constituents be very soluble in that liquid, it was natural
enough to conclude that phlogiston itself was of an earthy nature.

But though the opinions of chemists about the nature and properties of
phlogiston in a separate state were unsettled, no doubts were entertained
respecting its existence, and respecting its identity in all combustible

bodies. Its presence or its absence produced almost all the changes which
bodies undergo. Hence chemistry and combustion came to be in some
measure identified, and a theory of combustion was considered as the same
thing with a theory of chemistry.

Metals were compounds of calces and phlogiston. The different
species of metals depend upon the different species of calx which each
contains; for there are as many calces (each simple and peculiar) as there
are metals. These calces are capable of uniting with phlogiston in indefinite
proportions. The calx united to a little phlogiston still retains its earthy
appearance—a certain additional portion restores the calx to the state of a
metal. An enormous quantity of phlogiston with which some calces, as calx
of manganese, are capable of combining, destroys the metallic appearance
of the body, and renders it incapable of dissolving in acids.

The affinity between a metallic calx and phlogiston is strong; but the
facility of union is greatly promoted when the calx still retains a little
phlogiston. If we drive off the whole phlogiston we can scarcely unite the
calx with phlogiston again, or bring it back to the state of a metal: hence the
extreme difficulty of reducing the calx of zinc, and even the red calx of
iron.

The various colours of bodies are owing to phlogiston, and these
colours vary with every alteration in the proportion of phlogiston present.

It was observed very early that when a metal was converted into a calx
its weight was increased. But this, though known to Beecher and Stahl, does
not seem to have had any effect on their opinions. Boyle, who does not
seem to have been aware of the phlogistic theory, though it had been
broached before his death, relates an experiment on tin which he made. He
put a given weight of it into an open glass vessel, and kept it melted on the
fire till a certain portion of it was converted into a calx: it was now found to
have increased considerably in weight. This experiment he relates in order
to prove the materiality of heat: in his opinion a certain quantity of heat had
united to the tin and occasioned the increase of weight. This opinion of
Boyle was incompatible with the Stahlian theory: for the tin had not only
increased in weight, but had been converted into a calx. It was therefore the