General NATURAL HISTORY of the organic kingdoms, mainly studied in man and animals,

by Isidore Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire.

Paris, Victor Masson's bookstore, Place de l'Ecole-de-Médecine,

No. 17, i854 and 1859.

JOURNAL DES SAVANTS. — OCTOBER 1864. pp. 648-666


FIFTH AND LAST ARTICLE [See, for the first article, the notebook, October 1863, p. 609; for the second article, that of December, p. 741; for the third, that of February 1864, p. 91; for the fourth, the April notebook, p. 227, of July, p. 407, and August, p. 490.].

Chapter I of the II volume of the GENERAL NATURAL HISTORY OF THE ORGANIC REIGNS, entitled, Historical notions on the kingdoms of nature and mainly on the three kingdoms of the alchemists, was the first subject of the book that caught our attention. In seeking the motive according to which M. Isidore Geoffroy had approached a matter remote from his studies, we perceived, in the first volume, general opinions concerning natural philosophy, so opposed to the experimental A POSTERIORI method, that, in the In order to combat the unfortunate consequences they could have on the progress of the sciences of observation, reasoning and experiment, we thought it our duty to submit to the public the four articles which precede this one.

From the point of view of the arrangement of materials and quotations, we experience such difficulty in following the author in detail, that it is impossible to criticize each of them with the intention of dissipating all doubts about the accuracy of our judgments: This state of affairs imposes on us the necessity of examining successively the following three propositions, which indeed belong to M. Isidore Geoffroy:

1° The alchemists were the first to distinguish between minerals, plants and animals in three groups;

2° The alchemists considered minerals, plants and animals as bodies endowed with life;

3° The alchemists were the first to use the word REIGN to name the groups of minerals, plants and animals.

We are absolutely ignorant, despite all our reflections, of the importance the author has attached to the demonstration of these propositions. Not that from the historical point of view we do not conceive very well the interest that there is always to go back with certainty to the origin of any general propositions accepted by everyone as exact, at least for a certain time, if , in reality, they were: not; but what escapes our penetration is that we engage in interpretations of certain texts, which do not exclude any others susceptible of contrary interpretations; so that the author who voluntarily places himself in such a position can only arrive at questionable conclusions, and, in the event that they have the character of certainty, one does not see the advantage that natural philosophy would derive from it, once the historical point of view is satisfied. The examination of these propositions presents the critic with the same difficulty that we have already pointed out several times.

times, when it was a question of stating, in a clear, precise way; and true, the opinions of M. Isidore Geoffroy which we have combated; for, always or almost always, an opinion which he has clearly formulated, and which the critics deem contestable, is followed by sentences calculated to attenuate its scope and to serve as a pretext for the defense of the opinion attacked. With the experience that the study of the first volume of the General Natural History of the Organic Kingdoms has given us, we are going to expose the criticism of the three preceding propositions in the shortest possible way, with the hope that our readers will take into account consideration the remark that we have just reproduced.

§ 1°

Were the alchemists the first who distinguished minerals, plants and animals into three groups?

Does the distinction of minerals, plants and animals into three groups belong to the alchemists, as M. Isidore Geoffroy asserts, relying on the following reasons? That's what we don't think. It is false, he claims, that even before the origin of natural history, men distinguished the three material forms, stone,
plant and animal; for, above all, he distinguished himself in such a way, he concludes, that the primitive division admitted was quaternary and not ternary.

According to him, and this is very true, above all Aristotle distinguished beings, not into three groups, but into two only: animate beings ( ), and
inanimate beings ( ). M. Isidore Geoffroy then quotes Hermolaus Barbarus, who contrasted inanimate beings with animate beings, and divided the latter into three genera, the plant, the brute and man. This is still true; but he does not speak of the manner in which Hermolaus Barbarus had regarded the sky, the influence which he attributes to it on earthly things, the elements, and their compounds deprived of life.

Finally, after naming several authors, he speaks of the ternary division of the alchemists. M. Isidore Geoffroy, in claiming that the alchemists were the first to distinguish beings into three groups, has been led to support the incorrect opinion that before the origin of natural history the distinction of beings was not ternary, but quaternary, because we say, he argues, from that time, stone, plant, animal and man. This assertion is purely gratuitous, and we are among those who link the distinction of beings in stones, plants and animals, including man, to the highest antiquity, and we quote the Natural History of Pliny in support of this opinion. The history of man opens book VII of the work of the Roman naturalist [Volume 1, p. 279,

“First, he (man) is the only one of all the animals that she (nature) dresses at the expense of others. Books VIII, IX, X, XI are devoted to the history of other animals.

Books XII - XXVII
inclusive deal with the history of plants. Book XII begins thus [Tome I, p. 475 ]:

“Such is the history, by species and by organs, of all the animals that have been known. It remains to speak of beings which are not devoid of soul either, since nothing lives without a soul, of the vegetable productions of the earth; after which, we will deal with minerals extracted from its bosom; so that we shall not have passed over any work of nature in silence. »

Books XXXII - XXXVII inclusive contain the history of minerals. It is therefore quite evident that Pliny clearly studied in his Natural History:

The history of animals, beginning with man; The history of plants;
The history of minerals;

And that this successive study of animals, including man, of plants and minerals, is independent of any alchemical idea, and conforms to the common opinion, which is ours, and which we had never put in doubt, to our knowledge, before Mr. Isidore Geoffroy. Ultimately, assuming that the first distinction between terrestrial beings had been quaternary, man, animals, plants and minerals, what does this mean for science, for philosophy?

What further conclusion can be drawn from the fact that current naturalists admit this quaternary distinction, while others admit the ternary distinction? What consequence can be drawn from the fact that, among the latter, some consider man as an Order and others as a class? It is high time that certain naturalists were convinced that distinctions, classifications, which are not based on anything precise, have no scientific value, and of consequence other than to show the impotence of their authors.

§ II

Is it true that the alchemists considered minerals, plants and animals as bodies endowed with life?

By saying, with M. Isidore Geoffroy, the distinction of beings into animate beings and inanimate beings of Aristotle is binary, while that of the alchemists into minerals, plants and animals is ternary, do we express an exact proposition ? We do not think so, if we take into consideration the spirit of the natural method presiding over the classification of organized beings, or, in other words, if we do not confuse together the order of divisions and subdivisions of a classification; because, from this point of view, Aristotle's classification is binary,

The following table of Aristotle's classification of beings enables us to grasp our thoughts perfectly, if we compare it to that which M. Isidore Geoffroy attributes to the alchemists.



The truth is therefore:

1. That Aristotle's classification comprises two; perfectly distinct categories, since the beings of the first are endowed with life, while those of the second: are deprived of it; finally, that the category of animate beings includes two; subcategories, plants and animals;

2° That the classification attributed to. alchemists includes only one category; of beings, which are endowed with life and distinguished into three sub-categories, minerals, plants and animals.

As long as we reflect on the spirit of the natural method, we cannot ignore the superiority of Aristotle's classification, we are not saying on that which is attributed to the alchemists, but on the distinction of beings into three kingdoms , minerals, plants and animals; for evidently plants and animals endowed with life have much more mutual analogies than they have with minerals deprived of life. The same criticism applies to the distinction of plants into three classes, the dicotyledons, the monocotyledons and the acotyledons; obviously they must be classified as follows:



Be that as it may, Mr. Isidore Geoffroy expresses himself in these terms:

“The alchemists therefore did not say, and they could not say: inanimate and animate beings; they said: minerals, plants, animals; the three genera, the three mixed families, and, later, the three kingdoms. »

Did alchemists really consider minerals to be alive? This proposition, as expressed by M. Isidore Geoffroy, is absolutely inexact; because it no longer allows us to understand the idea that the alchemists had of the preparation of the philosopher's stone, of the great work; and, for our readers to appreciate our reasons, it suffices to recall the principal facts of the alchemical theory, which we have only exposed in several articles of this journal after having devoted a very long time to studying it.

Why this long time given to a subject that everyone thought they knew?

It is that we sought to clearly understand alchemy, going back to its origin, and that the goal could not be reached without referring to religious doctrines, philosophical and scientific of the time when we find the first idea of ​​it. Our studies have focused on ideas and on operations or manipulations; the first, purely hypothetical, belong to the most absolute A PRIORI method; the second came from workshops, factories, where special arts were practiced, now called chemical. But no link, the fruit of thoughtful observation, linked the facts of the practice with the spirit of the alchemist. put them to a blind practice, gave rise to material products, several of which struck the attention vividly, because no property attached them to bodies known for a long time.

Here is our conclusion with regard to alchemy:

Hypothetical ideas from the realm of sciences called occult, And practical manipulations outside any scientific relation to these ideas.

It is not without surprise that after having read the first chapter of the second volume of the General Natural History of the Organic Kingdoms, where M. Isidore claims that the alchemists considered minerals as living bodies, we found in the first volume, printed five years previously (page 378), the following note:

"CONTROL is the character of the experimental method," said M. Chevreul very recently and very justly in one of his learned articles on the alchemy,” (See the Journal des Savants, 1851, page 765.)

