On the Transmutation of Metals - De Metallorum Transmutatione

To the Most Noble and Most Distinguished Man, Joel Langelott, Most Renowned Chief Physician of the Most Serene Prince of Cimbria.

A Letter of Daniel Georg Morhof, Professor of Kiel.

Translated to English by Mitko Janeski from the book:
Jo. Jacobi Mangeti, medicinae doctoris et sereniss. ac potentiss. regis Prussiae archiatri, Bibliotheca chemica curiosa, seu, Rerum ad alchemiam pertinetium thesaurus instructissimus : quo non tantùm artis auriferae, ac scriptorum in ea nobiliorum historia traditur : lapidis veritas argumentis & experimentis innumeris, immò & juris consultorum judiciis evincitur : termini obscuriores explicantur : cautiones contra impostores & difficultates in tinctura universali conficienda occurrentes, declarantur : verùm etiam tractatus omnes virorum celebriorum, qui in magno sudarunt elixyre, quíque ab ipso Hermete, ut dicitur, Trismegisto, ad nostra usque tempora de chrysopoea scripserunt, cum praecipuis suis commentariis, concinno ordine dispositi exhibentur. Ad quorum omnium illustrationem additae sunt quamplurimae figurae aeneae - Subsection 4.

1673




As often as I visit you at Schleswig, Most Illustrious Man, I usually return more learned than I came. For besides the fact that you often captivate my ears and mind with your most learned conversations, you sometimes do not hesitate—such is your kindness—to share with me certain new things, whether from every field of refined literature or, above all, from the inmost recesses of natural science, which either friends write to you, or which you yourself, with ingenious invention, are working upon. From this most honorable and most delightful conversation, since I often perceive no small benefit, I gained not only profit but also the greatest pleasure from the conversations we had, when a few months ago I was with you, about your most ingenious Epistle, not long since published.

All those matters you set forth there are splendid and most subtly devised: what you noted on the use of digestion, fermentation, and trituration in chemical works; that wondrous comminution of gold by the mill which you call Philosophical, which you there teach; the most curious things which you delightfully and profitably discuss concerning the fermentation of Tartar, the volatile spirit of its salt, the essence of Opium, the extraction of Mercury from Antimony, the analysis of Coral into a reddish mucilage. Indeed, the learned world owes you much for these, and chemists especially, to whom, through your demonstration, not a few arcana—whose credibility had hitherto been doubtful—were laid open.

Certainly, by the publication of this writing, you have gained great favor among the distinguished fellows of the Royal Society of London: for they both exalted it with the highest praises, and, enticed as it were by this prelude, impatiently demand those Proceedings of the Gottorp Laboratory which you promised, expecting for themselves from those premises the richest harvest. This is testified by the most courteous letters which not long ago the most noble Mr. Oldenburg wrote to me; of which I wished to make mention here, that this might stand as a sort of public reminder, whereby we may sometimes oblige you, amidst your continual occupations, to shake off the distractions that creep upon you, and to prick your ear.

No less, too, will the most celebrated Society of the Curious in Nature in our Germany, to whom you address your Epistle, acknowledge its obligation to you: for it greatly rejoices in this new proof, by which it may display itself to foreigners. And truly, those illustrious men, the princes in this age in the field of natural philosophy, since they can sit as judges in such matters and examine everything thoroughly, will lend their authority with praise to your discoveries, which I, and others like me, can only admire or recount to others, but are little suited, nor ought we, to judge them—lest, as the Greeks proverbially say, ἐν ἄλλοτρίῳ χορῷ πόδα τίθησιν, we seem to put our foot into another man’s dance.

Yet it so happened, I know not how, that when recently I received from your hand that most welcome gift—namely your most learned Epistle, on the occasion of the dissolution of gold by the Philosophical mill—we were drawn into conversations concerning the transmutation of metals; and what things I then put forward on that subject seemed not displeasing to you: so much so, indeed, that you judged them not unworthy of the public light.

These, in truth, were meant to confirm the truth of transmutation, partly drawn from the sanctuaries of natural wisdom, partly from history, both ancient and more recent, as memory suggested to me while discoursing. They were not indeed distinguished nor sufficiently polished: yet, such as they were, they were not unwelcome to you—I attribute that to your kindness.

At that time, however, I immediately warned you, not to bid me bring forth new Athens, that is, to write upon a matter worn and almost threadbare by the pens of so many men, and even odious, especially since the most distinguished men Conringius and Borrichius had already long since occupied the whole ground of this subject; and since the crowd of lesser writers is so great, that my effort here might appear to wiser men either inglorious or useless.

But you, thinking otherwise, did not cease to press me, that I should undertake this small task. In which matter, since you so wished, I neither ought nor wished to resist you any longer—only see to it that you do not deceive yourself, nor others, to whom perhaps greater hope is held forth by you, be deceived.

We, however, will approach the matter thus: first, that we touch briefly on the possibility of transmutation; then on the authors who have either transmitted or propagated the arcana of this art; then finally, on the very experiments of this art, we shall bring forward into the midst not things entirely trite or commonly known.

Chapter 1.

First, when the question is asked concerning metals, whether they can be transmuted: since transmutation necessarily supposes the corruption of one and the generation of another metal, it ought, at the threshold of this Dissertation, to be examined how Nature composes them in the bowels of the earth.

But who would not confess his ignorance here? For since the matter itself is so deeply plunged into darkness, who shall bring this doctrine into the light? In so many centuries up to this very day none has appeared, though now we discern natural things with eyes so keen, down even to the very particles of particles, who could with an outstretched finger point to the causes of metals and set them before our eyes. Hence everywhere are mere conjectures and gropings, nothing certain: since what we know of their nature arises only from superficial contemplation. Perhaps Nature has hidden their principles deeper than human endeavors are able to reach.

The operations which she employs are slow, and sometimes are extended over whole centuries, and through secret passages, so that they easily escape all the diligence of even the most skillful observer. The metallurgists are unlearned, and ignorant of natural causes. The philosophers, who by deeper insight might probe into them, do not easily expose themselves to the dangers which accompany that business. Hence we have abandoned one of the noblest parts of natural science; and because it has not been sufficiently understood, we shall go astray also in the rest.

For from the inner composition of this earthly globe, and of its chief parts, among which salts and metals claim for themselves, like juices or marrow, the principal place; and from their exhalations, the whole atmosphere which is spread around this globe is variously affected, and many of the phenomena of this atmosphere depend thereon. If you shake down the writers on metals, you will find little that can truly satisfy the mind. Whatever, however, has been accomplished in this matter is due to the Germans; whose footsteps foreigners follow, if indeed there are any who have treated this subject.

There are few monuments in the writings of the ancients—Plato, Aristotle, Pliny—concerning the history of metals. Among the more recent, after the books De Mineralibus of Albertus Magnus, the book of Andreas de Solea On the Increase and Decrease of Metals (commonly ascribed to Basil Valentine, and usually published together with his Twelve Keys, though he lived a whole century later) is excellently written, and contains many recondite things; but most of them are obscure, and not written with sufficient clarity.

The most diligent and most learned writer is Georgius Agricola, who treated both the history and the operations of metals to the best of his ability. To these may be added the works written in the German tongue: those of Lazarus Ercker, prince in the art of assaying; of Fachsius, Mathesius, Albinus, Zacharias Theobaldus, and the works of Lohneisen, who collected most of his from others. But neither should Andreas Caesalpinus be despised. Bernardus Cesius strays into everything else: for he rather gathered commonplaces about metallic matters, which avail little for discerning the true nature of metals.

Nor should the nomenclators of fossils, found in various parts of the earth, be omitted: Kentmannus, Schwenckfeldius, Cresschmarus, Merretus, Aldrovandus in his Musaeum Metallicum, Wormius, and Athanasius Kircherus—how much with great display did he promise in his vast book concerning his so-called Mundus Subterraneus! Yet he sadly mocks the crows gaping after him. For although the book is huge, it is nevertheless so destitute of real matter that sometimes he omits even what is necessary, writes down many superfluities, serves up cabbage so often boiled and reboiled, copies out much from others, stumbles often, and sows new things with a sparing hand.

Far more ingenious than he is the writer of subterranean physics, Beccherus, who in that book and its supplement asserted not a few things which can shed great light upon metallurgy. Nor should Honoratus Fabri and Hamelius, most excellent philosophers, be deprived of their praise: the former in his physical books, the latter in his treatise On Meteors and Fossils, not slightly illustrated this part of natural philosophy.

In the past year Webster, an English author, published in his native tongue a Metallographia, but for the most part compiled from the Germans, and especially from some of those whom we have just enumerated, with a few small observations of his own. Yet he knew not all the authors, nor instituted a sufficiently careful selection. Nevertheless, his diligence deserves praise, by which we now have collected under certain heads what in the authors themselves can be sought not without some tedium.

What the illustrious Robert Boyle has commented on concerning the origin of metals and minerals will, beyond doubt, like all the works of that man, be excellent and most elaborate, so far as can be judged from that little book of his, more precious than the very gems of which he treats, not long since published. But these have not yet come into our hands.

Meanwhile, from so vast a harvest of writers on metals, you will scarcely glean anything that brings the inmost nature of metals into full view before you.

Chapter 2.

Those who make water the element of all bodies, do the same also for the substance of metals. This opinion of certain ancient philosophers was revived among the moderns by Helmontius, Bernhardus, Palissy, and Henricus de Rochaz.

And it is confirmed by that notion, still held by some, of the Catholic solvent liquor, which they themselves call the Alchaest—by whose power it is believed that natural bodies, and even metals themselves, may be reduced into a tasteless liquid. This hypothesis has troubled the minds of many, and has heated the furnaces of countless chemists: but all with wholly fruitless labor. For never has there been one who could assert he had seen such a liquor; although there are not a few, as is known from histories, who have more than once seen the Great Philosophers’ Stone itself. Indeed, Helmontius contradicts himself: for in one place he wishes that bodies be resolved by this liquor into pure and limpid water; in another, he says dregs remain. Certainly, before the times of Paracelsus and Helmontius, these things were unheard of in the schools of the chemists: for all other writings of Arnold of Villanova, Lullius, Bacon, and the like philosophers speak otherwise. And if you consider the matter itself, it seems repugnant to the nature of things. For the natures of liquids and of solid things are distinct: and though the latter are sometimes dissolved by the former, the bonds by which they cohere being loosened so that, dispersed, they escape the sight of the eyes, nevertheless they never are changed into each other, nor derive their principle and origin from them.

Bernhard Palissy, a Frenchman, indeed a man of the common sort, but ingenious, in books written in his native tongue on the nature of springs, metals, and gems, wishes that from waters all things, even metals and the hardest stones, are produced. Yet he posits two kinds of waters: one material, the other congealing. If you weigh this rightly, you will perceive a diversity of principles, so that nothing new is discovered here, except the names.

Henricus de Rochaz, his countryman, who wrote somewhat on metallic waters and the secrets of mines, also composed a Reformed Physics. He indeed makes water the material principle of things, but joins salt to it, a principle consolidating bodies. Yet he also admits things nearer at hand in the composition of bodies.

To this same view leans the illustrious man Robert Boyle, in a little book recently published on Gems, in which he holds that their first origin was of liquid substance; which, if imbued with certain mineral tinctures while fluid or soft, acquires colors according to the kind of mineral encountered. In opaque stones, such as haematites, jaspers, and similar pebbles, he thinks that earth impregnated with metallic juices is hardened into the form of stone by the addition of a petrifying liquor, or spiritus petrificus. There are many excellent things in that book which contribute to illustrating this doctrine.

He makes mention here of a certain liquor accidentally found, which was able to dissolve gems. He supposes the earth to be full of menstrua and other liquors of various kinds, impregnated variously from the mines through which they wander; which, by certain chances, may sometimes act as menstrua, and otherwise may concur to the production of mineral bodies. Indeed, even common water, infected as it generally is with effluvia of minerals, is thought by Thurneyser, in his book De Aquis Mineralibus, to be able to do this. He testifies that this argument is more fully handled in an excellent book De Subterraneis Menstruis.

While I recall these things, I bring to memory what Abraham of Porta Leonis, a Jewish physician, recounts in his book De Auro (in which he disputes concerning the virtue of gold in medicine), about the Fabarian Waters near the Rhine: that they contain golden juice not yet concreted by nature, whence arise those marvelous virtues in curing the sick. For he says that no specks of corporeal gold can be seen in them, such as appear in the neighboring waters of the Rhine, which yet lack that healing power. In these, however, he thinks that juice condenses into corporeal gold. Hence he rejects the use of wine, in which a golden leaf has been quenched, because it cannot acquire any powers from fragments of corporeal gold. But whether all these things are said truly, let it be for others to judge. In matters obscure and remote from sense there is only place for conjecture. But if we admit those subterranean menstrua, one might believe they are not altogether nothing.

The same web was recently woven also by Thomas Sherley, physician to the King of England, in a Dissertation which he published concerning the causes of stones. On that occasion he inquires likewise into the origin of all bodies, which he wishes to be produced from Water and their own Seeds. He prefaced this, that he might pave the way for a medical treatise which he was to write on the causes of stones in the human body. Many learned and curious things are asserted here, which pertain to this argument and to the nature of petrification: but our present design does not permit us to dwell upon them.

With the highest care and industry, this matter will be undertaken to be demonstrated by the most ingenious Steno, in his Dissertation On the Solid naturally contained within a Solid, of which he published a prodrome in the previous year, as I think. And from this, as the lion may be judged from his claw, the whole work may be easily anticipated.

A natural body, he says, is either solid or fluid. If the solid is produced according to the laws of nature, he says it is produced from the fluid. It grows when new particles are added to its particles, secreted from the external fluid: but this apposition happens either immediately from the external fluid, or through one or more internal fluids. All this he elegantly illustrates by a comparison of the human body with the products of the earth. He teaches that in all cases the place of production is to be carefully inspected, that is, the neighboring bodies which contribute to the shaping of the figures of the inclusions. Thus, in the examination of rocks, he judges many things can be discovered which in the examination of the minerals themselves are sought in vain: since it is very probable that all those minerals which fill the spaces, fissures, or dilatations of rocks, had as their material the vapor expelled from the rocks themselves. Whether this is of perpetual and undoubted truth, I leave undecided, for fissures can also be filled otherwise than by vapors expelled from the rocks themselves.

Concerning the production of Crystal, he inquires with much subtlety: whether between fluid and fluid, or between fluid and solid, or indeed in the fluid itself it is produced. For he has no doubt that it is produced from a fluid; yet he denies that it is concreted by cold, or burnt into glass by the force of fire from ashes. For he thinks that not only by the force of fire is the production of glass made, but that it can also be done without the violence of fire and by human artifice: provided one institutes an accurate analysis of the rocks, in the cavities of which crystals are best formed. For it is certain that as crystal is concreted from a fluid, so it can also be resolved back into fluid, provided one knows how to imitate the true menstruum of Nature. Nor does it stand in the way that bodies, from which the whole menstruum has been driven out by the force of fire, can no longer be resolved: since there is another reason for those coagulated bodies which are concreted in a fluid menstruum, of which parts remain between the particles of the coagulated body. For the fluid in which the crystal grows bears the same relation to the crystal as common water does to salts. With glass prepared by the violence of fire the case is otherwise: for almost all its moisture is expelled.

I also recall, however, that even in common glass there can be obtained a certain singular liquor, which at least for a time renders it flexible, if it does not dissolve it: so that images may be formed from it, or characters impressed upon it. I made mention of this in my Letter to the Most Learned Mr. D. Major, written on the glass cup broken by sound. I add that, since the body of glass is composed of diverse bodies already concreted, which can each only be resolved by their proper menstrua, it is very likely that no menstruum can be given which would act upon bodies thus joined together.

To illustrate this doctrine, the history of artificial gems made through water and coagulant powder, which I mentioned in that letter, wonderfully contributes. I shall not recount it here, since your own Dissertation, published a year ago, and now in everyone’s hands, has already made it known. Light can also be added by an experiment I saw when I was staying in Amsterdam, at the house of the physician Birrius, not unknown through his published books in chemistry. He showed me certain little stones, sufficiently pellucid and elegant, and polished after the manner of gems, which he said he had made from a certain liquor which he displayed. That liquor was far more ponderous than ordinary water, though in clarity and transparency it equaled it. It tasted, however, of something faintly styptic and saline. He held it not only as a notable medicine, but also claimed he could effect marvels in the dissolution of bodies with it.

When he poured a few drops of it into Rhine wine, the wine gradually passed, after some interval of time, from yellow to a deep red color; and, if I rightly remember, even crystals sank to the bottom. I did not doubt that it was made from Tartar salt, for I detected a similar taste—though he concealed these secrets. From this liquor, when he had precipitated a powder, he exposed it to vitrifying fire until it condensed into a substance similar to crystal: from which he had had those gems formed for himself.

Of their hardness I cannot speak with certainty, since by neither touch nor sight could it be determined. If they did not surpass, at least they equaled the hardness of glass, since they were able to endure polishing.

Of the bodies which approach more nearly to the nature of metals, Steno holds that especially the lamellated bodies have concreted in a fluid and from a fluid. In this class is Talc, whose solid body, he says, can be resolved into fluid, since it is beyond controversy that it concreted from fluid. But those men err farthest from the truth who try to wring this gift from it by the torture of fire: for Nature (he says) has been accustomed to treat Talc more gently, and he is indignant at such cruelty among lovers of beauty; and in revenge Talc yields to Vulcan only that part of itself which it keeps enclosed, of its own resolving power.

Finally, even the more perfect metals might seem to have their origin from a certain liquor, if true be what Franciscus Lana reports in his Prodromo all’ Arte Maestra, ch. 20, which he claims to have been taught by experience. His very words, that fuller faith in the matter may be given, I will here adduce:

“Non direi questo, inquit, se io medesimo non havesse havuto fortuna di havere aliquanta di una simile miniera, dalla quale, con non molto artificio fu cavata una poca quantità di certo liquore aureo, che era la vera semenza di oro, ma per non esser conosciuto, tutto fu consumato congettarlo sopra una quantità di argento vivo bollente, il quale tutto subito congelossi, e accresciuto il fuoco restarono cinque parti di esso perfettamente fisso, cioè, a dire una mezza oncia di quel liquore fisso, due oncie e mezza di argento vivo; che se fosse stato maggiormente depurato e poi congiunto come anima al suo corpo proportionato, sarebbesi con esso potuta formare la vera pietra, ma sin hora non ho mai potuto ritrovare altra miniera simile a quella.”

That is: “I would not say this, unless by good fortune a certain mine (of gold he is speaking) had supplied me with some of it, from which, with no great artifice, a small quantity of a certain golden liquor was extracted, truly the seed of gold: but because I did not understand its worth, all that liquor was consumed in projection upon boiling argentum vivum, which was immediately congealed, and, fire being increased, five parts of it remained perfectly fixed: namely, half an ounce of that fixed liquor, two and a half of argentum vivum. Which, if they had been more purified, and afterwards united as a soul to its proportionate body, the true Stone could have been formed from it. But up to this day I have never been able to find another mine like that one.”

This author writes with great confidence; but the faith of these things let rest with him. Whether he truly extracted from a mine such a liquor as could fix argentum vivum; whether thence it had the seed of gold; or whether from the mingling of those bodies the Philosophers’ Stone (Lapidem Philosophorum) could be produced—let each one judge.

For our part, that we may at last bring forward our own opinion concerning these views: we hold that neither gems nor metals can be produced from water alone, taken simply. Metals, because they are corpora secunda mixta, what some call decomposta, in their constituent parts first mingled, perhaps acknowledge a primordial liquor; but one which does not appear in the very production of metals, and is useless for producing metal by art. But of these lower matters we shall speak further below.

As regards the concretion of gems and crystals from water, the matter does not yet seem to me sufficiently cleared up. For although, because they appear to have a simpler texture, by reason of their transparency, they may seem to approach nearer to the nature of water, nevertheless many doubts press upon the matter, which persuade that it may be otherwise. Be it so, that they are pellucid: but they are also hard, and brittle: which may be a sign that there is less moisture in them than in the metals themselves, whose ductility clearly shows a thickened liquor within.

Bernhard Palissy, who wishes them to be produced from water, thinks they are not composed of simple water, but of gems, one of which, which he calls congelantem, is nothing other than Salt, as Sorellus explains, or some other stony substance, different from the nature of water: so that even from his very principles it is clear that crystal is not a body ὁμοιομερές (homoeomerous).

The mixture of common stones is sufficiently shown by that observation of Peireskius, related by Gassendus in his Life of him: who drew out of water a viscous slime, which, upon contact with air, passed into stone.

What hinders, that even in crystals and gems, diverse juices or earths, but of purer nature, may be mixed? But in the cradles of crystals, most ingenious Steno found traces of waters, whence he judges them to have concreted. Yet perhaps those served in the place of vehicles, which carried the constitutive natures of the gems to those sites, but remained outside the body itself. Nor would I myself think it a sound argument to draw from this: that since crystals or gems are dissolved by this or that liquor, therefore they are composed of liquors. For I believe that many liquors can be found, or prepared by art, whose particles are so fitted that they pervade the spaces of certain compounds, and by their structure dissolve them—yet contribute nothing at all to their constitution.

By a certain accident in England there was found a most gentle vegetable liquor, which, pervading the hardest marble, tinged it within, in the innermost particles of the substance, with colors that had been admixed.

Berigardus, as he relates in his Circulus Pisanus, p. 534, dissolved pearls and many other things easily with that weak phlegm which first drops from the sharpest vinegar; but with that other, which is drawn out by the utmost force of fire, much sharper and more highly colored, he effected nothing. Yet from those liquors neither marble nor pearls owed their origin.

Even if we had that liquor, from which crystal either concreted or from which its substance was precipitated, yet I would not believe, as the very subtle Steno thinks, that it can be resolved again into liquid nature.

Finally, this too may seem likely to someone: that gems, if not all, at least some, might be compacted from diverse bodies by more violent fire, in the same way as glass is made by us.

Certainly those who profess the art χοστοποιητικὴ also teach that gems may be fabricated by fire, if I rightly remember; and they display before the eyes a kind of image of them, those adulterated ones, the preparation of which Antonius Nerius describes.

Chapter 3.

There are others again who derive the origin of metals from Salt. Yet those who think thus, do not all think the same. For some invent a certain universal Salt, by which they hope to effect—I know not what—miracles in all Nature, and even in the mineral kingdom. This opinion first gained strength in the time of Paracelsus, and was propagated down to these times by some of his followers, and by the Fratres Rosae Crucis. There also exists a specious book On the True Salt of the Philosophers, written by the Frenchman Nuisement, and translated into Latin by Combachius, where that opinion is both proposed and defended.

That salt they call heavenly, aethereal, aerial, universal: which they extract either from dew, or from air, or from nitre, or even from the excrements of animals. Whether such a thing exists, I certainly would not dare to define: assuredly the older school of chemists knew nothing of it. That salt can be extracted from air I would not deny; but that it is universal, I can scarcely believe. Saline particles of various kinds wander in the air, which, subtilized by subterranean fires and by the heat of the Sun, are carried up into the atmosphere, according to the nature of the underlying soil which supplies them: nitrous, vitriolic, or of some other kind, either singly or mingled together. Yet I would not ascribe to them universal or catholic powers.

Here, by occasion of this Dissertation, it conveniently occurs to me what I saw at Amsterdam, with that most ingenious man Theodorus Kerckringius. He showed me a considerable quantity of true and genuine but impure vitriol, which he had extracted from the air of Amsterdam—impregnated as it is with many effluvia of saline waters and marshy soil—by means of a certain machine. Truly great instruments of Nature’s Architecture are Fire and Salts: but various, as bodies and mixtures of bodies are various, whose ministry she employs, according to the disposition of the subjects, in their composition and dissolution. Yet they do not enter into their very essence.

Marvelous changes Nature produces in bodies, both metallic and others, by the help of salts, which, through subterranean channels, she scatters in disorderly fashion through the whole frame of the earth, and through all the veins and mines of metals. Whence it is that various small bodies of salts and sulphurs are usually found together in mines: which, however, one would scarcely dare to say pertain to the constitution of metals themselves.

I saw in England a Brabantine, who, by the moderation of fire alone, without any addition of another thing, could produce from the ore of Saturn [i.e. lead] true vitriol, true sulphur, common salt, nitre; he could also prepare vinegar, tincture, and many other things. This art, however, as a most secret matter, he intended to sell for no less than 200 aurei. He had received it from a certain Doctor at Paris: not to be despised, indeed, but of no consequence for the sum of metallurgy. For the metallic body was not composed from those things, which had only by chance flowed together at the place of the ore. From other materials he might perchance have produced other results; though he had tried the experiment only in the ore of lead and antimony. The ores of gold and silver, I think, he would not have overcome by his artifice.

Indeed, in every soil there is a peculiar saline substance, either singular or mixed with others, which difference a certain blind sailor was said to be able to detect by taste, as a most trustworthy man told me. For when a lump of clay was thrown into the sea near the land, the earth which adhered to the lump, being tasted by him, he could name without error the place where they were.

Hamelius, De Fossilibus, book 2, chapter 9, seems in some way to favor this opinion: for he makes the first rudiment of metal to be a certain false substance, soluble in water, which is gradually cooked, and at length no longer fears the injuries of air or water. But these things are said as mere conjecture, and without any show of truth. For what was that false substance? He himself cannot name it, nor is there any among the known which could serve that function.

Chapter 4.

There are, moreover, those who, leaving aside that universal salt—which they seek everywhere and find nowhere—descend to the known and common kinds. For when they see the powers of nitre, vitriol, and common salt in dissolving metallic bodies, they suspect that some other hidden arcana lie concealed beneath them. Their spirits are encouraged by those countless little stories which they have either heard by report, or read recorded in writing. Such are those of silver extracted from lead by the aid of spirit of salt, as reported by Johannes Fridericus Helvetius in his Vitulus Aureus; or of a good quantity of gold drawn forth from a certain Hungarian vitriol, as reported by Beccherus in his Physica Subterranea. These, however, happened rather by the separation of silver and gold already latent, than by any singular ingeneration. For I do not wish to call into doubt the faith of those men who have handed these things down to memory.

And I confess that I am not quick to believe what Salomon de Blauenstein—for thus he undoubtedly calls himself in writing, and openly professes himself a true disciple of the art χρυσοποιητική—has set forth in his Interpellation to the Philosophers concerning the Philosophers’ Stone against the Mundus Subterraneus of Kircher, chapter 2. There he says: “Why say more? I also could give another Epicherema against Father Kircher, if only he were present with me for three hours, and I could provide him, though incredulous, something to touch with his own hands: how from pure fine silver, entire and whole, pure fine gold is made by the addition of simple prepared salt, without any the least other addition.”

What he means by his simple prepared salt I do not know. If he means common salt, I admit that nothing more astonishing could be imagined, which so greatly contradicts the principles of the older chemists. Above all, some have labored to madness over vitriol and nitre. Some have filled entire volumes with these things: and though they themselves were blind, yet they wished to show the way to others, twisting into their own sense the sayings of the chemists, which they, deceived by the variety of names, did not rightly understand, nor could interpret correctly from the consensus of the authors—for the names of Vitriol and Nitre in them signify something other than what these men suppose.

How many so-called “processes” are circulated by impostors from vitriol! There exists also a Process from Vitriol by one Jodocus V. R., which is usually added to the works of Frater Basilius Valentinus, described with great display and labor, promising the highest medicine of men and of metals: but a friend of mine, who had operated according to its prescription, found it false in every respect, except in the very effect itself. The rest in it are fairly well. What a noise did Glauber make with his nitre, from which in so many books he promised miracles with wide open mouth! Many things in him are excellent and splendid; most are the offspring of ingenuity rather than of the heat of furnaces. Yet golden mountains we have not seen. In many things, however, Hamelius, in his De Fossilibus, follows his authority—though he ought first to have tested it.

I do not deny indeed that astonishing effects in nature may be produced by these salts, and especially by nitre: but that they can produce the metal itself I doubt. For plainly it belongs to another family of minerals, and is not by nature fitted for constituting that slow and viscous metallic humor. Meanwhile, if they appear under the form of a sharper spirit, they exercise a tyrannical power upon those bodies; if, however, reduced by a gentler fire into a subtler and more benign nature, they even seem to elicit tincture from gold itself, and to carry it with them through the alembic. These things may perhaps be of some use in medicine; but in the amendment of metals, since it belongs only to corporeal nature, it is ineffective.

Some speak everywhere of the marvelous powers of the subtle spirit of nitrous salt extracted from May dew. They write that with the spirit and oil of this salt, which is prepared from May dew, those at the point of death may be recalled, and tincture may be drawn forth from gold.

It is astonishing how Borellus (Centuria 1, Observation 6) triumphs in this secret, which he investigated more deeply: “After many labors and vigils endured in searching into nature’s arcana, I at last obtained the secret of dissolving gold, that is, a benign menstruum, which kindly dissolves gold within a few hours, and without smoke—indeed without fire—dissolved it can be reduced to the nature of a salt and of an oil; of which 3, 4, or 6 grains, administered according to different ages, within about four hours by copious sweats cured malignant, purple, epidemic, and obstinate fevers.”

But let the readers know, he adds, that this was effected by the spirit of dew, according to the doctrine of Sendivogius. Many will say: why then do I not procure a supply of it for myself? But let them know that the expenses surpass the profit. It is noteworthy (he further adds) that the gold collectors of the river Gard, near the town of Vigan, affirm that drops of dew adhere every morning to each grain of gold in the sand, and that they are nourished thereby. This dew, by long digestion, I rendered black, then very white, and then citrine; but it did not produce projection.

He afterwards added some particulars about the method of preparation, which you may read there. Moreover, it has been observed that if leaves of gold be cast into the dew itself—not into the spirit of it—and digested with it for some time by a gentle fire, they at last disappear; but when afterwards the dew is filtered, there remains at the bottom of it a substance like wool or snow, of the happiest use in affections of the heart. Some ascribe this to the dew or to the spirit of dew; others to the spirit or essence of honey, which itself also consists of dew. For it is said to dissolve gold and to seize its tincture through the alembic, which may be like potable gold (aurum potabile), and may accomplish marvelous things in the transmutation of metals.

And I myself saw some tincture of gold prepared in this way by a man who, hoping for I know not what treasures from it, had sold this secret at a high price to a certain prince. But if anyone wishes to know it for free, let him consult Johannes Nardius Florentinus, Disquisitiones Physicae de Rore, chapter 23, where he teaches the mode of preparation.

Mathesius Sareptensis, Concio 3, observed that a golden coin, sprinkled several times with dew or May rain and dried by the Sun, or buried in the earth, became heavier. Yet although all these things are spoken of with enough plausibility, they do not move me to assign any part, either to nitre or to the spirit of dew or of honey, in the making of gold, or in dissolving it radically. Those liquors, or rather the salts mixed with liquors, act only in the ordinary way, as all corrosive waters do: but because they are more attenuated and subtle, they also tear away subtler particles, which the alembic can drive over without any trouble of fire, yet not disjoined from their own natures.

This is my opinion concerning nitre, or the nitrous salt contained in dew, with regard to operations upon metals: though I am not ignorant of its great powers in the generation of Vegetables and Animals. I will produce a notable example of it, unless you, Most Noble Sir, dislike such a digression beyond the bounds of our argument. That eels can be produced by art, I had neither ever heard reported, nor read in any writer of natural history; but I learned on my recent journey that farmers in Belgium accomplish this by the benefit of dew. At first I refused to believe the tale: but afterwards I came upon the writing of Abraham Mylius, On the Origin of Animals and the Migration of Peoples, and I read of the same artifice there, book 10, p. …, whose words I will quote:

“In the month of May, when there is heavy dew, cut and dig up with a hoe from a grassy field two equal turfs before sunrise, and place them, grassy sides together, on the bank of some pond on the north side, where the Sun casts its rays most strongly. You will then see, after a few hours have passed, a swarm of young eels as it were sprouting forth. In this way one man, not without profitable success, has generated in his ponds a great number of eels.”

And this experiment seems likely, because in eels no seed is ever found, nor any organs of generation: so that much debate has arisen among writers of Natural History concerning their origin. If you ask fishermen, they teach that they are produced from certain small worms which are generated at a fixed time of the year in the flesh of all kinds of fish. I myself have more than once discovered these worms.

You may also read in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of England, p. 35, the observations of Thomas Henshaw, a noble Englishman, concerning the generation of worms from putrefied dew. And I myself recall that the generation of bees from putrefied hydromel was noted by someone.

Finally, to dew alone must be ascribed that resurrection of plants from ashes, concerning which Caramuel and Hardtoffer have written in their books; Voigtinus in a special Dissertation has treated it; and Kircher promised to make an entire book out of it. Great therefore is the power of this salt in the production of vegetables and animals: but though metals may be vexed and variously affected by it, they cannot be improved, changed, increased, or made fruitful by it, as is the case in vegetables.

Chapter 5.

From the family of salts we proceed directly to the metals. Among these, the first of all to be addressed is argentum vivum (quicksilver), truly a marvelous substance, which fashions and refashions itself into a thousand forms, in whatever way it is treated by art. Pliny calls it the vomica of eternal liquor: for it is liquid and flowing. And since with wondrous love it embraces gold, and unites itself with it most intimately, and seems beyond the other metals to be only another humor and the rudiment of a metal, very many, indeed, have thought that they discerned in it the first being of the metals, so to speak. Nor are there lacking today those who assert the same—though not made wiser by the shipwrecks of so many in that sea.

Added to this is that venerable name of Mercury, which occurs so frequently in the writings of the chemists: so many descriptions, so many requisites conspire together, that even the most cautious are deceived by them. Some will have the Virgin Mercury, produced by Nature herself, not yet tried by voracious flames; others, that extracted by art from the other metals. Whether this be possible has until now been doubted; but the truth of this artifice was shown in your Epistle, Most Illustrious Sir. Yet I judge that this differs in nothing from the vulgar mercury, whatever others may think.

For since marvelous, and almost imperceptible, is that dissipation of Mercury into the smallest parts, which happens in mines by subterranean fires, it readily insinuates itself into and mixes with metals—but not radically. Some of its particles vanish into the air at the first fusion of the metal: those which cling more tenaciously remain, and at last are drawn out by the help of salts, and separated from the rest of the particles. This is more easily done in ores into which it has entered more freely, and from which it is more quickly expelled. When by fusion the metallic particles are more closely joined, all things succeed with greater difficulty.

From Antimony and lead it can be extracted not without ease, more easily still from its own ores. Grind the ore of lead into fine powder, and move a golden stylus in it for a little while, and particles of Mercury will at once adhere to the gold. Nor does it mix itself only with metals, but also with wood. I had from a friend a piece of wood, cut from a tree grown in metalliferous soil, in which throughout all its fibers and veins were disseminated particles of argentum vivum, so that by vigorous shaking they could even be dislodged—which was easily done, since the paths in wood are looser than in metal. I showed it, when I was in London, to the illustrious Robert Boyle, who believed that such wood could also be produced by art. But be that as it may. Yet in the same way, namely by sublimation, this is effected both by Nature and by Art.

The author of the book L’Europe Vivante, tome 1, part 2, relates, on the report of a certain English nobleman, the case of a workman who had long labored in the mines of Mercury, into whose whole body its minute particles had so penetrated, that a piece of copper grew white at the breath of his mouth or the blowing of his fingers, as if the very body of Mercury had been rubbed upon it. I therefore altogether believe that those are mistaken who, because they see Mercury can be drawn out from metals, at once think that metals are composed of it intrinsically. Yet I confess that the arguments we have set forth above are so specious, that they may easily draw someone into that opinion.

But from so many experiments nothing has yet been accomplished, and with one voice all the more prudent chemists cry out: that they have nothing to do with the vulgar Mercury, that they do not want argentum vivum currens, which Lullius somewhere calls the subventanean egg, but another metallic substance, immature yet not impure at its root, which they call their own Mercurius: that without this, common quicksilver has no use in the transmutation of metals.

This I could confirm by their countless statements, did I not know these things to be already familiar to you. Yet I know some who, by the so-called particular way, boast of having made from argentum vivum a nobler metal—though without profit. Of which I shall speak in what follows. How many labors, moreover, have been expended upon Antimony, from which not a few hoped to obtain that greatest secret of Nature! But in it there is no genuine metallic Mercury, such as is required for composing the most perfect metallic bodies: as is plain from the fragility of its texture. Perhaps there is hidden in it some portion of purer sulphur, whence a certain particular transmutation may be granted. This seems to be hinted at by Basil Valentine in his Triumphal Chariot of Antimony, and by his commentator *Theodorus Kerckringius. For to the Great Work, by their own confession, it contributes nothing. Yet most useful remedies lie hidden in it, especially for diseases arising from infection of the blood, which it has power to subdue almost miraculously. These Basil Valentine extols even to the skies with praises, and Kerckringius confirms by his experiments.

There are not lacking those who, either from one immature metal, or from the union of two—one perfect, the other imperfect—by long coction alone, which imitates the subterranean operations of Nature, think to produce a more perfect metal: since metallurgists discover in Nature that the ores of lead, in process of time, are changed into silver. In this opinion was that most sagacious investigator of natural things, Bacon of Verulam, who in the Historia Naturalis, Centuria 4, prescribed a method by which it seemed to him possible to transmute a baser metal into a nobler.

After he had listed the requisites of this work, finally, at number 327, he prescribes the process in this way: “Let a narrow furnace be prepared, and a temperate heat be excited, such indeed that the metal may be perpetually melted and preserved, but not a more vehement one; for this is most conducive to the matter. Let the material be silver, the metal which most symbolizes with gold, and let one-tenth part of quicksilver (Mercurius vivus) also be added to it, together with one-twelfth of nitre, in just weight, which serve by enlivening to open the body of the metal. The operation must be continued for at least six months. I wish also that oily substances be sometimes added, such as are employed in recovering gold, when it has been embittered by the torments of separation; in order that the parts may be more lightly and closely disposed. This is of great importance to the undertaking. For gold, as is well known, is the most compact, of all metals the heaviest, and the most flexible and extensible.”

So Bacon of Verulam; and a friend of mine in London confirmed to me that he had truly held this opinion. For although in his writings everywhere he speaks but lightly of the study of metallic chemistry, yet in his private studies he most diligently treated of the matter, not without great expense, and by that very method which he here prescribed to himself. But he effected nothing at all, nor indeed could anything be effected by that path, as anyone skilled in these things can easily perceive.

So also Fr. Lana, in the passage we praised above: he supposes that gold amalgamated with Mercury, if long digested by fire, is at length changed into the Philosophical Elixir. Yet this is not to be despised, that Bacon required exact regulation of the fire: by this alone sometimes more is accomplished than by six hundred other aids. Wherefore nothing do even the older chemists more insist upon, and I myself know many of his experiments to be quite successful.

Who does not know that the calcination of Talc is reckoned a most difficult matter? Roast it in the greatest fire at pleasure, and even for a long time, and it will stubbornly elude all the force of the flames. Yet I have seen within half an hour, by a very small fire, and with rude artifice to the eye, its whole substance so calcined that, the yellow color being taken away, it became spongy, and under the fingers could be crumbled into the finest powder. Hence it is clear that Talc is not so indomitable by fire as some have believed, who thought they had discovered in it something like gold, especially in the yellow.

In which opinion they were not altogether wrong: for even today metallurgists know how to separate gold from it, and there lies hidden in it a purer sulphur than you might suppose. And a friend once told me that he knew a physician who, with sulphur extracted by a singular artifice from this body, was able to cure incurable diseases, and placed it in the highest rank, next to the greatest Elixir. This is also attested by Martinus Martini, in his Atlas Sinicus, p. 79.

