The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

Raeburn. pinx^t. Dean, sculp^t. JOSEPH BLACK, M.D. F.R.S.E.
London. Published by Henry Colburn & Richard Bentley. 1830.

THE
HISTORY
OF
CHEMISTRY.
BY
THOMAS THOMSON, M.D. F.R.S.E.
PROFESSOR OF CHEMISTRY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL. I.
LONDON:
HENRY COLBURN, AND RICHARD BENTLEY,
NEW BURLINGTON STREET.
1830.
C. WHITING, BEAUFORT HOUSE, STRAND.

PREFACE.

It may be proper, perhaps, to state here, in a very few words, the objects which the author had in view in drawing up the following History of Chemistry. Alchymy, or the art of making gold, with which the science originated, furnishes too curious a portion of the aberrations of the human intellect to be passed over in silence. The writings of the alchymists are so voluminous and so mystical, that it would have afforded materials for a very long work. But I was prevented from extending this part of the subject to any greater length than I have done, by considering the small quantity of information which could have been gleaned from the reveries of these fanatics or impostors; I thought it sufficient to give a general view of the nature of their pursuits: but in order to put it in the power of those who feel inclined to prosecute such investigations, I have given a catalogue of the most eminent of the alchymists and a list of their works, so far as I am acquainted with them. This catalogue might have been greatly extended. Indeed it would have been possible to have added several hundred names. But I think the works which I have quoted are more than almost any reasonable man would think it worth his while to peruse; and I can state, from experience, that the information gained by such a perusal will very seldom repay the trouble.

The account of the chemical arts, with which the ancients were acquainted, is necessarily imperfect; because all arts and trades were held in so much contempt by them that they did not think it worth their while to make themselves acquainted with the processes. My chief guide has been Pliny, but many of his descriptions are unintelligible, obviously from his ignorance of the arts which he attempts to describe. Thus circumstanced, I thought it better to be short than to waste a great deal of paper, as some have done, on hypothesis and conjecture.

The account of the Chemistry of the Arabians is almost entirely limited to the works of Geber, which I consider to be the first book on Chemistry that ever was published, and to constitute, in every point of view, an exceedingly curious performance. I was much struck with the vast number of facts with which he was acquainted, and which have generally been supposed to have been discovered long after his time. I have, therefore, been at some pains in endeavouring to convey a notion of Geber’s opinions to the readers of this history; but am not sure that I have succeeded. I have generally given his own words, as literally as possible, and, wherever it would answer the purpose, have employed the English translation of 1678.

Paracelsus gave origin to so great a revolution in medicine and the sciences connected with it, that it would have been unpardonable not to have attempted to lay his opinions and views before the reader; but, after perusing several of his most important treatises, I found it almost impossible to form accurate notions on the subject. I have, therefore, endeavoured to make use of his own words as much as possible, that the want of consistency and the mysticism of his opinions may fall upon his own head. Should the reader find any difficulty in understanding the philosophy of Paracelsus, he will be in no worse a situation than every one has been who has attempted to delineate the principles of this prince of quacks and impostors. Van Helmont’s merits were of a much higher kind, and I have endeavoured to do him justice; though his weaknesses are so visible that it requires much candour and patience to discriminate accurately between his excellencies and his foibles.

The history of Iatro-chemistry forms a branch of our subject scarcely less extraordinary than Alchymy itself. It might have been extended to a much greater length than I have done. The reason why I did not enter into longer details was, that I thought the subject more intimately connected with the history of medicine than of chemistry: it undoubtedly contributed to the improvement of chemistry; not, however, by the opinions or the physiology of the iatro-chemists, but by inducing their contemporaries and successors to apply themselves to the discovery of chemical medicines.

The History of Chemistry, after a theory of combustion had been introduced by Beccher and Stahl, becomes much more important. It now shook off the trammels of alchymy, and ventured to claim its station among the physical sciences. I have found it necessary to treat of its progress during the eighteenth century rather succinctly, but I hope so as to be easily intelligible. This made it necessary to omit the names of many meritorious individuals, who supplied a share of the contributions which the science was continually receiving from all quarters. I have confined myself to those who made the most prominent figure as chemical discoverers. I had no other choice but to follow this plan, unless I had doubled the size of this little work, which would have rendered it less agreeable and less valuable to the general reader.

With respect to the History of Chemistry during that portion of the nineteenth century which is already past, it was beset with several difficulties. Many of the individuals, of whose labours I had occasion to speak, are still actively engaged in the prosecution of their useful works. Others have but just left the arena, and their friends and relations still remain to appreciate their merits. In treating of this branch of the science (by far the most important of all) I have followed the same plan as in the history of the preceding century. I have found it necessary to omit many names that would undoubtedly have found a place in a larger work, but which the limited extent to which I was obliged to confine myself, necessarily compelled me to pass over. I have been anxious not to injure the character of any one, while I have rigidly adhered to truth, so far as I was acquainted with it. Should I have been so unfortunate as to hurt the feelings of any individual by any remarks of mine in the following pages, it will give me great pain; and the only alleviation will be the consciousness of the total absence on my part of any malignant intention. To gratify the wishes of every individual may, perhaps, be impossible; but I can say, with truth, that my uniform object has been to do justice to the merits of all, so far as my own limited knowledge put it in my power to do.

CONTENTS
OF
THE FIRST VOLUME.

HISTORY OF CHEMISTRY.

INTRODUCTION.

Chemistry, unlike the other sciences, sprang originally from delusion and superstition, and was at its commencement exactly on a level with magic and astrology. Even after it began to be useful to man, by furnishing him with better and more powerful medicines than the ancient physicians were acquainted with, it was long before it could shake off the trammels of alchymy, which hung upon it like a nightmare, cramping and blunting all its energies, and exposing it to the scorn and contempt of the enlightened part of mankind. It was not till about the middle of the eighteenth century that it was able to free itself from these delusions, and to venture abroad in all the native dignity of a useful science. It was then that its utility and its importance began to attract the attention of the world; that it drew within its vortex some of the greatest and most active men in every country; and that it advanced towards perfection with an accelerated pace. The field which it now presents to our view is vast and imposing. Its paramount utility is universally acknowledged. It has become a necessary part of education. It has contributed as much to the progress of society, and has done as much to augment the comforts and conveniences of life, and to increase the power and the resources of mankind, as all the other sciences put together.

It is natural to feel a desire to be acquainted with the origin and the progress of such a science; and to know something of the history and character of those numerous votaries to whom it is indebted for its progress and improvement. The object of this little work is to gratify these laudable wishes, by taking a rapid view of the progress of Chemistry, from its first rude and disgraceful beginnings till it has reached its present state of importance and dignity. I shall divide the subject into fifteen chapters. In the first I shall treat of Alchymy, which may be considered as the inauspicious commencement of the science, and which, in fact, consists of little else than an account of dupes and impostors; every where so full of fiction and obscurity, that it is a hopeless and almost impossible task to reach the truth. In the second chapter I shall endeavour to point out the few small chemical rills, which were known to the ancients. These I shall follow in their progress, in the succeeding chapters, till at last, augmented by an infinite number of streams flowing at once from a thousand different quarters, they have swelled to the mighty river, which now flows on majestically, wafting wealth and information to the civilized world.

CHAPTER I.
OF ALCHYMY.

The word chemistry (χημεια, chemeia) first occurs in Suidas, a Greek writer, who is supposed to have lived in the eleventh century, and to have written his lexicon during the reign of Alexius Comnenus.[1] Under the word χημεια in his dictionary we find the following passage:

“Chemistry, the preparation of silver and gold. The books on it were sought out by Dioclesian and burnt, on account of the new attempts made by the Egyptians against him. He treated them with cruelty and harshness, as he sought out the books written by the ancients on the chemistry (Περι χημειας) of gold and silver, and burnt them. His object was to prevent the Egyptians from becoming rich by the knowledge of this art, lest, emboldened by abundance of wealth, they might be induced afterwards to resist the Romans.”[2]

Under the word Δερας, deras (a skin), in the lexicon, occurs the following passage: “Δερας, the golden fleece, which Jason and the Argonauts (after a voyage through the Black Sea to Colchis) took, together with Medea, daughter of Ætes, the king. But this was not what the poets represent, but a treatise written on skins (δερμασι), teaching how gold might be prepared by chemistry. Probably, therefore, it was called by those who lived at that time, golden, on account of its great importance.”[3]

From these two passages there can be no doubt that the word chemistry was known to the Greeks in the eleventh century; and that it signified, at that time, the art of making gold and silver. It appears, further, that in Suidas’s opinion, this art was known to the Egyptians in the time of Dioclesian; that Dioclesian was convinced of its reality; and that, to put an end to it, he collected and burnt all the chemical writings to be found in Egypt. Nay, Suidas affirms that a book, describing the art of making gold, existed at the time of the Argonauts: and that the object of Jason and his followers was to get possession of that invaluable treatise, which the poets disguised under the term golden fleece.

The first meaning, then, of chemistry, was the art of making gold. And this art, in the opinion of Suidas, was understood at least as early as one thousand two hundred and twenty-five years before the Christian era: for that is the period at which the Argonautic expedition is commonly fixed by chronologists.

Though the lexicon of Suidas be the first printed book in which the word Chemistry occurs, yet it is said to be found in much earlier tracts, which still continue in manuscript. Thus Scaliger informs us that he perused a Greek manuscript of Zosimus, the Panapolite, written in the fifth century, and deposited in the King of France’s library. Olaus Borrichius mentions this manuscript; but in such terms that it is difficult to know whether he had himself read it; though he seems to insinuate as much.[4] The title of this manuscript is said to be “A faithful Description of the sacred and divine Art of making Gold and Silver, by Zosimus, the Panapolite.”[5] In this treatise, Zosimus distinguishes the art by the name χημια, chemia. From a passage in this manuscript, quoted by Scaliger, and given also by Olaus Borrichius, it appears that Zosimus carries the antiquity of the art of making gold and silver, much higher than Suidas has ventured to do. The following is a literal translation of this curious passage:

“The sacred Scriptures inform us that there exists a tribe of genii, who make use of women. Hermes mentions this circumstance in his Physics; and almost every writing (λογος), whether sacred (φανερος) or apocryphal, states the same thing. The ancient and divine Scriptures inform us, that the angels, captivated by women, taught them all the operations of nature. Offence being taken at this, they remained out of heaven, because they had taught mankind all manner of evil, and things which could not be advantageous to their souls. The Scriptures inform us that the giants sprang from these embraces. Chema is the first of their traditions respecting these arts. The book itself they called Chema; hence the art is called Chemia.”

Zosimus is not the only Greek writer on Chemistry. Olaus Borrichius has given us a list of thirty-eight treatises, which he says exist in the libraries of Rome, Venice, and Paris: and Dr. Shaw has increased this list to eighty-nine.[6] But among these we find the names of Hermes, Isis, Horus, Democritus, Cleopatra, Porphyry, Plato, &c.—names which undoubtedly have been affixed to the writings of comparatively modern and obscure authors. The style of these authors, as Borrichius informs us, is barbarous. They are chiefly the production of ecclesiastics, who lived between the fifth and twelfth centuries. In these tracts, the art of which they treat is sometimes called chemistry (χημεια); sometimes the chemical art (χημευτικα); sometimes the holy art; and the philosopher’s stone.

It is evident from this, that between the fifth century and the taking of Constantinople in the fifteenth century, the Greeks believed in the possibility of making gold and silver artificially; and that the art which professed to teach these processes was called by them Chemistry.

These opinions passed from the Greeks to the Arabians, when, under the califs of the family of Abassides, they began to turn their attention to science, about the beginning of the ninth century; and when the enlightened zeal of the Fatimites in Africa, and the Ommiades in Spain, encouraged the cultivation of the sciences. From Spain they gradually made their way into the different Christian kingdoms of Europe. From the eleventh to the sixteenth century, the art of making gold and silver was cultivated in Germany, Italy, France, and England, with considerable assiduity. The cultivators of it were called Alchymists; a name obviously derived from the Greek word chemia, but somewhat altered by the Arabians. Many alchymistical tracts were written during that period. A considerable number of them were collected by Lazarus Zetzner, and published at Strasburg in 1602, under the title of “Theatrum Chemicum, præcipuos selectorum auctorum tractatus de Chemiæ et Lapidis Philosophici Antiquitate, veritate, jure, præstantia, et operationibus continens in gratiam veræ Chemiæ et Medicinæ Chemicæ Studiosorum (ut qui uberrimam unde optimorum remediorum messem facere poterunt) congestum et in quatuor partes seu volumina digestum.” This book contains one hundred and five different alchymistical tracts.

In the year 1610 another collection of alchymistical tracts was published at Basil, in three volumes, under the title of “Artis Auriferæ quam Chemiam vocant volumina tria.” It contains forty-seven different tracts.

In the year 1702 Mangetus published at Geneva two very large folio volumes, under the name of “Bibliotheca Chemica Curiosa, seu rerum ad Alchymiam pertinentium thesaurus instructissimus, quo non tantum Artis Auriferæ ac scriptorum in ea nobiliorum Historia traditur; lapidis veritas Argumentis et Experimentis innumeris, immo et Juris Consultorum Judiciis evincitur; Termini obscuriores explicantur; Cautiones contra Impostores et Difficultates in Tinctura Universali conficienda occurrentes declarantur: verum etiam Tractatus omnes Virorum Celebriorum, qui in Magno sudarunt Elixyre, quique ab ipso Hermete, ut dicitur, Trismegisto, ad nostra usque tempora de Chrysopoea scripserunt, cum præcipuis suis Commentariis, concinno ordine dispositi exhibentur.” This Bibliotheca contains one hundred and twenty-two alchymistical treatises, many of them of considerable length.

Two additional volumes of the Theatrum Chemicum were afterwards published; but these I have never had an opportunity of seeing.

From these collections, which exhibit a pretty complete view of the writings of the alchymists, a tolerably accurate notion may be formed of their opinions. But before attempting to lay open the theories and notions by which the alchymists were guided, it will be proper to state the opinions which were gradually adopted respecting the origin of Alchymy, and the contrivances by which these opinions were supported.

Zosimus, the Panapolite, in a passage quoted above informs us, that the art of making gold and silver was not a human invention; but was communicated to mankind by angels or demons. These angels, he says, fell in love with women, and were induced by their charms to abandon heaven altogether, and take up their abode upon earth. Among other pieces of information which these spiritual beings communicated to their paramours, was the sublime art of Chemistry, or the fabrication of gold and silver.

It is quite unnecessary to refute this extravagant opinion, obviously founded on a misunderstanding of a passage in the sixth chapter of Genesis. “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.—There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them; the same became mighty men, which were of old, men of renown.”

There is no mention whatever of angels, or of any information on science communicated by them to mankind.

Nor is it necessary to say much about the opinion advanced by some, and rather countenanced by Olaus Borrichius, that the art of making gold was the invention of Tubal-cain, whom they represent as the same as Vulcan. All the information which we have respecting Tubal-cain, is simply that he was an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron.[7] No allusion whatever is made to gold. And that in these early ages of the world there was no occasion for making gold artificially, we have the same authority for believing. For in the second chapter of Genesis, where the garden of Eden is described, it is said, “And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and came into four heads: the name of the first is Pison, that is it which encompasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and onyx-stone.”

But the most generally-received opinion is, that alchymy originated in Egypt; and the honour of the invention has been unanimously conferred upon Hermes Trismegistus. He is by some supposed to be the same person with Chanaan, the son of Ham, whose son Mizraim first occupied and peopled Egypt. Plutarch informs us, that Egypt was sometimes called Chemia.[8] This name is supposed to be derived from Chanaan (ןענכ); thence it was believed that Chanaan was the true inventor of alchymy, to which he affixed his own name. Whether the Hermes (Ἑρμης) of the Greeks was the same person with Chanaan or his son Mizraim, it is impossible at this distance of time to decide; but to Hermes is assigned the invention of alchymy, or the art of making gold, by almost the unanimous consent of the adepts.