We ask our readers, is it not in those articles qualified as scholars in 1854, about the experimental method; that we no longer quote in 1859, in speaking of alchemy, that we drew the idea of ​​attributing to the alchemists the opinion according to which the minerals would be animated?

Far be it from us to claim priority, since, not sharing M. Isidore Geoffroy's view of the scientific method and the opinions he attributes to alchemists, we combat it; however we will point out that this is not the first time that a clear and precise conclusion, which we have formulated only after a long study, has been the occasion, for certain people, to perceive the novelty of an idea which, until then, had been absolutely foreign to them, and to imagine that the author who had brought it into relief, lacking initiative or logic, had grasped neither its generality nor its consequences; knowing moreover the disposition of most readers to abandon themselves to the charm of the imagination rather than to follow foot by foot the trace of a spirit investigator who finally arrives at a discovery, they flatter themselves that the very exaggeration with which they expose this discovery will cause the person who is its true author to be forgotten.

For the rest, it must be recognized, to use a vulgar comparison, among those who cultivate a science, more than one scholar resembles the poacher on the lookout quietly waiting for the game that another has tired himself out. to seek, to raise and to pursue! After this necessary digression to clearly establish our critical position with regard to M. Isidore Geoffroy, we will explain how our studies of the history of alchemy allow us to consider the production of gold in accordance with the alchemical hypothesis, considering it first from the point of view of the natural agents capable of carrying it out and then to the point view of hermetic processes.

The alchemists generally admitted the existence of the four elements in the metals, and when they represented them as compounds of sulphur, mercury and salt, these were, according to they were each formed of the four elements, so that in their eyes sulphur, mercury and salt were the next principles of the metals. In alchemical ideas, sulphur, mercury and salt corresponded to the idea that we have today of immediate principles; namely, for salts, acids and salifiable bases; for plants and animals, starch, sugar... fibrin, albumin...

The alchemists admitted that, under astral influences, the metals which they described as imperfect, the iron, tin, copper, lead, the mercury of the terrestrial layers, were transformed more or less slowly into perfect metals, silver and gold. They admitted that what the stars did slowly, man could do it more or less quickly by means of the philosopher's stone. Hence transmutation.

A. Natural transmutation.

If it were necessary to justify the study of the occult sciences before undertaking that of the history of alchemy, the subject which we treat would incontestably show the necessity for it. Without affirming the existence of texts prior to the origin of the hermetic art, where it would be a question of the production of gold by the action of the stars, however the importance attributed,
in antiquity, this action on all terrestrial bodies led naturally to make the transmutation of imperfect metals into perfect metals depend on it, from the moment when the idea of ​​hermetic or artificial transmutation presented itself to the mind; and, consequently, because of the great part attributed to the influence of the superior world on the inferior world, we are not reluctant to recognize that before alchemy one could attribute to the stars, and, in particular, to the sun, the power to produce gold by acting on earthly bodies.

Whatever he in itself, the alchemists unanimously recognized the influence of the stars to transmute into gold and silver the imperfect metals of the terrestrial layers, when those were in a certain position suitable to receive this influence; but this one, to be effective, had to act still during centuries, tens of centuries, and this long duration could not be doubted; for without the double condition of a certain position and of duration, how can we understand that masses of imperfect metals were still found in the terrestrial globe without having undergone transmutation? But how did they conceive of natural transmutation? It is a subject which they have generally refrained from treating, for artificial or hermetic transmutation fixed their attention only, the hope of a triumph which, in reality, was impossible.

We can only cite an alchemist who developed some ideas on the natural transmutation, and still this alchemist belongs to the first half of the XVIIth century and he occupied a seat of president in the parliament of Bordeaux; his name was d'Espagnet; we will find it later (§ III) when we discuss the question of whether the word reign was applied for the first time to the denomination of natural bodies in three groups, as M. Isidore Geoffroy claims. President d'Espagnet, in canon 174 of his Enchiridion physicae restitutae, only applies to natural transmutation the ideas he had of the processes of the hermetic art. In reproducing this canon, we have italicized sentences which clearly show that
d'Espagnet did not consider minerals as living bodies. We will come back (§ III,
642) on their meaning. Canon 174 of the Enchiridion [Translation by Jean Bachou].