Talc reduced to lime and mixed with wine is received by the Chinese physicians as a singular medicine for prolonging life. From this experiment, therefore, it may be seen how often also in the kingdom of Vulcan:

— Tranquil power accomplishes
What violence cannot;

how sometimes gentler flames prevail over harder bodies, while stronger ones are resisted. To this dissertation, since I am now upon it, I will give further attention, and—unless my talkativeness be burdensome to you—I will confirm it by most choice examples; although not all from near at hand, yet some from afar may nevertheless illustrate our subject.

When I lived at Amsterdam, Theodorus Kerckringius confessed to me that he had made from quicksilver (argentum vivum) both true silver and true gold. For he showed me four metallic pieces, equal in thickness to a man’s finger-ring: the first like tin; the second like silver; the third was yellowish; the fourth in color answered to gold. These were made by the mere regimen of fire, from argentum vivum, with the addition of a certain very small powder (which I suspected to have been made from Antimony, nor did he himself seem to assert with certainty that it was otherwise). And it appears that he himself, in some places of his Commentary upon Basil Valentine’s Triumphal Chariot of Antimony, hints at this.

I also saw at the same man’s workshop a remarkable artifice: that amber could be dissolved by the mere ministry of fire, with no other thing added. For he showed me the corpses of infants coated with amber, so that all their members were transparent. He also showed me a glass phial filled with such amber dissolved and then congealed again. How splendidly thus the bodies of great men might be embalmed and preserved from putrefaction! For without any evisceration of the bodies, against all injury of air and moisture, in this new tincture of amber they would lie as if clad in armor.

What profit might not arise from this invention, since fragments of amber—the larger they are, the more precious they are esteemed, and in the East they are valued beyond gold—could thus be produced here in whatever quantity one wished? Therefore that which in so many ways was attempted by the most ingenious chemists, is now owed to the regimen of fire alone. Long and much, I confess, have I exercised my mind in investigating the nature of amber: and indeed the novelty of this invention compels me, though the matter be somewhat foreign to my theme, not to withhold myself even now.

Concerning the origin of amber, the matter is uncertain. Some regard it as the offspring of the sea; others, who judge that it proceeds from the earth, whose opinion seems to me the more probable: for terrestrial animals and insects are found enclosed in amber everywhere; a matter which our most illustrious colleague Dr. Major will one day explain more fully in his book On the Non-Maritime Origins of Amber. But in truth it is frequently produced in places where Pines and Turpentines grow, which might be an argument that it arises from a certain similar viscous substance, such as is found in those trees, dispersed through the earth, and coagulated by saline particles of the neighboring sea, or from elsewhere. For many things argue a nature almost the same: its inflammability, and its odor, which differs little from that of burning Cyprian turpentine; and the fact that from the juices of those trees by art amber can be made, as the Chinese even today make it, according to the testimony of Martinus in his Atlas Sinicus, p. 65.

He says that some think it arises from the clarified marrow of pines, hardened and rendered pellucid over long time. And I indeed saw that from pine-pitch or resin by decoction it can be made by art, and so excellently separated by the Chinese, that it might provoke envy of the genuine. I myself judge that an oily humor of very similar nature can be dissolved.

Impure amber also can be corrected and refined by art, as Glauber teaches in his De Furnis Philosophicis, by spirit of salt rectified: but then it loses that hardness, and will endure only in a cold place, or moderately warm. If the heat is more intense than is fitting, it melts and is dissolved. I know men who tried this experiment with good result: if only anyone knew another art by which amber could again be solidified, he would then be superior to Nature’s arts. Yet even Nature sometimes presents it in an unelaborated form, such as was that piece which was soft on one side, hard on the other, and upon which the most noble Oldenburg was able to impress his seal, of which he himself makes mention in the Philosophical Transactions, p. 2061. Nature also is wont to paint it with various characters, such as the piece lately sent to me by the most noble Johannes Tintorius, Councillor of the Most Serene Elector of Brandenburg, in which the letter D was drawn by a clear line of Nature, and, being most courteous, he promised to send me also other letters of the Alphabet so delineated in amber.

Since therefore I judge this opinion of the origin of amber most probable, I think the author of the book L’Europe Vivante is deceived, who in tome 1, part 2, supposes it to arise from honey, which, collected by bees on the stones of the shore of the Indian Ocean, after the cooking of the Sun, falls into the sea, and, clothed with sea-salt, is cast up by the sea upon the shores of other regions. He cites the authority of some chemist, who found in fractured amber a soft substance similar in taste to honey, and which, after its solution by spirit of tartarized wine, still remained. But anyone can easily see that all these things are absurd, so that it is not worth while to dwell on them. But enough has been said about amber, on the occasion of its solution, which is effected by fire alone. Let us now return from this digression to our path—namely, to the use of fire in chemical labors, if rightly administered.

Of which I would here repeat another example, mentioned above, of the Brabantine, who by one artifice of fire was able to draw forth almost twenty different things from a single ore of Saturn (lead). But how, without fire, any spirits whatsoever may be drawn from animals, plants, woods, stones, and other bodies, or their parts—a procedure proposed by Magnus Pegelius in his Thesaurus Rerum Selectarum, p. 109—that remains buried among his other arcana. For (to note this in passing) that author, who was a physician and philosopher at the University of Rostock, published in 1604 certain Lemmas of singular inventions, both physical and mathematical, among which were many either conceived or indicated by him, which in our time have been discovered and brought to light by others.

Chapter 6.

Furthermore, those who do not find the causes of metals in the earth attempt to derive them from the heavens, or at least to deduce the principal part constituting them from there. Hence certain Planets are assigned to certain metals, to which they are believed to owe their origin, and they are even greeted by the same names; so that we may have, as it were, new subterranean stars. Although this opinion is attacked by some, because no evident reason can be given for it, yet it is by no means to be utterly despised, since it is not born merely from χρῆς ἢ πειθών [necessity or persuasion], but defends itself by its antiquity; as the most learned Borricchius shows in his excellent work On the Origin and Progress of Chemistry, whose coffers I will not pillage. That in the great globes of this world—especially the planetary ones—whether as a whole system, or in their nobler parts, among which in the terrestrial globe the metallic spirits must absolutely be reckoned, scattered through this vast body, there should be no sympathy or mutual efficacy, no one will easily persuade me. But since the faculty of observation extends beyond human ingenuity, we cannot define anything accurately; yet neither ought we to explode and reject what we find handed down by others, especially by the ancients, concerning it.

We readily perceive the powers of the Sun and Moon upon these lower things. To the former commerce with gold, to the latter with silver, is vulgarly attributed—without now saying anything of the other metals. The similarity between Sun and gold is shown by their splendor and heat, which proceeds from sulphur most perfectly digested, and which is believed to be instilled into this metal by the Sun. If we are willing to listen to the opinion of Honoratus Fabri, which however he pronounces as a hypothesis: the very substance of the Sun consists of gold melted. It is therefore no wonder if it also scatters these seeds through the earth, and produces therein a substance similar to itself. Digby reports—but from the word of a friend—that the rays of the Sun, through glass and concave vessels disposed in a certain way, were precipitated into a purple and most minute powder. Who, when he reads this, would not, with the credulous, exclaim concerning the sulphur of nature? But he who told this to Digby deceived himself with pleasing illusion. For in the air there always float particles, either saline or of some other kind, which, collected by this mirror-fire and burnt or calcined to redness, appear in such a form. Already Paracelsus had written of a Solar powder collected from mirrors by the rays of the Sun, by which, duly prepared, we might excite the fiery nature within ourselves, and enter into some commerce with fiery demons. But these are impostures.

The vulgar opinion concerning the Sun is, that it generates gold in lead and copper, with which temples and houses are wont to be covered. Though Honoratus Fabri calls this an old wives’ tale, I yet know men who, from old lead and tin, by repeated calcinations and reductions, have extracted no small profit of gold and silver; whether it proceeded from certain hidden causes, or whether it was merely separated.

For as to lead and copper laid up in roofs: by continual rains, in which lie hidden the most subtle saline particles, and by the heat of the Sun, in those metals (since no metal is altogether solitary) something of purer metal might have been matured. Albinus, in his Chronicon Metalicum, p. 29, observes that in the mines of Schneeberg, abundant silver was always found under the entrance of Saturn into the sign of Cancer, with the Moon assisting. Concerning pearls, Garcia ab Horto reports that those taken after the full Moon diminish and decay with time; but those taken before the full Moon are not subject to this defect. Is it not well known concerning gems, whose watery blemishes undergo changes with the Moon? We perceive the powers of the Moon in the bodies of animals and in vegetables. These Isaacus Vossius in his book On the Motion of the Sea tried with many arguments to refute—yet Experience teaches otherwise.

Chapter 7.

We shall now enter the game of the Chemists and listen to their oracles. They are ever inculcating upon us their Mercurius and Sulphur. If you examine what lies hidden under these names (for they do not wish them to be taken in their vulgar sense), they will thrust upon you six hundred words, obscure and enigmatic descriptions, in which one must hunt for meaning, and gather them together, as it were, like the torn members of Hippolytus, from here and there. Yet when you have done this, you will find a consensus among them—except that the most recent sect of Chemists, after the time of Paracelsus, added to those two, Mercurius and Sulphur, a third principle, namely Sal. I do not wish here to discuss at length the number of these principles, whether they belong to every body, and how much they differ from the common principles; for this has been most learnedly and copiously disputed by the illustrious Robert Boyle in his Sceptical Chymist, and by Hamelius, in his book On the Agreement of the Old and New Philosophy, lib. 2, c. 4. The ancients, before Paracelsus, did not establish these two as common principles, as our moderns would have it, but only as metallic principles. In this matter, I think they are to be heard before others, since by actual use they more correctly learned the nature of metals, than those who follow only their own reasonings and opinions.

Those more remote principles of bodies, namely the elements and atoms, they did not consider to belong to their art: for metals are not immediately composed of these, and it is given only to Nature herself to produce something from them. Closer principles, however, can be handled by the hands of men and drawn into some work. If you read their books carefully, and compare their opinions with one another, you will see that they do not teach absurdities, but things which can be reconciled very well with the schools of the ancient philosophers, Plato and Aristotle—as Hamelius, in De Fossilibus, lib. 2, c. 9, has reconciled them, having there gathered and judged the various opinions of different philosophers concerning the generation of metals; so that we may spare ourselves that labor.

By Mercurius and Sulphur they do not mean what we commonly so call: for those, rather, are metallic dregs to them, than true principles. Mercurius, or rather argentum vivum, so far as we can gather from their writings, is to them a metallic substance from the family of the more perfect metals, immature, most fluid with gentle heat, ponderous, volatile, supremely ductile—not the running quicksilver of the vulgar, but the one and highest agent of metallic nature. This they describe under six hundred names, yet by no single one do they call it or demonstrate it. This, they say, is found crude in Nature; whence, by the highest art, they draw forth a most pure, viscous substance, which is a nearer material for constituting metal. This indeed is a principle common also to the other metals; but according as sulphur—purer or more impure—tempers it, it acquires this or that mission, whence the various species of metals are vulgarly constituted. Whether these be rightly so called is a useless dispute, and does not greatly help or hinder the affair of the Alchemists.

They bid us seek this material in the cradles of the more perfect metals; and since nothing can be hoped for among the perfect metals from compact gold, we must look to silver, or to something akin to it, as innumerable passages of the authors intimate, from which a whole volume might be filled. I will give a handful of these, as it were, by way of sample.

In the chapters ascribed to Hermes, the Stone itself is made to speak thus: “The Moon is my own, and my light surpasses every light.” Arnoldus, in the Semita of Hermes, explains it thus: “His father is the Sun, his mother the Moon.” By the Sun we understand gold, by the Moon silver. And he adds: “Now therefore I have sufficiently demonstrated to you …”

The Rosarium Majus: “Our Magnesia is the full Moon, the Mercurius of the Philosophers, that is, the matter in which the Mercurius of the Philosophers is contained. And it is that which Nature has gradually worked, and formed into a metallic form: yet left imperfect.”

An anonymous author: “It is necessary that the Sun should have a receptacle suitable and consonant for its seed and its tincture, and this is the Moon, that is, silver.”

Sendivogius (or rather Setonius) in Treatise XI calls it the menstruum from the Sphere of the Moon, which can calcine the Sun.

The Scala Philosophorum: “Aid therefore the solution by the Moon, and the coagulation by the Sun.”

The Turba repeatedly calls it the Spirit of the Moon.

But who can enumerate all? We see hence in what direction they point the finger. This material they call fire, water, vinegar—which works upon the perfect metals in such a way as fire upon inflammable bodies, water upon salts and ice, vinegar upon bodies which can be dissolved by it.

One would need to search the mines, whether such a thing might be found in them; for in the writers on metals there is little wisdom here to be had. They describe not a few species of immature or formless silver; but who has ever seen or examined them? At times it appears in the form of a sluggish liquid, which afterwards coagulates into the best silver. A memorable history of this is related by Albinus, Berg-Chronicon, p. 110, which perhaps it will not be unpleasing to insert here in the author’s very words:

In the Count of Hohenstein’s mines in the Harz, especially on Enders-Berg, at the most famous shaft called Samson, this memorable and unheard-of thing happened: that there was found a white liquid silver, resembling quicksilver, which flowed out of the vein and outside, so that it could be gathered with the hands, and as soon as it came into the fire, from that moment it became true silver, as I have been told by trustworthy people. Some say the ore was like buttermilk; but as soon as it was held in the air for a while, or even preserved in vessels in which it was thought it could be kept soft, it hardened like sand or grit, and its white color turned to brown or sooty.

So much for this wonderful material, nearly answering to what Matthesius relates of his Gur, though it did not yet approach the nature of pure silver. The same Albinus, p. 127 of the same book, adduces notable things concerning different kinds of silver ore, which I prefer to leave for reading in that place, lest I fill my pages with too many testimonies.

Perhaps also worthy of contemplation are the things which Nieremberg, Historia Naturalis lib. 16, cap. 19, reports of a certain singular metal used for the solution of silver: Quicksilver, he says, was known only to the barbarians, but was of no use; for in place of it, for the benefit of silver, another metal was substituted, found in another lower hill lying near the mount of Potosi. The Indians call it huayna Potochi, that is: “the youth of Potosi.” Here was found a certain baser metal, almost lead, mixed with silver, which was used in place of mercury. They call it Zuruckhe, which means “that which causes to slip away,” because by its inflation the silver was made fluid, and not burned.

These are the traces we find in the writings of the Chemists concerning the first principle of metals, Mercurius, which, however, they cover so carefully that none may penetrate too deeply into their mysteries. Nothing indeed do they hide more studiously than this matter, on which the whole business of alchemy depends.

Their second principle is Sulphur: a spirituous, penetrating thing, coagulating metallic matter, the sources of which they do not dissemble. They wish, however, that it be drawn from gold, but through its material vehicle; for they despise the sulphurs of the other metals, as impure.

Some deduce its first origin from the Sun and the stars, but all that is uncertain. Others from subterranean fires—which is not altogether absurd. For since the earth is a compound of all the first natures that are necessary for the generation of mixed bodies, there must necessarily be within it a great force of fire, without which nothing can be generated or mingled.

It must needs have for its familiars oily natures of various kinds, with which it is first mingled, whence to the outward parts oily vapors, now purer, are driven forth, more or less well cooked. These, mingled with water or earth, seem to produce various species.

And these are not only those commonly known to us—sulphur, bitumen, and the like—but many more, unknown to us, to which fire is especially familiar, and which spontaneously strive toward mutual mixture, so that they cannot be separated.

For combustion of oily things seems to be nothing else than the separation of fire from those matters in which it dwells. Therefore, since the Sulphur of the Chemists is truly an oleaginous substance, yet incombustible, and yet (as they say) fire embodied, or the nature of fire, it is most probable that it descends from such a first mixture.

Hamelius, De Fossilibus, lib. 2, cap. 9, p. 246, thinks that this sulphur is not to be deduced from the stars nor from central fire. To him its nature seems the same as that of vulgar sulphur, except that by long alteration it becomes fixed, pure, and incorruptible. A judgment not to be wholly despised.

For I remember reading in the writings of the Chemists, and unless I am mistaken, in the Correctorium of Richardus Anglicus, that within the nature of common sulphur there lies hidden that incombustible sulphur, and that it can be restored to gold whose sulphur has been extracted, as if from its own entrails.

This recalls to me a story, which I read in a certain manuscript book written in German, concerning gold extracted by the help of common sulphur and copper, or rather matured in copper; which I will insert entire here:

Gregorius Eusebius von Madrit told me that a certain Chemist came to Montanus and begged a small opportunity to labor, which was granted him. Then the operator took a hundredweight of copper, and kept it always in flux, and continually added sulphur, and thus wanted to bring the copper to ripeness. At length the neighbors complained of the stench, and Montanus dismissed him. But he greatly lamented that he had not been able to complete it. After some time Montanus broke open the furnace in which he had worked, and found a pool of ten ounces of gold sticking in the hearth, which had run down through a crack. Montanus wrote to him in vain, but he himself restored it to the Prince of Anhalt.

The faith of this story I leave in the middle; nor indeed do I advise anyone to spend money on an uncertain matter. Yet I was unwilling to omit it, since it illustrates our subject.

As for the parts of metals, which the Chemists so distinguish, no doubt seems now to remain. For what some thought—that the substance of gold consists of similar parts—is false, since its Sulphur, or tincture, can be separated from it.

In the baser metals, especially copper, this can be done, as many experiments have shown.

Hamelius, De Fossilibus, lib. 2, cap. 7, bears witness to the same concerning gems. There are some who, taking gems of lesser note—such as amethyst, sapphire, chrysolite—place them, laid upon an iron plate, with quicklime or steel filings, and cover them with live coals, so that by heat gradually increased they are stripped of their native colors, and put on the appearance of diamond. For if hardness and clarity be present in the stone, it will hardly differ from diamond.

If this should succeed, we would have a great secret of confecting nobler from ignobler gems. Yet the colors of artificial stones are sometimes washed away by corrosive liquids. In the vegetable order the same can be done. What dyes more than saffron? And yet from saffron its whole color can be so separated—as I know, taught by a most noble man—that I can present under a crystalline liquid of perfect transparency all saffron’s odor and taste, yet with no appearance of saffron; though the viewer sees nothing like saffron, the taster perceives pure saffron, or its most subtle essence.

This much astonished those to whom I showed that liquid, which is also used in medicine with great success. From gold too, though more tenaciously it clings there, sulphur or tincture—called also the soul of gold—can be separated, as both ancient and recent Chemists attest; which is confirmed also by Franciscus Luna, in that place of his book which we cited above.

And it is done thus: As much weight as the gold had from which the tincture is extracted, so much silver, if the tincture be cast upon it, will it tinge with its color and convert into gold itself. When this is done, a pale mass of gold remains, equally ponderous as before, to which its color can be restored by cementing. Something similar concerning such tincture of gold cast upon argentum vivum was publicly reported at Venice, by the learned Italian Alexander Tassonus, in a book written in his native tongue, entitled Pensieri diversi, lib. 10, cap. 26. I will insert his very words:

Among the most curious properties of Alchemy, none equals that of the examination of gold, whereby a great mass of it is reduced to a very small powder of purplish color, which by some is called the Stone of the Philosophers. Cast into a quantity of Mercury, made to boil over a gentle fire, it converts as much of it into gold as corresponds to the original weight (namely of the golden mass whence the powder was extracted). Whatever quantity of Mercury exceeds that measure, it fixes into silver. This experiment was publicly shown in Venice a few years ago.

So much this author concerning that tincture of gold, which, by his own judgment, he calls the Philosophers’ Stone. But the two differ as widely as heaven itself.

Nevertheless, he testifies that the thing was publicly done in Venice. And many believe that the Republic of Venice holds such an arcanum, which they say was communicated to its Senate by Johannes Augustus Pantheus, a Venetian priest, who also wrote a certain most obscure book on an art which by a barbarous name he called Voarchadumia, wholly different from Alchemy, and dedicated it to the Doge of Venice. It is found in the second volume of the Theatrum Chemicum.

The more sagacious have conjectured from this—that no foreign gold or silver coin has legal tender there, but must be exchanged for other money; and since they have no mines of gold, yet the Venetians strike golden coin, which in color exceeds by a certain degree all native gold, however fine. Perhaps to this also may be referred what Matthesius records in Sarepta conc. 11, concerning the Venetians—that they yearly fetch much red sulphur from Carinthia, to use in tincturing. But nothing certain can be pronounced here, for all is conjecture.

Most memorable of all is the story of sulphur aurum extractum, which, together with the judgment of Robert Boyle from his Physiological Essays, Essay 2, On Experiments which do not succeed, I will now adduce.

He relates: The matter was seriously told me by D. D. K., a man most alien from all habit of falsehood, if any ever was. He affirmed to me that, having left his laboratory in Batavia to a friend when he went abroad, and having left there certain kinds of Aqua Fortis prepared for his scarlet tincture, that friend shortly after his departure wrote to him, that in digesting gold in one of those Aqua Fortis, he had drawn forth a tincture, or yellow sulphur, from it, rendered volatile, the remaining substance of the metal tending toward saltness; and with this golden tincture he had transmuted silver, not without profit, into the most perfect gold. Hearing this, D. D. K. immediately returned to his laboratory, and with the same Aqua Fortis himself several times obtained the volatile tincture of gold, which likewise converted silver into true gold. And when I asked him whether the tincture itself could transmute into gold a quantity of silver equal in weight to that of the gold from which it was extracted, he confessed that from one ounce of gold he obtained only one ounce of sulphur or tincture, which was sufficient to turn a corresponding ounce of silver into the noblest metal.

And this (adds Boyle) I am the more inclined to believe, both because it is more certain to me from some experiments, than that it should be doubted, that the yellow substance or tincture can be separated from gold; and also because silver contains within itself a certain sulphur, which by maturation may become gold. Hence it seems probable to me what some most skilled in the metallic art, and attesting on the faith of their own observations, have said: that sometimes by the help of dissolving liquors (which also Francis Bacon somewhere noted), sometimes by the benefit of common sulphur (well roasted and combined with suitable salts), certain grains of most pure gold have been extracted from silver.

However, our Doctor’s conceived hopes of riches from this experiment utterly deceived him: for shortly afterward, when he repeated the operation, it again mocked him; the blame he cast upon the aqua fortis, and so determined to attempt the work anew.

But since all his efforts have hitherto come to nothing, it seems probable that the error arose from some latent cause: for we know such accidents have happened to others, without remedy of any kind.

From these things, therefore, which we have set forth at length, we may easily perceive that sulphur, as in all metals, so also in gold, is distinct and separable, from which its color depends. And thus the reason may be elegantly explained, whence the yellow color in gold arises.

For since sulphur is for the most part purplish, while the rest of the mass of gold is white, it is necessary that from the accurate mixture of purplish and white particles the yellow color should arise—just as when copper and zinc are mixed together in due proportion, there is produced a substance which in yellow color and outward appearance can rival the best gold.

If, therefore, sulphur is absent, or extracted, the gold is white, which the vulgar call luna fixa, since it retains the weight of gold and persists in aqua fortis. To this, if its golden color can be restored—as they teach it can be restored—great profit might be acquired. Though even Boyle, in the place cited above, reckons this among uncertain experiments.

Moreover, the differing nature of sulphur or color in gold is shown by this: that it can be intensified and increased by cements of a sulphureous nature, though impure.

Gold can also be so mixed with certain substances and roasted by fire, that when it is poured into reguli, as they call them, the first is almost red, the second citrine, the third so faint in color that you can scarcely believe it to be gold. Whence it appears that the best sulphureous particles are precipitated in the first fusion, as in the first distillation the best parts are wont to fall, being joined more closely, and again capable of separation.

It has often been told to me by men skilled in this matter, that Rhenish gold, whose color is paler and for that cause of lesser price, can by cements be so treated that it rivals in color the Hungarian gold itself.

The same was confirmed to me, when I was in England, by a certain noble Bohemian, concerning a Venetian who had acquired such vast riches by this art, that the Senate began to inquire into him. Whereupon, the causes of his wealth being discovered, his gains from that time ceased.

That the same was also long ago practiced in France, there is no light suspicion, suggested to me by Thomas Freigius, Physicorum lib. 26, p. 708. He judges indeed that Rhenish gold was there mixed with nobler gold: for the French prohibited the export of Rhenish gold; and yet thousands of gold coins were yearly sent into France by merchants, which, however, rarely appeared there.

It must undoubtedly have been that either the Rhenish gold was mixed with nobler gold, or by other aids was refined into a more splendid color. Certain it is a marvel, that though those golden coins were struck formerly in such vast numbers, as Freigius computes, they yet proved so rare.

Chapter 8.

Thus far it may suffice to have spoken concerning the production of metals according to the opinion of the Chemists. To which our own experiments must be joined, the investigations of metallurgists, the inspection, if possible, of mines—especially those which generate the more perfect metals—and the consultation of books (to which, however, I prefer ocular testimony), so that we may judge more correctly concerning the transmutation of metals among themselves.

That we may therefore determine at last concerning the transmutation of metals, whether it can be effected by human art or not, we believe both that it can be done and that it has been done. What others have here so often served up, boiled again and again like a cabbage, we will not once more reboil.

How many dissertations, indeed whole volumes, have been written upon this matter, wherein arguments on both sides are asserted and discussed! But I will not abuse either my leisure or your patience, Most Illustrious Sir, by rehearsing these.

I cut away first of all those little questions: Do metals live? Do they have a vegetative soul and a certain seed? Are they distinct in species, or only by accidents? Can there be a mutual conversion of species? All which depend for the most part upon contemplations of the intellect alone.

That metals live, Berigardus has proved in his Circulus Pisanus with a specious dissertation; and Giordano Bruno, in book 5 of his De Universo et Innumerabilibus, ch. 12, affirms that the whole earth and all its parts live, arguing from stones.

And indeed he thinks that they are nourished in the same way as teeth and bones in the human body. Others again deny this—especially those who follow the Peripatetics: Scaliger, Caesalpinus, Jacobus Aubertus in his De ortu Metallorum, and Fallopius.

Some assign seed to metals; others deny it. In like manner there are many disputes concerning the specific or accidental difference of metals, with which to fill up paper would neither suit the scope of our inquiry nor much concern us.

Nevertheless, that vegetation of metals may be demonstrated and set before the eyes of anyone who pertinaciously denies it, are those Philosophical Trees produced from argentum vivum, and that wondrous germination of a silver tree in waters from the same metal, which was performed at Brussels by San-Simon, when he cast into the water a powder given to him by a certain unknown man of Liège—attested by the learned Borrichius (De Ortu et progressu Chemiae, p. 103). From which you may gather that some seed of silver or something analogous to seed lay hidden in that powder.

Concerning the transmutations of metals in general, I do not intend here to treat fully; for in the more imperfect ones there are various changes—such as iron into copper, lead into tin, and the like—which few call into doubt. Even in the metals themselves there are various separations of the purer parts from the impure, which are sometimes undertaken with great profit. Yet these have nothing to do with the art chrysopeietic, though they may show some resemblance to it.

The mutation of iron into copper is denied by many. But the authority of Erker, a man most skilled in that matter, and many other examples, forbid it to be doubted. The change of iron into steel, and of lead into tin, is by separation of the purer parts from the impure.

In the purgation of ores many secrets still lie hidden, from which, if anyone should know rightly how to investigate them, he would gather no small gain. I knew a most noble man who, from certain argentiferous ores of Hungary abounding in much sulphur and arsenic, which, when treated in the fusion-fire, for the most part pass off in smoke with those sulphureous vapors, could by means of a certain liquor extract tenfold the amount of silver.

For the liquor was so prepared that it drew off all the sulphureous substances from the pulverized ore; and while they floated on it or were mixed with it, the portions of purest silver sank to the bottom.

Since such ores are very frequent, and are also found, as I have heard, in Norway, which metallurgists are accustomed to throw away because of their slight profit—what great opportunity might hence arise to enrich both himself and others, if one should treat the matter seriously and with care!

That iron is produced from clay by linseed oil is written by Beccher, in his Supplementum Physicae subterraneae, who indeed truly thinks that iron is generated there. But for my part, I confess, I have not yet been able to persuade myself of this. For what could linseed oil contribute to the metallic nature, except perhaps to separate heterogeneous parts? But that it should produce something new, diverse from its own nature, it could not.

Without doubt there lurked in that clay certain particles of iron, which are scattered through nearly all stones and through all earth, especially clay, which by its very color betrays something that savors of an iron nature—these particles were drawn forth by the operation in question.

And indeed Gilbert, De Magnete book 1, ch. 8, testifies that there is no earth which is not imbued with iron-matter; especially all clay and clayey earth.

The Belgians sometimes extract copper and iron from sulphureous and bituminous turfs.

Which seems to me the less marvellous, since even the very air, and plants and trees themselves, are pervaded by subtle metallic vapors. To which, not without reason in my opinion, Alexander Achilles, a man of the military order, in his German book De causis terrae motûs et mineralium, attributes the natures of certain vegetables and of productions in the bottom of the sea. Among which it is memorable that he ascribes the production of corals to the exhalations of gold, and of pearls (uniones) to the vapors of silver, which are carried upward from the lands beneath rich in such ores.

In confirmation of which he asserts the experiment of the divining rod (virgula), indicator of veins of silver, which inclined equally towards pearls or oysters as towards silver. What he adds concerning the alternate processes of metallic veins and coal seams, and similar matters, I leave to be judged by metallurgists.

To this class of experiments—that is, to the ways by which the purer metals are separated from the impure—I think should also be referred what Stocmannus, in his Inaugural Oration at Rostock, delivered at the Jubilee of the Academy in the year 1619, narrated concerning silver changed into gold by cementation.

“I testify upon my own faith,” says he, “that I have at some time with these eyes seen plates and ingots of silver of considerable weight, by means of a greenish cement, so perfected, that they assumed the nature of gold of the best quality, and that too in the space of a few hours, and by no great fire.”

A marvellous operation indeed by means of cements! And I wish he had related the whole affair more accurately: for I have great suspicion that the man who exhibited these things imposed upon him with some sophism. For by such methods of working, Pseudo-Chemists are most often detected, who can so artfully cover their frauds that even the keenest eyes are sometimes deceived. By trickery they conceal powder of gold either in the coals or in the instruments with which they work, so that one thinks it wrought by art, whereas it is true and native.

Of which tricks—fifty and more, most ingenious—Michael Maier recounts in his Examen Fucorum Pseudo-Chemicorum detectorum, which book for that very reason I would recommend be read, lest we be deceived by quacks and impostors, whose only labor is, with the hope of profit shown to others, to seek gain for themselves; whereby the innocent studies of Alchemy are brought into disrepute, and honest men are induced either to hold them as vain trifles for mockery, or to detest them as fraudulent.

How many formulas of metallic operations are everywhere obtruded upon us, as well in printed books as in manuscripts that are circulated! Yet all are worthless and deceitful; from which let him beware, who would not waste either his wealth or his time.

And truly I fear lest even those accounts which occur in Franciscus Lana concerning the transmutation of tin and quicksilver into true silver are to be referred to this class.

Stories of certain metallic transmutations are also read in Johannes Franciscus Mirandulanus, in his book De Auro—such as that in book 3, ch. 6, of argentum vivum changed into gold by means of certain juices and leaves of herbs, and others like it. By which perhaps they imposed upon that most learned prince who relates these things; for they are so alien from reason that I marvel they ever found credit with him.

Those things, however, which he relates concerning gold produced by separations and combinations of several metals, may perhaps be true, though not joined with great profit.

What experiments has not Glauber attempted, and even vaunted in public writings? Which, if they were all true, we should no longer need to seek gold and silver by such costly voyages from the Indies and the Americas. Such, at least, is the judgment of those who wrote the French Ephemerides Eruditorum.

Chapter 9.

But leaving aside all those things, let us turn to the true Alchemy of the ancients, by which they converted baser metals into gold.

Though many have attacked it, no one has treated it more harshly, intemperately, and— to speak the truth—more ignorantly, than Kircher in his Mundus Subterraneus: for he rejected the whole matter as imposture. He counts all histories of transmutations indiscriminately as fables.

Where one might expect solid arguments, there are read instead his perpetual declamations against pseudo-Chemists. To show them impostors, he drags forth a heap of sophistical preparations—such as are hawked about everywhere by tricksters.

With these phantoms he fights almost everywhere. What the Chemists enigmatically relate concerning Chelidonia, the juice of Lunaria to be applied for the transmutation of metals, and the like, he takes in the vulgar sense—though they mean something quite different by the juice of Lunaria, namely that principle drawn from the sphere of the Moon of which we have spoken above. By this he shows that he had not even read the Chemists whom he pretends to refute.

He was answered by Bovicinius in a special book entitled Lances Peripateticæ, which has not yet come into my hands; and by a certain Salomon de Blauenstein.

There are also some who, though they hardly dare call the art impossible, deny that it can be brought into effect by man, except perchance by an Angel or Demon. In this opinion is Honoratus Fabri. But malignant spirits God will keep away from these sacred things, lest they abuse them: the good have other works to perform.

But what hinders men, with the proper proximate causes given, from accomplishing in metallic matters the very same things which gardeners daily accomplish in vegetables? For they do not gather seeds from the first elements, but cultivate, adorn, and augment what Nature has already prepared—such as all husbandmen and farmers do.

Foolish, then, and injurious to human society are they who deny that art may do more than Nature. And miserable indeed would be our condition, if art did not always aid Nature.

That Nature itself sometimes produces something more perfect than gold is shown by the history in Beccher (Physica Subterranea I.3.3), of a red mineral thought to be realgar, which, when mixed with five parts of silver, was converted into pure, fine gold.

Others, unwilling or unable to deny the experience, suppose it happened by chance: among them Jacques Rohault in his Physique, not long ago published in the French tongue (Part 3, c. 6). His reasoning is truly ridiculous:

“Since,” says he, “it is unknown what be the figure and magnitude of the particles composing metals, and of those which might serve for transmutation, nor is any method found by which they can be constrained, it must be thought, if it is true that Chemists have ever changed lead into gold, that it happened by mere chance—just as if, when someone cast sand from a height onto a table, the grains were so arranged that one might read a whole page of Virgil’s Aeneid.”

Therefore he holds all who are concerned about such an art to be vain.

See, I pray, what the acumen of the man is! What concern has the artificer with the constitution of the particles of which a body or its parts are first composed? That is Nature’s work. The artisan takes the things already at hand, joins them, and leaves the rest to be perfected by Nature with her own aid.

Some object that gold cannot by any art be corrupted, resolved, or raised into a more perfect nature, since it is already the most perfect. Which indeed is true, so long as you do not join to it another natural thing able to destroy or resolve it—such as the Chemists’ school professes to know, and apart from which single thing in the whole universe there is none that can do this.

For what Honoratus Fabri judges in Physica VII.34–35, that gold is corruptible because it is dissolved by salts which, as he says, suck out its moisture and make it burn in fire, or because it may be worn away and attenuated by vapor on the covers of pans, is by no means to be admitted.

For gold, as he rightly lays down, consists of a twofold plexus of particles: the interior, by which the primary and miscible bodies are bound together; and the exterior, by which the mixed parts, namely of gold itself, are held.

The outer plexus many things can disturb—rubbing, beating, salts—so that it goes into imperceptible particles, each of which, however, retains the form of gold. On this account gold cannot rightly be said to be corrupted, as Fabri would have it, since the imperceptible particles cannot be reduced again to palpable gold.

The inner plexus nothing can dissolve, save only that which is itself the primogenial nature of gold.

Therefore the canon of Fabri may more rightly be framed thus: If gold could in no way be corrupted or destroyed, then indeed the lot of the Chemists would be most wretched. I would rather pronounce thus: If Chemists could corrupt and destroy gold, then it would go best with them.

Hence species and forms—those splendid names—others clam, cannot be converted: which yet they do not observe to be Nature’s daily work, ever changing herself into one form after another, like another Proteus.

Therefore ridiculous is that objection of Kircher, which rests on this foundation: If such μεταμόρφωσις (transmutation) can be effected in metals, it can also in the kinds of animals and vegetables. For example: if powder made from wormwood (absynthium) were cast upon the dry stalk of wormwood, by the same reasoning it would resuscitate it into a plant; likewise with powder made from a burnt animal, cast upon the corpse of the same or of another animal; likewise if a drop of wine distilled seven times or more were poured into a cask of water, the water would turn into wine.

Not indeed is the constitution of subjects the same, nor does Nature work in all things by the same method. The proximate matter of metals is common, but not so that of vegetables and animals.

Metals are mixed from a few parts and have a simpler texture; vegetables and animals consist of so many dissimilar parts, and are produced in a wholly different way.

And what, after all, can the powder of some herb do upon its dried stalks? Yet this too is wondrous enough—that from its powder, duly prepared, the herb may seem to be revived. But does the whole virtue of a burned animal lie hidden in its ashes?

I recall, however, that from the powder of a burnt crab, if it be scattered over rivulets, crabs are sometimes produced. In the same way, in the most subtle volatile spirit of wine the whole essence of wine is not contained, so that it could convert water into its own nature.

Nor is such a tenuity of spirits required, which cannot be held in any vessel, as some foolishly suppose in the conversion of metals. For unless fugitive spirits be reduced to a fixed nature, they are of no use.

But what he brought forward concerning the conversion of water into wine is not so absurd as he may have imagined. My most distinguished colleague Caspar Marchius, a man most exercised in Vulcan’s workshop, related to me of Laurentius Eichstadius, the celebrated mathematician, with whom he had then domestic converse, that he could, by a certain powder, when thrown into water in just proportion, impart to it the true taste of wine; and that he often did this at banquets for amusement, not without wonder from the guests. And perhaps not a few such secrets still lie hidden, even in the vegetable and animal realms, which human ingenuity has not yet discovered. In vain, therefore, are Kircher’s objections.

Since, however, the name “transmutation” is so hateful to the Misochemici, and grates upon their ears—for it seems to them monstrous and impossible that the form of a baser metal, differing in species from another, should be destroyed, and a new one, under the tiny grain endowed with a nearly infinite multiplicative force, which fixes and renders to itself a weightier body, should be introduced—let us see how such a thing may indeed be possible.

I should wish them first to remove from us that odious word transmutation; for the whole matter can be explained by mere mixture. The common matter of metals, as we have seen, is Mercury: a substance heavy, ductile, fusible; for by these notes it is distinguished as metallic from the rest of the fossils, so that the less ductility a body has, the less of metallic nature it possesses. That substance, together with the other called Sulphur—whether of red or of white nature—by their purity or impurity give distinction to the several metals.

Among the more perfect mixtures are gold and, next to it, silver: gold from the family of the pure red sulphur; silver from that of the pure white sulphur, yet more closely joined to gold by reason of the equal mixture of its purer parts, than are lead and iron, tin and copper. These cannot be converted into one another directly, as copper and iron, lead and tin. But those which contain white sulphur—quicksilver, lead, tin, silver—more readily obey the operations of golden sulphur than those which derive their origin from the red sulphur: for their sulphur, as in copper and iron, is more impure, with a certain stubbornness, whereas the rest, having a more copious Mercury, and an immature sulphur, can more easily be excocted into the more perfect red sulphur by means of the perfect sulphur itself. For into imperfect red sulphur it is changed even by common operations. Hence Chemists more willingly employ lead or quicksilver in making gold than iron or copper.

