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)







[Illustration:

  _Raeburn. pinx^t._      _Dean, sculp^t._

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
  seventeenth century                                               226


  CHAPTER VIII.

  Of the attempts to establish a theory in chemistry                246


  CHAPTER IX.

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





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]

[1] The word χημεια is said to occur in several Greek manuscripts of
a much earlier date. But of this, as I have never had an opportunity
of seeing them, I cannot pretend to judge. So much fiction has been
introduced into the history of Alchymy, and so many ancient names have
been treacherously dragged into the service, that we may be allowed
to hesitate when no evidence is presented sufficient to satisfy a
reasonable man.

[2] Χημεια, ἡ του αργυρου και χρυσου κατασκευη· ἡς τα βιβλια
διερευνησαμενος ὁ Διοκλητιανος εκαυσε, δια τα νεωτερισθεντα αιγυπτιοις
Διοκλητιανω· τουτοις ανημερως και φονικως εχρησατο ὁτεδη και τα
περι χημειας χρυσου και αργυρου τοις παλαιοις γεγραμμενα βιβλια
διερευνησαμενος εκαυσε, προς το μηκετι πλουτον αιγυπτιοις εκ της
τοιαυτης προσγινεσθαι τεχνης, μηδε χρηματων αυτοις θαρῥονιτας περιουσια
του λοιπου ῥωμαιοις ανταιρειν.

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]

[3] Δερας, το χρυσομαλλον δερας, ὁπερ ὁ Ιασων δια της ποντικης
θαλασσης συν τοις αργοναυταις εις την κολχιδα παραγενομενοι ελαβον,
και την Μηδειαν την Αιητου του βασιλεως θυγατερα. Τουτο δε ουκ ὡς
ποιητικως φερεται· αλλα βιβλιον ην εν δερμασι γεγραμενον περισχον ὁπως
δειγινεσθαι δια χημειας χρυσον· εικοτως ουν ὁι τοτε χρουσουν ωνομαζον
αυτο δερας δια την ενεργειαν την εξ αυτου.

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:

[4] De Ortu et Progressu Chemiæ, p. 12.

[5] Σωσιμου του παναπολιτου γνησια γραφη, περι της ἱερας, και θειας
τεχνης του χρυσου και αργυριου ποιησιος. Παναπολις was a city in Egypt.

“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_.

[6] Shaw’s Translation of Boerhaave’s Chemistry, i. 20.

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.”

[7] Genesis iv. 22.

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 (ןענכ);
thence 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.

[8] De Iside and Osiride, c. 5.

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]

[9] There are two Latin translations of these tables (unless we are
rather to consider them as originals, for no Phœnician nor Greek
original exists). I shall insert them both here.


I.--VERBA SECRETORUM HERMETIS TRISMEGISTI.

  1. Verum sine mendacio certum et verissimum.

  2. Quod est inferius, est sicut quod est superius, et quod est
  superius est sicut quod est inferius ad perpetranda miracula rei
  unius.

  3. Et sicut omnes res fuerant ab uno meditatione unius: sic
  omnes res natæ fuerunt ab hac una re adaptatione.

  4. Pater ejus est Sol, mater ejus Luna, portavit illud ventus
  in ventre suo, nutrix ejus terra est.

  5. Pater omnis thelesmi totius mundi est hic.

  6. Vis ejus integra est, si versa fuerit in terram.

  7. Separabis terram ab igne, subtile a spisso suaviter cum
  magno ingenio.

  8. Ascendit a terra in cœlum, iterumque descendit in terram,
  et recipit vim superiorum et inferiorum, sic habebis gloriam
  totius mundi. Ideo fugiat a te omnis obscuritas.

  9. Hic est totius fortitudinis fortitudo fortis; quia vincit
  omnem rem subtilem, omnemque solidam penetrabit.

  10. Sic mundus creatus est.

  11. Hinc adaptationes erunt mirabiles, quarum modus est
  hic.

  12. Itaque vocatus sum Hermes Trismegistus, habens tres
  partes philosophiæ totius mundi.

  13. Completum est quod dixi de operatione solis.


II.--DESCRIPTIO ARCANORUM HERMETIS TRISMEGISTI.

  1. Vere non ficte, certo verissime aio.

  2. Inferiora hæc cum superioribus illis, istaque cum iis vicissim
  vires sociant, ut producant rem unam omnium mirificissimam.

  3. Ac quemadmodum cuncta educta ex uno fuere verbo Dei
  unius: sic omnes quoque res perpetuo ex hac una re generantur
  dispositione Naturæ.

  4. Patrem ea habet Solem, matrem Lunam: ab aëre in utero
  quasi gestatur, nutritur a terra.

  5. Causa omnis perfectionis rerum ea est per univerum hoc.

  6. Ad summam ipsa perfectionem virium pervenit si redierit
  in humum.

  7. In partes tribuite humum ignem passam, attenuans densitatem
  ejus re omnium suavissima.

  8. Summa ascende ingenii sagacitate a terra in cœlum, indeque
  rursum in terram descende, ac vires superiorum inferiorumque
  coge in unum: sic potiere gloria totius mundi atque ita abjectæ
  sortis homo amplius non habere.

  9. Isthæc jam res ipsa fortitudine fortior existet; corpora
  quippe tam tenuia quam solida penetrando subige.

  10. Atque sic quidem quæcunque mundus continet creata fuere.

  11. Hinc admiranda evadunt opera, quæ ad eundum modum
  instituantur.

  12. Mihi vero ideo nomen Hermetis Trismegisti impositum
  fuit, quod trium mundi sapientiæ partium doctor deprehensus
  sum.

  13. Hæc sunt quæ de chemicæ artis prestantissimo opere
  consignanda esse duxi.


  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]

[10] “Accipe de humore unciam unam et mediam, et de rubore meridionali,
id est anima solis, quartam partem, id est, unciam mediam, et de Seyre
citrino, similiter unciam mediam, et de auripigmenti dimidium, quæ
sunt octo, id est unciæ tres. Scitote quod vitis sapientum in tribus
extrahitur, ejusque vinum in fine triginta peragitur.”

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]

[11] Preface to Mangetus’s Bibliotheca Chemica Curiosa.

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]

[12] Ibid.

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]

[13] Bergmann, Opusc. iv. 121.

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]

[14] I allude to his _Manuale sive de Lapide Philosophico Medicinali_.
Opera Paracelsi, ii. 133. Folio edition. Geneva, 1658.

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]

[15] Wilson’s Chemistry, p. 375.

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]

[16] Ibid., p. 379.

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 mercury[17] (_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.

[17] Probably corrosive sublimate.

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]

[18] Probably calomel.

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]

[19] Mangeti Bibliothecæ Chemicæ Præfatio.

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]

[20] Whoever wishes to enter more particularly into the processes for
making the philosopher’s stone contrived by the alchymists, will find a
good deal of information on the subject in Stahl’s Fundamenta Chemiæ,
vol. i. p. 219, in his chapter _De lapide philosophorum_: and Junker’s
Conspectus Chemiæ, vol. i. p. 604, in his tabula 28, _De transmutatione
metallorum universali_: and tabula 29, _De transmutatione metallorum
particulari_.

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]

[21] Kircher, in his Mundus Subterraneus, has an article on the
philosopher’s stone, in which he examines the processes of the
alchymists, points out their absurdity, and proves by irrefragable
arguments that no such substance had ever been obtained. Those who are
curious about alchymistical processes may consult that work.

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]

[22] Mem. Paris, 1722, p. 61.

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]

[23] The original author, whom all who have given any account of the
alchymists have followed, is Olaus Borrichius, in his Conspectus
Scriptorum Chemicorum Celebriorum. He does not inform us from what
sources his information was derived.

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.

[24] Sprengel’s History of Medicine, iv. 368.

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]

[25] It is curious that Olaus Borrichius omits Albertus Magnus in the
list of alchymistical writers that he has given.

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.

[26] This tract and the next, which is of considerable length, will be
found in Mangetus’s Bibliotheca Chemica Curiosa, i. 613.

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]

[27] Gmelin’s Geschitte der Chemie, i. 74.

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, בהז (_zahav_) 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.

[28] Exodus xi. 2--xxv. 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 24, 25, 26--xxviii.
8--xxxii. 2, &c.

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.

[29] Genesis xlvii. 14.

[30] For example, Exodus xi. 2--xxvi. 19, 21--xxvii. 10, 11, 17, &c.

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]

[31] Genesis iv. 22.

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.

[32] For example, Exodus xxvii. 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 17, 18, 19--xxx.
18, &c. Numbers xxi. 9.

[33] Deut. viii. 9.

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]

[34] Beitrage, vi. 81.

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]

[35] Plinii Hist. Nat. xxxiv. 1.

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]

[36] Plinii Hist. Nat. xxxiv. 2.

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 tin[37] are added,
and the whole melted together.

[37] Pliny’s phrase is _plumbum argentorium_. But that the addition was
tin, and consequently that plumbum argentorium meant tin, we have the
evidence of Klaproth, who analyzed several of these bronze statues, and
found them composed of copper, lead, and tin.

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
              ----
              1000[38]

[38] Beitrage, vi. 89.

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

  Copper,      916
  Tin,          75
  Lead,          9
              ----
              1000[39]

[39] Beitrage, vi. 118. The statue in question was known by the name of
“The Statue of Püstrichs,” at Sondershausen.

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
              ----
               100[40]

[40] Ibid., p. 127.

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
  Lead,          2·5
               ----
                100[41]

[41] Ibid., p. 132.

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

  Copper,      75
  Tin,         12·5
  Lead,        12·5
              ----
              100[42]

[42] Ibid., p. 134.

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]

[43] Plinii Hist. Nat. xxxiv. 11.

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.

[44] Lib. v. c. 117.

_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]

[45] See Plinii Hist. Nat. xxxiv. 13.

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
רב (_bar_), bright, לזנ (_nazal_), 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]

[46] Genesis iv. 22.

[47] Deut. iv. 20.

[48] Deut. viii. 9.

[49] Numbers xxxv. 16.

[50] Levit. i. 17.

[51] Deut. xviii. 5.

[52] Deut. xxvii. 5.

[53] Iliad, lib. xxiii. l. 826.

    “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.

[54] Xenophon’s Anabasis, v. 5.

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_.

[55] Plinii Hist. Nat. xxxiv. 14.

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.

[56] Numbers xxxi. 22.

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 7¾_d._, with Dr. Arbuthnot, this would make a Roman pound
of tin to cost 6_s._ 5½_d._ 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 8_s._ 7¼_d._, which is
almost seven times the price of tin in the present day.

[57] Iliad xi. 25.

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.

[58] Lib. xxxiv. c. 17.

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.

[59] Numbers xxxi. 22.

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 6_s._
0¼_d._ 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

  3 lbs. molybdena or litharge,
  1 lb. wax,
  3 heminæ, 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]

[60] Dioscorides, lib. v. c. 110.

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.

[61] Lib. v. c. 110.

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]

[62] The ancients were in the habit of extracting mercury from
cinnabar, by a kind of imperfect distillation. The native mercury they
called _argentum vivum_, that from cinnabar _hydrargyrus_. See Plinii
Hist. Nat. xxxiii. 8.

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 Dioscorides[63] 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.

[63] Lib. v. c. 99.

[64] Lib. xxxiii. c. 6.

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]

[65] 2 Kings ix. 30.

[66] Chap. 23. v. 40, the Vulgate has it εστιβιζω τους οφθαλμους σουo.

[67] Hartmanni Praxis Chemiatrica, p. 598.

[68] Plinii Hist. Nat. xxxiii. 6.

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.

[69] Περι των λιθων, c. 71.

_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 1_s._ 11¼_d._ 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]

[70] Bucol. iv. 1. 45.

_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]

[71] Plinii Hist. Nat. xxxv. 6.

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 8_s._ 7⅓_d._ 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.

[72] Phil. Trans. 1814, p. 97.


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 25_l._ of our money.

[73] Job xxviii. 17.

[74] Plinii Hist. Nat. xxxvi. 26.

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
  Oxide of lead        10
  Oxide of copper       7·5
  Oxide of iron         1
  Alumina               2·5
  Lime                  1·5
                      -----
                       93·5[75]

[75] Beitrage, vi. 140.

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
  Black oxide of copper      10
  Oxide of lead               7·5
  Oxide of iron               3·5
  Lime                        6·5
  Alumina                     5·5
                            -----
                             98·0[76]

[76] Ibid., p. 142.

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              81·5
  Oxide of iron        9·5
  Alumina              1·5
  Oxide of copper      0·5
  Lime                 0·25
                      -----
                      93·25[77]

[77] Beitrage, p. 144.

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_)?

[78] Phil. Trans. 1815, p. 108.


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
7000_l._ Nero actually gave for one 3000_l._ 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.

[79] Plinii Hist. Nat. xxxvii. 2.

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.

[80] Plinii Hist. Nat. xxxvii. 2.

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]

[81] This opinion was first formed by Baron Born, and stated in
his Catalogue of Minerals in M. E. Raab’s collection, i. 356. But
the evidences in favour of it have been brought forward with great
clearness and force by M. Roziere. See Jour. de Min. xxxvi. 193.

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 625_l._


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]

[82] Plinii Hist. Nat. ix. 38.

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]

[83] Ibid., ix. 36.

[84] Plinii Hist. Nat. ix. c. 38.

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 36_l._
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.

[85] Exodus xxv. 4.

[86] See Bancroft on Permanent Colours, i. 79.

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]

[87] Plinii Hist. Nat. xxxv. 11.

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?

[88] Plinii Hist. Nat. xxviii. 12. The passage of Pliny is as follows:
“Prodest et sapo; Gallorum hoc inventum rutilandis capillis ex sevo et
cinere. Optimus fagino et caprino, duobus modis, spissus et liquidus:
uterque apud Germanos majore in usu viris quam feminis.”

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]

[89] Hist. of Inventions, iii. 239.

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.

[90] Genesis ix. 20.

[91] “Oinô d’ ek kritheôn pepoiêmenô diachreontai; ou gar sphi eisi en
tê chôrê ampeloi.” Euterpe chap. 77.

[92] De Moribus Germanorum, c. 23. “Potui humor ex hordeo aut frumento
in quandam similitudinem vini corruptus.”

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]

[93] Plinii Hist. Nat. xxxv. 12.

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?

[94] The word topazo is said by Pliny to signify, in the language of
the Troglodytes, _to seek_.

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.

[95] Plinii Hist. Nat. ii. 63.

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

[96] Beitrage, iii. 104.

   1 atom protosulphate of iron,
   1½ atom 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]

[97] “Quoniam inficiendis claro colore lanis candidum liquidumque
utilissimum est, contraque fuscis et obscuris nigrum.”--_Plinii_, xxxv.
15.

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.

[98] See Dioscorides, lib. v. c. 123. Plinii Hist. Nat. xxxv. 18.

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.

[99] Matthew v. 13.--“Ὑμεις εστε το ἁλας της γης· εαν δε το ἁλας
μωρανθη, εν τινι ἁλισθησεται· εις ουδεν ισχωει ετι ει μη βληθηναι εξω,
και καταπατεισθαι ὑπο των ανθρωπων.”

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_ (רתנ) had 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.

[100] Proverbs xxv. 20.

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.

[101] “Cujus asperitas visque in tabem margeritas resolvit.”

[102] Plinii Hist. Nat. ix. 35.

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.

[103] For a fuller account of the progress of science among the
Arabians than would be consistent with this work, the reader is
referred to Mortucla’s Hist. des Mathématiques, i. 351; Sprengel’s
Hist. de la Médecine, ii. 246.

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.”

[104] Boerhaave’s Chemistry (Shaw’s translation), i. 26. _Note._

[105] Golius was not, however, the first translator of Geber. A
translation of the longest and most important of his tracts into Latin
appeared in Strasburg, in 1529. There was another translation published
in Italy, from a manuscript in the Vatican. There probably might be
other translations. I have compared four different copies of Geber’s
works, and found some differences, though not very material. I have
followed Russel’s English translation most commonly, as upon the whole
the most accurate that I have seen.

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.

[106] Of course I exclude the writings of the Greek ecclesiastics
mentioned in a previous part of this work, which still continue in
manuscript; because, I am ignorant of what they contain.

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]

[107] Sum of Perfection, book ii. part i. chap. 5.

[108] Ibid.

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]

[109] Ibid., chap. 6.

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]

[110] Sum of Perfection, book ii. part i. chap. 7.

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]

[111] Ibid.

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]

[112] Ibid., chap. 8.

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]

[113] Ibid.

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]

[114] Ibid., chap. 9.

[115] Sum of Perfection, book ii. part i. chap. 9.

[116] Ibid.

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]

[117] Ibid., chap. 10.

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.

[118] Investigation and Search of Perfection, chap. 3.

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.

[119] Invention of Verity, chap. 4.

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]

[120] Search of Perfection, chap. 3.

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.

[121] De Investigatione Perfect. chap. 4.

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.

[122] Invention of Verity, chap. 23.

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]

[123] Ibid., chap. 21.

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.

[124] Ibid., chap. 23.

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.

[125] Invention of Verity, chap. 8.

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.

[126] Sum of Perfection, book i. part iii. chap. 4.

[127] Ibid., chap. 6.

[128] Ibid.

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]

[129] Sum of Perfection, book i. part iv. chap. 16.

[130] Invention of Verity, chap. 10.

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]

[131] Sum of Perfection, book i. part iii. chap. 4.

[132] Ibid.

[133] Invention of Verity, chap. 6.

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.”

[134] Invention of Verity, chap. 7.

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]

[135] Sum of Perfection, book ii. part. ii. chap. 11.

[136] Invention of Verity, chap. 14.

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.

[137] Ibid., chap. 4 and 12.

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]

[138] Sum of Perfection, book ii. part iii. chap. 10.

[139] Invention of Verity, chap. 4.

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.

[140] Sum of Perfection, book i. part iii. chap. 8.

[141] Ibid., book i. part iii. chap. 8.

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]

[142] Investigation of Perfections, chap. 11.

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.

[143] See Testamentum Paracelsi, passim.

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.

[144] “Hispania, Portugallia, Anglia, Borussia, Lithuania, Polonia,
Pannonia, Valachia, Transylvania, Croatia, Illyrico, immo omnibus
totius Europæ nationibus peragratis, undeque non solum apud medicos,
sed et chirurgos, tonsores, aniculas, magos, chymistas, nobiles ac
ignobiles, optima, selectiora ac secretiora, quæ uspiam extarent
remedia, inquisivi acriter.”--_Præfatio Chirurgiæ Magnæ._ Opera
Paracelsi, tom. iii.

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]

[145] See the dedication to his treatise _De Gradibus et
Compositionibus Receptorum et Naturalium_. Opera Paracelsi, vol. ii.
p. 144. I always refer to the folio edition of Paracelsus’s works, in
three volumes, published at Geneva in 1658, by M. de Tournes, which is
the edition in my possession.

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.

[146] Opera Paracelsi, i. 485.

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.

[147] There were two laudanums of Paracelsus; one was _red oxide of
mercury_, the other consisted of the following substances: Chloride
of antimony, 1 ounce; hepatic aloes, 1 ounce; rose-water, ½ ounce;
saffron, 3 ounces; ambergris, 2 drams. All these well mixed.

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.

[148] Opera Paracelsi, iii, 101.

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.

[149] Opera Paracelsi, i. 243.

[150] Ibid., ii. 84.

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]

[151] Opera Paracelsi, i. 328.

_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.

[152] “Qui elegantiorem optat, ille eum condat.”--_Ibid._

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.”

[153] Archidoxorum, lib. i. Opera Paracelsi, ii. 4.

[154] De longa Vita. Opera Paracelsi, ii. 46.

[155] Archidoxorum, lib. viii. Opera Paracelsi, ii. 29. In this book
he gives the method of preparing the elixir of life. It seems to have
been nothing else than a solution of _common salt_ in water; for the
quintessence of gold, with which this solution was to be mixed, was
doubtless an imaginary substance.

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.

[156] Modus Pharmacandi. Opera Paracelsi, i. 811.

[157] Liber de Nymphis, Sylphis, Pygmæis, et Salamandris, et de ceteris
Spiritibus. Opera Paracelsi, ii. 388. If the reader can understand this
singular book, his sagacity will be greater than mine.

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?

[158] Paragrani Alterius, tract. ii. Opera Paracelsi, i. 235. The
reader who has the curiosity to consult this tract, will find abundance
of similar stuff, which I did not think worth translating.

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.

