[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.If this were literally true, they would not be alchemic treatises.This extract is given from Parmenides in the Turba (Lond., 1896), pages 33, 34 : "Leave, therefore, manifold andsuperfluous things, and take quicksilver, coagulate in the body of magnesia, in kuhul or in the sulphur which doesnot burn ; make the same nature white, and place it upon our copper when it becomes white.And if ye cook stillmore it becomes red, when if ye proceed to coction, it becomes gold, etc."In the History of Chemistry it is given thus, the contents of the brackets being our author's interpretation orinterpolation: "Take quicksilver; coagulate it with the body of magnesia (meaning magnetite, sulphide of antimony,sulphide of lead, sulphide of tin, or pyrites), or with kuhul (i.e., sulphide of antimony) or unburnt sulphur, render itsnature white and put it in upon our copper, and it will whiten the copper.If you render the mercury red, the copperwill redden, and if one then heats, it will become gold, etc." (Note : the ore magnetite mentioned by our authorhappens to be singularly free of sulphur.)Taking the points seriatim : "Leave, therefore, manifold and superfluous things," i.e., there is no need for extraneousthings, for the "mercury," the "magnesia," and the dark "copper" are but separated parts of the One thing, nowpurified, and about to be reunited, and not three alien things.This is emphasized by many Masters, and even in theTurba it is said by Lucas (page 41) : "For ye need not a number of things, but one thing only, which in each andevery grade of your work is changed into another nature.""Take quicksilver,"i.e., the volatile "mercury" which has been distilled from the body."Coagulate in the body ofmagnesia," i.e., in the white salt, the philosophic sal ammoniac which has also come up and separated itself from thedark body (kuhul or philosophic antimony, or black lead).In both works the dark body is whitened, but particularlyin the sealed glass; and it is this latter work which is here intended."And if ye cook still more it becomes red.In the History of Chemistry version the translation ran thus : "If yourender the mercury red, the copper will redden, etc." to the modern author this must seem curious, for first the redcopper is made white, and then its redness is restored to it, by two very elaborate procedures with some one or two,or more of the things he mentions.But with the philosophic base which they call Venus or copper, it is notincongruous, for their copper is not red after the "mercury" and the "magnesia" have been separated from it, but darkor obscure.At the risk of irksome reiteration it is necessary to affirm that competent alchemists were aware of the presence of"combustible feculent sulphur" in sulphide ores such as sulphide of antimony, sulphide of lead, sulphide of tin, andpyrites; also in the sulphurets, sulphites, and the sulphate salts, and condemned them on that account, not merely asuseless, but as prejudicial to the art.They apparently regarded sulphur or brimstone as a waste by-product, in theevolutionary process.See Sendivogius' Treatise on Sulphur, and his Parable.Most of the extracts quoted in the History of Chemistry, are of little importance, and have no authoritative value,being by unknown authors, and the attempted interpretation of any quotation is unconvincing.Very few extracts aregiven from the writings of men held by consent to be adepts ; and these few are quoted with insufficient reference tothe context, and no reference at all to any statements by their authors or others, which qualify the surface meaning ofsuch extracts.The same suggestion of bias is shown in varying proportions in the other critical books reviewed in this section.Forinstance, the Story of Alchemy in Chapter VI, suggests that the idea of alchemy and transmutation may have arisenin a manner something like this :--A steel knife blade is immersed in a solution of sulphate of copper, and onwithdrawing it, it is found to be coated with a deposit of copper.[See also Sir Edward Thorpe's "History ofChemistry." Vol.I., p.34.Watts & Co., 1921.] "What more simple than to conclude that the iron has beentransformed into copper?" Also, apparently, we may assume that when the knife blade was dipped in a saturatedsolution of salt, and was removed with a deposit of salt upon it, the very simple alchemist, who was an expertworker in metals, precious stones, glass, pottery, etc., would be overjoyed at the discovery of an instance ofevolutionary law transmuting iron into an alkaline salt.According to Roscoe a knowledge of the properties of ironvitriol can be traced at least as far back as Geber ; but in what dim ages antedating Egypt, or the Aztecs, theknowledge of copper salts began, we have in the History of Chemistry men acute and clever, in silvering, gilding, depositing one metal on another, and in the mixing of metals in fusion.These two eminent authors do not agree as to whether the alchemists were most noted for skilled cunning orcredulous simplicity.They both commit the fundamental and very elementary mistake of taking alchemic names ofmaterials literally, though protesting that they do not.For example, on page 186, op.cit.: "Gold, silver and mercuryconstitute the material of the stone, after they have been prepared by art." The following lines, and page 187, provethat these names are constructed literally [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl centka.pev.pl