Albertus Magnus informs us, that “Alexander the Great discovered the sepulchre of Hermes, in one of his journeys, full of all treasures, not metallic, but golden, written on a table of zatadi, which others call emerald.” This passage occurs in a tract of Albertus de secretis chemicis, which is considered as supposititious. Nothing is said of the source whence the information contained in this passage was drawn: but, from the quotations produced by Kriegsmann, it would appear that the existence of this emerald table was alluded to by Avicenna and other Arabian writers. According to them, a woman called Sarah took it from the hands of the dead body of Hermes, some ages after the flood, in a cave near Hebron. The inscription on it was in the Phœnician language. The following is a literal translation of this famous inscription, from the Latin version of Kriegsmann:[9]

1. I speak not fictitious things, but what is true and most certain.

2. What is below is like that which is above, and what is above is similar to that which is below, to accomplish the miracles of one thing.

3. And as all things were produced by the meditation of one Being, so all things were produced from this one thing by adaptation.

4. Its father is Sol, its mother Luna; the wind carried it in its belly, the earth is its nurse.

5. It is the cause of all perfection throughout the whole world.

6. Its power is perfect, if it be changed into earth.

7. Separate the earth from the fire, the subtile from the gross, acting prudently and with judgment.

8. Ascend with the greatest sagacity from the earth to heaven, and then again descend to the earth, and unite together the powers of things superior and things inferior. Thus you will possess the glory of the whole world; and all obscurity will fly far away from you.

9. This thing has more fortitude than fortitude itself; because it will overcome every subtile thing, and penetrate every solid thing.

10. By it this world was formed.

11. Hence proceed wonderful things, which in this wise were established.

12. For this reason I am called Hermes Trismegistus, because I possess three parts of the philosophy of the whole world.

13. What I had to say about the operation of Sol is completed.

Such is a literal translation of the celebrated inscription of Hermes Trismegistus upon the emerald tablet. It is sufficiently obscure to put it in the power of commentators to affix almost any explanation to it that they choose. The two individuals who have devoted most time to illustrate this tablet, are Kriegsmann and Gerard Dorneus, whose commentaries may be seen in the first volume of Mangetus’s Bibliotheca Chemica. They both agree that it refers to the universal medicine, which began to acquire celebrity about the time of Paracelsus, or a little earlier.

This exposition, which appears as probable as any other, betrays the time when this celebrated inscription seems to have been really written. Had it been taken out of the hands of the dead body of Hermes by Sarah (obviously intended for the wife of Abraham) as is affirmed by Avicenna, it is not possible that Herodotus, and all the writers of antiquity, both Pagan and Christian, should have entirely overlooked it; or how could Avicenna have learned what was unknown to all those who lived nearest the time when the discovery was supposed to have been made? Had it been discovered in Egypt by Alexander the Great, would it have been unknown to Aristotle, and to all the numerous tribe of writers whom the Alexandrian school produced, not one of whom, however, make the least allusion to it? In short, it bears all the marks of a forgery of the fifteenth century. And even the tract ascribed to Albertus Magnus, in which the tablet of Hermes is mentioned, and the discovery related, is probably also a forgery; and doubtless a forgery of the same individual who fabricated the tablet itself, in order to throw a greater air of probability upon a story which he wished to palm upon the world as true. His object was in some measure accomplished; for the authenticity of the tablet was supported with much zeal by Kriegsmann, and afterwards by Olaus Borrichius.

There is another tract of Hermes Trismegistus, entitled “Tractatus Aureus de Lapidis Physici Secreto;” on which no less elaborate commentaries have been written. It professes to teach the process of making the philosopher’s stone; and, from the allusions in it, to the use of this stone, as a universal medicine, was probably a forgery of the same date as the emerald tablet. It would be in vain to attempt to extract any thing intelligible out of this Tractatus Aureus: it may be worth while to give a single specimen, that the reader may be able to form some idea of the nature of the style.

“Take of moisture an ounce and a half; of meridional redness, that is the soul of the sun, a fourth part, that is half an ounce; of yellow seyr, likewise half an ounce; and of auripigmentum, a half ounce, making in all three ounces. Know that the vine of wise men is extracted in threes, and its wine at last is completed in thirty.”[10]

Had the opinion, that gold and silver could be artificially formed originated with Hermes Trismegistus, or had it prevailed among the ancient Egyptians, it would certainly have been alluded to by Herodotus, who spent so many years in Egypt, and was instructed by the priests in all the science of the Egyptians. Had chemistry been the name of a science, real or fictitious, which existed as early as the expedition of the Argonauts, and had so many treatises on it, as Suidas alleges existed in Egypt before the reign of Dioclesian, it could hardly have escaped the notice of Pliny, who was so curious and so indefatigable in his researches, and who has collected in his natural history a kind of digest of all the knowledge of the ancients in every department of practical science. The fact that the term chemistry (χημεια) never occurs in any Greek or Roman writer prior to Suidas, who wrote so late as the eleventh century, seems to overturn all idea of the existence of that pretended science among the ancients, notwithstanding the elaborate attempts of Olaus Borrichius to prove the contrary.

I am disposed to believe, that chemistry or alchymy, understanding by the term the art of making gold and silver, originated among the Arabians, when they began to turn their attention to medicine, after the establishment of the caliphs; or if it had previously been cultivated by Greeks (as the writings of Zosimus, the Panapolite, if genuine, would lead us to suppose), that it was taken up by the Arabians, and reduced by them into regular form and order. If the works of Geber be genuine, they leave little doubt on this point. Geber is supposed to have been a physician, and to have written in the seventh century. He admits, as a first principle, that metals are compounds of mercury and sulphur. He talks of the philosopher’s stone; professes to give the mode of preparing it; and teaches the way of converting the different metals, known in his time, into medicines, on whose efficacy he bestows the most ample panegyrics. Thus the principles which lie at the bottom of alchymy were implicitly adopted by him. Yet I can nowhere find in him any attempt to make gold artificially. His chemistry was entirely devoted to the improvement of medicine. The subsequent pretensions of the alchymists to convert the baser metals into gold are no where avowed by him. I am disposed from this to suspect, that the theory of gold-making was started after Geber’s time, or at least that it was after the seventh century, before any alchymist ventured to affirm that he himself was in possession of the secret, and could fabricate gold artificially at pleasure. For there is a wide distance between the opinion that gold may be made artificially and the affirmation that we are in possession of a method by which this transmutation of the baser metals into gold can be accomplished. The first may be adopted and defended with much plausibility and perfect honesty; but the second would require a degree of skill far exceeding that of the most scientific votary of chemistry at present existing.

The opinion of the alchymists was, that all the metals are compounds; that the baser metals contain the same constituents as gold, contaminated, indeed, with various impurities, but capable, when their impurities are removed or remedied, of assuming all the properties and characters of gold. The substance possessing this wonderful power they distinguish by the name of lapis philosophorum, or, philosopher’s stone, and they usually describe it as a red powder, having a peculiar smell. Few of the alchymists who have left writings behind them boast of being possessed of the philosopher’s stone. Paracelsus, indeed, affirms, that he was acquainted with the method of making it, and gives several processes, which, however, are not intelligible. But many affirm that they had seen the philosopher’s stone; that they had portions of it in their possession; and that they had seen several of the inferior metals, especially lead and quicksilver, converted by means of it into gold. Many stories of this kind are upon record, and so well authenticated, that we need not be surprised at their having been generally credited. It will be sufficient if we state one or two of those which depend upon the most unexceptionable evidence. The following relation is given by Mangetus, on the authority of M. Gros, a clergyman of Geneva, of the most unexceptionable character, and at the same time a skilful physician and expert chemist:

“About the year 1650 an unknown Italian came to Geneva, and took lodgings at the sign of the Green Cross. After remaining there a day or two, he requested De Luc, the landlord, to procure him a man acquainted with Italian, to accompany him through the town and point out those things which deserved to be examined. De Luc was acquainted with M. Gros, at that time about twenty years of age, and a student in Geneva, and knowing his proficiency in the Italian language, requested him to accompany the stranger. To this proposition he willingly acceded, and attended the Italian every where for the space of a fortnight. The stranger now began to complain of want of money, which alarmed M. Gros not a little—for at that time he was very poor—and he became apprehensive, from the tenour of the stranger’s conversation, that he intended to ask the loan of money from him. But instead of this, the Italian asked him if he was acquainted with any goldsmith, whose bellows and other utensils they might be permitted to use, and who would not refuse to supply them with the different articles requisite for a particular process which he wanted to perform. M. Gros named a M. Bureau, to whom the Italian immediately repaired. He readily furnished crucibles, pure tin, quicksilver, and the other things required by the Italian. The goldsmith left his workshop, that the Italian might be under the less restraint, leaving M. Gros, with one of his own workmen, as an attendant. The Italian put a quantity of tin into one crucible, and a quantity of quicksilver into another. The tin was melted in the fire and the mercury heated. It was then poured into the melted tin, and at the same time a red powder enclosed in wax was projected into the amalgam. An agitation took place, and a great deal of smoke was exhaled from the crucible; but this speedily subsided, and the whole being poured out, formed six heavy ingots, having the colour of gold. The goldsmith was called in by the Italian, and requested to make a rigid examination of the smallest of these ingots. The goldsmith, not content with the touchstone and the application of aqua fortis, exposed the metal on the cupel with lead, and fused it with antimony, but it sustained no loss. He found it possessed of the ductility and specific gravity of gold; and full of admiration, he exclaimed that he had never worked before upon gold so perfectly pure. The Italian made him a present of the smallest ingot as a recompence, and then, accompanied by M. Gros, he repaired to the Mint, where he received from M. Bacuet, the mintmaster, a quantity of Spanish gold coin, equal in weight to the ingots which he had brought. To M. Gros he made a present of twenty pieces, on account of the attention that he had paid to him; and, after paying his bill at the inn, he added fifteen pieces more, to serve to entertain M. Gros and M. Bureau for some days, and in the mean time he ordered a supper, that he might, on his return, have the pleasure of supping with these two gentlemen. He went out, but never returned, leaving behind him the greatest regret and admiration. It is needless to add, that M. Gros and M. Bureau continued to enjoy themselves at the inn till the fifteen pieces, which the stranger had left, were exhausted.”[11]

Mangetus gives also the following relation, which he states upon the authority of an English bishop, who communicated it to him in the year 1685, and at the same time gave him about half an ounce of the gold which the alchymist had made:

A stranger, meanly dressed, went to Mr. Boyle, and after conversing for some time about chemical processes, requested him to furnish him with antimony, and some other common metallic substances, which then fortunately happened to be in Mr. Boyle’s laboratory. These were put into a crucible, which was then placed in a melting-furnace. As soon as these metals were fused, the stranger showed a powder to the attendants, which he projected into the crucible, and instantly went out, directing the servants to allow the crucible to remain in the furnace till the fire went out of its own accord, and promising at the same time to return in a few hours. But, as he never fulfilled this promise, Boyle ordered the cover to be taken off the crucible, and found that it contained a yellow-coloured metal, possessing all the properties of pure gold, and only a little lighter than the weight of the materials originally put into the crucible.[12]

The following strange story is related by Helvetius, physician to the Prince of Orange, in his Vitulus Aureus: Helvetius was a disbeliever of the philosopher’s stone, and the universal medicine, and even turned Sir Kenelm Digby’s sympathetic powder into ridicule. On the 27th of December, 1666, a stranger called upon him, and after conversing for some time about a universal medicine, showed a yellow powder, which he affirmed to be the philosopher’s stone, and at the same time five large plates of gold, which had been made by means of it. Helvetius earnestly entreated that he would give him a little of this powder, or at least that he would make a trial of its power; but the stranger refused, promising however to return in six weeks. He returned accordingly, and after much entreaty he gave to Helvetius a piece of the stone, not larger than the size of a rape-seed. When Helvetius expressed his doubt whether so small a portion would be sufficient to convert four grains of lead into gold, the adept broke off one half of it, and assured him that what remained was more than sufficient for the purpose. Helvetius, during the first conference, had concealed a little of the stone below his nail. This he threw into melted lead, but it was almost all driven off in smoke, leaving only a vitreous earth. When he mentioned this circumstance, the stranger informed him that the powder must be enclosed in wax, before it be thrown into the melted lead, lest it should be injured by the smoke of the lead. The stranger promised to return next day, and show him the method of making the projection; but having failed to make his appearance, Helvetius, in the presence of his wife and son, put six drachms of lead into a crucible, and as soon as it was melted he threw into it the fragment of philosopher’s stone in his possession, previously covered over with wax. The crucible was now covered with its lid, and left for a quarter of an hour in the fire, at the end of which time he found the whole lead converted into gold. The colour was at first a deep green; being poured into a conical vessel, it assumed a blood-red colour; but when cold, it acquired the true tint of gold. Being examined by a goldsmith, he considered it as pure gold. He requested Porelius, who had the charge of the Dutch mint, to try its value. Two drachms of it being subjected to quartation, and solution in aqua fortis, were found to have increased in weight by two scruples. This increase was doubtless owing to the silver, which still remained enveloped in the gold, after the action of the aqua fortis. To endeavour to separate the silver more completely, the gold was again fused with seven times its weight of antimony, and treated in the usual manner; but no alteration took place in the weight.[13]

It would be easy to relate many other similar narratives; but the three which I have given are the best authenticated of any that I am acquainted with. The reader will observe, that they are all stated on the authority, not of the persons who were the actors, but of others to whom they related them; and some of these, as the English bishop, perhaps not very familiar with chemical processes, and therefore liable to leave out or misstate some essential particulars. The evidence, therefore, though the best that can be got, is not sufficient to authenticate these wonderful stories. A little latent vanity might easily induce the narrators to suppress or alter some particulars, which, if known, would have stripped the statements of every thing marvellous which they contain, and let us into the secret of the origin of the gold, which these alchymists boasted that they had fabricated. Whoever will read the statements of Paracelsus, respecting his knowledge of the philosopher’s stone, which he applied not to the formation of gold but to medicine, or whoever will examine his formulas for making the stone, will easily satisfy himself that Paracelsus possessed no real knowledge on the subject.[14]

But to convey as precise ideas on this subject as possible, it may be worth while to state a few of the methods by which the alchymists persuaded themselves that they could convert the baser metals into gold.

In the year 1694 an old gentleman called upon Mr. Wilson, at that time a chemist in London, and informed him that at last, after forty years’ search, he had met with an ample recompence for all his trouble and expenses. This he confirmed with some oaths and imprecations; but, considering his great weakness and age, he looked upon himself as incapable to undergo the fatigues of the process. “I have here,” says he, “a piece of sol (gold) that I made from silver, about four years ago, and I cannot trust any man but you with so rare a secret. We will share equally the charges and profit, which will render us wealthy enough to command the world.” The nature of the process being stated, Mr. Wilson thought it not unreasonable, especially as he aimed at no peculiar advantage for himself. He accordingly put it to the trial in the following manner:

1. Twelve ounces of Japan copper were beat into thin plates, and laid stratum super stratum with three ounces of flowers of sulphur, in a crucible. It was exposed in a melting-furnace to a gentle heat, till the sulphureous flames expired. When cold, the æs ustum (sulphuret of copper) was pounded, and stratified again; and this process was repeated five times. Mr. Wilson does not inform us whether the powder was mixed with flowers of sulphur every time that it was heated; but this must have been the case, otherwise the sulphuret would have been again converted into metallic copper, which would have melted into a mass. By this first process, then, bisulphuret of copper was formed, composed of equal weights of sulphur and copper.

2. Six pounds of iron wire were put into a large glass body, and twelve pounds of muriatic acid poured upon it. Six days elapsed (during which it stood in a gentle heat) before the acid was saturated with the iron. The solution was then decanted off, and filtered, and six pounds of new muriatic acid poured on the undissolved iron. This acid, after standing a sufficient time, was decanted off, and filtered. Both liquids were put into a large retort, and distilled by a sand-heat. Towards the end, when the drops from the retort became yellow, the receiver was changed, and the fire increased to the highest degree, in which the retort was kept between four and six hours. When all was cold, the receiver was taken off, and a quantity of flowers was found in the neck of the retort, variously coloured, like the rainbow. The yellow liquor in the receiver weighed ten ounces and a half; the flowers (chloride of iron), two ounces and three drams. The liquid and flowers were put into a clean bottle.

3. Half a pound of sal enixum (sulphate of potash) and a pound and a half of nitric acid were put into a retort. When the salt had dissolved in the acid, ten ounces of mercury (previously distilled through quicklime and salt of tartar) were added. The whole being distilled to dryness, a fine yellow mass (pernitrate of mercury) remained in the bottom of the retort. The liquor was returned, with half a pound of fresh nitric acid, and the distillation repeated. The distillation was repeated a third time, urging this last cohobation with the highest degree of fire. When all was cold, a various-coloured mass was found in the bottom of the retort: this mass was doubtless a mixture of sulphate of potash, and pernitrate of mercury, with some oxide of mercury.

4. Four ounces of fine silver were dissolved in a pound of aqua fortis; to the solution was added, of the bisulphuret of copper four ounces; of the mixture of sulphate of potash, pernitrate of mercury, and oxide of mercury one ounce and a half, and of the solution of perchloride of iron two ounces and a half. When these had stood in a retort twenty-four hours, the liquor was decanted off, and four ounces of nitric acid were poured upon the little matter that was not dissolved. Next morning a total dissolution was obtained. The whole of this dissolution was put into a retort and distilled almost to dryness. The liquid was poured back, and the distillation repeated three times; the last time the retort being urged by a very strong fire till no fumes appeared, and not a drop fell.

5. The matter left in the bottom of the retort was now put into a crucible, all the corrosive fumes were gently evaporated, and the residue melted down with a fluxing powder.

This process was expected to yield five ounces of pure gold; but on examination the silver was the same (except the loss of half a pennyweight) as when dissolved in the aqua fortis: there were indeed some grains among the scoria, which appeared like gold, and would not dissolve in aqua fortis. No doubt they consisted of peroxide of iron, or, perhaps, persulphuret of iron.[15]

Mr. Wilson’s alchymistical friend, not satisfied with this first failure, insisted upon a repetition of the process, with some alteration in the method and the addition of a certain quantity of gold. The whole was accordingly gone through again; but it is unnecessary to say that no gold was obtained, or at least, the two drams of gold employed had increased in weight by only two scruples and thirteen grains; this addition was doubtless owing to a little silver from which it had not been freed.[16]

I shall now give a process for making the philosopher’s stone, which was considered by Mangetus as of great value, and on that account was given by him in the preface to his Bibliotheca Chemica.

1. Prepare a quantity of spirit of wine, so free from water that it is wholly combustible, and so volatile that when a drop of it is let fall it evaporates before it reaches the ground;—this constitutes the first menstruum.

2. Take pure mercury, revived in the usual manner from cinnabar, put it into a glass vessel with common salt and distilled vinegar; agitate violently, and when the vinegar acquires a black colour pour it off and add new vinegar; agitate again, and continue these repeated agitations and additions till the vinegar ceases to acquire a black colour from the mercury: the mercury is now quite pure and very brilliant.

3. Take of this mercury four parts; of sublimed mercury[17] (mercurii meteoresati), prepared with your own hands, eight parts; triturate them together in a wooden mortar with a wooden pestle, till all the grains of running mercury disappear. This process is tedious and rather difficult.

4. The mixture thus prepared is to be put into an aludel, or a sand-bath, and exposed to a subliming heat, which is to be gradually raised till the whole sublimes. Collect the sublimed matter, put it again into the aludel, and sublime a second time; this process must be repeated five times. Thus a very sweet and crystallized sublimate is obtained: it constitutes the salt of wise men (sal sapientum), and possesses wonderful properties.[18]

5. Grind it in a wooden mortar, and reduce it to powder; put it into a glass retort, and pour upon it the spirit of wine (No. 1) till it stands about three finger-breadths above the powder; seal the retort hermetically, and expose it to a very gentle heat for seventy-four hours, shaking it several times a-day; then distil with a gentle heat and the spirit of wine will pass over, together with spirit of mercury. Keep this liquid in a well-stopped bottle, lest it should evaporate. More spirit of wine is to be poured upon the residual salt, and after digestion it must be distilled off as before; and this process must be repeated till the whole salt is dissolved, and distilled over with the spirit of wine. You have now performed a great work. The mercury is now rendered in some measure volatile, and it will gradually become fit to receive the tincture of gold and silver. Now return thanks to God, who has hitherto crowned your wonderful work with success; nor is this great work involved in Cimmerian darkness, but clearer than the sun; though preceding writers have imposed upon us with parables, hieroglyphics, fables, and enigmas.

6. Take this mercurial spirit, which contains our magical steel in its belly, put it into a glass retort, to which a receiver must be well and carefully luted: draw off the spirit by a very gentle heat, there will remain in the bottom of the retort the quintessence or soul of mercury; this is to be sublimed by applying a stronger heat to the retort that it may become volatile, as all the philosophers express themselves— Si fixum solvas faciesque volare solutum,
Et volucrum figas faciet te vivere tutum.
This is our luna, our fountain, in which the king and queen may bathe. Preserve this precious quintessence of mercury, which is very volatile, in a well-shut vessel for further use.

8. Let us now proceed to the operation of common gold, which we shall communicate clearly and distinctly, without digression or obscurity; that from vulgar gold we may obtain our philosophical gold, just as from common mercury we obtained, by the preceding processes, philosophical mercury.

In the name of God, then, take common gold, purified in the usual way by antimony, convert it into small grains, which must be washed with salt and vinegar, till it be quite pure. Take one part of this gold, and pour on it three parts of the quintessence of mercury; as philosophers reckon from seven to ten, so we also reckon our number as philosophical, and we begin with three and one; let them be married together like husband and wife, to produce children of their own kind, and you will see the common gold sink and plainly dissolve. Now the marriage is consummated; now two things are converted into one: thus the philosophical sulphur is at hand, as the philosophers say, the sulphur being dissolved the stone is at hand. Take then, in the name of God, our philosophical vessel, in which the king and queen embrace each other as in a bedchamber, and leave it till the water is converted into earth, then peace is concluded between the water and fire, then the elements have no longer any thing contrary to each other; because, when the elements are converted into earth they no longer oppose each other; for in earth all elements are at rest. For the philosophers say, “When you shall have seen the water coagulate itself, think that your knowledge is true, and that your operations are truly philosophical.” The gold is now no longer common, but ours is philosophical, on account of our processes: at first exceedingly fixed; then exceedingly volatile, and finally exceedingly fixed; and the whole science depends upon the change of the elements. The gold at first was a metal, now it is a sulphur, capable of converting all metals into its own sulphur. Now our tincture is wholly converted into sulphur, which possesses the energy of curing all diseases: this is our universal medicine against all the most deplorable diseases of the human body; therefore, return infinite thanks to Almighty God for all the good things which he has bestowed upon us.

9. In this great work of ours, two modes of fermenting and projecting are wanting, without which the uninitiated will not easily follow our process. The mode of fermenting is as follows: Take of our sulphur above described one part, and project it upon three parts of very pure gold fused in a furnace; in a moment you will see the gold, by the force of the sulphur, converted into a red sulphur of an inferior quality to the first sulphur; take one part of this, and project it upon three parts of fused gold, the whole will be again converted into a sulphur, or a friable mass; mixing one part of this with three parts of gold, you will have a malleable and extensible metal. If you find it so, well; if not add other sulphur and it will again pass into sulphur. Now the sulphur will be sufficiently fermented, or our medicine will be brought into a metallic nature.

10. The mode of projecting is this: Take of the fermented sulphur one part, and project it upon ten parts of mercury, heated in a crucible, and you will have a perfect metal; if its colour is not sufficiently deep, fuse it again, and add more fermented sulphur, and thus it will acquire colour. If it becomes frangible, add a sufficient quantity of mercury and it will be perfect.

Thus, friend, you have a description of the universal medicine, not only for curing diseases and prolonging life, but also for transmuting all metals into gold. Give therefore thanks to Almighty God, who, taking pity on human calamities, has at last revealed this inestimable treasure, and made it known for the common benefit of all.[19]

Such is the formula (slightly abridged) of Carolus Musitanus, by which the philosopher’s stone, according to him, may be formed. Compared with the formulas of most of the alchymists, it is sufficiently plain. What the sublimed mercury is does not appear; from the process described we should be apt to consider it as corrosive sublimate; on that supposition, the sal sapientum formed in No. 5, would be calomel: the only objection to this supposition is the process described in No. 5; for calomel is not soluble in alcohol. The philosopher’s stone prepared by this elaborate process could hardly have been any thing else than an amalgam of gold; it could not have contained chloride of gold, because such a preparation, instead of acting medicinally, would have proved a most virulent poison. There is no doubt that amalgam of gold, if projected into melted lead or tin, and afterwards cupellated, would leave a portion of gold—all the gold of course that existed previously in the amalgam. It might therefore have been employed by impostors to persuade the ignorant that it was really the philosopher’s stone; but the alchymists who prepared the amalgam could not be ignorant that it contained gold.

There is another process given in the same preface of a very different nature, but too long to be transcribed here, and the nature of the process is not sufficiently intelligible to render an account of it of much consequence.[20]

The preceding observations will give the reader some notion of the nature of the pursuits which occupied the alchymists: their sole object was the preparation of a substance to which they gave the name of the philosopher’s stone, which possessed the double property of converting the baser metals into gold, and of curing all diseases, and of preserving human life to an indefinite extent. The experiments of Wilson, and the formula of Musitanus, which have been just inserted, will give the reader some notion of the way in which they attempted to manufacture this most precious substance. Being quite ignorant of the properties of bodies, and of their action on each other, their processes were guided by no scientific analogies, and one part of the labour not unfrequently counteracted another; it would be a waste of time, therefore, to attempt to analyze their numerous processes, even though such an attempt could be attended with success. But in most cases, from the unintelligible terms in which their books are written, it is impossible to divine the nature of the processes by which they endeavoured to manufacture the philosopher’s stone, or the nature of the substances which they obtained.[21]

In consequence of the universality of the opinion that gold could be made by art, there was a set of impostors who went about pretending that they were in possession of the philosopher’s stone, and offering to communicate the secret of making it for a suitable reward. Nothing is more astonishing than that persons should be found credulous enough to be the dupes of such impostors. The very circumstance of their claiming a reward was a sufficient proof that they were ignorant of the secret which they pretended to reveal; for what motive could a man have for asking a reward who was in possession of a method of creating gold at pleasure? To such a person money could be no object, as he could procure it in any quantity. Yet, strange as it may appear, they met with abundance of dupes credulous enough to believe their asseverations, and to supply them with money to enable them to perform the wished-for processes. The object of these impostors was either to pocket the money thus furnished, or they made use of it to purchase various substances from which they extracted oils, acids, or similar products, which they were enabled to sell at a profit. To keep the dupes, who thus supplied them with the means of carrying on these processes, in good spirits, it was necessary to show them occasionally small quantities of the baser metals converted into gold; this they performed in various ways. M. Geoffroy, senior, who had an opportunity of witnessing many of their performances, has given us an account of a number of their tricks. It may be worth while to state a few by way of specimen.

Sometimes they made use of crucibles with a false bottom; at the real bottom they put a quantity of oxide of gold or silver, this was covered with a portion of powdered crucible, glued together by a little gummed water or a little wax; the materials being put into this crucible, and heat applied, the false bottom disappears, the oxide of gold or silver is reduced, and at the end of the process is found at the bottom of the crucible, and considered as the product of the operation.

Sometimes they make a hole in a piece of charcoal and fill it with oxide of gold or silver, and stop up the mouth with a little wax; or they soak charcoal in solutions of these metals; or they stir the mixtures in the crucible with hollow rods containing oxide of gold or silver within, and the bottom shut with wax: by these means the gold or silver wanted is introduced during the process, and considered as a product of the operation.

Sometimes they have a solution of silver in nitric acid, or of gold in aqua regia, or an amalgam of gold or silver, which being adroitly introduced, furnishes the requisite quantity of metal. A common exhibition was to dip nails into a liquid, and take them out half converted into gold. The nails consisted of one-half gold, neatly soldered to the iron, and covered with something to conceal the colour, which the liquid removed. Sometimes they had metals one-half gold the other half silver, soldered together, and the gold side whitened with mercury; the gold half was dipped into the transmuting liquid and then the metal heated; the mercury was dissipated, and the gold half of the metal appeared.[22]

As the alchymists were assiduous workmen—as they mixed all the metals, salts, &c. with which they were acquainted, in various ways with each other, and subjected such mixtures to the action of heat in close vessels, their labours were occasionally repaid by the discovery of new substances, possessed of much greater activity than any with which they were previously acquainted. In this way they were led to the discovery of sulphuric, nitric, and muriatic acids. These, when known, were made to act upon the metals; solutions of the metals were obtained, and this gradually led to the knowledge of various metalline salts and preparations, which were introduced with considerable advantage into medicine. Thus the alchymists, by their absurd pursuits, gradually formed a collection of facts, which led ultimately to the establishment of scientific chemistry. On this account it will be proper to notice, in this place, such of them as appeared in Europe during the darker ages, and acquired the highest reputation either on account of their skill as physicians, or their celebrity as chemists.[23]

1. The first alchymist who deserves notice is Albertus Magnus, or Albert Groot, a German, who was born, it is supposed, in the year 1193, at Bollstaedt, and died in the year 1282.[24] When very young he is said to have been so remarkable for his dulness, that he became the jest of his acquaintances. He studied the sciences at Padua, and afterwards taught at Cologne, and finally in Paris. He travelled through all Germany as Provincial of the order of Dominican Monks, visited Rome, and was made bishop of Ratisbon: but his passion for science induced him to give up his bishopric, and return to a cloister at Cologne, where he continued till his death.

Albertus was acquainted with all the sciences cultivated in his time. He was at once a theologian, a physician, and a man of the world: he was an astronomer and an alchymist, and even dipped into magic and necromancy. His works are very voluminous. They were collected by Petr. Jammy, and published at Leyden in twenty-one folio volumes, in 1651. His principal alchymistical tracts are the following: 1. De Rebus Metallicis et Mineralibus. 2. De Alchymia. 3. Secretorum Tractatus. 4. Breve Compendium de Ortu Metallorum. 5. Concordantia Philosophorum de Lapide. 6. Compositum de Compositis. 7. Liber octo Capitum de Philosophorum Lapide.

Most of these tracts have been inserted in the Theatrum Chemicum. They are in general plain and intelligible. In his treatise De Alchymia, for example, he gives a distinct account of all the chemical substances known in his time, and of the manner of obtaining them. He mentions also the apparatus then employed by chemists, and the various processes which they had occasion to perform. I may notice the most remarkable facts and opinions which I have observed in turning over these treatises.

He was of opinion that all metals are composed of sulphur and mercury; and endeavoured to account for the diversity of metals partly by the difference in the purity, and partly by the difference in the proportions of the sulphur and mercury of which they are composed. He thought that water existed also as a constituent of all metals.

He was acquainted with the water-bath, employed alembics for distillation, and aludels for sublimation; and he was in the habit of employing various lutes, the composition of which he describes.

He mentions alum and caustic alkali, and seems to have known the alkaline basis of cream of tartar. He knew the method of purifying the precious metals by means of lead and of gold, by cementation; and likewise the method of trying the purity of gold, and of distinguishing pure from impure gold.

He mentions red lead, metallic arsenic, and liver of sulphur. He was acquainted with green vitriol and iron pyrites. He knew that arsenic renders copper white, and that sulphur attacks all the metals except gold.

It is said by some that he was acquainted with gunpowder; but nothing indicating any such knowledge occurs in any of his writings that I have had an opportunity of perusing.[25]

2. Albertus is said to have had for a pupil, while he taught in Paris, the celebrated Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican, who studied at Bologna, Rome, and Naples, and distinguished himself still more in divinity and scholastic philosophy than in alchymy. He wrote, 1. Thesaurum Alchymiæ Secretissimum. 2. Secreta Alchymiæ Magnalia. 3. De Esse et Essentia Mineralium; and perhaps some other works, which I have not seen.

These works, so far as I have perused them, are exceedingly obscure, and in various places unintelligible. Some of the terms still employed by modern chemists occur, for the first time, in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. Thus the term amalgam, still employed to denote a compound of mercury with another metal, occurs in them, and I have not observed it in any earlier author.

3. Soon after Albertus Magnus, flourished Roger Bacon, by far the most illustrious, the best informed, and the most philosophical of all the alchymists. He was born in 1214, in the county of Somerset. After studying in Oxford, and afterwards in Paris, he became a cordelier friar; and, devoting himself to philosophical investigations, his discoveries, notwithstanding the pains which he took to conceal them, made such a noise, that he was accused of magic, and his brethren in consequence threw him into prison. He died, it is said, in the year 1284, though Sprengel fixes the year of his death to be 1285.

His writings display a degree of knowledge and extent of thought scarcely credible, if we consider the time when he wrote, the darkest period of the dark ages. In his small treatise De Mirabili Potestate Artis et Naturæ, he begins by pointing out the absurdity of believing in magic, necromancy, charms, or any of those similar opinions which were at that time universally prevalent. He points out the various ways in which mankind are deceived by jugglers, ventriloquists, &c.; mentions the advantages which physicians may derive from acting on the imaginations of their patients by means of charms, amulets, and infallible remedies: he affirms that many of those things which are considered as supernatural, are merely so because mankind in general are unacquainted with natural philosophy. To illustrate this he mentions a great number of natural phenomena, which had been reckoned miraculous; and concludes with several secrets of his own, which he affirms to be still more extraordinary imitations of some of the most singular processes of nature. These he delivers in the enigmatical style of the times; induced, as he tells us, partly by the conduct of other philosophers, partly by the propriety of the thing, and partly by the danger of speaking too plainly.

From an attentive perusal of his works, many of which have been printed, it will be seen that Bacon was a great linguist, being familiar with Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic; and that he had perused the most important books at that time existing in all these languages. He was also a grammarian; he was well versed in the theory and practice of perspective; he understood the use of convex and concave glasses, and the art of making them. The camera obscura, burning-glasses, and the powers of the telescope, were known to him. He was well versed in geography and astronomy. He knew the great error in the Julian calendar, assigned the cause, and proposed the remedy. He understood chronology well; he was a skilful physician, and an able mathematician, logician, metaphysician, and theologist; but it is as a chemist that he claims our attention here. The following is a list of his chemical writings, as given by Gmelin, the whole of which I have never had an opportunity of seeing: 1. Speculum Alchymiæ.[26] 2. Epistola de Secretis Operibus Artis et Naturæ et de Nullitate Magiæ. 3. De Mirabili Potestate Artis et Naturæ. 4. Medulla Alchymiæ. 5. De Arte Chemiæ. 6. Breviorium Alchymiæ. 7. Documenta Alchymiæ. 8. De Alchymistarum Artibus. 9. De Secretis. 10. De Rebus Metallicis. 11. De Sculpturis Lapidum. 12. De Philosophorum Lapide. 13. Opus Majus, or Alchymia Major. 14. Breviarium de Dono Dei. 15. Verbum abbreviatum de Leone Viridi. 16. Secretum Secretorum. 17. Tractatus Trium Verborum. 18. Speculum Secretorum. A number of these were collected together, and published at Frankfort in 1603, under the title of “Rogeri Baconis Angli de Arte Chemiæ Scripta,” in a small duodecimo volume. The Opus Majus was published in London in 1733, by Dr. Jebb, in a folio volume. Several of his tracts still continue in manuscript in the Harleian and Bodleian libraries at Oxford. He considered the metals as compound of mercury and sulphur. Gmelin affirms that he was aware of the peculiar nature of manganese, and that he was acquainted with bismuth; but after perusing the whole of the Speculum Alchymiæ, the third chapter of which he quotes as containing the facts on which he founds his opinion, I cannot find any certain allusion either to manganese or bismuth. The term magnesia indeed occurs, but nothing is said respecting its nature: and long after the time of Paracelsus, bismuth (bisematum) was considered as an impure kind of lead. That he was acquainted with the composition and properties of gunpowder admits of no doubt. In the sixth chapter of his epistle De Secretis Operibus Artis et Naturæ et de Nullitate Magiæ, the following passage occurs:

“For sounds like thunder, and coruscations like lightning, may be made in the air, and they may be rendered even more horrible than those of nature herself. A small quantity of matter, properly manufactured, not larger than the human thumb, may be made to produce a horrible noise and coruscation. And this may be done many ways, by which a city or an army may be destroyed, as was the case when Gideon and his men broke their pitchers and exhibited their lamps, fire issuing out of them with inestimable noise, destroyed an infinite number of the army of the Midianites.” And in the eleventh chapter of the same epistle occurs the following passage: “Mix together saltpetre, luru vopo vir con utriet, and sulphur, and you will make thunder and lightning, if you know the method of mixing them.” Here all the ingredients of gunpowder are mentioned except charcoal, which is doubtless concealed under the barbarous terms luru vopo vir con utriet.

But though Bacon was acquainted with gunpowder, we have no evidence that he was the inventor. How far the celebrated Greek fire, concerning which so much has been written, was connected with gunpowder, it is impossible to say; but there is good evidence to prove that gunpowder was known and used in China before the commencement of the Christian era; and Lord Bacon is of opinion that the thunder and lightning and magic stated by the Macedonians to have been exhibited in Oxydrakes, when it was besieged by Alexander the Great, was nothing else than gunpowder. Now as there is pretty good evidence that the use of gunpowder had been introduced into Spain by the Moors, at least as early as the year 1343, and as Roger Bacon was acquainted with Arabic, it is by no means unlikely that he might have become acquainted with the mode of making the composition, and with its most remarkable properties, by perusing some Arabian writer, with whom we are at present unacquainted. Barbour, in his life of Bruce, informs us that guns were first employed by the English at the battle of Werewater, which was fought in 1327, about forty years after the death of Bacon.

Two novelties that day they saw,
That forouth in Scotland had been nene;
Timbers for helmes was the ane
That they thought then of great beautie,
And also wonder for to see.
The other crakys were of war
That they before heard never air.

In another part of the same book we have the phrase gynnys for crakys, showing that the term crakys was used to denote a gun or musket of some form or other. It is curious that the English would seem to have been the first European nation that employed gunpowder in war; they used it in the battle of Crecy, fought in 1346, when it was unknown to the French, and it is supposed to have contributed materially to the brilliant victory which was obtained.

4. Raymond Lully is said to have been a scholar and a friend of Roger Bacon. He was a most voluminous writer, and acquired as high a reputation as any of the alchymists. According to Mutius he was born in Majorca in the year 1235. His father was seneschal to King James the First of Arragon. In his younger days he went into the army; but afterwards held a situation in the court of his sovereign. Devoting himself to science he soon acquired a competent knowledge of Latin and Arabic. After studying in Paris he got the degree of doctor conferred upon him. He entered into the order of Minorites, and induced King James to establish a cloister of that order in Minorca. He afterwards travelled through Italy, Germany, England, Portugal, Cyprus, Armenia and Palestine. He is said by Mutius to have died in the year 1315, and to have been buried in Majorca. The following epitaph is given by Olaus Borrichius as engraven on his tomb:

Raymundus Lulli, cujus pia dogmata nulli
Sunt odiosa viro, jacet hic in marmore miro
Hic M. et CC. Cum P. cœpit sine sensibus esse.

M C C C in these lines denote 1300, and P which is the 15th letter of the alphabet denotes 15, so that if this epitaph be genuine it follows that his death took place in the year 1315.

It seems scarcely necessary to notice the story that Raymond Lully made a present to Edward, King of England, of six millions of pieces of gold, to enable him to make war on the Saracens, which sum that monarch employed, contrary to the intentions of the donor, in his French wars. This story cannot apply to Edward III., because in 1315, at the time of Raymond’s death, that monarch was only three years of age. It can scarcely apply to Edward II., who ascended the throne in 1305: but who had no opportunity of making war, either on the Saracens or French, being totally occupied in opposing the intrigues of his queen and rebellious subjects, to whom he ultimately fell a sacrifice. Edward the First made war both upon the Saracens and the French, and lived during the time of Raymond: but his wars with the Saracens were finished before he ascended the throne, and during the whole of his reign he was too much occupied with his projected conquest of Scotland, to pay much serious attention to any French war whatever. The story, therefore, cannot apply to any of the three Edwards, and cannot be true. Raymond Lully is said to have been stoned to death in Africa for preaching Christianity in the year 1315. Others will have it that he was alive in England in the year 1332, at which time his age would have been 97.

The following table exhibits a list of his numerous writings, most of which are to be found in the Theatrum Chemicum, the Artis Auriferæ, or the Biblotheca Chemica. 1. Praxis Universalis Magni Operis. 2. Clavicula. 3. Theoria et Practica. 4. Compendium Animæ Transmutationis Artis Metallorum. 5. Ultimum Testamentum. Of this work, which professes to give the whole doctrine of alchymy, there is an English translation. 6. Elucidatio Testamenti. 7. Potestas Divitiorum cum Expositione Testamenti Hermetis. 8. Compendium Artis Magicæ, quoad Compositionem Lapidis. 9. De Lapide et Oleo Philosophorum. 10. Modus accipiendi Aurum Potabile. 11. Compendium Alchymiæ et Naturalis Philosophiæ. 12. Lapidarium. 13. Lux Mercuriorum. 14. Experimenta. 15. Ars Compendiosa vel Vademecum. 16. De Accurtatione Lapidis.

Several other tracts besides these are named by Gmelin; but I have never seen any of them. I have attempted several times to read over the works of Raymond Lully, particularly his Last Will and Testament, which is considered the most important of them all. But they are all so obscure, and filled with such unintelligible jargon, that I have found it impossible to understand them. In this respect they form a wonderful contrast with the works of Albertus Magnus and Roger Bacon, which are comparatively plain and intelligible. For an account, therefore, of the chemical substances with which he was acquainted, I am obliged to depend on Gmelin; though I put no great confidence in his accuracy.

Like his predecessors, he was of opinion that all the metals are compounds of sulphur and mercury. But he seems first to have introduced those hieroglyphical figures or symbols, which appear in such profusion in the English translation of his Last Will and Testament, and which he doubtless intended to illustrate his positions. Though what other purpose they could serve, than to induce the reader to consider his statements as allegorical, it is not easy to conjecture. Perhaps they may have been designed to impose upon his contemporaries by an air of something very profound and inexplicable. For that he possessed a good deal of charlatanry is pretty evident, from the slightest glance at his performances.

He was acquainted with cream of tartar, which he distilled: the residue he burnt, and observed that the alkali extracted deliquesced when exposed to the air. He was acquainted with nitric acid, which he obtained by distilling a mixture of saltpetre and green vitriol. He mentions its power of dissolving, not merely mercury, but likewise other metals. He could form aqua regia by adding sal ammoniac or common salt to nitric acid, and he was aware of the property which it had of dissolving gold.

Spirit of wine was well known to him, and distinguished by him by the names of aqua vitæ ardens and argentum vivum vegetabile. He knew the method of rendering it stronger by an admixture of dry carbonate of potash, and of preparing vegetable tinctures by means of it. He mentions alum from Rocca, marcasite, white and red mercurial precipitate. He knew the volatile alkali and its coagulations by means of alcohol. He was acquainted with cupellated silver, and first obtained rosemary oil by distilling the plant with water. He employed a mixture of flour and white of egg spread upon a linen cloth to cement cracked glass vessels, and used other lutes for similar purposes.[27]

5. Arnoldus de Villa Nova is said to have been born at Villeneuve, a village of Provence, about the year 1240. Olaus Borrichius assures us, that in his time his posterity lived in the neighbourhood of Avignon; that he was acquainted with them, and that they were by no means destitute of chemical knowledge. He is said to have been educated at Barcelona, under John Casamila, a celebrated professor of medicine. This place he was obliged to leave, in consequence of foretelling the death of Peter of Arragon. He went to Paris, and likewise travelled through Italy. He afterwards taught publicly in the University of Montpelier. His reputation as a physician became so great, that his attendance was solicited in dangerous cases by several kings, and even by the pope himself. He was skilled in all the sciences of his time, and was besides a proficient in Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic. When at Paris he studied astrology, and calculating the age of the world, he found that it was to terminate in the year 1335. The theologians of Paris exclaimed against this and several other of his opinions, and condemned our astrologer as a heretic. This obliged him to leave France; but the pope protected him. He died in the year 1313, on his way to visit Pope Clement V. who lay sick at Avignon. The following table exhibits a pretty full list of his works: 1. Antidotorium 2. De Vinis. 3. De Aquis Laxativis. 4. Rosarius Philosophorum. 5. Lumen Novum. 6. De Sigillis. 7. Flos Florum. 8. Epistolæ super Alchymia ad Regem Neapolitanum. 9. Liber Perfectionis Magisterii. 10. Succosa Carmina. 11. Questiones de Arte Transmutationis Metallorum. 12. Testamentum. 13. Lumen Luminum. 14. Practica. 15. Speculum Alchymiæ. 16. Carmen. 17. Questiones ad Bonifacium. 18. Semita Semitæ. 19. De Lapide Philosophorum. 20. De Sanguine Humano. 21. De Spiritu Vini, Vino Antimonii et Gemmorum Viribus.

Perhaps the most curious of all these works is the Rosarium, which is intended as a complete compend of all the alchymy of his time. The first part of it on the theory of the art is plain enough; but the second part on the practice, which is subdivided into thirty-two chapters, and which professes to teach the art of making the philosopher’s stone, is in many places quite unintelligible to me.

He considered, like his predecessors, mercury as a constituent of metals, and he professed a knowledge of the philosopher’s stone, which he could increase at pleasure. Gold and gold-water was, in his opinion, one of the most precious of medicines. He employed mercury in medicine. He seems to designate bismuth under the name marcasite. He was in the habit of preparing oil of turpentine, oil of rosemary, and spirit of rosemary, which afterwards became famous under the name of Hungary-water. These distillations were made in a glazed earthen vessel with a glass top and helm.

His works were published at Venice in a single folio volume, in the year 1505. There were seven subsequent editions, the last of which appeared at Strasburg in 1613.

6. John Isaac Hollandus and his countryman of the same name, were either two brothers or a father and son; it is uncertain which. For very few circumstances respecting these two laborious and meritorious men have been handed down to posterity. They were born in the village of Stolk in Holland, it is supposed in the 13th century. They certainly were after Arnoldus de Villa Nova, because they refer to him in their writings. They wrote many treatises on chemistry, remarkable, considering the time when they wrote, for clearness and precision, describing their processes with accuracy, and even giving figures of the instruments which they employed. This makes their books intelligible, and they deserve attention because they show that various processes, generally supposed of a more modern date were known to them. Their treatises are written partly in Latin and partly in German. The following list contains the names of most of them: 1. Opera Vegetabilia ad ejus alia Opera Intelligenda Necessaria. 2. Opera Mineralia seu de Lapide Philosophico Libri duo. 3. Tractat vom stein der Weisen. 4. Fragmenta Quædam Chemica. 5. De Triplice Ordine Elixiris et Lapidis Theorea. 6. Tractatus de Salibus et Oleis Metallorum. 7. Fragmentum de Opere Philosophorum. 8. Rariores Chemiæ Operationes. 9. Opus Saturni. 10. De Spiritu Urinæ. 11. Hand der Philosopher.

Olaus Borrichius complains that their opera mineralia abound with processes; but that they are ambiguous, and such that nothing certain can be deduced from them even after much labour. Hence they draw on the unwary tyro from labour to labour. I am disposed myself to draw a different conclusion, from what I have read of that elaborate work. It is true that the processes which profess to make the philosopher’s stone, are fallacious, and do not lead to the manufacture of gold, as the author intended, and expected: but it is a great deal when alchymistical processes are delivered in such intelligible language that you know the substances employed. This enables us easily to see the results in almost every case, and to know the new compounds which were formed during a vain search for the philosopher’s stone. Had the other alchymists written as plainly, the absurdity of their researches would have been sooner discovered, and thus a useless or pernicious investigation would have sooner terminated.

7. Basil Valentine is said to have been born about the year 1394, and is, perhaps, the most celebrated of all the alchymists, if we except Paracelsus. He was a Benedictine monk, at Erford, in Saxony. If we believe Olaus Borrichius, his writings were enclosed in the wall of a church at Erford, and were discovered long after his death, in consequence of the wall having been driven down by a thunderbolt. But this story is not well authenticated, and is utterly improbable. Much of his time seems to have been taken up in the preparation of chemical medicines. It was he that first introduced antimony into medicine; and it is said, though on no good authority, that he first tried the effects of antimonial medicines upon the monks of his convent, upon whom it acted with such violence that he was induced to distinguish the mineral from which these medicines had been extracted, by the name of antimoine (hostile to monks). What shows the improbability of this story is, that the works of Basil Valentine, and in particular his Currus triumphalis Antimonii, were written in the German language. Now the German name for antimony is not antimoine, but speissglass. The Currus triumphalis Antimonii was translated into Latin by Kerkringius, who published it, with an excellent commentary, at Amsterdam, in 1671.