When, therefore, Chemists compose their Elixir, they join metallic matter—purged by so many operations—with the purest sulphur of gold, and convert it into a most subtle yet fixed nature, far more perfect than common gold; which, by repeated dissolutions and coagulations, always acquires higher degrees of its perfection.

It seems incredible to the Misochemici that a little powder, no more in quantity than a grain, can tinge a thousand or more grains of common metal into gold. Yet they see daily that a tiny portion of saffron suffices to dye a thousand or more parts of water mixed with it with a yellow color.

Let them then consider with me the marvelous nature of gold itself, how it may be dilated and extended, even by the rough operation of the hammer. Who would believe that from a single golden coin so many bracelets could be beaten out, and three or four leaves to gild a silver cylinder, when it is drawn out into the thinnest, longest wire, and at the same time all those leaves are produced, so that they always adhere to its surface, and the wire, though many yards long, remains gilded. What then will gold not do, when reduced into a nature a hundred or a thousand times more subtle?

That Elixir, therefore, being cast into baser metal—say, into lead first purged from its scoriae and drosses by certain powders—while it is in fusion, straightway mingles with the Mercury of the lead, as with its kindred, and with its purer parts together with the sulphur most closely joined to them, while the heterogeneous parts are either separated or fly off in smoke.

They err who suppose the whole mass of lead is converted into gold. The Mercury, by that mutual consent of parts, immediately unites itself with the subtler Mercury, and its accompanying sulphur also receives into itself the inner nature of the Elixir, the more impure being cast out. Nor need anyone marvel at that celebrated motion and complex of particles, since we see this effected also by vulgar operations. Cast into a clear liquor, in which silver is dissolved, another metal, and straightway, like flour dispersed, the silver comes out of hiding and sinks to the bottom, while the salts attach themselves to the other metal.

Pour quicksilver upon heated plates of gold, and in a moment they are changed into a butter-like substance, which is called Amalgam, by mutual complex.

There is, in short, a certain mutual sympathy of natures, incomprehensible to us, by which strange phenomena often manifest themselves in Nature; which are not brought about by “generations” or “transmutations,” as we commonly speak, but by altered mixtures of the inner parts, or by fermentations. For Fermentation—whose marvelous powers you, Most Illustrious Sir, also extol in your letter—is that which dissolves the bonds of all natural mixtures, metals included, and lifts them up into more subtle natures endowed with wonderful energy (ἐνέργεια).

Of this I will offer some examples from vegetable nature, whence light may also be shed upon metallic alterations.

I knew a nobleman who devised a singular ferment, with which he imbued wooden casks; into which if water were poured, it was turned into the sharpest vinegar, such as could ever be made from wine. The force remained in those vessels not only, but with continual use increased infinitely. This secret he kept to himself, nor easily published, as it could be profitable.

I remember indeed Andreas Matthiolus mentioning somewhere a water that could be changed into vinegar by the injection of toasted bread repeatedly soaked in wine-vinegar and dried; but this cannot compare at all with the other artifice.

No less memorable is what Thaddaeus Hagecius, in his little book De Cerevisia c. 12, reports: that beer made from wheat turns sour when touched with the scent of roses. “It seems marvelous,” he says, “and can be referred only to some antipathy, that wheat-beer abhors the fragrance of roses: for if stored in cellars, or if even a butler crowned with a wreath of roses should enter, it would immediately be perverted and sour.” This could only happen by some momentary fermentation arising from the particles of the rose-fragrance.

So also, if beer be poured by a siphon into a cup wherein bread has been fermented, the whole beer drawn from the cask is straightway soured by fermentation. On the contrary, a liquor can be given which, by a few drops, restores sour beer or corrupted wine to its former or even a better state. A certain English merchant, Charles de Corsellis, a man honest and most trustworthy, assured me he had both seen and tasted it. The liquor was red in color, but the man would not reveal the art, which he had brought from the East.

By the aid of fermentation, if we believe Vreeswijk, who in his recent treatise written in Dutch De Sale Philosophorum asserts it, a burning vinous spirit can be produced from almost any vegetable—oats, peas, cabbage-leaves, and the like.

If therefore such marvelous things can be wrought in vegetables, sometimes in a moment, by fermentation, which is as it were a grinding of Nature: why should we deny that such things can be wrought in metals? In which we can dispense with the names of generation and transmutation, since mere mixture of gold’s tincture with another metal conveys the tincture, and more closely binds the inner parts together; whence arises increased weight, which even fire alone can confer upon baked bricks.

Chapter 10.

I now come to the second part of my dissertation, concerning the Antiquity of this Art and the Authors by whom it was transmitted and propagated. In this matter, since men of great distinction have already long exercised the utmost skill and diligence—Conringius in his book De Medicina Hermetica; Reinesius in his Defensio Chymiatriae; Borrius in his De ortu & progressu Chemiae—what need is there that we should again chew over the same cabbage? I therefore enter this path with cautious step, yet not without occasionally removing certain things which they have left behind.

It cannot be denied that those arguments of antiquity, commonly produced here, are all full of conjecture and uncertainty: yet nevertheless Borichius, who has labored deeply in these shadows, has shed no small light even upon the antiquity of Chemistry. That its birth must be looked for higher and further back than some have believed, he has not perhaps entirely proved, yet has made the thing appear very probable.

I pass over the testimonies drawn from the fabulous writings attributed to Enoch, or what Bochartus conjectures of Cham as its author. That there was some Hermes, who delivered certain precepts of this science, we do not deny: though not all which circulate under his name are, perhaps, truly his. The Emerald Tablet, ascribed to him, has an uncertain origin; and Kircher lies when he asserts that it did not exist before the time of Lullius; for Johannes de Garlandia (otherwise called Hortulanus), who lived in the 10th century, as Balaeus attests, had already written a commentary upon it. Kriegsmannus published it in the Phoenician tongue, but, if I recall rightly, gave no indication from whence he had obtained it.

Thus far, then, the truth of the matter remains in suspense. Among the Egyptians this art was accounted among the arcana: many things serve as argument for this. For although nothing express is found committed to writing, yet those hieroglyphics seem to contain something of it. Nor is it credible that those men—by no means stupid or slothful—painted such cucurbits merely for pastime, or concealed under them some merely moral or vulgar meanings, when there was no cause for concealment. Rather, by these monuments they wished to preserve for the wise certain greater secrets of Nature.

What do the Crescent Lions upon the Mensa Isiaca mean? He who is not wholly a stranger to the riddles of the ancient Chemists will interpret them easily. What do the Serpents with the head of a hawk signify, but a nature fixed and volatile? To which answers that dictum of the Chemists: The Toad walking upon the earth and the Eagle flying is our mystery.

But they invent all sorts of other explanations, especially Hervvartus, who interprets the images of the Isiac Table, led by utterly ridiculous arguments, of the magnet and the mariner’s compass. Hence it is very probable that many of the Greek fables arose, which Michael Maier, a learned man, ingeniously enough explains to Chemic sense in his Arcana arcanissima sive Hieroglyphica Aegyptio-Graeca, not yet known to the common world, though perhaps indulging too freely the affection he bore toward the art. After him Vigenère, in his commentary on the Tabulae of Philostratus, and Petrus Johannes Faber in his Pan-Chymicum follow the same design. Even Conringius himself cannot deny that the Egyptian mode of teaching and writing may be thought to have been always familiar to the order of Chemists, and to have been derived to them from those sources.

But Kircher, as if pronouncing from a tripod (Oedipus Aegyptiacus vol. II, class 10, De Alchymia Aegyptiaca), declares that the Egyptians did not intend the practice of the Philosophers’ Stone, but rather some operation in the lower world analogous to the Sun, and a certain Quintessence for curing all diseases and passing life in all felicity. This, on account of its supreme subtlety and perfection, they called Heaven itself.

“This Elixir,” he says, “or Quintessence, was of so eminent a virtue, that whatever distilled water from any herbs it was poured into, it increased the virtue of that herb tenfold, in respect of the particular part of the body it was destined to heal. For example: if it were added to water extracted from hepatica, that water became ten times more effective in curing the liver. And this water was brought, by continual circulations, to such a temper, that if applied to cold things it made them ten times colder; to hot things, ten times hotter; joined with dry, ten times drier; mixed with moist, ten times moister.”

They are further pursued by Balsan the Arab in his book On the Composition of the Elixir of Life. This water, he adds, and this stone, they called so because it was said to be extracted from the most precious stones; they called it the water of life, the seed of the vegetable nature, the solar soul, and with similar names they adorned it with the titles of the Hermetic Stone. Lullius, in his book De Quinta Essentia, writes of a double kind of this, which he also calls Heaven; and falsely does Kircher in his Mundus Subterraneus claim that Lullius turned his thoughts to this only after he had abandoned hope of the Philosophers’ Stone. For in that book there are by no means a few falsehoods. But if the things brought forward concerning the Egyptians’ Elixir are true, he surely slays himself with his own sword: for if it could achieve such powers, it could easily exert its forces also upon the metals.

Conringius, however, holds that Chemistry was unknown before the birth of Christ, and that every χημεικόν operation was unknown: although already Herodotus had made mention of works in glass, which must surely be reckoned among the χημεικά. Kircher, likewise, with his usual boldness, says: “As far as was possible, having labored upon the antiquity of this lost art, we have discovered that no mention of this art is made by any writer before Christ.”

In the same place he makes the Arabs the first authors of this Stone, who yet, he says, succeeded the Greek authors who wrote περὶ χρυσωσίας around the time of Constantine the Great. But how such a thing can stand with a sane mind, I much doubt: for how can they be called the first, if they succeeded others? What greatly astonishes me is that he was either so forgetful or so blind, that although he often copied from others, he either overlooked or failed to recall to memory that passage in Martini’s Atlas Sinicus where the antiquity of the art of Chemistry among the Chinese is treated.

For there, p. 71, he writes: “They record of Yotan, a small lake (perhaps read loco) at Pukiang, that Hiangius cultivated the art of Chemistry—commonly called Alchemy—there, and this two thousand five hundred years and more before the Nativity of Christ.”

The same author adds further: “Hence even here the sons of the Chemists may claim the most ancient birth of their science and art, rather than from their fabulous Moses, or his sister Mary, or the Pythagoreans, as we have seen pretended by those counterfeit Greek decoctors.” These are his words—a man otherwise of the greatest credit, who is not known elsewhere to have favored the chemical art, but who read this in the monuments of the Chinese, which we know to have been composed with such faith and diligence, that no nation ever equaled them in the care of their histories. For which reason even the author himself commends the authority of this testimony. Had the most illustrious Conringius read this, I think he would not have written in Medicina Hermetica II.14 that the study of chrysopoeia passed from the Arabs to the Chinese.

Fallopius also errs, who, denying the art to have arisen before the sect of Muhammad, thought it was first invented by a certain nephew of Muhammad.

More testimonies occur in the same Martinius:

Province 8, City 1, Nanchang (p. 86): “In this place, outside the walls, they tell that there once lived a man who relieved the necessities of many poor people, and bestowed much upon the people most liberally; for he, in the chemical art, elaborated not fictitious but true silver.”

Province 9, City 2 (p. 110): “Near the city of Xeu is Mount Zukin, in which a huge lump of gold was discovered and used against many diseases, which the common people believe to have been made by the chemical art.”

Province Huguang (p. 75): “Almost no mountain worthy of mention occurs, except that which they call Kieuchin, that is, of the nine virgins. For they write that there nine sisters preserved perpetual virginity, and were devoted to Alchemy.”

Since such testimonies, beyond all exception, are found in their histories, the Chinese have long since been carried away by an insane desire to produce gold, and especially silver from quicksilver; and, as the more recent writers testify, they are led by the same passion even now.

Chapter 11.

From the Greek writers, the books of Democritus, Zosimus, Synesius, Psellus, Heliodorus—who, besides the Aethiopica (which itself often seems of chemical argument, especially in that passage where he treats of the Phoenix, with a fable devised for chemical senses)—and the book περὶ χρυσοποιίας—have been abundantly examined by Reinesius, Conringius, Borrius, Salmasius, so that I have nothing further of my own to add.

The history of flexible glass, which nevertheless can hardly be reckoned among fables, shows that even soon after the birth of Christ, chemical works more than vulgar were in use. The perpetual lamps found in tombs, Hermolaus Barbarus believed to have been prepared from gold by chemical art, and with many arguments labors to prove this, as also does Claud. Guichard in his book On the Funerals of the Greeks and Romans (written in French before Kirchmann), Bk. 1, ch. 8, p. 83–86.

In proof of this matter, Borrichius asserts the inscription of that lamp found in the tomb of Maximus Olibius; concerning which I suspend my judgment, since I know that the most skilled man in judging inscriptions holds it to be spurious. Yet this very artifice of the inextinguishable lamp shows its kinship with the great work of the Chemists, as is clear from a history told me by an honest and most trustworthy man. While he was studying at Louvain, he became acquainted with a certain Burgundian, by whom he was invited into his museum to see an invention of singular art. The windows being closed, lest external light should hinder, the Burgundian produced a glass vessel of a somewhat wide mouth, filled with the purest liquid, into which was inserted a golden thread. When this lamp was lit by that thread, suddenly there arose so much light, as if they stood in the midst of the sun: and an odor of incredible sweetness filled the whole museum. Afterwards, extinguishing the flame, the Burgundian dismissed his guest, but under a sworn promise of silence. After the Burgundian’s departure, some rumor of his chrysopoeia spread abroad, and it was discovered at Amsterdam that he had distributed large sums of money to miserable men.

Yet in no nation, perhaps, was the study of Chemistry, whether medical or metallic, more frequent than among the Arabs—whether they had it from the Greeks or elsewhere. It was from them, certainly, that those liquors prepared from vegetables, under the name of Essences, to which they ascribed wondrous virtues, first arose; and of which Lullius, Rupecissia, Drebelius, and many others have written.

Nor are there lacking even today those who believe, or affirm themselves to have seen experiments, that by these essences youth can be restored, with the signs of renewed hair and nails. Consider what the illustrious Boyle writes from the report of a certain physician to a king of France, On the Usefulness of Natural Philosophy, Part II, p. 182 ff.

Concerning Guilielmus Postellus, some say—and if I am not mistaken, he himself somewhere writes—that by such a remedy he turned his gray hairs into hair of the blackest color; though others would have it that he dyed them by some artifice. See Scaevola Samarthanus, Elogia, Bk. 3, and Verdiverius in his Bibliotheca Gallica.

The Chinese, too, testify Martinius in his Atlas Sinicus (p. 77), boast of some simple herb, which they call the herb of a thousand years, and write that it is immortal: by steeping in water and drinking it, white hairs are turned to black, and life is prolonged.

The spirit of wine, used by the Arabs in the preparation of essences, was certainly by them first transmitted to Europeans, its use first taught by Arnoldus de Villanova. For a long time it was kept in the workshops only for medicine, before it passed over into the delights of the palate. The occasion of this, notes Alexander Tassonus in his book Pensieri diversi, Bk. 10, ch. 26, which I will render in his own words translated from the Italian:

The use of Aqua Vitae first became known from the books of certain Arab physicians, who praised it in medicine; and its use continued until the men of Modena (Mutinenses) propagated it widely in the northern provinces, and thus it came to be held among ordinary drinks.

At first, Aqua Vitae was only drawn in tiny quantity from spoiled wines, so that scarcely more than a drop could be drunk. But at times there was so great an abundance of wine throughout all Italy, that much of the Modenese wine, sold at Venice, being weaker than the rest and finding no buyers, went to waste. The men of Modena distilled Aqua Vitae from these, mixing them with other wines not yet spoiled but unsalable, and, to produce a greater quantity, distilled it twice and sold it at Venice not without profit.

When the Venetians understood that the miners of Germany needed such a drink, which would preserve vigor and warmth of body, sending them the drink for sale they made great gain. Afterwards the Modenese, when they abounded in wine, distilled Aqua Vitae in greater quantity; but when they saw that the price of good wines rose from this, they dispatched whole casks of Aqua Vitae to Venice. And I myself saw a hundred casks at one time sent thither.

On this occasion it seemed not inappropriate to mention that the Spirit of Wine was first prepared by the Arabs. They also devoted themselves most diligently to metallic operations: and from them the use of Aqua Fortis first passed into Europe.

Perhaps even the Turks themselves learned something from them. For Paulus Rycotius, who not long ago most accurately described in the English tongue the state of the Turkish Empire (Book 2, ch. 20), records of a certain Hirek (who lived about the year of Christ 716) that, being skilled in chrysopoeia, he distributed much gold among his followers and built many hospitals.

But the history of the Arab Chemists is obscure and unknown. Nevertheless, it is believed that not a few things remain extant in the manuscript of Leo Africanus, On the Lives of the Arab Philosophers, which is preserved in the library of Isaac Vossius.

In that collection I have seen a great store of Chemical manuscripts, by both known and unknown authors. Indeed, many names occur there, of which no mention is made in the usual catalogues of Chemical writers. Yet, as often happens, many foolish and futile things are mingled among them.

I could here set before you their entire catalogue (for I have it from a friend), were it not tedious, and since this my dissertation—already long since having passed the limits of an epistle—commands me to be brief. We have not, nor perhaps ever shall we have, a truly accurate history of Chemical writers, such as exists in other disciplines; for the art itself, together with its masters, is wrapped in so many shadows, and they have labored with the utmost care to conceal themselves.

Yet a far more accurate account could be drawn up than that which Borellus has published. He wrote a Bibliotheca Chemica, in which he claims to list four thousand authors, as the title has it. But so confused is he, that he often extracts names from the Italian book of Joh. Bapt. Nazarius, De Transmutatione Metallica, who there collects syllables of certain Chemists’ names; and without ever having seen the authors themselves, he fills his pages with fictitious and spurious figures drawn from the throng of philosophers. So negligently too does he record the books, that his volume seems rather to have slipped from a dream than to have been composed with any serious effort.

The same author promised, in the catalogue of his works printed in the frontispiece of his French dictionary (Trésor des Recherches et Antiquitez Gauloises et Françoises), many books on this very subject: The Sieve of the Chemical Philosophers; A Chemical Topography; The Lives of Certain Chemists; A Chemical Library arranged chronologically, with a second part and abridged lives of the authors; A Book of the Histories of Chemical Projections; Theatre of Chemistry in French; A Dissertation on whether the Philosopher’s Stone ought to be revealed, and on the matter of its disclosure; seven folio volumes on the matter and properties of minerals, and the like. But hitherto, besides the titles, we have seen nothing. And it may well be that what he promised another may one day execute more carefully.

For I know a Nobleman, who, being most skilled above the common lot in many chemical secrets, with incredible labor and the singular diligence of many years, has read through, collated, and compared all the Chemical writers he could discover in any land, ancient and modern, and has drawn their history out of the darkness as far as possible—so that I do not believe there lives one who has undertaken a similar labor, nor will there ever be one to undertake it.

Perhaps too Johannes Gerhardus Vossius would have taught us something of method in this matter, in his great work on the Arts, and the Constitution of all Arts and Sciences, where in De Theologia Gentili, Book 6, ch. 5, he promised to treat of Chrysopoeia. But either that work remained unpublished, or was left by the author uncompleted, as is perhaps also the case with his Aparapomphaton, the book On Mathematical Sciences and Philology.

Chapter 12.

Since the field of chemical writers is so vast, but that of impostors even greater, it is a mark of judgment in reading these authors to distinguish between them. Out of this great number we shall extract the more noble.

Geber the Arab, whom some wish to have been a king, must be reckoned among the more ancient, after the birth of Christ.

We have certain writings of his, full of many circumlocutions and ambiguities. The more discerning hold him to have been both a great philosopher and a great sophist; for under the most familiar preparations and terms he always means something else. His writings vary greatly; and lately Georgius Hornius, in the Low Countries, has published some different from those earlier in print. From the East Christianus Ravotius brought back a codex of Geber’s works twice as rich, as may be seen in the Spoils of the East which he published at Kiel.

He also had an ancient commentator, Paganus, whose writings have hitherto never been printed, but still lie hidden among the cabinets of the Philosopher-Chemists. He uses a perspicuous style of writing, such as scarcely any of the others employ. He seems to have been a Frenchman, as far as can be discerned; and those err who confuse him with Geber himself. For they suppose the name was given him by Lullius, because he was a Mahometan. But in truth he is another person, and there have been many of that name, and still are today in France. Perhaps of his family was Jacobus Paganus, of whom Guibert in his Book on Alchemy makes mention, who had brought the great work near to its end, but by some chance it was disturbed; whereupon Guibert took it for a deception of the Devil, and was mocked on this account by Libavius (Defensio Alchemiae transmutatoriae, note 8).

Whether this same Jacobus Paganus be he of whom Johannes Pierius Valerianus speaks (De Literatorum infelicitate, Book 1), I cannot say. Lullius himself also praises the Summa Hebraica of Paganus—but here I suspect a scribal error, and that it should be read Gebraica.

In Borellus’s Library (p. 147) there is a French manuscript with this title: Oeuvre parfaite et pratique selon Lulle, qu’il avoit eue de Paganus—that is, The Perfect and Consummate Work according to Lullius, which he had received from Paganus.

This first gave me suspicion that perhaps Paganus there meant Arnoldus Villanovanus, by similarity of name; for Lullius is scarcely said to have derived the art from him. Yet since Lullius several times mentions Paganus and the family of Paganus—and Villanovanus is a name of country rather than of lineage—the distinction is more probable.

From this I pass to Arnoldus de Villanova and Raimundus Lullius, whom Gabriel Naudaeus, in his French Defense of Men accused of Magic, contemptuously calls the “tutelary gods of the Chemists.”

Arnold was the master of Lullius in this art, as is evident from the testimonies produced by others. Raimundus Lullius, a man from the ancient and noble family of the Lulls of Barcelona, and most ingenious for the genius of those times, was certainly not the unlearned monk Naudaeus makes him, nor much inferior to Arnold, as he unfairly asserts.

He wrote a great multitude of books, both in every branch of learning and in Chemistry: some reckon five hundred, others as many as a thousand. Of his chemical works, very many are in print, but many more remain unedited. Of these, if I remember rightly, nearly sixty are in the Viennese Library, whose catalogue the most noble Mr. Oldenburg once showed me. There are also not a few in the Vossian Library.

Against him Byovius, in the year of Christ 1372, inveighs, attributing to him heresies and errors; and some even accuse him of magic. But two of the same name have been confused. The one, a Jew converted to the Christian faith, was later a Majorcan, who wrote magical books on the invocation of demons.

On this matter may be consulted Franciscus Penna, in his notes on Einseric’s Directorium, Part 2, Questions 20 and 27; and also Raimundus, in his Erotemata on Good and Bad Books, Part 1, Question 246.

I also recall reading further material concerning Lullius and Villanovanus in Odoricus Raynaldus’s continuation of Baronius’s Annals, though the book is not now at hand.

I also observe that it is a common practice among Papal writers either to dissemble the chemical writings of their men, or to declare them spurious and supposititious, although it is most certain that they were indeed written by them. This has been done in cataloguing both the works of Arnold of Villanova and Raimundus Lullius; and in fact all the works of Villanova, which were published in a single volume, are expressly excluded as fictitious and spurious, because they are chemical.

The same was done by Pitseus, compiler of the Centuries of Bale, among certain English writers. For wherever Bale, either from the monuments of Leland or from ancient tradition, made mention of chemical works composed by illustrious men, Pitseus, the plagiary, by obstinate silence concealed them all, lest any memory of such a thing should remain.

This was perhaps done out of contempt for the art of chrysopoeia, lest it appear that those men had given effort to a matter condemned by the decrees of the Popes, or deemed unworthy. Yet it is constantly handed down—and, as Camden says in his Remaines p. 17, “by an unwritten verity” (save that Lullius himself everywhere confesses it, and Cremerus, Abbot of Westminster, testifies in his Testament)—that Lullius in England, in the Tower of London, produced gold for King Edward III, to be used in the war against the infidels. From this came afterwards the coin that was struck, called the Rosa Nobilis or Noble of Raymond, whose effigy Selden has given in Mare Clausum Book 2, chapter 25: on one side marked with a rose, on the other with a ship, bearing the inscription of the Chemists’ symbol:

JESUS autem transibat per medium eorum.
(“But Jesus passing through the midst of them.”)

The truth of this matter Robertus Constantinus testifies he had confirmed by inquiry, in his Nomenclator of Medical Writers. It is therefore calumny on the part of Alexander von Suchten, who tries to persuade us that the Noble of Raymond did not originate from Raymond Lullius, but from some King Raymond—who never existed in England.

Its credibility is further increased by the observation of Camden in the place cited, that before the time of Edward III no gold coin had ever been struck in England. Perhaps this chrysopoeia gave occasion to Edward to decree a law against the exportation of gold and silver, and against their multiplication.

Certain learned men—some even English—have interpreted this as though all alchemy were thereby prohibited under the name of multiplication of gold and silver. But this is an error. The sense of the law (which, written in English, is found in Poulton’s book of statutes) is this: that no other metals are to be mixed with gold and silver. For by multiplication here is understood alloying, as the very words of the law indicate. And truly foolish it would have been to prohibit the multiplication of alchemy.

It also deserves to be mentioned here, that moved chiefly by this history, King Henry IV of England published four proclamations to all nobles, knights, doctors, professors, and priests, exhorting them to find the preparation of the Philosopher’s Stone; or, if any man knew the secret, to reveal it to him, so that the commonwealth might be freed from the burden of foreign debt. In particular, he urged the priests with this witty reasoning: since they were so fortunate in transubstantiating bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, they could surely as well convert a baser metal into a nobler one.

But the whole matter came to nothing, and no one appeared. John Pettus, in his book written in English Fodinae Regales, or the history, laws and places of the chief mines and mineral works in England Part 1, c. 27, makes mention of these edicts. And I myself, when at London, inquired at the keeper of the Royal Charters, who affirmed that the autographs still survive in the archives.

Nevertheless, there were not lacking some who, despite so many existing documents, dared to call into doubt the truth of the story of Lullius and his gold-making, moved chiefly by the uncertainty of the dates. For to pass over things more widely known, Vincentius Mutius, a Spaniard, in his book Historia del reyno de Mallorca, by many arguments attempted to overthrow the whole fame of Lullian chrysopoeia, his chief point being that Lullius died in Africa in the year 1315, when Edward III was but three years old—a scruple which even Conringius admitted.

Because this weighed so heavily with Borrichius, he placed the history of this affair, against the common opinion of the English themselves, in the time of Edward I. But since Vincentius Mutius, as Borrichius already proved, was a stranger to English history, it is likely he blundered likewise in Lullian history.

For, if we believe Mutius, Lullius was born A.D. 1235. Edward III began to reign in 1327, in the fourteenth year of his age—that is, eleven years after the supposed death of Lullius. In his very first year he gave an illustrious example of his spirit, in defending the University of Cambridge from the injuries of the townsmen, as Caius records (Hist. Acad. Cantabr. Book 1, p. 67).

Admit, if you will, the date of his birth: I am certain the date of his death is falsely given. For besides the fact that Wolfgang Justus, in his Chronologia Medica, writes that Lullius was still alive in 1321, under the reign of Emperor Louis of Bavaria, Lullius himself—most trustworthy witness of all—relates in his Book on Mercuries, chapter 40, that he, together with some companions, completed the work of the Philosopher’s Stone at Milan in the year 1333.

In which passage, although Borrichius attributes the matter to a typographical error, yet from other passages of Lullius the same is proved; where these words are found written clearly, not in cipher:

Thus indeed, near the end of his Last Testament, Lullius writes:

“We have made this testament, by the power of God, in the island of England, in the Church of Saint Catherine at London, near the Castle, before the Chamber, in the reign of Edward, by the grace of God. Into whose hands we place this present testament in custody, by the will of God, in the year of the Incarnation one thousand three hundred and thirty-two, together with all its volumes.”

Yet here another scruple arises. Lullius lived in the year 1332 at London, and there wrote books on the Chemical Art, perhaps also then made gold; and yet in his Book of Mercuries he writes that in the following year, in Italy, he completed his work.

Either, therefore, he twice visited England (which indeed pleased Elias Ashmole, the noble Englishman, in his notes to the Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum published by him, p. 443); but it hardly seems probable that Lullius wrote his chemical books before he had obtained full knowledge of his art. Or else some error lurks in the numbering of the years—which indeed is more likely, as can be shown from Lullius’ Last Testament, cap. 14, where he records that in the year 1330 he completed his work at Milan.

It is therefore possible that from that time he went into England, invited by Cremer, Abbot of Westminster, who is himself known to have lived in the time of Edward III. For when that Abbot had travelled through Italy, having been admitted to the acquaintance of Raimundus and to a communication of his art, he brought him back with him.

It is useful to hear the Abbot himself telling this in his Testament:

“The more I read, the more I erred, until by divine providence I betook myself into Italy, where it seemed good to Almighty God to assign me into the fellowship of one man, no less eminent in dignity than in every kind of learning, by name Raimundus. In his company I remained for a long time, and thus I obtained favor in the sight of this good man, so that he opened to me some part of this great mystery. Therefore I entreated him with many prayers, until at last I prevailed upon him to come with me into this Island, and with me he remained for two years. In which space of time I was able to accomplish so great a work to completion.

Afterwards I brought this illustrious man into the presence of the most renowned King Edward, by whom he was worthily received with honor, and treated with every courtesy. And there, induced by many promises, covenants, and conditions from the King, he was content, by the divine permission, to enrich the King with his art, on this sole condition—that the King himself in his own person should wage war against the Turks, the enemies of God, and should expend his wealth in service of the Lord of lords.”

But alas! this promise was made void and broken by the King; whereupon that pious man, afflicted in spirit and in the innermost chambers of his heart, fled across the sea in most lamentable and wretched manner — which greatly grieves my own heart, as it did men not unlearned.

From these arguments, which we have now laid down, it is, I think, sufficiently clear that there is no need to change the Edwards, as that most illustrious man wished, but that the whole history must be referred to Edward the Third. The other points which he brings forward to the contrary weigh little with me, nor are they sufficient to persuade another opinion.

Thus it will stand that Lullius, when he wrote his last testament in England, if we accept the year of his birth as Mutius records, was ninety-seven years old. This should not be thought incredible, since it is agreed that he only in the very extremity of old age was made partaker of so great a secret; and in the Persian legation of Petrus Pacificus we read that his life was prolonged to the hundred and forty-fifth year by means of his potable gold. Whether, however, there exists any other credible testimony of this, I doubt.

His life was written by Symphorianus Campegius and Carolus Bovillus, and by others also. A fellow countryman of his likewise composed a Historia Vitae Lullianae, but I have never had the fortune to see it, save only its title in the catalogue of the most select library of Raphael Trichet du Fresne, where it was thus noted: Vida del admirable Doctor Ramon Lull compuesta por Juan Segui en Malorca 1605. 8°.

Had that book come into my hands, I might have had better aids to illustrate our present dissertation, in which we have lingered long, since there exists no more illustrious example for all posterity.

Contemporary with Lullius was Petrus Bonus, who wrote the Margarita Pretiosa (“The Precious Pearl”), together with an Introduction to Alchemy. In barbarous style indeed, but according to the scholastic fashion then in use, he established the doctrines of the Chemists upon Peripatetic principles.

This book was written in the year 1330 in the city of Pola, in the province of Istria. It was first published by the physician Toxites Argentoratensis at Basel in 1572 — which edition is better than that in the Theatrum. He himself confesses at the end of that book that he wrote another upon the same matter, which he would rather have suppressed than given to the public. A digest of this and other works was made by Janus Lacinius, a Calabrian monk, in his Collectanea Chemica, printed at Nuremberg by Petreus, and in the Margarita Pretiosa elegantly printed at Venice by Aldus, with illustrations even of the vessels necessary for Alchemy.

The writings of Roger Bacon, the Englishman, are also held in the very highest esteem by Philosophical Chemists, and deservedly so. Few of them appear in the Theatrum Chemicum; some small treatises have been separately published at Frankfurt; but very many manuscripts of his lie hidden in English libraries, and are redeemed at a high price, whatever of that man can be procured.

He was, beyond the genius of his age, astonishingly learned in every branch of knowledge. Whoever reads his Epistle on the Secrets of Art and Nature will see already there so many discoveries in natural and mathematical matters upon which our own age now prides itself.

The first invention of gunpowder is certainly to be ascribed to him, not to that Barthold Schwartz, the Cimbrian. Camden does injustice to his countryman, when, in his Remaines, he denies it to Bacon and attributes it to Schwartz; whereas Bacon, two centuries earlier if I mistake not, already gave notice of this powder. Assuredly the English nation, from the family of the Bacons, has always had minds most felicitous; and of late, Francis Bacon — immortal glory of abstruse learning, and great ornament of our age.

The famous prophet Merlin of the English is reckoned by Bale among the possessors of the Great Secret. Many contend that his whole prophecy, upon which Alanus ab Insulis wrote a commentary, is of chemical import; and there exists under his name in the Ars Aurifera a certain fragment of alchemical writing.

Of Brother Basil Valentine all things that are reported are uncertain, although the German Emperors most diligently inquired into his history. His writings appear in many places mutilated. For Ericus Mauricius, once my most intimate colleague, now Assessor of the illustrious Chamber of Speyer, a great ornament not only of Jurisprudence but of all more elegant learning, showed me excellent passages noted by him from a manuscript codex of the Viennese library, which do not appear in the printed editions.

We have also no few poets in the order of Chemists, who are themselves called poietai by the Greek writers on Chemistry — among whom is Johannes de Meung Clopinell, a French author, likewise a Doctor of Theology, but a man of witty genius. Naudaeus, in that note which Horn cites in the preface to his Geber, wrongly makes two of him; for he says that the authors of the Roman de la Rose were Johannes de Meung and Clopinellus; whereas in fact the one is his proper name, the other taken from his native place.

He wrote that comic tale of the Rose (Le Roman de la Rose), begun by Guilielmus de Lorris, of which the oldest copy has come into my hands. In it he mixes many things chemical, which are a sure indication that he had deeper knowledge.

And indeed to me it is not doubtful that very many such amorous and fabulous books have in every age been written, under whose coverings these mysteries were hidden. In the Aethiopica of Heliodorus, whom we know to have been addicted to chemical study, clear traces of this are found. Since among the Egyptians and Arabs first this kind of books was much frequented (as Daniel Huet has shown us in his excellent dissertation De l’Origine des Romans), it is highly probable that many of those books were written for the express purpose of covering the art of Alchemy which they professed.

Many charming things are told of this Clopinellus by Fauchet in his De antiquis Gallorum Poetis, book 2, p. 126, and by Verdier in his Bibliotheca Gallica, who borrows much from him.

He also wrote certain verses On the Errors of the Alchemists, upon which Nicolaus Flamel, the Parisian scrivener, composed a commentary — he himself too being reckoned a possessor of the Chemical Secret; for he expended vast sums upon temples and magnificent buildings. Yet Georgius Hornius, in the preface to his Geber, reports from Naudaeus that Flamel did not acquire such riches by chemical operations, but by other arts, namely from the confiscated goods of the Jews; though he concealed them under the fable of the Philosopher’s Stone. The same is repeated by La Croix du Maine in his Bibliotheque p. 343.

But by many arguments, not to be despised, he was indeed accused of frauds, and the reality of his chemical knowledge is defended by Pierre Borel in his Dictionnaire des mots antiques François p. 158ff. For as to the objection, that he acquired his wealth from the Jews expelled from France, Borel shows that this happened more than a hundred years after Flamel’s time. Flamel completed his Great Work in the year 1382. The calumny had its origin rather in this: that he had associated with Jews, for he required their help in interpreting a Hebrew book, written by a certain Abraham the Jew, from which he learned the confection of the Stone. That very book, it is said, came at last into the hands of Cardinal Richelieu a little before his death, as Borellus heard from the noble Frenchman Monsieur de Cabrières, who had himself seen the autographon with his own eyes.

Flamel’s wealth was indeed immense, which he dispensed with the most liberal hand upon the poor, upon churches, and upon hospitals — so that at Paris scarcely any hospital or sacred building exists in which his effigy or some hieroglyphical chemical figures do not appear.

When these things became known to the King, he gave orders to Cramoisy, then Master of Petitions, to inquire into them. But Flamel, in order to free himself from this annoyance, presented to Cramoisy a box full of golden powder, which, it is said, was long preserved in that family.

Borellus inspected his testamentary papers, with a codicil and forty other sheets, a copy of which had been supplied him by Monsieur de Sauvale. From these he discovered that the sister of Flamel’s wife Petronella, married to a certain Perrier, had a son Nicholas, whom Borellus conjectures to have been made heir of the chemical secret.

There was, moreover, some physician Perrier, possessor of this powder, whose kinsman Bossius, after his death, found it among his papers and seized it — but to his ruin. For, imprudently making experiments here and there, he often played the author, but could not teach the art itself, which was demanded of him. Therefore he was sentenced to suspension, Richelieu himself pronouncing the sentence. Memorable is that which Borellus (p. 488) relates concerning the gold made by Bossius with this powder: when lead was placed in a cupel, a good portion of it was converted into the nature of gold. This, however, happened because he was ignorant of the true proportion of the powder required for the tincture of metal.

Certain other processes of the Philosopher’s Stone also circulate under Bossius’ name: indeed, I myself saw one among some English papers in the handwriting of Sir Kenelm Digby, preserved by my most honorable colleague Caspar Marchius; but they are without doubt spurious, fabricated by impostors. Many more such things may be read in Borellus.

Among the Latins, Johannes Aurelius Augurellus, in not inelegant verse, described in three books of Chryso-poietica the art of gold-making — to pass over others of less note.

The English poets of this art, and their fragments, were collected by Elias Ashmole in the first part of his Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum, with notes that contain not a little towards the history of the English Chemists. The remaining parts, however, are looked for in vain.

Of Paracelsus, in the last century, the fame was great — but concerning this man the judgments of the learned are divided. By some he is praised, by others blamed. He owed the chief part of his doctrine to the writings of Isaac Hollandus, already published, from which some affirm he borrowed much, and also to the instruction of a certain chemical doctor.

Yet no one will deny that he was ingenious and possessor of great arcana. This very thing brought him much envy — that he everywhere raged against the physicians, charging them with deep ignorance of nature. But at that time such fervor was necessary, if he wished to establish some authority for his new doctrine.

Still, this may be thought wanting in him: that, not being sufficiently trained in the schools of the ancient philosophers, he forged for himself monstrous opinions, and invented I know not what “Stars” and “Entities” as principles of many effects — perhaps turning over in his mind that Lucretian saying:

For all men more admire and love
The things that, under twisted words, lie hidden out of sight.

Finally, some accuse him of magic; from which, however, or at least from its practice, Naudaeus defends him in his Apologia pro Magis habitis part 1, c. 14. And perhaps fairer will be the judgment of those who weigh his writings not as published by himself, but as edited by others.

He had many adversaries, indeed even among the very professors of the old Chemistry, who everywhere depict him as a sophist and impostor — among whom were Libavius and others.

Conringius also investigated Paracelsus’ life and writings thoroughly in his De Medicina Hermetica. Yet, despite his many opponents, he did not lack defenders and followers of his doctrine.

I have already spoken above of his dissent from the writings of the older Chemists. Yet it seems likely that, with long experience, Paracelsus in many matters thought differently at the end of his life than he had in earlier days. Some testimonies of his to chryso-poietic work (gold-making) still remain, though others have been set against them.

If only he had kept his hands off theology, he would, I think, have drawn less envy upon himself. For he attempted to reshape the doctrines of theology according to chemical principles. Indeed, I myself have seen three large manuscript volumes of Paracelsus in the Vossian Library, in which he comments upon the books of the New Testament.

