<h2><SPAN name="CHAPTER_IV" id="CHAPTER_IV"></SPAN>CHAPTER IV.</h2>
<h3>THE ALCHEMICAL ELEMENTS AND PRINCIPLES.</h3>
<p>The alchemists were sure that the intention of
nature regarding metals was that they should
become gold, for gold was considered to be the
most perfect metal, and nature, they said,
evidently strains after perfection. The alchemist
found that metals were worn away, eaten
through, broken, and finally caused to disappear,
by many acid and acrid liquids which he prepared
from mineral substances. But gold resisted the
attacks of these liquids; it was not changed by
heat, nor was it affected by sulphur, a substance
which changed limpid, running mercury into an
inert, black solid. Hence, gold was more perfect
in the alchemical scale than any other metal.</p>
<p>Since gold was considered to be the most
perfect metal, it was self-evident to the alchemical
mind that nature must form gold slowly in the
earth, must transmute gradually the inferior
metals into gold.</p>
<p>"The only thing that distinguishes one metal
from another," writes an alchemist who went
<SPAN name="Page_46" id="Page_46"></SPAN>under the name of Philalethes, "is its degree of
maturity, which is, of course, greatest in the
most precious metals; the difference between
gold and lead is not one of substance, but of
digestion; in the baser metal the coction has not
been such as to purge out its metallic impurities.
If by any means this superfluous impure matter
could be organically removed from the baser
metals, they would become gold and silver. So
miners tell us that lead has in many cases
developed into silver in the bowels of the earth,
and we contend that the same effect is produced
in a much shorter time by means of our Art."</p>
<p>Stories were told about the finding of gold in
deserted mines which had been worked out long
before; these stories were supposed to prove
that gold was bred in the earth. The facts that
pieces of silver were found in tin and lead mines,
and gold was found in silver mines, were adduced
as proofs that, as the author of <i>The New Pearl of
Great Price</i> says, "Nature is continually at work
changing other metals into gold, because, though
in a certain sense they are complete in themselves,
they have not yet reached the highest
perfection of which they are capable, and to
which nature has destined them." What nature
did in the earth man could accomplish in the
workshop. For is not man the crown of the
world, the masterpiece of nature, the flower of
the universe; was he not given dominion over
all things when the world was created?</p>
<p>In asserting that the baser metals could be
transmuted into gold, and in attempting to effect
this transmutation, the alchemist was not acting
<SPAN name="Page_47" id="Page_47"></SPAN>on a vague; haphazard surmise; he was pursuing
a policy dictated by his conception of the order
of nature; he was following the method which he
conceived to be that used by nature herself. The
transmutation of metals was part and parcel of a
system of natural philosophy. If this transmutation
were impossible, the alchemical scheme of
things would be destroyed, the believer in the
transmutation would be left without a sense of
order in the material universe. And, moreover,
the alchemist's conception of an orderly material
universe was so intimately connected with his
ideas of morality and religion, that to disprove
the possibility of the great transmutation would
be to remove not only the basis of his system of
material things, but the foundations of his system
of ethics also. To take away his belief in the
possibility of changing other metals into gold
would be to convert the alchemist into an atheist.</p>
<p>How, then, was the transmutation to be
accomplished? Evidently by the method whereby
nature brings to perfection other living things;
for the alchemist's belief in the simplicity and
unity of nature compelled him to regard metals
as living things.</p>
<p>Plants are improved by appropriate culture,
by digging and enriching the soil, by judicious
selection of seed; animals are improved by
careful breeding. By similar processes metals
will be encouraged and helped towards perfection.
The perfect state of gold will not be
reached at a bound; it will be gained gradually.