Basil Valentine writes with almost as much virulence against the physicians of his time, as Paracelsus himself did afterwards. As no particulars of his life have been handed down to posterity, I shall satisfy myself with giving a catalogue of his writings, and then pointing out the most striking chemical substances with which he was acquainted.

The books which have appeared under the name of Basil Valentine, are very numerous; but how many of them were really written by him, and how many are supposititious, is extremely doubtful. The following are the principal: 1. Philosophia Occulta. 2. Tractat von naturlichen und ubernaturlichen Dingen; auch von der ersten tinctur, Wurzel und Geiste der Metallen. 3. Von dern grossen stein der Uhralten. 4. Vier tractatlein vom stein der Weisen. 5. Kurzer anhang und klare repetition oder Wiederholunge vom grosen stein der Uhralten. 6. De prima Materia Lapidis Philosophici. 7. Azoth Philosophorum seu Aureliæ occultæ de Materia Lapidis Philosophorum. 8. Apocalypsis Chemica. 9. Claves 12 Philosophiæ. 10. Practica. 11. Opus præclarum ad utrumque, quod pro Testamento dedit Filio suo adoptivo. 12. Letztes Testament. 13. De Microcosmo. 14. Von der grosen Heimlichkeit der Welt und ihrer Arzney. 15. Von der Wissenschaft der sieben Planeten. 16. Offenbahrung der verborgenen Handgriffe. 17. Conclusiones or Schlussreden. 18. Dialogus Fratris Alberti cum Spiritu. 19. De Sulphure et fermento Philosophorum. 20. Haliographia. 21. Triumph wagen Antimonii. 22. Einiger Weg zur Wahrheit. 23. Licht der Natur.

The only one of these works that I have read with care, is Kerkringius’s translation and commentary on the Currus triumphalis Antimonii. It is an excellent book, written with clearness and precision, and contains every thing respecting antimony that was known before the commencement of the 19th century. How much of this is owing to Kerkringius I cannot say, as I have never had an opportunity of seeing a copy of the original German work of Basil Valentine.

Basil Valentine, like Isaac Hollandus, was of opinion that the metals are compounds of salt, sulphur, and mercury. The philosopher’s stone was composed of the same ingredients. He affirmed, that there exists a great similarity between the mode of purifying gold and curing the diseases of men, and that antimony answers best for both. He was acquainted with arsenic, knew many of its properties, and mentions the red compound which it forms with sulphur. Zinc seems to have been known to him, and he mentions bismuth, both under its own name, and under that of marcasite. He was aware that manganese was employed to render glass colourless. He mentions nitrate of mercury, alludes to corrosive sublimate, and seems to have known the red oxide of mercury. It would be needless to specify the preparations of antimony with which he was acquainted; scarcely one was unknown to him which, even at present, exists in the European Pharmacopœias. Many of the preparations of lead were also familiar to him. He was aware that lead gives a sweet taste to vinegar. He knew sugar of lead, litharge, yellow oxide of lead, white carbonate of lead; and mentions that this last preparation was often adulterated in his time. He knew the method of making green vitriol, and the double chloride of iron and ammonia. He was aware that iron could be precipitated from its solution by potash, and that iron has the property of throwing down copper. He was aware that tin sometimes contains iron, and ascribed the brittleness of Hungarian iron to copper. He knew that oxides of copper gave a green colour to glass; that Hungarian silver contained gold; that gold is precipitated from aqua regia by mercury, in the state of an amalgam. He mentions fulminating gold. But the important facts contained in his works are so numerous, while we are so uncertain about the genuineness of the writings themselves, that it will scarcely be worth while to proceed further with the catalogue.

Thus I have brought the history of alchymy to the time of Paracelsus, when it was doomed to undergo a new and important change. It will be better, therefore, not to pursue the history of alchymy further, but to take up the history of true chemistry; and in the first place to endeavour to determine what chemical facts were known to the Ancients, and how far the science had proceeded to develop itself before the time of Paracelsus.

CHAPTER II.
OF THE CHEMICAL KNOWLEDGE POSSESSED BY THE ANCIENTS.

Notwithstanding the assertions of Olaus Borrichius, and various other writers who followed him on the same side, nothing is more certain than that the ancients have left no chemical writings behind them, and that no evidence whatever exists to prove that the science of chemistry was known to them. Scientific chemistry, on the contrary, took its origin from the collection and comparison of the chemical facts, made known by the practice and improvement of those branches of manufactures which can only be conducted by chemical processes. Thus the smelting of ores, and the reduction of the metals which they contain, is a chemical process; because it requires, for its success, the separation of certain bodies which exist in the ore chemically combined with the metals; and it cannot be done, except by the application or mixture of a new substance, having an affinity for these substances, and capable, in consequence, of separating them from the metal, and thus reducing the metal to a state of purity. The manufacture of glass, of soap, of leather, are all chemical, because they consist of processes, by means of which bodies, having an affinity for each other, are made to unite in chemical combination. Now I shall in this chapter point out the principal chemical manufactures that were known to the ancients, that we may see how much they contributed towards laying the foundation of the science. The chief sources of our information on this subject are the writings of the Greeks and Romans. Unfortunately the arts and manufactures stood in a very different degree of estimation among the ancients from what they do among the moderns. Their artists and manufacturers were chiefly slaves. The citizens of Greece and Rome devoted themselves to politics or war. Such of them as turned their attention to learning confined themselves to oratory, which was the most fashionable and the most important study, or to history, or poetry. The only scientific pursuits which ever engaged their attention, were politics, ethics, and mathematics. For, unless Archimedes is to be considered as an exception, scarcely any of the numerous branches of physics and mechanical philosophy, which constitute so great a portion of modern science, even attracted the attention of the ancients.

In consequence of the contemptible light in which all mechanical employments were viewed by the ancients, we look in vain in any of their writings for accurate details respecting the processes which they followed. The only exception to this general neglect and contempt for all the arts and trades, is Pliny the Elder, whose object, in his natural history, was to collect into one focus, every thing that was known at the period when he lived. His work displays prodigious reading, and a vast fund of erudition. It is to him that we are chiefly indebted for the knowledge of the chemical arts which were practised by the ancients. But the low estimation in which these arts were held, appears evident from the wonderful want of information which Pliny so frequently displays, and the erroneous statements which he has recorded respecting these processes. Still a great deal may be drawn from the information which has been collected and transmitted to us by this indefatigable natural historian.

I.—The ancients were acquainted with SEVEN METALS; namely, gold, silver, mercury, copper, iron, tin, and lead. They knew and employed various preparations of zinc, and antimony, and arsenic; though we have no evidence that these bodies were known to them in the metallic state.

1. Gold is spoken of in the second chapter of Genesis as existing and familiarly known before the flood.

“The name of the first is Pison; that is it which encompasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx-stone.” The Hebrew word for gold, בהז (zahav) signifies to be clear, to shine; alluding, doubtless, to the brilliancy of that metal. The term gold occurs frequently in the writings of Moses, and the metal must have been in common use among the Egyptians, when that legislator led the children of Israel out of Egypt.[28] Gold is found in the earth almost always in a native state. There can be no doubt that it was much more abundant on the surface of the earth, and in the beds of rivers in the early periods of society, than it is at present: indeed this is obvious, from the account which Pliny gives of the numerous places in Asia and Greece, and other European countries, where gold was found in his time.

Gold, therefore, could hardly fail to attract the attention of the very first inhabitants of the globe; its beauty, its malleability, its indestructibility, would give it value: accident would soon discover the possibility of melting it by heat, and thus of reducing the grains or small pieces of it found on the surface of the earth into one large mass. It would be speedily made into ornaments and utensils of various kinds, and thus gradually would come into common use. This we find to have occurred in America, when it was discovered by Columbus. The inhabitants of the tropical parts of that vast continent were familiarly acquainted with gold; and in Mexico and Peru it existed in great abundance; indeed the natives of these countries seem to have been acquainted with no other metal, or at least no other metal was brought into such general use, except silver, which in Peru was, it is true, still more common than gold.

Gold, then, was probably the first metal with which man became acquainted; and that knowledge must have preceded the commencement of history, since it is mentioned as a common and familiar substance in the Book of Genesis, the oldest book in existence, of the authenticity of which we possess sufficient evidence. The period of leading the children of Israel out of Egypt by Moses, is generally fixed to have been one thousand six hundred and forty-eight years before the commencement of the Christian era. So early, then, we are certain, that not only gold, but the other six malleable metals known to the ancients, were familiar to the inhabitants of Egypt. The Greeks ascribe the discovery of gold to the earliest of their heroes. According to Pliny, it was discovered on Mount Pangæus by Cadmus, the Phœnician: but Cadmus’s voyage into Greece was nearly coeval with the exit of the Israelites out of Egypt, at which time we learn from Moses that gold was in common use in Egypt. All that can be meant, then, is, that Cadmus first discovered gold in Greece; not that he made mankind first acquainted with it. Others say that Thoas and Eaclis, or Sol, the son of Oceanus, first found gold in Panchaia. Thoas was a contemporary of the heroes of the Trojan war, or at least was posterior to the Argonautic expedition, and consequently long posterior to Moses and the departure of the children of Israel from Egypt.

2. Silver also was not only familiarly known to the Egyptians in the time of Moses, but, as we learn from Genesis, was coined into money before Joseph was set over the land of Egypt by Pharaoh, which happened one thousand eight hundred and seventy-two years before the commencement of the Christian era, and consequently two hundred and twenty-four years before the departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt.

“And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought; and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh’s house.”[29] The Hebrew word ףםכ (keseph), translated money, signifies silver, and was so called from its pale colour. Silver occurs in many other passages of the writings of Moses.[30] The Greeks inform us, that Erichthonius the Athenian, or Ceacus, were the discoverers of silver; but both of these individuals were long posterior to the time of Joseph.

Silver, like gold, occurs very frequently in the metallic state. This, no doubt, was a still more frequent occurrence in the early ages of the world; it would therefore attract the attention of mankind as early as gold, and for the same reason. It is very ductile, very beautiful, and much more easily fused than gold: it would be therefore more easily reduced into masses, and formed into different utensils and ornaments than even gold itself. The ores of it which occur in the earth are heavy, and would therefore draw the attention of even rude men to them: they have, most of them at least, the appearance of being metallic, and the most common of them may be reduced to the state of metallic silver, simply by keeping them a sufficient time in fusion. Accordingly we find that the Peruvians, before they were overrun by the Spaniards, had made themselves acquainted with the mode of digging out and smelting the ores of silver which occur in their country, and that many of their most common utensils were made of that metal.

Silver and gold approached each other nearer in value among the ancients than at present: an ounce of fine gold was worth from ten to twelve ounces of fine silver, the variation depending upon the accidental relation of the supply of both metals. But after the discovery of America, the quantity of silver found in that continent, especially in Mexico, was so great, compared with that of the gold found, that silver became considerably cheaper; so that an ounce of fine gold came to be equivalent to about fourteen ounces and a half of fine silver. Of course these relative values have fluctuated a little according to the abundance of the supply of silver. Though the revolution in the Spanish American colonies has considerably diminished the supply of silver from the mines, that deficiency seems to have been supplied by other ways, and thus the relative proportion between the value of gold and silver has continued nearly unaltered.

3. That copper must have been known in the earliest ages of society, is sufficiently evident. It occurs frequently native, and could not fail to attract the attention of mankind, from its colour, weight, and malleability. It would not be difficult to fuse it even in the rudest ages: and when melted into masses, as it is malleable and ductile, it would not require much skill to convert it into useful and ornamental utensils. The Hebrew word תשחנ (nechooshat) translated brass, obviously means copper. We have the authority of the Book of Genesis to satisfy us that copper was known before the flood, and probably as early as either silver or gold.

“And Zillah, she also bore Tubal-cain, an instructor of every artificer in brass (copper) and iron.”[31]

The word copper occurs in many other passages of the writings of Moses.[32] That the Hebrew word translated brass must have meant copper is obvious, from the following passage: “Out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass.”[33] Brass does not exist in the earth, nor any ore of it, it is always made artificially; it must therefore have been copper, or an ore of copper, that was alluded to by Moses.

Copper must have been discovered and brought into common use long before iron or steel; for Homer represents his heroes of the Trojan war as armed with swords, &c. of copper. Copper itself is too soft to be made into cutting instruments; but the addition of a little tin gives it the requisite hardness. Now we learn from the analyses of Klaproth, that the copper swords of the ancients were actually hardened by the addition of tin.[34]

Copper was the metal in common use in the early part of the Roman commonwealth. Romulus coined copper money alone. Numa established a college of workers in copper (ærariorum fabrum).[35]

The Latin word æs sometimes signifies copper, and sometimes brass. It is plain from what Pliny says on the subject, that he did not know the difference between copper and brass; he says, that an ore of æs occurs in Cyprus, called chalcitis, where æs was first discovered. Here æs obviously means copper. In another place he says, that æs is obtained from a mineral called cadmia. Now from the account of cadmia by Pliny and Dioscorides, there cannot be a doubt that it is the ore to which the moderns have given the name of calamine, by means of which brass is made. It is sometimes a silicate and sometimes a carbonate of zinc; for both of these ores are confounded together under the name of cadmia, and both are employed in the manufacture of brass.

Solinus says, that æs was first made at Chalcis, a town in Eubœa. Hence the Greek name, χαλκος (chalkos), by which copper was distinguished.

The proper name for brass, by which is meant an alloy of copper and zinc, was aurichalcum, or golden, or yellow copper. Pliny says, that long before his time, the ore of aurichalcum was exhausted, so that no more of that beautiful alloy was made. Are we to conclude from this, that there once existed an ore consisting of calamine and ore of copper, mixed or united together? After the exhaustion of the aurichalcum mine, the salustianum became the most famous; but it soon gave place to the livianum, a copper-mine in Gaul, named after Livia, the wife of Augustus. Both these mines were exhausted in the time of Pliny. The æs marianum, or copper of Cordova, was the most celebrated in his time. This last æs, he says, absorbs most cadmia, and acquires the greatest resemblance to aurichalcum. We see from this, that in Pliny’s time brass was made artificially, and by a process similar to that still followed by the moderns.

The most celebrated alloy of copper among the ancients, was the æs corinthium, or Corinthian copper, formed accidentally, as Pliny informs us, during the burning of Corinth by Mummius in the year 608, after the building of Rome, or one hundred and forty-five years before the commencement of the Christian era. There were four kinds of it, of which Pliny gives the following description; not, however, very intelligible: 1. White. It resembled silver much in its lustre, and contained an excess of that metal. 2. Red. In this kind there is an excess of gold. 3. In the third kind, gold, silver, and copper are mixed in equal proportions. 4. The fourth kind is called hepatizon, from its having a liver colour. It is this colour which gives it its value.[36]

Copper was put by the ancients to almost all the uses to which it is put by the moderns. One of the great sources of consumption was bronze statues, which were first introduced into Rome after the conquest of Asia Minor. Before that time, the statues of the Romans were made of wood or stoneware. Pliny gives various formulas for making bronze for statues. Of these it may be worth while to put down the most material.

1. To new copper add a third part of old copper. To every hundred pounds of this mixture, twelve pounds and a half of tin[37] are added, and the whole melted together.

2. Another kind of bronze for statues was formed, by melting together 100lbs. copper, 10lbs. lead, 5lbs. tin.

3. Their copper-pots for boiling consisted of 100lbs. of copper, melted with three or four pounds of tin.

The four celebrated statues of horses which, during the reign of Theodosius II. were transported from Chio to Constantinople; and, when Constantinople was taken and plundered by the Crusaders and Venetians in 1204, were sent by Martin Zeno and set up by the doge, Peter Ziani, in the portal of St. Mark; were in 1798, transported by the French to Paris; and finally, after the overthrow of Buonaparte, and the restoration of the Bourbons in 1815, returned to Venice and placed upon their ancient pedestals. The metal of which these horses had been made was examined by Klaproth, and found by him composed of Copper, 993 Tin, 7 1000 [38]

Klaproth also analyzed an ancient bronze statue in one of the German cabinets, and found it composed of Copper, 916 Tin, 75 Lead, 97 1000 [39]

Several other old brass and bronze pieces of metal, very ancient, but found in Germany, were also analyzed by Klaproth. The result of his analyses was as follows:

The metal of which the altar of Krodo was made consisted of Copper, 69 Zinc, 18 Lead, 13 100 [40]

The emperor’s chair, which had in the eleventh century been transported from Harzburg to Goslar, where it still remains, was found to be composed of Copper, 92·5 Tin, 5·0 Lead, 2·5 100 [41]

Another piece of metal, which enclosed the high altar in a church in Germany, was composed of Copper, 75·0 Tin, 12·5 Lead, 12·5 100 [42]

These analyses, though none of them corresponds exactly with the proportions given by Pliny, confirms sufficiently his general statement, that the bronze of the ancients employed for statues was copper, alloyed with lead and tin.

Some of the bronze statues cast by the ancients were of enormous dimensions, and show decisively the great progress which had been made by them in the art of working and casting metals. The addition of the lead and tin would not only add greatly to the hardness of the alloy, but would at the same time render it more easily fusible. The bronze statue of Apollo, placed in the capitol at the time of Pliny, was forty-five feet high, and cost 500 talents, equivalent to about £50,000 of our money. It was brought from Apollonia, in Pontus, by Lucullus. The famous statue of the sun at Rhodes was the work of Chares, a disciple of Lysippus; it was ninety feet high, was twelve years in making, and cost 300 talents (about £30,000). It was made out of the engines of war left by Demetrius when he raised the siege of Rhodes. After standing fifty-six years, it was overthrown by an earthquake. It lay on the ground 900 years, and was sold by Mauvia, king of the Saracens, to a merchant, who loaded 900 camels with the fragments of it.

Copper was introduced into medicine at rather an early period of society, and various medicinal preparations of it are described by Dioscorides and Pliny. It remains for us to notice the most remarkable of these. Pliny mentions an institution, to which he gives the name of Seplasia; the object of which was, to prepare medicines for the use of medical men. It seems, therefore, to have been similar to our apothecaries’ shops of the present day. Pliny reprobates the conduct of the persons who had the charge of these Seplasiæ in his time. They were in the habit of adulterating medicines to such a degree, that nothing good or genuine could be procured from them.[43]

Both the oxides of copper were known to the ancients, though they were not very accurately distinguished from each other: they were known by the names flos æris and scoria æris, or squama æris. They were obtained by heating bars of copper red-hot and letting them cool, exposed to the air. What fell off during the cooling was the flos, what was driven off by blows of a hammer was the squama or scoria æris. It is obvious, that all these substances were nearly of the same nature, and that they were in reality mixtures of the black and red oxides of copper.

Stomoma seems also to have been an oxide of copper, which was gradually formed upon the surface of the metal, when it was kept in a state of fusion.

These oxides of copper were used as external applications in cases of polypi of the nose, diseases of the anus, ear, mouth, &c., seemingly as escharotics.

Ærugo, verdigris, was a subacetate of copper, doubtless often mixed with subacetate of zinc, as not only copper but brass also was used for preparing it. The mode of preparing this substance was similar to the process still followed. Whether verdigris was employed as a paint by the ancients does not appear; for Pliny takes no notice of any such use of it.

Chalcantum, called also atramentum sutorium, was probably a mixture of sulphate of copper and sulphate of iron. Pliny’s account of the mode of procuring it is too imperfect to enable us to form precise ideas concerning it; but it was crystallized on strings, which were extended for the purpose in the solution: its colour was blue, and it was transparent like glass. This description might apply to sulphate of copper; but as the substance was used for blackening leather, and on that account was called atramentum sutorium, it is obvious that it must have contained also sulphate of iron.

Chalcitis was the name for an ore of copper. The account given of it by Pliny agrees best with copper pyrites, which is now known to be a sulphur salt, composed of one atom of sulphide of copper (the acid) united to one atom of sulphide of iron (the base). Pliny informs us, that it is a mixture of copper, misy, and sory: its colour is that of honey. By age, he says, it changes into sory. I think it most probable that native sory, of which Pliny speaks, was sulphuret of copper, and artificial sory sulphate of copper. The native sory is said to constitute black veins in chalcitis. Pliny’s description of misy (μισυ) best agrees with copper pyrites. Dioscorides describes it as hard, as having the colour of gold, and as shining like a star.[44] All this agrees pretty well with copper pyrites.

Scoleca (so called because it assumed the shape of a worm) was formed by triturating alumen, carbonate of soda, and white vinegar, till the matter became green. It was probably a mixture of sulphate of soda, acetate of soda, acetate of alumina, and acetate of copper, probably with more or less oxide of copper, &c., depending upon the proportions of the respective constituents employed.

Such are the preparations of copper, employed by the ancients. They were only used as external applications, partly as escharotics, and partly to induce ulcers to put on a healthy appearance. It does not appear that copper was ever used by the ancients as an internal remedy.

4. Though zinc in the metallic state was unknown to the ancients, yet as they knew some of its ores, and employed preparations of it in medicine, and were in the habit of alloying copper with it, and converting it into brass, it will be proper to state here what was known to them concerning it.

Pliny nowhere makes us acquainted with the process by which copper was converted into brass, nor does he seem to have been acquainted with it; but from several facts incidentally mentioned by him, it is obvious that their process was similar to that which is followed at present by modern brass-makers. The copper in grains is mixed with a certain quantity of calamine (cadmia) and charcoal, and exposed for some time to a moderate heat in a covered crucible. The calamine is reduced to the metallic state, and imbibed by the copper grains. When the copper is thus converted into brass, the temperature is raised sufficiently high to melt the whole: it is then poured out and cast into a slab or ingot.

The cadmia employed by the ancients in medicine was not calamine, but oxide of zinc, which sublimed during the fusion of brass in an open vessel. It was distinguished by a variety of names, according to the state in which it was obtained: the lighter portion was called capnitis. Botryitis was the name of the portion in the interior of the chimney: the name was derived from some resemblance which it was supposed to have to a bunch of grapes. It had two colours, ash and red. The red variety was reckoned best. This red colour it might derive from some copper mixed with it, but more probably from iron; for a small quantity of oxide of iron is sufficient to give oxide of zinc a rather beautiful red colour. The portion collected on the sides of the furnace was called placitis: it constituted a crust, and was distinguished by different names, according to its colour; onychitis when it was blue externally, but spotted internally: ostracitis, when it was black and dirty-looking. This last variety was considered as an excellent application to wounds. The best cadmia in Pliny’s time was furnished by the furnaces of the Isle of Cyprus: it was used as an external application in ulcers, inflammations, eruptions, &c., so that its use in medicine was pretty much the same as at present. Sulphate and acetate of zinc were unknown to the ancients. No attempt seems to have been made by them to introduce any preparations of zinc as internal medicines.

Pompholyx was the name given to oxide of zinc, sublimed by the combustion of the zinc which exists in brass. Spodos seems to have been a mixture of oxides of zinc and copper. There were different varieties of it distinguished by various names.[45]

5. Iron exists very rarely in the earth in a metallic state, but most commonly in the state of an oxide; and the processes necessary to extract metallic iron from these ores are much more complicated, and require much greater skill, than the reduction of gold, silver, or copper from their respective ores. This would lead us to expect that iron would have been much longer in being discovered than the three metals whose names have been just given. But we learn from the Book of Genesis that iron, like copper and gold, was known before the flood, Tubal-cain being represented as an artificer in copper and iron.[46] The Hebrew word for iron, לזרב (barzel), is said to be derived from רב (bar), bright, לזנ (nazal), to melt; and would lead one to the suspicion, that it referred to cast iron rather than malleable iron. It is possible that in these early times native iron may have existed as well as native gold, silver, and copper; and in this way Tubal-cain may have become acquainted with the existence and properties of this metal. In the time of Moses, who was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, iron must have been in common use in Egypt: for he mentions furnaces for working iron;[47] ores from which it was extracted;[48] and tells us that swords,[49] knives,[50] axes,[51] and tools for cutting stones,[52] were then made of that metal. Now iron in its pure metallic state is too soft to be applied to these uses: it is obvious, therefore, that in Moses’s time, not only iron but steel also must have been in common use in Egypt. From this we see how much further advanced the Egyptians were than the Greeks in the knowledge of the manufacture of this most important metal: for during the Trojan war, which was several centuries after the time of Moses, Homer represents his heroes as armed with swords of copper, hardened by tin, and as never using any weapons of iron whatever. Nay, in such estimation was it held, that Achilles, when he celebrated games in honour of Patrocles, proposes a ball of iron as one of his most valuable prizes.[53]

“Then hurl’d the hero, thundering on the ground,
A mass of iron (an enormous round),
Whose weight and size the circling Greeks admire,
Rude from the furnace and but shaped by fire.
This mighty quoit Ætion wont to rear,
And from his whirling arm dismiss’d in air;
The giant by Achilles slain, he stow’d
Among his spoils this memorable load.
For this he bids those nervous artists vie
That teach the disk to sound along the sky.
Let him whose might can hurl this bowl, arise;
Who farthest hurls it, takes it as his prize:
If he be one enrich’d with large domain
Of downs for flocks and arable for grain,
Small stock of iron needs that man provide,
His hinds and swains whole years shall be supplied
From hence: nor ask the neighbouring city’s aid
For ploughshares, wheels, and all the rural trade.”

The mass of iron was large enough to supply a shepherd or a ploughman with iron for five years. This circumstance is a sufficient proof of the high estimation in which iron was held during the time of Homer. Were a modern poet to represent his hero as holding out a large lump of iron as a prize, and were he to represent this prize as eagerly contended for by kings and princes, it would appear to us perfectly ridiculous.

Hesiod informs us, that the knowledge of iron was brought over from Phrygia to Greece by the Dactyli, who settled in Crete during the reign of Minos I., about 1431 years before the commencement of the Christian era, and consequently about sixty years before the departure of the children of Israel from Egypt: and it does not appear, that in Homer’s time, which was about five hundred years later, the art of smelting iron had been so much improved, as to enable men to apply it to the common purposes of life, as had long before been done by the Egyptians. The general opinion of the ancients was, that the method of smelting iron ore had been brought to perfection by the Chalybes, a small nation situated near the Black Sea,[54] and that the name chalybs, occasionally used for steel, was derived from that people.

Pliny informs us, that the ores of iron are scattered very profusely almost every where: that they exist in Elba; that there was a mountain in Cantabria composed entirely of iron ore; and that the earth in Cappadocia, when watered from a certain river, is converted into iron.[55] He gives no account of the mode of smelting iron ores; nor does he appear to have been acquainted with the processes; for he says that iron is reduced from its ore precisely in the same way as copper is. Now we know, that the processes for smelting copper and iron are quite different, and founded upon different principles. He says, that in his time many different kinds of iron existed, and they were stricturæ, in Latin a stringenda acie.

That steel was well known and in common use when Pliny wrote is obvious from many considerations; but he seems to have had no notion of what constituted the difference between iron and steel, or of the method employed to convert iron into steel. In his opinion it depended upon the nature of the water, and consisted in heating iron red-hot, and plunging it, while in that state, into certain waters. The waters at Bilbilis and Turiasso, in Spain, and at Comum, in Italy, possessed this extraordinary virtue. The best steel in Pliny’s time came from China; the next best, in point of quality, was manufactured in Parthia.

It would appear, that at Noricum steel was manufactured directly from the ore of iron. This process was perfectly practicable, and it is said still to be practised in certain cases.

The ancients were acquainted with the method of rendering iron, or rather steel, magnetic; as appears from a passage in the fourteenth chapter of the thirty-fourth book of Pliny. Magnetic iron was distinguished by the name of ferrum vivum.

When iron is dabbed over with alumen and vinegar it becomes like copper, according to Pliny. Cerussa, gypsum, and liquid pitch, keep it from rusting. Pliny was of opinion that a method of preventing iron from rusting had been once known, but had been lost before his time. The iron chains of an old bridge over the Euphrates had not rusted in Pliny’s time; but a few new links, which had been added to supply the place of some that had decayed, were become rusty.

It would appear from Pliny, that the ancients made use of something very like tractors; for he says that pain in the side is relieved by holding near it the point of a dagger that has wounded a man. Water in which red-hot iron had been plunged was recommended as a cure for the dysentery; and the actual cautery with red-hot iron, Pliny informs us, prevents hydrophobia, when a person has been bitten by a mad dog.

Rust of iron and scales of iron were used by the ancients as astringent medicines.

6. Tin, also, must have been in common use in the time of Moses; for it is mentioned without any observation as one of the common metals.[56] And from the way in which it is spoken of by Isaiah and Ezekiel, it is obvious that it was considered as of far inferior value to silver and gold. Now tin, though the ores of it where it does occur are usually abundant, is rather a scarce metal: that is to say, there are but few spots on the face of the earth where it is known to exist. Cornwall, Spain, in the mountains of Gallicia, and the mountains which separate Saxony and Bohemia, are the only countries in Europe where tin occurs abundantly. The last of these localities has not been known for five centuries. It was from Spain and from Britain that the ancients were supplied with tin; for no mines of tin exist, or have ever been known to exist, in Africa or Asia, except in the East Indies. The Phœnicians were the first nation which carried on a great trade by sea. There is evidence that at a very early period they traded with Spain and with Britain, and that from these countries they drew their supplies of tin. It was doubtless the Phœnicians that supplied the Egyptians with this metal. They had imbibed strongly a spirit of monopoly; and to secure the whole trade of tin they carefully concealed the source from which they drew that metal. Hence, doubtless, the reason why the Grecian geographers, who derived their information from the Phœnicians, represented the Insulæ Cassiterides, or tin islands, as a set of islands lying off the north coast of Spain. We know that in fact the Scilly islands, in these early ages, yielded tin, though doubtless the great supply was drawn from the neighbouring province of Cornwall. It was probably from these islands that the Greek name for tin was derived (κασσιτερος). Even Pliny informs us, that in his time tin was obtained from the Cassiterides, and from Lusitania and Gallicia. It occurs, he says, in grains in alluvial soil, from which it is obtained by washing. It is in black grains, the metallic nature of which is only recognisable by the great weight. This is a pretty accurate description of stream tin, which we know formerly constituted the only ore of that metal wrought in Cornwall. He says that the ore occurs also along with grains of gold; that it is separated from the soil by washing along with the grains of gold, and afterwards smelted separately.

Pliny gives no particulars about the mode of reducing the ore of tin to the metallic state; nor is it at all likely that he was acquainted with the process.

The Latin term for tin was plumbum album. Stannum is also used by Pliny; but it is impossible to understand the account which he gives of it. There is, he says, an ore consisting of lead, united to silver. When this ore is smelted, the first metal that flows out is stannum. What flows next is silver. What remains in the furnace is galena. This being smelted, yields lead.

Were we to admit the existence of an ore composed of lead and silver, it is obvious that no such products could be obtained by simply smelting it.

Cassiteros, or tin, is mentioned by Homer; and, from the way in which the metal is said by him to have been used, it is obvious that in his time it bore a much higher price, and, consequently, was more valued than at present. In his description of the breastplate of Agamemnon, he says that it contained ten bands of steel, twelve of gold, and twenty of tin (κασσιτεροιο).[57] And in the twenty-third book of the Iliad (line 561), Achilles describes a copper breastplate surrounded with shining tin (φαεινου κασσιτεροιο). Pliny informs us, that in his time tin was adulterated by adding to it about one-third of white copper. A pound of tin, when Pliny lived, cost ten denarii. Now, if we reckon a denarius at 7¾d., with Dr. Arbuthnot, this would make a Roman pound of tin to cost 6s. 5½d. But, as the Roman pound was only equal to three-fourths of our avoirdupois pound, it is plain that in the time of Pliny an avoirdupois pound of tin was worth 8s. 7¼d., which is almost seven times the price of tin in the present day.

Tin, in the time of Pliny, was used for covering the inside of copper vessels, as it is at this day. And, no doubt, the process still followed is of the same nature as the process used by the ancients for tinning copper. Pliny remarks, with surprise, that copper thus tinned does not increase in weight. Now Bayen ascertained that a copper pan, nine inches in diameter, and three inches three lines in depth, when tinned, only acquired an additional weight of twenty-one grains. These measures and weights are French. When we convert them into English, we have a copper pan 9·59 inches in diameter, and 3·46 inches deep, which, when tinned, increased in weight 17·23 troy grains. Now the surface of the copper pan, thus tinned, was 176·468 square inches. Hence it follows, that a square inch of copper, when tinned, increases in weight only 0·097 grains. This increase is so small, that we may excuse Pliny, who probably had never seen the increase of weight determined, except by means of a rude Roman statera, for concluding that there was no increase of weight whatever.