From this arose that society of the Fratres Rosae Crucis, proclaiming similar Theologico-Magical-Chemical dogmas. Their doctrine was denounced as vain and sophistical by Libavius and by Naudaeus in a special letter to Gassendi. Yet they deceived not a few, even learned men — among them Michael Maier, who in several books took up their cause.

It is remarkable what a crop of Chemical Enthusiasts sprang up in the years that followed, and what a swarm of sophistical books, teaching quite other things than those of the ancients. Most of these preferred to tread airy speculations (aerobasiai), and to derive chemical principles from the “Spirit of the World,” or the “Universal Salt,” or some other incomprehensible essence — rather than to seek them, as the ancients did, in their proper cradle, namely in the bowels of the earth.

I have known many writers of this sort, and among them the Book of Fire and Azoth by Veiogel, all in manuscript and sold at a high price in Amsterdam. But there is no need to dwell on them.

More to the point is Theobald ab Hoghelan, who under the assumed name of Evaldus Vogelinus produced chemical treatises esteemed above most others by men skilled in the art. He wrote On the Difficulties of Alchemy, and another On the Conditions of the Physical Stone. I do not recall ever having seen anything by him against the validity of Alchemy, as Kircher pretends. He also authored another book in which he recorded histories of metallic transmutations. He wrote in a clear style, far more lucid than the rest. Many believed him to be a possessor of the secret; and he himself did not deny having begun the Work.

His son, Cornelius ab Hogheland, who wrote On the Existence of God and On the Economy of the Animal, had no secret himself, but followed some of Theobald’s writings, and worked much with Descartes, as a friend told me, but without success.

Petrus Johannes Faber, who perhaps still lives today, is reckoned by the Comte d’Elisicourt (Decas de Fato, p. 132) to be a true possessor: “In our own times, Petrus Joh. Faber composed the Philosopher’s Stone.” Certainly by many writings he has tried to persuade the world of this. Yet for my part, unless such things be supported by adequate proofs, they do not easily find credit.

The Arcanum of Hermetic Philosophy, which is appended to the Enchiridion of Restored Spagyric Physics, is elegantly written, and by its very character shows itself genuine. Nor is it a small argument that mention is made of it by the Anonymous Philalethes, whom I know, on the testimony of an illustrious man, to be still alive today and a true possessor. He sometimes even copies whole periods from it, where he does not name it directly. In both writings the diction is so consistent, so free from affectation, that one would think all were from the same hand.

For Spagneius is not the author of the Arcanum Hermeticum, but only the editor, as Borellus records in his Bibliotheca. A certain anonymous noble Frenchman, not under Spagneius’ name, cites it. This “Philalethes” himself is an Englishman — concerning whom these things were told me at London by an illustrious and most trustworthy man, who knew him well.

He once, it is said, arrived at some place in the East Indies (the name has escaped me), where he was hosted by George Starkey, an apothecary and his fellow-countryman. With Starkey’s son he became familiarly acquainted, and under oath revealed his true name to him, and even gave him a particle of the Tincture, together with a certain book for publication. A part of that book was printed some years ago at Amsterdam by Johannes Langius under the title Introitus apertus ad occlusum Regis Palatium (“Open Entrance to the Closed Palace of the King”); another part, under another title, by Birrius, a physician at Amsterdam, though to him the name of Philalethes was unknown.

For a long time this book (Introitus apertus, the Open Entrance) remained unpublished, circulating only in manuscript among the lovers of Chymical philosophy. Georgius Hornius, in the preface to his edition of Geber, makes mention of it — but he does the author wrong, who appears to be one of the most candid and perspicuous ever to handle this subject, by calling him a sophist, simply because his own work according to the precepts produced no success.

That the book was written in Latin is beyond doubt: all the evidence points that way. I cannot accept the view of him who lately put forth an Autochephalon in English, differing in some points from the Langius edition. The very diction is Latin; the proverbial verses, sometimes cited from the poets, clearly prove it. The interpolated scraps which appear here and there in the English edition seem to be from another hand, stitched into the text in places where they do not belong.

I myself once possessed two Latin manuscript copies: one from the communication of Starkey himself (his name and his Indian homeland written on the title page), whence the credibility of the history I narrated above is strengthened; the other I had from another friend. What Birrius and Langius printed are combined in these manuscripts. Yet in Birrius’ edition, the third treatise, called The Fountain of Chymical Philosophy, lacks its entire preliminary chapter On Philosophical Calcination, which is found in the manuscripts; and the division of the books also differs, with whole verses and periods preserved in the manuscripts that are absent from the printed versions.

As for Starkey, who received this book from the Author, he later returned to England and performed some experiments with his powder in London. When he attempted himself to accomplish the Work (for he had received certain precepts from his Master), he labored in vain. I hear, however, that in one of his own books, entitled The Marrow of Alchimy, he makes some mention of these matters — but though I sought the book with the utmost diligence in England, I could never obtain it. His other works on Pyrotechny, and those written in defense of Helmont, are not so rare.

It would be untimely here, and wearisome to you, Most Illustrious Sir, to waste time recounting various lesser works. You know them far better than I, who write these things to you. The chief of them have already been gathered into collections: Arte Aurifera; Theatrum Chemicum; Musaeum Hermeticum (from which Petrus Johannes Faber himself confesses to have learned many arcana, which he exalts almost to heaven in his praises); and the Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum published by Elias Ashmole.

Much concerning the art itself, and the history of its authors, has been discussed with learning and care by Michael Maier in his Symbola aureae mensae and his Septimana Philosophica, and by Libavius in his writings.

So much, then, concerning the authors of this doctrine. Many, I know, despise them for their harsh diction, their obscurity, and their manner of philosophizing, unusual in our age. But such censors are unjust. No one should expect elegance from that era; and the subject itself demanded to be veiled in enigmatical form, lest it fall into unworthy hands. Nor should the style of philosophizing then current in natural philosophy be held in contempt. Let a fair judge look to the matter itself: words and modes of expression may easily be forgiven.

Often within the walls of monasteries there lay hidden excellent minds, who, being free from worldly cares and having abundant leisure, could penetrate into many arcana by deep meditation and continual experiment, from which those distracted by other business are held back. Hence we find more monuments of the chymical art among monks than elsewhere.

Whoever desires to reap some fruit from these writings must have a special hermeneutical skill. He must first learn their peculiar terms, those more hidden ones — for which a complete lexicon might easily be compiled. Vulgar dictionaries are of little use. One must search out meanings by comparing parallel passages. Of this Lagnaeus, in his Harmonia Chymica, has given some specimen.

Nor with any other purpose, though through borrowed labors, was the Turba Philosophorum collected in the Arte Aurifera — yet it differs greatly from what is found in the Theatrum Chemicum. Another collection in French was compiled by Bernard, Count of Treviso.

Chapter 13.

It remains now that I bring forth some experiments of this Art, which have come to men’s notice, and some of them hitherto unknown. For I have no mind to repeat what Theobald Hogheland and others have already gathered as examples of chrysopoeia; and many such we ourselves have already recounted above.

In the first place I shall name the noble Scotsman, Alexander Seton (or Sidonius), so famous through his experiments, who makes up a large portion of Hogheland’s book. Yet not everything about him came to Hogheland’s knowledge. At Amsterdam there was shown to me a small golden plate, by the son of the most renowned physician Johannes Antonides van der Linden (himself also a physician). This fragment was part of the gold which that Scotsman had made out of lead at Enkhuizen, where Antonides’ father practiced medicine. The piece came originally from the sailor Jacob Hausfsen, in whose house Seton had performed the projection. The Enkhuizen physician kept the fragment and carefully recorded the circumstances in his own hand: the year 1602, the 13th of March, at the fourth hour after noon.

The occasion of Seton’s acquaintance with that sailor arose from a shipwreck. The sailor, cast ashore on the Scottish coast where Seton’s lands lay, was treated kindly by him, and later, coming to Enkhuizen, was received hospitably. Seton afterwards displayed other proofs of his Art in Germany, so openly that he nearly brought ruin upon himself; from which he was rescued by Sendivogius, the Pole (or, as some say, Moravian), who in return received from him a box of the aurific powder.

In the meantime, Seton died. Sendivogius, having married his widow in the hope that she possessed knowledge of the Art, found himself disappointed: beyond the gift of the powder he gained nothing. This powder he partly wasted in useless attempts at multiplication, partly exhausted in frequent public projections before great lords and nobles; so that from the height of wealth he fell into the very dangers of life and into poverty.

All these things were described with great diligence by Monsieur des Noyers, Secretary to the Queen of Poland, whose letter is inserted by Borel in his Dictionary (p. 479). For the other account found there, the relation of Budovvski, steward of Sendivogius, is not trustworthy. In truth, Sendivogius knew nothing essential of the Art. Nevertheless he arranged for the book of Seton, who styled himself Cosmopolita, to be printed — namely the Twelve Treatises. Another treatise, De Sulphure, is judged spurious by des Noyers, who offers many arguments to prove it so.

That remarkable story is also told of the imperial coin, half of which Sendivogius tinged into gold, the other half remaining silver. Yet the golden part was entirely porous — showing that the aurific powder’s action extended only to the surface particles of the metal. This coin was often shown in Paris by Monsieur des Noyers, who possessed it. I myself knew a friend who had seen from him another similar coin, marked with alternate streaks of gold and silver.

Sendivogius had tinged this coin in the following manner: with a brush dipped in the tincture he drew lines upon the surface, sprinkled these with the powder, and then placed the coin in the fire until it glowed. Along the drawn lines the silver was changed into gold, while the rest remained silver. But this could not be done without notable waste of the powder, for a larger quantity is required when the metal is simply heated than when it is melted. By the same method, even iron nails can be tinged, provided that the abundance of tincture supplies what the nature of the matter itself lacks in aptitude — just as the “petrifying spirit” converts wood and similar materials into stone, by filling all the pores and passages with its substance.

Some specimens of Seton’s chrysopoeia performed at Hamburg are mentioned by Lavater in his book De Censu.

As for Edward Kelley, the Englishman, the matter is well known: he performed a transmutation in the presence of Emperor Rudolph II at Prague, in the house of Thaddaeus Hagecius. Gassendi, too, reports this in his De Metallis (cap. 7). Kelley was commonly thought to be a true possessor of the secret, but in fact he had obtained the tincture from another source.

Since the full story of Edward Kelley is not commonly known, I shall set it down as it was related to me by a distinguished man, who had it from Kelley’s own servant. It is worthy of note, and contains many memorable details.

Kelley was not a noble Englishman, as some have imagined, but a common man — a notary and advocate of London. Because he was highly skilled in the old English tongue, he dared, in someone’s favor, to tamper with certain ancient legal instruments. Convicted of this crime, he was sentenced to have his ears cut off and was banished from London (as attested by Weaver in his Funeral Monuments).

So Kelley withdrew into Wales, and in some town there (the name escapes me now) he lodged at an inn. In that place he discovered lying before a window a very ancient book, written in the old Welsh language (of which he was a master), dealing with the secret of the Philosophers’ Stone. From its reading he suspected that some hidden mysteries were concealed therein. Asking the innkeeper whence he had obtained the book, the man replied: it had been found in the tomb of a bishop in the nearby church.

The story was this: when the mob in that district raged against sacred images and crosses, rumors spread of a great treasure hidden in the bishop’s sepulchre. The tomb was opened, but nothing was found save that book and two ivory globes. Disappointed of their hope of gold, the crowd, in anger, smashed one of the globes, within which was discovered a most ruddy and heavy powder. Much of it, lacking taste or smell, was cast away and trampled underfoot. The innkeeper, however, took for himself both the book and the other intact globe (which contained a white tincture), together with some portion of the remaining red powder, as a curiosity.

Kelley, asking him to show the powder and the ivory globe (already used by the innkeeper’s children in their games), at length obtained them, and for the small sum of one pound sterling bought both book and relics, the innkeeper thinking they would be of no use to him.

Kelley, reading many magnificent and splendid promises in that book, together with dreadful curses upon those who should abuse the treasure, returned to London. Lodging in the suburbs, he sent word to Dr. John Dee, theologian, mathematician, and esteemed judge of chemical matters, once his neighbor, bidding him come at once to see something remarkable. Dee came, and was greeted by Kelley, who asked him: “Tell me, what is projection?” Smiling, Dee replied: “Hand me the thing by which projection is made, and I will show you immediately.”

Kelley then related the whole story and produced the powder. Together they went to a goldsmith, where, making the trial, they saw lead indeed transformed into gold by that tincture.

Thus Dee, seized with the hope of mastering this great secret, left with Kelley and their whole household first for Germany, and then for Prague in Bohemia — perhaps to be nearer the mines, where they could attempt experiments according to the book’s instructions, or that they might live more securely abroad than at home.

But Kelley, puffed up by this splendid fortune and imprudent in performing projections openly before emperors and nobles, at first gained great renown and acquired wealth greater than royal, of which Elias Ashmole has reckoned the gifts in his Theatrum Chymicum Britannicum with notes to the book of Edward Kelley (perhaps the very book Kelley had bought from the innkeeper, though possibly interpolated by himself). For he bestowed gifts not only upon princes and ambassadors, but even gave to his maid a dowry of four thousand pounds sterling.

Those who did not know he had obtained the tincture from elsewhere believed that he could change as much base metal into gold as the weight of the gold from which the powder or liquor had been first extracted. They urged the Emperor to command him, not to make ounces only, but whole pounds. This Kelley promised, but could not perform — most likely because he did not have enough powder to suffice for such large quantities.

When therefore thrift was too late, and the Emperor, whom Kelley had promised to initiate into the art (which he himself did not know), pressed him and threatened imprisonment, Kelley turned to magical arts. He attempted to conjure spirits, from whom he hoped to learn the secret of making the tincture. Nearly every day he held conferences with spirits, which John Dee carefully recorded in a singular diary. After Dee’s death this diary came into the hands of Meric Casaubon, son of Isaac, who published it — to convince atheists of the existence of spirits. The book, in folio, is filled with strange trifles, prayers, conjurations, and dreams, but from it the whole history of these men can be perfectly learned.

News of all this came to Queen Elizabeth of England, who had often tried in vain to invite Kelley to her court. At length, by her entreaties, John Dee was recalled to England and given a noble appointment. But he could not fulfill her hopes, and died there at last. Kelley himself had died earlier in Bohemia, after breaking his leg in an attempt to escape from prison by letting himself down with ropes.

The truth of this same story was also confirmed to me by Joachim Polemann, who had often heard it from the mouth of Digby.

Elias Ashmole, however, entirely ignorant of these things, reckoned Kelley himself a true Possessor in his notes to his Theatrum Chymicum Britannicum. Ashmole also owned, as he told me, another diary in the hand of John Dee, from which he extracted many details relating to Kelley’s history. Without doubt, this diary was later than the one published by Casaubon; for in Ashmole’s manuscript it is frequently noted how many ounces of gold were produced on such and such a day. One memorable instance recorded is that a fragment of a certain kitchen vessel was transmuted into silver, in such a way that the piece could be exactly refitted back into the vessel. This very vessel, together with the transmuted fragment, was sent to Queen Elizabeth.

As for Butler (or Buller), of whose little stone Van Helmont recounts marvelous cures, since no one, so far as I know, has published his history, I shall recite it as I had it from the same distinguished man.

Butler was an Irish nobleman. When, as a young man, he was about to sail to Africa, he was captured by pirates and sold as a slave to an Arab prince. This prince was possessor of the great secret (as many in Arabia are said to be), and employed Butler’s service in certain common chemical labors. Being shrewd and observant, Butler detected his master’s more secret works, and at last came upon a little casket in which that mighty treasure of nature was stored. Once certain of this, he struck a bargain with an English merchant then living there, that the merchant should purchase his freedom from the prince. This was done; but Butler also stole away the casket containing the great arcanum, and returned to England, where, in private before certain witnesses, he made a projection.

The fame of this reached an Irish physician, his countryman, who was so moved by the hope of obtaining the secret that he abandoned his family and medical practice in order to serve Butler. Yet, after much time had passed, the physician could discover nothing, for Butler did all things in secrecy. At last he made an agreement with Butler’s host, paying him a sum that he might secure a small dark place adjoining Butler’s chamber, whence, through cracks and holes he had made, he might observe him.

It happened one day that Butler bought quantities of lead and quicksilver, and then immediately sent the physician away to a neighboring town on some errand. The physician, suspecting the moment had come, feigned his departure and remained behind. He placed several chairs one atop another behind Butler’s chamber, so that through the prepared holes he might look in. He saw Butler preparing a furnace, setting the lead and mercury to the fire. Then he saw him lift a stone in the pavement and take out a casket full of reddish powder. Taking what he needed from it, Butler was just about to cast it into the molten lead and quicksilver, when the physician, carried away with eagerness to see more, leaned too far — and the top chair on which he stood tipped over, hurling him to the ground.

Startled by the crash, Butler nearly ran him through on the spot, had not the host intervened. The physician then immediately accused his master before the London magistrates as a counterfeiter of coin. Butler was cast into prison, and his possessions searched. No minting tools were found, but forty pounds of gold were discovered, which, though at first suspected false, proved genuine under every test. With no evidence of coining, Butler was released from prison.

Later, Butler approached the Duke of Buckingham (as I heard directly from the Duke’s steward, who told me this story), when the Duke was about to travel abroad. Butler freely offered him a bill of exchange to a Dutch merchant, in case the Duke should ever want for money among foreigners. The Duke laughed, but accepted the paper so as not to seem discourteous, and promptly neglected it. Yet, when he later came to Amsterdam, a merchant greeted him in Butler’s name and offered him two hundred thousand gold pieces, should he need them. The Duke was astonished at so vast a sum, but refused to accept it.

Afterwards, when in England Butler’s great wealth, gotten by the chemical art, became widely known, he began to fear for his safety. At length, when sailing for Spain, he was drowned at sea, together with his tincture. The physician, for his part, was afterwards executed by hanging, because he had taught his rebellious countrymen the method of making gunpowder. Thus Butler paid the penalty of theft, and the physician of treason.

This history the distinguished man I mentioned had from the mouth of that very Irish physician.

Jacques Cœur, counsellor to King Charles VII of France, a man of great eminence and offices, is also reckoned by Borel among the possessors of the great secret. And, if I recall rightly, Claude de Seyssel in his History of Louis XI records that King Charles was aided by Jacques Cœur’s chemical gold in the war against the English. Borel, in his Dictionary (pp. 272–279), sets down various arguments to prove his skill in chrysopoeia. Among these he reports that Jacques Cœur made a kind of malleable glass, perfectly clear and transparent, which would show the body of the sun itself, yet transmit none of its rays. But Borel errs greatly in supposing that he had learned the art from Lullius, who lived nearly a whole century earlier.

Not to be despised, too, is that specimen of aurifaction which Berigardus, in his Circulus Pisanus (p. 25), himself attempted. “I shall relate to you faithfully,” he says, “what once happened to me when I strongly doubted whether gold could be made from quicksilver. I received from an industrious man, who wished to free me from this doubt, a drachm of powder, in color not unlike the flower of the wild poppy, in smell recalling burnt sea-salt. And, that there might be no suspicion of a merry fraud, I received the vessel, one of many common ones, and the charcoal and the quicksilver, that nothing might secretly be placed there, as is done by jugglers. Into ten drachms of that powder I cast the quicksilver, with a sufficiently strong fire beneath, and immediately, in a very short time, the whole was united into about ten drachms of the best natural gold, which endured every test of the goldsmith. Unless I had proved it in a solitary place, away from witnesses, I might suspect some deceit; but I can confidently attest that the thing was indeed so.”

Thus he, a man of elegant learning and by no means vain. To this I add what Hamelius reports (De Fossilibus II.6.10, p. 252): “A few years ago” (the book was published in 1660), “a Parisian goldsmith—whose name, if necessary, I could disclose—received a few grains of aurific powder from a Pole returning to his homeland, by the aid of which he transmuted a mass of lead into the purest gold.”

He further adds to his interlocutor (for it is a dialogue), turning to him: “He is a very shrewd man, and perhaps, my dear Theophilus, you know him by name and face.” Thullius, also, in his commentary on Alciatus’s Emblem 189, makes mention of such aurifaction: “Why, I myself with these eyes saw, with these hands handled, a mass of gold wrought by a man well known and familiar to me, which was brought into a public disputation at the Archducal Academy of Freiburg in Brisgau, where it was argued whether such a thing were possible.”

Of Baron de Chaos (formerly called Richthausser), the specimens which he gave before Emperor Ferdinand III are sufficiently well known, among which is a coin preserved, whose effigy may be seen in Zwelfer’s Manissa Spagyrica and elsewhere. From where he had obtained the powder I know from the account of a friend, but that I reserve for private conversations. He also had a uniform ruby, made by another’s art, which, my friend told me, came into the hands of Queen Christina after the capture of Prague.

As for the history of the transmutation said to have been performed in the house of Cornelius Martini, Professor at Helmstedt, by a certain nobleman, which Zwelfer narrates (Manissa Spagyrica, p. 329), I inquired diligently: but my friends at Helmstedt could not confirm it, except that they testify Cornelius Martini had expended much labor upon chemical studies. And he himself, in his Logical Analysis (c. 8), by his own testimony affirms the truth of the art.

The account of aurific powder presented to the Emperor by a certain unknown old man, together with the experiment itself, is given by Monconys in his Itinerary (part II, p. 371). The same work (pp. 378–379) records the history of a transmutation performed by Baron de Chaos, and again (p. 372) another projection before the Elector of Mainz, and (p. 381) yet another of chemical gold presented to Gustavus Adolphus by a certain Lübeck merchant.

Similarly, in the Miscellanea Medico-Physica of the Academy of the Curious about Nature for the year 1670, there are reports of Rudolph II, who was skilled in this art, revealing it to his chamberlain; of a certain soldier who converted lead into silver, from whom a casket full of argentific powder was stolen; and other histories hitherto unknown.

But who could number all these testimonies? I could add not a few to those already produced, which I have heard from friends whose fidelity is certain. But these I know only for myself and in private conversation with friends, nor is it permitted to publish them. What we have already adduced is, I think, sufficient to overcome the obstinacy of those who can scarcely be convinced even by arguments, hardly even by their own senses.

Of such men indeed the arrogance and malice deserve reproof. Yet of others—their eagerness for inquiry is praiseworthy, though not their inconsiderate zeal. For since these studies are beset with so many and such great difficulties, he acts imprudently who expends both wealth and precious hours upon the most uncertain of all pursuits.

For unless a deus ex machina should intervene, or some true Master reveal himself, in vain shall we move every stone in pursuit of the Stone. Added also is the fatal companion of such studies—contempt—which to an honest man is most grievous: for ill-directed provision of what is useful detracts from the credit of one’s judgment in the eyes of prudent men, when we strive after a vain thing, notorious for so many impostures, ennobled only by the losses and perils of others.

For this reason Cardinal Perron (as is evident from those notes recorded by the Fathers Puteani) was accustomed to reckon among wasted talents those who spend their time upon such studies—whether it be the multiplication of the cube, the perpetual motion, or judicial astrology.

More rightly therefore do those act, who, abandoning this precipice, turn themselves to the level ground, and in the works of nature close at hand devote their contemplation to pursuits joined with less loss and danger.

Whence both to natural philosophy and to medicine new light may ever be brought. And this we see you, most noble Sir, to be doing with great applause from illustrious men, who continually expect new secrets from your chemical workshop.

But as for me—whom studies wholly alien have claimed as their own (for neither with Roman law nor with the humaner letters, to which I still devote myself, has chemical science any commerce)—I look upon these things only through a lattice, and leave them to be judged by you within your own bounds.

As for this letter, now passing into a book through its tedious and wearisome dissertation, determine as you please: if it is not born apt to bear the light, let it, by your sentence, go to the fire, to be immolated as a victim on the altar of Vulcan. Farewell.

Given at Kiel, on the 26th day of February, in the year 1673.

Finish.

---

LATIN VERSION

De Metallorum Transmutatione ad Virum Nobilissimum et Amplissimum Ioelem Langelottum, Serenissimi Principis Cimbrici Archiatrum Celeberrimum Epistola Danielis Georg. Morhofi Professoris Kilonienfis.

QUoties Slesvigam excurrens Te inviso, Vir Clarissime, plerumque doctior, quam accesseram, recedo. Praeterquam enim quod eruditissimis tuis sermonibus aures animosque saepe tenes, subinde nova quaedam, cum ex omni politioris literaturae genere, tum e naturalis potissimum scientiae penetralibus, quae ad Te vel Amici perscribunt, vel ipse ingeniose inventa moliris, mecum, quae tua humanitas est, communicare non gravaris. Cujus honestissimae suavissimaeque conversationis fructus cum non exiguos saepe persentiscam, fructum non solum, sed et voluptatem cepi maximam e sermonibus, qui inter nos de ingeniosissima tua Epistola, non ita pridem publicatae, argumento ferebantur, cum ante menses aliquot Tibi adessem. Praeclara illa sunt omnia ac subtiliter excogitata, quae de digestionis, fermentationis ac trituis usu in Chemicis laboribus monuisti. Mirabilis est illa auri per molam, quam vocas, Philosophicam comminutio, quam illic doces. Curiosissima sunt, quae de fermentatione Tartari, ejusque salis volatilis spiritu, Opii Essentia, Mercurii eductione ex Antimonio, Corallorum in rubicundam mucilaginem analysi, jucunde non minus quam utiliter disseris: ut profecto istos nomine multum tibi literatus orbis debeat ac Chemici praecipue, quibus non pauca arcana, quorum dubia hactenus fides fuit, Te demonstratore patuerunt. Magnam certe apud illustres Collegii Regii Londinensis socios scripto hoc publicato gratiam invisisti: nam et summis extulerunt laudibus, et hac quasi promulgide illecti, quae promisisti, Acta Laboratorii Gottorpiensis, uberrimam ex istis praemissis messem sibi polliciti, impatiens desiderio efflagitatur. Testantur id humanissimae literae, quas non ita pridem nobilissimus Dn. Oldenburgius ad me scripsit; quarum vel ideo mentionem hic facere volui, ut exstaret haec quasi publica commonitio, qua obligemur, inter continua illa negotia facile obrepentem tibi excutere ac aurem vellicare nonnunquam possit. Nec minus te Tibi obstrictionem agnoscet Celeberrima Naturae curiosiorum in Germania nostra Societas, cui epistolam tuam inscribis: non parum enim sibi de novo, quo exteris et ostentet, documento gratulatur. Atque illi quidem illustres et in rerum naturalium loco principes hoc saeculo Viri, quia in iis causis sedere judices possunt, penitiquae omnia rimantur; majorum inventis suis auctoritatem laudibus suis conciliabunt, quam ego reliquae similes: qui admirari haec, aut commemorare aliis tantum, sed judicare parum apti possumus, nec debemus; ne, quod Graci proverbio dicunt, ἐν ἄλλοτρίῳ χορῷ πόδα τίθησιν, videamur. Factum tamen est, nescio quomodo: ut, cum nuper a manu tua gratissimum acceperem munus, doctissimam nempe epistolam tuam, occasione auri per molam Philosophicam soluti, in sermones de metallorum transmutatione abriperemur; Tibique quae hujus argumenti in medium tum proferebam non displicerent: adeo quidem ut vel publica luce non indigna judicares. Erant vero illa pro adstruenda transmutationis veritate, partim e naturalis sapientiae adytis; partim ex Historia cum veteri tum recentiori petita, ut illa memoria disserenti suggerabat; non praeclara illa quidem satisque culta: tibi tamen quod affectui tua imputo, non ingrata. Ego quidem statim tum monebam, ne me novas Athenas ferre, id est, de re tot hominum calamis trita, ac pene protrita, addo etiam invidiosa, scribere juber es, praesertim cum praeclarissimi Viri, Conringius et Borrichius jam pridem omnem hujus rei fundum occupassent: caeterorum vero scriptorculorum tanta turba sit, ut nostra vel ingloria, vel inutilis hic opera sapientioribus videri posset. Tu vero diversum quid a me sentiens urgere non destitisti, ut hoc, quicquid est, opellae, in me susciperem. Qua in re tandem, quoniam ita voluisti, resfragari Tibi diutius nec debui, nec volui, modo tu videris, ne vel te fallas ipse, vel alii, quibus amplior forte spes ostenditur, per te fallantur. Nos vero ita rem aggredimur, ut primo de transmutationis possibilitate pauca quamdam attingamus: deinde de auctoribus, qui artis hujus arcana vel tradiderunt vel propagarunt; deinde de ipsis artis hujus experimentis non plane in trivis decantata, aut in vulgus cognita in medium producamus.

Chapter 1.

Primum, cum de Metallis quaeritur, an commutari illa possint: commutatio vero corruptionem unius et generationem alterius metalli necessario supponat; dispiciendum in limine hujus Dissertationis esset: quomodo natura in terrae visceribus illa componat. Sed quis ignorantiam hic suam non profiteatur? Nam cum profundis adeo tenebris res ipsa immersa sit, quis doctrinam hanc in aprico ponet? Nullius a tot saeculis, in hunc usque diem comparuit, cum tamen tam acutum nunc res naturales cernimus ad ipsas usque particularum particulas, qui exerto digito metallorum causas monstrare ac ponere ob oculos possit. Hinc merae ubique conjecturae et palpitationes, nihil certi: cum quae de natura eorum cognoscimus, e superficiali tantum contemplatione proficiscantur. Altius fortassis Natura eorum principia recondit, quam ut pervenire eo humana molimina possint. Operationes, quibus illa utitur, lentae, ac integris saeculis nonnunquam ducuntur, et per cuniculos: ut omnem observatoris, quanquam solertissimi, industriam facile effugiant. Metallurgi indocti sunt, ac causarum naturalium ignari. Qui ingenio profundiori illas rimari possunt Philosophi non facile periculis, quae rem illam comitantur, se expununt. Hinc desertam habemus nobilissimam scientiae naturalis partem, quae non satis perspecta etiam in reliquis hallucinabimur. Ab interiore enim globi hujus terreni compositione, partiumque ejus praecipuarum, inter quas succi cujusdam et medullae instar principem sibi locum salia et metalla vendicant; et horum ex halationibus omnis ille aer, qui globo huic circumponitur, varie afficitur multaque hujus atmosphaerae phaenomena dependent. Scriptores Metallicos si excusseris, parum invenies quod satiare pectus possit. Quicquid tamen ea in re praestitum est, Germanis debetur; quorum vestigia legunt exteri, si qui sunt, qui hoc argumentum tractarunt. Pauca sunt apud vetustos Scriptores, Platonem, Aristotelem, Plinium, historiae Metallica monumenta. Recentioribus, post Alberti M. Libros de Mineralibus, Andreae de Solea Liber de Incremento & Decremento Metallorum, qui Basilio Valentino vulgo adscribitur, ac cum ejus XII. clavibus edi solet, quanquam integro saeculo hunc ille superet, praeclare scriptus est ac multa habet recondita: sed obscura pleraque sunt, nec aperte satis scripta. Diligentissimus ac eruditissimus Scriptor Georgius Agricola est, qui et historiam et operationes metallicas pro virili sua executus est. Quibus addi possunt, quae Germanica Lingua scripta sunt Lazari Erkeri in arte docimastica principis; Fachsii, Mathesii, Albini, Zachariae Theobaldi, quique pleraque sua ex caeteris collegit, Lohneiseni opera. Sed nec Andreas Caesalpinus contemnendus. Bernardus Cesius in alia omnia dilabitur: nam locos potius communes de rebus metallicis congessit, qui ad naturam metallorum pernoscendam parum faciunt. Nec praetereundi sunt fossilium, quae in variis terrae partibus inveniuntur, Nomenclatores; Kentmannus, Schwenckfeldius, Cresschmarus, Merretus, Aldrovandus in Musaeo Metallico, Wormius, Athanasius Kircherus quanto hiatu magnifica multa promisit de mundo suo, quem ita vocat, subterraneo! Sed vehementer ille corvos eludit hiantes. Quanquam enim vastus liber sit, adeo tamen rerum inops est, ut et illa, quae necessaria sunt, nonnunquam omittat; superflua multa conscribat; cramben toties coctam toties recoquat; multa ex aliis describat; in multis impingat; nova parca manu serat. Longe illo ingeniosior est Physicae subterraneae scriptor Beccherus, qui eo Libro, et ejus supplemento non pauca asserit, quae magnam rei metallica lucem inferre possunt. Nec laude sua privandi Honoratus Fabri et Hamelius, philosophi praestantissimi, quorum ille in Libris Physicis; hic tractatu de Meteoris et Fossilibus hanc Philosophiae naturalis partem non leviter illustrarunt. Superiore anno Websterus, Autor Anglus, patria lingua Metallographiam edidit, sed e Germanis Scriptoribus, et quibusdam ex eis, quos modo enarravimus, praecipue congestam, cum paucis quibusdam suis observationiculis. Sed nec autores omnes ipse novit, nec delectum satis accuratum instituit. Quanquam laudari tamen Viri istius debeat diligentia, qua collecta sub certis capitibus habemus, quae in autoribus ipsis non sine taedio aliquo conquiriuntur. Quae Vir illustris Robertus Boilius de Origine Metallorum et Mineralium commentatus est, procul dubio, ut omnia Viri illius, eximia erunt et elaboratissima, quantum e libello, ipsis, de quibus agit, gemmis pretiosiore, non ita pridem publicato augurari licet. Sed ea hactenus ad manus nostras non venerunt. Interim e tanta Scriptorum Metallicorum segete parum admodum excusseris, quod intimam Metallorum naturam in conspectum tibi producant.

Chapter 2.

Qui aquam omnium corporum faciunt elementum, idem quoque metallis substantium. Quam veterum quorundam Philosophorum sententiam resuscitarunt et recentioribus Helmontius, Bernhardus, Palissy, Henricus de Rochaz:
ac confirmat, quae viget apud nonnullos de liquore solvente Catholico, quem Alchaest ipsi vocant, opinio, cujus beneficio in liquorem insipidum corpora naturalia, ac ipsa adeo metalla abire creduntur. Quae hypothesis multorum animos sollicitos habuit, multitas Chemicorum fornaculas calefecit: sed labore plane irrito. Nam nunquam fuit, qui vidisse se talem liquorem asseverare potuerit: cum sint tamen non pauci, ut ex historiis notum est, qui ipsum magnum Philosophorum Lapidem non semel viderint. Quin adversatur sibi ipse Helmontius, qui alio in loco resolvi in puram et limpidām aquam corpora hoc liquore vult; alio faeces remanere dicit. Ante tempora certe Paracelsi et Helmontii ista in Chemicorum Scholis inaudita fuerunt: alia enim omnia, Villanovani, Lulli, Baconi similiumque Philosophorum scripta loquuntur. Et si rem ipsam consideres, naturae rerum repugnare videtur. Distinctae enim sunt liquidorum et consistentium rerum naturae: ac licet hae nonnunquam per illas vinculis, quibus cohaerent, exsolvantur, ut dissipatae oculorum aciem effugiant, nunquam tamen inter se commutantur, nec ab illis principium ac originem trahunt.

Bernhardus Palissy Gallus, homo quidem plebeius, sed tamen ingeniosus, libris patria lingua de natura fontium, metallis, gemmis, conscriptis, ex aquis omnia, metalla quoque et lapides durissimos produci vult: aquas tamen duas statuit; alteram materialem, alteram congelantem. Quae si recte perpendas, diversitatem principiorum perspicies, ut nihil novi hic praeter nomina deprehendas. Henricus de Rochaz, popularis ejus, qui de aquis metallicis ac secretis fodinarum metallicarum quaedam edidit, Physicam itidem reformatam scripsit, aquam quidem materiale rerum principium facit, sed salem illi adjungit, principium corpora consolidans. Propiora tamen etiam in compositione corporum admittit.

In eandem sententiam propendet Vir illustris Robertus Boilius, libello nuper de Gemmis edito, quarum primam originem substantiam fuisse liquidam statuit, quae si tincturis quibusdam mineralibus, dum fluidae vel molles sunt, imbuiantur, colores pro ratione mineralis obvii acquirant. In Opacis quales Haematitae, Jaspides similesque lapilli sunt, terram metallicis succis impregnatam, accessionem liquoris petrescentis, seu spiritus petrifici in lapidis formam coagulare putat. Multa sunt in illo libro praeclara, quae ad hanc doctrinam illustrandam faciunt.

Meminit hic cujusdam liquoris casu oblati, qui gemmas solvere potuerit. Terram plenam esse menstruis aliisque liquoribus variarum generum existimat, e fodinis, per quas vagantur, varie impregnatis; qui quibusdam casibus vice menstrui fungi, alio vero modo concurrere ad productionem corporum mineralium possint. Quin ipsam aquam communem variis mineralium effluviis infectam, ut est plerumque, quod Thurnehuserus Libro de Aquis mineralibus (vocet) id praestare posse credit. Quod argumentum plenius ex Libro de Subterraneis menstruis excellenti esse testatur.

Haec cum recito, in memoriam mihi revoco, quae Abrahamus è Porta Leonis, Medicus Hebraeus Libro de Auro, in quo de Auri in Re Medica facultate disputat, de Aquis Fabariensibus prope Rhenum commemorat: quod succum aureum a natura nondum concretum obtineat, unde mirabiles illae virtutes in aegris curandis oriantur; nulla enim in illis auri ramenta cerni ait, quae tamen in propinquis Rheni fluviis appareant, illa medendi facultate destituitur. Sed in his succum illum concrescere in aurum corporeum putat: unde rejicit usum vini, in quo aurea lamina extincta, quod illud nullas e corporei auri ramentis vires nancisci possit. Quae omnia, an ex vero dicantur, esto aliorum judicium. In rebus obscuris et a sensu remotis conjecturis tantum locus est. Quod si menstru a illa subterranea admittimus, non omnino de nihilo esse quis crediderit.

Eandem telam nuper quoque texuit Thomas Sherley, Regis Angliae Medicus, in Dissertatione, quam de causis lapidum publicavit. Qua occasione simul in originem omnium corporum inquirit, quae ex Aqua et Seminibus suis produci vult. Eam praemisit, ut viam sterneret Tractatui Medico, quem de causis calculorum in corpore humano scripturus est. Non pauca hic erudita et curiosa, quae ad hoc argumentum et naturam petrificationis spectant, asseruntur, quibus hic ut immoremur, instituti nostri ratio non permittit.

Summa denique cura et industria rem illam demonstrandam suscipiet ingeniosissimus Steno, in Dissertatione de Solido intra solidum naturaliter contento, cujus prodromum superiore, ut puto, anno publicavit.

Et quo totum opus, velut ex ungue Leonem, judicare facile est. Corpus naturale vel solidum est, vel fluidum: Illud, si secundum naturae leges productum est, a fluido productum esse ait: Crescere illud, dum particulis ejus novae apponuntur particulae, ab externo fluido secretae: fieri autem appositionem hanc vel a fluido externo immediate, vel mediante fluido interno uno vel pluribus. Quae omnia eleganter illustrat comparatione corporis humani cum productis terrae instituta. In omnibus locum productionis accurate inspiciendum docet: id est corpora vicina, quae ad inclusorum productorium figuras componenda. Sic in saxorum examine multa detegi posse judicat, quae in mineralium ipsorum examine frustra tentantur, quandoquidem perquam probabile sit, omnia illa mineralia, quae saxorum spatia vel fissa vel dilatata implent, pro materia habuisse ex ipsis saxis expulsum vaporem: Quod an perpetuae et indubitatae fidei sit, ego in medio relinquo, nam aliunde etiam impleri fissurae possunt, quam vaporibus e saxis ipsis expulsis.

De Crystalli productione multa subtiliter disquirit: an inter fluidum et fluidum, vel inter fluidum et solidum; an vero in ipso fluido producatur: nam e fluido productam esse dubium illi nullum est; frigore tamen concretam, aut e cineribus ignis vi in vitrum exustam negat. Neque enim vi ignis tantum vitri fieri productionem, sed et absque ignis violentia fieri posse et humano artificio putat: modo quis instituat accuratam analysin saxorum, in quorum cavitatibus optime crystalli formantur: Certum enim esse, ut ex fluido concrevit crystallus, sic in fluidum eandem posse resolvi, modo quis verum Naturae menstruum imitari norit: Nec obstare quod corpora, a quibus menstruum totum vi ignis ablatum est, non amplius resolvi possint: cum alia sit ratio eorum corporum coagulatorum, quae in medio fluido seu menstrua concresecunt, cujus partes inter coagulati corporis particulas relinquuntur. Fluidum enim, in quo crystallus crescit, eodem modo se habere ad crystallum, quomodo aqua communis se habet ad salia. Cum vitro per ignis violentiam parato aliter res se habet, nam humor ejus pene omnis expellitur.

Memini tamen ego etiam in vitro vulgari tantum obtinere posse singularem quendam liquorem, ut ad tempus saltem flexibile illud reddat, si non solvit: quo imagines ex eo fingi possint, aut characteres illi imprimi, cujus mentionem feci in Epistola ad Clar. Dn. D. Majorem, de Scypho vitreo per sonum fracto scripta. Addo, cum e diversis corporibus jam tum concretis, quae nonnisi propriis singula menstruis resolvi possunt, componatur vitri corpus: vero est simile, nullum dari posse menstruum, quod in corpora sic juncta operetur.

Ad hujus doctrinae illustrationem mirifice facit historia artificialium gemmarum per aquam et pulverem coagulantem confectarum, a me in dicta epistola commemorata: quam recensere hic nolo: cum in tuis non tantum, sed et in omnium manibus sit Dissertatio typis ante annum divulgata. Lucem etiam addere poterit experimentum, quod vidi, cum Amstelodami commorarer, apud Birrium Medicum, editis quibusdam in Chemia libris non ignotum. Is mihi lapillos monstravit satis pellucidos ac elegantes, et ad modum gemmarum politos, quos e liquore quodam, quem prae monstrabat, se parasse aiebat. Ponderosus ille erat longe ultra vulgaris aquae indolem, claritate tamen et perspicuitate eam aequabat. Sapiebat tamen nescio quid leviter stypticum et salsum. Hunc ille non solum pro insigni medicamento habebat, sed et mira se in solutione corporum eo efficere posse memorabat. Vino Rhenano cum guttulas aliquot infunderet, sensim e flavo in saturum rubrum colorem, sed temporis aliquo intervallo, concedebat: et si recte memini, etiam crystalli in fundo subsid ebant. Ego non dubitavi e Tartari sale confectum esse, nam similem saporem deprehendi: quanquam ille celaret haec arcana. Ex isto liquore cum praecipitasset pulverem, eum igni vitrificatorio exposuit, usque dum in substantiam crystallis similem concresceret: e qua gemmas illas formari sibi fecerat.

De duritie illarum nihil mihi constat, cum nec tactu, nec visu ea deprehendi posset. Si non supererunt, saltem exaequarunt vitri duritiem, cum polituram sustinere potuerint. E corporibus, quae ad metallorum naturam propius accedunt, praecipue corpora lamellata in fluido et ex fluido concrevisse Steno censet. Quo in genere Talcum est, cujus solidum corpus in fluidum resolvi posse ait, cum ex fluido illud concrevisse extra controversiam sit. Illos autem a vero longissime aberrare, qui ignis tortura hanc ab illo gratiam extorquere nituntur: mitius enim (ait) a natura haberi solitum Talcum, tantam in venustatis amatoribus saevitiam indignatur, et vindictae loco Vulcano cedit illam sui resolventis partem, quam sibi inclusam conservat.

Denique et ipsa metalla perfectiora e liquore certo originem suam habere videri possent, si vera essent, quae Franciscus Lana in Prodromo all’ arte Maestra c. 20 suo edocutus, ut perhibet, experimento nobis prodidit: Cujus ipsa verba, ut plenior rei fides sit, hic adducam: “Non direi questo, inquit, se io medesimo non havesse havuto fortuna di havere aliquanta di una simile miniera, dalla quale, con non molto artificio fu cavata una poca quantità di certo liquore aureo, che era la vera semenza di oro, ma per non esser conosciuto, tutto fu consumato congettarlo sopra una quantità di argento vivo bollente, il quale tutto subito congelossi, e accresciuto il fuoco restarono cinque parti di esso perfettamente fisso, cioè, a dire una mezza oncia di quel liquore fisso, due oncie e mezza di argento vivo; che se fosse stato maggiormente depurato e poi congiunto come anima al suo corpo proportionato, sarebbesi con esso potuta formare la vera pietra, ma sin hora non ho mai potuto ritrovare altra miniera simile a quella, id est: Non dicerem illud, nisi mihi ipsi bona fortuna talem mineram (de minera auri loquitur) suppeditasset, e qua non magno artificio expressa fuit exigua aliqua quantitas certi liquoris aurei, verum auri semen: sed quia pretium ejus non intellegebam, totus ille liquor consumptus fuit projectione supra argentum vivum, quod statim congelavit, ac igne addito superfuerunt quinque partes ejus perfecte fixae: videlicet dimidia uncia istius liquoris fixi, duae et dimidia argenti vivi. Quae si magis depuratae fuissent, ac postea conjunctae quemadmodum anima cum corpore sibi adaequato, potuisset eo verus lapis confici: Verum ad hunc usque diem non potui illi similem invenire mineram.

Haec Autor ille magna quadam fiducia scribit; quorum tamen fides penes ipsum esto. Quin extraxerit ille e minera talem liquorem, qui figere potuerit argentum vivum; an vincet, inde semen auri se habuisse; aut e commistione corporum illorum lapidem, quem vocant, Philosophorum potuisse produci? Nos, ut tandem nostram quoque de his opinionibus sententiam in medium proferamus, ita arbitramur: nec gemmas, nec metalla e sola aqua simplici posse produci. Metalla, quia corpora habeo secundum mixta, quae decomposta alii vocant, in partibus suis constituentibus primo mistis, agnoscunt fortassis liquorem primogenium, sed qui in ipsa metallorum productione non apparet, ac inutilis est in metallo per artem producendo. Sed de his inferioribus plura.

Quod ad gemmarum et crystallorum ex aqua concretionem spectat, ea nondum satis expedita mihi quidem videtur. Quanquam enim, quia texturam simplicioris esse videntur, ob pelluciditatem, ad aquae naturam propius accedere videantur; dubia tamen non pauca rem illam urgent, quae alio se modo eam habere posse persuadent. Esto, pellucidas esse: sed tamen et durae sunt, et fragiles: quod indicio esse possit, minus inesse iis humoris, quam ipsis metallis, quorum lentor inspissatum liquorem non obscure ostendit. Bernhardus Palissy, qui ex aqua produci vult, non e simplici sed e gemmis componi putat, quarum altera, quam coagulatentem vocat, nihil aliud quam Sal est, ut explicat Sorellus, aut alia quaedam substantia lapidifica, quae ab aquae natura diversa est: ut itaque ex ipsis ejus principiis pateat, crystallum non esse corpus ὁμοιομερές.

Cras sam satis communium lapidum misturam arguit observatio illa Peireskii, a Gassendo in vita ejus relata: qui ex aqua limum viscosum eruit, ad contactum aeris in lapidem abeuntem.

Quid vetat, etiam in crystallis et gemmis diversos succos vel terras, sed naturae purioris misceri? Sed Aquarum in crystallorum incunabulis vestigia invenit solertissimus Steno, unde eas concretas judicat. At fortassis illae vehiculorum vice fungebantur, quae naturas gemmarum constitutivas ad loca illa deferrent, extra autem corpus ipsum consistebant. Nec crederem ego idoneum hinc argumentum peti: quod cum crystalli, gemmae hoc vel illo liquore solvantur, et liquoribus quoque illae sint compositae. Multos ego dari vel per artem parari liquores posse credo, quorum particulae ita sint comparatae, ut spatia mistorum nonnullorum pervadant illaque compage sua solvant, quae ad constitutionem tamen eorum nihil conferunt. Inventus casu quodam in Anglia fuit liquor blandissimus vegetabilis, qui marmor durissimum pervadens coloribus admistis in interioribus substantiae particulis tingeret.

Berigardus, ut refert in Circulo suo Pisano p. 534, phlegmate illo debili, quod primo stillicidio ex aceto acerrimo defluxit, facile uniones et alia multa dissolvit, postremo vero illo, quod vi summa ignis extrahitur longe acrius et coloratius, nihil effecit. Iis tamen liquoribus nec marmor, nec uniones, natales suos debuerunt. Quin habeamus illum liquorem, e quo vel concrevit, vel praecipitata fuit substantia crystallum componens, non tamen crediderim, quod putat subtilissimus Steno, eodem resolvi in liquidam naturam posse. Denique et hoc verosimile alicui videri possit: gemmas, si non omnes, saltem aliquas e diversis corporibus, per ignem vehementiorem, eodem modo, quo a nobis vitrum conficitur, compingi posse.

Certè qui artem χοστοποιητικὴν profitentur, etiam gemmas, si recte memini, per ignem fabricare docent; et earum quasi typum quendam ob oculos ponunt, adulterinas illas, quarum Antonius Nerius praeparationem tradit.

Chapter 3.

Alii iterum sunt, qui metallorum originem a Sale petunt. Qui vero sic sentiunt, non idem omnes sentiunt. Quidam enim universale aliquod Sal comminiscuntur, quo nescio quae miracula in universa Natura, atque adeo in regno minerali se effecturos sperant. Quae opinio a Paracelsi tempore primum invaluit, ac a nonnullis ejus asseclis, et Fratribus Rosaceae crucis, ad haec usque tempora propagata est. Extat quoque speciosus de vero Sale Philosophorum liber a Gallo Nuisement scriptus et in Latinam linguam a Combachio conversus, ubi sententia illa et proponitur et propugnatur.

Sal illud caeleste, aethereum, aereum, universi nominant, quod vel ex rore, vel aere, vel nitro, vel excrementis etiam animalium extrahunt. Tale aliquod an detur, ego quidem definire non ausim: vetustiorum certe Chemicorum schola ignoravit. Ex aere extrahi posse sal, non negaverim, sed universale illud esse vix crediderim. Vagantur in aere particulae salinae variorum generum, quae ignibus subterraneis et Solis calore subtilitatae in atmosphaeram provehuntur, prout soli subjacentis indoles illas subministrat, nitrosae, vitriosae, aut alterius cujusdam naturae, vel sic seorsim, vel inter se mixtae. Quibus ego vires catholicas tamen non adscriberem.

Commode hic mihi hujus Dissertationis occasione incidit, quod Amstelodami apud Virum solertissimum Theodorum Kerckringium vidi. Is veri ac genuini vitrioli sed impuri quantitatem non exiguam monstravit, quam ex aere Amstelodamensi multis aquarum salsarum et soli paludosi effluviis impregnato machinae cujusdam beneficio extraxerat. Magna scilicet Naturae Architectonicae instrumenta sunt Ignis et Salia: sed varia, ut varia sunt corpora corporumque mistiones, quorum ministerio, pro subjectorum ingenio, in compositione et dissolutione eorum utitur. Ea tamen essentiam illorum non ingrediuntur.

Miras in corporibus tum metallicis, tum aliis, natura facit vicissitudines beneficio Salium, quae subterranea aestuaria per omnem telluris compagem omnesque venas et fodinas metallorum ordine tumultuario dispergunt. Unde plerumque varia inter se salium et sulphurum corpuscula in mineris deprehenduntur: quae tamen ad metallorum constitutionem pertinere quis temere non dixerit. Vidi in Anglia Brabantum aliquem, qui solo moderamine ignis, sine ulla alius rei additione, e Saturni minera verum vitriolum, verum sulphur, sal commune, nitrum, producere; acetum, tincturam ac plura alia parare poterat. Quod ille artificium ut rem secretissimam tegens nonnisi C C aureorum pretio vendere cogitabat. Acceperat a Doctore quodam Parisiensi illud, non quidem contemnendum, sed quod ad summam rei metallicae nil faceret. Neque enim ex illis componebatur corpus metallicum, quae fortuito tantum ad minerae locum confluxerant. Nam ex aliis alia forte produxisset: quanquam ille in Minera plumbi et Antimonii tantum experimentum fecerat. Auri et Argenti mineras, puto, hoc artificio suo non expugnavisset.

Quin est in qualibet terra peculiaris quaedam substantia salina vel singularis vel aliis mixta, quam differentiam caecum quendam nautam gustu deprehendere potuisse mihi narravit Vir fide dignissimus. Nam cum mari terrae vicino bolis immitteretur, terrae, quae bolidi adhaesit, gustata, nominare citra errorem potuit locum, in quo versarentur.

Hamelius lib. 2 de Fossilibus cap. 9 huic quodammodo sententiae favere videtur: primum enim metalli rudimentum facit substantiam quandam falsam in aquam resolubilem, quae paulatim excoquatur, neque aeris amplius vel aquae injurias reformidet. Sed haec mera conjectura dicuntur, et citra ullam veri speciem. Nam quae illa foret substantia falsa? nec nominare illam potest ipse, nec inter cognitas ulla est, quae id praestare officium possit.

Chapter 4.

Sunt porro, qui sale illo universali relicto, quod ubique venantur et nusquam inveniunt, ad nota ac vulgaria illa descendunt. Cum enim nitri, vitrioli, salis communis vires in divellendis corporibus metallicis videant, alia quaedam sub illis latere arcana suspicantur. Animos addunt tot passim historiolae, quas vel sando acceperunt, vel literis consignatas legerunt. Quales sunt de argento spiritus salis beneficio e plumbo extracto apud Johannem Frid. Helvetium in Vitulo aureo; de bona auri quantitate e vitriolo quodam Hungarico educta apud Beccherum in Physica subterranea. Quae per separationem potius argenti et auri latentis, quam per singularem aliquam ingenerationem contigerunt: nolo enim hominum, qui illa memoriae prodiderunt, fidem in dubium revocare.

Ac fateor non temere me credere, quae Salomon de Blauenstein, ut scripto proculdubio se nomine appellat, quique artis χρυσοποιητικῆς se verum alumnum ipse profitetur, in Interpellatione ad Philosophos pro Lapide Philosophorum contra Mundum subterraneum Kircheri cap. 2 scripsit. Ita vero ille: Quid multis? possem et ego dare aliud Epicherema P. Kircheri, si mihi per tres horas duntaxat adesset, et incredulo palpandum praebere: quomodo ex puro puto argento, toto quanto, fiat purum putum aurum additione simplicis salis praeparati, sine aliquo vel minimo addito.

Quid ille sale suo simplici praeparato intelligat; equidem ignoro: si commune, fateor, nihil posse mirabilius fingi, quod adeo veterum Chemicorum principiis repugnet. Prae caeteris in vitriolo et nitro ad insaniam usque laborarunt nonnulli. Aliqui integris voluminibus ista executi sunt: cumque ipsi caeci essent, aliis tamen viam commonstrare voluerunt, rapientes in sensum suum Chemicorum dicta, quae ipsi, nominum varietate decepti non satis intellexerunt, nec e consensu autorum interpretari recte potuerunt: quibus Vitrioli et Nitri nomina aliud quid significant, ac illi putant.

Quot non processus, ut vocant, ab Impostoribus, e vitriolo circumferuntur? Extat et e Vitriolo Processus cujusdam Jodoci V. R., qui addi solet operibus Fr. Basilii Valentini, ad summam hominum et metallorum medicinam, magno apparatu descriptus, ac operosus, quem Amicus, qui ad praescriptum ejus operatus est, nullo, nisi effectu ipso mendacem invenit. Cetera in illo satis bene se habent. Quos non Glauberus strepitus cum nitro suo fecit, e quo tot libris scriptis miracula magno hiatu promisit. Non pauca eximia sunt et praeclara: plurima ex ingenii potius, quam fornacum calore nata. Caeterum aureos montes non vidimus. In multis tamen ejus fidem sequitur Libro de Fossilibus Hamelius, quam exploratam prius habere oportebat.

Non negaverim equidem stupenda in rerum natura horum salium ac nitri imprimis effici beneficio posse, sed metallum ipsum producere posse dubito. Plane enim ad aliam Mineralium familiam pertinet, nec ad lentum illum et viscosum humorem metallicum constituendum aptum natum est. Interim si sub acrioris spiritus forma comparent, tyrannicum in corpora illa exercent imperium; si in subtiliorem et blandiorem naturam clementiori igne redigantur, vel ab auro ipso tincturam elicere, ac secum per alembicum auferre videntur. Quae forsan alicujus in medicina usus, in metallis vero emendandis, cum corporeae tantum naturae sit, inefficax est.

De Salis nitrosi subtilis spiritu e rore Majali extracto mira passim praedicant nonnulli. Nollius hujus salis spiritu et oleo, quod e rore Majali conficitur, in agone constitutos revocari, tincturam ex auro evocari posse scribit.

Mirum quam triumphat hoc arcano Borellus Cent. 1. obs. 6., qui amplius aliquid indagavit: “Multis,” inquit, “exantlatis laboribus et vigiliis, in arcanis naturae perquirendis secretum auri solvend i tandem nactus sum, id est menstruum benignum, amice aurum intra paucas horas solvens, et sine fumo, imo sine igne quoque dissolutum potest ad salis naturam et olei reduci, cujus grana 3, 4, vel 6, juxta aetates varias propinata intra quatuor horas circiter, sudoribus copiosis febres malignas purpuratas, epidemicas et pertinaces curarunt.

Scirant vero Lectores, a spiritu roris illud factum fuisse juxta Sendivogii doctrinam. At dicent multi: cur non ejus copiam mihi comparo? Sed sciant expensas lucrum superare. Notandum est (addit porro) collectores auri Fluvii Gard juxta Urbem Vigam asserere, roris guttas unicuique auri paleae adhaerere mane in arena, eaque nutriri. Rorem illum collatione longa abhinc nigrum, albissimum et citrinum reddidi, sed sine projectione fuit.

Adjecit deinde quaedam de modo praeparandi, quae illic legere poteris. Quin observatum est, auri folia, si rori ipsi, non spiritui injiciantur, ac cum illo per aliquod tempus lento igne digerantur, tandem disparere: cum vero postea per filtrum ros percolatur, in fundo ejus substantiam velleri vel nivi similem, cujus felicissimus in cordis affectibus usus sit, remanere. Quod rori vel spiritui roris tribuitur hic; alii spiritui vel essentiae mellis, quod et ipsum rore constat, tribuunt. Aurum enim solvere dicitur, ejusque tincturam per alembicum rapere, quae auri potabilis instar esse possit, et mira in transmutatione metallorum praestare.

Ac vidi ipse auri aliquam tincturam hoc modo paratam ab homine, qui nescio quos thesauros inde sperans magno pretio Principi alicui hoc secretum vendiderat. Quod si quis gratis scire cupiat, adeat Johannem Nardium Florentinum Disq. Physica de Rore cap. 23, ubi modum praeparandi docet.

Mathesius Sarept. Conc. 3. aureum nummum rore vel pluvia Majali aliquoties aspersum atque a Sole siccatum vel terra absconditum ponderosiorem fieri notavit. Haec quanquam speciose satis omnia dicantur, nondum tamen me movent, ut in auro conficiendo vel radicitus solvendo aliquas vel nitro vel spiritui roris aut mellis partes tribuam. Agunt illi liquores vel potius salia liquoribus permista; non aliter, quam modo vulgari, ut quaevis aquae corrodentes: sed quia attenuata et subtiliora, subtiliores etiam particulas avellunt, quas citra molestiam aliquam ignis propellere per alembicum possit, suis tamen naturis nondum disjunctas.

Haec mea de nitri vel salis nitrosi in rore contenti circa metallica operationibus sententia est: cujus tamen magnas vires in Vegetabilium ac Animalium generatione non ignoro. Ejus illustre exemplum proferam, nisi displicet, Vir Amplissime, hic ultra argumenti nostri carceres excursus. Anguillas arte produci posse, nec sando audiveram olim, nec in aliquo rerum naturalium scriptore legeram, quod in Belgio roris beneficio facere agricolas nupero itinere medio didici. Primum ego fidem habere narrationi huic nolui: sed incidi postea in Abrahami Mylii scriptum de origine animalium et migratione populorum, ac idem apud illum artificium legi, pag. libri 10. cujus verba referam: “Mense Maio,” inquit, cum largiter rorabit, seca et discinde ligone ex campo graminoso ante ortum Solis duos aequales cespites, eosque impositos, alterum alteri, ubi graminosi sunt, repone in margine alicujus piscinae parte aquilonari, ubi Sol radios suos maxime emittit. Videbis inde propullulari quasi examen pullorum anguillarium ante horas paucas elapsas. Sic quidam cum non paenitendo fructu piscinis suis anguillarum numerosam copiam ingeneravit.”

Et verosimile hoc experimentum facit, quod nullum reperiatur in anguillis semen, nulla organa generationis; ut multa fuerit de earum origine Scriptoribus Historiae naturalis disputatio. Si Piscatores interroges, e vermiculis quibusdam, qui certo anni tempore in omnis generis piscium carne nascuntur, produci docent. Quos et ipse non semel deprehendi.

Leges etiam inter Acta Philosophica Anglica p. 35, quae observavit Thomas Henshaw Nobilis Anglus, de vermium e rore putrefacto generatione. Ac memini ego apum ex Hydromelle putrefacto generationem notatam a quopiam fuisse.

Rori denique soli in acceptis ferenda est illa Plantarum e cineribus resuscitatio, de qua Caramuel, Hardtofferus in libris suis; Voigtins singulari Dissertatione egit; quamque integri libri materiem facturum se promisit Kircherus. Magna itaque hujus Salis vis est in vegetabilium ac animalium productione: metalla quanquam vexari ac affici varie ab illo possint, emendari tamen, mutari, augeri, foecundari, ut in vegetabilibus sit, minime possunt.

Chapter 5.

A Salium familia recta ad metalla itur. Inter quae primum omnium compellari solet argentum vivum, mirabilis profecto substantia, quae mille se in formas fingit atque resingit, quacumque etiam arte tractetur. Plinius vomicam liquoris aeterni vocat: Liquida enim et fluida est. Cumque miro amore aurum amplectatur, eique per intima se uniat, et prae reliquis metallis humor tantum alius et rudimentum metalli videatur: plurimi sane primum metallorum ens, ut ita loquar, in illa deprehendere sibi visi sunt. Nec desunt hodie qui idem statuunt, tot in illo mari aliorum naufragiis nondum cautiores facti.

Accedit venerabile illud Mercurii nomen, quod in Chemicorum scriptis adeo frequens est: conspirant tot descriptiones, tot requisita, ut vel cautissimus iis omnibus fallatur. Aliqui Virginem Mercurium volunt, quem natura produxit a flammis voracibus nondum tentatum: aliqui e metallis ceteris per artem extractum. Quod an fieri possit, dubitatum hactenus fuit; sed veritatem ejus artificii, tua, Vir Clarissime, Epistola commonstravit. Sed hunc ego nihil a vulgari illo differre statuo; quicquid etiam aliis videatur.

Nam cum mirabilis sit illa et imperceptibilis pene Mercurii in minima dissipatio, quae fit in mineris per ignes subterraneos, facile se metallis insinuat ac commiscet; sed non radicitus. Quaedam ejus particulae prima metalli fusione evanescunt in auras: quae tenacius haerent, remanent, ac tandem salium ope eruuntur, et a reliquis particulis separantur. Facilius autem id efficitur in mineris, in quas pronior illi ingressus est, ac promtius iterum expellitur. Quando per fusionem particulae metallice propius junctae sunt, difficilius succedunt omnia.

Ex Antimonio et plumbo extrahi non difficulter potest, facilius ex ejus mineris. Tere mineram plumbi in minutum pulverem, ac stylum in illo aureum moveto parumper, et adhaerebunt statim auro particulae quaedam Mercuriales. Nec metallis tantum, sed et ligno se miscet. Habui ego ab amico frustum ligni, quod ex arbore e terra metallifera prognata recisum fuerat, in quo per omnes ejus fibrillas et venulas disseminatae erant argenti vivi particulae, ut valido motu etiam excuti possent; quod fieri facile poterat: quia, laxiores sunt in ligno quam in metallo viae. Ostendebam, cum Londini commorarer, Illustri Dn. Boilio, qui et arte tale lignum parari posse credebat. Sed esto. Eodem tamen modo, scilicet per sublimationem, tam a natura, quam ab arte fit.

Memorat Autor Libri, cui titulus L’Europe vivante tom. 1. part. 2. e relatione cujusdam Nob. Angli de Operario, qui diu in fodinis Mercurii laboraverat, cui particulae ejus minimae totum corpus adeo pervaserant, ut frustum cupri oris ejus halitu ac digiti afflatu ita inalbescere, ac si ipsius Mercurii corpus quis affricuisset. Falli itaque omnino credo, qui, quod a metallis Mercurium educi posse vident, ex eo illa intrinsecus componi statim existimant. Quanquam fateor, adeo speciosae hae sunt rationes, quas supra adduximus, ut facile in istam sententiam aliquem adducent.

Sed tot experimentis hactenus nil actum est, ac uno omnes Chemici cordatiores ore clamant: nihil sibi esse rei cum Mercurio vulgi, nolle se argentum vivum currens, quod ovum subventaneum alicubi vocat Lullius, sed aliam quandam substantiam metallicam immaturam, non tamen in radice sua impuram, quam illi Mercurium suum vocant: argenti vivi, absque illo, nullum esse in metallorum transmutatione usum.

Quod sexcentis illorum effatis firmare possem; nisi scirem, haec tibi esse cognita. Novi tamen aliquos, qui via, ut vocant, particulari, nobilius ex argento vivo metallum se confecisse, quanquam sine lucro, glorientur; de quo in sequentibus dicam. Quanti porro in Antimonium insumpti fuere labores, e quo sperarunt non pauci maximum illud naturae arcanum. Sed non est in illo genuinus Mercurius metallicus, qualis ad corpora perfectissima metallica componenda requiritur: ut patet e fragilitate ejus textura. Sulphuris fortassis purioris aliquid reconditum est, unde particularis quaedam transmutatio concedi possit. Quod et innuere videtur Basilius Valentinus in Curru triumphali Antimonii, ac commentator ejus Theodorus Kerckringius. Nam ad magnum opus, ipsis fatentibus, nihil rei confert. Utilissima tamen latent in illo remedia, praecipue in morbis ab infectione sanguinis oriundis; quos ad miraculum edomare valet: ea ad caelum usque laudibus extollit Basilius Valentinus, ac experimentis suis firmat Kerckringius.

Non desunt qui vel ex uno metallo immaturo, vel duorum, perfecti et imperfecti, conjugio, sola diuturna coctione, quae naturae operationes subterraneas imitatur, perfectius aliquod metallum se facturos putant, cum in natura plumbi mineras, successu temporis in argentum commutatas deprehendant metallurgi. Fuit in ea sententia sagacissimus rerum naturalium scrutator Baco Verulamius, qui in Historia Naturali Cent. 4, methodum praescripsit, qua possibile sibi videbatur ignobilius metallum in nobilius commutare.

Postquam requisita ejus operis recensuit, tandem num. 327 ita rem instituere jubet: Angusta paretur fornax, temperatusque excitetur calor, et quidem talis, ut metallum perpetuo liquescat, conservetur, non vehementior; quod ad rem maxime facit. Materia sit argentum, metallism maxime cum auro symbolizans, cum eo quoque decima Mercurii vivi pars imponatur, duodecima nitri justo pondere, quae vegetando corpus metalli aperiendo serviunt. Operatio per sex menses ad minimum continuetur. Velim et oleosas quandoque injici substantias, quales adhibentur recuperando auro, tormentis separationum exasperato; in eum finem, ut partes artius leviusque disponantur; magnum instituti momentum. Aurum enim, ut constat, compatissimum, omniumque metallorum ponderosissimum est, maximeque flexibile et extensibile. Haec Baco Verulamius; quem vere sic statuisse confirmavit mihi Amicus Londinensis.

Nam quanquam passim in scriptis tenuiter de studio Chemiae metallica senti at, privatis tamen studiis diligentissime rem illam, nec sine magnis sumptibus, eaque, quam hic sibi praescripsit, methodo tractavit. Sed nihil omnino effecit, nec efficere ista via potuit, ut facile, qui harum rerum intelligens est, animadvertit.

Sic et Fr. Lana loco, quem supra laudavimus: Aurum cum Mercurio amalgamatum, si longo igne maceretur, tandem in Elixir Philosophicum mutari putat. Illud vero non contemnendum est, quod ignis accuratam haberi rationem voluerit Baco: quo solo interdum plus efficitur, quam sexcentis aliis subsidiis. Quare nihil magis ipsi veteres etiam Chemici inculcant, ac scio ipse ejus experimenta bene multa.

Quis nescit Talci calcinationem rem haberi difficillimam? Torreas summo igne pro lubitu, ad diuturnum etiam tempus, et vim omnem flammarum pertinaciter eludet. Vidi tamen vel intra dimidia horae spatium, paucissimo igne, rudi ad speciem artificio, totam ejus substantiam ita calcinatam, ut colore flavo ablato, spongiosa facta sub digitis in minutissimum pollineum comminueretur. Quare patet, non adeo indomabile igni esse Talcum, ut quidam crediderunt, qui aliquod auro simile sibi in eo, praecipue flavo, visi sunt deprehendere.

Qua in opinione non omnino falsi fuerunt: nam et hodie metallurgi separare ex eo aurum norunt, ac latet in eo sulphur aliquod purius quam credas fortassis. Dixitque mihi aliquando Amicus, novisse se Medicum, qui sulphure per singulare artificium ex hoc corpore extracto, curare immedicabiles morbos potuerit, in alterum illi ad maximum Elixire locum posuerit. Testatur et Martinus Martini in Atlante Sinico p. 79.

Talcum in calcem redactum vinoque mixtum acceptum Sinicis Medicis ut singulare medicamentum ad vitam longam commendari. Videri ergo hoc experimento potest, quam etiam in Vulcani regno saepe

— Peragat tranquilla potestas,
Quod violenta nequit;

quam cedant mitioribus flammis interdum corpora duriora, fortioribus resistant. Cui Dissertationi, quoniam jam in ea sum, amplius insistam, et nisi loquacitas Tibi mea molesta est, lectissimis speciminibus confirmatum ibo; quanquam non e proximo omnia; aliqua e longinquo tantum rem nostram illustrent.

Cum Amstelodami viverem, confessus mihi est Theodorus Kerckringius, se ex argento vivo argentum et aurum verum fecisse: monstrabat enim quatuor frusta metallica annularis digiti crassitiem aequantia; quorum primum stannum simile; alterum argento; tertium subflavum erat; quartum colore respondebat auro. Haec solo regimine ignis, ex argento vivo, addito exiguo quodam pulviculo (quem ex Antimonio confectum ego suspicabar, nec ipse visus est disteri se fecisse asseverabat). Ac videtur ipse nonnullis in locis Commentarii super Basilii Valentini currum triumphalem id innuere.

Vidi et apud eundem insignem artificium, solo ignis ministerio, nec ulla re alia addita, solvendi succinum. Nam ostendit mihi cadavera infantum succino obducta, ut omnia membra transparerent. Monstravit etiam phialem vitream tali succino soluto, iterumque congelato impletam. Quam splendide jam magnatum cadavera condi ac a putredine conservari possent: nam citra ullam corporum eviscerationem, contra omnem injuriam aeris et humorum, nova hac e succino tinctura quasi cataphracti jacerent.

Quid non lucri ex hoc invento nasceretur, cum succini fragmenta, quo majora eo pretiosiora sint, ac in Oriente ultra aurum aestimentur: illa vero hic quantitate, qua quis velit, exhiberi possint. Ergo quod tot modis a solertissimis Chemicis tentatum est, unico nunc ignis regimini debetur. Diu multumque, fateor, animum in succini natura cognoscenda exercui: & facit profecto inventi istius novitas, ut ne nunc quidem, quamquam loco alieno mihi temperem.

De Succini natalibus res dubiae. Aliqui maris sobolem habent; alii qui ex terra prodire statuunt, quae mihi sententia verosimilior videtur: testanturque animalcula & insecta terrestria passim in succino reperta: quod suius aliquando deducet Clarissimus Collega noster D. Major in libro de Succini natalibus non maritimis. Nascitur vero frequenter in locis, ubi Pinus & Terebinthi crescunt, quod argumento esse posset, a simili quadam viscosa substantia qualis in arboribus illis reperitur, per terram dispersa nasci, & a particulis salinis maris proximi vel aliunde coagulari. Nam pene consimilem naturam arguunt multa, similis inflammabilitas, ac odor, qui a Terebinthinae Cypriae incensae odore vix differt; quodque e succis illarum arborum per artes confici possit, hodieque conficiant Chinenses, teste Martino in Atlante Sinico p. 65.

Putant quidam, inquit ille, ex defaecatis illud oriri pinorum medullis, temporis longinquitate induratis ac pellucentibus. Et vidi ego sane ex pice pinea seu resina per decoctionem illud arte fieri dividendique a Sinis ita egregie effectum, ut vero invidiam facere possit. Ego quidem persimilis naturae oleosum humorem dissolvi posse existimo.

Potest & impurum succinum arte corrigi, & subtiliari, docente Glaubero lib. de Furnis Philosophicis, per Spiritum Salis rectificatum: sed tum duritiem illam deponit, nec durar, nisi in loco frigido vel temperatè calido. Si calor plus justo intensior, diffluit, dissolvit. Novi qui tentarint experimentum bono eventu; si quis solidare iterum succinum alio artificio nosset, jam naturae artibus superior esset. Exhibet tamen & illa nonnunquam inelaboratum, quale fuit illud, quod altera sui parte molle; altera durum, & cui sigillum imprimere potuit Nobilissimus Dn. Oldenburgius, de quo memorat ipse in Actis Philosophicis p. 2061. Pingere etiam Natura illud solet variis characteribus, quale fructum nuper ad me misit Nobilissimus Dn. Johannes Tintorius, Serenissimi Electoris Brandenburgensis a Consiliis, in quo litera D. perspicuo naturae ductu delineata, etiam caeteras, ut est humanissimus, Alphabeti literas sic in succino depictas, submissurus. Cum itaque hanc de succini origine sententiam vero simillimam judicem, falli puto auctorem libri qui L’Europe Vivante inscribitur, qui tom. 1. part. 2 oriri illud putat a melle, quod in litore Maris Indici in petris ab apibus congestum, post Solis coctionem in mare prolapsum, sale marino indueretur, & ad aliarum regionum litora a mari ejiciatur. Allegat nescio cujus Chemici autoritatem, qui in fracto succino substantiam mollem melli sapore similem invenit, quodque eadem post solutionem ejus per spiritum Vini Tartarizatum remaneat. Quae omnia absurda esse quisquis facile videt, ut non sit opus iis immorari. Sed nos de Succino, occasione solutionis ejus, quae per solum ignem sit, satis diximus. Redeamus nunc ex isto diverticulo in viam, ad usum scilicet Ignis in Chemicis laboribus, si rectè administretur.

Cuius aliud exemplum e superioribus repeti hic velim de homine Brabantio, qui in uno ignis artificio viginti pene numero diversissimas ex unică Saturni minere educere potuit. Quomodo vero absque igne, spiritus quicunque, ex animalibus, plantis, lignis, lapidibus aliisque corporibus eorumque partibus eliciendi, quod artificium proponit Magnus Pegelius in Thesauro rerum selectarum p. 109. id inter caetera ejus arcana sepultum remaneat. Nam (ut hoc in transitu commemorem) publicavit ille Autor, qui Medicus & Philosophus in Academia Rostochiensi fuit. Anno 1604. lemma ta quaedam singularium inventionum, tam Physicarum quam Mathematicarum, inter quae non pauca sunt ab illo vel cogitata vel indicata, quae hoc nostro tempore ab aliis inventa & in lucem producta sunt.

Chapter 6.

Porrò qui metallorum causas in terra non inveniunt; è coelo eas, vel principem saltem eorum partem constituentem deducere moliuntur. Hinc certos quosdam Planetas ad certa Metalla damnant, quibus illa originem suam debere creduntur, imo iisdem nominibus salutantur; ut hæc nova quasi astra subterranea habeamus. Quæ sententia quanquam ideò exagitur à nonnullis, quod evidens hujus rei ratio dari nequeat, contemnenda tamen omnino non est, cum non χρῆς ἢ πειθὼν nata, sed antiquitate suâ se tueatur; ut doctissimus in præclaro opere de ortu & progressu Chemiæ docet Borricchius, cujus ego scrinia non compilabo. Globorum magni hujus Orbis, præcipuè Planetarii, tum quà totum systema, tum quà partes nobiliores, inter quas in terrestri globo omnino referendi sunt spiritus metallici, per vastissimum hoc corpus dispersi, nullam esse conspirationem, aut mutuam efficacitatem, nemo mihi temerè persuaserit. Sed cum observandi facultas ultra humanum ingenium sit, nihil accurate definire possumus, explodere tamen & exagitare non debemus, si quae ab aliis, antiquioribus praecipuè, de eo tradita invenimus. Solis & Lunae vires in haec inferiora facile sentimus. Illi cum auro; huic cum argento singulare commercium vulgò tribuitur, ne quid de caeteris metallis nunc dicam. Solis & auri similitudinem ostendunt splendor, calor, qui à sulphure optimè digestò, quod à Sole huic metallo ingenerari creditur, provenit. Quod si Honorati Fabri sententiam, quam tamen ex Hypothesi pronunciat, audire volumus: Solis ipsius substantia ex auro liquefacto constat. Mirum ergò, si non haec semina etiam per terram spargeret, ac in eâ substantiam sibi similem produceret. Refert Digbeus, sed ex fide amici, radios Solis per vasa vitrea & concava certo quodam modo disposita in purpureum & minutissimum pulverem praecipitari. Quis non è credulis illis, cum haec legit, de sulphure naturae exclamet? Sed qui haec Digbaeo narravit, sibi ipsi blandè imposuit. Volitant enim in aëre semper particulae vel salinae, vel alterius generis, quae igne hoc speculari collectae ac ad ruborem exustae vel calcinatae. Scripsit jam antea Paracelsus de Solari pulvere è speculis per radios Solis collecto, quo ritè praeparato excitare in nobis igneam naturam possimus, & cum daemonibus igneis aliquod inire commercium. Sed hae imposturae. De Sole vulgaris opinio est, quod plumbo ac cupro, quo templa & aedes tegi solent, aurum ingeneret. Quam licet anilem fabulam vocet Honoratus Fabri; novi tamen qui è plumbo ac stanno veteri per repetitas calcinationes & reductiones non contemnendo lucro aliquid auri & argenti expresserint; sive id à causis quibusdam latentibus profectum, sive separatum fuerit.

Nam quod plumbum ac cuprum in tectis repositum attinet, continuis pluviis, in quibus subtilissimae particulae salinae reconditae, & calore solis, in iis metallis, ut nullum metallum solitarium est, maturari aliquid purioris metalli potuit. Albinus in Chronico suo metallico p. 29. observat: semper in fodinis Schnebergensibus argentum copiosum, sub Saturni in signum Cancri ingressum, accedente Lunâ, repertum fuisse. De Unionibus Garcias ab Horto prodidit: eos post plenilunium captos cum tempore minui & decrescere: qui verò ante plenilunium capiuntur, huic vitio non esse obnoxios. Annon notum est de Gemmis, cujus maculae aquales subeunt cum Lunâ mutationes? Deprehendimus in animalium corporibus, in vegetabilibus, Lunae vires. Quas multis rationibus in libro de Motu marium impugnatum ut Isaacus Vossius, cum aliud doceat Experientia.

Chapter 7.

Intrabimus nunc Chemicorum ludum: & eorum oracula audiemus. Illi nobis Mercurium suum & sulphur inculcant. Si excutias, quid rei sub illis nominibus lateat (nam vulgari illa accipi significatione nolunt) sexcenta tibi vocabula obtrudent, descriptiones obscuras & aenigmaticas, in quibus venari aliquos sensus oportet, eosque vel lacerata Hypoliti membra hinc illinc colligere. Quos ubi affectus fueris, consensum tamen in illis reperies: nisi quod novissima Chemicorum secta, post Paracelsi tempora tertium, duobus illis, Mercurio & Sulphuri, principium, Sal scilicet, addidit. Nolo hic prolixius disquirere de isto principiorum numero, & an illa omni corpori conveniant, ac quantum à communibus discrepent; id enim doctissimè copiosèque disputatum est ab illustri Viro Roberto Boilio in Chemista Sceptico & Hamelio, libro de consensu veteris & novae Philosophiae lib. 2. c. 4. Veteres vero illi ante Paracelsum, duo haec, Mercurium & Sulphur non communia, quae hodierni nostri volunt, sed metallica tantum statuerunt principia. Quâ in re audiendos illos prae caeteris puto cum metallorum naturam usu ipso rectius didicerint, quam ii, qui rationes tantum & opiniones suas sequuntur.

Remota illa corporum principia, elementa scilicet, & atomos ad se pertinere non censebant: è quibus metalla immediatè non componuntur, unde non nisi soli naturae aliquid producere datum est. Propiora principia etiam manibus hominum tractari ac in opus aliquod deduci possunt. Si cum curâ illorum libros legas, ac inter se sententias illorum conferas, non absurda illos docere videbis, & quae conciliare quam optimè cum veterum Philosophorum, Platonis ac Aristotelis, scholis possis, ut conciliavit Hamelius de Fossilibus lib. 2. c. 9. qui & eo in loco varias diversorum Philosophorum circa generationem metallorum sententias congessit, ac dijudicavit: ut nos isto labore supersedere possimus.

Per Mercurium & Sulphur non intelligunt illi, quae vulgo sic vocamus, nam illa potius recrementa metallica iis sunt, quam vera principia. Mercurius, vel potius argentum vivum quantum è scriptis illorum colligere possumus, illis est substantia metallica è perfectiorum metallorum familiâ, immatura, ad levem calorem fluidissima, ponderosa, volatilis, summè ductilis, non currens, ut vulgaris Mercurius, unicum & summum naturae metallicae agens, quod illi sexcentis nominibus describunt, nullo tamen appellant aut demonstrant. Hoc ita, crudum in naturâ inveniri aiunt, unde summâ arte eliciunt substantiam purissimam, viscosam, quae propior materia est metalli constituendi. Hoc quidem etiam reliquis metallis commune est principium, sed prout sulphur vel purius vel impurius illud temperat, aliam vel aliam missionem sortitur: unde vulgò diversae illae metallorum species constituuntur. Quae an ita vocandae sint, inutiliter disputatur, nec Alchemistarum rem magnoperè vel juvat vel affligit.

Hanc materiam in perfectiorum metallorum incunabulis inquirere, cumque inter perfecta metalla ab auro compacto sperari nihil possit, ab argento, vel aliquo, quod illi cognatum est, petere jubent. Quod innumerà auctorum loca innuunt, quibus integrum implere volumen quis posset: Ex quibus illa quasi per lancem saturam dabo.

In capitulis, quae Hermeti adscribuntur, ita Lapis ipse loqui fingitur: Luna mihi propria est, & lumen meum omne lumen superat. Arnoldus in Semitâ semitâ illa Hermetis: Pater ejus est Sol, Mater Luna, ita explicat: Per Solem intelligimus aurum, per Lunam argentum. & subjungit: Jam igitur sufficienter tibi demonstravi etc.

Rosarium majus: Magnesia nostra est Luna plena, Mercurius Philosophorum, id est: materia, in qua continetur Mercurius Philosophorum. Et est illa, quam natura paulatim operata est, & in metallicam formam formavit: tamen imperfectum reliquit.

Autor Anonymus: Oportet quod Sol habeat sui spermalis & sui tincturae receptaculum & idoneum & sibi consonum, consonum, & illud est Luna, id est argentum. Sendivogius, vel potius Setonius, tractat. XI. vocat menstruum ex Sphaerâ Lunae, quod possit calcinare Solem.

Scala Philosophorum: Adjuva ergo solutionem per Lunam & coagulationem per Solem.

Turba aliquoties vocat spiritum Lunae.

Sed quis omnia enumeret? Videmus hinc, quorsum illi digitum intendant. Hanc illi materiam ignem, aquam, acetum vocant, quod in metalla perfecta ita operetur, quemadmodum ignis in corpora inflammabilia, aqua in salia & glaciem, acetum in corpora, quae ab illo solvi possunt.

Inquirendae ego fodinae essent, an tale quid inveniri in illis possit: nam è metallorum scriptoribus sapere hic non licet. Describunt illi non paucas argenti immaturi, aut informis species; sed quis eas vel vidit unquam vel exploravit? Exhibet interdum illud specie lenti humoris, qui postea in optimum argentum coagulatur, cujus memorabilem historiam refert Albinus, Berg-Chronic. pag. 110. quam hic apponere ipsis Autoris verbis fortassis non erit injucundum:

In des Gräfen zu Hohenstein Bergwercken am Harz, fürnehmlich auf’m Enders-Berg, auf dem berühmtesten Zechen, der Samson genant, hat sich dieses gedenckwürdiges und unerhörtes zugetragen: daß man alda ein weiß flüssig gefunden Silber angetroffen, einem Quecksilber gleich, welches aus dem Gang und draußen geflossen, daß man es mit Händen zusammen gefasset, und so bald es ins Feuer kommen, von stund an sein worden, dessen ich von glaubwürdigen Leuten berichtett bin. Wie etliche reden, ist das Erz gleich wie eine Buttermilch gewesen; so bald es aber eine Weile in der Lufft gehalten worden, oder auch in Gefässen verwahret, darinnen mans weich zu behalten vermeinet, ist es hart worden, gleich einem Sand oder Gries, und ist die weiße Farbe auch in braun oder russig verändere worden.

Haec ille de mirabili hac materiâ, pene iis respondentia, quae de suo Gur memorat Matheusius, quod tamen ad argenti puri naturam nondum accessit.

Idem Albinus pag. 127. ejusdem libri, de mineris argenti diversis notabilia adducit, quae illic legi malim, ne chartas spissioribus testimoniis impleamus.

Fortassis & illa contemplatione digna sunt, quae Nierenbergius Hist. nat. lib. 16. cap. 19. de singulari quodam metallo ad argenti solutionem adhibito refert: Argentum vivum, inquit, notum tantum fuit barbaris, sed nullius usus: namque loco illius ad argenti beneficium aliud metallum sufficiebatur, inventum in alio colle humiliore, qui juxta Potosi tumulum jacet. Vocant Indi huayna Potochi, id est: Potochi adolescentem. Hic inventum quoddam vilius metallum, & pene plumbum, admixtum argento pro hydrargyro fuit. Illud Zuruckhe dicere, quod significat faciens dilabi, quoniam ejus inflatione argentum liquefieret, nec adureretur.

Haec sunt, quae de primo Metallorum principio, Mercurio, in Chemicorum scriptis vestigia deprehendimus, quae tamen adeò illi tegunt, ne quis altius ad eorum arcana penetret. Nil enim studiosius, quam rem istam celant, unde omne alchemiae negotium dependet.

Alterum illis principium, Sulphur est, spirituosum, penetrans, coagulans materiam metallicam, cujus illi fontes non dissimulant. Ab auro, sed per materiale illud elici volunt: reliquorum enim metallorum sulphura, ut impura, contemnunt.

Primos ejus natales aliqui a Sole & sideribus deducunt, sed ea omnia incerta: aliqui ab ignibus subterraneis: quo quidem non adeò absurdi sunt. Cum enim terra compages sit omnium naturarum primarum, quae ad mixtorum generationem sunt necessariae, concludi illic necesse est magnam ignis vim, sine quo generari nihil aut misceri potest.

Eum familiares sibi habere naturas oleas oportet, variorum generum, quibus primo miscetur, unde ad exteriores partes halitus oleaginosi jam puriores propelluntur, vel magis vel minus excocti. Qui vel aquis vel terrae commisti alias aliasque species producere videntur.

Non sunt inter illa tantum nobis vulgò cognita, sulphur, bitumen & similia, sed longè plura nobis incognita, quibus ignis maximè familiaris est, & ad mutuam permixtionem sponte contendit, adeò ut separari nequeant.

Combustio enim rerum oleaginosarum, nihil aliud esse videtur, quam separatio ignis ab illis materiis, in quibus habitat. Quare cum Sulphur illud Chemicorum revera sit oleaginosa substantia, sed incombustibilis, & tamen ignis, ut illi loquuntur, corporatus, aut naturae ignis, è tali prima mixtione illud descendere per est verisimile.

Combustio enim rerum oleaginosarum nihil aliud esse videtur, quam separatio ignis ab illis materiis, in quibus habitat.

Quare cum Sulphur illud Chemicorum revera sit oleaginosa substantia, sed incombustibilis, & tamen ignis, ut illi loquuntur, corporatus, aut naturae ignis, è tali prima mixtione illud descendere per est verosimile.

Sulphur illud nec ab astris, nec ab igne centrali deducendum putat Hamelius de Fossilibus lib. 2. cap. 9. pag. 246. cui ejusdem cum vulgari sulphure naturae videtur, nisi quod longà alteratione in fixum, purum & incorruptibile evasît. Cujus sententia non omnino spernenda videtur.

Memini enim in Chemicorum scriptis, & nisi fallor, in Richardi Anglici Correctorio legisse; quod in interiori vulgaris sulphuris natura reconditum lateat incombustibile sulphur illud, ac posse auro, cui sulphur suum extractum est, ex ejus quasi visceribus restitui.

Quod mihi in mentem revocat historiolam, quam legi in libro quodam Manuscripto verbis germanicis consignatam, de auro beneficio sulphuris vulgaris & cupro extracto, vel potius in cupro ad maturitatem redacto; quam integram hic apponam:

D. Gregorius Euseb. von Madrit hat mir erzählt, daß ein Chimicus zum Montano kommen und um eine kleine Gelegenheit zu laboriren gebeten, die ihm denn geworden: da hat der Laborant Kupfer genommen ein Zentner, und dasselbe immer im Flusse gehalten, und immer Schwefel nachgetragen, und damit das Kupfer zur Reiffe bringen wollen. Endlich haben sich die Nachbaren des Gestanks halber beklaget, da hat ihn Montanus gehen lassen: Er aber hat sehr beklaget, daß ers nicht absolvieren können.

Nach etlicher Zeit reist Montanus die Esse auf, worinnen er laboriret, und findet einen See von 10 Unzen Goldes im Ofen stecken, welches hineingelaufen war durch einen Riß. Montanus hat ihm vergebens nachgeschrieben, es welcher den Fürsten von Anhalt selbst ersetzet.

Hujus ego rei fidem in medio relinquo: neque enim alicui auctor sim, ut sumptus in rem incertam faciat; omittere tamen nolui, cum rem nostram illustraret.

Caeterum de partibus metallorum, quas Chemici ita distinxere, dubium nullum superesse videtur. Nam quod quidam putarunt constare substantiam Auri partibus similibus, falsum est, cum Sulphur seu tinctura ab eo possit separari.

In ignobilioribus, Cupro praesertim, fieri illud posse experimentis plurimis constat.

De gemmis idem testatur Hamelius de Fossilibus lib. 2. cap. 7. Sunt qui alias minoris notae gemmas, ut Amethystum, Saphirum, Chrysolithum, laminulae ferreae impositas calce vivâ, vel chalybea scobe condant & vivis carbonibus operiant, ut igne sensim aucto nativis coloribus exuantur, atque adamantis speciem prae se ferant: nam si durities lapidi adsit & perspicuitas, vix quidquam ab Adamante differet.

Quae res si succederet, magnum haberemus ex ignobilioribus gemmis nobiliores conficiendi arcanum. Arte factarum colores corrodentes liquores interdum eluunt. In Vegetabilium ordine idem fieri potest. Quid magis tingit quam crocus? Et tamen ab eo ita colorem omnem separari posse, à Nobilissimo quodam Viro edoctus scio, ut omnem Croci odorem & saporem sub crystallinae perspicuitatis liquore repraesentare possim, nihilque croco simile quis videat, merum tamen crocum aut subtilissimam ejus essentiam gustet.

Quod non leviter mirati sunt, quibus illum liquorem ostendi, qui magno etiam cum fructu in medicina adhibetur. Ex auro, quamvis tenacius illic haereat, sulphur seu tincturam, quam etiam animam auri vocant, separari posse testantur Chemici tam veteres quam recentiores, quod firmat etiam Franciscus Luna, loco ejus libri, quem supra laudavimus.

Fitque hoc modo, ut quantum ponderis habuit aurum, è quo tinctura educta est, tantum argenti ipsa tinctura, si illi superjiciatur, colore suo tingat inque aurum ipsum convertat. Quòd cum sit, candida ex auro massa remaneat, aequè ut prius ponderosa, cui per caementa hinc color reddi suus potest. Simile quid de tali auri tincturâ super argentum vivum, publicè Venetiis projectâ refert doctissimus Vir, Alexander Tassonus, Italus, libro gentis suæ linguâ scripto, cui titulum fecit; Pensieri diversi, libr. 10. cap. 26. Cujus verba ipsa apponam: Fra le doti curiosissime dell’ Alchimia niuna s’ agguaglia a quella dell’ esaminazione dell’ oro, che di masse grandi il reduce in pochissima polvere di color purpurino, chiamata da alcuni lapis Philosophorum, che poi gittandosi in quantità di Mercurio fatto bollire a lento fuoco, il convertisse in oro, se con la prima quantità si conforma: ma s’il Mercurio eccede la quantità del primo oro, l’ affissa in argento. E la prova fu publicamente mostrata in Venetia, pochi anni sono. Id est: Inter curiosissimas Alchimiæ dotes, nulla est, quae comparari possit cum illo auri examine, quo massam ejus grandem reducunt in exiguum pulverem purpureum, qui vocatur quibusdam lapis Philosophorum. Ille argento vivo, super ignem lentum calefacto, injectus, ex eo tantum in aurum convertit, quantum respondet primo ponderi (massæ scilicet aureæ, unde extractus est pulvis.) Quantum Mercurii illud excedit, figit in argentum. Cujus experimentum paucis ab hinc annis publicè Venetiis factum est. Hæc Autor ille de hâc Auri tincturâ, quam, suo ex judicio, lapidem philosophorum vocat. Quae duo toto inter se coelo differunt.

Venetiis tamen publicè rem gestam testatur. Ac ipsam Rempublicam Venetiam tale habere arcanum multi credunt, quod communicâsse cum Senatu ejus Joh. Augustum Pantheum, Sacerdotem Venetum dicunt, qui & ipse librum quendam obscurissimum scripsit de arte, quam barbaro nomine vocat Voarchadumiam, aliam planè ab Alchymia, eumque Venetorum Principi dedicavit.

Reperitur in Theatri Chemici volumine secundo.

Conjecerunt & sagaciores ex eo, quod nulla moneta aurea vel argentea peregrina publicum illic valorem habeat; sed in aliam monetam commutetur: Cumque ipsi fodinas auri non habeant, Secinos tamen auream monetam cudant, quae ratione coloris gradu aliquo superet omne nativum aurum, licet optimum. Forsan & huc referat aliquis, quod Mathe­sius in Sarepta conc. 11. de Venetis commemorat: multum illos rubri Sulphuris e Carinthiâ annuatim petere, quo ad tingendum utantur. Sed de eo pronunciari nil certi potest, omnia enim plena sunt conjecturis. Prae caeteris memorabilis historia est de sulphure aureo extracto, quam unà cum judicio Roberti Boilii ex ejus Tentaminibus Physiologicis, tentamine 2. de Experimentis, quae non succedunt, adducam: Rem hic commemorabo, inquit, mihi seriò à D. D. K. Viro, si quis alius, à falsiloquii consuetudine alienissimo, narratam; Is mihi affirmavit, quod cum laboratorium suum in Bataviâ amico cuidam peregrè proficiscens utendum concessisset, ibique aliquot Aquarum Fortium species ad Tincturam suam escarlatinam comparatas reliquisset, amicus iste paulo post ipsius discessum ipsi per literas significavit, se Aurum in quadam Aquâ forti digerendo, Tincturam sive flavum sulphur ab illo prolicuisse, eandem volatilem reddidisse, residuâ metalli substantiâ ad salsedinem vergente, & cum hâc tincturâ aureâ argentum non sine lucro in perfectissimum aurum transmutasse. Hoc audio, D. D. K. ad laboratorium suum subitò reversus, ipse cum eadem aquâ forti aliquoties volatilem auri tincturam impetravit, quae similiter argentum in verum aurum convertit, & cum percontarer utrum tinctura ipsa argentum aut, è quo ipsa eliciebatur, pondere aequale transmutare valeret, se ex unciâ auri uncia tantum sulphuris sive tincturae obtinuisse profitebatur, quod sequencia argenti in nobilissimum metallum vertendum sufficeret.

Et hoc (addit Boilius) pronius credo, tum quoniam substantiam flavam sive tincturam separari ab auro posse, experimentis nonnullis mihi certius constat, quam ut dubitare de eo liceat: tum etiam, quoniam argento sulphur quoddam inesse, quod maturatione aurum evadat. Inde mihi sit probabile, quod nonnulli in re metallicâ exercitatissimi & observationum suarum fide testati sunt, aliquando ope liquorum solventium (quod etiam D. Franciscus Baconus alicubi notavit), aliquando vero communis sulphuris (probe excocti & salibus idoneis conjuncti) beneficio aliquos purissimi auri grana ex argento fuisse extracta.

Caeterum Doctorem nostrum conceptae ex hoc experimento divitiarum spes prorsus fefellerunt: nam paulo post tempore iterum susceptam ipsius operam elusit: culpam autem in aquam fortem rejecit, ideoque operationem denuò aggressurus est.

Verum quandoquidem omnes illius conatus hactenus in irritum ceciderint, probabile videtur, errorem ab aliquâ latente causâ fuisse profectum: nam istiusmodi casus quibusdam citra omnimodum remedium obtigisse novimus.

Ex iis itaque, quae prolixè adduximus, facile perspiciemus, sulphur esse, ut in omnibus metallis, ita in auro distinctum ac separabile, unde color ejus dependet. Atque hinc pulchrè ratio explicari potest, unde flavus in auro color oriatur.

Nam cum sulphur purpureum plerumque sit, caetera auri massa candida; è purpurearum ac candidarum particularum accurata mistione flavum oriri colorem necesse est, non secus, ac cum è cupro & zinco inter se justa proportione commixtis, substantia oritur, quae flavo colore & externâ facie auro optimo componi possit.

Quod si itaque sulphur abest, vel extrahitur, candidum sit aurum, quod lunam fixam appellant vulgò, cum pondus auri habeat, & in aquâ forti persistat. Huic aureus ille color si reddi possit, ut reddi posse docent, multum inde lucri posset acquiri.

Quanquam & Boilius, loco supra memorato, inter incerta experimenta refert.

Praeterea diversam sulphuris seu coloris in auro naturam ostendit, quod intendi ac augeri per caementa sulphureae naturae, quamvis impurae possit.

Potest aurum cum certis quibusdam substantiis ita misceri ac igne torreri, ut cum in Regulos, ut vocant, funditur, primus penè rubeat, secundus citrini sit coloris, tertius sit longe colore debilior, ut vix aurum credas.

Quo apparet, optimas sulphuris particulas primâ effusione praecipitari, ut primo stillicidio optima quaeque decidere solent, ac jungi arctiùs, & disjungi posse.

Non semel mihi narratum est à Viris hujus rei peritis, posse aurum Rhenanum cujus color pallidior est, & vilioris eam ob causam pretii, per caementa ita tractari, ut colore suo ipsum Hungaricum provocet.

Idem confirmavit mihi, cum in Angliâ essem, Nobilis quidam Bohemus de Veneto quodam, qui ista arte tantas acquisiverat divitias, ut Senatus in se inquisitionem concitaverit. Unde factum est, ut detectis opum suarum causis, lucrum etiam ex eo tempore cessaret.

Illud jam olim factitatum quoque fuisse in Galliâ, suspicio non levis est; quam injecit mihi Thomas Freigius Physicor. lib. 26. p. 708. qui quidem aureos Rhenanos nobiliori auro commistos illic fuisse existimat: Nam Galli Rhenanum aurum exportare prohibuerunt: tot milia aureorum quotannis in Galliam à mercatoribus missa, quae illic tamen rarò comparuerunt.

Recusit itaque procul dubio sunt, sive nobiliori auro mixtum fuerit Rhenanum, sive aliis subsidiis in splendidiorem colorem excoctum. Mirum certe est, quod cum tanto numero olim cuderentur aurei isti, ut illic computat Freigius, adeò tamen rari fuerint.

Chapter 8.

Atque haec hactenus de metallorum productione ex sententia Chemicorum dixisse sufficiat. Quibus experimenta nostra jungenda, explorandi metallurgi, inspiciendae, si fieri potest, fodinae, ea praecipuè, quae perfectiora metalla generant, consulendi libri, quibus tamen ego oculatam fidem praefero, sic de metallorum inter se commutatione rectius judicabimus.

Ut itaque de transmutatione metallorum, utrum illa fieri humana operâ possit, vel minus, quicquam tandem statuamus, & fieri eam posse, & factam fuisse credimus. Quae ab aliis hic toties apposita crambe est, totiesque recocta, eam iterum non recoquimus.

Quot non dissertationes, ac integra de hoc negotio volumina scripta, quibus argumenta in utramque partem & asseruntur & discutientur. Sed his ego recensendis, nec otio meo, nec tuâ, Vir Amplissime, patientia abutar.

Praecido primum omnes illas quaestiunculas: An Metalla vivant? An animam habeant vegetativam & certum semen? An specie illa sint distincta, an accidentibus? an mutua possit esse specierum commutatio? Quae omnia plurimam partem à solis ingenii contemplationibus dependent.

Vivere Metalla Berigardus Circulo Pisano speciosa dissertatione evicit, & Jordanus Brunus libro 5. de Universo & Innumerabilibus c. 12. totam tellurem ac omnes ejus partes vivere statuit argumento e lapidibus ducto.

Ac ille quidem eodem modo, ut dentes & ossa in corpore humano, nutriri putat.

Alii rursus negant, illi praesertim, qui Peripateticos sequuntur, Scaliger, Caesalpinus, Jacobus Aubertus, libro de ortu Metallorum, Fallopius.

Semen illi metallis tribuunt; hi negant. Similiter de specificâ vel accidentali metallorum differentiâ multae sunt disputationes quibus chartas hic implere nec instituti ratio admitteret, nec nostra valde refert.

Caeterum vegetationem metallorum demonstrare alicui ac ob oculos ponere possunt, si quis pertinaciter negaverit, Arbores illae Philosophicae ex argento vivo productae, & mirabilis illa arboris argenteae, in aquis ex eodem metallo germinatio, quae à San-Simonio Bruxellis, injecto pulvere, quem homo Leodiensis ignotus illi dederat, peracta est, teste Cl. Borrichio lib. de Ortu & progr. Chem. p. 103.

Quo colligas, semen argentificum, aut aliquid semini analogum, isto in pulvere delituisse.

De transmutationibus metallorum in universum plene hic quidem agere animus non est: sunt enim in imperfectioribus illis variae mutationes, quales ferri in cuprum, plumbi in stannum & similes, quas pauci in dubium vocant; in ipsis denique metallis variae sunt puriorum ab impuris separationes, quae magno interdum cum lucro instituuntur, sed eae cum arte χρυσοποιητικῇ nihil commune habent, ostendere tamen aliquam verisimilitudinem possunt.

Ferri in cuprum mutationem multi negant. Sed obstat Erkeri, viri in ista re scientissimi, auctoritas, pluraque alia exempla, ut in dubium vocari non possit. Ferri in chalybem, plumbi in stannum mutatio sit per separationem partium puriorum ab impuris.

In minerarum purgationibus multa adhuc latent arcana, quae si quis recte explorare noverit, lucri satis inde reportaturus esset.

Novi Virum Nobilissimum, qui è mineris nonnullis argentiferis Hungariae, sulphure multo & arsenico abundantibus, quae, cum igne fusorio tractantur, maximâ sui parte cum sulphureis illis halitibus in fumum abeunt, argenti vim decuplo majorem per liquorem extrahere potest.

Liquor enim ita comparatus est, ut omnes sulphureas substantias è minera contusâ extrahat: dumque illi liquori supernatant, vel miscentur, argenti purissimi partes subsidunt.

Quales minerae cum admodum frequentes sint, ac in Norvegiâ etiam, ut audivi, reperiantur, quas ob exiguum commodum abjicere solent metallurgi; quanta hinc se & alios ditandi occasio obvenire posset, si quis rem istam serio & cum cura ageret?

E luto per oleum lini ferrum se produxisse, singulari libro, Supplemento Physicae subterraneae, scribit Beccherus, qui quidem reverà generatum illic ferrum putat.

Quod mihi, ut fatear, persuadere hactenus non potuit. Quid enim oleum lini ad metallicam naturam conferre valeat, quam separare fortassis partes heterogeneas, novum verò aliquid à naturâ suâ diversum producere non potuit?

Latitarunt sine dubio in luto isto particulae ferreae quae per omnes adeò lapides omnemque terram dispersae, lutum praecipuè, quod vel ipso suo colore aliquid, quod ferream naturam sapit, prodit, quae operatione ista evocatae fuerunt.

Et sanè Gilbertus lib. 1. de magnete cap. 8. nullam terram dari quae ferrea non imbuta sit materia, testatur: praecipuè vero omnem argillam & terram argillaceam.

Belgae è cespitibus sulphureis bituminosis cuprum & ferrum nonnunquam eruunt.

Quod mihi minus mirum videtur: cum & ipsum aërem, ipsasque plantas & arbores subtiles quidam halitus metallici pervadant.

Quibus non absurdè, mea quidem sententia, vegetabilium quorundam & productorum in fundo maris naturas adscribit Alexander Achilles, homo ordinis militaris, libro Germanico de causis terrae motûs & mineralium.

E quibus illud memorabile est, quod corallorum productionem exhalationibus auri; unionum verò argenti vaporibus, qui è terris subjectis istarum minerarum feracibus evehuntur, adscribat.

In cujus rei fidem asserit experimentum de virgula venarum argentiferarum indice, quae ad uniones vel ostrea aequè ut argentum se inclinaverit.

Quae de alternis venarum metalli & carbonum fossilium processibus similibusque habet idem Autor, ea metallurgis judicanda relinquo.

Ad hanc Experimentorum classem, scilicet ad modos, quibus puriora metalla ab impurīs separantur, referendum etiam puto, quod Stocmannus in Oratione Inaugurali Rostochii in Academiae jubilæo A. 1619. habitâ, de argento in aurum per caementum mutato narrat.

Propriam, inquit, fidem testor, quod aliquando hisce oculis viderim, laminas & bene magni ponderis argenti frustra per subviride caementum ita perfici, ut auri naturam induerint optimae notae, idque spatio paucarum horarum, & igne non magno.

Mira haec, fateor, operatio per caementa est; ac vellem accuratius narrasset rem omnem: nam magna mihi suspicio est, sophismate aliquo imposuisse viro illi, qui haec exhibuit.

Talibus enim operandi modis plerumque dignoscendi Pseudo-Chemici, qui adeò speciosè fraudes suas tegere possunt, ut vel oculatissimos nonnunquam fallant: per insidias enim auri pulverem vel carbonibus, vel instrumentis quibus operantur, recondunt, ut arte factum quis putet; quod verum est & nativum.

Quorum quinquaginta & amplius fraudes sanè ingeniosissimas recenset Michael Mejerus in Examine Fucorum Pseudo-Chemicorum detectorum quem vel ideo librum legendum suaserim, ne fallamur ab agyrtis & impostoribus, quorum unicus labor est, spe lucri aliis ostensa sibi lucrum quaerere: quo fit, ut innoxia Alchemiae studia in invidiam adducantur, honestique homines vel ut res inanes ludibrio habeant, vel ut fraudulentas detestentur.

Quot non obtruduntur passim, tam libris editis, quam schedis, quae circumferuntur, operationum metallicarum formulae? sed nequam omnes & dolosae: à quibus caveat sibi, qui nec opum suarum, nec temporis vult dispendium facere.

Et vereor sanè, ne & illae, quae apud Franciscum Lanam occurrunt de stanni & argenti vivi in verum argentum mutatione, ad eorum classem sint referendae.

Leguntur & apud Johannem Franciscum Mirandulanum, libro de Auro, transmutationum metallicarum quaedam historiae, qualis est illa lib. 3. c. 6. de argento vivo per nescio quos succos & folia herbarum in aurum commutato, & quaedam similes, quibus fortasse doctissimo Principi imposuerunt, qui haec narrant: ista enim adeò sunt à ratione aliena, ut fidem apud illum invenisse mirer.

Quae de auro per separationes ac plurimorum metallorum commissiones productò refert, fortassis vera sunt, non tamen cum magno lucro conjuncta.

Quid non talium rerum tentavit & publicis etiam scriptis jactavit Glauberus? Quae si vera essent omnia, jam ab Indis & Americanis aurum & argentum tam sumptuosis petere navigationibus necesse non haberemus.

Quod est eorum, qui Ephemerides Eruditorum Gallicas scripsere, judicium.

Chapter 9.

Sed nos missis illis omnibus ad veram illam veterum Alchemiam, quâ ignobiliora metalla in aurum converterunt, nos convertimus.

Quam cum plurimi impugnarint, nemo tamen acerbius ac immodestius, &, ut verum fatear, indoctius eam ejusque assertôres tractavit, quam Kircherus in Mundo subterraneo: totam enim ut impostoriam rejecit. Historias transmutationum sine discrimine pro fabulis habet.

Ubi solida argumenta exspectes, perpetuae leguntur ejus in Impostores Chemicos declamatiunculae. Quos ut tales demonstret, farraginem praeparationum sophisticarum, quales passim ab agyrtis circumferuntur, in medium producit.

Cum his larvis penè ubique pugnat. Quae de Chelidonia, succo Lunariae ad metalla commutanda adhibendo & similibus Chemici aenigmatica memorant, ille suo sensu accipit; cum tamen illi per succum Lunariae longè aliud quid intelligant, illud scilicet, quod e sphaerâ Lunae principium petunt, cujus supra mentionem fecimus.

Quo ostendit, ne quidem legisse se Chemicos, contra quos tamen pugnat.

Refutavit eum Bovicinius singulari libro, quem Lancem Peripateticam inscribit; qui tamen hactenus ad manus meas non pervenit, & quidam Salomon de Blauenstein.

Sunt & nonnulli, qui, cum artem per se impossibilem dicere vereantur; ab homine tamen, ob causas occultiores, nisi fortè ab Angelo aut Daemone, in effectum deduci posse negant.

Qua in sententia Honoratus Fabri est. Sed malignos quidem spiritus ab his sacris, ne abutantur, arcebit Deus: boni aliud habebunt, quod agent.

Quid verò impedit, homines in metallicis, datis scilicet causis proximis, eadem agere, quae in vegetabilibus agunt quotidie hortulani?

Neque enim e primis elementis illi semina colligunt, sed jam à naturâ parata excolunt, ornant, augent, quod rustici omnes faciunt & agricolae.

Inepti sunt & in societatem humanam injurii, qui arti amplius aliquid, quam naturae licere negant: ac misere profecto nobiscum ageretur, nisi semper ars naturam juvaret.

Quam tamen ipsam aliquid auro producere interdum perfectius, ostendit historia apud Beccherum Phys. subterr. lib. 1. sect. 3. c. 3. de minerali rubro, pro realgar habito, ac cum argenti quinque partibus commisto, quae in purum putum aurum conversae fuerunt.

Alii, cum experientiam negare nec velint nec possint, casu illud factum arbitrantur: inter quos est Jac. Rohault in Physica suâ Gallicâ linguâ non ita pridem edita part. 3. c. 6., cujus ista plane inepta est ratiocinatio:

Cum ignoretur, inquit, quae sit figura & magnitudo particularum metalla componentium, & earum quae inservire transmutationi possunt, nec modus repertus sit, quo illa constringi possint, existimandum est, si verum est, aliquando à Chemicis plumbum conversum fuisse in aurum, pari casu id evenisse, ac si, cum ex altiori loco arenam in tabulam quis projecerit, granula ita disponerentur, ut legere quis integram è Virgilii Aeneide paginam posset.

Frustra itaque omnes esse putat, qui de tali arte solliciti sint.

Vide quaeso quantum hominis acumen sit! Quid ad artificem particularum constitutio, è quibus corpus vel corporis partes primo componuntur? Ergo, qui aliquid rerum naturalium arte producturus est, primum è particulis rerum causas colligit? Naturae illud opus esto. Artifex ea, quae jam in promptu sunt conjungit, ac naturae suae adjumento perficienda relinquit.

Aurum aliqui arte nullâ corrumpi, resolvi aut in meliorem redigi naturam posse objiciunt, cum sit jam perfectissimum.

Quod quidem verum est, quam diu naturae isti non conjungis aliam, quae destruere aut resolvere illud potest: qualem se scire Chemicorum schola fatetur, extra quam unicam nulla in hoc universo est, quae praestare illud possit.

Nam quod Honoratus Fabri Phys. tract. 7. prop. 34. & 35. corruptibile esse aurum ex eo judicat: quod salibus solvatur, qui humorem ejus, ut loquitur, exugant, faciantque ut ab igne consumatur: quod vel à vapore in patinarum operculis atteri & attenuari possit, planè non admittendum videtur.

Aurum, ut rectè idem statuit, duplici particularum plexu constat, interiori scilicet & exteriori.

Interior est, quo miscibilia & ipsa corpora primogenia sibi implicantur; Exterior quo partes mixtae ipsius scilicet auri continentur.

Exteriorem plexum disturbare multa possunt, tritus, pulsus, sales, ita ut in insensibiles particulas abeat, quarum tamen quaevís auri formam retinet: nec corrumpi ideo dici potest aurum, ut vult Honoratus Fabri, quod insensibiles particulae in palpabile aurum reduci nequeant.

Interiorem plexum nihil, nisi quod ex ipsa auri natura primogenia est, à vinculis suis solvit.

Quem itaque Canonem Honoratus Fabri sic format: Si aurum nullo modo corrumpi seu destrui posset, Chemicorum sors adeo mala non esset: rectiùs ita pronunciabo: Si aurum corrumpere & destruere possent Chemici, optimè cum illis ageretur.

Species hinc & formas splendida ista nomina, alii crepant; converti illas non posse audacter asserunt: qui tamen non animadvertunt, quotidianum hoc esse naturae negotium, ut subinde in alias aliasque formas Protei instar se vertat.

Inepta igitur est, quae hoc fundamento innititur Kircheri objectio: Quod si μεταμόρφωσις ista in metallis fieri possit, fieri etiam in animalium ac vegetabilium genere posse. e.g. Si pulvis ex absynthio confectus supra aridum mor—

Tuumque absynthii caulem projiceretur, pari ratione id in herbam resuscitaturum: idem & de pulvere ex animali combusto facto, & in cadaver ejusdem vel alterius animalis conjecto dicendum esse: item si vini septies & amplius distillati gutta dolio aquae infunderetur, aquam in vinum abituram.

Non enim ratio subjectorum est eadem, nec eodem modo in omnibus natura operatur. Materia metallorum proxima communis est, non item vegetabilium & animalium.

Metalla è paucis partibus miscentur, ac simpliciorem texturam habent: Vegetabilia & animalia tot dissimilibus partibus constant, ac alio planè modo producuntur.

Quid vero pulvis alicujus herbae in aridos caules operetur? Quanquam tamen & hoc satis mirabile sit, quod è pulvere ejus certo modo praeparato herba quasi resuscitari possit: An in pulvere combusti alicujus animalis tota ejus vis lateat?

Memini tamen, è pulvere combusti cancri, si super rivulos spargatur, aliquibus cancros produci. Sic & in spiritu vini subtilissimo volatili non tota essentia vini latet, quae aquam in sui naturam convertere possit.

Neque talis aliqua spirituum subtilitas, quae vase nullo teneri possit, ut ineptè putat in metallorum conversione requiritur. Nisi enim ad fixam naturam spiritus fugitivi reducantur, nullius sunt usus.