"But, for the matter of metals, because it is aqueous and earthly and perfectly solid and consistent, because of the very perfect and very subtle mixture of these heavy elements; that is why it is very numb , heavy to the last point and incapable of any movement by itself; nevertheless, because it is sublimated and purified in the matrices of the earth and the rocks, as in stills, by a marvelous artifice of nature, and because its mixture is made into a vapor very smooth and very subtle, by means of several frequent distillations; because of this perfect subtlety and circulation of their matter, the riches and treasures of the sun and of the celestial bodies insinuate and flow into them, particularly in the generation of the more perfect metals. It is for this reason that, although they derive their bodies from water and earth, nevertheless nature performing the function of potter, she shapes these bodies so artistically, especially those of perfect metals, that she disposes them and makes them worthy to receive from heaven a most perfect form.

It is true that it is a work which requires a great deal of work; but also it is complete, and nature has expended all her strength in polishing it; and it seems heaven didn't just agree in Celtic production with the earth, but yet they mingle and kiss. Now, because the formal spirits of the metals are constricted under a very hard bark, as in a prison, they are also benumbed and without movement, until by the fire of the philosophers, we have broken their bonds, they produce, from their celestial seed in matter, a son of the sun who does not degenerate from the place of his birth: and finally a fifth essence of admirable virtue, thus causing all heaven to dwell with us.

But, in believing in natural transmutation, all or almost all alchemists considered the gold and silver produced as dead, and, in order to forestall any criticism, let us hasten to recognize that alchemists admitted, in this DEAD gold and silver, the existence of male and female seeds to which these metals owed the faculty of generating their like in potentiality, but, in order that the faculty pass from potency to act, it required the intervention of a force, of a power from without; such was that which the alchemical art imprinted on the matter of the philosopher's stone. (See again page 646, and note.)]. The books of astrology which deal especially with the influence of the stars on terrestrial bodies speak principally of that which concerns man, either as an individual or associated with his fellows, hence the horoscopy, the nativities; but they are generally silent when it comes to minerals, quite simply, because astrology long preceded alchemy.

B. Artificial or hermetic transmutation.

Here we have arrived at the great work, at the preparation of the philosopher's stone, of this matter of which a particle, under the name of projection powder, was sufficient to operate the transmutation of more or less considerable masses of base metals into perfect metals. When in history does alchemy originate? Our researches, agreeing with the common opinion of all severe scholars, do not put it back beyond the first centuries of the Christian era, or, if it was practiced before, it was so mysteriously, that the contemporary public was unaware of it; probably she is born in the school of Alexandria.

The making of the stone consisted in communicating life to a mineral matter which did not have it. Everything that recalled generation, the seeds of male and female, the union of the soul with matter by means of the spirit, the formation of the egg, its incubation, in a word everything that we imagined capable of giving life, helped to develop, mature and perfect the stone. In accordance with these ideas and the Catholic view of the efficacy of prayer, the alchemist prayed, and prayer was considered still more efficacious, when the man and a woman were kneeling, looking at each other, but separated by the furnace containing the alchemical egg.

The idea of ​​yeast dough, of the ferment [the alchemical idea of ​​life in the ferment has some interest when we bring it closer to the idea we have today of organized ferments. But, in our view, this rapprochement does not relate to the substance things.] which communicates its state to the dough of wheat, had led the alchemists to compare the stone to the ferment. According to this view, to act, it had to contain gold; and, without this condition, they could not conceive it possible that matters devoid of gold, but which contained its principles, should be transmuted into this metal. The gold of the stone was bright, alive, animated, and therefore active, and in this different from common gold, which was DEAD.

Similar opinion relative to the nature of the stone suitable for changing an imperfect metal into silver; this stone was effective only on the condition of containing silver, lively, animated. Wishing to prevent any uncertainty about the accuracy of our opinions, we believe we should add to the preceding summary a textual quotation taken from a highly esteemed book of alchemists. The following passage is taken from Treatise on Salt and the Spirit of the World, by the Sieur de Nuisement, published in 1620, p. 28:

"The Hortulan, who commented on the table of Hermes, abandoning the radical principles of nature, and descending to the particular principles of alchemy, understands, by the sun, the philosopher's gold, which he says is the father of stone, which is true. For those who are enlightened in this art know by experience and have learned it from all good authors (of whom the number is infinite) that in the true matter and subject of the stone are in potency gold and silver, and quicksilver in kind.

Which gold and silver are better than those commonly seen and touched; because they are alive and can vegetate and grow, and the vulgar are dead; and if it were not so, matter would never reach the extreme perfection that art gives it. Which perfection is so great, miraculously, as Hermes says; and all the time this invisible gold and silver which, by the magister, are exalted in such a high degree, could not communicate this perfection to the imperfect, without the ministry of vulgar gold and silver. This is why the masters join them to the fermentation; thus gold is always the father of the elixir...”

The conclusions of this passage are therefore in all conformity with what we have said:

1. Nature or astral influence transmutes metals into gold and silver without giving them life;

2° Life is given by the alchemical art to vulgar gold and silver; and on this condition that, having thus become ferments, they will convert imperfect metals into perfect metals;

3° Consequently, the alchemists granted more power to their art than to nature,
not only because hermetic transmutation was much more rapid than natural transmutation; but also because the idea of ​​a ferment endowed with life was not necessary to understand this last transmutation.

After the summary that we have just made of our historical and scientific research on alchemy, after the passage from the treatise on Nuisement that we have reproduced, can we say with M. Isidore Geoffroy [vol. II p. 10 ]:

“For the alchemists, there are no raw and inanimate bodies, vital activity is everywhere, in each being in particular as in all of nature. »

Obviously not, because all that we have just summarized on alchemy would not make any sense. We therefore see, ultimately, that Aristotle was able to speak of animate beings and inanimate beings, without our being justified in claiming that the alchemists are in disagreement with him, because they would have attributed life to minerals; moreover, let us recall that they admitted the four elements in metals and in
stone.

§III.

Is it true that the alchemists were the first to use the word kingdom to name the groups of minerals, plants and animals?

We do not understand the importance that M. Isidore Geoffroy attaches to the demonstration of the opinion according to which he claims that the alchemists were the first to use the words kingdoms of nature, as we said at the beginning. This item; were it true, what would we conclude with regard to the alchemical doctrine, especially if we are willing to remember the reasons for not admitting, with M. Isidore Geoffroy, that the distinction of natural bodies into minerals ;plants, and animals, belongs to the alchemists? M. Isidore Geoffroy attributes the use of the word reign of nature to President d'Espagnet. We reproduce verbatim the paragraph on page 19 of the second volume of the General History of the Organic Kingdoms.

"The first alchemist in whom I find, and even then only partially, the kingdoms of nature, is President d'Espagnet, anonymous author, in 1623, of two works very renowned in their time, the Enchiridion physicae restitutae and the Arcanum philosophiae hermeticae opus. In the Arcanum, the author expressly mentions one of the kingdoms, regnum metallorum, but in a single passage, without stopping there and not without contradicting himself;

for he reproduces elsewhere, on several occasions, giving them another value, the words regnum and imperium naturae, new terms in the use of which he seems to take pleasure, but without yet attaching to them a fixed and precise meaning. So much so that we witness, so to speak, in the works of d'Espagnet, the birth of this conception of the kingdoms of nature destined to soon enjoy such great favor among naturalists as well as among alchemists. . »

It would be difficult to explain the meaning of the word partially (in the preceding passage, second line), if one did not have recourse to the two works of President d'Espagnet; not only to verify the quotations to which M. Isidore Geoffroy draws the attention of his readers, but to judge the substance of all the ideas presented in the Enchiridion physicae restitutae and in the Arcanum hermeticae philosophiae opus.

Indeed, if, in this last work, the president says regnum metallorum [Arcanum hermeticae philosophiae opus, tertia editio, Parisiis, 1638, 3° canon, p. 10. ], Mr. Isidore Geoffroy rightly remarks that he does not stop there, that he uses the words regnum and imperium naturae without attaching a fixed and precise meaning to them. But, in our view, the critic is not justified in claiming that the president contradicts himself. And, to end our remarks on the use of the word reign, let us add that d'Espagne said, in canon 159 of the Enchiridion: "..... Animal itaque in
summo rerum inferiorum gradu situm, opus naturae in regno elementari complete - So the animal in placed at the highest level of the lower things, complete the work of nature in the elementary kingdom;»

passage that Jean Bachou, who translated the two works of the president in 1651, on the fourth Latin edition, thus rendered: of work and the most perfect of the works of nature in its elementary EMPIRE.

If President d'Espagnet had attached importance to the word reign, he would have used it constantly, and his translator would not have substituted the word empire . The word elementary kingdom, in the ideas of d'Espagnet, included compounds of elements or mixtures, that is to say, minerals, plants and animals. That the books of the president, under the report of the theory of an experimental science, have no value, either. But, considered from the point of view of alchemy considered as an occult science, they present themselves, especially the Enchiridion, with advantage, when one compares them with the works of alchemy most appreciated by adepts; and perhaps, if M. Isidore Geoffroy had read the Enchiridion, from canon 154 to canon 160 inclusively, he would not have written its chapter entitled: Historical notions on the kingdoms of nature, and principally on the three kingdoms of the alchemists, or else he would have written it all down.

He would have seen first [Canon 154 “Triplex in mixtis existentiae gradus tria summa mixtorum genera exhibet, nempe mineralium, vegetabilium el animalium - The threefold degree of mixed existence presents the three highest types of mixtures, namely, mineral, vegetable, and animal. ] that d'Espagnet explicitly spoke, not of the three kingdoms, but of the three great genera of mixtures, minerals, vegetables and animals. He would have seen that canon 155 [Canon 155. “Mineralia simpliciter existente, nec vivere creduntur; licet melalla ex mineralibus praecipua vita quodammodo praedita dici possint, tam quia in ipsorum generatione fit quasi coitus, et duplicis seminis, masculei et feminei, etc. etc. - Minerals are believed to exist simply, and not to live; although molasses from minerals may be said to be endowed with life in a certain way, because in their generation it takes place, as it were, by intercourse, and by twofold seed, male and female, etc. etc. ] begins as follows:

"It is believed that minerals have only being, and not life, although it may be said that the metals, which are the principal among minerals, live in some way, both because and in their generation , it is made as a copula and a mixture of the two seeds, of the masculine, which is sulphur, and of the feminine, which is mercury...”

Certainly this quotation is far from justifying what M. Isidore Geoffroy said of the alchemical opinion according to which one could not admit the distinction between Aristotle, animate beings and inanimate beings, because, he claims, alchemists attributed life to minerals. The text of Spain is contrary: Mineralia simpliciter existente, nec vivere CREDUNTUR - Minerals are simply not believed to exist, nor to live; and, if one believed to see in the following sentences something more than what we have said, according to the alchemists, concerning the life which they claimed to give to the matter of the philosopher's stone, by means of the process of hermetic art, we would recall canon 174, already cited when it came to the transmutation natural (page 637), and we would recall it textually, because of the double interest which it presents relative to transmutation, as well as to the question of knowing if the alchemists attributed life to minerals; for, ultimately, all that d'Espagnet says of the relations of minerals with life concerns only the perfect metals capable of acquiring vital power by the hermetic art, so that gold or silver become living or close in the stone is capable of converting base metals into gold or silver; but the product of the conversion is dead, if not absolutely, at least in the greater part of its mass.

It is therefore conceivable that d'Espagnet, with his extended mind, could not consider the precious metals, gold and silver, as capable of becoming alive, without admitting a predisposition which did not exist in minerals deprived of the faculty to become it. There can be no doubt as to the conformity of d'Espagnet's ideas with those which make up our summary of alchemical opinions.

Few hermetic works have had the success of the Enchiridion and the Philosophy of Hermes. In thirty-four years, five editions and a French translation were made. This success is not surprising when we compare these works to the most famous alchemical works, either for the style, or for the whole of the general ideas.

In the impossibility of talking about it in detail, we limit ourselves to saying that President d'Espagnet believed in the immutability of the four elements, in the fixity of organic species, in the existence of atoms, in the plurality of worlds.

to the spirit of the universe and to the signatures of the lower things, showing the relations of these with the things of the upper world: for, according to him, each object of the lower world had its correspondence in the higher world [See this we said about signatures. (Journal des Savants, 1853, p. 130 et seq.) ].
As for the expressions empire of nature divided into three different kingdoms, the kingdom of animals, the kingdom of plants and the kingdom of minerals, these expressions are found, as M. Isidore Geoffroy says, in a writing by J. Collesson, dean of Maigné, entitled:

Observations for the intelligence of the principles and foundations of nature and hermetic philosophy, with a meditation on the mysteries of divine and human sapience (see paragraph xi); the work is dedicated to Cardinal de la Rochefoucault, 1631.

It should not be confused with the writing which bears the title:

Perfect idea of ​​hermetic philosophy, printed in 1630, and dedicated to the king's brother, duc d' Orleans.

In the discussion of questions of the order of those which occupied M. Isidore Geoffroy, it is difficult to arrive at a conclusion with which a severe mind is satisfied, and the difficulty increases, if the one who claims to give a conclusion undertook its research with the intention of demonstrating a preconceived opinion, and not with that of weighing the pros and cons before presenting a definitive conclusion. Although our reasons for rejecting the three propositions of M. Isidore Geoffroy on alchemy seem to us sufficient, nevertheless, from the point of view of history, we will add a few more remarks in favor of our way of seeing things, in order to dissipate all the doubts of those of our readers who do not yet share our conviction.

We are going to quote a 13th century author who distinguishes natural bodies into three groups, assigning them characteristics which seem to keep minerals away from living beings. This author is Alphonse X, who reigned in Castile from 1252 to 1284, whose name is attached to the so-called Alphonsine astronomical tables, which he had composed. He is credited with an alchemical writing entitled: The Key to Wisdom (Clavis sapientiae).

It admits the mutability of the elements; he distinguishes between minerals, plants and animals, in the following manner [“Omnia autem, quae indigent subtiliatione de rebus confectis sunt tria, videlicet: Corpus
corporale, id est, minera, cujus subtiliatio est de suo exteriori ad interius; Secundum is corpus spirituale, id is planta, cujus subtiliatio is de utroque simul; Tertium is animal, cujus subtiliatio is a suo interiore ad exterius - "Now all that need precision in finished things are three, namely: the Body
corporeal, that is, mineral, the refinement of which is from its exterior to its interior; According to the spiritual body, that is the plant, the subtlety of which is about both at the same time; The third is the animal, whose subtlety is from its interior to its exterior; if you will, etc. " ]:

"But everything that needs subtiliation among the things made gives rise to three (things), namely: The corporeal Body (material), that is to say the mineral, of which the subtiliation is of its exterior to its interior; The spiritual body is the second, that is to say the plant, the subtiliation of which is at the same time in both directions; The animal is the third, whose subtiliation is from its interior to the exterior; if he wanted, etc. »

Subtilatio unquestionably means to become subtle [The Theatrum chemicum says subtilialio; N. Rulandi's Lexicon alchimiae says subtilatio. He defines it: the dissolution by which one separates the most subtle parts from the gross parts. It is done quickly by distillation or by descension (distillation per descensum). It is done slowly. The Hermetic Dictionary (of Salmon, 1695) defines subtiliation: It is when matter having reached blackness, it rots and is reduced to seed, and it circulates in the egg. The Trévoux Dictionary defines subtilization as a chemical term. It is the action of stealing certain liquors by the action of fire, and making them more delicate, more penetrating. Term of hermetic philosophy, it is the definition of Salmon. Molière makes Clitandre say, in Les Femmes savantes, act IV, scene ii: But these loves for me are too subtle.].

We see that the mineral can only become so means of an external force, which is perfectly in accord with the idea we have of a gross body, of an inanimate body; Whereas the animal is endowed with a force acting from the inside out, the effects of which are manifested by the elastic fluids which it exhales and the liquids which it excretes. The plant is intermediate between the animal and the mineral; it exhales like that, at the same time that it is capable of becoming subtle by an external force.

These are distinctions which could only have been made by an author who did not confuse the mineral with a living body.

A book published in 1612, at Marburg, consequently prior to the works of President d'Espagnet, contains two alchemical treatises, in which the German author uses the words: chemical monarchy and mineral kingdom, vegetable kingdom and animal kingdom. The first work is entitled:

Guide-Manuel Solaire de l'Or Philosophique Not Yet Known, by means of which one can easily prepare, on the one hand, the very universal work of any chemical monarchy in the mineral kingdom, and, on the other hand, on the other hand, all the universal stones of the mineral kingdom in each kind, the particular dyes of which the author, Nicolas le Noir Hapelius, anagrammatizomenos.

The second book is titled:

Basilian Aphorisms or Hermetic Canons of the Spirit and the. medium body of the great and the small world, written by philochemical Hermophilus, who is Nicholas the Black Hapelius, anagrammatizomenos.

Here are the first four canons translated:

1. Hermes Trismegistus deserved to be called the father of the philosophers, because of the triple mineral, vegetable, animal kingdom, or rather because of the careful search for the triple existence in a created essence, in which he recognized all the strength of vegetable, animal and mineral nature

[As I said, one of the greatest difficulties that alchemy presents to anyone who wants to write its history is the critical interpretation of the texts, and the necessity in which it finds itself, before concluding with certainty, having consulted a large number of them. For example, Mercury Trismegistus, in the canon I have just quoted, owes its nickname, according to the author, to the study he made of the three kingdoms. Whereas, in the translation and the commentary of the Pimandre (folio, 1579), page 93, we read ..... and for this reason was said three times very great, philosopher, king and priest .... In the table of contents, folio Eee', we read: Mercury, because of the trinity, says Trismegistus, page
683.].

2. The vegetative force resides in the nature of a flying, snow-white, uncommon concrete mercury, which is a certain spirit, both of the great and of the small world, on which depends the mobility and fluxibility of human nature , even according to the reasonable soul.

3. But the animating force, like the glutinum of the world, is the medium between the spirit and the body, and the bond between the one and the other, in the sulfur of a certain oil, red and transparent like the sun of the great world and the heart of the small world.

4. The minerality finally obtains like a body like a salt of an admirable virtue and odor, when the salt will be separated from the dross of the earth, little different from mercury, except by the thickness of its body and by its consistency.

If the distinction of minerals, plants and animals into three groups, into three great genera, into three families, into three kingdoms, really belonged to the alchemists, as M. Isidore Geoffroy claims, we would not be able to explain ourselves when we remembers the passion with which the antispagyric doctors were animated against the spagyric doctors, and after having read the work of an antispagyric doctor, Jean Pages, one would not be able to explain, we say, how the author would have titled his book , printed in 1626:

From the oeconomy of the three families of the sublunary world, namely, mineral, vegetable and animal; and particularly of the nature of man, against ALL FALSE NATURAL PHILOSOPHY, alchymy, cabala, judicial astrology, charms, predictions, spells and atheism.

Because, in his eyes, these doctrines threaten souls, bodies and goods with ruin, as he declares in a dedicatory epistle to the Bishop of Rhodez.

Findings.

We have shown (§ I) that the distinction of natural bodies into three groups, minerals, plants and animals, is much older than alchemy, and in no way contrary to the distinction made by Aristotle between animate beings and living beings. inanimate.

We have shown (§ II) that the alchemists never attributed life to minerals considered in their generality.

We have shown (§ III) that the use of the word reign, applied to all minerals, plants or animals, has no relation with science or the alchemical art. The proof is that the oldest author quoted by M. Isidore Geoffroy for having used the words mineral kingdom, vegetable kingdom and animal kingdom, is Collesson, in a writing dated 1631. Certainly, if there had been a truly essential, not to say scientific, relationship between alchemy and the word reign, the word reign would be found in the writings of the oldest and most renowned alchemists, because one must never forget that respect for the sons of the science was acquired from the antiquity of things and men.

This remark is not a criticism of the opinion of M. Isidore Geoffroy, for we have cited authors prior to Collesson, and even to President d'Espagnet, who used these expressions; and there is more, it is that we do not doubt that they were found in even more ancient authors, either alchemists or others. However, it is probable that the alchemists, having been the first to subject matter to chemical action, with the formal intention of obtaining something other than what was known, had more occasion than anyone to use the words genera, families, kingdoms, to distinguish the various categories of natural bodies.

Finally, the last proof to allege, that, in the way in which M. Isidore Geoffroy presented the word reign relative to alchemy, there is no essential and special relationship, is the article reign of the Dictionary mytho -hermetic. The author of this work, Antoine-Joseph Pernety, Benedictine monk of the congregation of Saint-Maur, is one of those educated men of the 18th century who believed in
the reality of alchemy. He died in Paris in 1801, convinced that he possessed
the secret of prolonging life for several centuries; his faith in alchemy was therefore complete until his last hour. Pernety had translated Swedenborg's Marvels of Heaven and Hell, the doctrine of which he had adopted.

“Reign (S. Hermetic). The fable feigns four principal reigns of the gods, which the poets have also called ages. The first was that of Saturn, called the golden age; the second, that of Jupiter or the Silver Age; the third the age of copper or that of Venus; and finally the fourth, the age of iron or that of Mars. The mythologists have explained the four ages in a moral sense, and the adepts, with more reason, explain it in the philosophical-chemical sense; for these four kingdoms are, in fact, only the four principal colors which occur to philosophical matter during the operations of the work....

“Reign is also said of the divisions or classes under which all sublunary beings are placed. There are three of them, to which we give the names of mineral kingdom, vegetable kingdom, animal kingdom. [AJ Pernety's Mytho-Hermetic Dictionary. page 431].

We see that Pernety attributes two meanings to the word reign: A general meaning, known to all;

A special hermetic sense, of which M. Isidore Geoffroy has not spoken.

Is it not probable that, if M. Isidore Geoffroy had known the entry Reign in Pernety's dictionary, he would have expressed an opinion on the use of the word reign by the alchemists, other than that which he advanced; and does not this reflection present itself to the reader, like that which we have expressed (page 643), relative to certain passages of the Enchiridion which the author of the General Natural History of the Two Organic Kingdoms has not not known.

E. CHEVREUL.