Tin was employed by the ancients for mirrors: but mirrors of silver were gradually substituted; and these in Pliny’s time had become so common, that they were even employed by female servants or slaves.

That Pliny’s knowledge of the properties of tin was very limited, and far from accurate, is obvious from his assertion that tin is less fusible than silver.[58] It is true that the ancients had no measure to determine the different degrees of heat; but as tin melts at a heat under redness, while silver requires a bright red heat to bring it into fusion, a single comparative trial would have shown him which was most fusible. This trial, it is obvious, had never been made by him.

The ancients seem to have been ignorant of the method of tinning iron. At least, no reference to tin plate is made by Pliny, or by any other ancient author, that I have had an opportunity of consulting.

It would appear from Pliny, that both copper and brass were tinned by the Gauls at an early period. Tinned brass was called æra coctilia, and was so beautiful that it almost passed for silver. Plating (or covering the metal with plates of silver), was gradually substituted for tinning; and finally gilding took the place of plating. The trappings of horses, chariots, &c., were thus ornamented. Pliny nowhere gives a description of the process of plating; but there can be little doubt that it was similar to that at present practised. Gilding was accomplished by laying an amalgam of gold on the copper or brass, as at present.

7. Lead appears also to have been in common use among the Egyptians, at the time of Moses.[59] It was distinguished among the Romans by the name of plumbum nigrum. In Pliny’s time the lead-mines existed chiefly in Spain and Britain. In Britain lead was so abundant, that it was prohibited to extract above a certain quantity in a year. The mines lay on the surface of the earth. Derbyshire was the county in which lead ores were chiefly wrought by the Romans. The rich mines in the north of England seem to have been unknown to them.

Pliny was of opinion that if a lead-mine, after being exhausted, be shut up for some time, the ore will be again renewed.

In the time of Pliny leaden pipes were commonly used for conveying water. The vulgar notion that the ancients did not know that water will always rise in pipes as high as the source from which it proceeds, and that it was this ignorance which led to the formation of aqueducts, is quite unfounded. Nobody can read Pliny without seeing that this important fact was well known in his time.

Sheet lead was also used in the time of Pliny, and applied to the same purposes as at present. But lead was much higher priced among the ancients than it is at present. Pliny informs us that its price was to that of tin as 7 to 10. Hence it must have sold at the rate of 6s. 0¼d. per pound. The present price of lead does not much exceed three halfpence the pound. It is therefore only 1-48th part of the price which it bore in the time of Pliny. This difference must be chiefly owing to the improvements made by the moderns in working the mines and smelting the ores of lead.

Tin, in Pliny’s time, was used as a solder for lead. For this purpose it is well adapted, as it is so much easier smelted than lead. But when he says that lead is used also as a solder for tin, his meaning is not so clear. Probably he means an alloy of lead and tin, which, fusing at a lower point than tin, may be used to solder that metal. The addition of some bismuth reduces the fusing point materially; but that metal was unknown to the ancients.

Argentarium is an alloy of equal parts of lead and tin. Tertiarium, of two parts lead and one part tin. It was used as a solder.

Some preparations of lead were used by the ancients in medicine, as we know from the description of them given us by Dioscorides and Pliny. These preparations consisted chiefly of protoxide of lead and lead reduced to powder, and partially oxidized by triturating it with water in a mortar. They were applied to ulcers, and employed externally as astringents.

Molybdena was also employed in medicine. Pliny says it was the same as galena. From his description it is obvious that it was litharge; for it was in scales, and was more valued the nearer its colour approached to that of gold. It was employed, as it still is, for making plasters. Pliny gives us the process for making the plaster employed by the Roman surgeons. It was made by heating together 3 lbs. molybdena or litharge, 1 lb. wax, 3 heminæ, or 1½ pint, of olive oil. This process is very nearly the same as the one at present followed by apothecaries for making adhesive plaster.

Psimmythium, or cerussa, was the same as our white lead. It was made by exposing lead in sheets to the fumes of vinegar. It would seem probable from Pliny’s account, though it is confused and inaccurate, that the ancients were in the habit of dissolving cerussa in vinegar, and thus making an impure acetate of lead.

Cerussa was used in medicine. It constituted also a common white paint. At one time, Pliny says, it was found native; but in his time all that was used was prepared artificially.

Cerussa usta seems to have been nearly the same as our red lead. It was formed accidentally from cerussa during the burning of the Pyræus. The colour was purple. It was imitated at Rome by burning silis marmarosus, which was probably a variety of some of our ochres.

8. Besides the metals above enumerated, the ancients were also acquainted with quicksilver. Nothing is known about the first discovery of this metal; though it obviously precedes the commencement of history. I am not aware that the term occurs in the writings of Moses. We have therefore no evidence that it was known to the Egyptians at that early period; nor do I find any allusion to it in the works of Herodotus. But this is not surprising, as that author confines himself chiefly to subjects connected with history. Dioscorides and Pliny both mention it as common in their time. Dioscorides gives a method of obtaining it by sublimation from cinnabar. It is remarkable, because it constitutes the first example of a process which ultimately led to distillation.[60]

Cinnabar is also described by Theophrastus. The term minium was applied to it also, till in consequence of the adulteration of cinnabar with red lead, the term minium came at last to be restricted to that preparation of lead. Theophrastus describes an artificial cinnabar, which came from the country above Ephesus. It was a shining red-coloured sand, which was collected and reduced to a fine powder by pounding it in vessels of stone. We do not know what it was. The native cinnabar was found in Spain, and was used chiefly as a paint. Dioscorides employs minium as the name for what we at present call cinnabar, or bisulphuret of mercury. His cinnabar was a red paint from Africa, produced in such small quantity that painters could scarcely procure enough of it to answer their purposes.

Mercury is described by Pliny as existing native in the mines of Spain, and Dioscorides gives the process for extracting it from cinnabar. It was employed in gilding precisely as it is by the moderns. Pliny was aware of its great specific gravity, and of the readiness with which it dissolves gold. The amalgam was squeezed through leather, which separated most of the quicksilver. When the solid amalgam remaining was heated, the mercury was driven off and pure gold remained.

It is obvious from what Dioscorides says, that the properties of mercury were very imperfectly known to him. He says that it may be kept in vessels of glass, or of lead, or of tin, or of silver.[61] Now it is well known that it dissolves lead, tin, and silver with so much rapidity, that vessels of these metals, were mercury put into them, would be speedily destroyed. Pliny’s account of quicksilver is rather obscure. It seems doubtful whether he was aware that native argentum vivum and the hydrargyrum extracted from cinnabar were the same.

Cinnabar was occasionally used as an external medicine; but Pliny disapproves of it, assuring his readers that quicksilver and all its preparations are virulent poisons. No other mercurial preparations except cinnabar and the amalgam of mercury seem to have been known to the ancients.[62]

9. The ancients were unacquainted with the metal to which we at present give the name of antimony; but several of the ores of that metal, and of the products of these ores were not altogether unknown to them. From the account of stimmi and stibium, by Dioscorides[63] and Pliny,[64] there can be little doubt that these names were applied to the mineral now called sulphuret of antimony or crude antimony. It is found most commonly, Pliny says, among the ores of silver, and consists of two kinds, the male and the female; the latter of which is most valued.

This pigment was known at a very early period, and employed by the Asiatic ladies in painting their eyelashes, or rather the insides of their eyelashes, black. Thus it is said of Jezebel, that when Jehu came to Jezreel she painted her face. The original is, she put her eyes in sulphuret of antimony.[65] A similar expression occurs in Ezekiel, “For whom thou didst wash thyself, paintedst thy eyes”—literally, put thy eyes in sulphuret of antimony.[66] This custom of painting the eyes black with antimony was transferred from Asia to Greece, and while the Moors occupied Spain it was employed by the Spanish ladies also. It is curious that the term alcohol, at present confined to spirit of wine, was originally applied to the powder of sulphuret of antimony.[67] The ancients were in the habit of roasting sulphuret of antimony, and thus converting it into an impure oxide. This preparation was also called stimmi and stibium. It was employed in medicine as an external application, and was conceived to act chiefly as an astringent; Dioscorides describes the method of preparing it. We see, from Pliny’s account of stibium, that he did not distinguish between sulphuret of antimony and oxide of antimony.[68]

9. Some of the compounds of arsenic were also known to the ancients; though they were neither acquainted with this substance in the metallic state, nor with its oxide; the nature of which is so violent that had it been known to them it could not have been omitted by Dioscorides and Pliny.

The word σανδαραχη (sandarache) occurs in Aristotle, and the term αρῥενιχον (arrhenichon) in Theophrastus.[69] Dioscorides uses likewise the same name with Aristotle. It was applied to a scarlet-coloured mineral, which occurs native, and is now known by the name of realgar. It is a compound of arsenic and sulphur. It was employed in medicine both externally and internally, and is recommended by Dioscorides, as an excellent remedy for an inveterate cough.

Auripigmentum and arsenicum were names given to the native yellow sulphuret of arsenic. It was used in the same way, and considered by Dioscorides and Pliny as of the same nature with realgar. But there is no reason for supposing that the ancients were acquainted with the compositions of either of these bodies; far less that they had any suspicion of the existence of the metal to which we at present give the name of arsenic.

Such is a sketch of the facts known to the ancients respecting metals. They knew the six malleable metals which are still in common use, and applied them to most of the purposes to which the moderns apply them. Scarcely any information has been left us of the methods employed by them to reduce these metals from their ores. But unless the ores were of a much simpler nature than the modern ores of these metals, of which we have no evidence, the smelting processes with which the ancients were familiar, could scarcely have been contrived without a knowledge of the substances united with the different metals in their ores, and of the means by which these foreign bodies could be separated, and the metals isolated from all impurities. This doubtless implied a certain quantity of chemical knowledge, which having been handed down to the moderns, served as a foundation upon which the modern science of chemistry was gradually reared: at the same time it will be admitted that this foundation was very slender, and would of itself have led to little. Most of the oxides, sulphurets, &c., and almost all the salts into which these metallic bodies enter, were unknown to the ancients.

Besides the working in metals there were some other branches of industry practised by the ancients, so intimately connected with chemical science, that it would be improper to pass them over in silence. The most important of these are the following:

II.—COLOURS USED BY PAINTERS.

It is well known that the ancient Grecian artists carried the art of painting to the highest degree of perfection, and that their paintings were admired and sought after by the most eminent and accomplished men of antiquity; and Pliny gives us a catalogue of a great number of first-rate pictures, and a historical account of a vast many celebrated painters of antiquity. In his own time, he says, the art of painting had lost its importance, statues and tablets having came in place of pictures.

Two kinds of colours were employed by the ancients; namely, the florid and the austere. The florid colours, as enumerated by Pliny, were minium, armenium, cinnaberis, chrysocolla, purpurissum, and indicum purpurissum.

The word minium as used by Pliny means red lead; though Dioscorides employs it for bisulphuret of mercury or cinnabar.

Armenium was obviously an ochre, probably of a yellow or orange colour.

Cinnaberis was bisulphuret of mercury, which is known to have a scarlet colour. Dioscorides employs it to denote a vegetable red colour, probably similar to the resin at present called dragon’s blood.

Chrysocolla was a green-coloured paint, and from Pliny’s description of it, could have been nothing else than carbonate of copper or malachite.

Purpurissum was a lake, as is obvious from the account of its formation given by Pliny. The colouring matter is not specified, but from the term used there can be little doubt that it was the liquor from the shellfish that yielded the celebrated purple dye of the Tyrians.

Indicum purpurissum was probably indigo. This might be implied from the account of it given by Pliny.

The austere colours used by the ancient painters were of two kinds, native and artificial. The native were sinopis, rubrica, parætonium, melinum, eretria, auripigmentum. The artificial were, ochra, cerussa usta, sandaracha, sandyx, syricum, atramentum.

Sinopis is the red substance now known by the name of reddle, and used for marking. On that account it is sometimes called red chalk. It was found in Pontus, in the Balearian islands, and in Egypt. The price was three denarii, or 1s. 11¼d. the pound weight. The most famous variety of sinopis was from the isle of Lemnos; it was sold sealed and stamped: hence it was called sphragis. It was employed to adulterate minium. In medicine it was used to appease inflammation, and as an antidote to poison.

Ochre is merely sinopis heated in a covered vessel. The higher the temperature to which it has been exposed the better it is.

Leucophorum is a compound of 6 lbs. sinopis of Pontus, 10 lbs. siris, 2 lbs. melinum, triturated together for thirty days. It was used to make gold adhere to wood.

Rubrica from the name, was probably a red ochre.

Parætonium was a white colour, so called from a place in Egypt, where it was found. It was obtained also in the island of Crete, and in Cyrene. It was said to be a combination of the froth of the sea consolidated with mud. It consisted probably of carbonate of lime. Six pounds of it cost only one denarius.

Melinum was also a white-coloured powder found in Melos and Samos in veins. It was most probably a carbonate of lime.

Eretria was named from the place where it was found. Pliny gives its medical properties, but does not inform us of its colour. It is impossible to say what it was.

Auripigmentum was yellow sulphuret of arsenic. It was probably but little used as a pigment by the ancient painters.

Cerussa usta was red lead.

Sandaracha was red sulphuret of arsenic. The pound of sandaracha cost 5 as.: it was imitated by red lead. Both it and ochra were found in the island Topazos in the Red Sea.

Sandyx was made by torrefying equal parts of true sandaracha and sinopis. It cost half the price of sandaracha. Virgil mistook this pigment for a plant, as is obvious from the following line:

Sponte sua sandix, pascentes vestiet agnos.[70]

Siricum is made by mixing sinopis and sandyx.

Atramentum was obviously from Pliny’s account of it lamp-black. He mentions ivory-black as an invention of Apelles: it was called elephantinum. There was a native atramentum, which had the colour of sulphur, and got a black colour artificially. It is not unlikely that it contained sulphate of iron, and that it got its black colour from the admixture of some astringent substance.

The ink of the ancients was lamp-black mixed with water, containing gum or glue dissolved in it. Atramentum indicum was the same as our China ink.

The purpurissum was a high-priced pigment. It was made by putting creta argentaria (a species of white clay) into the caldrons containing the ingredients for dying purple. The creta imbibed the purple colour and became purpurissum. The first portion of creta put in constituted the finest and highest-priced pigment. The portions put in afterwards became successively worse, and were, of consequence lower priced. We see, from this description, that it was a lake similar to our modern cochineal lakes.[71]

That the purpurissum indicum was indigo is obvious from the statement of Pliny, that when thrown upon hot coals it gives out a beautiful purple flame. This constitutes the character of indigo. Its price in Pliny’s time was ten denarii, or six shillings and five-pence halfpenny the Roman pound; which is equivalent to 8s. 7⅓d. the avoirdupois.

Though few or none of the ancient pictures have been preserved, yet several specimens of the colours used by them still remain in Rome and in the ruins of Herculaneum. Among others the fresco paintings, in the baths of Titus, still remain; and as these were made for a Roman emperor, we might expect to find the most beautiful and costly colours employed in them. These paints, and some others, were examined by Sir Humphrey Davy, in 1813, while he was in Rome. From his researches we derive some pretty accurate information respecting the colours employed by the painters of Greece and Rome.

1. Red paints. Three different kinds of red were found in a chamber opened in 1811, in the baths of Titus, namely, a bright orange red, a dull red, and a brown red. The bright orange red was minium, or red lead; the other two were merely two varieties of iron ochres. Another still brighter red was observed on the walls; it proved, on examination, to be vermilion or cinnabar.

2. Yellow paints. All the yellows examined by Davy proved to be iron ochres, sometimes mixed with a little red lead. Orpiment was undoubtedly employed, as is obvious from what Pliny says on the subject: but Davy found no traces of it among the yellow colours which he examined. A very deep yellow, approaching orange, which covered a piece of stucco in the ruins near the monument of Caius Cestius, proved to be protoxide of lead, or massicot, mixed with some red lead. The yellows in the Aldobrandini pictures were all ochres, and so were those in the pictures on the walls of the houses at Pompeii.