.If this were literally true, they would not be alchemic treatises.This extract is given from Parmenides in the Turba (Lond., 1896), pages 33, 34 : "Leave, therefore, manifold andsuperfluous things, and take quicksilver, coagulate in the body of magnesia, in kuhul or in the sulphur which doesnot burn ; make the same nature white, and place it upon our copper when it becomes white.And if ye cook stillmore it becomes red, when if ye proceed to coction, it becomes gold, etc."In the History of Chemistry it is given thus, the contents of the brackets being our author's interpretation orinterpolation: "Take quicksilver; coagulate it with the body of magnesia (meaning magnetite, sulphide of antimony,sulphide of lead, sulphide of tin, or pyrites), or with kuhul (i.e., sulphide of antimony) or unburnt sulphur, render itsnature white and put it in upon our copper, and it will whiten the copper.If you render the mercury red, the copperwill redden, and if one then heats, it will become gold, etc." (Note : the ore magnetite mentioned by our authorhappens to be singularly free of sulphur.)Taking the points seriatim : "Leave, therefore, manifold and superfluous things," i.e., there is no need for extraneousthings, for the "mercury," the "magnesia," and the dark "copper" are but separated parts of the One thing, nowpurified, and about to be reunited, and not three alien things.This is emphasized by many Masters, and even in theTurba it is said by Lucas (page 41) : "For ye need not a number of things, but one thing only, which in each andevery grade of your work is changed into another nature.""Take quicksilver,"i.e., the volatile "mercury" which has been distilled from the body."Coagulate in the body ofmagnesia," i.e., in the white salt, the philosophic sal ammoniac which has also come up and separated itself from thedark body (kuhul or philosophic antimony, or black lead).In both works the dark body is whitened, but particularlyin the sealed glass; and it is this latter work which is here intended."And if ye cook still more it becomes red.In the History of Chemistry version the translation ran thus : "If yourender the mercury red, the copper will redden, etc." to the modern author this must seem curious, for first the redcopper is made white, and then its redness is restored to it, by two very elaborate procedures with some one or two,or more of the things he mentions.But with the philosophic base which they call Venus or copper, it is notincongruous, for their copper is not red after the "mercury" and the "magnesia" have been separated from it, but darkor obscure.At the risk of irksome reiteration it is necessary to affirm that competent alchemists were aware of the presence of"combustible feculent sulphur" in sulphide ores such as sulphide of antimony, sulphide of lead, sulphide of tin, andpyrites; also in the sulphurets, sulphites, and the sulphate salts, and condemned them on that account, not merely asuseless, but as prejudicial to the art.They apparently regarded sulphur or brimstone as a waste by-product, in theevolutionary process.See Sendivogius' Treatise on Sulphur, and his Parable.Most of the extracts quoted in the History of Chemistry, are of little importance, and have no authoritative value,being by unknown authors, and the attempted interpretation of any quotation is unconvincing.Very few extracts aregiven from the writings of men held by consent to be adepts ; and these few are quoted with insufficient reference tothe context, and no reference at all to any statements by their authors or others, which qualify the surface meaning ofsuch extracts.The same suggestion of bias is shown in varying proportions in the other critical books reviewed in this section.Forinstance, the Story of Alchemy in Chapter VI, suggests that the idea of alchemy and transmutation may have arisenin a manner something like this :--A steel knife blade is immersed in a solution of sulphate of copper, and onwithdrawing it, it is found to be coated with a deposit of copper.[See also Sir Edward Thorpe's "History ofChemistry." Vol.I., p.34.Watts & Co., 1921.] "What more simple than to conclude that the iron has beentransformed into copper?" Also, apparently, we may assume that when the knife blade was dipped in a saturatedsolution of salt, and was removed with a deposit of salt upon it, the very simple alchemist, who was an expertworker in metals, precious stones, glass, pottery, etc., would be overjoyed at the discovery of an instance ofevolutionary law transmuting iron into an alkaline salt.According to Roscoe a knowledge of the properties of ironvitriol can be traced at least as far back as Geber ; but in what dim ages antedating Egypt, or the Aztecs, theknowledge of copper salts began, we have in the History of Chemistry men acute and clever, in silvering, gilding, depositing one metal on another, and in the mixing of metals in fusion.These two eminent authors do not agree as to whether the alchemists were most noted for skilled cunning orcredulous simplicity.They both commit the fundamental and very elementary mistake of taking alchemic names ofmaterials literally, though protesting that they do not.For example, on page 186, op.cit.: "Gold, silver and mercuryconstitute the material of the stone, after they have been prepared by art." The following lines, and page 187, provethat these names are constructed literally [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]