[159] Philosophiæ, tract. iv. De Mineralibus. Opera Paracelsi, ii.
282. “Quando ergo hoc modo metalla fiunt et producuntur, dum scilicet
verus metallicus fluxus et ductilitas aufertur et in septem metalla
distribuitur; residentia quædam manet in Ares, instar fœtûm trium
primorum. Ex hac nescitur zinetum, quod et metallum est et non est.
Sic et bisemutum et huic similia alia partim fluida, partim ductilia
sunt--Zinetum maxima ex parte spuria soboles est ex cupro et bisemutum
de stanno. Ex hisce duobus omnium plurimæ fæces et remanentiæ in Ares
fiunt.”

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.

[160] It was as follows: “Collegium medicorum in Academia Parisiensi
legitime congregatum, audita renunciatione sensorum, quibus demandata
erat provincia examinandi apologiam sub nomine Mayerni Turqueti editam,
ipsam unanimi consensu damnat, tanquam famosum libellum, mendacibus
conviciis et impudentibus calumniis refertum, quæ nonnisi ab homine
imperito, impudenti, temulento et furioso profiteri potuerunt. Ipsum
Turquetum indignum judicat, qui usquam medicinam faciat, propter
temeritatem, impudentiam et veræ medicinæ ignorantiam. Omnes vero
medicos, qui ubique gentium et locorum medicinam exercent, hortatur
ut ipsum Turquetum similiaque hominum et opinionum portenta, a se
suisque finibus arceant et in Hippocratis ac Galeni doctrina constantes
permaneant: et prohibuit ne quis ex hoc medicorum Parisiensium ordine
cum Turqueto eique similibus medica consilia ineat. Qui secus fecerit,
scholæ ornamentis et academiæ privilegiis privabitur, et de regentium
numero expungetur.--Datum Lutetiæ in scholis superioribus, die 5
Decembris, anno salutis, 1603.”

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.

[161] J. B. Van Helmont, Opera Omnia, p. 100. The edition which I quote
from was printed at Frankfort, in 1682, at the expense of John Justus
Erythropilus, in a very thick quarto volume.

[162] Van Helmont, Opera Omnia, p. 104.

[163] Ibid., p. 105.

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_.

[164] De Flatibus, sect. 49. Opera Van Helmont, p. 405.

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.

[165] Ibid., p. 408.

[166] Ibid., p. 409.

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]

[167] In his Magnum Oportet, sect. 39, p. 151, he gives an account
of the origin of metals in the earth, and in that section there is a
description of _bur_, which those who are anxious to understand the
ideas of the author on this subject may consult.

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]

[168] As an example of the prescriptions of Sylvius, we give the
following for malignant fever:

  _R._ Theriac. veter. ᴣij
       Antim. diaphor. ᴣj
       Syrup. Card. Benedic. ℥ij
       Aq. prophylact. ℥j
       -- Cinnam. ℥ss
       -- Scabios. ℥ij
  M. D.


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.

[169] Shaw’s Boyle, iii, 424.

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]

[170] De Ortu et Progressu Chemiæ. _Hafniæ_, 1674.

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.

[171] While travelling in a tract-boat, one of his fellow-travellers
more orthodox than well informed, attacked the system of Spinoza with
so little spirit, that Boerhaave was tempted to ask him if he had ever
read Spinoza. The polemic was obliged to confess that he had not; but
he was so much provoked at this public exposure of his ignorance, that
he propagated the report of Boerhaave’s attachment to Spinozism, and
thus blasted his intention of becoming a clergyman.

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]

[172] Mem. Paris, 1734, p. 539.

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]

[173] Phil. Trans. 1733. No. 430, p. 145.

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.”

[174] It is entitled, “El Arte de los Metales, en que se ensena el
verdadero beneficio de los de oro y plata por azoque,” &c.

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.

[175] Born’s New Process of Amalgamation, translated by Raspe, p. 11.

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]

[176] I have never seen a copy of this last work; it must have been
valuable, as it was the book from which Scheele derived the first
rudiments of his knowledge.

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.

[177] For 1711, p. 238.

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.

[178] Mem. Paris, 1718, p. 202; and 1720, p. 20.

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:

[179] In the sixth chemical thesis, in the second supplement to the
Physica Subterranea (page 791, Stahl’s Edition. Lipsiæ, 1703), he says,
“ubi etiam, continuato igne, ipsum sal volatile acquires, quod eadem
methodo cum vitriolo seu spiritu aut oleo vitrioli, et oleo tartari,
vel _borace_ succedit.”

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.

[180] “Primus in his facem prætulit Beccherus; eumque magno cum artis
progressu sequentem videmus in ostendenda corporum analysi et synthesi
chymica versatissimum et acutissimum--_Stahlium_.”

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 opinion of Boyle
that calx of tin was a combination of _tin_ and _heat_. It could not
consequently be true that calx of tin was tin deprived of phlogiston.

When this difficulty struck the phlogistians, which was not till long
after the time of Stahl, they endeavoured to evade it by assigning new
properties to phlogiston. According to them it is not only destitute
of weight, but endowed with a principle of levity. In consequence of
this property, a body containing phlogiston is always lighter than it
would otherwise be, and it becomes heavier when the phlogiston makes
its escape: hence the reason why calx of tin is heavier than the same
tin in the metallic state. The increase of weight is not owing, as
Boyle believed, to the fixation of heat in the tin, but to the escape
of phlogiston from it.

Those philosophic chemists, who thus refined upon the properties of
phlogiston, did not perceive that by endowing it with a principle of
levity, they destroyed all the other characters which they had assigned
to it. What is gravity? Is it not an attraction by means of which
bodies are drawn towards each other, and remain united? And is there
any reason for supposing that chemical attraction differs in its nature
from the other kinds of attraction which matter possesses? If, then,
phlogiston be destitute of gravity, it cannot possess any attraction
for other bodies; if it be endowed with a principle of levity, it must
have the property of repelling other bodies, for that is the only
meaning that can be attached to the term. But if phlogiston has the
property of repelling all other substances, how comes it to be fixed
in combustible bodies? It must be united to the calces or the acids,
which constitute the other principle of these bodies; and it could not
be united, and remain united, unless a principle of attraction existed
between it and these bases; that is to say, unless it possessed a
principle the very opposite of levity.

Thus the fact, that calces are heavier than the metals from which they
are formed, in reality overturned the whole doctrine of phlogiston;
and the only reason why the doctrine continued to be admitted after
the fact was known is, that in these early days of chemistry, the
balance was scarcely ever employed in experimenting: hence alterations
in weight were little attended to or entirely overlooked. We shall
see afterwards, that when Lavoisier introduced a more accurate mode
of experimenting, and rendered it necessary to compare the original
weights of the substances employed, with the weights of the products,
he made use of this very experiment of Boyle, and a similar one made
with mercury, to overturn the whole doctrine of phlogiston.

The phlogistic school being thus founded by Stahl, in Berlin, a race
of chemists succeeded him in that capital, who contributed in no
ordinary degree to the improvement of the science. The most deservedly
celebrated of these were Neumann, Pott, Margraaf, and Eller.

Caspar Neumann was born at Zullichau, in Germany, in 1682. He was
early received into favour by the King of Prussia, and travelled
at the expense of that monarch into Holland, England, France, and
Italy. During these travels he had an opportunity of making a
personal acquaintance with the most eminent men of science in all
the different countries which he visited. On his return home, in
1724, he was appointed professor of chemistry in the Royal College of
Physic and Surgery at Berlin, where he delivered a course of lectures
annually. During the remainder of his life he enjoyed the situation of
superintendent of the Royal Laboratory, and apothecary to the King of
Prussia. He died in 1737. He was a Fellow of the Royal Society, and
several papers of his appeared in the Transactions of that learned
body. The following is a list of these papers, all of which were
written in Latin:

1. Disquisitio de camphora.

2. De experimento probandi spiritum vini Gallici, per quam usitato, sed
revera falso et fallaci.

Some merchants in Holland, England, Hamburg, and Dantzic, were in
possession of what they considered an infallible test to distinguish
French brandy from every other kind of spirit. It was a dusky yellowish
liquid. When one or two drops of it were let fall into a glass of
French brandy, a beautiful blue colour appeared at the bottom of
the glass, and when the brandy is stirred, the whole liquid becomes
azure. But if the spirit tried be malt spirit, no such colour appears
in the glass. Neumann ascertained that the test liquid was merely a
solution of sulphate of iron in water, and that the blue colour was
the consequence of the brandy having been kept in oak casks, and thus
having dissolved a portion of tannin. Every spirit will exhibit the
same colour, if it has been kept in oak casks.

3. De salibus alkalino-fixis.

4. De camphora thymi.

5. De ambragrysea.

His other papers, published in Germany, are the following:


In the Ephemerides.

1. De oleo distillato formicorum æthereo.

2. De albumine ovi succino simili.


In the Miscellania Berolinensia.

1. Meditationes in binas observationes de aqua per putrefactionem
rubra, vulgo pro tali in sanguinem versa habita.

2. Succincta relatio exactis Pomeraniis de prodigio sanguinis in palude
viso.

3. De prodigio sanguinis ex Pomeranio nunciato.

4. Disquisitio de camphora.

5. De experimento probandi spiritum vini Gallicum.

6. De spiritu urinoso caustico.

7. Demonstratio syrupum violarum ad probanda liquida non sufficere.

8. Examen correctionis olei raparum.

9. De vi caustica et conversione salium alkalino-fixorum aëri
expositorum in salia neutra.


He published separately,

1. De salibus alkalino-fixis et camphora.

2. De succino, opio, caryophyllis aromaticis et castoreo.

3. On saltpetre, sulphur, antimony, and iron.

4. On tea, coffee, beer, and wine.

5. Disquisitio de ambragrysea.

6. On common salt, tartar, sal ammoniac and ants.

After Neumann’s death, two copies of his chemical lectures were
published. The first consisting of notes taken by one of his pupils,
intermixed with incoherent compilations from other authors, was printed
at Berlin in 1740. The other was printed by the booksellers of the
Orphan Hospital of Zullichau (the place of Neumann’s birth), and is
said to have been taken from the original papers in the author’s
handwriting. Of this last an excellent translation, with many additions
and corrections, was published by Dr. Lewis, in London, in the year
1759; it was entitled, “The Chemical Works of Caspar Neumann, M.D.,
Professor of Chemistry at Berlin, F.R.S., &c. Abridged and methodized;
with large additions, containing the later discoveries and improvements
made in Chemistry, and the arts depending thereon. By William
Lewis, M.B., F.R.S. London, 1759.” This is an excellent book, and
contains many things that still retain their value, notwithstanding
the improvements which have been made since in every department of
chemistry.

I have reason to believe that the laborious part of this translation
and compilation was made by Mr. Chicholm, whom Dr. Lewis employed as
his assistant. Mr. Chicholm, when a young man, went to London from
Aberdeen, where he had studied at the university, and acquired a
competent knowledge of Greek and Latin, but no means of supporting
himself. On his arrival in London, one of the first things that
struck his attention was a Greek book, placed open against the pane
of a bookseller’s window. Chicholm went up to the window, at which
he continued standing till he had perused the whole Greek page thus
exposed to his view. Dr. Lewis happened to be in the shop: he had
been looking out for a young man whom he could employ to take charge
of his laboratory, and manage his processes, and who should possess
sufficient intelligence to read chemical works for him, and collect
out of each whatever deserved to be known, either from its novelty
or ingenuity. The appearance and manners of Chicholm struck him, and
made him think of him as a man likely to answer the purposes which he
had in view. He called him into the shop, and after some conversation
with him, took him home, and kept him all his life as his assistant
and operator. Chicholm was a laborious and painstaking man, and by
continually working in Lewis’s laboratory, soon acquired a competent
knowledge of chemistry. He compiled several manuscript volumes, partly
consisting of his own experiments, and partly of collections from other
authors. At Dr. Lewis’s death, all his books were sold by auction, and
these manuscript volumes among the rest. They were purchased by Mr.
Wedgewood, senior, who at the same time took Mr. Chicholm into his
service, and gave him the charge of his own laboratory. It was Mr.
Chicholm that was the constructor of the well-known piece of apparatus
known by the name of Wedgewood’s pyrometer. After his death the
instrument continued still to be constructed for some time; but so many
complaints were made of the unequal contraction of the pieces, that
Mr. Wedgewood, junior, who had succeeded to the pottery in consequence
of the death of his father, put an end to the manufacture of them
altogether.

John Henry Pott was born at Halberstadt, in the year 1692. He was a
scholar of Hoffmann and Stahl, and from this last he seems to have
imbibed his taste for chemistry. He settled at Berlin, where he became
assessor of the Royal College of Medicine and Surgery, inspector of
medicines, superintendent of the Royal Laboratory, and dean of the
Academy of Sciences of Berlin. He was chosen professor of theoretical
chemistry at Berlin; and on the death of Neumann, in 1737, he succeeded
him as professor of practical chemistry. He was beyond question the
most learned and laborious chemist of his day. His erudition, indeed,
was very great; and his historical introductions to his dissertation
displays the extent of his reading on every subject of which he
had occasion to treat. It has often struck me that the historical
introductions which Bergmann has prefixed to his papers, are several
of them borrowed from Pott. The Lithogeognosia of Pott is one of the
most extraordinary productions of the age in which he lived. It was the
result of a request of the King of Prussia, to discover the ingredients
of which Saxon porcelain was made. Mr. Pott, not being able to procure
any satisfactory information relative to the nature of the substances
employed at Dresden, resolved to undertake a chemical examination
of all the substances that were likely to be employed in such a
manufacture. He tried the effect of fire upon all the stones, earths,
and minerals, that he could procure, both separately and mixed together
in various proportions. He made at least thirty thousand experiments
in six years, and laid the foundation for a chemical knowledge of these
bodies.[181] It is to this work of Pott that we are indebted for our
knowledge of the effects of heat upon various earthy bodies, and upon
mixtures of them. Thus he found that pure white clay, or mixtures of
pure clay and quartz-sand, would not fuse at any temperature which he
could produce; but clay, mixed with lime or with oxide of iron, enters
speedily into fusion. Clay also fuses with its own weight of borax; it
forms a compact mass with half its weight, and does not concrete into
a hard body when mixed with a third of its weight of that salt. Clay
fuses easily with fluor spar; it fuses, also, with twice its weight of
protoxide of lead, and with its own weight of sulphate of lime, but
with no other proportion tried. It was a knowledge of these mutual
actions of bodies on each other, when exposed to heat, that gradually
led to the methods of examining minerals by the blowpipe. These methods
were brought to the present state of perfection by Assessor Gahn, of
Fahlun, the result of whose labours has been published by Berzelius, in
his treatise on the blowpipe. Pott died in 1777, in the eighty-fifth
year of his age.

[181] There is a French translation of this work, entitled
“Litheognosie, ou Examen Chymique des Pierres et des Terres en
général, et du Talc de la Topaz, et de la Steatite en particulier;
avec une Dissertation sur le Feu et sur la Lumière.” Paris, 1753.
With a continuation, constituting a second volume, in which all the
experiments in the first volume are exhibited in the form of tables.

His different chemical works (his Lithogeognosia excepted) were
collected and translated into French by M. Demachy, in the year 1759,
and published in four small octavo volumes. The chemical papers
contained in these volumes are thirty-two in number. Some of these
papers cannot but appear somewhat extraordinary to a modern chemist:
for example, M. Duhamel had published in the memoirs of the French
Academy, in the year 1737, a set of experiments on common salt, from
which he deduced that its basis was a fixed alkali, which possessed
properties different from those of potash, and which of course required
to be distinguished by a peculiar name. It is sufficiently known that
the term _soda_ was afterwards applied to this alkali; by which name it
is known at present. Pott, in a very elaborate and long dissertation
on the base of common salt, endeavours to refute these opinions
of Duhamel. The subject was afterwards taken up by Margraaf, who
demonstrated, by decisive experiments, that the base of common salt is
_soda_; and that soda differs essentially in its properties from potash.

Pott’s dissertation on _bismuth_ is of considerable value. He collects
in it the statements and opinions of all preceding writers on this
metal, and describes its properties with considerable accuracy and
minuteness. The same observations apply to his dissertation on zinc.

John Theodore Eller, of Brockuser, was born on the 29th of November,
1689, at Pletzkau, in the principality of Anhalt Bernburg. He was
the fourth son of Jobst Hermann Eller, a man of a respectable
family, whose ancestors were proprietors of considerable estates in
Westphalia and the Netherlands. Young Eller received the rudiments
of his education in his father’s house, from which he went to the
University of Quedlinburg; and from thence to the University of Jena,
in 1709. He was sent thither to study law; but his passion was for
natural philosophy, which led him to devote himself to the study of
medicine. From Jena he went to Halle, and finally to Leyden, attracted
by the reputation of the older Albinus, of Professor Sengerd and the
celebrated Boerhaave, at that time in the height of his reputation.
The only practical anatomist then in Leyden, was M. Bidloo, an old man
of eighty, and of course unfit for teaching. This induced Eller to
repair to Amsterdam, to study under Rau, and to inspect the anatomical
museum of Ruysch. Bidloo soon dying, Rau was appointed his successor
at Leyden, whither Eller followed him, and dissected under him till
the year 1716. After taking his degree at Leyden, Eller returned to
Germany, and devoted a considerable time to the study and examination
of the mines of Saxony and the Hartz, and of the metallurgic processes
connected with these mines. From these mines he repaired to France, and
resumed his anatomical studies under Du Verney and Winslow. Chemistry
also attracted a good deal of his attention, and he frequented the
laboratories of Grosse, Lemery, Bolduc, and Homberg, at that time the
most eminent chemists in Paris.

From Paris he repaired to London, where he formed an acquaintance with
the numerous medical men of eminence who at that time adorned this
capital. On returning to Germany in 1721, he was appointed physician
to Prince Victor Frederick of Anhalt Bernburg. From Bernburg he
went to Magdeburg; and the King of Prussia called him to Berlin in
1724, to teach anatomy in the great anatomic theatre which had been
just erected. Soon after he was appointed physician to the king, a
counsellor and professor in the Royal Medico-Chirurgical College,
which had been just founded in Berlin. He was also appointed dean of
the Superior College of Medicine, and physician to the army and to
the great Hospital of Frederick. In the year 1755 Frederick the Great
made him a privy-counsellor, which is the highest rank that a medical
man can attain in Prussia. The same year he was made director of the
Royal Academy of Sciences of Berlin. He died in the year 1760, in the
seventy-first year of his age. He was twice married, and his second
wife survived him.

Many chemical papers of Eller are to be found in the memoirs of the
Berlin Academy. They were of sufficient importance, at the time when
he published them, to add considerably to his reputation, though not
sufficiently so to induce me to give a catalogue of them here. I am
not aware of any chemical discovery for which we are indebted to him;
but have been induced to give this brief notice of him, because he is
usually associated with Pott and Margraaf, making with them the three
celebrated chemists who adorned Berlin, during the splendid reign of
Frederick the Great.

Andrew Sigismund Margraaf was born in Berlin, in the year 1709, and
acquired the first principles of chemistry from his father, who was
an apothecary in that city. He afterwards studied under Neumann, and
travelling in quest of information to Frankfort, Strasburg, Halle, and
Freyburg, he returned to Berlin enriched with all the knowledge of his
favourite science which at that time existed. In 1760, on the death
of Eller, he was made director of the physical class of the Berlin
Academy of Sciences. He died in the year 1782, in the seventy-third
year of his age. He gradually acquired a brilliant reputation in
consequence of the numerous chemical papers which he successively
published, each of which usually contained a new chemical fact, of
more or less importance, deduced from a set of experiments generally
satisfactory and convincing. His papers have a greater resemblance
to those of Scheele than of any other chemist to whom we can compare
them. He may be considered as in some measure the beginner of chemical
analysis; for, before his time, the chemical analysis of bodies had
hardly been attempted. His methods, as might have been expected,
were not very perfect; nor did he attempt numerical results. His
experiments on phosphorus and on the method of extracting it from urine
are valuable; they communicated the first accurate notions relative
to this substance and to phosphoric acid. He first determined the
properties of the earth of alum, now known by the name of _alumina_;
showed that it differed from every other, and that it existed in clay,
and gave to that substance its peculiar properties. He demonstrated
the peculiar nature of soda, the base of common salt, which Pott had
called in question, and thus verified the conclusions of Duhamel. He
gives an easy process for obtaining pure silver from the chloride of
that metal: his method is to dissolve the pure chloride of silver in a
solution of caustic ammonia, and to put into the liquid a sufficient
quantity of pure mercury; the silver is speedily reduced and converted
into an amalgam, and when this amalgam is exposed to a red heat the
mercury is driven off and pure silver remains. The usual method of
reducing the chloride of silver is to heat it in a crucible with a
sufficient quantity of carbonate of potash, a process which was first
recommended by Kunkel. But it is scarcely possible to prevent the loss
of a portion of the silver when the chloride is reduced in this way.
The modern process is undoubtedly the simplest and the best, to reduce
it by means of hydrogen. If a few pieces of zinc be put into the bottom
of a beer-glass and some dilute sulphuric acid be poured over it an
effervescence takes place, and hydrogen gas is disengaged. Chloride of
silver, placed above the zinc in the same glass, is speedily reduced by
this hydrogen and converted into metallic silver.