3. Blue paints. Different shades of blues are used in the different apartments of the baths of Titus, which are darker or lighter, as they contain more or less carbonate of lime with which the blue pigment had been mixed by the painter. This blue pigment turned out, on examination, to be a frit composed of alkali and silica, fused together with a certain quantity of oxide of copper. This was the colour called χυανος (kyanos) by the Greeks, and cæruleum by the Romans. Vitruvius gives the method of preparing it by heating strongly together sand, carbonate of soda, and filings of copper. Davy found that fifteen parts by weight of anhydrous carbonate of soda, twenty parts of powdered opaque flints, and three parts of copper filings, strongly heated together for two hours, gave a substance exactly similar to the blue pigment of the ancients, and which, when powdered, produced a fine deep blue colour. This cæruleum has the advantage of remaining unaltered even when the painting is exposed to the actions of the air and sun.

There is reason to suspect, from what Vitruvius and Pliny say, that glass rendered blue by means of cobalt constituted the basis of some of the blue pigments of the ancients; but all those examined by Davy consisted of glass tinged blue by copper, without any trace of cobalt whatever.

4. Green paints. All the green paints examined by Davy proved to be carbonates of copper, more or less mixed with carbonate of lime. I have already mentioned that verdigris was known to the ancients. It was no doubt employed by them as a pigment, though it is not probable that the acetic acid would be able to withstand the action of the atmosphere for a couple of thousand years.

5. Purple paints. Davy ascertained that the colouring matter of the ancient purple was combustible. It did not give out the smell of ammonia, at least perceptibly. There is little doubt that it was the purpurissum of the ancients, or a clay coloured by means of the purple of the buccinum employed by the Syrians in the celebrated purple dye.

6. Black and brown paints. The black paints were lamp-black: the browns were some of them ochres and some of them oxides of manganese.

7. White paints. All the ancient white paints examined by Davy were carbonates of lime.[72] We know from Pliny that white lead was employed by the ancients as a pigment; but it might probably become altered in its nature by long-continued exposure to the weather.

III.—GLASS.

It is admitted by some that the word which in our English Bible is translated crystal, means glass, in the following passage of Job: “The gold and the crystal cannot equal it.”[73] Now although the exact time when Job was written is not known, it is admitted on all hands to be one of the oldest of the books contained in the Old Testament. There are strong reasons for believing that it existed before the time of Moses; and some go so far as to affirm that there are several allusions to it in the writings of Moses. If therefore glass were known when the Book of Job was written, it is obvious that the discovery of it preceded the commencement of history. But even though the word used in Job should not refer to glass, there can be no doubt that it was known at a very early period; for glass beads are frequently found on the Egyptian mummies, and they are known to have been embalmed at a very remote period. The first Greek author who uses the word glass (ὑαλος, hyalos) is Aristophanes. In his comedy of The Clouds, act ii. scene 1, in the ridiculous dialogue between Socrates and Strepsiades, the latter announces a method which had occurred to him to pay his debts. “You know,” says he, “the beautiful transparent stone used for kindling fire.” “Do you mean glass (τον ὕαλον, ton hyalon)?” replied Socrates. “I do,” was the answer. He then describes how he would destroy the writings by means of it, and thus defraud his creditors. Now this comedy was acted about four hundred and twenty-three years before the beginning of the Christian era. The story related by Pliny, respecting the discovery of this beautiful and important substance, is well known. Some Phœnician merchants, in a ship loaded with carbonate of soda from Egypt, stopped, and went ashore on the banks of the river Belus: having nothing to support their kettles while they were dressing their food, they employed lumps of carbonate of soda for that purpose. The fire was strong enough to fuse some of this soda, and to unite it with the fine sand of the river Belus: the consequence of this was the formation of glass.[74] Whether this story be entitled to credit or not, it is clear that the discovery must have originated in some such accident. Pliny’s account of the manufacture of glass, like his account of every other manufacture, is very imperfect: but we see from it that in his time they were in the habit of making coloured glasses; that colourless glasses were most highly prized, and that glass was rendered colourless then as it is at present, by the addition of a certain quantity of oxide of manganese. Colourless glass was very high priced in Pliny’s time. He relates, that for two moderate-sized colourless drinking-glasses the Emperor Nero paid 6000 sistertii, which is equivalent to 25l. of our money.

Pliny relates the story of the man who brought a vessel of malleable glass to the Emperor Tiberius, and who, after dimpling it by dashing it against the floor, restored it to its original shape and beauty by means of a hammer; Tiberius, as a reward for this important discovery, ordered the artist to be executed, in order, as he alleged, to prevent gold and silver from becoming useless. But though Pliny relates this story, it is evident that he does not give credit to it; nor does it deserve credit. We can assign no reason why malleable substances may not be transparent; but all of them hitherto known are opaque. Chloride of silver, chloride of lead and iron constitute no exception, for they are not malleable, though by peculiar contrivances they may be extended; and their transparency is very imperfect.

Many specimens of the coloured glasses made by the ancients still remain, particularly the beads employed as ornaments to the Egyptian mummies. Of these ancient glasses several have been examined chemically by Klaproth, Hatchett, and some other individuals, in order to ascertain the substances employed to give colour to the glass. The following are the facts that have been ascertained:

1. Red glass. This glass was opaque, and of a lively copper-red colour. It was probably the kind of red glass to which Pliny gave the name of hæmatinon. Klaproth analyzed it, and obtained from 100 grains of it the following constituents: Silica 71·0 Oxide of lead 10·0 Oxide of copper 7·5 Oxide of iron 1·0 Alumina 2·5 Lime 1·5 93·5 [75] No doubt the deficiency was owing to the presence of an alkali. From this analysis we see that the colouring matter of this glass was red oxide of copper.

2. Green glass. The colour was light verdigris-green, and the glass, like the preceding, was opaque. The constituents from 100 grains were, Silica 65·0 Black oxide of copper 10·0 Oxide of lead 7·5 Oxide of iron 3·5 Lime 6·5 Alumina 5·5 98·0 [76] Thus it appears that both the red and green glass are composed of the same ingredients, though in different proportions. Both owe their colour to copper. The red glass is coloured by the red oxide of that metal; the green by the black oxide, which forms green-coloured compounds, with various acids, particularly with carbonic acid and with silica.

3. Blue glass. The variety analyzed by Klaproth had a sapphire-blue colour, and was only translucent on the edges. The constituents from 100 grains of it were, Silica 81·50 Oxide of iron 9·50 Alumina 1·50 Oxide of copper 0·50 Lime 0·25 93·25 [77] From this analysis it appears that the colouring matter of this glass was oxide of iron: it was therefore analogous to the lapis lazuli, or ultramarine, in its nature.

Davy, as has been formerly noticed, found another blue glass, or frit, coloured by means of copper; and he showed that the blue paint of the ancients was often made from this glass, simply by grinding it to powder.

Klaproth could find no cobalt in the blue glass which he examined; but Davy found the transparent blue glass vessels, which are along with the vases, in the tombs of Magna Græcia, tinged with cobalt; and he found cobalt in all the transparent ancient blue glasses with which Mr. Millingen supplied him. The mere fusion of these glasses with alkali, and subsequent digestion of the product with muriatic acid, was sufficient to produce a sympathetic ink from them.[78] The transparent blue beads which occasionally adorn the Egyptian mummies have also been examined, and found coloured by cobalt. The opaque glass beads are all tinged by means of oxide of copper. It is probable from this that all the transparent blue glasses of the ancients were coloured by cobalt; yet we find no allusion to cobalt in any of the ancient authors. Theophrastus says that copper (χαλκος, chalcos) was used to give glass a fine colour. Is it not likely that the impure oxide of cobalt, in the state in which they used it, was confounded by them with χαλκος (chalcos)?

IV.—VASA MURRHINA.

The Romans obtained from the east, and particularly from Egypt, a set of vessels which they distinguished by the name of vasa murrhina, and which were held by them in very high estimation. They were never larger than to be capable of containing from about thirty-six to forty cubic inches. One of the largest size cost, in the time of Pliny, about 7000l. Nero actually gave for one 3000l. They began to be known in Rome about the latter days of the republic. The first six ever seen in Rome were sent by Pompey from the treasures of Mithridates. They were deposited in the temple of Jupiter in the capitol. Augustus, after the battle of Actium, brought one of these vessels from Egypt, and dedicated it also to the gods. In Nero’s time they began to be used by private persons; and were so much coveted that Petronius, the favourite of that tyrant, being ordered for execution, and conceiving that his death was owing to a wish of Nero to get possession of a vessel of this kind which he had, broke the vessel in pieces in order to prevent Nero from gaining his object.

There appear to have been two kinds of these vasa murrhina; those that came from Asia, and those that were made in Egypt. The latter were much more common, and much lower priced than the former, as appears from various passages in Martial and Propertius.

Many attempts have been made, and much learning displayed by the moderns to determine the nature of these celebrated vessels; but in general these attempts were made by individuals too little acquainted with chemistry and with natural history in general to qualify them for researches of so difficult a nature. Some will have it that they consisted of a kind of gum; others that they were made of glass; others, of a particular kind of shell. Cardan and Scaliger assure us that they were porcelain vessels; and this opinion was adopted likewise by Whitaker, who supported it with his usual violence and arrogance. Many conceive them to have been made of some precious stone, some that they were of obsidian; Count de Veltheim thinks that they were made of the Chinese agalmatolite, or figure stone; and Dr. Hager conceives that they were made from the Chinese stone yu. Bruckmann was of opinion that these vessels were made of sardonyx, and the Abbé Winckelmann joins him in the same conclusion.

Pliny informs us that these vasa murrhina were formed from a species of stone dug out of the earth in Parthia, and especially in Carimania, and also in other places but little known.[79] They must have been very abundant at Rome in the time of Nero; for Pliny informs us that a man of consular rank, famous for his collection of vasa murrhina, having died, Nero forcibly deprived his children of these vessels, and they were so numerous that they filled the whole inside of a theatre, which Nero hoped to have seen filled with Romans when he came to it to sing in public.

It is clear that the value of these vessels depended on their size. Small vessels bore but a small price, while that of large vessels was very high; this shows us that it must have been difficult to procure a block of the stone out of which they were cut, of a size sufficiently great to make a large vessel.

These vessels were so soft that an impression might be made upon them with the teeth; for Pliny relates the story of a man of consular rank, who drank out of one, and was so enamoured with it that he bit pieces out of the lip of the cup: “Potavit ex eo ante hos annos consularis, ob amorem abraso ejus margine.” And what is singular, the value of the cup, so far from being injured by this abrasure, was augmented: “ut tamen injuria ilia pretium augeret; neque est hodie murrhini alterius præstantior indicatura.”[80] It is clear from this that the matter of these vessels was neither rock crystal, agate, nor any precious stone whatever, all of which are too hard to admit of an impression from the teeth of a man.

The lustre was vitreous to such a degree that the name vitrum murrhinum was given to the artificial fabric, in Egypt.

The splendour was not very great, for Pliny observes, “Splendor his sine viribus nitorque verius quam splendor.”

The colours, from their depth and richness, were what gave these vessels their value and excited admiration. The principal colours were purple and white, disposed in undulating bands, and usually separated by a third band, in which the two colours being mixed, assumed the tint of flame: “Sed in pretio varietas colorum, subinde circumagentibus se maculis in purpuram candoremque, et tertium ex utroque ignescentem, velut per transitum coloris, purpura rubescente, aut lacte candescente.”

Perfect transparency was considered as a defect, they were merely translucent; this we learn not merely from Pliny, but from the following epigram of Martial: Nos bibimus vitro, tu murra, Pontice: quare?
Prodat perspicuus ne duo vina calix.
Some specimens, and they were the most valued, exhibited a play of colour like the rainbow: Pliny says they were very commonly spotted with “sales, verrucæque non eminentes, sed ut in corpore etiam plerumque sessiles.” This, no doubt, refers to foreign bodies, such as grains of pyrites, antimony, galena, &c., which were often scattered through the substances of which the vessels were made.

Such are all the facts respecting the vasa murrhina to be found in the writings of the ancients; they all apply to fluor spar, and to nothing else; but to it they apply so accurately as to leave little doubt that they were in reality vessels of fluor spar, similar to those at present made in Derbyshire.[81]

The artificial vasa murrhina made at Thebes, in Egypt, were doubtless of glass, coloured to imitate fluor spar as much as possible, and having the semi-transparency which distinguishes that mineral. The imitations being imperfect, these factitious vessels were not much prized nor sought after by the Romans, they were rather distributed among the Arabians and Ethiopians, who were supplied with glass from Egypt.

Rock crystal is compared by Pliny with the stone from which the vasa murrhina were made; the former, in his opinion, had been coagulated by cold, the latter by heat. Though the ancients, as we have seen, were acquainted with the method of colouring glass, yet they prized colourless glass highest on account of its resemblance to rock crystal; cups of it, in Pliny’s time, had supplanted those of silver and gold; Nero gave for a crystal cup 150,000 sistertii, or 625l.

V.—DYEING AND CALICO-PRINTING.

Very little has been handed down by the ancients respecting the processes of dyeing. It is evident, from Pliny, that they were acquainted with madder, and that preparations of iron were used in the black dyes. The most celebrated dye of all, the purple, was discovered by the Tyrians about fifteen centuries before the Christian era. This colour was given by various kinds of shellfish which inhabit the Mediterranean. Pliny divides them into two genera; the first, comprehending the smaller species, he called buccinum, from their resemblance to a hunting-horn; the second, included those called purpura: Fabius Columna thinks that these were distinguished also by the name of murex.

These shellfish yielded liquor of different shades of colour; they were often mixed in various proportions to produce particular shades of colour. One, or at most two drops of this liquor were obtained from each fish, by extracting and opening a little reservoir placed in the throat. To avoid this trouble, the smaller species were generally bruised whole, in a mortar; this was also frequently done with the large, though the other liquids of the fish must have in some degree injured the colour. The liquor, when extracted, was mixed with a considerable quantity of salt to keep it from putrifying; it was then diluted with five or six times as much water, and kept moderately hot in leaden or tin vessels, for eight or ten days, during which the liquor was often skimmed to separate all the impurities. After this, the wool to be dyed, being first well washed, was immersed and kept therein for five hours; then taken out, cooled, and again immersed, and continued in the liquor till all the colour was exhausted.[82]

To produce particular shades of colour, carbonate of soda, urine, and a marine plant called fucus, were occasionally added: one of these colours was a very dark reddish violet—“Nigrantis rosæ colore sublucens.”[83] But the most esteemed, and that in which the Tyrians particularly excelled, resembled coagulated blood—“laus ei summa in colore sanguinis concreti, nigricans aspectu, idemque suspectu refulgens.”[84]

Pliny says that the Tyrians first dyed their wool in the liquor of the purpura, and afterwards in that of the buccinum; and it is obvious from Moses that this purple was known to the Egyptians in his time.[85] Wool which had received this double Tyrian dye (dia bapha) was so very costly that, in the reign of Augustus, it sold for about 36l. the pound. But lest this should not be sufficient to exclude all from the use of it but those invested with the very highest dignities of the state, laws were made inflicting severe penalties, and even death, upon all who should presume to wear it under the dignity of an emperor. The art of dyeing this colour came at length to be practised by a few individuals only, appointed by the emperors, and having been interrupted about the beginning of the twelfth century all knowledge of it died away, and during several ages this celebrated dye was considered and lamented as an irrecoverable loss.[86] How it was afterwards recovered and made known by Mr. Cole, of Bristol, M. Jussieu, M. Reaumur, and M. Duhamel, would lead us too far from our present object, were we to relate it: those who are interested in the subject will find an historical detail in Bancroft’s work on Permanent Colours, just referred to.

There is reason to suspect that the Hebrew word translated fine linen in the Old Testament, and so celebrated as a production of Egypt, was in reality cotton, and not linen. From a curious passage in Pliny, there is reason to believe that the Egyptians in his time, and probably long before, were acquainted with the method of calico-printing, such as is still practised in India and the east. The following is a literal translation of the passage in question:

“There exists in Egypt a wonderful method of dyeing. The white cloth is stained in various places, not with dye stuffs, but with substances which have the property of absorbing (fixing) colours, these applications are not visible upon the cloth; but when they are dipped into a hot caldron of the dye they are drawn out an instant after dyed. The remarkable circumstance is, that though there be only one dye in the vat, yet different colours appear upon the cloth; nor can the colour be afterwards removed.”[87]