Many partial purifications will be needed. As
<i>Subtle</i> says in <i>The Alchemist</i>—<SPAN name="Page_48" id="Page_48"></SPAN></p>
<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
<span class="i8">'twere absurd</span>
<span>To think that nature in the earth bred gold</span>
<span>Perfect in the instant; something went before,</span>
<span>There must be remote matter....</span>
<span>Nature doth first beget the imperfect, then</span>
<span>Proceeds she to the perfect.</span></div>
</div>
<p>At this stage the alchemical argument becomes
very ultra-physical. It may, perhaps, be rendered
somewhat as follows:—</p>
<p>Man is the most perfect of animals; in man
there is a union of three parts, these are body,
soul, and spirit. Metals also may be said to have
a body, a soul, and a spirit; there is a specific
bodily, or material, form belonging to each metal;
there is a metalline soul characteristic of this or
that class of metals; there is a spirit, or inner
immaterial potency, which is the very essence of
all metals.</p>
<p>The soul and spirit of man are clogged by his
body. If the spiritual nature is to become the
dominating partner, the body must be mortified:
the alchemists, of course, used this kind of
imagery, and it was very real to them. In like
manner the spirit of metals will be laid bare and
enabled to exercise its transforming influences,
only when the material form of the individual
metal has been destroyed. The first thing to do,
then, is to strip off and cast aside those properties
of metals which appeal to the senses.</p>
<p>"It is necessary to deprive matter of its
qualities in order to draw out its soul," said
Stephanus of Alexandria in the 7th century;
and in the 17th century Paracelsus said, "Nothing
of true value is located in the body of a substance,
<SPAN name="Page_49" id="Page_49"></SPAN>but in the virtue ... the less there is of
body the more in proportion is the virtue."</p>
<p>But the possession of the soul of metals is not
the final stage: mastery of the soul may mean
the power of transmuting a metal into another
like itself; it will not suffice for the great
transmutation, for in that process a metal becomes
gold, the one and only perfect metal. Hence the
soul also must be removed, in order that the
spirit, the essence, the kernel, may be obtained.</p>
<p>And as it is with metals, so, the alchemists
argued, it is with all things. There are a few
<i>Principles</i> which may be thought of as conditioning
the specific bodily and material forms of
things; beneath these, there are certain <i>Elements</i>
which are common to many things whose
principles are not the same; and, hidden by the
wrappings of elements and principles, there
is the one <i>Essence</i>, the spirit, the mystic uniting
bond, the final goal of the philosopher.</p>
<p>I propose in this chapter to try to analyse the
alchemical conceptions of Elements and Principles,
and in the next chapter to attempt some kind of
description of the Essence.</p>
<p>In his <i>Tract Concerning the Great Stone of the
Ancient Sages</i>, Basil Valentine speaks of the
"three Principles," salt, sulphur, and mercury,
the source of which is the Elements.</p>
<p>"There are four Elements, and each has at its
centre another element which makes it what it
is. These are the four pillars of the earth."</p>
<p>Of the element <i>Earth</i>, he says:—"In this
element the other three, especially fire, are latent.... It
is gross and porous, specifically heavy,
<SPAN name="Page_50" id="Page_50"></SPAN>but naturally light.... It receives all that the
other three project into it, conscientiously conceals
what it should hide, and brings to light
that which it should manifest.... Outwardly it
is visible and fixed, inwardly it is invisible and
volatile."</p>
<p>Of the element <i>Water</i>, Basil Valentine says:—"Outwardly
it is volatile, inwardly it is fixed,
cold, and humid.... It is the solvent of the
world, and exists in three degrees of excellence:
the pure, the purer, and the purest. Of its
purest substance the heavens were created; of
that which is less pure the atmospheric air was
formed; that which is simply pure remains in its
proper sphere where ... it is guardian of all
subtle substances here below."</p>
<p>Concerning the element <i>Air</i>, he writes:—"The
most noble Element of Air ... is volatile, but
may be fixed, and when fixed renders all bodies
penetrable.... It is nobler than Earth or Water....
It nourishes, impregnates, conserves the other
elements."</p>
<p>Finally, of the element <i>Fire</i>:—"Fire is the
purest and noblest of all Elements, full of adhesive
unctuous corrosiveness, penetrant, digestive,
inwardly fixed, hot and dry, outwardly visible,
and tempered by the earth.... This Element is
the most passive of all, and resembles a chariot;
when it is drawn, it moves; when it is not drawn,
it stands still."</p>
<p>Basil Valentine then tells his readers that
Adam was compounded of the four pure Elements,
but after his expulsion from Paradise he became
subject to the various impurities of the animal
<SPAN name="Page_51" id="Page_51"></SPAN>creation. "The pure Elements of his creation
were gradually mingled and infected with the
corruptible elements of the outer world, and thus
his body became more and more gross, and liable,
through its grossness, to natural decay and death."
The process of degeneration was slow at first, but
"as time went on, the seed out of which men
were generated became more and more infected
with perishable elements. The continued use of
corruptible food rendered their bodies more and
more gross; and human life was soon reduced to
a very brief span."</p>
<p>Basil Valentine then deals with the formation
of the three <i>Principles</i> of things, by the mutual
action of the four Elements. Fire acting on Air
produced <i>Sulphur</i>; Air acting on Water produced
<i>Mercury</i>; Water acting on Earth produced <i>Salt</i>.