Margraaf’s chemical papers, down to the time of publication, were
collected together, translated into French and published at Paris
in the year 1762, in two very small octavo volumes, they consist of
twenty-six different papers: some of the most curious and important
of which are those that have been just particularized. Several other
papers written by him appeared in the memoirs of the Berlin Academy,
after this collection of his works was published, particularly “A
demonstration of the possibility of drawing fixed alkaline salts
from tartar by means of acids, without employing the action of a
violent fire.” It was this paper, probably, that led Scheele, a few
years after, to his well-known method of obtaining tartaric acid, a
modification of which is still followed by manufacturers.

“Observations concerning a remarkable volatilization of a portion of
a kind of stone known by the names of flosse, flusse, fluor spar, and
likewise by that of hesperos: which volatilization was effectuated by
means of acids.” Pott had already shown the value of fluor spar as a
flux. Three years after the appearance of Margraaf’s paper, Scheele
discovered the nature of fluor spar, and first drew the attention of
chemists to the peculiar properties of fluoric acid.

In France, in consequence chiefly of the regulations established in
the Academy of Sciences, in the year 1699, a race of chemists always
existed, whose specific object was to cultivate chemistry, and extend
and improve it. The most eminent of these chemical labourers, after the
Stahlian theory was fully admitted in France till its credit began to
be shaken, were Reaumur, Hellot, Duhamel, Rouelle, and Macquer. Besides
these, who were the chief chemists in the academy, there were a few
others to whom we are indebted for chemical discoveries that deserve to
be recorded.

René Antoine Ferchault, Esq., Seigneur de Reaumur, certainly one of the
most extraordinary men of his age, was born at Rochelle, in 1683. He
went to the school of Rochelle, and afterwards studied philosophy under
the Jesuits at Poitiers. Hence he went to Bourges, to which one of his
uncles, canon of the holy chapel in that city, had invited him. At this
time he was only seventeen years of age, yet his parents ventured to
intrust a younger brother to his care, and this care he discharged
with all the fidelity and sagacity of a much older man. Here he devoted
himself to mathematics and physics, and he soon after went to Paris to
improve the happy talents which he had received from nature. He was
fortunate enough to meet with a friend and relation in the president,
Henault, equally devoted to study with himself, equally eager for
information, and possessed of equal honour and integrity, and equally
promising talents.

He came to Paris in 1703. In 1708 he was admitted into the Academy of
Sciences, in the situation of _élève_ of M. Varignon, vacant by the
promotion of M. Saurin to the rank of associate.

The first papers of his which were inserted in the Memoirs of the
Academy were geometrical: he gave a general method of finding an
infinity of curves, described by the extremity of a straight line,
the other extremity of which, passing along the surface of a given
curve, is always obliged to pass through the same point. Next year he
gave a geometrical work on Developes; but this was the last of his
mathematical tracts. He was charged by the academy with the task of
giving a description of the arts, and his taste for natural history
began to draw to that study the greatest part of his attention. His
first work as a naturalist was his observations on the formation of
shells. It was unknown whether shells increase by intussusception, like
animal bodies, or by the exterior and successive addition of new parts.
By a set of delicate observations he showed that shells are formed by
the addition of new parts, and that this was the cause of the variety
of colour, shape, and size which they usually affect. His observations
on snails, with a view to the way in which their shells are formed,
led him to the discovery of a singular insect, which not only lives on
snails, but in the inside of their bodies, from which it never stirs
till driven out by the snail.

During the same year, he wrote his curious paper on the silk of
spiders. The experiments of M. Bohn had shown that spiders could spin
a silk that might be usefully employed. But it remained to be seen
whether these creatures could be fed with profit, and in sufficiently
great numbers to produce a sufficient quantity of silk to be of use.
Reaumur undertook this disagreeable task, and showed that spiders could
not be fed together without attacking and destroying one another.

The next research which he undertook, was to discover in what way
certain sea-animals are capable of attaching themselves to fixed
bodies, and again disengaging themselves at pleasure. He discovered the
various threads and pinnæ which some of them possess for this purpose,
and the prodigious number of limbs by which the sea-star is enabled to
attach itself to solid bodies. Other animals employ a kind of cement
to glue themselves to those substances to which they are attached,
while some fix themselves by forming a vacuum in the interval between
themselves and the solid substances to which they are attached.

It was at this period that he found great quantities of the buccinum,
which yielded the purple dye of the ancients, upon the coast of Poitou.
He observed, also, that the stones and little sandy ridges round which
the shellfish had collected were covered with a kind of oval grains,
some of which were white, and others of a yellowish colour, and having
collected and squeezed some of these upon the sleeve of his shirt, so
as to wet it with the liquid which they contained, he was agreeably
surprised in about half an hour to find the wetted spot assume a
beautiful purple colour, which was not discharged by washing. He
collected a number of these grains, and carrying them to his apartment,
bruised and squeezed different parcels of them upon bits of linen; but
to his great surprise, after two or three hours, no colour appeared
on the wetted part; but, at the same time, two or three spots of the
plaster at the window, on which drops of the liquid had fallen, had
become purple; though the day was cloudy. On carrying the pieces
of linen to the window, and leaving them there, they also acquired
a purple colour. It was the action of light, then, on the liquor,
that caused it to tinge the linen. He found, likewise, that when the
colouring matter was put into a phial, which filled it completely, it
remained unchanged; but when the phial was not full, and was badly
corked, it acquired colour. From these facts it is evident, that the
purple colour is owing to the joint action of the light and the oxygen
of the atmosphere upon the liquor of the shellfish.

About this time, likewise, he made experiments upon a subject which
attracted the attention of mechanicians--to determine whether the
strength of a cord was greater, or less, or equal to the joint strength
of all the fibres which compose it. The result of Reaumur’s experiments
was, that the strength of the cord is less than that of all the fibres
of which it is composed. Hence it follows, that the less that a cord
differs from an assemblage of straight fibres, the stronger it is.
This, at that time considered as a singular mechanical paradox, was
afterwards elucidated by M. Duhamel.

It was a popular opinion of all the inhabitants of the sea-shore, that
when the claws of crabs, lobsters, &c., are lost by any means, they are
gradually replaced by others, and the animal in a short time becomes as
perfect as at first. This opinion was ridiculed by men of science as
inconsistent with all our notions of true philosophy. Reaumur subjected
it to the test of experiment, by removing the claws of these animals,
and keeping them alone for the requisite time in sea-water: new claws
soon sprang out, and perfectly replaced those that had been removed.
Thus the common opinion was verified,and the contemptuous smile of the
half-learned man of science was shown to be the result of ignorance,
not of knowledge.

Reaumur was not so fortunate in his attempts to explain the nature of
the shock given by the torpedo; which we now know to be an electric
shock produced by a peculiar apparatus within the animal. Reaumur
endeavoured to prove, from dissection, that the shock was owing to the
prodigious rapidity of the blow given by the animal in consequence of a
peculiar structure of its muscles.

The turquoise was at that time, as it still is, considerably admired in
consequence of the beauty of its colour. Persia was the country from
which this precious stone came, and it was at that time considered as
the only country in the universe where it occurred. Reaumur made a set
of experiments on the subject and showed that the fossil bones found in
Languedoc, when exposed to a certain heat, assume the same beautiful
green colour, and become turquoises equally beautiful with the Persian.
It is now known, that the true Persian turquoise, the _calamite_
of mineralogists, is quite different from fossil bones coloured
with copper. So far, therefore, Reaumur deceived himself by these
experiments; but at that time chemical knowledge was too imperfect to
enable him to subject Persian turquoise to an analysis, and determine
its constitution.

About the same period, he undertook an investigation of the nature
of imitation pearls, which resemble the true pearls so closely, that
it is very difficult, from appearances, to distinguish the true from
the false. He showed that the substance which gave the false pearls
their colour and lustre, was taken from a small fish called by the
French _able_, or _ablette_. He likewise undertook an investigation
of the origin of true pearls, and showed that they were indebted for
their production to a disease of the animal. It is now known, that
the introduction of any solid body, as a grain of sand, within the
shell of the living pearl-shellfish, gives occasion to the formation
of pearl. Linnæus boasted that he knew a method of forming artificial
pearls; and doubtless his process was merely introducing some solid
particle of matter into the living shell. Pearls consist of alternate
layers of carbonate of lime and animal membrane; and the colour and
lustre to which they owe their value depends upon the thinness of the
alternate coats.

The next paper of Reaumur was an account of the rivers in France
whose sand yielded gold-dust, and the method employed to extract the
gold. This paper will well repay the labour of a perusal; it owes its
interest in a great measure to the way in which the facts are laid
before the reader.

His paper on the prodigious bank of fossil shells at Touraine, from
which the inhabitants draw manure in such quantities for their fields,
deserves attention in a geological point of view. But his paper on
flints and stones is not so valuable; it consists in speculations,
which, from the infant state of chemical analysis when he wrote, could
not be expected to lead to correct conclusions.

I pass over many of the papers of this most indefatigable man, because
they are not connected with chemistry; but his history of insects
constitutes a charming book, and contains a prodigious number of facts
of the most curious and important nature. This book alone, supposing
Reaumur had done nothing else, would have been sufficient to have
immortalized the author.

In the year 1722 he published his work on the _art of converting iron
into steel, and of softening cast-iron_. At that time no steel whatever
was made in France; the nation was supplied with that indispensable
article from foreign countries, chiefly from Germany. The object of
Reaumur’s book was to teach his countrymen the art of making steel,
and, if possible, to explain the nature of the process by which iron
is changed into steel. Reaumur concluded from his experiments, that
steel is iron impregnated with _sulphureous_ and _saline_ matters. The
word _sulphureous_, as at that time used, was nearly synonymous with
our present term _combustible_. The process which he found to answer,
and which he recommends to be followed, was to mix together

  4 parts of soot
  2 parts of charcoal-powder
  2 parts of wood-ashes
  1½ parts of common salt.

The iron bars to be converted into steel were surrounded with this
mixture, and kept red-hot till converted into steel. Reaumur’s notion
of the difference between iron and steel was an approximation to
the truth. The saline matters which he added do not enter into the
composition of steel; and if they did, so far from improving, they
would injure its qualities. But the charcoal and soot, which consist
chiefly of carbon, really produce the desired effect; for steel is a
combination of _iron_ and _carbon_.

In consequence of these experiments of Reaumur, it came to be an
opinion entertained by chemists, that steel differed from iron merely
by containing a greater proportion of phlogiston; for the charcoal
and soot with which the iron bars were surrounded was considered as
consisting almost entirely of phlogiston; and the only useful purpose
which they could serve, was supposed to be to furnish phlogiston. This
opinion continued prevalent till it was overturned towards the end of
the last century, first by the experiments of Bergmann, and afterwards
by those of Berthollet, Vandermond, and Monge, published in the Memoirs
of the French Academy for 1786 (page 132). In this elaborate memoir the
authors take a view of all the different processes followed in bringing
iron from the ore to the state of steel: they then give an account of
the researches of Reaumur and of Bergmann; and lastly relate their own
experiments, from which they finally draw, as a conclusion, that steel
is a compound of iron and carbon.

The regent Orleans, who at that time administered the affairs of
France, thought that this work of Reaumur was deserving a reward, and
accordingly offered him a pension of 12,000 livres. Reaumur requested
of the regent that this pension should be given in the name of the
academy, and that after his death it should continue, and be devoted to
defray the necessary expenses towards bringing the arts into a state of
perfection. The request was granted, and the letters patent made out on
the 22d of December, 1722.

At that time tin-plate, as well as steel, was not made in France;
but all the tin-plates wanted were brought from Germany, where the
processes followed were kept profoundly secret. Reaumur undertook to
discover a method of tinning iron sufficiently cheap to admit the
article to be manufactured in France--and he succeeded. The difficulty
consisted in removing the scales with which the iron plates, as
prepared, were always covered. These scales consist of a vitrified
oxide of iron, to which the tin will not unite. Reaumur found, that
when these plates are steeped in water acidulated by means of bran,
and then allowed to rust in stoves, the scales become loose, and are
easily detached by rubbing the plates with sand. If after being thus
cleansed they are plunged into melted tin, covered with a little tallow
to prevent oxidizement, they are easily tinned. In consequence of this
explanation of the process by Reaumur, tin-plate manufactories were
speedily established in different parts of France. It was about the
same time, or only a little before it, that tin-plate manufactories
were first started in England. The English tin-plate was much more
beautiful than the German, and therefore immediately preferred to it;
because in Germany the iron was converted into plates by hammering,
whereas in England it was rolled out. This made it much smoother, and
consequently more beautiful.

Another art, at that time unknown in France, and indeed in every part
of Europe except Saxony, was the art of making porcelain, a name given
to the beautiful translucent stoneware which is brought from China and
Japan. Reaumur undertook to discover the process employed in making
it. He procured specimens of porcelain from China and Japan, and also
of the imitations of those vessels at that time made in various parts
of France and other European countries. The true porcelain remained
unaltered, though exposed to the most violent heat which he was capable
of producing; but the imitations, in a furnace heated by no means
violently, melted into a perfect glass. Hence he concluded, that the
imitation-porcelains were merely glass, not heated sufficiently to be
brought into fusion; but true porcelain he conceived to be composed
of two different ingredients, one of which is capable of resisting
the most violent heat which can be raised, but the other, when heated
sufficiently, melts into a glass. It is this last ingredient that gives
porcelain its translucency, while the other makes it refractory in
the fire. This opinion of Reaumur was soon after confirmed by Father
d’Entrecolles, a French missionary in China, who sent some time after
a memoir to the academy, describing the mode followed by the Chinese
in the manufactory of their porcelain. Two substances are employed
by them, the one called _kaolin_ and the other _petunse_. It is now
known that _kaolin_ is what we call porcelain-clay, and that _petunse_
is a fine white felspar. Felspar is fusible in a violent heat, but
porcelain-clay is refractory in the highest temperatures that we have
it in our power to produce in furnaces.

Reaumur made another curious observation on glass, which has been,
since his time, employed very successfully to explain the appearances
of many of our trap-rocks. If a glass vessel, properly secured in
sand, be raised to a red heat, and then allowed to cool very slowly,
it puts off the appearance of glass and assumes that of stoneware, or
porcelain. Vessels thus altered have received the name of _Reaumur’s
porcelain_. They are much more refractory than glass, and therefore
may be exposed to a pretty strong red heat without any danger of
softening or losing their shape. This change is occasioned by the
glass being kept long in a soft state: the various substances of
which it is composed are at liberty to exercise their affinities
and to crystallize. This makes the vessel lose its glassy structure
altogether. In like manner it was found by Sir James Hall and Mr.
Gregory Watt, that when common greenstone was heated sufficiently,
and then rapidly cooled, it melted and concreted into a glass; but if
after having been melted it was allowed to cool exceedingly slowly, the
constituents again crystallized and arranged themselves as at first--so
that a true greenstone was again formed. In the same way lavas from a
volcano either assume the appearance of slag or of stone, according as
they have cooled rapidly or slowly. Many of the lavas from Vesuvius
cannot be distinguished from our _greenstones_.

Reaumur’s labours upon the thermometer must not be omitted here;
because he gave his name to a thermometer, which was long used in
France and in other parts of Europe. The first person that brought
thermometers into a state capable of being compared with each other
was Sir Isaac Newton, in a paper published in the Philosophical
Transactions for 1701. Fahrenheit, of Amsterdam, was the first person
that put Newton’s method in practice, by fixing two points on his
scale, the freezing-water point and the boiling-water point, and
dividing the interval between them into one hundred and eighty degrees.

But no fixed point existed in the thermometers employed in France,
every one graduating them according to his fancy; so that no two
thermometers could be compared together. Reaumur graduated his
thermometers by plunging them into freezing water or a mixture of
snow and water. This point was marked zero, and was called the
freezing-water point. The liquid used in his thermometers was spirit
of wine: he took care that it should be always of the same strength,
and the interval between the point of freezing and boiling water
was divided into eighty degrees. Deluc afterwards rectified this
thermometer, by substituting mercury for spirit of wine. This not only
enabled the thermometer to be used to measure higher temperatures,
but corrected an obvious error which existed in all the thermometers
constructed upon Reaumur’s principle: for spirit of wine cannot bear
a temperature of eighty degrees Reaumur without being dissipated
into vapour--absolute alcohol boiling at a hundred and sixty-two
degrees two-thirds. It is obvious from this, that the boiling point in
Reaumur’s thermometer could not be accurate, and that it would vary,
according to the quantity of empty space left above the alcohol.

Finally, he contrived a method of hatching chickens by means of
artificial heat, as is practised in Egypt.

We are indebted to him also for a set of important observations on the
organs of digestion in birds. He showed, that in birds of prey, which
live wholly upon animal food, digestion is performed by solvents in
the stomach, as is the case with digestion in man: while those birds
that live upon vegetable food have a very powerful stomach or gizzard,
capable of triturating the seeds which they swallow. To facilitate this
triturating process, these fowls are in the habit of swallowing small
pebbles.

The moral qualities of M. Reaumur seem not to have been inferior to the
extent and variety of his acquirements. He was kind and benevolent, and
remarkably disinterested. He performed the duties of intendant of the
order of St. Louis from the year 1735 till his death, without accepting
any of the emoluments of the office, all of which were most religiously
given to the person to whom they belonged, had she been capable of
performing the duties of the place. M. Reaumur died on the 17th of
October, 1756, after having lived very nearly seventy-five years.

John Hellot was born in Paris in the year 1685, on the 20th of
November. His father, Michael Hellot, was of a respectable family, and
the early part of his son’s education was at home: it seems to have
been excellent, as young Hellot acquired the difficult art of writing
on all manner of subjects in a precise, clear, and elegant style. His
father intended him for the church; but his own taste led him decidedly
to the study of chemistry. He had an uncle a physician, some of whose
papers on chemical subjects fell into his hands. This circumstance
kindled his natural taste into a flame: he formed an acquaintance with
M. Geoffroy, whose reputation as a chemist was at that time high, and
this friendship was afterwards cemented by Geoffroy marrying the niece
of M. Hellot.

His circumstances being easy, he went over to England, to form a
personal acquaintance with the many eminent philosophers who at that
time adorned that country. His fortune was considerably deranged by
Law’s celebrated scheme during the regency of the Duke of Orleans. This
obliged him to look out for some resource: he became editor of the
Gazette de France, and continued in this employment from 1718 to 1732.
During these fourteen years, however, he did not neglect chemistry,
though his progress was not so rapid as it would have been, could he
have devoted to that science his undivided attention. In 1732 he was
put forward by his friends as a candidate for a place in the Academy of
Sciences; and in the year 1735 he was chosen adjunct chemist, vacant by
the promotion of M. de la Condamine to the place of associate. Three
years after he was declared a supernumerary pensioner, without passing
through the step of associate. His reputation as a chemist was already
considerable, and after he became a member of the academy, he devoted
himself to the investigations connected with his favourite science.

His first labours were on zinc; in two successive papers he endeavoured
to decompose this metal, and to ascertain the nature of its
constituents. Though his labour was unsuccessful, yet he pointed out
many new properties of this metal, and various new compounds into which
it enters. Neither was he more successful in his attempt to account for
the origin of the red vapours which are exhaled from nitre in certain
circumstances. He ascribed them to the presence of ferruginous matters
in the nitre; whereas they are owing to the expulsion and partial
decomposition of the nitric acid of the nitre, in consequence of the
action of some more powerful acid.

His paper on sympathetic ink is of more importance. A German chemist
had shown him a saline solution of a red colour which became blue when
heated: this led him to form a sympathetic ink, which was pale red,
while the paper was moist, but became blue upon drying it by holding it
to the fire. This sympathetic ink was a solution of cobalt in muriatic
acid. It does not appear from Hellot’s paper that he was exactly aware
of the chemical constitution of the liquid which constituted his
sympathetic ink; though it is clear he knew that cobalt constitutes an
essential part of it.

