Chapter III: Part 3

“The cures compassed in this manner are not more admirable than many of the distempers themselves. Who can apprehend by what impenetrable method the bite of a mad dog[16] or tarantula should produce their symptoms? The touch of a torpedo, numbness? or a woman impress the marks of her longings and her frights on her fœtus? If they are allowed to do these, doubtless they may the other; and not by miracles, which Spinoza denies the possibility of, but by natural and regular causes, though inscrutable to us.

“The best way, therefore, in using amulets, must be in squaring them to the imagination of patients: let the newness and the surprise exceed the invention, and keep up the humour by a long roll of cures and vouchers: by these and such means many distempers, especially of _women, that are ill all over, or know not what they ail_, have been cured, I am apt to think, more by a fancy to the physician than his prescription; which hangs on the file like an amulet. Quacks again, according to their boldness and way of addressing (velvet and infallibility particularly) command success by striking the fancies of an audience. If a few, more sensible than the rest, see the doctor’s miscarriages, and are not easily gulled at first sight, yet when they see a man is never ashamed, in time jump in to his assistance.”

Our inability upon all occasions to appreciate the efforts of nature in the cure of disease, must always render our notions, with respect to the powers of art, liable to numerous errors and multiplied deceptions. Nothing is more natural, and at the same time more erroneous, than to attribute the cure of a disease to the last medicine that had been employed; the advocates of amulets and charms[17] have ever been thus enabled to appeal to the testimony of what they are pleased to call experience, in justification of their superstitions; and cases which in truth ought to have been considered lucky escapes, have been triumphantly puffed off as skilful cures; and thus have medicines and practitioners alike acquired unmerited praise or unjust censure.

HISTORY OF POPULAR MEDICINES, ETC.—HOW INFLUENCED BY SUPERSTITION.

“Did Marcus say ’twas fact? then fact it is.
No proof so valid as a word of his.”

Devotion to authority and established routine has always been the means of opposing the progress of reason, the advancement of natural truths, and the prosecution of new discoveries; whilst, with effects no less baneful, has it perpetuated many of the stupendous errors which have been already enumerated, as well as others no less weighty, and which are reserved for future discussion.

To give currency to some inactive substance as possessing extraordinary, nay wonderful medicinal properties, requires only the sanction of a few great names; and when established upon such a basis, ingenuity, argument, and even experiment, may open their impotent batteries. In this manner have all the _nostra_ and patent medicines got into repute that ever were held in any estimation. And the same devotion to authority which induces us to retain an accustomed remedy upon the bare assertion and presumption either of ignorance or partiality, will, in like manner, oppose the introduction of a novel practice with asperity, unless indeed it be supported by authorities of still greater weight and consideration.

The history of various articles of diet and medicine, will amply prove how much their reputation and fate have depended upon authority. For instance, it was not until many years after ipecacuanha had been imported into England, that Helvetius, under the patronage of Louis XIV. succeeded in introducing it into practice: and to the praise of Katherine, queen of Charles II. we are indebted for the general introduction of tea into England. Tobacco, notwithstanding its fascinating powers, has suffered romantic vicissitudes in its fame and character; it has been successively opposed and commended by physicians, condemned and eulogized by priests and kings[18], and proscribed and protected by governments, whilst, at length, this once insignificant production of a little island, or an obscure district, has succeeded in diffusing itself through every climate, and in subjecting the inhabitants of every country to its dominion. The Arab cultivates it in the burning desert;—the Laplander and Esquimaux risk their lives to procure a refreshment so delicious in their wintry solitude;—the seaman, grant him but this luxury, and he will endure with cheerfulness every other privation, and defy the fury of the raging elements;—and, in the higher walk of civilized society, at the shrine of fashion, in the palace and in the cottage, the fascinating influence of this singular plant, commands an equal tribute of devotion and attachment. Nor is the history of the potatoe less extraordinary or less strikingly illustrative of the imperious influence of authority. In fact, the introduction of this valuable plant received, for more than two centuries, an unprecedented opposition from vulgar prejudice, which all the philosophy of the age was unable to dissipate, until Louis XV. wore a bunch of the flowers of the potatoe in the midst of his court, on a day of mirth and festivity. The people then, for the first time, obsequiously acknowledged its utility, and began to express their astonishment at the apathy which had so long prevailed with regard to its general cultivation.

The history of the warm bath furnishes us with another curious instance of the vicissitudes to which the reputation of our valuable resources are so uniformly exposed. That, in short, which for so many ages was esteemed the greatest luxury in health, and the most efficacious remedy in disease, fell into total disrepute in the reign of Augustus, for no other reason than because Antonius Musa had cured the emperor of a dangerous malady by the use of the cold bath. The coldest water, therefore, was recommended on every occasion. This practice, however, was but of short duration. The popularity of the warm bath soon lost all its premature and precocious popularity; for, though it had restored the emperor to health, it shortly afterwards killed his nephew and son-in-law Marcellus; an event which at once deprived the remedy of its credit, and the physician of his popularity.[19]

An illustration of the overbearing influence of authority, in giving celebrity to a medicine, or in depriving it of that reputation to which its virtues entitle it, might be furnished in the history of the Peruvian bark. This heroic remedy was first brought to Spain in the year 1632, where it remained seven years before any trial was made of its powers. An ecclesiastic of Alcala was the first to whom it was administered, in the year 1639; but even at this period, its use was limited, and it would have sunk into oblivion, but for the supreme power of the Roman church, by whose protecting auspices it was enabled to gain a temporary triumph over the passions and prejudices which opposed its introduction. Innocent the Tenth, at the intercession of Cardinal de Lugo, who was formerly a Spanish jesuit, ordered that its nature and effects should be duly examined, and on its being reported both innocent and salutary, it immediately rose into public notice. Its career, however, was suddenly arrested by its having unfortunately failed in the autumn 1652 to cure Leopold, Archduke of Austria, of a quartan intermittent: from this circumstance it had nearly fallen into disrepute.

