It must be noted that the processes described by the alchemists of the 13th century are not put forward as being miraculous or supernatural; they rather represent the methods employed by nature, which it is the end of the alchemist's art to reproduce artificially in the laboratory. But even among the late Arabian alchemists it was doubted whether the resources of the art were adequate to the task; and in the West, Vincent of Beauvais remarks that success had not been achieved in making artificial metals identical with the natural ones. Thus he says that the silver which has been changed into gold by the projection of the red elixir is not rendered resistant to the agents which affect silver but not gold, and Albertus Magnus in his De Mineralibus --the De Alchemia attributed to him is spurious--states that alchemy cannot change species but merely imitates them--for instance, colours a metal white to make it resemble silver or yellow to give it the appearance of gold. He has, he adds, tested gold made by alchemists, and found that it will not withstand six or seven exposures to fire. But scepticism of this kind was not universal. Roger Bacon--or more probably some one who usurped his name--declared that with a certain amount of the philosopher's stone he could transmute a million times as much base metal into gold, and on Raimon Lull was fathered the boast, "Mare tingerem si mercurius esset." Numerous less distinguished adepts also practised the art, and sometimes were so successful in their deceptions that they gained the ear of kings, whose desire to profit by the achievements of science was in several instances rewarded by an abundant crop of counterfeit coins.
Later History of Alchemy.
In the earlier part of the 16th century Paracelsus gave a new direction to alchemy by declaring that its true object was not the making of gold but the preparation of medicines, and this union of chemistry with medicine was one characteristic of the iatrochemical school of which he was the precursor. Increasing attention was paid to the investigation of the properties of substances and of their effects on the human body, and chemistry profited by the fact that it passed into the hands of men who possessed the highest scientific culture of the time, Still, belief in the possibility of transmutation long remained orthodox, even among the most distinguished men of science. Thus it was accepted, at least academically, by Andreas Libavius (d. 1616), by F. de la Boe Sylvius (1614-1672), though not by his pupil Otto Tachenius, and by J. R. Glauber (1603-1668), by Robert Boyle (1627-1691) and, for a time at least, by Sir Isaac Newton and his rival and contemporary, G. W. Leibnitz (1646-1716), and by G. E. Stahl (1660-1734) and Hermann Boerhaave (1668-1738). Though an alchemist, Boyle, in his Sceptical Chemist (1661), cast doubts on the "experiments whereby vulgar Spagyrists are wont to endeavour to evince their salt, sulphur and mercury to be the true principles of things," and advanced towards the conception of chemical elements as those constituents of matter which cannot be further decomposed. With J. J. Becher (1635-1682) and G. E. Stahl, however, there was a reversion to earlier ideas. The former substituted for the salt, sulphur and mercury of Basil Valentine and Paracelsus three earths--the mercurial, the vitreous and the combustible--and he explained combustion as depending on the escape of this last combustible element, while Stahl's conception of phlogiston--not fire itself, but the principle of fire--by virtue of which combustible bodies burned, was a near relative of the mercury of the philosophers, the soul or essence of ordinary mercury.Continued on page seven.