Quod verò de aquae in vinum conversione attulit, non adeò absurdum est, ut ille forsàn existimat. Narravit mihi Clarissimus Collega meus Caspar Marchius, Vir in Vulcani palaestra exercitatissimus, de Laurentio Eichstadio, Mathematico celeberrimo, cujus tum ille domestica informatione utebatur, potuisse illum certo quodam pulvere in aquam justâ proportione injecto, perfecti vini sapore eam imbuere, idque in conviviis animi gratiâ non sine admiratione convivatum factitâsse. Ac latent fortassis non pauca, etiam in vegetabilium ac animalium genere, talia arcana humano ingenio nondum investigata. Frustra itaque est cum suis objectionibus Kircherus. Quandoguidem verò transmutationis nomen adeò Misochemicis odiosum est, ac sensus illorum repugnat: nam, formam in viliori metallo, quod specie ab altero diversum habent, destrui; novam sub exigui grani specie, penè infinitâ vi multiplicativâ praediti, quae figat & se ipsi ponderosius corpus reddat introduci insolesc illi videtur & ἀδύνατον; videamus, quomodo fieri tale quid possit. Velim itaque primum, auferant nobis invidiosum illud transmutationis nomen: solâ enim mistione res tota potest expediri. Communis, ut vidimus, metallorum materia est, Mercurius, substantia ponderosa, ductilis, liquabilis: illis enim notis a reliquo fossilium genere metallicum distinguitur: adeò, ut quò minus ductilitatis corpus aliquod habet, eò minus metallica naturae habet. Substantia illa, & altera quae sulphur vocatur, sive rubrae sit naturae, sive candidae, quò puriores sunt & impurores, distinctionem suam metalla recipiunt. Inter perfectius mixta, aurum est, & quod secundum ab illo gradum habet argentum; illud e puri sulphuris rubri; hoc e puri sulphuris candidi familia arctiori tamen & propiori, ob aequalem puriorum partium mistionem, cognatione juncta, quam caetera illa plumbum & ferrum, stannum & cuprum, quae in se mutuo, immediate saltem, non convertuntur, ut cuprum & ferrum, plumbum & stannum; praetereà verò illa, quae sulphur in se candidum habent, Hydrargyrus, plumbum, stannum, argentum, facilius aurei sulphuris operationibus obsequiuntur, quam illa, quae a rubro sulphure ortum trahunt: habet enim eorum, ut cupri & ferri, sulphur majorem impuritatem cum quadam pervicacia conjunctam, quam caeterorum, quorum Mercurius copiosior est, & sulphur immaturum facilius excoqui in rubrum perfectius a perfecto sulphure potest: nam in imperfectum rubrum vulgaribus etiam operationibus convertitur. Hinc Chymici lubentius vel plumbo vel hydrargyro in auri confectione utuntur, quam ferro aut cupro. Quando itaque Elixir suum componunt Chymici, materiam metallicam tot operationibus depuratam cum purissimo sulphure auri conjungunt, & in subtilissimam, fixam tamen naturam, convertunt; omni auro longe perfectiorem, quae iteratis resolutionibus & coagulationibus majores semper perfectionis suae gradus acquirit. Incredibile hic Misochemicis videtur, pulviculo grani quantitatem aequante mille & amplius, grana vulgaris metalli in aurum tingi posse: & vident tamen illi quotidie, exiguam croci partem sufficere, ut mille vel amplius partes aquae cum illa misceantur, ac flavo se colore tin- gant. Jam cogitent mihi illi admirabilem auri etiam vulgaris naturam, quam illud dilatari & extendi vel per rudem mallei operationem possit. Quis credat, ex nummo aureo tot braceleos cudi, & tres quatuorve bracteolas, quibus argenteus Cylindrus inauratur, dum ille in filum tenuissimum & longissimum ducitur, illas simul produci, ut semper superficiei adhaereant, ac ipsum filum tot ulnas longum inauratum habeamus. Quid ergo non faciet aurum in naturam centies vel millies subtiliorem redactum? Illud itaque Elixir viliori metallo, plumbo e.g. sed prius a scoriis & sordibus suis per certos pulveres purgato, dumque funditur, injectum statim cum Mercurio plumbi, tanquam sibi congénere, ejusque partibus purioribus miscetur unà cum sulphure quam arctissime secum juncto, dum partes heterogeneae vel separantur vel fumo avolant. Falluntur enim, qui totam illam plumbi massam in aurum converti putant. Mercurius per mutuum illum partium consensum statim se sociat Mercurio subtiliori, ejusque sulphur adjunctum etiam in interiorem sui naturam recipit, excluso illo, qui sibi adhaeret, impuriori. Nec est quod quis celebrem illum particularum motum et complexum miretur, cum et vulgaribus operationibus hoc fieri videamus. Insere liquori perspicuo, in quo argentum solutum est, alterius naturae metallum, statim ut farina dispersa e latebris suis prodiens argentum fundum petet, cum sales se alteri metallo applicant. Infunde argentum vivum laminis auri ignitis, et uno momento in substantiam butyro similem, quam amalgama vocant, per mutuum complexum commutantur. Est scilicet mutuus quidam naturarum consensus nobis incomprehensibilis, per quem inusitata saepe in natura phaenomena se ostendunt; qualia non per generationes, vel transmutationes, ut vulgo loquimur, fiunt: sed per alteratas partium interiorum mistiones, vel fermentationes. Fermentatio enim, cujus Tu, Vir Amplissime, vires mirabiles etiam in epistola tua depraedicas, est, quae omnia naturae mixta, ipsa etiam metalla, vinculis suis solvit et in subtiliores naturas mira vi ἐνεργείᾳ praeditas extollit. Hujus ego exempla aliquota e natura vegetabili proferam, unde lux metallicis etiam mutationibus inferri potest. Novi Virum Nobilem, qui singulare aliquid fermentum excogitavit; quo dolia lignea imbuit: quibus infusa aqua in acerrimum acetum, quale unquam e vino parari potest, commutatur. Quae vis in vasis illis non perdurat tantum, sed et continuo usu in infinitum augetur. Quod ille arcanum sibi servat, nec facile cum lucrosum esse possit, in publicum profert. Memini quidem Andream Matthiolum, de aqua, per panis tosti aliquoties aceto vini imbuiti et exsiccati injectionem, in acetum commutanda, quaedam alicubi memorare; sed hoc cum artificio comparari nullo modo potest. Memorabile itidem est, quod refert Thaddaeus Hagecius, opuscul. de cerevis. c. 12, rosarum odore afflato acescere cerevisiam e tritico paratam. Illud, inquit, mirabile videtur et non nisi forte ad ἀντιπάθειαν quandam referendum, quod rosarum fragantium odorem aversetur triticea cerevisia. Hae enim in cellariis repositae, aut si saltem pincerna coronato serto rosaceo illud fuerit ingressus, illico perverteretur et acesceret. Quod certe non nisi per momentaneam quandam fermentationem a rosarum fragantium particulis ortam fieri potuit. Sic, si quis poculo, in quo panis fermentatus est, per siphonem e dolio cerevisiam infundat, cerevisia omnis acesceret derivata in cerevisiam quae in dolio exstitit fermentatione. Ex adverso liquor aliquis dari potest, qui cerevisiam et vinum corruptissimum guttis aliquibus instillatis ex tempore in priorem statum vel meliorem etiam restituat. Illud vidisse se et gustu suo examinasse mihi asseveravit mercator Anglus Carolus de Corsellis, vir honestus et fide dignissimus. Liquor rubri coloris fuit, sed noluit homo ille artificium prodere, quod ex Oriente reportaverat. Fermentationis beneficio, si Vreeswijkio, qui id in nupero suo tractatu Belgicè scripto de Sale Philosophorum asseruit, credimus, è quolibet pene vegetabili, avena, pisis, brassicae etiam foliis & similibus spiritus ardens vinosus produci potest.

Quod si itaque tam miranda in vegetabilibus, nonnunquam uno momento per fermentationem, quae quasi tritus quidam naturae est, fieri possunt: cur in metallis fieri talia posse negamus? In quibus carere possumus generationis & transmutationis nominibus, cum solam mistio auri tincturam alteri metallo inferat, & arctiori partes interiores plexu jungat; unde auctum pondus est, quod in lateribus coctis vel solus ignis praestare potest.

Chapter 10.

Venio nunc ad alteram dissertationis meae partem, de Antiquitate hujus Artis & Autoribus, per quos illa tradita est & propagata. Quo in argumento cum dudum summo ingenio ac industria versati fuerint viri praeclarissimi: Conringius libro de Medicina Hermetica: Reinesius in defensione Chymiatriæ: Borrius libro de ortu & progressu Chemiae: quid opus est crambem illam à nobis recoqui? Supenso ergo pede hanc viam ingredior, ita tamen, ut nonnulla interdum tollam, quae illi reliquerunt.


Negari vero non potest: ea, quae vulgo hic afferuntur antiquitatis argumenta, omnia esse conjecturae plena & incerta: quanquam tamen Borichius in rerum istarum tenebris ita versatus fuit, ut non exiguam etiam antiquitati Chemiae lucem intulerit. Natales certe ejus altius spectare, quam crediderunt aliqui, si non omnino evicit, id tamen effecit, ut perquam probabilis res illa videatur.

Mitto, quae e fabulosis Enochi scriptis petuntur documenta, aut quae Bochartus de Chamo ejus auctore conjicit. Hermetem aliquem fuisse, hujusque scientiae quaedam tradidisse non negamus: quanquam non omnia, quae sub nomine ejus circumferuntur, ab illo fortassis sunt profecta. Tabulae Smaragdinae, quae illi adscribitur, origo est incerta: mentitur tamen Kircherus, qui ante Lullii tempora extitisse negat: cum Johannis de Garlandia, qui Hortulanus alias dicitur, ac seculo Decimo, teste Balao, vixit, jam tum in eam commentarium scripserit. Kriegsmannus illam lingua Phoenicia publicavit, sed unde illam habeat, si recte memini, non indicavit.

Hactenus ergo rei veritas in suspenso est. Apud Aegyptios hanc artem inter arcana habitam multa argumento sunt. Nam, quanquam nil diserte proditum literis sit: hieroglyphica tamen illa quaedam hujus condidisse videntur. Neque enim credibile est, homines illos non profecto stupidos ac inertes, fallendi temporis gratiâ has quasi cucurbitas pingere voluisse, aut morales quosdam, aut alios vulgares sensus sub iis occultasse, cum occultandi nulla causa esset. Servare his monumentis sapientioribus majora quaedam naturae arcana voluerunt. Quid in in mensâ Isiacâ figuris sibi volunt Leones Lunati? facili interpretabitur qui in Chemicorum veterum aenigmatibus non planè hospes est. Quid significant Serpentes cum capite accipitrino aliud quam naturam fixam volatilèm? Cui respondet istud Chemicorum effatum: Bufo gradiens super terram, & Aquila volans est mysterium nostrum.

Sed omnia alia comminiscuntur, qui haec interpretantur, praecipuè Hervvartus, qui mensae Isiacæ imagines, ridiculis planè argumentis ductus de magnete & pixide nautica explicat. Hinc plurimas Graecorum fabulas natas fuisse verosimile est, quas ingeniose satis ad Chemicos sensus explicat Michael Mejerus, Vir doctus, in arcanis suis arcanissimis, sive Hieroglyphicis Aegyptio-Gracis vulgo nondum cognitis, qui tamen ob amorem artis fortassis nimium ingenuo suo indulget. Quem sequuntur in hoc instituto Vigenerius, Commentario in Philoftrati tabulas, & Pet. Ioh. Faber, in Pan-Chymico fuo. Negare certè ipse Conringius non potest, docendi ac scribendi rationem apud Aegyptios, Chemicorum ordini semper familiarem, & ad hos ab illis derivatam videri posse. Kircherus verò noster quasi è tripode pronunciat (Oedip. Aegyptiac. tom. 2. classe 10. de Alchymia Aegyptiaca) Aegyptios praxin Lapidis Philosophorum haud intendisse, sed rem quandam in inferiori mundo Soli analogam & quintam quandam essentiam pro morbis omnibus curandis & vitâ in omni felicitate traducendâ. Hanc ob summam subtilitatem & perfectionem coelum appellasse:

Hoc Elixir, inquit, sive quinta essentia tam eminentis virtutis erat, ut cuiunque distillatae ex quibusvis herbis aquae affunderetur, virtutem ejusdem, quae certum aliquod corporis membrum respiciebat, in decuplum augmentaret. Verbi gratia, si aquae ex hepatica extractâ apponeretur, illa aqua decuplo validiorem in hepatis curâ effectum praestaret; eratque haec aqua ad eam temperiem per continuas circulationes reducta, ut frigidis apposita decuplo ea frigidiora; calidis addita decuplo calidiora, siccis juncta decuplo sicciora, humidis denique admixta decuplo ea humidiora efficeret.

Quae omnia fuisse ex mente Aegyptiorum prosequitur Balsan Arabs in libro de Elixiris vitae compositione. Hanc aquam, (porro addit) & lapidem dicebant eo quod ex lapidibus pretiosissimis fuisset extracta, aquam vitae, vegetabile naturae Semen, animam solarem similibusque lapidi Hermetici impositis denominationibus nuncupabant. Gemina illis Lullius in suo de quinta essentia libro scribit, quam & ipse coelum vocat, in quam falsò Kircherus in mundo subterraneo dicit cogitationes suas convertisse Lullium, postquam lapidis Philosophici spem abjecerat. Non pauca enim in isto libro sunt mendacia. Quod si vera sunt quae de Aegyptiorum Elixire adducit, suo profecto gladio se jugulat: nam quod ista praestare potuit, facilè etiam in metalla vires suas exseret.

Ante Christum natum Chemiam ignotam fuisse; & omne opus χημεικόν putat Cl. Conringius, cum tamen jam tum Herodotus vitreorum operum mentionem fecerit, quae inter χημεικά omnino referenda sunt. Kircherus quoque magnâ ut solet, audaciâ: Nos, inquit, quantum fieri potuit, antiquitati hujus perdita artis incumbentes nullam ante Christum à quopiam scriptore hujus artis mentionem fieri deprehendimus.

Ibidem Arabes facit primos hujus lapidis autores, sed qui tamen successerint Graecis illis autoribus qui circa tempora Constantini Magni περὶ χρυσωσίας scripserunt. Quae an cum sanâ mente consistere possint, dubito: qui enim primi sunt, aliis quomodo successere? Id verò vehementer miror adeò obliviosum aut caecum fuisse, ut cum alias saepe exscripseret, eum in Martinii Atlante Sinico locum vel praeterviderit, vel in memoriam sibi non revocarit, quo de antiquitate artis Chemiae apud Chinenes agit.

Ita verò ille p. 71. Scribunt de Yotan parvo lacu (forte legendum loco) ad Pukiang, quod in eo Hiangius artis Chemicae, vulgo Alchymiam vocant, operam dederit, idque BIS MILLE QUINGENTIS EOQUE AMPLIUS ANNIS ANTE CHRISTI NATIVITATEM.

Addit ulterius Autor ille: Quare habent etiam hic unde antiquissimos natales suae scientiae atque artis accrescerint Chemicorum filii, potius quam à fabuloso suo Mose, aut Maria ejus Sorore, ac Pythagoreis, uti à supposititiis illis Graeculis decoctoribus factum vidimus. Haec Vir ille, nec ipso Kirchero negaturos, fide dignus, quem Chemicae arti alias favisse non constat in monumentis Chinensium legit: quae eâ fide ac diligentia scripta esse scimus, ut parem nulla gens historiis suis adhibuerit: Quam ob causam testimonii hujus auctoritatem ipse etiam auctor commendat. Haec si legisset Vir Clarissimus, Conringius, non opinor, scripsisset Medic. Hermet. lib. 2. c. 14. quod ab Arabibus ad Chinenses χρυσοποιίας studium pervenerit. Errat & Fallopius, qui artem ante Muhamedanam sectam exortam negans, à quodam Mahometis nepote primum excogitatam putat.

Occurrunt plura apud eundem Martinium loca, ut in Provinc. 8. 1. Urbe Nanchang. p. 86. Hoc in loco, qui extra moenia est, fabulantur, olim fuisse virum quendam, qui egenorum complurium necessitatibus succurrerit, multaque populo liberalissime erogavit; quippe in Chemicâ arte non fictitium, sed verum argentum elaboravit.

Provinc. 9. urb. 2. p. 110. Prope Xeu civitatem mons est Zukin, in quo ingens auri frustum repertum contra plures morbos fuit adhibitum, unde illud Chemicâ arte factum vulgo autumant.

Provinc. Huguang. p. 75. Nullus fere memoratu dignus mons occurrit praeter eum, quem Kieuchin vocant, hoc est, novem virginum. Namque in eo sorores novem Virginitatem perpetuam servasse & Alchemiae deditas fuisse scribunt.

Quae cum extare in historiis suis omni exceptione majoribus documenta viderent Sinenses, factum est, ut insanâ auri & praecipue argenti ex hydrargyro consiciendi cupidine, & olim flagarent, & nunc quoque ducantur, testibus scriptoribus novissimis.

Chapter 11.

E Graecis scriptoribus libros Democriti, Zosimi, Synesii, Pselli, Heliodori, qui praeter Aethiopica, quae & Chemici argumenti videntur, eo praesertim loco, ubi de Phoenice, ad Chemicos sensus confictâ fabulâ, agit, librum περὶ χρυσοποιίας scripsit, abundè examinarunt Reinesius, Conringius, Borrichius, Salmasius, ut illis quod addam nihil amplius habeam.

Vitri flexilis historia, quae inter fabulas tamen referenda non videtur, etiam proximè post Christi nati tempora in usu fuisse opera χημειτικά plusquam vulgaria ostendit. Lucernas verò perpetuas in tumulis repertas Hermolaus Barbarus ex auro, Chemico modo paratas putat, & pluribus argumentis vincere laborat, Claud. Guichard. libro de Funeribus Graecorum & Romanorum, ante Kirchmannum Gallicâ linguâ scripto l. 1. c. 8. n. p. 83 ad p. 86.

Cujus in rei fidem asseritur à Borrichio inscripto illa lucernae in tumulo Maximi Olibii inventae; de quâ judicium meum suspendo, cum virum in inscriptionibus dijudicandis peritissimum pro non genuina habere sciam. Cognatum tamen hoc lucernae inextinguibilis artificium cum magno Chemicorum opere ostendit historia, quam mihi narravit Vir honestus, & fide dignissimus. Is cum Lovanii literis operam daret in notitiam Burgundi alicujus pervenit, à quo in musaeum suum, singularis artificii videndi gratia, invitatus fuit. Obductis itaque fenestris, ne externum lumen impediret, vitrum aliquod augustioris oris, liquore purissimo plenum, cui insertum erat filum aureum, produxit Burgundus, & lucernâ filo ad motâ, tantum repente lumen exortum fuit, ac si in medio sole versarentur: incredibilis verò suavitatis odor totum musaeum complevit. Suppressâ postea flammâ hospitem, sed sub juratâ silentii fide, dimisit. Increbuit hinc post discessum Burgundi quidam de χρυσοποιία ejus rumor, & Amsterodami magnam ab eodem pecuniae vim in homines miseros erogatam comperit, qui haec mihi narravit.

Non fuit tamen in ullâ gente fortassis frequentius Chemiae tam Medicae, quam metallica studium, quam apud Arabes, sive à Graecis, sive aliunde habuerint. Ab illis primum liquores confectos sub Essentiarum nomine è Vegetabilibus, quibus mirandas virtutes adscribunt, & de quibus Lullius, Rupecissia, Drebelius ac plurimi alii scripsere, satis constat.

Nec desunt hodie, qui istis vigorem juvenilen, cujus signa pili & ungues mutati, reduci posse vel credunt, vel experimenta ejus vidisse se asseverent. Videri possunt, quae è relatione cujusdam Regis Galliae Chemiatri scribit illustris Boilius part. 2. libri cui titulus: Of the usefulness of natural philosophy p. 182. & seqq.

De Guilielmo Postello etiam nonnulli, ac, ni fallor, ipse alicubi scribit, tali remedio canos suos in nigerrimi coloris pilos sibi commutasse: quanquam alii tinxisse illos artificio quodam velint. Videatur Scaevola Samarthanus Elog. lib. 3. & Verdiverius in Bibliotheca Gallica.

Chinenses quoque, teste Martino in Atlante Sinico p. 77., simplicem aliquam herbam, jactant, quam mille annorum vocant, ac immortalem esse scribunt: quâ in aquâ maceratâ ac epotâ albi crines in nigros commutentur, atque vita producatur.

Spiritus Vini, quo in Essentiis conficiendis usi fuerunt Arabes, ab illis certè primum ad Europaeos devenit, docente ejus usum primum Arnoldo Villanovano. Diu is in officinis ad medicinam tantum servatus fuit, antequam gulae in delicias cederet, cujus occasionem notat Alexander Tassonus, libro, cui titulus: Pensieri diversi lib. 10. c. 26. quam ipsius verbis ex Italico conversis referam:

Aquae Vitae usus innotuit primum è libris quorundam Medicorum Arabum, qui illam in Medicina gratiam confecerunt: qui ejus usus perduravit usque dum Mutinenses magnâ copiâ per provincias Septentrionales eam vulgarunt, idque effecerunt, ut in potus ordinarii genere haberetur, quod ita factum est.

Conspiciebatur primum aqua vitae tantum è vinis corruptis exiguâ quantitate, ut ultra guttam bibi vix posset. Erat autem aliquando per totam Italiam copiosissimus vini proventus, ut Mutinensium vinorum quae Venetiis vendi solebant, cum debiliora caeteris essent, ac emptores non invenirent, bona pars corrumperetur. Mutinenses aquam vitae ex iis destillabant, quibus vina nondum corrupta, sed quae vendi non poterant, miscuerant, atque, ut majori copiâ conficerent, bis stillatam Venetiis non sine lucro vendiderunt.

Veneti cum intelligerent, Metallorum fossôres in Germania potu tali indigere, qui vigorem & calorem corporis conservaret, venalem illis potum mittentes magnum inde quaestum confecerunt. Mutinenses postea majori copiâ, cum vino abundarent, aquam vitae stillarunt: cum bonorum vinorum pretium crescere ex eo viderent. Et vidi ego centum dolia unâ vice Venetias missa.

Hac occasione Spiritus vini ab Arabibus primum confecti, loco minimè alieno adducere visum fuit. Idem etiam metallicis operationibus diligentissime vacarunt: ac ab iis primum usus aquarum fortium ad Europaeos pervenit.

Fortasis & Turcae ipsi ab iis quaedam didicere. Nam meminit Paulus Rycotius, qui non ita pridem omnium accuratissime Imperii Turcici statum Anglicâ linguâ descripsit, lib. 2. c. 20. cujusdam Hirek (qui vixit circa annum Christi 716.) quod χρυσοποιίας gnarus aurum multum inter sectatores suos distribuerit, ac Xenodochia multa exstruxerit.

Sed Arabum Chemicorum historia obscura est & incognita: non pauca tamen extare creduntur in Leonis Africani libro de vitis Philosophorum Arabum manuscripto hactenus, quem servat in Bibliothecâ suâ Isaacus Vossius.

Magnam in eâ copiam Manuscriptorum Chemicorum vidi ab Autoribus tam cognitis, quam incognitis. Plurima enim illic sunt nomina, quorum nulla in Chemicorum Scriptorum Nomenclatoribus mentio est. Quanquam & multa illic, ut fieri solet, miscentur inepta & futilia.

Possem Tibi integrum hic eorum catalogum sistere (nam habeo ab amico) nisi taediosum foret, & dissertatio nostra, quae jam dudum epistolae limites egressa est, brevem me esse juberet. Scriptorum Chemicorum historiam accuratam, ut in aliis quibusdam disciplinis, hactenus non habemus, nec fortassis habituri sumus: quod ars ipsa una cum Doctoribus ejus tot tenebris sit involuta, ipsique summo studio se celaverint.

Potest tamen longe accuratior haberi, quam est ista, quae à Borello edita est. Scripsit is Bibliothecam Chemicam, in quâ MMMM Auctores, ut titulus habet, recenset. Sed adeò is confusus est, ut sibi nunquam visis authoribus, quos è Joh. Baptist. Nazari libro Italicè de transmutatione metallica scripto, qui syllabas illic Chemicorum quorundam congerit, excerpsit: nonnunquam fictis & mentitis è turba Philosophorum depromptis, chartas cumulet, adeoque indiligenter libros consignet, ut somnianti excidisse potius, quam studio aliquo scriptus liber videatur.

Promisit idem Autor in catalogo operum suorum, quem dedit in frontispicio Dictionarii

Gallici sui, cui titulus: Tresor des Recherches et antiquitez Gauloises & Francoises, multos ejus argumenti libros: Cribrum Philosophorum Chemicorum: Topographiam Chemicam: Vitas Chemicorum quorundam: Bibliothecam Chemicam chronologice concinnatam, cum secunda parte & vitis Authorum compendiosis: Librum de projectionum Chimicarum historiis: Theatrum Chemicum Gallicum: Dissertationem de eo, quod lapis Philosophorum debeat propalari, ac de materia ejus revelatione.

Volumina septem in folio de materiâ ac proprietatibus mineralium &c. Sed hactenus praeter titulos nihil vidimus. Ac erit fortassis, ut, quod ille promisit, alius accuratius exsequatur. Novi enim Virum Nobilem, qui ut multorum arcanorum chemicorum supra vulgarem doctrinam peritissimus est, ita incredibili plane labore & inusitatâ multorum annorum diligentia, omnes quos indagare ullâ in gente potuit, scriptores Chemicos, veteres, recentiores pervolvit, inter se contulit, omnemque eorum historiam, quoad fieri potuit, è tenebris eruit, ut vivere ego non credam, qui similem laborem susceperit; aut futurum unquam, qui suscepturus sit.

Fortassis & Joh. Gerhard. Vossius rationa quaedam nos docuisset, in opere suo artium ac constitutione omnium artium & scientiarum, ubi de Chrysopeia se acturum promiserat Theol. gentil. lib. 6. c. 5. Sed vel ineditum adhuc vel inelaboratum illud relictum ab Auctore fuit, cujus fortè Ἀπαραπόμφατον est liber de Scientiis Mathematicis & Philologia.

Chapter 12.

Cum verò tam ampla sit scriptorum Chemicorum seges, major impostorum, quorum discrimen nosse ingenii est in lectione horum authorum jam tum subacti: è vasto illorum numero nobiliores excerpemus. Geber Arabs, quem Regulum aliqui fuisse volunt, inter antiquiores à Christo nato referendus est.

Ejus scripta aliqua habemus multis circumductionibus & ambagibus plena. De eo ita sentiunt sagaciores: illum & summum Philosophum, & summum Sophistam fuisse, sub praeparationibus enim & vocabulis notissimis omnia alia intelligit. Ejus scripta vehementer variant, ac nuper Georgius Hornius in Belgio quaedam edidit à prius editis diversa. Ex Oriente codicem scriptorum Gebri altero tanto locupletiorem exportavit Christianus Ravotius, ut ex Spolio Orientis, quod hic Kilonii publicavit, videri potest.

Ejus antiquus quidam commentator est Paganus, de cujus scriptis nihil hactenus editum est: nam inter scrinia Philosopho-Chemicorum hactenus delituerunt. Perspicuo utitur scribendi genere, quali nemo pene è caeteris. Gallus ille fuit, quantum perspicere licet: ac errant, qui illum cum Gebro ipso confundunt: putant enim id nomen illi inditum à Lullio, quia Mahumedanus fuit.

At revera alius est, & fuerunt ejus nominis complures, hodieque sunt in Galliâ. Ac fuit fortassis ex ejus familiâ Jacobus Paganus, cujus Guibertus in libro de Alchemia interitum meminit, qui ad finem magnum opus perduxerat, quod illi nescio quo casu turbatum fuit, unde Guibertus pro Daemonis illusionem habet, irrisus propterea à Libavio Defens. 2. Alchemiae transmutator. not. 8.

Qui an idem Jacobus Paganus sit, de quo memorat Joh. Pier. Valerianus lib. 1. de Literator. infelicitate, equidem ignoro. Laudat & ipse Lullius Pagani summam Hebraicam, quo mendum esse puto, ac legendum Gebraicam.

Reperitur & in Bibliotheca Borelli p. 147. liber manuscriptus gallicus, cui hic titulus: Oeuvre parfaite & pratique selon Lulle, qu’il avoit eue de Paganus, id est, Opus perfectum & consummatum secundum Lullium, quod habuit ille à Pagano.

Quod hanc mihi suspicionem primum injecit intelligi illic fortè per Paganum, Villanovanum, ob similem nominis rationem: nam ab illo artem Lullius difficilè perhibetur. Sed quoniam Lullius aliquoties Pagani mentionem facit, & Pagani gentis; Villanovani Patriae nomen est, verius illa distinguuntur. Ab hoc ad Arnoldum Villanovanum & Raimundum Lullium me confero, quos Gabriel Naudaeus in defensione hominum Magiae insimulatorum gallicè scripta, Chemicorum Deos tutelates per contemptum vocat.

Ille Magister Lullii in hâc arte, ut constat è testimoniis ab aliis adductis. Raimundus Lullius, Vir ex antiqua & nobili Lulliorum Barcinonensium familiâ oriundus, & pro genio illorum temporum ingeniosissimus fuit: Injuriam enim illi facit Naudaeus, qui ut indoctum Monachum longè Arnoldo minorem habet.

Magnam vim librorum, tum in omni doctrinâ, tum in Chemiâ conscripsit, quorum quingentos aliqui; aliqui vel mille numerant. Chemicorum, qui quidem editi, per quam multi sunt: ineditorum longè plures. Eorum, si rectè memini, penè sexaginta sunt in Bibliothecâ Viennensi, quorum catalogum mihi ostendit Nobilissimus Dn. Oldenburgius: exstantque etiam in Bibliothecâ Vossianâ non pauci.

Invehitur in illum Byovius ad A.C. 1372. tribuens illi haereses ac errores: aliqui etiam magiaé insimulant. Sed confuderunt duos ejus nominis. Alter enim è Judaeo conversus ad fidem Christianam &c. Majoricanus illo posterior fuit, qui magicos libros de invocatione Daemonum scripsit.

Videri ea de re potest Franciscus Penna in notis ad Directorium Einserici part. 2. ad quaest. 20. & 27. Raimundus in Erotematibus de malis ac bonis libris part. 1. erotem. n. 246.

Pluscula etiam in Odorici Rainaldi continuatione Annalium Baronii de iis, quae ad Lullium & Villanovanum spectant, legere me memini. Sed jam liber non est ad manus.

Id quoque in more positum esse video Scriptoribus Pontificiis, ut hominum suorum scripta Chemica vel dissimulent, vel pro supposititiis habeant, cum tamen scripta ab illis fuisse longè sit certissimum. Id & in Villanovani, & in Lullii operibus recensendis factum ab illis est; ac Villanovani opera omnia, quae uno volumine edita sunt, dissertis verbis Chemica, ceu ficta & spuria excludunt.

Idem in nonnullis Scriptoribus Anglis fecit Centuriarum Balei compilator Pitseus. Ubi enim ille vel è Lelandi monumentis, vel antiqua traditione Operum Chemicorum à Viris illustribus conscriptorum mentionem facit, pertinaci silentio plagiarus Pitseus omnia abscondit, ne ulla ejus rei memoria relinquatur.

Quod fortè ob contemptum artis χρυσοποιητικῆς factum est; ne scilicet in re Pontificum decretis improbata, vel se indigna, operam posuisse viderentur. Constantissima traditur, & ut Camdenus in Reliquiis suis (Remaine’s) p. 17. ait veritate non scriptâ, by an unwritten verity (nisi quod Lullius passim illud ipse fateatur, ac Cremerus Abbas Westmonasteriensis in Testamento suo testetur) consactum fuisse à Lullio in Angliâ in arce Londinensi aurum pro Rege Edoardo III. ut eo in bello adversus infideles uteretur: unde postea moneta illa cusa, quae Rosa nobilis vel Nobile Raimundi vocata fuit; cujus effigiem Seldenus Maris clausi lib. 2. c. 25. exhibuit, alterâ parte rosâ insignitae; alterâ navi, cum inscriptione symboli Chemicorum:

JESUS autem transibat per medium eorum.

Ejus rei veritatem Robertus Constantinus se inquirendo comperisse testatur in Nomenclat. Script. Medic. ut calumnia itaque sit Alexandri à Suchten, qui Nobile Raimundi à Rege Raimundo, qui nullus in Angliâ fuit, non à Raimundo Lullio originem habuisse persuadere nobis contendit.

Et auget ejus fidem, quod ipse etiam Cambdenus loco memorato observat, nullam fuisse in Angliâ auream monetam cusam ante Edoardi III. tempora. Fortassis ista χρυσοποιία occasionem Edoardo dedit, ut legem diceret de non exportando auro & argento, nec eò multiplicando.

Quod Vir quidam doctus, quidam etiam è gente Anglicâ, ita acceperunt, ac si omnis Alchemia sub multiplicatione auri & argenti interdicta fuisset. Sed is error est. Is enim hujus legis (quae Anglicâ linguâ scripta in libro statutorum Poultoni invenitur) sensus est: non esse miscenda cum auro & argento alia metalla: id enim per multiplicationem hic intelligitur, quod ipsa legis verba innuunt.

Ac stulta omnino fuisset multiplicationis Chemiae prohibitio. Id quoque referri hic meretur, ista historiâ praecipuè motum Henricum IV. Regem Angliae, quatuor edicta publicasse ad omnes Nobiles, Milites, Doctores, Professores, Sacerdotes, quibus eos adhortatur, ut Lapidis Philosophici praeparationem inveniant, aut si quis sciat arcanum illud, revelet sibi : quo aeris alieni onere liberari Respublica possit. Speciatim verò ad Sacerdotes lepida hâc ratione usus est: quod, cum sint adeò felices in pane & vino in corpus & sanguinem Christi transubstantiandis, facilè etiam ignobilius metallum in nobilius convertere possint.

Sed frustra res omnis fuit, ac nemo comparuit. Mentionem horum editorum facit Joh. Pettus libro Anglicâ linguâ scripto, cui titulus: Fodina Regales, or the history, Laws and places of the chief mines and mineral works in England &c. part. 1. c. 27.

& ipse Londini apud custodem Regiorum diplomatum inquisivi, qui autographa hodieque superesse in Archivo testabatur. Non desuerunt tamen, qui tot existentibus documentis, historiae de Lullio ejusque aurificio veritatem in dubium vocare ausi sunt, moti praecipuè temporum incertitudine.

Nam, ut notiora transeam, Vincentius Mutius Hispanus libro, cui titulus: Historia del reyno de Malorça, non paucis argumentis productis omnem χρυσοποιίαν Lullianae famam elevare laborat, quorum praecipuum est: fato jam functum fuisse in Africâ Lullium Anno 1315, cum puer triennis esset Edoardus III, quem Conringius etiam scrupulum injecit.

Quia tantum apud Borricchium pondus habuit, ut historiam hujus rei contra communem ipsorum Anglorum sententiam, in tempora Edoardi I, rejiceret. Verum cum Vincentius Mutius, ut Borricchius jam tum probavit, in Anglicâ historiâ hospes fuerit, vero est simile, in Lullianâ etiam impingere.

Natus fuit Lullius, si Mutio credimus, A.C. 1235. Edoardus III. Anno à nato Christo 1327, aetatis quarto & decimo regnare coepit, undecimo scilicet à morte Lullii credita: cujus primi anni illustre specimen dedit, in defendendâ ab injuriis oppidanorum Cantabrigiensi Academiâ, teste Cajo lib. 1. Hist. Acad. Cantabr. p. 67.

Admittamus nativitatis tempus: mortis tempus falsò assignari certus sum. Nam praeterquam, quod Wolff. Justus in Chronol. Med. vixisse adhuc Lullium Anno 1321, sedente ad clavum imperii Ludovico Bavaro, scribit, ipse de se Lullius, testis inter omnes fide dignissimus, in libro de Mercuriis cap. 40. narrat, se Mediolani A.C. 1333, cum sociis quibusdam suis Lapidis Philosophici opus absolvisse.

Quo in loco, quanquam typographi erratum causatur Borricchius, ex aliis tamen, Lullii locis idem probatur; ubi disertis verbis, non ciphriis, scripta haec habentur.

Sic enim circa finem Testamenti novissimi sui Lullius:

Factum habemus testamentum per virtutem Dei in insulâ Angliae terrae, in Ecclesiâ Sanctae Catharina apud Londinenses, versus partem Castelli, ante Cameram, regnante Edoardo per Dei gratiam, in cujus manibus ponimus in custodiâ per voluntatem Dei praesens testamentum, anno post incarnationem millesimo trecentesimo trigesimo secundo, cum omnibus suis voluminibus.

Verum hic alius ex alio scrupulus oritur. Vixit Lullius anno 1332. Londini, ac ibi libros in arte Chemicâ scripsit, fortassis & aurum tum confecit; & libro de Mercuriis tamen anno sequenti in Italia se opus suum absolvisse scribit.

Aut itaque bis Angliam adiit, quod placuit quidem Eliae Ashmol, Nobili Anglo, notis in Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum à se editum p. 443: sed probabile non videtur, libros Chemicos Lullium scripsisse, antequam plenam artis suae notitiam adeptus fuerat: aut error aliquis in annorum numeris latet, quod vero esse simile probari è Lullii Testamento Novissimo cap. 14. potest: ubi Anno 1330. opus suum se Mediolani absolvisse memorat.

Potuit itaque ex eo tempore adisse Angliam, invitatus à Cremero Abbate Westmonasteriensi, quem & ipsum Edoardi III. tempore vixisse constat. Is enim cum per Italiam peregrinaretur, ad notitiam Raimundi artisquae communicationem admissus secum illum dux it.

Juvat ipsum audire in Testamento suo haec narrantem:

Quanto magis legi, tanto magis erravi usque dum in Italiam divinâ providentiâ me contulerim, ubi Deo optimo maximo visum fuerat, me in sodalitium unius viri non minus dignitate, quam omni genere eruditionis praediti, Raimundi nomine, destinare, in cujus sodalitate diu remoratus sum, sicque favorem in conspectu boni hujus Viri nactus sum, quod ille aliquam partem hujus tanti mysterii aperuerit, propterea illum multis precibus ita tractavi, quod mecum in hanc Insulam veniret, mecumque duos annos mansit. In cujus temporis tractu sum absoluto tantum opus consecutus.

Posteaque hunc Virum egregium in conspectu inclutissimi Regis Edoardi deductus, à quo merità dignitate recipitur, & omni humanitate tractatur, ibique multis promissis, pactis conditionibusque à Rege inductus, erat contentus, Regem per missione divinâ suâ arte divitem facere. Hâc solummodo conditione, ut Rex in propriâ personâ adversus Turcas, inimicos Dei, bellum gereret, impenderetque super Dominum Dominis.

Sed proh dolor hoc promissum erat irritum à Rege violatumque, cum ille vir pius in spiritibus penetralibus, & cordis sui afflictus hinc trans mare lamentabili miserrabilique more aufugit; quod cor meum viris non mediocribus.

Ex iis itaque, quae hic jecimus, argumentis, satis, ut puto, patet, non mutandos esse Edoardos, quod vult Vir Clarissimus, sed historiam omnem ad Tertium ejus nominis referendam: caetera enim, quae illic in contrarium adducit, non tanti mihi videntur, ut aliam sententiam persuadent.

Fuerit itaque Lullius, cum in Angliâ testamentum suum novissimum scriberet, si annum nativitatis, quem nominavit Mutius, supponimus, nonaginta & septem annos natus: quod à vero alienum censeri non debet cum extremâ demum senectâ secreti tanti participem factum fuisse constet, ac in Petri Pacisfici Legatione Persicâ ad annum centesimum & quadragesimum quintum vitam beneficio auri sui potabilis produxisse legamus: cujus tamen an aliud extet fide dignum testimonium, dubito.

Vitam ejus scripserunt Symphorianus Campegius & Carolus Bovillus, ac alii nonnulli. Scripsit & popularis ejus Vitae Lullianae historiam, sed quam videre nunquam contigit, nisi titulo tantum in Catalogo selectissimae bibliothecae Raphaelis Tricheti du Fresne, hoc modo notatam: Vida del admirable Dottor Ramon Lull compuesta por Juan Segui en Malorca 1605. 8.

Quae si ad manus fuisset, paratiora hinc fortè ad dissertationem nostram illustrandam habuissemus subsidia: in quâ diutius haesimus, cum nullum exstet illustrius ad omnem posteritatem exemplum.

Lullio σύγχρονος fuit Petrus Bonus, qui Margaritam, uti vocat, pretiosam scripsit unâ cum introductione ad Alchemiam, quâ barbaro quidem stilo, sed more tunc temporis Scholastico usitato, Principiis peripateticis doctrinam Chemicorum stabilivit.

Scriptus liber est A. 1330. in civitate Pole, provincia Istriae. Primum edidit Toxites Medicus Argentoratensis Basileae A.C. 1572. quae editio melior est eâ, quae in Theatro habetur.

Scripsit idem, ut in fine libri hujus fatetur, alium de eadem materiâ, quem ipse potius abolere, quam in lucem mittere voluit. In epitomen ejus aliorumque nonnullorum scripta redegit Ianus Lacinius, Monachus Calaber in Collectaneis, ut vocat, Chemicis, Noribergâ apud Petreum impressis, & in pretiosâ Margaritâ Venetiis apud Aldum eleganti typo, cum iconibus etiam vasorum ad Alchemiam necessariorum, edita.