As years and fashion revolve, so have these neglected remedies, each in its turn, risen again into favour and notice; whilst old receipts, like old almanacks, are abandoned, until the period may arrive that will once more adapt them to the spirit and fashion of the times. Thus it happens, that most of the new discoveries in medicine have turned out to be no more than the revival and readoption of ancient practices.

During the last century, the root of the male fern was retailed as a secret nostrum, by Madame Nouffleur, a French empiric, for the cure of the tapeworm: the secret was purchased for a considerable sum of money by Lewis XV. The physicians then discovered, that the same remedy had been administered in that complaint by Galen.

The history of popular remedies for the cure of gout, also furnishes ample matter for the elucidation of this subject.

The celebrated powder of the Duke of Portland, was no other than the _diacentaureon_ of Cœlius Aurelianus, or the _antidotos ex duobus centaureæ generibus_ of Ætius, the receipt for which a friend of his Grace brought with him from Switzerland; into which country, in all probability, it had been introduced by the early medical writers, who had transcribed it from the Greek volumes, soon after their arrival into the western parts of Europe.

The active ingredient of a no less celebrated remedy for the same disease, the _eau médicinale_, a medicine brought into fashion by M. Husson, whose name it bears, a military officer in the service of the King of France, about fifty years ago, has been discovered to be the _colchicum autumnale_, or _meadow saffron_. Upon investigating the virtues of this medicine, it was observed that similar effects in the cure of the gout were ascribed to a certain plant, called Hermodactyllus, by Oribasius[20] and Ætius[21], but more particularly by Alexander of Tralles, a physician of Asia Minor, whose prescription consisted of hermodactyllus, ginger, pepper, cummin-seed, aniseed, and scammony, which, he says, will enable those who take it, to walk immediately. An inquiry was immediately instituted after this unknown plant, and upon procuring a specimen of it from Constantinople, it was actually found to be a species of colchicum.

The use of Prussic acid in the cure of consumptions, lately proposed by Dr. Majendie, a French physiologist, is little else than the revival of the Dutch practice in this complaint; for we are informed by Lumæus, in the fourth volume of his “_Amenitates Acadamicæ_,” that distilled laurel water was frequently used in Holland in the cure of pulmonary consumption. The celebrated Dr. James’s fever powder was evidently not his original composition, but an Italian nostrum, invented by a person of the name of Lisle, a receipt for the preparation of which is to be found at length in _Colborne’s complete English Dispensary for the year 1756_. The various secret preparations of opium which have been lauded as the discovery of modern times, may be recognised in the works of ancient authors.

ALCHYMY[22].

The science, if it deserves to be distinguished by the name of Alchymy, or the transmutation of metals into gold, has doubtless been an imposition, which, striking on the feeblest part of the human mind, has so frequently been successful in carrying on its delusions.

The Corrina of Dryden (Mrs. Thomas) during her life, has recorded one of these delusions of Alchymy. From the circumstances, it is very probable the sage was not less deceived than his patroness. An infatuated lover of this delusive art met one who pretended to have the power of transmuting lead to gold; that is, in their language, the _imperfect_ metals to the _perfect_ one. This Hermetic philosopher required only the materials and time, to perform his golden operations. He was taken to the country residence of his patroness, a long laboratory was built, and that his labours might not be impeded by any disturbance, no one was permitted to enter into it. His door was contrived to turn on a pivot; so that, unseen and unseeing, his meals were conveyed to him without distracting the sublime contemplations of the sage.

During a residence of two years he never condescended to speak but two or three times in the year to his infatuated patroness. When she was admitted into the laboratory, she saw with pleasing astonishment, stills, immense cauldrons, long flues, and three or four Vulcanian fires, blazing at different corners of this magical mine: nor did she behold with less reverence the venerable figure of the dusty philosopher. Pale and emaciated with daily operations and nightly vigils, he revealed to her, in unintelligible jargon, his progress; and having sometimes condescended to explain the mysteries of the Arcana, she beheld or seemed to behold, streams of fluid, and heaps of solid ore, scattered around the laboratory. Sometimes he required a new still, and sometimes vast quantities of lead. She began now to lower her imagination to the standard of reason. Two years had now elapsed, vast quantities of lead had gone in, and nothing but lead had come out. She disclosed her sentiments to the philosopher; he candidly confessed he was himself surprised at his tardy processes; but that now he would exert himself to the utmost, and that he would venture to perform a laborious operation, which hitherto he had hoped not to have been necessitated to employ. His patroness retired, and the golden visions of expectation resumed all their lustre.

One day as they sat at dinner, a terrible shriek, and one crack followed by another loud as the report of cannon, assailed their ears. They hastened to the laboratory; two of the greatest stills had burst, and one part of the laboratory and the house were in flames. We are told that after another adventure of this kind, this victim to Alchymy, after ruining another patron, in despair swallowed poison.

Even more recently we have a history of an Alchymist in the life of Romney, the painter. This Alchymist, after bestowing much time and money on preparations for the grand projection, and being near the decisive hour, was induced, by the too earnest request of his wife, to quit his furnace one evening, to attend some of her company at the tea-table. While the projector was attending the ladies, his furnace blew up! In consequence of this event, he conceived such an antipathy against his wife, that he could not endure the idea of living with her again.