Kunkel’s phosphorus, though it had been originally discovered in
Germany, could not be prepared by any of the processes which had been
given to the public. Boyle had taught his operator, Godfrey Hankwitz,
the method of making it. This man had, after Boyle’s death, opened a
chemist’s shop in London, and it was he that supplied all Europe with
this curious article: on that account it was usually distinguished
by the name of _English phosphorus_. But in the year 1737 a stranger
appeared in Paris, who offered for a stipulated reward to communicate
the method of manufacturing this substance to the Academy of Sciences.
The offer was accepted by the French government, and a committee of
the academy, at the head of which was Hellot, was appointed to witness
the process, and ascertain all its steps. The process was repeated
with success; and Hellot drew up a minute detail of the whole, which
was inserted in the Memoirs of the Academy, for the year 1737. The
publication of this paper constitutes an era in the preparation of
phosphorus: it was henceforward in the power of every chemist to
prepare it for himself. A few years after the process was much improved
by Margraaf; and, within little more than twenty years after, the very
convenient process still in use was suggested by Scheele. Hellot’s
experiments on the comparative merits of the salts of Peyrac, and of
Pecais were of importance, because they decided a dispute--they may
also perhaps be considered as curiosities in an historical point of
view; because we see from them the methods which Hellot had recourse to
at that early period in order to determine the purity of common salt.
They are not entitled, however, to a more particular notice here.

In the year 1740 M. Hellot was charged with the general inspection of
dyeing; a situation which M. du Foy had held till the time of his death
in 1739. It was this appointment, doubtless, which turned his attention
to the theory of dyeing, which he tried to explain in two memoirs read
to the academy in 1740 and 1741. The subject was afterwards prosecuted
by him in subsequent memoirs which were published by the academy.

In 1745 he was named to go to Lyons in order to examine with care the
processes followed for refining gold and silver. Before his return
he took care to give to these processes the requisite precision and
exactness. Immediately after his return to Paris he was appointed to
examine the different mines and assay the different ores in France;
this appointment led him to turn his thoughts to the subject. The
result of this was the publication of an excellent work on assaying
and metallurgy, entitled “De la Fonte des Mines, des Fonderies, &c.
Traduit de l’Allemand de Christophe-André Schlutter.” The first volume
of this book appeared in 1750, and the second in 1753. Though this book
is called by Hellot a translation, it contains in fact a great deal
of original matter; the arrangement is quite altered; many processes
not noticed by Schlutter are given, and many essential articles are
introduced, which had been totally omitted in the original work. He
begins with an introduction, in which he gives a short sketch of all
the mines existing in every part of France, together with some notice
of the present state of each. The first volume treats entirely of
docimasy, or the art of assaying the different metallic ores. Though
this art has been much improved since Hellot’s time, yet the processes
given in this volume are not without their value. The second volume
treats of the various metallurgic processes followed in order to
extract metals from their ores. This volume is furnished with no fewer
than fifty-five plates, in which all the various furnaces, &c. used in
these processes are exhibited to the eye.

While occupied in preparing this work for the press he was chosen to
endeavour to bring the porcelain manufactory at Sevre to a greater
state of perfection than it had yet reached. In this he was successful.
He even discovered various new colours proper for painting upon
porcelain; which contributed to give to this manufactory the celebrity
which it acquired.

In the year 1763 a phenomenon at that time quite new to France took
place in the coal-mine of Briançon. A quantity of carburetted hydrogen
gas had collected in the bottom of the mine, and being kindled by
the lights employed by the miners, it exploded with great violence,
and killed or wounded every person in the mine. This destructive gas,
distinguished in this country by the name of _fire-damp_, had been
long known in Great Britain and in the Low Countries, though it had
not before been known in France. The Duke de Choiseul, informed of
this event, had recourse to the academy for assistance, who appointed
Messrs. de Montigny, Duhamel, and Hellot, a committee to endeavour
to discover the remedies proper to prevent any such accident from
happening for the future. The report of these gentlemen was published
in the Memoirs of the Academy;[182] they give an account both of the
fire-damp, and _choke-damp_, or _carbonic acid gas_, which sometimes
also makes its appearance in coal-mines. They very justly observe
that the proper way to obviate the inconveniency of these gases is to
ventilate the mine properly; and they give various methods by which
this ventilation may be promoted by means of fires lighted at the
bottom of the shaft, &c.

[182] 1763, p. 235.

In 1763 M. Hellot was appointed, conjointly with M. Tillet, to examine
the process followed for assaying gold and silver. They showed that the
cupels always retained a small portion of the silver assayed, and that
this loss, ascribed to the presence of a foreign metal, made the purity
of the silver be always reckoned under the truth, which occasioned a
loss to the proprietor.

His health continued tolerably good till he reached his eightieth year:
he was then struck with palsy, but partially recovered from the first
attack; but a second attack, on the 13th of February, 1765, refused
to yield to every medical treatment, and he died on the 15th of that
month, at an age a little beyond eighty.

Henry Louis Duhamel du Monceau was born at Paris in the year 1700.
He was descended from Loth Duhamel, a Dutch gentleman, who came to
France in the suite of the infamous Duke of Burgundy, about the year
1400. Young Duhamel was educated in the College of Harcourt; but the
course of study did not suit his taste. He left it with only one fact
engraven on his memory--that men, by observing nature, had created a
science called _physics_; and he resolved to profit by his freedom
from restraint and turn the whole of his attention to that subject. He
lodged near the Jardin du Roi, where alone, at that time, physics were
attended to in Paris. Dufoy, Geoffroy, Lemery, Jussieu, and Vaillant,
were the friends with whom he associated on coming to Paris. His
industry was stimulated solely by a love of study, and by the pleasure
which he derived from the increase of knowledge; love of fame does not
appear to have entered into his account.

In the year 1718 saffron, which is much cultivated in that part of
France formerly distinguished by the name of Gâtinois, where Duhamel’s
property lay, was attacked by a malady which appeared contagious.
Healthy bulbs, when placed in the neighbourhood of those that were
diseased, soon became affected with the same malady. Government
consulted the academy on the subject; and this learned body thought
they could not do better than request M. Duhamel to investigate the
cause of the disease; though he was only eighteen years of age, and
not even a member of the academy. He ascertained that the malady was
owing to a parasitical plant, which attached itself to the bulb of the
saffron, and drew nourishment from it. This plant extended under the
earth, from one bulb to another, and thus infected the whole saffron
plantations.

M. Duhamel formed the resolution at the commencement of his scientific
career to devote himself to public utility, and to prosecute those
subjects which were likely to contribute most effectually to the
comfort of the lower ranks of men. Much of his time was spent in
endeavouring to promote the culture of vegetables, and in rendering
that culture more useful to society. This naturally led to a careful
study of the physiology of trees. The fruit of this study he gave to
the world in the year 1758, when his Physique des Arbres was published.
This constitutes one of the most important works on the subject which
has ever appeared. It contains a great number of new and original
facts; and contributed very much indeed to advance this difficult, but
most important branch of science: nor is it less remarkable for modesty
than for value. The facts gathered from other sources, even those
which make against his own opinions, are most carefully and accurately
stated: the experiments that preceded his are repeated and verified
with much care; and the reader is left to discover the new facts and
new views of the author, without any attempt on his part to claim them
as his own.

M. Duhamel had been attached to the department of the marine by M. de
Maurepas, who had given him the title of _inspector-general_. This led
him to turn his attention to naval science in general. The construction
of vessels, the weaving of sailcloths, the construction of ropes and
cables, the method of preserving the wood, occupied his attention
successively, and gave birth to several treatises, which, like all
his works, contain immense collections of facts and experiments. He
endeavours always to discover which is the best practice, to reduce
it to fixed rules, and to support it by philosophical principles; but
abstains from all theory when it can be supported only by hypothesis.

From the year 1740, when he became an academician, till his death
in 1781, he made a regular set of meteorological observations at
Pithiviers, with details relative to the direction of the needle, to
agriculture, to the medical constitution of the year, and to the time
of nest-building, and of the passage of birds.

Above sixty memoirs of his were published in the Transactions of the
French Academy of Sciences. They are so multifarious in their nature,
and embrace such a variety of subjects, that I shall not attempt even
to give their titles, but satisfy myself with stating such only as bear
more immediately upon the science of chemistry.

It will be proper in conducting this review to notice the result of
his labours connected with the ossification of bones; because, though
not strictly chemical, they throw light upon some branches of the
animal economy, more closely connected with chemistry than with any
other of the sciences. He examined, in the first place, whether the
ossification of bones, and their formation and reparation, did not
follow the same law that he had assigned to the increments of trees,
and he established, by a set of experiments, that bones increase by
the ossification of layers of the periosteum, as trees do by the
hardening of their cortical layers. Bones in a soft state increase in
every direction, like the young branches of plants; but after their
induration they increase only like trees, by successive additions of
successive layers. This organization was incompatible with the opinion
of those who thought that bones increased by the addition of an earthy
matter deposited in the meshes of the organized network which forms
the texture of bones. M. Duhamel combated this opinion by an ingenious
experiment. He had been informed by Sir Hans Sloane that the bones
of young animals fed upon madder were tinged red. He conceived the
plan of feeding them alternately with food mingled with madder, and
with ordinary food. The bones of animals thus treated were found to
present alternate concentric layers of red and white, corresponding
to the different periods in which the animal had been fed with
food containing or not containing madder. When these bones are sawn
longitudinally we see the thickness of the coloured layers, greater or
less, according to the number of plates of the periosteum that have
ossified. As for the portions still soft, or susceptible of extending
themselves in every direction, such as the plates in the neighbourhood
of the marrow, the reservoir of which increases during a part of the
time that the animal continues to grow, the red colour marks equally
the progress of their ossification by coloured points more or less
extended.

This opinion was attacked by Haller, and defended by M. Fougeroux,
nephew of M. Duhamel; but it is not our business here to inquire how
far correct.

One of the most important of M. Duhamel’s papers, which will secure
his name a proud station in the annals of chemistry, is that which was
inserted in the Memoirs of the Academy for 1737, in which he shows
that the base of common salt is a true fixed alkali, different in some
respects from the alkali extracted from land plants, and known by the
name of _potash_, but similar to that obtained by the incineration of
marine plants. We are surprised that a fact so simple and elementary
was disputed by the French chemists, and rather indicated than proved
by Stahl and his followers. The conclusions of Duhamel were disputed
by Pott; but finally confirmed by Margraaf. M. Duhamel carried his
researches further, he wished to know if the difference between potash
and soda depends on the plants that produce them, or on the nature
of the soil in which they grow. He sowed kali at Denainvilliers, and
continued his experiments during a great number of years. M. Cadet, at
his request, examined the salts contained in the ashes of the kali of
Denainvilliers. He found that during the first year soda predominated
in these ashes. During the successive years the potash increased
rapidly, and at last the soda almost entirely disappeared. It was
obvious from this, that the alkalies in plants are drawn at least
chiefly from the soil in which they vegetate.

The memoirs of M. Duhamel on ether, at that time almost unknown, on
soluble tartars, and on lime, contain many facts both curious and
accurately stated; though our present knowledge of these bodies is
so much greater than his--the new facts ascertained respecting them
are so numerous and important, that the contributions of this early
experimenter, which probably had a considerable share in the success
of subsequent investigations, are now almost forgotten. Nor would many
readers bear patiently with an attempt to enumerate them.

There is a curious paper of his in the Memoirs of the Academy for
1757. In this he gives the details of a spontaneous combustion of
large pieces of cloth soaked in oil and strongly pressed. Cloth thus
prepared had often produced similar accidents. Those who were fortunate
enough to prevent them, took care to conceal the facts, partly from
ignorance of the real cause of the combustion, and partly from a fear
that if they were to state what they saw, their testimony would not
gain credit. If the combustion had not been prevented, then the public
voice would have charged those who had the care of the cloths with
culpable negligence, or even with criminal conduct. The observation
of M. Duhamel, therefore, was useful, in order to prevent such unjust
suspicions from hindering those concerned from taking the requisite
precautions. Yet, twenty years after the publication of his paper,
two accidental spontaneous combustions, in Russia, were ascribed to
treason. The empress Catharine II. alone suspected that the combustion
was spontaneous, and experiments made by her orders fully confirmed the
evidence previously advanced by the French philosopher.

One man alone would have been insufficient for all the labours
undertaken by M. Duhamel; but he had a brother who lived upon his
estate at Denainvilliers (the name of which he bore), and divided his
time between the performance of benevolent actions and studying the
operations of nature. M. Denainvilliers prosecuted in his retreat the
observations and experiments intrusted by his brother to his charge.
Thus in fact the memoirs of Duhamel exhibit the assiduous labours
of two individuals, one of whom contentedly remained unknown to the
world, satisfied with the good which he did, and the favours which he
conferred upon his country and the human race.

The works of M. Duhamel are very voluminous, and are all written with
the utmost plainness. Every thing is elementary, no previous knowledge
is taken for granted. His writings are not addressed to philosophers,
but to all those who are in quest of practical knowledge. He has been
accused of diffuseness of style, and of want of correctness; but
his style is simple and clear; and as his object was to inform, not
philosophers, but the common people, greater conciseness would have
been highly injudicious.

Neither he nor his brother ever married, but thought it better to
devote their undivided attention to study. Both were assiduous in no
ordinary degree, but the ardour of Duhamel himself continued nearly
undiminished till within a year of his death; when, though he still
attended the meetings of the academy, he no longer took the same
interest in its proceedings. On the 22d of July, 1781, just after
leaving the academy, he was struck with apoplexy, and died after
lingering twenty-two days in a state of coma.

He was without doubt one of the most eminent men of the age in which
he lived; but his merits as a chemist will chiefly be remembered
in consequence of his being the first person who demonstrated
by satisfactory evidence the peculiar nature of soda, which had
been previously confounded with potash. His merits as a vegetable
physiologist and agriculturist were of a very high order.

Peter Joseph Macquer was born at Paris, in 1718. His father, Joseph
Macquer, was descended from a noble Scottish family, which had
sacrificed its property and its country, out of attachment to the
family of the Stuarts.[183] Young Macquer made choice of medicine as
a profession, and devoted himself chiefly to chemistry, for which
he showed early a decided taste. He was admitted a member of the
Academy of Sciences in the year 1745, when he was twenty-seven years
of age. Original researches in chemistry, the composition of chemical
elementary works, and the study of the arts connected with chemistry,
occupied the whole remainder of his life.

[183] I do not know what the true name was of which Macquer is a
corruption. Ker is a Scottish name belonging to two noble families,
the Duke of Roxburgh and the Marquis of Lothian; but I am not aware of
M’Ker being a Scottish name: besides, neither of these families was
attached to the house of Stuart.

His first paper treated of the effect produced by heating a mixture of
saltpetre and white arsenic. It was previously known, that when such a
mixture is distilled nitric acid comes over tinged with a blue colour;
but nobody had thought of examining the residue of this distillation.
Macquer found it soluble in water and capable of crystallizing into a
neutral salt composed of potash (the base of saltpetre), and an acid
into which the arsenic was changed by the nitric acid communicating
oxygen to it.

Macquer found that a similar salt might be obtained with soda or
ammonia for its base. Thus he was the first person who pointed out
the existence of arsenic acid, and ascertained the properties of some
of the salts which it forms. But he made no attempt to obtain arsenic
acid in a separate state, or to determine its properties. That very
important step was reserved for Scheele, for Macquer seems to have had
no suspicion of the true nature of the salt which he had formed.

His next set of experiments was on Prussian blue. He made the first
step towards the discovery of the nature of the principle to which
that pigment owes its colour. Prussian blue had been accidentally
discovered by Diesbach, an operative chemist of Berlin, in 1710, but
the mode of producing it was kept secret till it was published in
1724, by Dr. Woodward in the Philosophical Transactions. It consisted
in mixing potash and blood together, and heating the mixture in a
covered crucible, having a small hole in the lid, till it ceased to
give out smoke. The solution of this mixture in water, when mixed with
a solution of sulphate of iron, threw down a green powder, which became
blue when treated with muriatic acid: this blue matter was _Prussian
blue_. Macquer ascertained that when Prussian blue is exposed to a
red heat its blue colour disappears, and it is converted into common
peroxide of iron. Hence he concluded that Prussian blue is a compound
of oxide of iron, and of something which is destroyed or driven off
by a red heat. He showed that this something possessed the characters
of an acid; for when Prussian blue is boiled with caustic potash it
loses its blue colour, and if the potash be boiled with successive
portions of Prussian blue, as long as it is capable of discolouring
them, it loses the characters of an acid and assumes those of a neutral
salt, and at the same time acquires the property of precipitating iron
from the solutions of the sulphate at once of a blue colour. Macquer
ascribed the green colour thrown down, by mixing the blood-lie and
sulphate of iron to the potash in the blood-lie, not being saturated
with the colouring matter of Prussian blue. Hence a portion of the iron
is thrown down in the state of Prussian blue, and another portion in
that of yellow oxide of iron: these two being mixed form a green. The
muriatic acid dissolves the yellow oxide and leaves the Prussian blue
untouched. Macquer, however, did not succeed in determining the nature
of the colouring matter; a task reserved for Scheele, whose lot it was
to take up the half-finished investigations of Macquer, and throw upon
them a new and brilliant light. Macquer thought that this colouring
matter was _phlogiston_. On that account the potash saturated with
it, which was employed by chemists to detect the presence of iron by
forming with it Prussian blue, was called _phlogisticated alkali_.

Macquer, conjointly with Baumé, subjected the grains of crude platinum,
to which the attention of chemists had been newly drawn, to experiment.
Their principle object was to examine its fusibility and ductility.
They succeeded in fusing it imperfectly, by means of a burning
mirror, and found that the grains thus treated were not destitute of
ductility. But upon the whole the experiments of these chemists threw
but little light upon the subject. Many years elapsed before chemists
were able to work this refractory metal, and to make it into vessels
fitted for the uses of the laboratory. For this important improvement,
which constitutes an era in chemistry, the chemical world was chiefly
indebted to Dr. Wollaston.

In the year 1750 M. Macquer was charged with a commission by the court.
There existed at that time in Brittany a man, the Count de la Garaie,
who, yielding to a passion for benevolence, had for forty years devoted
himself to the service of suffering humanity. He had built an hospital
by the side of a chemical laboratory: he took care of the patients in
the hospital himself; and treated them with medicines prepared in his
laboratory. Some of these were new, and, in his opinion, excellent
medicines; and he offered to sell them to government for the service of
his hospital. Macquer was charged by government with the examination of
these medicines. The project of the Count de la Garaie was to extract
the salutary parts of minerals, by a long maceration with neutral
salts. Among other things he had prepared a mercurial tincture, by a
process which lasted several months: but this tincture was merely a
solution of corrosive sublimate in spirit of wine. Such is the history
of most of those boasted secrets; sometimes they are chimerical, and
sometimes known to all the world, except to those who purchase them.

M. Macquer had the fortune to live at a time when chemistry began to
be freed from the reveries of alchymists; but methodical arrangement
was a merit still unknown to the elementary chemical books, especially
in France, where a residue of Cartesianism added to the natural
obscurity of the science, by surcharging it with pretended mechanical
explanations. Macquer was the first French chemist who gave to an
elementary treatise the same clearness, simplicity, and method,
which is to be found in the other branches of science. This was no
small merit, and undoubtedly contributed considerably to the rapid
improvement of the science which so speedily followed. His elements
of chemistry were translated into different languages, especially
into English; and long constituted the textbook employed in the
different European universities. Dr. Black recommended it for many
years in the University of Edinburgh. Indeed, it was only superseded in
consequence of the new views introduced into chemistry by Lavoisier,
which, requiring a new language to render them intelligible, naturally
superseded all the elementary chemical books which had preceded the
introduction of that language.

Macquer, during a number of years, delivered regular courses of
chemical lectures, conjointly with Baumé. In these courses he preferred
that arrangement which appeared to him to require the least preliminary
knowledge of chemistry. He described the experiments, stated the facts
with clearness and precision, and explained them in the way which
appeared to him most plausible, according to the opinions generally
received; but without placing much confidence in the accuracy of these
explanations. He thought it necessary to theorize a little, to enable
his pupils the better to connect the facts and to remember them; and to
put an end to that painful state of uncertainty which always results
from a collection of facts without any theoretical links to bind
them together. When the discoveries of Lavoisier began to shake the
foundation of the Stahlian theory, Macquer was old; and it appears from
a letter of his, published by Delametherie in the Journal de Physique,
that he was alarmed at the prophetic announcements of Lavoisier in
the academy that the reign of Phlogiston was drawing towards an end.
M. Condorcet assures us that his attachment to theory, by which he
means phlogiston, was by no means strong;[184] but his own letter to
Delametherie rather shows that this statement was not quite correct.
How, indeed, could he fail to experience an attachment to opinions
which it had been the business of his whole life to inculcate?

[184] Hist. de l’Acad. R. des Sciences, 1784, p. 24.

Macquer also published a dictionary of chemistry, which was very
successful, and which was translated into most of the European
languages. This mode of treating chemistry was well suited to a science
still in its infancy, and which did not yet constitute a complete
whole. It enabled him to discuss the different topics in succession,
and independent of each other: and thus to introduce much important
matter which could not easily have been introduced into a systematic
work on chemistry. The second edition of this dictionary was published
just at the time when the gases began to attract the attention of
scientific men; when facts began to multiply with prodigious rapidity,
and to shake the confidence of chemists in all received theories. He
acquitted himself of the difficult task of collecting and stating
these new facts with considerable success; and doubtless communicated
much new information to his countrymen: for the discoveries connected
with the gases originated, and were chiefly made, in England, from
which, on account of the revolutionary American war, there was some
difficulty of obtaining early information.

M. Hellot, who was commissioner of the counsel for dyeing, and chemist
to the porcelain manufacture, requested to have M. Macquer for an
associate. This request did much honour to Hellot, as he was conscious
that the reputation of Macquer as a chemist was superior to his
own. Macquer endeavoured, in the first place, to lay down the true
principles of the art of dyeing, as the best method of dissipating the
obscurity which still hung over it. A great part of his treatise on
the art of dyeing silk, published in the collection of the Academy of
Sciences, has these principles for its object. He gave processes also
for dyeing silk with Prussian blue, and for giving to silk, by means
of cochineal, as brilliant a scarlet colour as can be given to woollen
cloth by the same dye-stuff. He published nothing on the porcelain
manufacture, though he attended particularly to the processes, and
introduced several ameliorations. The beautiful porcelain earth at
present used at Sevre, was discovered in consequence of a premium which
he offered to any person who could point out a clay in every respect
proper for making porcelain.

Macquer passed a great part of his life with a brother, whom he
affectionately loved: after his death he devoted himself entirely to
his wife and two children, whose education he superintended. He was
rather averse to society, but conducted himself while in it with much
sweetness and affability. He was fond of tranquillity and independence.
Though his health had been injured a good many years before his death,
the calmness and serenity of his temper prevented strangers from being
aware that he was afflicted with any malady. He himself was sensible
that his strength was gradually sinking; he predicted his approaching
end to his wife, whom he thanked for the happiness which she had spread
over his life. He left orders that his body should be opened after his
decease, that the cause of his death might be discovered. He died on
the 15th of February, 1784. An ossification of the aorta, and several
calculous concretions found in the cavities of the heart, had been the
cause of the disease under which he had suffered for several years
before his death.

These four chemists, of whose lives a sketch has just been given, were
the most eminent that France ever produced belonging to the Stahlian
school of chemistry. Baron, Malouin, Rouelle senior, Tillet, Cadet,
Baumé, Sage, and several others whose names I purposely omit, likewise
cultivated chemistry, during that period, with assiduity and success;
and were each of them the authors of papers which deserve attention,
but which it would be impossible to particularize without swelling this
work into a size greatly beyond its proper limits.

Hilaire-Marin Rouelle, who was born at Caen in 1718, was, however, too
eminent a chemist to be passed over in silence. His elder brother,
William Francis, was a member of the Academy of Sciences, and
demonstrator to Macquer, who gave lectures in the Jardin du Roi. At
the death of Macquer, in 1770, Hilaire-Marin Rouelle succeeded him. He
devoted the whole of his time and money to this situation, and quite
altered the nature of the experimental course of chemistry given in the
Jardin du Roi. He was in some measure the author of the chemistry of
animal bodies, at least in France. When he published his experiments
on the salts of urine, and of blood, he had scarcely any model; and
though he committed some considerable mistakes, he ascertained several
essential and important facts, which have been since fully confirmed
by more modern experimenters. He died on the 7th of April, 1779, aged
sixty-one years. His temper was peculiar, and he was too honest and
too open for the situation in which he was placed, and for a state of
society in which every thing was carried by intrigue and finesse. This
is the reason why, in France, his reputation was lower than it ought
to have been. It accounts, too, for his never becoming a member of
the Academy of Sciences, nor of any of the other numerous academies
which at that time swarmed in France. Nothing is more common than to
find these unjust decisions raise or depress men of science far above
or far below their true standard. Romé de Lisle, the first person who
commenced the study of crystals, and placed that study in a proper
point of view, was a man of the same stamp with the younger Rouelle,
and never on that account, became a member of any academy, or acquired
that reputation during his lifetime, to which his laborious career
justly entitled him. It would be an easy, though an invidious task, to
point out various individuals, especially in France, whose reputation,
in consequence of accidental and adventitious circumstances, rose just
as much above their deserts, as those of Rouelle, and Romé de Lisle
were sunk below.




CHAPTER IX.

OF THE FOUNDATION AND PROGRESS OF SCIENTIFIC CHEMISTRY IN GREAT BRITAIN.


The spirit which Newton had infused for the mathematical science
was so great, that during many years they drew within their vortex
almost all the scientific men in Great Britain. Dr. Stephen Hales is
almost the only remarkable exception, during the early part of the
eighteenth century. His vegetable statics constituted a most ingenious
and valuable contribution to vegetable physiology. His hæmastatics was
a no less valuable contribution to iatro-mathematics, at that time
the fashionable medical theory in Great Britain. While his _analysis
of air_, and experiments on the animal calculus constituted, in all
probability, the foundation-stone of the whole discoveries respecting
the gases to which the great subsequent progress of chemistry is
chiefly owing.

Dr. William Cullen, to whom medicine lies under deep obligations,
and who afterwards raised the medical celebrity of the College of
Edinburgh to so high a pitch, had the merit of first perceiving the
importance of scientific chemistry, and the reputation which that man
was likely to earn, who should devote himself to the cultivation of
it. Hitherto chemistry in Great Britain, and on the continent also,
was considered as a mere appendage to medicine, and useful only so
far as it contributed to the formation of new and useful remedies.
This was the reason why it came to constitute an essential part of the
education of every medical man, and why a physician was considered as
unfit for practice unless he was also a chemist. But Dr. Cullen viewed
the science as far more important; as capable of throwing light on the
constitution of bodies, and of improving and amending of those arts and
manufactures that are most useful to man. He resolved to devote himself
to its cultivation and improvement; and he would undoubtedly have
derived celebrity from this science, had not his fate led rather to the
cultivation of medicine. But Dr. Cullen, as the true commencer of the
study of scientific chemistry in Great Britain, claims a conspicuous
place in this historical sketch.

William Cullen was born in Lanarkshire, in Scotland, in the year
1712, on the 11th of December. His father, though chief magistrate of
Hamilton, was not in circumstances to lay out much money on his son.
William, therefore, after serving an apprenticeship to a surgeon in
Glasgow, went several voyages to the West Indies, as surgeon, in a
trading-vessel from London; but tiring of this, he settled, when very
young, in the parish of Shotts; and after residing for a short time
among the farmers and country people, he went to Hamilton, with a view
of practising as a physician.

While he resided near Shotts, it happened that Archibald, Duke of
Argyle, who at that time bore the chief political sway in Scotland,
paid a visit to a gentleman of rank in that neighbourhood. The duke
was fond of science, and was at that time engaged in some chemical
researches which required to be elucidated by experiment. Eager in
these pursuits, while on his visit he found himself at a loss for some
piece of chemical apparatus which his landlord could not furnish; but
he mentioned young Cullen to the duke as a person fond of chemistry,
and likely therefore to possess the required apparatus. He was
accordingly invited to dine, and introduced to his Grace. The duke
was so pleased with his knowledge, politeness, and address, that an
acquaintance commenced, which laid the foundation of all Cullen’s
future advancement.

His residence in Hamilton naturally made his name known to the Duke of
Hamilton, whose palace is situated in the immediate vicinity of that
town. His Grace being taken with a sudden illness, sent for Cullen,
and was highly delighted with the sprightly character, and ingenious
conversation of the young physician. He found no difficulty, especially
as young Cullen was already known to the Duke of Argyle, in getting him
appointed to a place in the University of Glasgow, where his singular
talents as a teacher soon became very conspicuous.

It was while Dr. Cullen was a practitioner in Shotts that he formed a
connexion with William, afterwards Doctor Hunter, the famous lecturer
on anatomy in London, who was a native of the same part of the country
as Cullen. These two young men, stimulated by genius, though thwarted
by the narrowness of their circumstances, entered into a copartnery
business, as surgeons and apothecaries, in the country. The chief
object of their contract was to furnish the parties with the means
of carrying on their medical studies, which they were not able to do
separately. It was stipulated that one of them, alternately, should be
allowed to study in whatever college he preferred, during the winter,
while the other carried on the common business in his absence. In
consequence of this agreement, Cullen was first allowed to study in
the University of Edinburgh, for a winter. When it came to Hunter’s
turn next winter, he rather chose to go to London. There his singular
neatness in dissecting, and uncommon dexterity in making anatomical
preparations, his assiduity in study, his mild manners, and easy
temper, drew upon him the attention of Dr. Douglas, who at that time
read lectures on anatomy and midwifery in the capital. He engaged
him as his assistant, and he afterwards succeeded him in the same
department with much honour to himself, and advantage to the public.
Thus was dissolved a copartnership of perhaps as singular a kind as any
that occurs in the annals of science. Cullen was not disposed to let
any engagement with him prove a bar to his partner’s advancement in the
world. The articles were abandoned, and Cullen and Hunter kept up ever
after a friendly correspondence; though there is reason to believe that
they never afterwards met.

It was while a country practitioner that young Cullen married a Miss
Johnston, daughter of a neighbouring clergyman. The connexion was
fortunate and lasting. She brought her husband a numerous family, and
continued his faithful companion through all the alterations of his
fortune. She died in the summer of 1786.

In the year 1746 Cullen, who had now taken the degree of doctor of
medicine, was appointed lecturer on chemistry in the University of
Glasgow; and in the month of October began a course on that science.
His singular talent for arrangement, his distinctness of enunciation,
his vivacity of manner, and his knowledge of the science which he
taught, rendered his lectures interesting to a degree which had
been till then unknown in that university: he was adored by the
students. The former professors were eclipsed by the brilliancy of his
reputation, and he had to encounter all those little rubs and insults
that disappointed envy naturally threw in his way. But he proceeded in
his career regardless of these petty mortifications; and supported by
the public, he was more than consoled for the contumely heaped upon him
by the ill nature and pitiful malignity of his colleagues. His practice
as a physician increased every day, and a vacancy occurring in the
chair in 1751, he was appointed by the crown professor of medicine,
which put him on a footing of equality with his colleagues in the
university. This new appointment called forth powers which he was not
before known to possess, and thus served still further to increase his
reputation.

At that time the patrons of the University of Edinburgh were eagerly
bent on raising the reputation of their medical school, and were in
consequence on the look out for men of abilities and reputation to fill
their respective chairs. Their attention was soon drawn towards Cullen,
and on the death of Dr. Plummer, in 1756, he was unanimously invited to
fill the vacant _chemical chair_. He accepted the invitation, and began
his academical career in the College of Edinburgh in October of that
year, and here he continued during the remainder of his life.

The appearance of Dr. Cullen in the College of Edinburgh constitutes
a memorable era in the progress of that celebrated school. Hitherto
chemistry being reckoned of little importance, had been attended by
very few students; when Cullen began to lecture it became a favourite
study, almost all the students flocking to hear him, and the chemical
class becoming immediately more numerous than any other in the college,
anatomy alone excepted. The students in general spoke of the new
professor with that rapturous ardour so natural to young men when
highly pleased. These eulogiums were doubtless extravagant, and proved
disgusting to his colleagues. A party was formed to oppose this new
favourite of the public. His opinions were misrepresented, it was
affirmed that he taught doctrines which excited the alarm of some of
the most moderate and conscientious of his colleagues. Thus a violent
ferment was excited, and some time elapsed before the malignant arts by
which this flame had been blown up were discovered.

During this time of public ferment Cullen went steadily forward; he
never gave an ear to the gossip brought him respecting the conduct
of his colleagues, nor did he take any notice of the doctrines which
they taught. Some of their unguarded strictures on himself might
occasionally have come to his ears; but if it was so, he took no notice
of them whatever; they seemed to have made no impression on him.

This futile attempt to lower his character being thus baffled, his fame
as a professor, and his reputation as a physician, increased daily: nor
could it be otherwise; his professional knowledge was always great, and
his manner of lecturing singularly clear and intelligible, lively, and
entertaining. To his patients his conduct was so pleasing, his address
so affable and engaging, and his manner so open, so kind, and so little
regulated by pecuniary considerations, that those who once applied to
him for medical assistance could never afterwards dispense with it: he
became the friend and companion of every family he visited, and his
future acquaintance could not be dispensed with.

His private conduct to his students was admirable, and deservedly
endeared him to every one of them. He was so uniformly attentive to
them, and took so much interest in the concerns of those who applied
to him for advice; was so cordial and so warm, that it was impossible
for any one, who had a heart susceptible of generous emotions, not to
be delighted with a conduct so uncommon and so kind. It was this which
served more than any thing else to extend his reputation over every
civilized quarter of the globe. Among ingenuous youth gratitude easily
degenerates into rapture; hence the popularity which he enjoyed, and
which to those who do not well weigh the causes which operated on the
students must appear excessive.

The general conduct of Cullen to his students was this: with all
such as he observed to be attentive and diligent he formed an early
acquaintance, by inviting them by twos, by threes, and by fours at a
time to sup with him; conversing with them at such times with the most
engaging ease, entering freely with them into the subject of their
studies, their amusements, their difficulties, their hopes and future
prospects. In this way he usually invited the whole of his numerous
class till he made himself acquainted with their private character,
their abilities, and their objects of pursuit. Those of whom he formed
the highest opinion were of course invited most frequently, till an
intimacy was gradually formed which proved highly beneficial to them.
To their doubts and difficulties he listened with the most obliging
condescension, and he solved them to the utmost of his power. His
library was at all times open for their accommodation: in short, he
treated them as if they had been all his relatives and friends. Few men
of distinction left the University of Edinburgh, in his time, with whom
he did not keep up a correspondence till they were fairly established
in business. This enabled him gradually to form an accurate knowledge
of the state of medicine in every country, and the knowledge thus
acquired put it in his power to direct students in the choice of places
where they might have an opportunity of engaging in business with a
reasonable prospect of success.

Nor was it in this way alone that he befriended the students in the
University of Edinburgh. Remembering the difficulties with which he had
himself to struggle in his younger days, he was at all times singularly
attentive to the pecuniary wants of the students. From the general
intimacy which he contracted with them he found no difficulty in
discovering those whose circumstances were contracted, or who laboured
under any pecuniary embarrassment, without being under the necessity of
hurting their feelings by a direct inquiry. To such persons, when their
habits of study admitted it, he was peculiarly attentive: they were
more frequently invited to his house than others, they were treated
with unusual kindness and familiarity, they were conducted to his
library and encouraged by the most delicate address to borrow from it
freely whatever books he thought they had occasion for; and as persons
under such circumstances are often extremely shy, books were sometimes
pressed upon them as a sort of task, the doctor insisting upon knowing
their opinion of such and such passages which they had not read, and
desiring them to carry the book home for that purpose: in short, he
behaved to them as if he had courted their company. He thus raised
them in the opinion of their acquaintances, which, to persons in their
circumstances, was of no little consequence. They were inspired at the
same time with a secret sense of dignity, which elevated their minds,
and excited an uncommon ardour, instead of that desponding inactivity
so natural to depressed circumstances. Nor was he less delicate in the
manner of supplying their wants: he often found out some polite excuse
for refusing to take money for a first course, and never was at a loss
for one to an after course. Sometimes (as his lectures were never
written) he would request the favour of a sight of their notes, if he
knew that they were taken with care, in order to refresh his memory.
Sometimes he would express a wish to have their opinion of a particular
part of his course, and presented them with a ticket for the purpose.
By such delicate pieces of address, in which he greatly excelled, he
took care to anticipate their wants. Thus he not only gave them the
benefit of his own lectures, but by refusing to take money enabled them
to attend such others as were necessary for completing their course of
medical study.

He introduced another general rule into the university dictated by the
same spirit of disinterested benevolence. Before he came to Edinburgh,
it was the custom of the medical professors to accept of fees for their
medical attendance when wanted, even from medical students themselves,
though they were perhaps attending the professor’s lectures at the
time. But Dr. Cullen never would take a fee from any student of the
university, though he attended them, when called on as a physician,
with the same assiduity and care as if they had been persons of the
first rank who paid him most liberally. This gradually led others
to follow his example; and it has now become a general rule for
medical professors to decline taking any fees when their assistance
is necessary to a student. For this useful reform, as well as for
many others, the students in the University of Edinburgh are entirely
indebted to Dr. Cullen.

The first lectures which Dr. Cullen delivered in Edinburgh were on
chemistry; and for many years he also gave lectures on the cases
that occurred in the infirmary. In the month of February, 1763, Dr.
Alston died, after having begun his usual course of lectures on the
materia medica. The magistrates of Edinburgh, who are the patrons of
the university, appointed Dr. Cullen to that chair, requesting that
he would finish the course of lectures that had been begun by his
predecessor. This he agreed to do, and, though he had only a few days
to prepare himself, he never once thought of reading the lectures of
his predecessor, but resolved to deliver a new course, which should be
entirely his own. Some idea may be formed of the popularity of Cullen,
by the increase of students to a class nearly half finished: Dr. Alston
had been lecturing to ten; as soon as Dr. Cullen began, a hundred new
students enrolled themselves.

Some years after, on the death of Dr. Whytt, professor of the theory of
medicine, Dr. Cullen was appointed to give lectures in his stead. It
was then that he thought it requisite to resign the chemical chair in
favour of Dr. Black, his former pupil, whose talents in that department
of science were well known. Soon after, on the death of Dr. Rutherford,
professor of the practice of medicine, Dr. John Gregory having become a
candidate for this place, along with Dr. Cullen, a sort of compromise
took place between them, by which they agreed to give lectures
alternately, on the theory and practice of medicine, during their joint
lives, the longest survivor being allowed to hold either of the classes
he should incline. Unluckily this arrangement was soon destroyed, by
the sudden and unexpected death of Dr. Gregory, in the flower of his
age. Dr. Cullen thenceforth continued to give lectures on the practice
of medicine till within a few months of his death, which happened on
the 5th of February, 1790, when he was in the seventy-seventh year of
his age.

It is not our business to follow Dr. Cullen’s medical career, nor
to point out the great benefits which he conferred on nosology and
the practice of medicine. He taught four different classes in the
University of Edinburgh, which we are not aware to have happened to any
other individual, except to professor Dugald Stewart.

Notwithstanding the important impulse which he gave to chemistry,
he published nothing upon that science, except a short paper on the
cold produced by the evaporation of ether, which made its appearance
in one of the volumes of the Edinburgh Physical and Literary Essays.
Dr. Cullen employed Dr. Dobson of Liverpool, at that time his pupil,
to make experiments on the heat and cold produced by mixing liquids
and solids with each other. Dr. Dobson, in making these experiments,
observed that the thermometer, when lifted out of many of the liquids,
and suspended a short time in the air beside them, fell to a lower
degree than indicated by another thermometer which had undergone no
such process. After varying his observations on this phenomenon, he
found reason to conclude that it was occasioned by the evaporation of
the last drop of liquid which adhered to the bulb of the thermometer;
the sinking of the thermometer being always greatest when this
instrument was taken out of the most volatile liquids. Dr. Cullen
had the curiosity to try whether the same phenomenon would appear
on repeating these experiments under the exhausted receiver of an
air-pump. To satisfy himself, he put on the plate of the air-pump
a glass goblet containing water; and in the goblet he placed a
wide-mouthed phial containing sulphuric ether. The whole was covered
with an air-pump receiver, having at the upper end a collar of leathers
in a brass socket, through which a thick smooth wire could be moved;
and from the lower end of this wire, projecting into the receiver, was
suspended a thermometer. By pushing down the wire, the thermometer
could be dipped into the ether; by drawing it up it could be taken out,
and suspended over the phial.

The apparatus being thus adjusted, the air-pump was worked to extract
the air. An unexpected phenomenon immediately appeared, which prevented
the experiment from being made in the way intended. The ether was
thrown into a violent agitation, which Dr. Cullen ascribed to the
extrication of a great quantity of air: in reality, however, it was
boiling violently. What was still more remarkable, the ether, by this
boiling or rapid evaporation, became all of a sudden so cold, as to
freeze the water in the goblet around it; though the temperature of
the air and of all the materials were at the fifty-fourth degree of
Fahrenheit at the beginning of the experiment.

I have been particular in giving an account of this curious phenomenon,
as it was the only direct contribution to the science of chemistry
which Dr. Cullen communicated to the public. The nature of the
phenomenon was afterwards explained by Dr. Black; in addition to Dr.
Cullen, a philosopher, whom the grand stimulus which his lectures gave
to the cultivation of scientific chemistry in this country, had the
important merit of bringing forward.

Joseph Black was born in France, on the banks of the Garonne, in the
year 1728: his father, Mr. John Black, was a native of Belfast, but
of a Scottish family which had been for some time settled there. Mr.
Black resided for the most part at Bordeaux, where he was engaged in
the wine trade. He married a daughter of Mr. Robert Gordon, of the
family of Hillhead, in Aberdeenshire, who was also engaged in the same
trade at Bordeaux. Mr. Black was a gentleman of most amiable manners,
candid and liberal in his sentiments, and of no common information.
These qualities, together with the warmth of his heart, appear very
conspicuous in a series of letters to his son, which that son preserved
with the nicest care. His good qualities did not escape the discerning
eye of the great Montesquieu, one of the presidents of the court of
justice in that province. This illustrious and excellent man honoured
Mr. Black with a friendship and intimacy altogether rare; of which his
descendants were justly proud.

Long before Mr. Black retired from business, his son Joseph was sent
home to Belfast, that he might have the education of a British subject.
This was in the year 1740, when he was twelve years of age. After the
ordinary instruction at the grammar-school, he was sent, in 1746, to
continue his education in the University of Glasgow. Here he studied
with much assiduity and success: physical science, however, chiefly
engrossed his attention. He was a favourite pupil of Dr. Robert Dick,
professor of natural philosophy, and the intimate companion of his
son and successor. This young professor was of a character peculiarly
suited to Dr. Black’s taste, having the clearest conception, and
soundest judgment, accompanied by a modesty that was very uncommon.
When he succeeded his father, in 1751, he became the delight of the
students. He was carried off by a fever in 1757.

Young Black being required by his father to make choice of a
profession, he preferred that of medicine as the most suitable to the
general habits of his studies. Fortunately Dr. Cullen had just begun
his great career in the College of Glasgow, and having made choice
of the field of philosophical chemistry which lay as yet unoccupied
before him. Hitherto chemistry had been treated as a curious and useful
art; but Cullen saw in it a vast department of the science of nature,
depending on principles as immutable as the laws of mechanism, and
capable of being formed into a system as comprehensive and as complete
as astronomy itself. He conceived the resolution of attempting himself
to explore this magnificent field, and expected much reputation from
accomplishing his object. Nor was he altogether disappointed. He
quickly took the science out of the hands of artists, and exhibited
it as a study fit for a gentleman. Dr. Black attended his chemical
lectures, and, from the character which has already been given of him,
it is needless to say that he soon discovered the uncommon value of
his pupil, and attached him to himself, rather as a co-operator and a
friend, than a pupil. He was considered as his assistant in all his
operations, and his experiments were frequently adduced in the lecture
as good authority.

Young Black laid down a very comprehensive and serious plan of study.
This appears from a number of note-books found among his papers. There
are some in which he seems to have inserted every thing as it took his
fancy, in medicine, chemistry, jurisprudence, or matters of taste. Into
others, the same things are transferred, but distributed according
to their scientific connexions. In short, he kept a journal and
ledger of his studies, and has posted his books like a merchant. What
particularly strikes one in looking over these books, is the steadiness
with which he advanced in any path of knowledge. Things are inserted
for the first time from some present impression of their singularity or
importance, but without any allusion to their connexions. When a thing
of the same kind is mentioned again, there is generally a reference
back to its fellow; and thus the most isolated facts often acquired a
connexion which gave them importance.

He went to Edinburgh to finish his medical studies in 1750 or 1751,
where he lived with his cousin german, Mr. James Russel, professor of
natural philosophy in that university.

It was the good fortune of chemical science, that at this very time
the opinions of professors were divided concerning the manner in
which certain lithontriptic medicines, particularly lime-water, acted
in alleviating the excruciating pains of the stone and gravel. The
students usually partake of such differences of opinion: they are
thereby animated to more serious study, and science gains by their
emulation. This was a subject quite to the taste of young Mr. Black,
one of Dr. Cullen’s most zealous and intelligent chemical pupils. It
was, indeed, a most interesting subject, both to the chemist and the
physician.

All the medicines which were then in vogue as solvents of urinary
calculi had a greater or less resemblance to caustic potash or soda;
substances so acrid, when in a concentrated state, that in a short time
they reduce the fleshy parts of the animal body to a mere pulp. Thus,
though they might possess lithontriptic properties, their exhibition
was dangerous, if in unskilful hands. They all seemed to derive their
efficacy from quicklime, which again derives its power from the fire.
It was therefore very natural for them to ascribe its power to igneous
matter imbibed from the fire, retained by the lime, and communicated by
it to alkalies, which it renders powerfully acrid. Hence, undoubtedly,
the term _caustic_ applied to the alkalies in that state, and hence
also the _acidum pingue_ of Mayer, which was a peculiar state of fire.
It appears from Dr. Black’s note-books, that he originally entertained
the opinion, that caustic alkalies acquired igneous matter from
quicklime. In one of them he hints at some way of catching this matter
as it escapes from lime, while it becomes mild by exposure to the
air; but on the opposite blank page is written, “Nothing escapes--the
cup rises considerably by absorbing air.” A few pages further on,
he compares the loss of weight sustained by an ounce of chalk when
calcined, with its loss while dissolved in muriatic acid. Immediately
after this, a medical case is mentioned, which occurred in November,
1752. Hence it would appear, that he had before that time suspected the
real cause of the difference between limestone and burnt lime. He had
prosecuted his inquiry with vigour; for the experiments with magnesia
are soon after mentioned.

These experiments laid open the whole mystery, as appears by another
memorandum. “When I precipitate lime by a common alkali there is no
effervescence: the air quits the alkali for the lime; but it is lime no
longer, but C. C. C.: it now effervesces, which good lime will not.”
What a multitude of important consequences naturally flowed from this
discovery! He now knew to what the causticity of alkalies is owing,
and how to induce it or remove it at pleasure. The common notion was
entirely reversed. Lime imparts nothing to the alkalies; it only
removes from them a peculiar kind of air (_carbonic acid gas_) with
which they were combined, and which prevented their natural caustic
properties from being developed. All the former mysteries disappear,
and the greatest simplicity appears in those operations of nature which
before appeared so intricate and obscure.

Dr. Black had fixed upon this subject for his inaugural dissertation,
and was induced, in consequence, to defer applying for his degree till
he had succeeded in establishing his doctrine beyond the possibility of
contradiction. The inaugural essay was delivered at a moment peculiarly
favourable to the advancement of science. Dr. Cullen had been just
removed to Edinburgh, and there was a vacancy in the chemical chair
in Glasgow: it could not be bestowed better than on such an _alumnus_
of the university--on one who had distinguished himself both as a
chemist and an excellent reasoner; for few finer models of inductive
investigation exist than are displayed in Black’s essay on quicklime
and magnesia. He was appointed professor of anatomy and lecturer on
chemistry in the University of Glasgow in 1756. It was a fortunate
circumstance both for himself and for the public, that a situation thus
presented itself, just at the time when he was under the necessity of
settling in the world--a situation which allowed him to dedicate his
talents chiefly to the cultivation of chemistry, his favourite science.

When Dr. Black took his degree in medicine, he sent some copies of his
essay to his father at Bordeaux. A copy was given by the old gentleman
to his friend, the President Montesquieu, who, after a few days called
on Mr. Black, and said to him, “Mr. Black, my very good friend, I
rejoice with you; your son will be the honour of your name and family.”
This anecdote was told Professor John Robison by the brother of Dr.
Black.

Thus Dr. Black, while in Glasgow, taught at one and the same time two
different classes. He did not consider himself very well qualified to
teach anatomy, but determined to do his utmost; but he soon afterwards
made arrangements with the professor of medicine, who, with the
concurrence of the university, exchanged his own chair for that of Dr.
Black.

Black’s medical lectures constituted his chief task while in
Glasgow. They gave the greatest satisfaction by their perspicuity
and simplicity, and by the cautious moderation of all his general
doctrines: and, indeed, all his perspicuity, and all his neatness
of manner in exhibiting simple truths, were necessary to create a
relish for moderation and caution, after the brilliant prospects of
systematic knowledge to which the students had been accustomed by Dr.
Cullen, his celebrated predecessor. But Dr. Black had no wish to form
a medical school, distinguished by some all-comprehending doctrine: he
satisfied himself with a clear account of as much of physiology as he
thought founded on good principles, and a short sketch of such general
doctrines as were maintained by the most eminent authors, though
perhaps on a less firm foundation. He then endeavoured to deduce a few
canons of medical practice, and concluded with certain rules founded
on successful practice only, but not deducible from the principles of
physiology previously laid down. With his medical lectures he does not
appear to have been himself entirely satisfied: he did not encourage
conversation on the different topics, and no remains of these lectures
were to be found among his papers. The preceding account of them was
given to Professor Robison by a surgeon in Glasgow, who attended the
two last medical courses which Dr. Black ever delivered.

Dr. Black’s reception at Glasgow by the university was in the highest
degree encouraging. His former conduct as a student had not only done
him credit in his classes, but had conciliated the affection of the
professors to a very high degree. He became immediately connected
in the strictest friendship with the celebrated Dr. Adam Smith--a
friendship which continued intimate and confidential through the
whole of their lives. Both were remarkable for a certain simplicity
of character and the most incorruptible integrity. Dr. Smith used to
say, that no one had less nonsense in his head than Dr. Black; and he
often acknowledged himself obliged to him for setting him right in his
judgment of character, confessing that he himself was too apt to form
his opinion from a single feature.

It was during his residence in Glasgow, between the years 1759 and
1763, that he brought to maturity those speculations concerning the
combination of _heat_ with _matter_, which had frequently occupied
a portion of his thoughts. It had long been known that ice has the
property of continuing always at the temperature of 32° till it be
melted. This happens equally though it be placed in contact with the
warm hand or surrounded with bodies many degrees hotter than itself.
The hotter the bodies are that surround it, the sooner is it melted;
but its temperature during the whole process of melting, continues
uniformly the same. Yet, during the whole process of melting, it is
constantly robbing the surrounding bodies of heat; for it makes them
colder, without acquiring itself any sensible heat.

Dr. Black had some vague notion that the heat so received by the ice,
during its conversion into water, was not lost, but was contained in
the water. This opinion was founded chiefly on a curious observation
of Fahrenheit, recorded by Boerhaave; namely, that water might in some
cases be made considerably colder than melting snow, without freezing.
In such cases, when disturbed it would freeze in a moment, and in the
act of freezing always gave out a quantity of heat. This opinion was
confirmed by observing the slowness with which water is converted
into ice, and ice into water. A fine winter-day of sunshine is never
sufficient to clear the hills of snow; nor is one frosty night capable
of covering the ponds with a thick coating of ice. The phenomena
satisfied him that much heat was absorbed and fixed in the water which
trickles from wreaths of snow, and that much heat emerged from it while
water was slowly converted into ice; for during a thaw the melting snow
is always colder than the air, and must, therefore, be always receiving
heat from it; while, during a frost, the air is always colder than the
freezing water, and must therefore be always receiving heat from it.
These observations, and many others which it is needless to state,
satisfied Dr. Black that when ice is converted into water it unites
with a quantity of heat, without increasing in temperature; and that
when water is frozen into ice it gives out a quantity of heat without
diminishing in temperature. The heat thus combined is the cause of the
fluidity of the water. As it is not sensible to the thermometer, Dr.
Black called it _latent heat_. He made an experiment to determine the
quantity of heat necessary to convert ice into water. This he estimated
by the length of time necessary to melt a given weight of ice,
measuring how much heat entered into the same weight of water, reduced
as nearly to the temperature of ice as possible during the first
half-hour that the experiment lasted. As the ice continued during the
whole of its melting at the same temperature as at first, he concluded
that it would absorb, every half-hour that the process lasted, as much
heat as the water did during the first half hour. The result of this
experiment was, that the latent heat of water amounts to 140°; or, in
other words, that this heat, if thrown into a quantity of water, equal
in weight to that of the ice melted, would raise its temperature 140°.

Dr. Black, having established this discovery in the most
incontrovertible manner by simple and decisive experiments, drew up an
account of the whole investigation, and the doctrine which he founded
upon it, and read it to a literary society which met every Friday in
the faculty-room of the college, consisting of the members of the
university and several gentlemen of the city, who had a relish for
science and literature. This paper was read on the 23d of April, as
appears by the registers of the society.

Dr. Black quickly perceived the vast importance of this discovery, and
took a pleasure in laying before his students a view of the beneficial
effects of this habitude of heat in the economy of nature. During the
summer season a vast magazine of heat was accumulated in the water,
which, by gradually emerging during congelation, serves to temper the
cold of winter. Were it not for this accumulation of heat in water and
other bodies, the sun would no sooner go a few degrees to the south of
the equator, than we should feel all the horrors of winter. He did not
confine his views to the congelation of water alone, but extended them
to every case of congelation and liquefaction which he has ascribed
equally to the evolution or fixation of latent heat. Even those bodies
which change from solid to fluid, not all at once, but by slow degrees,
as butter, tallow, resins, owe, he found, their gradual softening to
the same absorption of heat, and the same combination of it with the
substance undergoing liquefaction.

Another subject that engaged his attention at this time, was an
examination of the scale of the thermometer, to learn whether
equal differences of expansion corresponded to equal additions or
abstractions of heat. His mode was to mix together equal weights of
water of different temperatures, and to measure the temperature of the
mixture by a thermometer. It is obvious that the temperature must be
the exact mean of that of the two portions of water; and that if the
expansion or contraction of the mercury in the thermometer be an exact
measure of the difference of temperature, a thermometer, so placed,
will indicate the exact mean. Suppose one pound of water at 100° to
be mixed with one pound of water at 200°, and the whole heat still
to remain in the mixture, it is obvious that it would divide itself
equally between the two portions of water. The water of 100° would
become hotter, and the water of 200° would become colder: and the
increase of temperature in the colder portion would be just as much
as the diminution of temperature in the hotter portion. The colder
portion would become hotter by 50°, while the hotter portion would
become colder by 50°. Hence the real temperature, after mixture, would
be 150°; and a thermometer plunged into such a mixture, if a true
measurer of heat, would indicate 150°. The result of his experiments
was, that as high up as he could try by mixing water of different
temperatures, the mercurial thermometer is an accurate measurer of the
alterations of temperature.

An account of his experiments on this subject was drawn up by him, and
read to the literary society of the College of Glasgow, on the 28th of
March, 1760. Dr. Black, at the time he made these experiments, did not
know that he had been already anticipated in them by Dr. Brooke Taylor,
the celebrated mathematician, who had obtained similar results, and had
consigned his experiments to the Royal Society, in whose Transactions
for 1723 they were published. It has been since found by Coulomb
and Petit, that at higher temperatures than 212° the rate of the
expansion of mercury begins to increase. Hence it happens that at high
temperatures the expansion of mercury is no longer an accurate measurer
of temperature. Fortunately, the expansion of glass very nearly equals
the increment of that of mercury. The consequence is, that in a common
glass-thermometer mercury measures the true increments of temperature
very nearly up to its boiling point; for the boiling point of mercury
measured by an air-thermometer is 662°: and if a glass mercurial
thermometer be plunged into boiling mercury, it will indicate 660°, a
difference of only 2° from the true point.

There is such an analogy between the cessation of thermometric
expansion during the liquefaction of ice, and during the conversion of
water into steam, that there could be no hesitation about explaining
both in the same way. Dr. Black immediately concluded that as water is
ice united to a certain quantity of _latent heat_, so steam is water
united to a still greater quantity. The slow conversion of water into
steam, notwithstanding the great quantity of heat constantly flowing
into it from the fire, left no reasonable doubt about the accuracy of
this conclusion. In short, all the phenomena are precisely similar to
those of the conversion of ice into water; and so, of course, must
the explanation be. So much was he convinced of this, that he taught
the doctrine in his lectures in 1761, before he had made a single
experiment on the subject; and he explained, with great felicity of
argument, many phenomena of nature, which result from this vaporific
combination of heat. From notes taken in his class during this session,
it appears that nothing more was wanting to complete his views on this
subject, than a set of experiments to determine the exact quantity
of heat which was combined in steam in a state not indicated by the
thermometer, and therefore _latent_, in the same sense that the heat of
liquefaction in water is _latent_.

The requisite experiments were first attempted by Dr. Black, in 1764.
They consisted merely in measuring the time requisite to convert a
certain weight of water of a given temperature into steam. The water
was put into a tin-plate wide-mouthed vessel, and laid upon a red-hot
plate of iron, the initial temperature of the water was marked, and the
time necessary to heat it from that point to the boiling point noted,
and then the time requisite to boil the whole to dryness. It was taken
for granted that as much heat would enter into the water during every
minute that the experiment lasted, as did during the first minute. From
this it was concluded that the latent heat of steam is not less than
810 degrees.

Mr. James Watt afterwards repeated these experiments with a better
apparatus and very great care, and calculated from his results that the
latent heat of steam is not under 950 degrees. Lavoisier and Laplace
afterwards made experiments in a different way, and deduced 1000° as
the result of their experiments. The subsequent experiments of Count
Rumford, made in a very ingenious manner, so as to obviate most of the
sources of error, to which such researches are liable, come very nearly
to those of Lavoisier. 1000° therefore, is usually now-a-days adopted
as the number which denotes the true latent heat of steam.

Dr. Black continued in the University of Glasgow from 1756 to 1766,
much esteemed as an eminent professor, much employed as an able and
attentive physician, and much beloved as an amiable and accomplished
man, happy in the enjoyment of a small but select society of friends.
Meanwhile his reputation as a chemical philosopher was every day
increasing, and pupils from foreign countries carried home with them
the peculiar doctrines of his courses--so that _fixed air_ and _latent
heat_ began to be spoken of among the naturalists of the continent. In
1766 Dr. Cullen, at that time professor of chemistry in Edinburgh, was
appointed professor of medicine, and thus a vacancy was made in the
chemical chair of that university. There was but one wish with regard
to a successor. Indeed, when the vacancy happened in 1756, on the death
of Dr. Plummer, the reputation of Dr. Black, who had just taken his
degree, was so high, both as a chemist and an accurate thinker and
reasoner, that, had the choice depended on the university, he would
have been the new professor of chemistry. He had now, in 1766, greatly
added to his claim of merit by his important discovery of latent heat;
and he had acquired the esteem of all by the singular moderation and
scrupulous caution which marked all his researches.

Dr. Black was appointed to the chemical chair in Edinburgh in 1766, to
the general satisfaction of the public, but the University of Glasgow
suffered an irreparable loss. In this new situation his talents were
more conspicuous and more extensively useful. He saw that the case was
so, and while he could not but be gratified by the number of students
whom the high reputation of Edinburgh, as a medical school, brought
together, his mind was forcibly struck by the importance of his duties
as a teacher. This led him to form the resolution of devoting the
whole of his study to the improvement of his pupils in the elementary
knowledge of chemistry. Many of them came to his class with a very
scanty stock of previous knowledge. Many from the workshop of the
manufacturer had little or none. He was conscious that the number
of this kind of pupils must increase with the increasing activity
and prosperity of the country; and they appeared to him by no means
the least important part of his auditory. To engage the attention of
such pupils, and to be perfectly understood by the most illiterate
of his audience, Dr. Black considered as a sacred duty: he resolved,
therefore, that plain doctrines taught in the plainest manner, should
henceforth employ his chief study. To render his lectures perfectly
intelligible they were illustrated by suitable experiments, by the
exhibition of specimens, and by the repetition of chemical processes.

To this method of lecturing Dr. Black rigidly adhered, endeavouring
every year to make his courses more plain and familiar, and
illustrating them by a greater variety of examples in the way of
experiment. No man could perform these more neatly or successfully;
they were always ingeniously and judiciously contrived, clearly
establishing the point in view, and were never more complicated than
was sufficient for the purpose. Nothing that had the least appearance
of quackery; nothing calculated to surprise and astonish his audience;
nothing savouring of a showman or sleight-of-hand man was ever
permitted in his lecture-room. Every thing was simple, neat, and
elegant, calculated equally to please and to inform: indeed simplicity
and neatness stamped his character. It was this that constituted the
charm of his lectures, and rendered them so delightful to his pupils.
I can speak of them from experience, for I was fortunate enough to
hear the last course of lectures which he ever delivered. I can say
with perfect truth that I never listened to any lectures with so
much pleasure as to his: and it was the elegant simplicity of his
manner, the perfect clearness of his statements, and the vast quantity
of information which he contrived in this way to communicate, that
delighted me. I was all at once transported into a new world--my views
were suddenly enlarged, and I looked down from a height which I had
never before reached; and all this knowledge was communicated without
any apparent effort either on the part of the professor or his pupils.
His illustrations were just sufficient to answer completely the object
in view, and nothing more. No quackery, no trickery, no love of mere
dazzle and glitter, ever had the least influence upon his conduct. He
constituted the most complete model of a perfect chemical lecturer that
I have ever had an opportunity of witnessing.

The discovery which Dr. Black had made that marble is a combination
of lime and a peculiar substance, to which he gave the name of _fixed
air_, began gradually to attract the attention of chemists in other
parts of the world. It was natural in the first place to examine the
nature and properties of this fixed air, and the circumstances under
which it is generated. It may seem strange and unaccountable that Dr.
Black did not enter with ardour into this new career which he had
himself opened, and that he allowed others to reap the corn after
having himself sown the grain. Yet he did take some steps towards
ascertaining the properties of _fixed air_; though I am not certain
what progress he made. He knew that a candle would not burn in it,
and that it is destructive to life, when any living animal attempts
to breathe it. He knew that it was formed in the lungs during the
breathing of animals, and that it is generated during the fermentation
of wine and beer. Whether he was aware that it possesses the properties
of an acid I do not know; though with the knowledge which he possessed
that it combines with alkalies and alkaline earths, and neutralizes
them, or at least blunts and diminishes their alkaline properties,
the conclusion that it partook of alkaline properties was scarcely
avoidable. All these, and probably some other properties of _fixed air_
he was in the constant habit of stating in his lectures from the very
commencement of his academical career; though, as he never published
anything on the subject himself, it is not possible to know exactly
how far his knowledge of the properties of _fixed air_ extended. The
oldest manuscript copy of his lectures that I have seen was taken
down in writing in the year 1773; and before that time Mr. Cavendish
had published his paper on _fixed air_ and _hydrogen gas_, and had
detailed the properties of each. It was impossible from the manuscript
of Dr. Black’s lectures to know which of the properties of _fixed air_
stated by him were discovered by himself, and which were taken from Mr.
Cavendish.

This languor and listlessness, on the part of Dr. Black, is chiefly to
be ascribed to the delicate state of his health, which precluded much
exertion, and was particularly inconsistent with any attempt at putting
his thoughts down upon paper. Hence, probably, that carelessness
about posthumous fame, and that regardlessness of reputation, which,
however it may be accounted for from bodily ailment, must still be
considered as a blemish. How differently did Paschal act in a similar
state of health! With what energy did he exert himself in spite of
bodily ailment! But the tone of his mind was quite different from that
of Dr. Black. Gentleness, diffidence, and perhaps even slowness of
apprehension, were the characteristic features by which the latter was
distinguished.

There is an anecdote of Black which I was told by the late Mr. Benjamin
Bell, of Edinburgh, author of a well-known system of surgery, and
he assured me that he had it from the late Sir George Clarke, of
Pennicuik, who was a witness of the circumstance related. Soon after
the appearance of Mr. Cavendish’s paper on hydrogen gas, in which he
made an approximation to the specific gravity of that body, showing
that it was at least ten times lighter than common air, Dr. Black
invited a party of his friends to supper, informing them that he had
a curiosity to show them. Dr. Hutton, Mr. Clarke of Elden, and Sir
George Clarke of Pennicuik, were of the number. When the company
invited had assembled, he took them into a room. He had the allentois
of a calf filled with hydrogen gas, and upon setting it at liberty,
it immediately ascended, and adhered to the ceiling. The phenomenon
was easily accounted for: it was taken for granted that a small black
thread had been attached to the allentois, that this thread passed
through the ceiling, and that some one in the apartment above, by
pulling the thread, elevated it to the ceiling, and kept it in this
position. This explanation was so probable, that it was acceded to
by the whole company; though, like many other plausible theories, it
turned out wholly unfounded; for when the allentois was brought down no
thread whatever was found attached to it. Dr. Black explained the cause
of the ascent to his admiring friends; but such was his carelessness
of his own reputation, and of the information of the public, that he
never gave the least account of this curious experiment even to his
class; and more than twelve years elapsed before this obvious property
of hydrogen gas was applied to the elevation of air-balloons, by M.
Charles, in Paris.

The constitution of Dr. Black had always been exceedingly delicate. The
slightest cold, the most trifling approach to repletion, immediately
affected his chest, occasioned feverishness, and if the disorder
continued for two or three days, brought on a spitting of blood.
In this situation, nothing restored him to ease, but relaxation of
thought, and gentle exercise. The sedentary life to which study
confined him, was manifestly hurtful; and he never allowed himself to
indulge in any investigation that required intense thought, without
finding these complaints increased.

Thus situated, Dr. Black was obliged to be a contented spectator of the
rapid progress which chemistry was making, without venturing himself to
engage in any of the numerous investigations which presented themselves
on every side. Such indeed was the eagerness with which chemistry was
at that time prosecuted, and such the passion for discovery, that there
was some risk that his undoubted claim to originality and priority
in his own great discoveries, might be called in question, and even
rendered doubtful. His friends at least were afraid of this, and often
urged him to do justice to himself, by publishing an account of his
own discoveries. He more than once began the task; but was so nice in
his notions of the manner in which it should be executed, that the
pains he took in forming a plan of the work never failed to affect
his health, and oblige him to desist. It is known that he felt hurt
at the publication of several of Lavoisier’s papers, in the Mémoires
de l’Académie, without any allusion whatever to what he himself had
previously done on the same subject. How far Lavoisier was really
culpable, and whether he did not intend to do full justice to all the
claims of his predecessors, cannot now be known; as he was cut off
in the midst of his career, while so many of his scientific projects
remained unexecuted. From the posthumous works of Lavoisier, there
is some reason for believing that if he had lived, he would have
done justice to all parties; but there is no doubt that Dr. Black,
in the mean time, thought himself aggrieved, and that he formed the
intention of doing himself justice, by publishing an account of his own
discoveries; however this intention was thwarted and prevented by bad
health.

No one contributed more largely to establish, to support, and to
increase, the high character of the medical school in the University
of Edinburgh than Dr. Black. His talent for communicating knowledge
was not less eminent than his faculty of observation. He soon became
one of the principal ornaments of the university; and his lectures
were attended by an audience which continued increasing from year to
year for more than thirty years. His personal appearance and manners
were those of a gentleman, and peculiarly pleasing: his voice, in
lecturing, was low, but fine; and his articulation so distinct, that he
was perfectly well heard by an audience consisting of several hundreds.
While in Glasgow, he had practised extensively as a physician; but in
Edinburgh he declined general practice, and confined his attendance to
a few families of intimate and respected friends. He was, however, a
physician of good repute in a place where the character of a physician
implied no common degree of liberality, propriety, and dignity of
manners, as well as of learning and skill.

Such was Dr. Black as a public man. While young, his countenance was
comely and interesting; and as he advanced in years, it continued to
preserve that pleasing expression of inward satisfaction which, by
giving ease to the beholder, never fails to please. His manners were
simple, unaffected, and graceful; he was of the most easy approach,
affable, and readily entered into conversation, whether serious
or trivial: for he was not merely a man of science, but was well
acquainted with the elegant accomplishments. He had an accurate musical
ear, and a voice which would obey it in the most perfect manner; he
sang and performed on the flute with great taste and feeling; and could
sing a plain air at sight, which many instrumental performers cannot
do. Music was his amusement in Glasgow; after his removal to Edinburgh
he gave it up entirely. Without having studied drawing he had acquired
a considerable power of expression with his pencil, both in figures
and in landscape. He was peculiarly happy in expressing the passions,
and seemed in this respect to have the talents of a historical
painter. Figure indeed, of every kind, attracted his attention; in
architecture, furniture, ornament of every sort, it was never a matter
of indifference to him. Even a retort, or a crucible, was to his eye
an example of beauty, or deformity. These are not indifferent things;
they are features of an elegant mind, and they account for some part of
that satisfaction and pleasure which persons of different habits and
pursuits felt in Dr. Black’s company and conversation.

Those circumstances of form, and in which Dr. Black perceived or sought
for beauty, were suitableness or propriety: something that rendered
them well adapted for the purposes for which they were intended. This
love of propriety constituted the leading feature in Dr. Black’s mind;
it was the standard to which he constantly appealed, and which he
endeavoured to make the directing principle of his conduct.

Dr. Black was fond of society, and felt himself beloved in it. His
chief companions, in the earlier part of his residence in Edinburgh,
were Dr. Adam Smith, Mr. David Hume, Dr. Adam Ferguson, Mr. John Home,
Dr. Alexander Carlisle, and a few others. Mr. Clarke of Elden, and his
brother Sir George, Dr. Roebuck, and Dr. James Hutton, particularly
the latter, were affectionately attached to him, and in their society
he could indulge in his professional studies. Dr. Hutton was the
only person near him to whom Dr. Black imparted every speculation in
chemical science, and who knew all his literary labours: seldom were
the two friends asunder for two days together.

Towards the close of the eighteenth century, the infirmities of
advanced life began to bear more heavily on his feeble constitution.
Those hours of walking and gentle exercise, which had hitherto
been necessary for his ease, were gradually curtailed. Company and
conversation began to fatigue: he went less abroad, and was visited
only by his intimate friends. His duty at college became too heavy for
him, and he got an assistant, who took a share of the lectures, and
relieved him from the fatigue of the experiments. The last course of
lectures which he delivered was in the winter of 1796-7. After this,
even lecturing was too much for his diminished strength, and he was
obliged to absent himself from the class altogether; but he still
retained his usual affability of temper, and his habitual cheerfulness,
and even to the very last was accustomed to walk out and take
occasional exercise. As his strength declined, his constitution became
more and more delicate. Every cold he caught occasioned some degree of
spitting of blood; yet he seemed to have this unfortunate disposition
of body almost under command, so that he never allowed it to proceed
far, or to occasion any distressing illness. He spun his thread of
life to the very last fibre. He guarded against illness by restricting
himself to an abstemious diet; and he met his increasing infirmities
with a proportional increase of attention and care, regulating his food
and exercise by the measure of his strength. Thus he made the most of a
feeble constitution, by preventing the access of disease from abroad.
And enjoyed a state of health which was feeble, indeed, but scarcely
interrupted; as well as a mind undisturbed in the calm and cheerful use
of its faculties. His only apprehension was that of a long-continued
sick-bed--from the humane consideration of the trouble and distress
that he might thus occasion to attending friends; and never was such
generous wish more completely gratified than in his case.

On the 10th of November, 1799, in the seventy-first year of his age, he
expired without any convulsion, shock, or stupor, to announce or retard
the approach of death. Being at table with his usual fare, some bread,
a few prunes, and a measured quantity of milk, diluted with water,
and having the cup in his hand when the last stroke of his pulse was
to be given, he set it down on his knees, which were joined together,
and kept it steady with his hand in the manner of a person perfectly
at ease; and in this attitude expired without spilling a drop, and
without a writhe in his countenance; as if an experiment had been
required to show to his friends the facility with which he departed.
His servant opened the door to tell him that some one had left his
name; but getting no answer, stepped about halfway to him; and seeing
him sitting in that easy posture, supporting his basin of milk with one
hand, he thought that he had dropped asleep, which was sometimes wont
to happen after meals. He went back and shut the door; but before he
got down stairs some anxiety, which he could not account for, made him
return and look again at his master. Even then he was satisfied, after
coming pretty near him, and turned to go away; but he again returned,
and coming close up to him, he found him without life. His very near
neighbour, Mr. Benjamin Bell, the surgeon, was immediately sent for;
but nothing whatever could be done.[185]

[185] The preceding character of Dr. Black is from Professor Robison,
who knew him intimately; and from Dr. Adam Ferguson, who was his next
relation. See the preface to Dr. Black’s lectures. The portrait of Dr.
Black prefixed to these lectures is an excellent likeness.

Dr. Black’s writings are exceedingly few, consisting altogether of
no more than three papers. The first, entitled “Experiments upon
Magnesia alba, Quicklime, and other Alkaline Substances,” constituted
the subject of his inaugural dissertation. It afterwards appeared
in an English dress in one of the volumes of The Edinburgh Physical
and Literary Essays, in the year 1755. Mr. Creech, the bookseller,
published it in a separate pamphlet, together with Dr. Cullen’s
little essay on the “cold produced by evaporating fluids,” in the
year 1796. This essay exhibits one of the very finest examples of
inductive reasoning to be found in the English language. The author
shows that magnesia is a peculiar earthy body, possessed of properties
very different from lime. He gives the properties of lime in a pure
state, and proves that it differs from limestone merely by the absence
of the carbonic acid, which is a constituent of limestone. Limestone
is a _carbonate of lime_; quicklime is the pure uncombined earth. He
shows that magnesia has also the property of combining with carbonic
acid; that caustic potash, or soda, is merely these bodies in a pure
or isolated state; while the mild alkalies are combinations of these
bodies with carbonic acid. The reason why quicklime converts mild
into caustic alkali is, that the lime has a stronger affinity for
the carbonic acid than the alkali; hence the lime is converted into
carbonate of lime, and the alkali, deprived of its carbonic acid,
becomes caustic. Mild potash is a carbonate of potash; caustic potash,
is potash freed from carbonic acid.--The publication of this essay
occasioned a controversy in Germany, which was finally settled by
Jacquin and Lavoisier, who repeated Dr. Black’s experiments and showed
them to be correct.

Dr. Black’s second paper was published in the Philosophical
Transactions for 1775. It is entitled “The supposed Effect of boiling
on Water, in disposing it to freeze more readily, ascertained by
Experiments.” He shows, that when water that has been recently boiled
is exposed to cold air, it begins to freeze as soon as it reaches the
freezing point; while water that has not been boiled may be cooled some
degrees below the freezing point before it begins to congeal. But if
the unboiled water be constantly stirred during the whole time of its
exposure, it begins to freeze when cooled down to the freezing point as
well as the other. He shows that the difference between the two waters
consists in this, that the boiled water is constantly absorbing air,
which disturbs it, whereas the other water remains in a state of rest.

His last paper was “An Analysis of the Water of some boiling Springs
in Iceland,” published in the Transactions of the Royal Society of
Edinburgh. This was the water of the Geyser spring, brought from
Iceland by Sir J. Stanley. Dr. Black found it to contain a great deal
of silica, held in solution in the water by caustic soda.

The tempting career which Dr. Black opened, and which he was unable to
prosecute for want of health, soon attracted the attention of one of
the ablest men that Great Britain has produced--I mean Mr. Cavendish.

The Honourable Henry Cavendish was born in London on the 10th of
October, 1731: his father was Lord Charles Cavendish, a cadet of the
house of Devonshire, one of the oldest families in England. During his
father’s lifetime he was kept in rather narrow circumstances, being
allowed an annuity of £500 only; while his apartments were a set of
stables, fitted up for his accommodation. It was during this period
that he acquired those habits of economy, and those singular oddities
of character, which he exhibited ever after in so striking a manner. At
his father’s death he was left a very considerable fortune; and an aunt
who died at a later period bequeathed him a very handsome addition to
it; but, in consequence of the habits of economy which he had acquired,
it was not in his power to spend the greater part of his annual income.
This occasioned a yearly increase to his capital, till at last it
accumulated so much, without any care on his part, that at the period
of his death he left behind him nearly £1,300,000; and he was at that
time the greatest proprietor of stock in the Bank of England.

On one occasion, the money in the hands of his bankers had accumulated
to the amount of £70,000. These gentlemen thinking it improper to keep
so large a sum in their hands, sent one of the partners to wait upon
him, in order to learn how he desired it disposed of. This gentleman
was admitted; and, after employing the necessary precautions to a man
of Mr. Cavendish’s peculiar disposition, stated the circumstance, and
begged to know whether it would not be proper to lay out the money at
interest. Mr. Cavendish dryly answered, “You may lay it out if you
please,” and left the room.

He hardly ever went into any other society than that of his scientific
friends: he never was absent from the weekly dinner of the Royal
Society club at the Crown and Anchor Tavern in the Strand. At these
dinners, when he happened to be seated near those that he liked, he
often conversed a great deal; though at other times he was very silent.
He was likewise a constant attendant at Sir Joseph Banks’s Sunday
evening meetings. He had a house in London, which he only visited
once or twice a-week at stated times, and without ever speaking to
the servants: it contained an excellent library, to which he gave all
literary men the freest and most unrestrained access. But he lived
in a house on Clapham Common, where he scarcely ever received any
visitors. His relation, Lord George Cavendish, to whom he left by will
the greatest part of his fortune, visited him only once a-year, and the
visit hardly ever exceeded ten or twelve minutes.

He was shy and bashful to a degree bordering on disease; he could not
bear to have any person introduced to him, or to be pointed out in any
way as a remarkable man. One Sunday evening he was standing at Sir
Joseph Banks’s in a crowded room, conversing with Mr. Hatchett, when
Dr. Ingenhousz, who had a good deal of pomposity of manner, came up
with an Austrian gentleman in his hand, and introduced him formally to
Mr. Cavendish. He mentioned the titles and qualifications of his friend
at great length, and said that he had been peculiarly anxious to be
introduced to a philosopher so profound and so universally known and
celebrated as Mr. Cavendish. As soon as Dr. Ingenhousz had finished,
the Austrian gentleman began, and assured Mr. Cavendish that his
principal reason for coming to London was to see and converse with one
of the greatest ornaments of the age, and one of the most illustrious
philosophers that ever existed. To all these high-flown speeches Mr.
Cavendish answered not a word, but stood with his eyes cast down quite
abashed and confounded. At last, spying an opening in the crowd, he
darted through it with all the speed of which he was master; nor did he
stop till he reached his carriage, which drove him directly home.

Of a man, whose habits were so retired, and whose intercourse with
society was so small, there is nothing else to relate except his
scientific labours: the current of his life passed on with the utmost
regularity; the description of a single day would convey a correct idea
of his whole existence. At one time he was in the habit of keeping
an individual to assist him in his experiments. This place was for
some time filled by Sir Charles Blagden; but they did not agree well
together, and after some time Sir Charles left him. Mr. Cavendish died
on the 4th of February, 1810, aged seventy-eight years, four months,
and six days. When he found himself dying, he gave directions to his
servant to leave him alone, and not to return till a certain time which
he specified, and by which period he expected to be no longer alive.
The servant, however, who was aware of the state of his master, and
was anxious about him, opened the door of the room before the time
specified, and approached the bed to take a look at the dying man. Mr.
Cavendish, who was still sensible, was offended at the intrusion, and
ordered him out of the room with a voice of displeasure, commanding him
not by any means to return till the time specified. When he did come
back at that time, he found his master dead. What a contrast between
the characters of Mr. Cavendish and Dr. Black!

The appearance of Mr. Cavendish did not much prepossess strangers in
his favour; he was somewhat above the middle size, his body rather
thick, and his neck rather short. He stuttered a little in his speech,
which gave him an air of awkwardness: his countenance was not strongly
marked, so as to indicate the profound abilities which he possessed.
This was probably owing to the total absence of all the violent
passions. His education seems to have been very complete; he was an
excellent mathematician, a profound electrician, and a most acute
and ingenious chemist. He never ventured to give an opinion on any
subject, unless he had studied it to the bottom. He appeared before
the world first as a chemist, and afterwards as an electrician. The
whole of his literary labours consist of eighteen papers, published
in the Philosophical Transactions, which, though they occupy only a
few pages, are full of the most important discoveries and the most
profound investigations. Of these papers, there are ten which treat
of chemical subjects, two treat of electricity, two of meteorology,
three are connected with astronomy, and there is one, the last which
he wrote, which gives his method of dividing astronomical instruments.
Of the papers in question, those alone which treat of Chemistry can be
analyzed in a work like this.

1. His first paper, entitled, “Experiments on fictitious Air,” was
published in the year 1766, when Mr. Cavendish was thirty-five years
of age. Dr. Hales had demonstrated (as had previously been done by
Van Helmont and Glauber) that _air_ is given out by a vast number of
bodies in peculiar circumstances. But he never suspected that any of
the _airs_ which he obtained differed from common air. Indeed common
air had always been considered as an elementary substance to which
every elastic fluid was referred. Dr. Black had shown that the mild
alkalies and limestone, and carbonate of magnesia, were combinations
of these bodies with a gaseous substance, to which he had given
the name of _fixed air_; and he had pointed out various methods of
collecting this fixed air; though he himself had not made much progress
in investigating its properties. This paper of Mr. Cavendish may be
considered as a continuation of the investigations begun by Dr. Black.
He shows that there exist two species of air quite different in their
properties from common air: and he calls them _inflammable air_ and
_fixed air_.

Inflammable air (hydrogen gas) is evolved when iron, zinc, or tin,
are dissolved in dilute sulphuric or muriatic acid. Iron yielded
about 1-22d part of its weight, of inflammable air, zinc about
1-23d or 1-24th of its weight, and tin about 1-44th of its weight.
The properties of the inflammable air were the same, whichever of
the three metals was used to procure it, and whether they were
dissolved in sulphuric or muriatic acids. When the sulphuric acid was
concentrated, iron and zinc dissolved in it with difficulty and only
by the assistance of heat. The air given out was not inflammable, but
consisted of sulphurous acid. These facts induced Mr. Cavendish to
conclude that the inflammable air evolved in the first case was the
unaltered _phlogiston_ of the metals, while the sulphurous acid evolved
in the second case, was a compound of the same phlogiston and a portion
of the acid, which deprived it of its inflammability. This opinion was
very different from that of Stahl, who considered combustible bodies as
compounds of phlogiston with acids or calces.

Cavendish found the specific gravity of his inflammable air about
eleven times less than that of common air. This determination is under
the truth; but the error is, at least in part, owing to the quantity
of water held in solution by the air, and which, as Mr. Cavendish
showed, amounted to about 1-9th of the weight of the air. He tried
the combustibility of the inflammable air, when mixed with various
proportions of common air, and found that it exploded with the greatest
violence when mixed with rather more than its bulk of common air.

Copper he found, when dissolved in muriatic acid by the assistance of
heat, yielded no inflammable air, but an air which lost its elasticity
when it came in contact with water. This _air_, the nature of which Mr.
Cavendish did not examine, was _muriatic acid gas_, the properties of
which were afterwards investigated by Dr. Priestley.

The _fixed air_ (_carbonic acid gas_) on which Mr. Cavendish made his
experiments was obtained by dissolving marble in muriatic acid. He
found that it might be kept over mercury for any length of time without
undergoing any alteration; that it was gradually absorbed by cold
water; and that 100 measures of water of the temperature 55° absorbed
103·8 measures of fixed air. The whole of the air thus absorbed was
separated again by exposing the water to a boiling heat, or by leaving
it for sometime in an open vessel. Alcohol (the specific gravity not
mentioned) absorbed 2¼ times its bulk of this air, and olive-oil about
1-3d of its bulk.

The specific gravity of fixed air he found 1·57, that of common air
being 1.[186] Fixed air is incapable of supporting combustion, and
common air, when mixed with it, supports combustion a much shorter time
than when pure. A small wax taper burnt eighty seconds in a receiver
which held 180 ounce measures, when filled with common air only. The
same taper burnt fifty-one seconds in the same receiver when filled
with a mixture of one volume fixed air, and nineteen volumes of common
air. When the fixed air was 3-40ths of the whole volume the taper
burnt twenty-three seconds. When the fixed air was 1-10th, the taper
burnt eleven seconds. When it was 6-55ths or 1-9·16 of the whole
mixture, the taper would not burn at all.

[186] This I apprehend to be a little above the truth, the true
specific gravity of carbonic acid gas being 1·5277, that of air being
unity.

Mr. Cavendish was of opinion that more than one kind of fixed air was
given out by marble; in other words, that the elastic fluid emitted,
consisted of two different airs, one more absorbable by water than
the other. He drew his conclusion from the circumstance that after a
solution of potash had been exposed to a quantity of fixed air for
some time, it ceased to absorb any more; yet, if the residual portion
of air were thrown away and new fixed air substituted in its place, it
began to absorb again; but Mr. Dalton has since given a satisfactory
explanation of this seeming anomaly by showing that the absorbability
of fixed air in water is proportional to its purity, and that when
mixed with a great quantity of common air or any other gas not soluble
in water, it ceases to be sensibly absorbed.

Mr. Cavendish ascertained the quantity of fixed air contained in
marble, carbonate of ammonia, common pearlashes, and carbonate of
potash: but notwithstanding the care with which these experiments were
made they are of little value; because the proper precautions could not
be taken, in that infant state of chemical science, to have these salts
in a state of purity. The following were the results obtained by Mr.
Cavendish:

  1000 grains of marble contained 408 grs. fixed air.
  1000   --   carb. of ammonia    533        --
  1000   --   pearlashes          284        --
  1000   --   carb. of potash     423        --

Supposing the marble, carbonate of ammonia, and carbonate of potash, to
have been pure anhydrous simple salts, their composition would be

  1000 grains of marble contain 440 grs. fixed air.
  1000   --   carb. of ammonia  709·6      --
  1000   --   carb. of potash   314·2      --

Bicarbonate of potash was first obtained by Dr. Black. Mr. Cavendish
formed the salt by dissolving pearlashes in water, and passing a
current of carbonic acid gas through the solution till it deposited
crystals. These crystals were not altered by exposure to the air, did
not deliquesce, and were soluble in about four times their weight of
cold water.

Dr. M’Bride had already ascertained that vegetable and animal
substances yield fixed air by putrefaction and fermentation. Mr.
Cavendish found by experiment that sugar when dissolved in water
and fermented, gives out 57-100ths of its weight of fixed air,
possessing exactly the properties of fixed air from marble. During
the fermentation no air was absorbed, nor was any change induced on
the common air, at the surface of the fermenting liquor. Apple-juice
fermented much faster than sugar; but the phenomena were the same,
and the fixed air emitted amounted to 381/1000 of the weight of the
solid extract of apples. Gravy and raw meat yielded inflammable air
during their putrefaction, the former in much greater quantity than the
latter. This air, as far as Mr. Cavendish’s experiments went, he found
the same as the inflammable air from zinc by dilute sulphuric acid; but
its specific gravity was a little higher.

This paper of Mr. Cavendish was the first attempt by chemists to
collect the different kinds of air, and endeavour to ascertain their
nature. Hence all his processes were in some measure new: they served
as a model to future experimenters, and were gradually brought to their
present state of simplicity and perfection. He was the first person
who attempted to determine the specific gravity of airs, by comparing
their weight with that of the same bulk of common air; and though
his apparatus was defective, yet the principle was good, and is the
very same which is still employed to accomplish the same object. Mr.
Cavendish then first began the true investigation of gases, and in his
first paper he determined the peculiar nature of two very remarkable
gases, _carbonic_ and _hydrogen_.

2. Mineral waters have at all times attracted the attention of the
faculty in consequence of their peculiar properties and medical
virtues. Some faint steps towards their investigation were taken by
Boyle. Du Clos attempted a chemical analysis of the mineral waters in
France; and Hierne made a similar investigation of the mineral waters
of Sweden. Though these experiments were rude and inaccurate, they
led to the knowledge of several facts respecting mineral waters which
chemists were unable to explain. One of these was the existence of a
considerable quantity of _calcareous earth_ in some mineral waters,
which was precipitated by boiling. Nobody could conceive in what way
this insoluble substance (_carbonate of lime_) was held in solution,
nor why it was thrown down when the water was raised to a boiling
heat. It was to determine this point that Mr. Cavendish made his
experiments on Rathbone-place water, which were published in the year
1767, and which may be considered as the first analysis of a mineral
water that possessed tolerable accuracy. Rathbone-place water was
raised by a pump, and supplied the portion of London in its immediate
neighbourhood. Mr. Cavendish found that when boiled, it deposited a
quantity of earthy matter, consisting chiefly of lime, but containing
also a little magnesia. This he showed was held in solution by fixed
air; and he proved experimentally, that when an excess of this gas
is present, it has the property of holding lime and magnesia in
solution.[187] Besides these earthy carbonates, the water was found to
contain a little ammonia, some sulphate of lime, and some common salt.
Mr. Cavendish examined, likewise, some other pump-water in London, and
showed that it contained lime, held in solution by carbonic acid.

[187] The salts held in solution are in the state of bicarbonates of
lime and magnesia. Boiling drives off half the carbonic acid, and the
simple carbonates being insoluble are precipitated.

3. Dr. Priestley, at a pretty early period of his chemical career,
had discovered that when nitrous gas is mixed with common air over
water, a diminution of bulk takes place; that there is a still greater
diminution of bulk when oxygen gas is employed instead of common
air; and that the diminution is always proportional to the quantity
of oxygen gas present in the gas mixed with the nitrous gas. This
discovery induced him to employ nitrous gas as a test of the quantity
of oxygen present in common air; and various instruments were contrived
to facilitate the mixture of the gases, and the measurement of the
diminution of volume which took place. As the goodness of air, or its
fitness to support combustion, and maintain animal life, was conceived
to depend upon the proportion of oxygen gas which it contained, these
instruments were distinguished by the name of _eudiometers_; the
simplest of them was contrived by Fontana, and is usually distinguished
by the name of the _eudiometer of Fontana_. Philosophers, in examining
air by means of this instrument, at various seasons, and in various
places, had found considerable differences in the diminution of
bulk: hence they inferred that the proportion of oxygen varies in
different places; and to this variation they ascribed the healthiness
or noxiousness of particular situations. For example, Dr. Ingenhousz
had found a greater proportion of oxygen in the air above the sea, and
on the sea-coast; and to this he ascribed the healthiness of maritime
situations. Mr. Cavendish examined this important point with his usual
patient industry and acute discernment, and published the result in the
Philosophical Transactions for 1783. He ascertained that the apparent
variations were owing to inaccuracies in making the experiment; and
that when the requisite precautions are taken, the proportion of oxygen
in air is found constant in all places, and at all seasons. This
conclusion has since been confirmed by numerous observations in every
part of the globe. Mr. Cavendish also analyzed common air, and found it
to consist of

   79·16 volumes azotic gas,
   20·84 volumes oxygen gas.
  ------
  100·00

4. For many years it was the opinion of chemists that mercury is
essentially liquid, and that no degree of cold is capable of congealing
it. Professor Braun’s accidental discovery that it may be frozen by
cold, like other liquids, was at first doubted; and when it was finally
established by the most conclusive experiments, it was inferred from
the observations of Braun that the freezing point of mercury is several
hundred degrees below zero on Fahrenheit’s scale. It became an object
of great importance to determine the exact point of the congelation
of this metal by accurate experiments. This was done at Hudson’s Bay,
by Mr. Hutchins, who followed a set of directions given him by Mr.
Cavendish, and from his experiments Mr. Cavendish, in a paper inserted
in the Philosophical Transactions for 1783, deduced that the freezing
point of mercury is 38·66 degrees below the zero of Fahrenheit’s
thermometer.

5. These experiments naturally drew the attention of Mr. Cavendish to
the phenomena of freezing, to the action of freezing mixtures, and the
congelation of acids. He employed Mr. M’Nab, who was settled in the
neighbourhood of Hudson’s Bay, to make the requisite experiments; and
he published two very curious and important papers on these subjects
in the Philosophical Transactions for 1786 and 1788. He explained the
phenomena of congelation exactly according to the theory of Dr. Black,
but rejecting the hypothesis that heat is a _substance_ sui generis,
and thinking it more probable, with Sir Isaac Newton, that it is
owing to the rapid internal motion of the particles of the hot body.
The latent heat of water, he found to be 150°. The observations on the
congelation of nitric and sulphuric acids are highly interesting: he
showed that their freezing points vary considerably, according to the
strength of each; and drew up tables indicating the freezing points of
acids, of various degrees of strength.

6. But the most splendid and valuable of Mr. Cavendish’s chemical
experiments were published in two papers, entitled, “Experiments on
Air,” in the Transactions of the Royal Society for 1784 and 1785. The
object of these experiments was to determine what happened during the
_phlogistication of air_, as it was at that time termed; that is, the
change which air underwent when metals were calcined in contact with
it, when sulphur or phosphorus was burnt in it, and in several similar
processes. He showed, in the first place, that there was no reason for
supposing that carbonic acid was formed, except when some animal or
vegetable substance was present; that when _hydrogen gas_ was burnt
in contact with air or oxygen gas, it _combined_ with that gas, and
formed _water_; that _nitrous gas_, by combining with the oxygen of the
atmosphere, formed _nitrous acid_; and that when _oxygen_ and _azotic_
gas are mixed in the requisite proportions, and electric sparks passed
through the mixture, they _combine_, and form _nitric_ acid.

The first of these opinions occasioned a controversy between Mr.
Cavendish, and Mr. Kirwan, who maintained that carbonic acid is always
produced when air is phlogisticated. Two papers on this subject by
Kirwan, and one by Cavendish, are inserted in the Philosophical
Transactions for 1784, each remarkable examples of the peculiar manner
of the respective writers. All the arguments of Kirwan are founded on
the experiments of others. He displays great reading, and a strong
memory; but does not discriminate between the merits of the chemists
on whose authority he founds his opinions. Mr. Cavendish, on the other
hand, never advances a single opinion, which he has not put to the
test of experiment; and never suffers himself to go any further than
his experiment will warrant. Whatever is not accurately determined
by unexceptionable trials, is merely stated as a conjecture on which
little stress is laid.

In the first of these celebrated papers, Mr. Cavendish has drawn a
comparison between the phlogistic and antiphlogistic theories of
chemistry; he has shown that each of them is capable of explaining
the phenomena in a satisfactory manner; though it is impossible to
demonstrate the truth of either; and he has given the reasons which
induced him to prefer the phlogistic theory--reasons which the French
chemists were unable to refute, and which they were wise enough not
to notice. There cannot be a more striking proof of the influence of
fashion, even in science, and of the unwarrantable precipitation with
which opinions are rejected or embraced by philosophers, than the total
inattention paid by the chemical world to this admirable dissertation.
Had Mr. Kirwan adopted the opinions of Mr. Cavendish, when he undertook
the defence of phlogiston, instead of trusting to the vague experiments
of inaccurate chemists, he would not have been obliged to yield to his
French antagonists, and the antiphlogistic theory would not so speedily
have gained ground.

Such is an epitome of the chemical papers of Mr. Cavendish. They
contain five notable discoveries; namely, 1. The nature and properties
of hydrogen gas. 2. The solubility of bicarbonates of lime and magnesia
in water. 3. The exact proportion of the constituents of common air. 4.
The composition of water. 5. The composition of nitric acid. It is to
him also that we are indebted for our knowledge of the freezing point
of mercury; and he was likewise the first person who showed that potash
has a stronger affinity for acids than soda has. His experiments on the
subject are to be found in a paper on Mineral Waters, published in the
Philosophical Transactions, by Dr. Donald Monro.




END OF VOL. I.


  C. WHITING, BEAUFORT HOUSE, STRAND.





ANCIENT HISTORIANS, POETS, &c.


    _Now in course of Publication, in Monthly volumes (containing
    on the average 350 pages of letter-press), price only 4s. 6d.
    each, neatly bound, and embellished with Engravings on steel by
    the first Artists_,

THE FAMILY CLASSICAL LIBRARY; or, ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS of the
most valuable GREEK AND LATIN HISTORIANS, POETS AND ORATORS. With
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES of EACH AUTHOR, and COPIOUS ILLUSTRATIVE NOTES.
Edited by A. J. VALPY, M. A.

CICERO remarks, that not to know what has been transacted in
former times, is to continue always a child. If no use be made of the
labours of past ages, the world must remain always in the infancy of
knowledge: and the learned Dr. Parr says, “If you desire your son,
though no great scholar, to read and reflect, it is your duty _to
place_ in his hands the best _Translations_ of the best _Classical_
Authors.”

To those, therefore, who are desirous of obtaining a knowledge of the
most esteemed authors of Greece and Rome, but possess not the means or
leisure for pursuing a regular course of study, the present undertaking
must prove a valuable acquisition. The following are the contents of
the volumes already published.

No. I.--DEMOSTHENES (translated by Dr. Leland), comprising a sketch of
the Life of Demosthenes: his Orations against Philip, King of Macedon;
and those pronounced on occasions of public deliberation.

No. II.--DEMOSTHENES, concluded, and SALLUST complete: (the latter
translated by William Rose, M. A.) comprising the Orations of
Dinarchus against Demosthenes, and Account of the Exile and Death of
Demosthenes, and the Orations of Æschines and Demosthenes on the Crown:
a Biographical Sketch of SALLUST: his History of Catiline’s
conspiracy; and History of the Roman War against Jugurtha, King of
Numidia.

No. III.--XENOPHON, Vol. I. (translated by E. Spelman, Esq.),
comprising a Biographical Sketch of the Historian; and his Anabasis, or
Expedition of Cyrus into Persia, and retreat of the 10,000 Greeks.

No. IV.--XENOPHON, vol. II. (translated by the Hon. Maurice Ashley
Cooper), comprising the Cyropædia, or the Education, Life and Manners,
Government, Wars, and Achievements of Cyrus, King of Persia.

No. V.--HERODOTUS, vol. I. (translated by the Rev. W. Beloe),
comprising a Biographical Sketch of the Historian; and the first two
Books of his History, containing a Narrative of the Acquisition of
the Kingdom of Lydia by Crœsus, and the subsequent overthrow of the
Lydian Empire by Cyrus; the early History of the Republics of Athens
and Lacedæmon; with an account of Egypt, its Customs, Manners, and
Governments.

No. VI.--HERODOTUS, vol II., comprising, in the 3d, 4th, and 5th Books,
the Exploits of Cambyses, with the subjugation of the whole of Egypt;
the elevation of Darius Hystaspes to the Persian throne; the disastrous
Expeditions of the Persians against the Scythians during his reign; the
progress of the Republics of Athens, Lacedæmon and Corinth, and their
state during the time of the Persian Emperor Darius.

No. VII.--HERODOTUS, vol. III., comprising, in the 6th to the 9th Book,
the Origin of the Lacedæmonian Kings; the first Invasion of Greece
by the Persians; the Battle of Marathon; the memorable Expedition of
Xerxes into Greece; the Battle of Thermopylæ; the Capture and Burning
of Athens by the Persians; the Sea-fight of Salamis; the Battles of
Platæa and of the Promontory of Mycale; and the overthrow of the
Persian power in Greece.

No. VIII.--VIRGIL, vol. I., comprising a Biographical Sketch of the
Poet; his _Eclogues_, or Pastoral Poems, translated by Archdeacon
Wrangham; the _Georgics_, or Poems on Husbandry, translated by William
Sotheby, Esq.; and the first two Books of the _Æneid_, translated by
Dryden, and prefaced with his celebrated Dedication.

No. IX.--VIRGIL, vol. II., comprising the remainder of Dryden’s
translation of the _Æneid_, namely, from the third to the twelfth Book.

No. X.--PINDAR (translated by the Rev. C. A. Wheelwright, Prebendary of
Lincoln); and ANACREON, by Mr. Thomas Bourne.


  LONDON:

  PRINTED FOR H. COLBURN AND R. BENTLEY,

  NEW BURLINGTON-STREET;

  And sold by every Bookseller throughout the Kingdom.


[Transcriber’s Note:

Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation are as in the original.

Page 51: “zeb” changed to read “zahav”.

Page 53: “kemep” changed to read “keseph”.

Page 54: “necheshet” changed to read “nechooshat”.

Page 63: “berezel” changed to read “barzel”.

Page 63: “ber” changed to read “bar”.

Page 63: “nezel” changed to read “nazal”.

Page 76: “arrenichon” changed to read “arrhenichon”.

Page 81: “chuanos” changed to read “kyanos”.]