Earth having nothing to act on produced nothing,
but became the nurse of the three Principles.
"The three Principles," he says, "are necessary
because they are the immediate substance of
metals. The remoter substance of metals is the
four elements, but no one can produce anything
out of them but God; and even God makes
nothing of them but these three Principles."</p>
<p>To endeavour to obtain the four pure Elements
is a hopeless task. But the Sage has the three
Principles at hand. "The artist should determine
which of the three Principles he is seeking,
and should assist it so that it may overcome its
contrary." "The art consists in an even mingling
of the virtues of the Elements; in the natural
equilibrium of the hot, the dry, the cold, and the
moist."<SPAN name="Page_52" id="Page_52"></SPAN></p>
<p>The account of the Elements given by Philalethes
differs from that of Basil Valentine.</p>
<p>Philalethes enumerates three Elements only:
Air, Water, and Earth. Things are not formed
by the mixture of these Elements, for
"dissimilar things can never really unite." By
analysing the properties of the three Elements,
Philalethes reduced them finally to one, namely,
Water. "Water," he says, "is the first principle
of all things." "Earth is the fundamental
Element in which all bodies grow and are preserved.
Air is the medium into which they grow,
and by means of which the celestial virtues are
communicated to them."</p>
<p>According to Philalethes, <i>Mercury</i> is the most
important of the three Principles. Although
gold is formed by the aid of Mercury, it is only when
Mercury has been matured, developed, and perfected,
that it is able to transmute inferior metals
into gold. The essential thing to do is, therefore,
to find an agent which will bring about the maturing
and perfecting of Mercury. This agent,
Philalethes calls "Our divine Arcanum."</p>
<p>Although it appears to me impossible to translate
the sayings of the alchemists concerning
Elements and Principles into expressions which
shall have definite and exact meanings for us
to-day, still we may, perhaps, get an inkling of
the meaning of such sentences as those I have
quoted from Basil Valentine and Philalethes.</p>
<p>Take the terms <i>Fire</i> and <i>Water</i>. In former
times all liquid substances were supposed to be
liquid because they possessed something
in common; this hypothetical something was
<SPAN name="Page_53" id="Page_53"></SPAN>called the <i>Element, Water</i>. Similarly, the view
prevailed until comparatively recent times, that
burning substances burn because of the presence
in them of a hypothetical imponderable
fluid, called "<i>Caloric</i>"; the alchemists preferred
to call this indefinable something an Element,
and to name it <i>Fire</i>.</p>
<p>We are accustomed to-day to use the words
<i>fire</i> and <i>water</i> with different meanings, according
to the ideas we wish to express. When we say
"do not touch the fire," or "put your hand
into the water," we are regarding fire and water
as material things; when we say "the house is
on fire," or speak of "a diamond of the first
water," we are thinking of the condition or state
of a burning body, or of a substance as transparent
as water. When we say "put out the
fire," or "his heart became as water," we are
referring to the act of burning, or are using an
image which likens the thing spoken of to a
substance in the act of liquefying.</p>
<p>As we do to-day, so the alchemists did before
us; they used the words <i>fire</i> and <i>water</i> to express
different ideas.</p>
<p>Such terms as hardness, softness, coldness,
toughness, and the like, are employed for the
purpose of bringing together into one point of
view different things which are alike in, at
least, one respect. Hard things may differ in
size, weight, shape, colour, texture, &c. A
soft thing may weigh the same as a hard
thing; both may have the same colour or the
same size, or be at the same temperature, and
so on. By classing together various things as
<SPAN name="Page_54" id="Page_54"></SPAN>hard or soft, or smooth or rough, we eliminate
(for the time) all the properties wherein the
things differ, and regard them only as having
one property in common. The words hardness,
softness, &c., are useful class-marks.</p>
<p>Similarly the alchemical Elements and Principles
were useful class-marks.</p>
<p>We must not suppose that when the alchemists
spoke of certain things as formed from, or by
the union of, the same Elements or the same
Principles, they meant that these things
contained a common substance. Their Elements and Principles
were not thought of as substances, at least
not in the modern meaning of the expression, <i>a
substance</i>; they were qualities only.</p>
<p>If we think of the alchemical elements earth,
air, fire, and water, as general expressions of
what seemed to the alchemists the most important properties
of all substances, we may be able to attach
some kind of meaning to the sayings of Basil
Valentine, which I have quoted. For instance,
when that alchemist tells us, "Fire is the most
passive of all elements, and resembles a chariot;
when it is drawn, it moves; when it is not drawn,
it stands still"—we may suppose he meant to
express the fact that a vast number of substances
can be burnt, and that combustion does not begin
of itself, but requires an external agency to start it.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, most of the terms which the
alchemists used to designate their Elements and
Principles are terms which are now employed to
designate specific substances. The word <i>fire</i>
is still employed rather as a quality of many things
under special conditions, than as a specific substance;
<SPAN name="Page_55" id="Page_55"></SPAN>but <i>earth</i>, <i>water</i>, <i>air</i>, <i>salt</i>, <i>sulphur</i>, and
<i>mercury</i>, are to-day the names applied to certain
groups of properties, each of which is different
from all other groups of properties, and is, therefore,
called, in ordinary speech, a definite kind of matter.</p>
<p>As knowledge became more accurate and more
concentrated, the words <i>sulphur</i>, <i>salt</i>, <i>mercury</i>,
&c., began to be applied to distinct substances,
and as these terms were still employed in their
alchemical sense as compendious expressions for
certain qualities common to great classes of substances,
much confusion arose. Kunckel, the
discoverer of phosphorus, who lived between
1630 and 1702, complained of the alchemists'
habit of giving different names to the same
substance, and the same name to different substances.