Henry IV. was so reduced by his extravagancies, that Evelyn observes in his Numismata, he endeavoured to recruit his empty coffers by an Alchymical speculation. The _record_ of this singular proposition, contains “the most solemn and serious account of the feasibility and virtues of the _philosopher’s stone_, encouraging the search after it, and dispensing with all statutes and prohibitions to the contrary.” This _record_ was very probably communicated (says an ingenious antiquary) by Mr. Selden to his beloved friend Ben Jonson, when he was writing his comedy of the Alchymist.

After this patent was published, many promised to answer the King’s expectations so effectually (adds the same writer) that the next year he published another patent; wherein he tells his subjects, that the _happy hour_ was drawing nigh, and by means of the STONE, which he should be master of, he would pay all the debts of the nation in _real gold_ and silver. The persons picked out for his new operations were as remarkable as the patent itself, being a most “miscellaneous rabble” of friars, grocers, mercers, and fishmongers!

This patent was likewise granted _authoritate parliamenti_.

Prynne, who has given this patent in his _Aurum Reginæ_, p. 135, concludes with this sarcastic observation:—“A project never so seasonable and necessary as now!” And this we repeat, and our successors will no doubt imitate us!

Alchymists were formerly called _multipliers_; as appears from a statute of Henry IV. repealed in the preceding record. The statute being extremely short, we shall give it for the reader’s satisfaction.

“None from henceforth shall use to multiply gold or silver, or use the _craft of multiplication_; and if any the same do, he shall incur the pain of felony.”

Every philosophical mind must be convinced that Alchymy is not an art, which some have fancifully traced to the _remotest times_; it may rather be regarded, when opposed to such a distance of time, as a modern imposture. Cæsar commanded the treatises of Alchymy to be burnt throughout the Roman dominions—Cæsar, who is not less to be admired as a philosopher than as a monarch.

Mr. Gibbon has the following succinct passage relative to Alchymy: “The ancient books of Alchymy, so liberally ascribed to Pythagoras, to Solomon, or to Hermes, were the pious frauds of more recent adepts. The Greeks were inattentive either to the use or abuse of chemistry. In that immense register, where Pliny has deposited the discoveries, the arts and the errors of mankind, there is not the least mention of the transmutation of metals; and the persecution of Dioclesian is the first authentic event in the history of Alchymy. The conquest of Egypt by the Arabs diffused that vain science over the globe. Congenial to the avarice of the human heart, it was studied in China as in Europe, with equal eagerness and equal success. The darkness of the middle ages ensured a favourable reception to every tale of wonder; and the revival of learning gave new vigour to hope, and suggested more specious arts to deception. Philosophy, with the aid of experience, has at length banished the study of Alchymy; and the present age, however desirous of riches, is content to seek them by the humbler means of commerce and industry.”

Elias Ashmole writes in his diary—“May 13, 1653. My father Backhouse (an Astrologer who had adopted him for his son—a common practice with these men) lying sick in Fleet Ditch, over against St. Dunstan’s church, and not knowing whether he should live or die, about eleven of the clock told me in _Syllables_ the true matter of the _Philosopher’s Stone_, which he bequeathed to me as a legacy.” By this we learn that a miserable wretch knew the art of _making gold_, yet always lived a beggar; and that Ashmole really imagined he was in possession of the _Syllables of a secret_! he has however built a curious monument of the learned follies of the last century, in his “Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum.” Though Ashmole is rather the historian of this vain science than an adept, it may amuse literary leisure to turn over his quarto volume, in which he has collected the works of several English Alchymists, to which he has subjoined his Commentary. It affords a curious specimen of Rosicrucian Mysteries; and Ashmole relates stories, which vie for the miraculous, with the wildest fancies of Arabian invention. Of the Philosopher’s Stone, he says, he knows enough to hold his tongue, but not enough to speak. This Stone has not only the power of transmuting any imperfect earthy matter into its utmost degree of perfection, and can convert the basest metals into gold, flints into stones, &c. but it has still more occult virtues, when the arcana have been entered into, by the choice fathers of hermetic mysteries. The vegetable stone has power over the natures of man, beast, fowls, fishes, and all kinds of trees and plants, to make them flourish and bear fruit at any time. The magical stone discovers any person wherever he is concealed; while the angelical stone gives the apparitions of angels, and a power of conversing with them. These great mysteries are supported by occasional facts, and illustrated by prints of the most divine and incomprehensible designs, which we would hope were intelligible to the initiated. It may be worth shewing, however, how liable even the latter were to blunder on these Mysterious Hieroglyphics. Ashmole, in one of his chemical works, prefixed a frontispiece, which, in several compartments, exhibited Phœbus on a lion, and opposite to him a lady, who represented Diana, with the moon in one hand and an arrow in the other, sitting on a crab; Mercury on a tripod, with the scheme of the heavens in one hand, and his caduceus in the other. They were intended to express the materials of the Stone, and the season for the process. Upon the altar is the bust of a man, his head covered by an astrological scheme dropped from the clouds; and on the altar are these words, MERCURIOPHILUS ANGLICUS, _i. e._ the English lover of hermetic philosophy. There is a tree and a little creature gnawing the root, a pillar adorned with musical and mathematical instruments, and another with military ensigns. This strange composition created great inquiry among the chemical sages. Deep mysteries were conjectured to be veiled by it. Verses were written in the highest strain of the Rosicrucian language. _Ashmole_ confessed he meant nothing more than a kind of pun on his own name, for the tree was the _ash_, and the creature was a _mole_. One pillar tells his love of music and freemasonry, and the other his military preferment and astrological studies! He afterwards regretted that no one added a second volume to his work, from which he himself had been hindered, for the honour of the family of Hermes, and “to shew the world what excellent men we had once of our nation, famous for this kind of philosophy, and masters of so transcendant a secret.”

Modern chemistry is not without a _hope_, not to say a _certainty_, of verifying the golden visions of the Alchymists. Dr. Gertänner, of Gottingen, has lately adventured the following prophecy: “In the _nineteenth century_ the transmutation of metals will be generally known and practised. Every chemist and every artist will _make gold_; kitchen materials will be of silver, and even gold, which will contribute more than any thing else to _prolong life_, poisoned at present by the oxyds of copper, lead, and iron, which we daily swallow with our food[23].” This sublime chemist, though he does not venture to predict that universal _Elixir_[24], which is to prolong life at pleasure, yet approximates to it. A chemical friend observed, that “the metals seem to be _composite_ bodies, which nature is perpetually preparing; and it may be reserved for the future researches of Science to trace, and perhaps to imitate, some of these curious operations.”

_Origin, Objects, and Practice of Alchymy, &c._

We find the word Alchymy occurring, for the first time, in JULIUS FIRMICUS MATERNUS, an author who lived under Constantine the Great, who in his _Mathesis_, iii. 35, speaking of the influence of the heavenly bodies, affirms, “that if the Moon be in the house of Saturn, at the time a child is born, he shall be skilled in Alchymy.”

The great objects or ends pursued by Alchymy, are, 1st, To make gold; which is attempted by separation, maturation; and by transmutation, which is to be effected by means of the Philosopher’s stone. With a view to this end, Alchymy, in some writers, is also called ποιητκη, _poetice_, and χρυσοποιητικη, _chryso poetice_, _i. e._ the art of making gold; and hence also, by a similar derivation, the artists themselves are called gold-makers.

2d. An universal medicine, adequate to all diseases.

3d. An universal dissolvent or alkahest. (See ALKAHEST.)

4. An universal ferment, or a matter, which being applied to any seed, shall increase its fecundity to infinity. If, for example, it be applied to gold, it shall change the gold into the philosopher’s stone of gold,— if to silver, into the philosopher’s stone of silver,—and if to a tree, the result is, the philosopher’s stone of the tree; which transmutes every thing it is applied to, into trees.

The origin and antiquity of Alchymy have been much controverted. If we may credit legend and tradition, it must be as old as the flood; nay, Adam himself, is represented by the Alchymist, as an adept. A great part, not only of the heathen mythology, but of the Jewish and Christian Revelations, are supposed to refer to it. Thus SUIDAS will have the fable of the Philosopher’s Stone, to be alluded to in the fable of the Argonauts; and others find it in the book of MOSES, &c. But if the æra of the art be examined by the monument of history, it will lose much of this fancied antiquity. The learned Dane, Borrichius, has taken immense pains to prove that it was not unknown to the ancient Greeks and Egyptians. Crounguis, on the contrary, with equal address, undertakes to show its novelty. Still not one of the ancient poets, philosophers, or physicians, from the time of Homer till four hundred years after the birth of Christ, mention any thing about it.

The first author who speaks of making gold, is Zosimus the Pomopolite, who lived about the beginning of the fifth century, and who has a treatise express upon it, called, “the divine art of making gold and silver,” in manuscript, and is, as formerly, in the King of France’s library. The next is Æneas Gazeus, another Greek writer, towards the close of the same century, in whom we find the following passage:—“Such as are skilled in the ways of nature, can take silver and tin, and changing their nature, can turn them into gold.” The same writer tells us, that he was “wont to call himself χρυσοχοος, gold melter, and χημευτης, chemist.” Hence we may conclude, that a notion of some such art as Alchymy was in being at that age; but as neither of these artists inform us how long it had been previously known, their testimony will not carry us back beyond the age in which they lived.

In fact, we find no earlier or plainer traces of the universal medicine mentioned any where else; nor among the physicians and naturalists, from Moses to Geber the Arab, who is supposed to have lived in the seventh century. In that author’s work, entitled the “_Philosopher’s Stone_,” mention is made of a medicine that cures all leprous diseases. This passage, some authors suppose, to have given the first hint of the matter; though Geber himself, perhaps, meant no such thing; for by attending to the Arabic style and diction of this author, which abounds in allegory, it is highly probable, that by man he means gold; and by leprous, or other diseases, the other metals; which, with relation to gold, are all impure.

The manner in which Suidas accounts for this total silence of old authors with regard to Alchymy, is, that Dioclesian procured all the books of the ancient Egyptians to be burnt; and that it was in these that the great mysteries of chymistry were contained. Corringius calls this statement in question, and asks how Suidas, who lived but five hundred years before us, should know what happened eight hundred years before him? To which Borrichius answers, that he had learnt it of Eudemus, Helladius, Zosimus, Pamphilius, &c. as Suidas himself relates.

Kercher asserts, that the theory of the Philosopher’s Stone, is delivered at large in the table of Hermes, and that the ancient Egyptians were not ignorant of the art, but declined to prosecute it. They did not appear to transmute gold; they had ways of separating it from all kinds of bodies, from the very mud of the Nile, and stones of all kinds: but, he adds, these secrets were never written down, or made public, but confined to the royal family, and handed down traditionally from father to son.

The chief point advanced by Borrichius, and in which he seems to lay the principal stress, is, the attempt of Caligula, mentioned by Pliny, for procuring gold from Orpiment, (Hist. Nat. 1. xxxiii. c. 4.) But this, it may be observed, makes very little for that author’s pretensions; there being no transmutations, no hint of any Philosopher’s Stone, but only a little gold was extracted or separated from the mineral.

The principal authors on Alchymy are, Geber, Friar Bacon, Sully, John and Isaac Hallandus, Basil Valentine, Paracelsus, Van Zuchter, and Sendirogius.

ALKAHEST, OR ALCAHEST,

In Chemistry, means a most pure and universal menstruum or dissolvent, with which some chemists have pretended to resolve all bodies into their first matter, and perform other extraordinary and unaccountable operations.

Paracelsus and Van Helmont, expressly declare, that there is a certain fluid in nature, capable of reducing all sublunary bodies, as well hemogeneous as mixed, into their _ens primum_, or original matter of which they are composed; or into an uniform equable and potable liquor, that will unite with water, and the juices of our bodies, yet will retain its radical virtues; and if mixed with itself again, will thereby be converted into pure elementary water. This declaration, seconded by the asseveration of Van Helmont, who solemnly declared himself possessed of the secret, excited succeeding Chemists and Alchymists to the pursuit of so noble a menstruum. Mr. Boyle was so much attracted with it, that he frankly acknowledged he had rather been master of it, than of the Philosopher’s Stone. In short, it is not difficult to conceive, that bodies might originally arise from some first matter, which was once in a fluid form. Thus, the primitive matter of gold is, perhaps, nothing more than a ponderous fluid, which, from its own nature, or a strong cohesion or attraction between its particles, acquires afterwards a solid form. And hence there does not appear any absurdity in the notion of an universal ens, that resolves all bodies into their Ens Genitate.

The Alcahest is a subject that has been embraced by many anthers; _e. g._ Pantatem, Philalettes, Tachenius, Ludovicus, &c. Boerhaave says, a library of them might be collected; and Werdenfelt, in his treatise de Secretis Adeptorum, has given all the opinions that have been entertained concerning it.

The term Alcahest is not peculiarly found in any language: Helmont declares, he first observed it in Paracelsus, as a word that was unknown before the time of that author, who in his second book, _De Viribus Membrorum_, treating of the liver, has these rather remarkable words: _Est etiam_ alkahest _liquor_, magnam sepates conservandi et confortandi, &c. “There is also the liquor _Alkerhest_, of great efficacy in preserving the liver; as also in curing hydropsical and all other diseases arising from disorders of that part. If it have once conquered its like, it becomes superior to all other hepatic medicines; and though the liver itself was broken and dissolved, this medicine should supply its place.”

It was this passage alone, quoted from Paracelsus, that stimulated succeeding chemists to an enquiry after the Alkahest; there being only another indirect expression, in all his work, relating to it.

As it was a frequent practice with Paracelsus to transpose the letters of his words, and to abbreviate or otherwise conceal them; _e. g._ for tartar, he would write _Sutratur_; for _Nitrum_, _Mutrin_, &c. it is supposed that Alcahest must be a word disguised in the same manner. Hence some imagine it, and with much probability, to be formed of _alkali est_; consequently that it was the Alkaline salt of tartar salatilized. This appears to have been Glauber’s opinion; who, in fact, performed surprising things with such a menstruum, upon subjects of all the three kingdoms. Others will have it derived from the German word _algeist_, that is, wholly spirituous or volatile; others are of opinion, that the word Alcahest is taken from saltz-geist, which signifies spirit of salt; for the universal menstruum, it is said, is to be wrought from water: and Paracelsus himself calls salt the centre of water, wherein metals ought to die, &c. In fact, spirit of salt was the great menstruum he used on most occasions.

The Commentator on Paracelsus, who gave a Latin edition of his works at Delft, assures us that the alcahest was mercury, converted into a spirit. Zwelfer judged it to be a spirit of vinegar rectified from verdigris, and Starkey thought he discovered it in his soap.

There have nevertheless been some synonimous and more significant words used for the Alkahest. Van Helmont, the elder, mentions it by the compound name of _ignis-aqua_, fire-water: but he here seems to allude to the circulated liquor of Paracelsus, which he terms fire, from its property of consuming all things; and water, on account of its liquid form. The same author calls it _liqoer Gehennæ_, infernal fire; a word also used by Paracelsus. He also entitles it, “Summun et felicismum omnium salium,” “the highest and most successful of all salts; which having obtained the supreme degree of simplicity, purity, and subtilty, enjoys alone the faculty of remaining unchanged and unimpaired by the subjects it works upon, and of dissolving the most stubborn and untractable bodies; as stones, gems, glass, earth, sulphur, metals, &c. into real salt, equal in weight to the matter dissolved; and this with as much ease as hot water melts down snow.”—“This salt,” continues he, “by being several times cohabited with Paracelsus’, Sal circulatum, loses all its fixedness, and at length becomes an insipid water, equal in quantity to the salt it was made from.”

Van Helmont positively expresses that this salt is the product of art and not of nature. “Though, says he, a homogeneal part of elementary earth may be artfully converted into water, yet I deny that the same can be done by nature alone; for no natural agent is able to transmute one element into another.” And this he offers as a reason why the Elements always remain the same.

It may throw some light into this affair, to observe, that Van Helmont, as well as Paracelsus, took water for the universal instrument of chymistry and natural philosophy; and earth for the unchangeable basis of all things—that fire was assigned as the sufficient cause of all things—that seminal impressions were lodged in the mechanism of the earth—that water, by dissolving and fermenting with this earth, as it does by means of fire, brings forth every thing; whence originally proceeded the animal, vegetable, and mineral kingdoms: even man himself, according to Moses, was thus at first created.

The great characteristic or property of the Alkahest, as has already been observed, is to dissolve and change all sublunary bodies—water alone excepted.——The changes it induces proceed in the following manner, viz.

1. The subject exposed to its operation, is converted into its three principles, salt, sulphur, and mercury; and afterwards into salt alone, which then becomes volatile; and, at length, is wholly turned into insipid water.—The manner in which it is applied, is by touching the body proposed to be dissolved; _e. g._ gold, mercury, sand, glass, or the like, once or twice with the pretended alkahest; and if the liquor be genuine, the body will on this application be converted into its own quality of salt.

2. It does not destroy the seminal virtues of the bodies thereby dissolved.—For instance,—gold, by its action, is reduced to a salt of gold; antimony, to a salt of antimony; saffron, to a salt of saffron, &c. of the same seminal virtues, or characters with the original concrete. By seminal virtues, Van Helmont means those virtues which depend upon the structure or mechanism of a body, and which constitutes it what it actually is. Hence an actual and general _aurum_ potabile might readily be gained by the alkahest, as converting the whole body of gold into salt, retaining its seminal virtues, and being withal soluble in water.

3. Whatever it dissolves may be rendered volatile by a sand-heat; and if, after volatilizing the solvent, it be distilled therefrom, the body is left pure insipid water, equal in quantity to its original self, but deprived of its seminal virtues. Then, if gold be dissolved by the Alkahest, the metal first becomes salt, which is potable gold; but when the menstruum, by a further application of fire, is distilled therefrom, it is left mere elementary water. Whence it appears, that pure water is the last production or effect of the alkahest.

4. It suffers no change or diminution of force by dissolving the bodies it works in; consequently sustains no reaction from them; being the only immutable menstruum in nature.

5. It is incapable of mixture, and therefore remains free from fermentation and putrefaction; coming off as pure from the body it has dissolved, as when first applied to it; without leaving the least foulness behind.

MAGICIAN.

_One who practises the art of Magic._ (_Vide Divination, Sorcery, and Magic._)

The ancient magicians pretended to extraordinary powers of interpreting dreams, foretelling future events, and accomplishing many wonderful things, by their superior knowledge of the secret powers of nature, of the virtues of plants and minerals, and of the motions and influences of the stars. And as the art of magic among Pagan nations was founded on their system of theology, and the magi who first exercised it were the priests of the gods, they pretended to derive these extraordinary powers from the assistance of the gods, which assistance they sought by a variety of rites and sacrifices, adapted to their respective natures, by the use of charms and superstitious words, and also by ceremonies and supplications: they pretended, likewise, in the proper use of their art, to a power of compelling the gods to execute their desires and commands. An excellent writer has shewn, that the Scripture brands all these powers as a shameless imposture, and reproaches those who assumed them with an utter inability of discovering, or accomplishing, any thing supernatural. (See Isaiah, xlvii. 11, 12, 13. chap. xli. 23, 24. chap. xliv. 25. Jeremiah, x. 2, 3, 8, 14. chap xiv. 14. chap, xxvii. 9, 10. chap. i. 36. Ps. xxi. 6. Jonah, ii. 8.) Nevertheless, many of the Christian fathers, as well as some of the heathen philosophers, ascribed the efficacy of magic to evil dæmons; and it was a very prevailing opinion in the primitive, that magicians and necromancers, both among the Gentiles and heretical Christians, had each their particular dæmons perpetually attending on their persons, and obsequious to their commands, by whose help they could call up the souls of the dead, foretel future events, and perform miracles. In support of this opinion, it has been alleged that the names by which the several sorts of diviners are described in scripture, imply a communication with spiritual beings; that the laws of Moses (Exod. xxii. 18. Lev. xix. 26, 31. chap. xx. 27. Deut. xviii. 10, 11.) against divination and witchcraft, prove the efficacy of these arts, though in reality they prove nothing more than their execrable wickedness and impiety; and that pretensions to divination could not have supported their credit in all the heathen nations, and through all ages, if some instances of true divination had not occurred. But the strongest argument is derived from the scripture history of the Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses. With regard to the works performed by these magicians, some have supposed that God himself empowered them to perform true miracles, and gave them an unexpected success; but the history expressly ascribes the effects they produced, not to God, but to their own enchantments. Others imagine, that the devil assisted the magicians, not in performing true miracles, but in deceiving the senses of the spectators, or in presenting before them delusive appearances of true miracles: against which opinion it has been urged, that it tends to disparage the credit of the works of Moses. The most common opinion, since the time of St. Austin, has been, that they were not only performed by the power of the devil, but were genuine miracles, and real imitations of those of Moses. In a late elaborate enquiry into the true sense and design of this part of scripture history, it has been shewn that the names given to magicians seem to express their profession, their affectation of superior knowledge, and their pretensions both to explain and effect signs and wonders, by observing the rules of their art; and therefore, that they are the persons, whose ability of discovering or effecting any thing supernatural, the scripture expressly denies. The learned author farther investigates the design for which Pharaoh employed them on this occasion: which, he apprehends, was to learn from them, whether the sign given by Moses was truly supernatural, or only such as their art was able to accomplish. Accordingly it is observed, that they did not undertake to outdo Moses, or to controul him, by superior or opposite arts of power, but merely to imitate him, or to do the same works with his, with a view of invalidating the argument which he drew from his miracles, in support of the sole divinity of Jehovah, and of his own mission. The question on this was not, are the gods of Egypt superior to the gods of Israel, or can any evil spirits perform greater miracles than those which Moses performed by the assistance of Jehovah? but the question is, are the works of Moses proper proofs, that the god of Israel is Jehovah, the only sovereign of nature, and consequently that Moses acts by his commission; or, are they merely the wonders of nature, and the effects of magic? In this light Philo, (de Vita Mosis, lib. i. p. 616.) and Josephus, (Antiq. Jud. lib. ii. cap. 13.) place the subject. Moreover, it appears from the principles and conduct of Moses, that he could not have allowed the magicians to have performed real miracles; because the scripture represents the whole body of magicians as impostors; the sacred writers, Moses in particular, describe all the heathen deities, in the belief of whose existence and influence the magic art was founded, as unsupported by any invisible spirit, and utterly impotent and senseless: the religion of Moses was built on the unity and sole dominion of God, and the sole divinity of Jehovah was the point which Moses was now about to establish, in direct opposition to the principles of idolatry; so that if he had allowed that the heathen idols, or any evil spirit supporting their cause, enabled the magicians to turn rods into serpents, and water into blood, and to create frogs, he would have contradicted the great design of his mission, and overthrown the whole fabric of his religion; besides, Moses appropriates all Miracles to God, and urges his own, both in general and separately, as an absolute and authentic proof, both of the sole divinity of Jehovah, and of his own mission; which he could not justly have done, if his opposers performed miracles, and even the same with his. On the other hand, it has been urged, that Moses describes the works of the magicians in the very same language as he does his own, (Exod. vii. 11, 12. chap. v. 22. chap. viii. 7.) and hence it is concluded, that they were equally miraculous. To this objection it is replied, that it is common to speak of professed Jugglers, as doing what they pretend and appear to do; but that Moses does not affirm that there was a perfect conformity between his works and those of the magicians, but they did _so_, or in like manner, using a word which expresses merely a general similitude; and he expressly refers all they did, or attempted in imitation of himself, not to the invocation of the power of dæmons, or of any superior beings, but to human artifice and imposture. The original words, translated _enchantments_, (Exod. vii. 11, 22. and chap. viii. 7, 18.) import deception and concealment, and ought to have been rendered, _secret slights_ or jugglings. Our learned writer farther shews, that the works performed by the magicians did not exceed the cause, or human artifice, to which they are ascribed. Farmer’s _Diss._ on Miracles, 1771, chap. 3. § 3. chap. 4. § 1. (See MAGII.)

MAGI, OR MAGEANS,

A title which the ancient Persians gave to their wise men or philosophers.

The learned are in great perplexity about the word _magus_, μαγ ος. Plato, Xenophon, Herodotus, Strabo, &c. derive it from the Persian language, in which it signifies a priest, or person appointed to officiate in holy things; as _druid_ among the Gauls; _gymnosophist_ among the Indians; and _Levite_, among the Hebrews. Others derive it from the Greek μεγας, great; which they say, being borrowed of the Greeks, by the Persians, was returned in the form μαγος; but Vossius, with more probability, brings it from the Hebrew הגה _haga_, to meditate; whence מהגים, maaghim, in Latin, meditabundi, q. d. people addicted to meditation.

Magi, among the Persians, answers to σοφοι, or φιλοσοφοι, among the Greeks; _sapientes_, among the Latins; _druids_, among the Gauls; _gymnosophists_, among the Indians; and _prophets_ or _priests_ among the Egyptians.

The ancient _magi_, according to Aristotle and Laertius, were the sole authors and conservators of the Persian philosophy; and the philosophy principally cultivated by them, was theology and politics; they being always esteemed as the interpreters of all law, both divine and human; on which account they were wonderfully revered by the people. Hence, Cicero observes, that none were admitted to the crown of Persia, but such as were well instructed in the discipline of the _magi_; who taught τα βασιλικα, and showed princes how to govern.

Plato, Apuleius, Laertius, and others, agree, that the philosophy of the _magi_ related principally to the worship of the gods: they were the persons who were to offer prayers, supplications, and sacrifices, as if the gods would be heard by them alone. But according to Lucian, Suidas, &c. this theology, or worship of the gods, as it was called, about which the magi were employed, was little more than the diabolical art of divination; for that μαγεια, strictly taken, was the art of divination.

Porphyry defines the _magi_ well; Cicero calls them _divina sapientes_, &c. in iisdem ministrantes; adding, that the word _magus_ implied as much in the Persian tongue. These people, he says, are held in such veneration among the Persians, that Darius, the son of Hystaspes, among other things, had it engraved on his monument, that he was master of the _magi_.

Philo Judas describe the _magi_ to be diligent enquirers into nature, out of the love they bear to truth; and who, setting themselves apart from other things, contemplate the divine virtues the more clearly, and initiate others in the same mysteries.

Their descendants, the modern _magi_, or fire worshippers, are divided into three classes; whereof the first and most learned, neither ate nor kill animals; but adhere to the old institution of abstaining from living creatures. The _magi_ of the second class, refrain only from tame animals; nor do the last kill all indifferently, it being the firm distinguishing dogma of them all, τκν μετεμχυωσιυ ειναι, _that there is a transmigration of souls_.

To intimate the similitude between animals and men, they used to call the latter by the name of the former; thus, their fellow priests they called lions; the priestesses, lionesses; the servants, cows, &c.

MAGIC, MAGIA, MATEIA,

In its ancient sense, implies the science, or discipline, or doctrine, of the _magi_, or wise men of Persia. The origin of _magic_, and the _magi_, is ascribed to Zoroaster; Salmasius derives the very name from Zoroaster, who, he says, was surnamed _Mog_, whence _magus_. Others, instead of making him the author of the Persian philosophy, make him only the restorer and improver thereof; alleging, that many of the Persian rites in use among the _magi_, were borrowed from the Zabii, among the Chaldeans, who agreed in many things with the magi of the Persians; whence some make the name _magus_ common to both the Chaldeans and Persians. Thus Plutarch mentions, that Zoroaster instituted _magi_ among the Chaldeans; in imitation whereof the Persians had theirs too.

MAGIC, in a more modern sense, is a science which teaches to perform wonderful and surprising effects.

The word _magic_ originally carried along with it a very innocent, nay, a very laudable meaning; being used purely to signify the study of wisdom, and the more sublime parts of knowledge; but in regard to the ancient _magi_, engaged themselves in astrology, divination, sorcery, &c. the term magic in time became odious, and was only used to signify an unlawful and diabolical kind of science, depending on the devil and departed souls.

If any wonder how vain and deceitful a science should gain so much credit and authority over men’s minds, Pliny gives the reason of it. ’Tis, says he, because it has possessed itself of three sciences of the most esteem among men, taking from each all that is great and marvellous in it. Nobody doubts but that it had its first origin in medicine, and that it insinuated itself into the minds of the people, under pretence of affording extraordinary remedies. To these fine promises it added every thing in religion that is pompous and splendid, and that appears calculated to blind and captivate mankind. And, lastly, it mingled judiciary astrology with the rest, persuading people curious of futurity, that it saw every thing to come in the heavens. Agrippa divided _magic_ into three kinds, _natural_, _celestial_, and _ceremonial_ or _superstitious_.

NATURAL MAGIC, is no more than the application of natural active causes to passive things, or subjects; by means whereof many surprising, but yet natural effects are produced.

Baptista Porta has a treatise of _natural magic_, or of secrets for performing very extraordinary things by natural causes. The _natural magic_ of the Chaldæans was nothing but the knowledge of the powers of simples and minerals. The _magic_ which they call _theurgia_, consisted wholly in the knowledge of the ceremonies to be observed in the worship of the gods, in order to be acceptable to them. By the virtue of these ceremonies, they believed they could converse with spiritual beings and cure diseases.

CELESTIAL MAGIC borders nearly on judiciary astrology; it attributes to spirits a kind of rule or dominion over the planets; and to the planets, a dominion over men; and, on these principles, builds a ridiculous kind of system.

SUPERSTITIOUS, or GEOTIC MAGIC, consists in the invocation of devils: its effects are usually evil and wicked, though very strange, and seemingly surpassing the powers of nature: they are supposed to be produced by virtue of some compact, either tacit or express, with evil spirits; but the truth is, these supposed compacts have not the power that is usually imagined; nor do they produce half those effects ordinarily ascribed to them.

Naude has published an apology for all the great men suspected of _magic_. Agrippa says, that the words used by those in compact with the devil, to invoke him, and to succeed in what they undertake, are, _dies_, _mies_, _jesquet_, _benedoefet_, _douvima_, _enitemaus_. There are a hundred other superstitious formulæ of words prescribed for the same occasion, composed of pleasure, or gathered from several different languages; or patched from the Hebrew, or framed in imitation of it.

_Magic of the Eastern nations,—a brief view of the origin and progress
of Magic, &c._

CHALDEANS AND PERSIANS.—The origin of almost all our knowledge may be traced to the earlier periods of antiquity. This is peculiarly the case with respect to the acts denominated magical. There were few ancient nations, however barbarous, which could not furnish many individuals to whose spells and enchantments the powers of nature and the immaterial world were supposed to be subjected. The Chaldeans, the Egyptians, and, indeed, all the oriental nations, were accustomed to refer all natural effects for which they could not account, to the agency of Demons. Demons were believed (See DEMONOLOGY,) to preside over herbs, trees, rivers, mountains, and animals; every member of the human body was under their power, and all corporeal diseases were produced by their malignity. For instance, if any happened to be afflicted with a fever, little anxiety was manifested to discover its cause, or to adopt rational measures for its cure; it must no doubt have been occasioned by some evil spirit residing in the body, or influencing in some mysterious way the fortunes of the sufferer. That influence could be counteracted only by certain magical rites,—hence the observance of those rites soon obtained a permanent establishment in the East.

Even at the present day many uncivilized people hold that all nature is filled with genii, of which some exercise a beneficent, and others a destructive power. All the evils with which man is afflicted, are considered the work of these imaginary beings, whose favour must be propitiated by sacrifices, incantations, songs. If the Greenlander be unsuccessful in fishing, the Huron in hunting, or in war; if even the scarcely half-reasoning Hottentot finds every thing is not right in his mind, body, or fortune, no time must be lost before the spirit be invoked. After the removal of some present evil, the next strongest desire in the human mind is the attainment of some future good. This good is often beyond the power, and still oftener beyond the inclination of man, to bestow; it must therefore be sought from beings which are supposed to possess considerable influence over human affairs, and which being elevated above the baser passions of our nature, were thought to regard with peculiar favour all who acknowledged their power, or invoked their aid; hence the numerous rites which have in all ages and countries been observed in consulting superior intelligences, and the equally numerous modes in which their pleasure has been communicated to mortals.

The Chaldeans were more celebrated for their skill in Astrology than Magic; of the former, they were beyond doubt the inventors: so famous did they become in divining from aspects, positions, and influences of the stars, that all Astrologers were termed Chaldeans, particularly by the Jews and Romans.