Rogeri Baconi Angli scripta in summo etiam Philos. Chemicis pretio, & merito quidem habentur. Ejus pauca habentur in Theatro Chemico; aliqua opuscŭla seorsim edita Francofurti. Plurima ejus manuscripta latent in Bibliothecis Anglicis; ac magno aere redimuntur, quicquid ejus viri haberi potest.

Fuit ultra saeculi sui genium ad stuporem in omni eruditionis genere doctissimus. Qui epistolam ejus de secretis artis & naturae leget, tot in rebus naturalibus & mathematicis, jam tum illi inventa videbit, quibus nostra nunc saecula triumphant.

Pulveris certe pyrii prima excogitatio huic tribuenda est, non Bartholdo illi Svvartzio Cimbro. Iniquior enim populari suo est Cambdenius, qui in Reliquiis suis Baconi abjudicatam Svvartzio tribuit: cùm ille duobus, ni fallor, saeculis prior jam tum pulveris istius indicium faciat. Habuit certe è Baconum familiâ felicissimâ semper ingenia Gens Anglica, & nuper Franciscum, immortale abstrusioris doctrinae decus, & magnum saeculi nostri ornamentum.

Famosus ille Anglorum Propheta Merlinus à Balaeo inter Possessores magni arcani refertur, totamque ejus Prophetíam, in quam Alanus ab Insulis commentatus est, Chemici argumenti esse multi contendunt: ac exstat de illo in Arte Aurifera aliquod scripti Alchemici fragmentum.

De Fratre Valentino Basilio omnia incerta sunt, quae memorantur, quanquam diligentissime in ejus historiam inquisitum fuerit ab Imperatoribus Germanicis. Ejus scripta in multis apparent mutilata. Nam monstravit mihi Ericus Mauricius, Collega quondam meus conjunctissimus, nunc illustris Camerae Spirensis Assessor, magnum non Jurisprudentiae tantum, sed & omnis elegantioris doctrinae decus, quas è Manuscripto Codice Bibliothecae Viennensis insignes lacinias enotaverat, quae in impressis exemplaribus non comparebant.

Non paucos etiam in Chemicorum ordine Poetas habemus, qui & ipsi ποιηταί à Scriptoribus Graecis Chemicis dicti sunt, inter quos est Johannes de Meung Clopinell, Autor Gallus, Doctor etiam Theologiae, sed lepidi ingenii homo, e quibus falso duos facit Naudaeus in notâ illâ, quam citat Hornius in Praefatione Gebri sui: dicit enim auctores fabulae de Rosa fuisse Johannem de Meung & Clopinellum: cum tamen alterum verum nomen sit, alterum à patriâ desumptum.

Scripsit is fabulam Comicam de Rosâ (le Roman de la Rose) inchoatam à Guilielmo de Lorris, cujus vetustissum exemplar ad manus meas pervenit. Multa hic admiscet Chemica, quae indicio sunt, altius quid illum sapuisse.

Et mihi quidem dubium non est, permultos tales libros amatorios fabulosos ab omni aevo fuisse scriptos, qui tegerent haec sub involucris istis arcana. In Heliodori Aethiopicis, quem Chemico studio fuisse additum constat, ejus rei vestigia clara deprehenduntur: cumque ab Aegyptiis & Arabibus primum id genus librorum frequentatum fuerit, ut docuit nos in pulcherrimâ suâ Dissertatione de l’Origine des Romans, Daniel Huetus, per est verosimile, multos è libris istis ad Artem Alchemicam, quam illi profitebantur, tegendam fuisse scriptos.

Plura de Clopinello hoc lepida commemorant Fauchet de antiquis Gallorum Poetis lib. 2. 126. & qui ex eo plurima capit in Bibliothecâ Gallicâ Verdierius.

Scripsit & alios quosdam de erroribus Alchemistarum versus, in quos commentatus est Nicolaus Flamellus, Scriba Parisiensis, quem & ipsum possessorem Arcani Chemici habent; maximas enim impensas in templa & magnificas structuras fecit: quam Georgius Hornius in Praefatione Gebri è Naudaeo refert, Flammellum non operationibus Chemicis, sed aliis quibusdam artibus, è Judaeorum reglatorum bonis, tantas parasse opes, quas Lapidis Philosophici figmento occultarit.

Idem refert Croix du Maine in Bibliothecâ suâ p. 343.

Pluribus vero argumentis non contemnendis imputatus illi fraudes constat, Chemicaeque ejus scientiae veritatem demonstrat P. Borellus in Dictionario antiquarum vocum Gallicarum p. 158. & seqq.

Nam quod de Judaeis è Galliâ pulsis, unde opes suas acquisiverit, objicitur, centum & amplius post Flammelli tempora factum id fuisse dicit, qui opus magnum Anno 1382. confecit: Calumniae verò occasionem hinc datam, quod cum Judaeis conversatus fuerit, quibus opus habuit ad interpretationem Libri Hebraici ab Abrahano Judaeo quodam scripti, unde lapidis confectionem didicit. Qui liber tandem in manus Cardinalis Richelij, paulo ante mortem ejus pervenit, ut narravit Borello Dominus de Cabrieres, Nobilis Gallicus, qui ipsum illud αὐτόχειρόγραφον vidit.

Immenses fuerunt Flammelli divitiae, quas liberalissima manu in miseros homines, Templa & Xenodochia impendit, ut Parisiis pene nullum sit Xenodochium aut Aedes Sacra, in qua ejus effigies & figurae quaedam hieroglyphicae Chemicae non compareant.

Quae cum innotescere Regi, in mandatis Magistro libellorum supplicum tunc temporis Cramoisio dedit, ut de iis inquirerret. Flammellus vero, ut hanc ab se amoveret molestiam, pyxidem pulvere aurifiliâ plenam Cramoisio obtulit, quam diu in ista familia asservatam fama est.

Ejus testamenti tabulas, Codicillum, cum quadraginta aliis schedis, inspexit Borellus, copiam eorum faciente Domino de Sauvale, e quibus id comperit: Uxoris ejus Petronellae sororem, Perierio cuidam nuptam, unum è filiis Nicolaum habuisse, quem Borellus arcani Chemici haeredem a Flammello institutum ex eo conjicit.

Fuit Perierius aliquis Medicus, hujus pulveris possessor, quem cognatus ejus Bosſius post mortem ejus inter schedas inventum abstulit, sed suo exitio. Nam cum imprudenter passim experimenta faceret, saepe auctorem gerebat, artem vero ipsam, quod ab eo poscebatur, docere non posset, suspensio affectus est, dicente sententiam Richelio. De auro per pulverem Bossii confecto memorabile est, quod narrat idem Borellus p. 488. quod cum plumbum in cupella positum, bonam plumbi partem in sui naturam converterit. Quod ideo factum, quia ipse veram pulveris ad metallum tingendum proportionem ignoravit.

Circumferuntur quidem alii qui processûs de Lapide Philosophico sub Bossii nomine: nam vidi ipse aliquem inter schedas Anglicas manu Digbei scriptas, quas possidet Caspar Marchius Collega meus honoratissimus: sed falsi procul dubio sunt, & ab impostoribus conficti.

Plura legi apud ipsum Borellum possunt. Inter Latinos Scriptores non ineleganti carmine Libris tribus χρυσοποιϊκῶν Johannes Aurelius Augurellus descripsit, ut alios inculciores praeteream.

Anglorum de ista arte Poetas & eorum fragmenta collegit Elias Ashmol in primâ parte Theatri Chimici Britannici, & notas adjecit, quibus non pauca continentur ad historiam Chemicorum Anglorum facientia.

Caeterae ejus partes frustra exspectantur.

Magna de Paracelso superiore saeculo fama fuit, quo de homine varia sunt doctorum judicia. Laudatur ab his, culpatur ab illis. Praecipua suae doctrinae Isaaci Hollandi scriptis editis, unde multa descripsisse quidam volunt, & Doctoris cujusdam Chemici informationi debet.

Ingeniosum fuisse ac magnorum arcanorum possessorem nemo tamen negaverit. Id magnam homini invidiam conciliavit, quod ubique in Medicos debacchetur & profundam naturae ignorantiam objiciat, quanquam fervore tum opus erat, si aliquam novae suae autoritatem conciliare vellet.

Id quoque in eo desiderari potest, quod Philosophorum veterum scholis non satis imbutus miras & monstrosas sibi opiniones, ac nescio quae Astra ac Entia multorum effectuum principia finxerit, forte Lucretianum illud animo volvens:

Omnia enim solidi magis admirantur amantque,
Inversis quae sub verbis latitantia cernunt.

Denique & magia illum accusant, a qua tamen, vel saltem praxi ejus, illum defendit Naudaeus in Apologia hominum pro Magis habitorum part. 1. c. 14. & aequius fortassis judicabunt, qui non ab ipso sed ab aliis Scripta ejus edita perpendent.

Multos habuit adversarios, & quidem inter ipsos Chemiae veteris Professores, qui eum ut Sophistam & Impostorem passim depingunt, inter quos Libavius aliique fuerunt.

Conringius quoque accurate in ejus vitam & scripta inquisivit, libro de Medicina Hermetica. Sed tamen non paucos defensores ac in doctrina sua sectatores habuit.

De dissensu ejus a veterum Chemicorum scriptis jam superius dixi. Quanquam verosimile sit longo ex usu semper doctiorem Paracelsum in multis sub finem vitae aliter quam olim sensisse.

Extant quaedam χρυσοποιϊκὰ ejus testimonia, quibus tamen alii habent, quae opponant.

Si manus a Theologia abstinuisset; minus opinor in se invidiae derivasset. Nam & hujus dogmata ad principia Chemica resingere voluit: ac vidi tria, si recte memini, manuscripta Paracelsi voluminosa in Bibliotheca Vossiana, quibus in Libros Novi Foederis commentatur.

Hinc orta illa Fratrum Rosae Crucis societas, similia Theologo-Magico-Chemica dogmata jactans, cujus doctrinam inanem & sophisticam decrixit Libavius & Naudaeus peculiari ad Gassendum epistola.

Non paucis tamen, etiam viris doctis, illi homines imposuere; Michaelis quoque Mejero, qui aliquot libris eorum causam egit.

Mirum quanta inde sequentibus annis seges Chemico-Enthusiastarum orta fuerit; quanta librorum sophisticorum turba, plane alia a veteribus illis docentium.

Nam plurimi illorum maluerunt ἀεροβασιῶν, & vel a spiritu mundi, vel sale universali, aut aliâ re incomprehensibili, Chemica principia deducere; quam cum veteribus in incunabulis suis, terrae scilicet visceribus, illa quaerere.

Novit ex hujus farinae scriptoribus multos, atque inter illos Veiogelii Librum de Igne & Azot, manuscripto omnes, magno pretio Amstelodami venditos.

Sed non est ut illis immorer. Theobaldus ab Hoghelano, qui se ficto nomine apparet Evaldum Vogelinum, tractatus Chemici a peritis ejus artis prae caeteris aestimari solent.

Scripsit Librum de Difficultatibus Alchemiae, aliumque de Lapidis Physici conditionibus.

Nec memini unquam ab eo de vanitate Alchemiae quicquam scriptum, ut vult Kircherus.

Habemus & alium ab eo librum, quo historias transmutationum metallicarum consignavit. Perspicua dictione usus est, & caeteris luculentius scripsit.

Multis arcani possessor creditur; initium operis se habuisse ipse non diffitetur.

Filius ejus Cornelius ab Hogheland, qui de Dei existentia scripsit & de Oeconomia animalis, nihil quidem ipse habuit arcani, sed scripta Theobaldi quaedam secutus; multa cum Cartesio operatus est, ut narravit mihi amicus, nullo tamen successu.

Petrus Johannes Faber, qui fortassis hodie etiam vivit, à Comite de Elisico Decad. de Fato p. 132. pro vero possessore habetur.

Nostris, inquit, temporibus Petrus Joh. Faber Lapidem Philosophicum composuit.

Multis certe scriptis id ipse orbi persuadere voluit. Verum apud me, nisi idoneis documentis fulciantur, talia non facile fidem inveniunt.

Arcanum Hermeticae Philosophiae, opus quod Enchiridio Physicæ restitutae Spagyricae additur, eleganter scriptum est, & genuinum se facile ipso habitu ostendit: nec leve argumentum est, quod ab Anonymo Philaletha, quem verum hodie vivere possessorem, e relatione illustris Viri scio, aliquoties ejus mentio fiat, qui interdum, ubi non nominat, integras ex eo periodos exscribit.

In utroque verò ita sibi respondet dictio non inculta, ut ab uno auctore omnia profecta quis existimare possit. Nam Spagneium non esse Auctorem Arcani Hermetici, sed editorem tantùm, Borellus in Bibliothecâ suâ prodidit: Anonymus verò Nobilis Galli, non Spagnei nomine eum citat. Est verò is, qui se Philalethen vocat, gente Anglus, de quo haec mihi Londini narravit Vir Illustris & fide dignissimus, qui & ipse Virum hunc benè novit.

Appulit is aliquando locum aliquem Indiae Orientalis, cujus nomen mihi excidit, hospitio Georgii Starkey Pharmacopolae, popularis sui, exceptus. Cum hujus filio familiarius conversatus nomen illi suum sub jurisiurandi fide revelavit, ac tincturae particulam dedit, unà cum libro quodam edendo, cujus pars aliqua sub titulo: Introitus apertus ad occlusum Regis palatium, ante aliquot annos, curante Johanne Langio, Amstelodami edita: altera pars alio titulo à Birrio Medico Amstelodamensi, sed cui Philalethae nomen incognitum, prodit.

Diu ineditus liber per manus Philo-Chemicorum vagatus est, & mentionem ejus facit Georgius Hornius in Praefatione Gebri à se editi: sed injurius in bonum hunc Autorem est, quo nemo, ut apparet, candidius & majori perspicuitate in hoc argumento versatus est, eum vocando Sophistam, quod ad ejus praescriptum operatus nihil profecerit. Latina Lingua Librum scriptum esse arguunt omnia: non potuit enim mihi sententiam suam probare, qui Anglica lingua Αυτόχεφαλον, à Langianâ editione in quibusdam discrepans, nuper publicavit. Dictio ipsa Latina, versiculi παροιμιακοὶ nonnunquam è Poetis citati facilè id evincunt. Quae in Anglicâ editione nonnunquam interseruntur laciniae, ab aliena manu esse videntur, & loco alieno assutae.

Bina ego aliquando habui exemplaria manuscripta Latina, quorum alterum à communicatione ipsius Starkey, cujus nomen in frontispicio & India patria posita erat, profectum: unde historiae, quam supra narravi, fides firmatur; alterum ab alio amico habui. Quae tam à Birrio, quàm à Langio edita sunt, in illis conjunguntur. Sed deest in editis à Birrio tract. 3. parti, cui titulus: Fons Chemica Philosophiae, integrum caput prae liminare de calcinatione Philosophica, quod in scriptis habetur: ubi alia quoque est librorum partitio, ac integri nonnunquam versus & periodi habentur, quae in editis non comparent.

Ille verò Starkey, qui ab Auctore hunc Librum habuit, Angliam postea redux aliquoties pulveris sui experimenta Londini fecit: cumque ipse ad operis confectionem accedere vellet (praecepta enim aliqua à Doctore suo acceperat) frustra laboravit. Audio tamen in librorum suorum aliquo, cui titulus: Marrow of Alchimy i.e. medulla Alchemiae, mentionem quandam de his rebus facere: sed adipisci librum in Angliâ non potui, quamcunque etiam diligentia quaesitum. Caeteri ejus libri de pyrotechnia, & quos in defensionem Helmontii scripsit, non adeò rari sunt. Intempestivum hic esset, & Tibi, Vir Amplissime, taediosum, caeteris quibusdam minutioribus recensendis tempus inutiliter terere: nam & ipse longè eos rectius nosti, quàm ego, qui haec Tibi scribo, & praecipui eorum junctim quibusdam voluminibus: Arte Aurifera: Theatro Chemico: Musaeo Hermetico (è quo multa se arcana didicisse fatetur Petrus Joh. Faber, quod penè in coelum laudibus extollit) Theatro Chemico Britannico ab Elia Ashmol edito, in lucem prodierunt. Multa quae ad artem ipsam & Authorum historiam pertinent, Michael Mejerus in Symbolis aureæ mensæ: septimanâ Philosophicâ, & Libavius in scriptis suis erudite nec indiligenter tractarunt.

Atque hæc de Autoribus hujus doctrinæ dicta sunto: quos scio multos spernere ob horridam dictionem, rerum obscuritatem, & morem philosophandi hoc sæculo insolítum. Sed iniqui sunt censores, qui talia vitio hominibus illis vertunt. Frustra enim ab illo sæculo quis expectaverit elegantias: res ipsa, ne planè indignis illa pateret, non nisi ænigmatica scribendi formâ proponi volebat. Nec sordere modus philosophandi tum publicus in Philosophiâ naturali debet. Modo rem videat, verba & notiones æquus arbiter facile condonabit. Latuerunt nonnunquam intra Cœnobiorum parietes præclara ingenia, quæ, cum otio abundarent, sibi relicta, nec rerum domesticarum curis angerentur, in multa arcana meditatione ac experimentis assiduis penetrare potuerunt, à quibus aliis negotiis distenti submoventur. Hinc apud Monachos plura artis Chemicæ documenta, quam alibi invenimus. Qui fructum aliquem è scriptis illis reportare cupit, singulari arte ερμηνευτική opus habet: nam terminos primum nosse debet, occultiores illos, quorum integrum Lexicon facile quis conficiat. Vulgarum enim Lexica complura scripta: sensus è locis similibus per collationes mutuas investigandi: cujus aliquod specimen Lagnaeus in Harmoniâ suâ Chemicâ dedit. Nec alio consilio, quanquam mutuatia opera, congesta est Turba Philosophorum in Arte auriferâ, à qua tamen multum discrepat illa, quæ reperitur in Theatro Chemico. Aliam Gallicâ linguâ Bernhardus Comes Trevisanus concinnavit.

Chapter 13.

Restat nunc, ut de artis hujus experimentis, quæ ad notitiam hominum pervenêre, quædam hactenus ignota in medium producam: neque enim animus est recoquere, quæ à Theobaldo Hogheland aliisque collecta sunt Χρυσοποιίας exempla: & multa ipsi jam in superioribus recensuimus. Primo loco hic nominabo tot experimentis celebrem nobilem Scotum Alexandrum Setonium vel Sidonium, qui magnam libri Hoghelandæi partem conficit. Sed ad Hoghlandi notitiam omnia non pervenerunt. Ostensa mihi fuit Amstelodami lamina quædam aurea, à Johannis Antonidæ van der Linden, Medici Professoris Clarissimi filio Medico, quæ particula erat Auri, quod Scotus ille Enchusæ, ubi medicinam faciebat Pater Johannis Antonidæ, Amstelodamensis Medici Avus, in ædibus nautæ Jacobi Hausfsen, è plumbo confecerat, à quo habuit particulam illam Medicus Enchusanus. Tempus verò ille manu suâ accuratè signaverat: Annum 1602, diem 13 Martii, horam quartam pomeridianam. Occasio notitiæ, quæ Scoto cum nautâ fuit, è naufragio orta est. Nauta enim ad littus Scoticum eò tractu, quo prædia ille habebat, ejectus, humaniter ab illo habitus, hospitio Enchusam venientem exceperat. Is postea in Germaniâ plura artis suæ specimina ostendit, ut pene exitium sibi ipsi struxerit, à quo per Sendivogium, Polonum, vel Moravum, ut alii volunt, liberatus præmii loco pyxidem pulvere aurifìco plenam illi obtulit. Diem interea Setonius obiit. Sendivogius viduâ ejus in uxorem ductâ, quam artis habere notitiam putabat, magnâ spe excidit: nec præter donatum pulverem quicquam habuit.

Quem cum ille partim multiplicatione inutiliter tentata, partim projectionibus frequentibus coram Magnatibus exhausisset, in magna vitæ pericula & in paupertatem ipsam à tantis divitiis incidit.

Quæ omnia summâ diligentiâ descripsit Dominus des Noyers, Reginæ Poloniæ a Secretis, cujus epistolam Dictionario suo Borellus p. 479. inseruit. Nam altera illa, quam & ibidem habet, relatio Budovvskii Oeconomi Sendivogiani fidem non meretur. Nihil quicquam quod ad summam rei faceret, Sendivogius scivit. Librum tamen Setoni, qui se Cosmopolitam vocavit, duodecim scilicet Tractatus imprimi curavit. Alter Tractatus de Sulphure spurius Domino de Noyers habetur, cujus ibi multa asserit argumenta. Illud mirabile de Imperiali, cujus dimidiam partem in aurum tinxerat Sendivogius, alterâ parte manente argenteâ. Pars verò aurea tota porosa fuit, quo patet pulveris aurifici vis in metalli particulas. Hunc nummum sæpe ostendit Parisiis Dn. de Noyers, qui ejus possessor fuit. Novi ipse amicum, qui similem ab illo nummum vidit alternis striis aureis & argenteis interstinctum. Quem hoc modo tinxerat Sendivogius: Penicillo aquâ imbuto lineas in nummo duxit: his lineis pulverem insperiit, ac super ignem, usquedum candesceret, posuit. Quâ itaque parte lineæ ductæ mutatio in aurum facta est, cæteris manentibus argenteis. Sed illud non potuit absque notabili pulveris jacturâ fieri, cujus major quantitas in ignitum, quam fusum metallum impendenda est. Quâ ratione etiam clavi ferrei tingi possunt, copia tincturæ supplente quod deest habilitati materiæ, quæ tingitur: quemadmodum spiritus petri- fici ligna similique materias in lapidem convertunt, quoniam illorum tanta copia est, ut omnes occupare poros & meatus possint. De Setonio quædam χρυσοποιΐας specimina Hamburgi data Lavaterius in Libro de Censu recenset. De Eduardo Kellæo Anglo, res est notissima, eum coram Imperatore Rudolpho ac Pragæ in ædibus Thaddæi Hagecii tinxisse, referente id etiam Gassendo, libro de Metallis cap. 7. Habitus erat vulgo pro vero possessore; sed tincturam aliunde habuit.

Cum verò integra ejus historia vulgo non sit cognita, adscribam, ut ex ore illustris viri, qui à famulo Kellæi illam habet, mihi est narrata: Notatu enim digna est, ac multa habet memorabilia. Fuit Kellæus non Nobilis Anglus, ut quidam putarunt, sed homo plebejus; Notarius & Advocatus Londinensis. Is quia Linguæ veteris Anglicanæ peritissimus fuit, in alicujus gratiam vetera quædam instrumenta ausus est corrumpere: cujus criminis cum convinceretur, auribus abscissis Londino relegatus est, teste Weavero in monumentis funeralibus. Profectus itaque Kellæus versus Walliam, Angliæ Provinciam, ac in oppido aliquo, cujus nomen mihi nunc excidit, apud Cauponem ejus loci divertit. Hic ante fenestram positum invenit librum antiquissimâ linguâ Wallicâ (cujus ille erat peritissimus) de arcano Lapidis Philosophici scriptum, è cujus lectione occulta quædam tegi suspicatus est. Cum itaque quæreret è Caupone, unde hunc librum haberet : respondit ille: repertum fuisse in sepulchro cujusdam Episcopi, quod esset in vicino templo. Res autem ita acta erat. Cum fureret plebs in sacras imagines ac cruces eo in loco, fama magnarum opum in sepulchro Episcopi reconditarum commota illud aperuit, atque nihil aliud, quam librum istum & duos globos eburneos invenit. Cum ergo ob spem illusam indignarentur, globum alterum eburneum fregerunt, in quo rubicundissimus ac ponderosissimus pulvis inventus: cujus magna pars, cum gustu ac odore destitueretur, rejecta ac pedibus conculcata fuit. Caupo verò iste, ut antiquitatis aliquod documentum secum tulerat, & librum, & alterum globum integrum (in quo tinctura alba) cum parte pulveris rubicundi superstite. Rogante itaque Kellaeo, ut pulverem sibi ostenderet, alterumque globum eburneum, quo ad lusus suos jam usi fuerant pueri, protulit omnia, ac denique libram Sterlingiam offerenti Kellaeo vendidit, ut res usui sibi non futuras. Kellaeus verò cum multa magnifica ac splendida in isto libro legeret, ac diras in eos, qui essent abusuuri hoc thesauro; Londinum reversus est, ac in suburbio subsistens, nuncium ad Johannem Dee, Doctorem Theologiae, vicinum quondam suum, insignem mathematicum, & rerum Chemicarum aestimatorem misit, quo is quam citissime ad se veniret, magnum aliquod ac memorabile visurus. Advolavit ille a Kellaeo statim compellatus: Tu verò dic mihi, quid est projectio? subridens Johannes Dee: Tu verò, ait, rem illam mihi trade, qua projectio institui debet, & statim te docebo. Tum ille re omni narrata ac pulvere prolato ad aurifabrum cum Johanne Dee abiit, facturus ejus rei experimentum. Ac revera tunc plumbum in aurum mutatum hac tinctura viderunt. In spem itaque addiscendi hujus arcani Joh. Dee arreptus una cum Kellaeo, ac tota familia in Germaniam prius, hinc Pragám in Bohemia commigravit, forte ut fodinis Metallicis propiores, tentare quaedam ad libri praescriptum possent, aut securiores illic, quam in Patria viverent. At Kellaeus splendida ista fortuna elatus, ac parum circumspectus in projectionibus publice coram Imperatoribus & Magnatibus faciendis, magnam primo existimationem sibi acquisivit, magnisque plus quam regiis largitionibus, quas recenset Elias Ashmol in Theatro Chymico Anglico, notis ad Librum Eduardi Kellaei, quem edidit fortè ut à Caupone habuit; aut ut ipse interpolavit. Nam Principibus non solùm & legatis multa donavit, sed & ancillae suae quatuor millia librarum (credo Sterlingiarum) in dotem dedit. Qui aliunde illum habuisse tincturam ignorarunt, crediderunt, tantum ignobilioris metalli illum in aurum mutare potuisse, quantum auri pondus fuerat, à quo pulverem vel liquorem forte extraxerat. Quare auctores fuerunt Imperatori, ut non uncias, sed libras conficere juberet: quod ille quidem facturum se promisit; at non praestitit. Sed non habuit fortassis tantum, quantum libris tingendis sufficeret. Cum itaque jam sera esset in fundo parsimonia, & Imperator, cui artis, quam ipse nesciebat, manifestationem Kellaeus promiserat, illum urgeret, carcereisque minaretur, ad artes magicas confugit, ac spiritus conjurans rationem tincturae parandae ab illis discere voluit. Quotidie fere instituta cum spiritibus colloquia, qua quam diligentissime notavit omnia Iohan. Dee singulari Diario, quod post mortem in manus Merici Casauboni, Isaaci Filii, incidit, qui illud edidit, ut convinceret homines atheos de Spirituum existentia. Liber ipsius est in folio, miris nugis, precibus, conjurationibus, somniis refertus; sed è quo perfecte omnem historiam horum hominum ediscas. Pervenit ejus rei fama ad Elisabetham Angliae Reginam, quae cum Kellaeum frustra hactenus invitasset, Ioh. Dee tandem precibus suis in Angliam revocatum lautâ conditioni praefecit; Is verò spes ejus implere non poterat, ac mortuus demum est in Angliâ, cum Kellaeus antea è crure fracto, dum funiculis se è carcere demittere voluit, diem suum obierat.

Ejusdem mihi historiae veritas à Ioachimo Polemanno confirmabatur, qui eam saepe ex ore Digbaei audiverat.

Elias verò Ashmol hujus planè ignarus pro vero Possessore illum in notis ad Theatrum suum habuit: qui & ipse aliud Diarium manu Johannis Dee scriptum, ut mihi narravit, possidet, è quo plurima ad Kellæi historiam facientia excerpsit. Sed recentius procul dubio est diarium, quod Casaubonus edidit: nam in Ashmoli illo passim notatum est: quot uncias auri hoc vel illo die confecerit. Memorabile est hoc, quod fragmentum Vasis cujusdam culinaris in argentum mutaverit, ita ut extrema fragmenti Vasi accuratè adaptari potuerint, quod ad Reginam Elisabetham unà cum ipso vase transmissum est. De Bullero, de cujus lapillo mirabiles curationes recenset Helmontius, cum ejus historia nemini, quod sciam, prodita sit, ut ex ore ejusdem Viri illustris habeo, recitabo. Fuit Bullerus Nobilis Hibernus, cumque Juvenis in Africam navigaturus esset, à Piratis captus Regulo cuidam Arabi pro mancipio venditus est. Is possessor magni arcani fuit; ut sunt in Arabiâ multi, & hujus servitûs ministerio ad opera quædam vulgaria Chemica usus est. Qui cùm esset sagacissimus, subolefecit secretiores Domini sui labores, ac in pyxidem aliquam incidit, quâ recondebatur magnus ille naturæ thesaurus. Cujus rei cùm jam certus esset, cum mercatore Anglico illic vivente pactus est, ut se ab hero suo redimeret. Redemit ille: Bullerus verò pyxidem illam tanti arcani custodem furto subripuit, atque in Angliam navigavit, ubi privatim coram aliquibus projectionem fecit.

Ea fama pervenerat ad Medicum quendam Hibernum, popularem ejus, quem permovit, ut relictâ familiâ suâ ac praxi medicâ, ipse Butlero, spe arcani potiundi, famularetur. Multum temporis intercesserat, cum nihil deprehendere potuit Medicus, & omnia clanculum ageret Butlerus. Transegit itaque cum hospite pretio dato, ut locum aliquem obscurum post Butleri conclave sibi concederet, quo per rimas aut foramina quædam observare illum posset. Accidit itaque, cum aliquando plumbi & hydrargyri quantitatem emere jussisset Butlerus, ac statim in vicinam urbem negotii causâ ablegasset, ut ille tempus jam idoneum suspicatus simulato abitu domi remansisset. Quare post conclave in sellis duabus vel tribus sibi superimpositis constitit, ut per foramina priùs à se facta despicere in conclave Butleri posset. Vidit itaque furnum parare Butlerum, plumbum ac hydrargyrum igni apponere. Vidit de pavimento, effracto lapide, producentem pyxidem aliquam rubicundo pulvere plenam. Cumque quantum satis erat, è pyxide ceperat Butlerus, ac jam liquefacto plumbo ac hydrargyro calido immixturus erat: Medicus nimio videndi desiderio incensus propius se foramini admovit; cum corporis sui pondere sella suprema inclinata præcipitem illum dedit. Quo strepitu attonitus Butlerus observatorem suum penè transfixisset, nisi intercessisset hospes; Medicus verò ille statim herum suum coram Magistratu Londinensi, ut Monetæ falsarium, accusavit. Quo in carcerem conjecto, ac suppellectile ejus perlustratâ nihil quidem instrumentorum monetariorum, sed quadraginta auri libræ inventæ sunt. Quod cum falsum primò suspicarentur judices, genuinum omni examine deprehenderunt. Quoniam itaque documenta non essent, quibus convinci posset Butlerus, è carcere iterum dimissus est. Idem Butlerus ducem de Buckingham, cum iter suum in peregrinas regiones instituturus esset, (narrabo, quæ ex ipsius Ducis Oeconomi ore accepi qui hæc mihi narravit) adiit, ac aliquam Cambii schedulam ad Mercatorem Batavum ultro obtulit, si fortè apud peregrinos pecunia illum aliquando deficeret. Risit Dux; sed ne inofficiosus videretur, schedulam accepit, eam ut nullo sibi usui futuram negligens. Accidit itaque, ut Ducem Amstelodami viventem Mercator aliquis Butleri nomine salutaret, ac ducenties millia aureorum ejus nomine offerret, si pecunia egeret. Obstupuit summa ista oblata Dux; sed accipere detrectavit. Cum verò postea per Angliam innotesceret de Butleri divitiis, per artem Chemicam paratis, ac saluti suae diffideret, in Hispaniam navigans unà cum tinctura aquis submersus est. Medicus verò ille laqueo postea multatus est, quod populares suos rebelles pulveris pyrii conficiendi rationem docuerit. Atque ita Butlerus furti, Medicus proditionis poenam dedit. Hanc historiam e relatione ipsius Medici Hiberni Vir ille illustris habuit. Jacobus Cor Regi Galliae Carolo VII à Consiliis, Vir illustris & magnorum munerum, à Borello inter Possessores tanti quoque arcani habetur, &, si rectè memini, Claudius Seysselius in Historia Ludovici XI. tradit, adjutum fuisse Regem Carolum, auro ejus Chemico in bello contra Anglos. Borellus in Dictionar. à p. 272. ad 279. varia ejus χρυσοποιίας probandae argumenta affert. Inter quae & illud refert: quod vitrum malleabile confecerit, clarissimum quidem & perspicuum, sed quod Solis tantum corpus videndum exhiberet; radios vero non transmitteret. In eo tamen misere labitur, quod à Lullio artem didicisse putet, qui pene in tegro à Lullio seculo distat.

Non contemnendum & illud aurificii specimen est, quod ipse tentavit Berigardus circ. Pisan. 25. Referam, inquit, tibi fideliter, quod olim mihi contigit, cum vehementer ambigerem, an aurum ex hydrargyro fieri posset: accepi à viro industrio, qui hunc mihi scrupulum auferre voluit, drachmam pulveris, colore non absimilis flori papaveris sylvestris, odore vero sal marinum adustum referentis, atque ut abesset omnis suspicio jocosae fraudis, vasculum è multis venalibus unum accepi, carbonem & hydrargyrum, quibus nihil auri occulte, ut sit à circulatoribus, subjectum esset. Decem istius drachmas pulverem injeci subjecto igni satis valido, statimque omnia exiguo intertrimmento in decem fere drachmas auri optimi naturae coaluerunt, quippe quod aurificum judicio nullam non subiit tentationem. Hoc nisi in solo loco & remoto ab arbitris comprobassem, suspicarer aliquid subesse fraudis: nam sustinenter testari possum, rem ita esse.

Haec ille, Vir elegantis doctrinae & minime vanus. Quibus subjicio quae Hamelius refert libro de Fossilibus lib. 2. c. 6. 10. p. 252. Paucis, inquit, ab hinc annis (editus vero est liber anno 1660.) aurifaber Parisiensis, quem, si necesse foret, nomine designarem, aliquot granula pulveris aurifici à Polono in Patriam remeante accepit, cujus ope plumbum fustum in aurum purissimum commutavit.

Addit porro ad collocutorem (nam Dialogus est) se convertens: Est homo nasutissimus, ac tibi forte, mi Theophile, à nomine & facie notus. Thullius quoque Commentario in Emblema Alciati 189. aurifacitii talis meminit: Quid quod ego ipse hisce oculis vidi, hisce manibus contrectavi massam auri à quodam mihi satis noto & familiarì consessam, & in Archiducali Academia Frieburgi Brisgoiae publicae Disputationi, quae fieri id posse negabat, illatam.

De Libero Barone de Chaos, qui antea Richthaeusser dictus fuit, satis nota sunt specimina, quae coram Imperatore Ferdinando III. fecit: quorum testis exhibetur nummus, cujus effigies in Zwoelfseri Manissâ Spagyricâ & apud alios visuntur. Unde verò is pulverem habuerit, è relatione cujusdam Amici scio. Sed illa privatis aliquando colloquiis reservo. Habuit idem Rubinum uniformem, arte ab alio quodam confectum, quem ad manus Reginae Christinæ ex occupatione Pragensi pervenisse Amicus mihi narravit.

In historia transmutationis in Cornelii Martini, Professoris Helmstadiensis aedibus à Nobili quodam factae, quam narrat Zwelfferus Maniss. Spagyr. p. 329. inquisivi diligentius: sed non potuerunt eam mihi confirmare Amici Helmstadienses, nisi quod Cornelium Martini multam laboribus Chemicis impendisse operam testentur. Ac ipse in Analysi Logica c. 8. suo testimonio veritatem artis comprobat.

Narrationem de pulvere aurifico Imperatori à sene quodam incognito oblato, ac rei experimento, habet Monconisius Itinerario suo part. 2. p. 371. qui & p. 378. & 379. historiam transmutationis per Baronen de Chaos factae recenset & pag. 372. aliam de projectione coram Electore Moguntino factam, & p. 381. iterum aliam de auro Chemico Gustavo Adolpho à quodam Mercatore Lubecensi oblato.

Similiter & in Miscellaneis Medico-Physicis Naturae Curiosorum de Ann. 1670. de Rudolpbo II. hujus artis gnaro, quam cubiculario suo manifestavit: de milite quodam, qui plumbum in argentum convertit, cui pyxis argenteisico pulvere plena surto subrepta, historiae antehac ignotae referuntur.

Sed quis omnium illorum testimoniorum numerum iniret? Non pauca his jam à me allatis addere possem, ab amicis, quorum certa fides est, mihi narrata. Sed ista mihi ac aliis amicis privatim scio, nec in publicum ea proferre licet. Sufficere, ut arbitror, ea, quae adduximus, possunt ad expugnandam eorum pervicaciam, qui nullis argumentis & vix suis convinci sensibus possunt.

Quorum sanè hominum plurimi sunt. Cum enim maxima eorum pars rerum naturalium vicissitudines & absconditam potestatem ignoret, aut ingenii sui norma metiatur, fieri plerumque solet, ut quod novum illis aut insolítum videtur, primum in dubium vocent; hinc, cum ingenio consequi non valent, ut rem inanem & fictam contemnant: ceterosque cupidíne inquirendi ductos rideant aut insectentur.

Illorum quanquam reprehendenda arrogantia & malitia est, horum tamen laudanda quidem est, sed non suadenda inconsulta industria. Cum enim tot tantisque difficultatibus obséta sint haec studia, imprudenter profecto facit, qui in rem omnium incertissimam & sumptus & bonas horas impendit.

Nisi enim θεὸς ἀπὸ μηχανῆς intervenerit, aut Doctor aliquis, frustra omnem pro lapide consequendo lapidem movebimus. Accedit fatalis, qui comitatur illa studia, contemptus, homini honesto gravis: detrahit enim de judicii opinione apud Viros prudentes malè instituta utilium provisio, cum molimur rem inanem, tot imposturis infamem, tot aliorum damnis & periculis nobilitatam. Quam ob causam inter perdita ingenia referebat Cardinalis Perronius (ut ex schedis illis, quae à FF. Puteanis consignatae sunt, constat) qua in studiis illis, vel multiplicatione cubi, vel perpetuo mobili, vel Astrologiâ judiciali tempus suum ponunt.

Rectius itaque agunt, qui praecipitio hoc relicto ad plana se conferunt & in vicina naturae opera contemplationes minore cum damno & periculo conjunctas deserunt.

Unde & sapientiae naturali & Medicinae nova semper lux inferri possit. Quod facere Te, Vir Amplissime, cum magno Virorum celeberrimorum applausu videmus, qui nova subinde ex officinâ tuâ Chemicâ arcana exspectant. Ego verò quem aliena planè studia sibi mancipatum habent (neque enim vel legibus Romanis, vel humanioribus studiis, quibus hactenus vaco, quicquam cum Re Chemicâ commercii est) per transennam ista inspiciens vobis intra Cancellos vestros dijudicanda relinquo. De Epistolâ hâc, jam in librum molestâ & taediosâ tibi Dissertatione abeunte, quod libitum est, statuas: quae si lucem ferre apta nata non est, tuâ sententiâ in ignem eat, victima Vulcani aris immolanda. Vale. Dab. Kiloni a. d. xxvi. Febr. Anno clɔ lɔc LXXIII.

Finish.