"The sulphur of one," he says, "is
not the sulphur of another, to the great injury
of science. To that one replies that everyone
is perfectly free to baptise his infant as he
pleases. Granted. You may if you like call
an ass an ox, but you will never make anyone
believe that your ox is an ass." Boyle is very
severe on the vague and loose use of words
practised by so many writers of his time. In
<i>The Sceptical Chymist</i> (published 1678-9) he
says: "If judicious men, skilled in chymical
affairs, shall once agree to write clearly and
plainly of them, and thereby keep men from
being stunned, as it were, or imposed upon
by dark and empty words; it is to be hoped
that these [other] men finding, that they can
no longer write impertinently and absurdly,
<SPAN name="Page_56" id="Page_56"></SPAN>without being laughed at for doing so, will be
reduced either to write nothing, or books that
may teach us something, and not rob men, as
formerly, of invaluable time; and so ceasing
to trouble the world with riddles or impertinences,
we shall either by their books receive an
advantage, or by their silence escape an
inconvenience."</p>
<p>Most of the alchemists taught that the elements
produced what they called <i>seed</i>, by their
mutual reactions, and the principles matured
this seed and brought it to perfection. They
supposed that each class, or kind, of things had
its own seed, and that to obtain the seed was to
have the power of producing the things which
sprung from that seed.</p>
<p>Some of them, however, asserted that all things
come from a common seed, and that the nature
of the products of this seed is conditioned by the
circumstances under which it is caused to develop.</p>
<p>Thus Michael Sendivogius writes as follows
in <i>The New Chemical Light, drawn from the
fountain of Nature and of Manual Experience</i> (17th
century):—</p>
<div class="blkquot"><p>"Wherever there is seed, Nature will work
through it, whether it be good or bad." "The
four Elements, by their continued action, project
a constant supply of seed to the centre of the
earth, where it is digested, and whence it proceeds
again in generative motions. Now the
centre of the earth is a certain void place where
nothing is at rest, and upon the margin or
circumference of this centre the four Elements
project their qualities.... The magnetic force
<SPAN name="Page_57" id="Page_57"></SPAN>of our earth-centre attracts to itself as much as
is needed of the cognate seminal substance, while
that which cannot be used for vital generation
is thrust forth in the shape of stones and other
rubbish. This is the fountain-head of all things
terrestrial. Let us illustrate the matter by
supposing a glass of water to be set in the
middle of a table, round the margin of which
are placed little heaps of salt, and of powders of
different colours. If the water be poured out, it
will run all over the table in divergent rivulets,
and will become salt where it touches the salt,
red where it touches the red powder, and so on.
The water does not change the '<i>places</i>,' but the
several '<i>places</i>' differentiate the water.<SPAN name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></SPAN><SPAN href="#Footnote_4_4"><sup>4</sup></SPAN> In the
same way, the seed which is the product of the
four Elements is projected in all directions from
the earth-centre, and produces different things,
according to the quality of the different places.
Thus, while the seed of all things is one, it is
made to generate a great variety of things....
So long as Nature's seed remains in the centre it
can indifferently produce a tree or a metal, a
herb or a stone, and in like manner, according to
the purity of the place, it will produce what is
less or more pure."</p>
</div>
<hr />
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />