THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE

Written by Benito Jerónimo Feijoo

Taken from his "Universal Critical Theater" (1726-1740), third volume (1729), Eighth Discourse. Madrid edition of 1777.

---

I

1. The sacred hunger for gold feigned the invention of two Arts; one to make this precious metal, another to search for it. The first aims at the transmutation of other metals into gold, which in Greek is called Chrysopeia. The second consists of the use of what they call Divinatory Rod. We will deal in this Discourse with the first; We have already given notice of the second in the Fifth Discourse.

2. It is Chrysopeia in the common feeling of men of judgment, an ancient but vain endeavor of greed; a peaceful rapture that begins sleep, and continues mania; an entertaining way of reducing those who aspire to be opulent to being poor, because in experiences [163] the gold possessed is consumed, and the expected gold is not achieved. Most Philosophers consider this Art absolutely impossible; On the contrary, the Alchemists assure it exists. I think that some and others are deceived. I, following the middle path, accept its possibility against the Philosophers, and deny its existence against the Alchemists.

3. The Author, who under the name of Theophilus translated, and illustrated with additions the treatise on Alchemy of Eirenaeus Filaleta, a very good philosopher on the possibility of artificial gold: he opportunely explains how art can make the works of nature; which consists of the use of subjects and natural agents; so, nature provides activity, and only the direction and application are the responsibility of art. He solidly proves that in vulgar Philosophy the possibility of gold for art is undeniable; because, according to the Peripatetic School, the matter is indifferent to all forms, if the Artificer finds the agent provided to introduce the form of gold into it, applying it properly, he will undoubtedly achieve the production, or eduction of said form. He assumes chemical principles, and applies them very rationally, and methodically to his intent. Finally, with the famous experience of the transmutation of iron into copper by means of the Lipis stone, or blue Vitriol, he specifically verifies the possibility of metallic transmutation.

4. Where I notice that the argument taken from the indifference of matter to all forms, although put by the Author only in the terms of Aristotelian Philosophy, has even more noticeable force in those of Cartesian Philosophy; because as in Descartes' system the variety of the mixed ones consists only in the various texture and configuration of their parts, according to this system the Artificer has less to do for the production of any mixed one; since it is not necessary to derive from matter that new entity that the Aristotelians call substantial form, [164] but only to vary the texture and figure of the parts, which equally, and even more appropriately, falls within the jurisdiction of art than of nature; For this reason some say, and they say well, that the composition of natural mixtures, as Descartes puts it, is more artificial than natural. At least it is true that the shape of artificial compounds consists only of the texture and configuration of the parts that compose them.

5. I also note that that argument is not adaptable to the system of the Atomists, who do not admit indifferent matter for all forms; because the figure and movement of the atoms being invariable in its sentence, not just any atoms can compose any mixed ones. Thus nature, not being able to alter in any way those last indivisible particles of matter that these Philosophers put forward, is required for the formation of such a particular mixture to use such atoms, which are its elements. Since nature, therefore, cannot make any mixture of any material, with even greater reason art cannot, which in everything that is production achieves nothing without the ministry of nature.

II

6. For this reason, to prove the possibility of artificial gold with an argument common to every philosophical system, it is necessary to train it, not on the first or remote matter of gold, but on the next one. It is true that in the formation of the mixtures of all three Kingdoms Animal, Vegetable, and Mineral, nature does not immediately use the naked matter of any form, nor of it placed under any indifferent form; yes, of the matter placed under some determined form, which is intended as a prelude, or preliminary to the form of the attempted mixture. Thus the animal is formed from the matter placed beneath the embryo form, the plant from the matter placed beneath the seed form. The matter close to minerals [165] does not come to our senses in such a way that we can be certain of what it is; but there is no doubt that they also have their seminal matter in proportion; and as for metals, many Philosophers judge that they are produced from true seed, and are rigorous vegetables; For this reason, they do not hesitate to call them underground plants. In our Physical Paradoxes, contained in the second Volume, we have touched on this matter, and it can be seen there.

7. But whether metals are vegetal or not, it cannot be denied that their generation is immediately preceded by matter beneath some certain form, with which it makes a mass that becomes like a seed, prelude, or rudiment of the metallic compound that try nature. Let this mass be composed of vapor and exhalation, as Aristotle wants, or of sulfur and quicksilver, as the Chemists claim, or of acid, alkali, and sulfur, as many moderns feel, or of water, and earth, as others judge. , in any sentence our matter is verified.

8. It is also true that there is some determined agent, which, acting on this nearby matter, reduces it to the being of metal. On these undeniable assumptions our argument is formed in this way. Art can apply that agent, whatever it may be, that has activity to form gold, to that nearby matter from which gold is formed: then art can make gold. The consequence is evident, and the antecedent undeniable; because supposing that there is in nature that agent, and that step, and that they are applicable one to another, what repugnance can be pointed out so that the diligence of man knows them and applies them?

III

9. So far I go with the Alchemists; but I don't go beyond here; because leaving the matter in this generality, it seems to me that the possibility [166] of artificial gold is effectively proven: but passing on to the matter, and agent, that the Alchemists point out to achieve it, I hardly find an assumption or proposition that does not seem false to me, or at least doubtful. I will propose here in summary the doctrine of those few who have written in a way that could be understood, such as Bernardo Trevisano, Teobaldo Hoghelande, the Translator of Filaleta, and a few others; Because as for the others, who intentionally spoke in an uproar, who can challenge them, if no one can understand them?

10. They say, then, first, that all metals consist of the same specific principles; It is convenient to know, Sulfur, and Mercury, or Quicksilver; which is the same as saying that the proximate matter of all metals is the same with specific unity. They say the second, that metals only differ from each other according to their greater or lesser accidental perfection, which depends on the greater or lesser purification, decoction, exaltation, or fixation of Mercury and Sulfur, of which they consist. Consequently they say the third thing, that any metal can be transmuted into gold, reducing itself from the imperfect being to the perfect, and advancing with art the degrees of purification, exaltation, or fixation of Mercury and Sulfur. They say the fourth thing, that for this the philosophical Sulfur and Quicksilver must be sought as agents, of which they call the former male agent, and the latter female agent; and in one and the other mixed resides the adequate productive seminal virtue of gold. They say the fifth thing, that this philosophical Sulfur and Quicksilver must be sought in gold itself due to the dissolution of this metal in its principles. They say the sixth, that Sulfur, and Quicksilver in which gold is dissolved, are not yet philosophical in this natural state; That is, they do not yet have the transmutative activity, it is necessary to exalt them to much greater perfection through art; and exalted in this way, they have the virtue of coloring and intimately penetrating all other metals, giving them to the Sulfur and Quicksilver, of which they consist, that most perfect degree [167] of fixation, with which they compose gold. This mixture of Sulfur and Quicksilver, exalted, in which transmutative virtue resides, is what they call Elixir, tincture of gold, and with a more vulgarized voice, Philosopher's Stone; although it is not, as they say, in the form of stone, but of powder.

11. This is summarized, and with the greatest possible clarity, everything that is intelligible in the writings of the Alchemists. The rest is all shadows, and allegories, enigmatic phrases, and contradictions between each other. Even in some things that we have proposed there is some difficulty in understanding them; so that reading in different Authors, a different concept is created. I give for example: Some do not point to the material of the Philosopher's Stone but the Sulfur of gold: others the Sulfur, and the Mercury; and others the Mercury alone. But it seems they can be reconciled with the explanation given by Bernardo Trevisano (Author of special authority among the Professors of Chrysopeia), saying that philosophical Sulfur and Mercury are not two substances that are never separated, but rather contained and implicated in one another. the other; It is convenient to know, the Sulfur in the Mercury: Es his mamifestè patet (these are words of the Trevisan) Sulfur non esse quid per se seorsim extra substantiam Mercurii. And a little further down, quoting Geber: In profound naturae Mercurii est Sulfur.

12. I have said, and I say again, that there is nothing in this whole series of doctrine that is not false or doubtful. The first involves Chemical principles, the existence of which is as uncertain as anything else. That all the mixed ones are composed of Salt, Sulfur, and Mercury, which they call active principles, and of Water, and Earth, which they call passive, is not proven by the Sectarians of the Chemical system, but rather by the resolution of the mixed ones, which is done by fire, these five substances are seen to separate: but this proof is very defective, since it is not known whether the fire separates them, or produces them. Therefore, [168] as the great Chemist Boyle warns, the alleged experience is more apt to infer that Salt, Sulfur, and Mercury are made from the mixed ones, than to infer that the mixed ones are made from Salt, Sulfur, and Mercury. And if one notices the great activity that fire has in inducing new texture, even in the insensible parts of the bodies that it resolves, it will be found extremely probable that new substances result from its action, which did not exist in the dissolved body: in fact, By the action of fire we see the formation of that transparent substance, which we call glass, from earth, and ashes, and even from earth alone, if the action of fire is very violent. Who, because of this, will believe that the earth is formed from glass? But: those five principles are extracted from some specific mixtures; not from all of them, as Boyle confesses, and with him other truthful Chemists, and from some, in addition to the five principles, other substances different from all of them are extracted. Boyle himself gives an example of grape juice, which with several operations is resolved into many substances of different texture and virtue, some of which have no affinity with Chemical principles. More: the separation, which can be attributed to fire as most peculiar and sensitive, is that with which the fixed is divided from the volatile, this dissipating into smoke, and the other remaining into ashes. Yet even this separation is misleading; because from the smoke condensed into soot, Salt and Earth, which are fixed, are extracted by new resolution. Whoever wants to see much more about the failure of Chemical experiments, read the aforementioned Boyle in the Treatise that he titled: Chymista Scepticus; That the authority of this great man is enough for me, to whom the Wise Men of all Nations confess that in terms of experimental Physics no one was surpassed in knowledge, accuracy, and veracity.

13. The second thing I notice is that the Alchemists, at least the ones I have seen, substantially alter the Chemical system; Because in the composition of metals they only introduce [169] Sulfur and Mercury, without mentioning Salt, which Chemists put as the most precise element of all mixed ones, without reserving any, such as Sulfur and Mercury. . Where it is very noteworthy, that since Salt, according to Chemical doctrine, gives weight and firmness to bodies, with more reason it should enter into the composition of metals, and especially gold, because it is the heaviest mixed. , and with the firmest texture known.

14. Thirdly, let us show that metals consist of the two principles indicated, Sulfur, and Mercury. I ask: Is each of these two principles homogeneous, or specifically one in all metals? This is what cannot be stated with any plausibility. We see that Salt, Sulfur, and Mercury, or rather, Salt, Oil, and Spirit, which are extracted from plants by distillation, are as different from each other as the plants themselves, and thus have very different properties, virtues, and uses in Medicine: then the same will happen in metals, which have no less dissimilarity among themselves than plants, and even have greater dissimilarity than some plants, whose principles are found to be very different. Mercury being different, then, and Sulfur in different metals, never from Sulfur, and Mercury from iron v. gr. Gold cannot be made, just as another specifically different plant cannot be made from the Sulfur, Salt, Mercury, Earth, and Water of one plant.

15. I know what the Alchemists will respond to this in consequence of their doctrine. They will say that each plant is a perfect mixture in itself, primarily intended by nature, like the others contained under the same genus; but not so the metals, in which nature always attempts the production of gold, and the other metals are compared to it, as the imperfect to the perfect within the same species: for this reason the same principles that compose, or They are destined to compose gold; but many times nature does not reach [170] the perfection of the work, either because of the impurities of the matrix, or because the principles are not combined in the proportion of quantity due to each one, or because of a hindrance.

16. But all this is said voluntarily, and beyond all probability. If the intent of nature were only to form gold, and the distinction of the metals to it were that of the imperfect to the perfect within the same species, in the same gold mines, the same vein, which ultimately, In force of greater decoction, or purification, it becomes gold, it would be seen before in the state of lead, tin, iron, copper, and silver; Just as because nature tries the tree in its proper size, it is seen before gradually passing through smaller dimensions, and because it tries the fruit to be ripe and seasoned, it is seen before in different degrees of green and tasteless. And this parity will be found to be very tight, if we reflect on what the Alchemists call maturation, that last perfection that metallic principles achieve in gold. Since this is not found in experience, it is clear that the other metals are perfect mixtures, suitably distinct from gold, and intended like it primarily by nature.

17. It does not hinder what has been said that in all, or almost all, mining companies in the world, gold is found mixed with silver, copper, or another metal; since this depends on the material from which gold is made not being found pure in the bosoms of the earth, but rather mixed with that of other metals. Before, if all metals were convertible into gold, pure gold would often be found in the mine; It is convenient to know, at that time when the metals reached perfect maturation. Likewise, gold is sometimes found mixed with earth, although the Alchemists do not intend for the earth to become gold. I am not unaware that the Knight Borri told Mr. Monconis that he had seen in a silver mine this metal turned entirely into gold from one day to the next by a copious [171] steam that had risen from the earth. Tell it Mr. Monconies in his Journey to the Low Country. But Borri did not deserve much faith, much less in this matter, since he was going to persuade the whole world of the possibility of the Philosopher's Stone, and that he was on the verge of achieving it.

18. Fourthly, admitting that its own tincture can be extracted from gold, whether it is called Mercury, or Sulfur, or one or the other, it is false that the seminal and active virtue of gold resides in it. Which I prove thus: Neither Mercury nor the Sulfur of gold, nor one and the other together, are the agent by which nature makes gold: therefore the active virtue of gold does not reside in them. The consequence is clear; because, as the Alchemists themselves confess, Art neither has activity, nor can it produce any agent; Just apply the same one that nature uses. I prove the antecedent. Nature does not use Sulfur and Mercury for the production of gold, neither before achieving that perfect purification, or maturation that they have when composing this metal, nor after achieving it. Not the first; because metallic principles in the state of imperfection cannot produce the greatest metallic perfection, which is that of gold. Not the second; because when the Sulfur and Mercury reach their perfect purification, gold is already formed, gold being nothing other than, according to the Alchemists, the mixed compound of purified Sulfur and Mercury.

IV

19. Two strong arguments oppose us for their ruling by the Alchemists. The first is the experience, alleged by the Translator of Filaleta, of iron converted into copper by means of the Lipis Stone, which proves that one metal can be converted into another more perfect one.

20. I answer the first thing, that we do not know if what results from the operation in said experience is true [172] copper, or only the iron purified of some coarser parts, with which it acquires that resemblance of copper. I answer the second, that from the fact that lead, tin, and iron can be converted into copper, it does not necessarily follow that any metal can be converted into gold: because perhaps those metals consist of the same principles as copper, or are the same metal in the substance, without any other distinction than that given by the mixture of other heterogeneous substances; and from this it cannot be deduced that gold is one with the other metals, or consists of the same principles as them. I confess, however, that if in the experiences proposed by the Filaleta Translator in order to the transmutation of iron, tin, and lead into copper, there is no defect, his argument does not fail to make harmony.

V

21. The second argument, which is the Achilles of all Alchemists, is based on the Stories of several Professors of Chrysopeia, who transmuted other metals into gold. The most famous, and of whom there is some likelihood that they have attained this great secret, are Raymond Lullius, Arnaldo of Villanova, Theophrastus Paracelsus, Bernardo Trevisano, an Apothecary named Antonio, from the City of Treviso itself, and finally Nicolás Flamel. [173]

{(a) In this century another character appeared, who made many believe he had the secret of the Philosopher's Stone. This was General Prikel, a native of Livonia, who, fighting for King Augustus of Poland against his Sovereign the King of Sweden, was taken prisoner in the battle of Krakow in 1705, and in 1707 sentenced to death for the crime. of Rebellion: who after seeing the pleas of many who asked the King of Sweden for his life useless, appealed to the resource of manifesting that he possessed the Philosopher's Stone; offering that he would not only use all his remaining life to work for the Royal Treasury, but he would also reveal the secret to the King. They say that as evident proof of his truth he told Colonel Amiltón to buy such and such drugs, and prepare them in such and such a way, [173] which when executed, he gave him certain powders, so that he could throw them into the matter. prepared. Amilton did it, and in fact they say a quantity of metallic matter resulted, which, when examined at the Mint, was found to be true gold. They add as confirmation the much money that he spent in order to save his life, computing that it reached the sum of two hundred thousand escudos. But the fact that he couldn't save her makes me much stronger on the contrary. What could be easier for someone who could make as much gold as he wanted than to corrupt the Guards? If two hundred thousand escudos were not enough, two, or three million would be enough. In two years that he was imprisoned he had time to make the gold that was necessary, not only to enrich all the Guards, but even to conquer the World. Added to this is the contempt that the King of Sweden made of the proposal, which although he wants to attribute it to heroic selflessness, meaning in that generous response, that what he had not done for the intercession of his friends, he would not do for all the gold of the world; or place oneself among the singular whims of that Prince; It is much more credible that the ardent desire to destroy his enemy the Czar induced him to embrace such an easy means of achieving his goal, which was to have an inexhaustible treasure in the secret offering. This is how it should be judged, either that there was no such offer, or that he considered it false. In Colonel Amilton's experience it is easy to say that it is a fabricated story, like many others on this matter.}

22. I answer that all these relations do not have force, because none of the Authors of them was a witness of sight. They all wrote about the flimsy foundation of popular rumors, which tend to arise from very slight motives; and in this matter more than in others they are subject to error due to the clever stratagems and deceptive appearances that Alchemists usually use to persuade that they have the secret of the Philosopher's Stone.

23. Apart from that, going through the very Stories that they allege to us, we will find circumstances to not give assent to them. It is said of Raimundo Lulio that in the Alcázar of London, in the presence and by order of the King of England, he manufactured gold of excellent quality, and that from that gold a type of coin was formed that they called Raimundo's Nobleman. But who assures this? Roberto Constantino, Physician of Caén in Normandy, who lived two centuries after Raymond Lulio. All those [174] who refer to that story cite this one. I ask if in a fact of this nature we should believe a French Author so later than him, despite the silence of all the previous English Authors. It is true that Raimundo Lulio wrote about this art, and assured that he knew it (if the writing on the subject that has his name is still his, and that I saw some fragments). But this proves nothing, since there is no evidence that anyone learns to make gold from those instructions; which will never happen.

24. Some Jurisconsults, cited by Beyerlink in the Theater of Human Life, and by Father Delrio in the Magical Disquisitions, refer to Arnaldo of Villanova that by the Alchemical Art he made some golden rods, which he publicly offered in Rome to all exam. But how is it credible that the fact being so public, the Supreme Pontiff, who reigned at that time, did not take advantage, when it was so easy for him, of Arnold's ability for the benefit of the Church, gathering immense treasures for it? In conscience he had to do it; and since he did not do it, it is clear that he did not give Arnaldo the signs that are said of his ability; and that the Jurisconsults, who are cited, had no other testimony of the fact than some vulgar gossip.

25. There is no other witness of Paracelsus than his disciple Oporinus, who relates many incredible things about his Master; Apart from the fact that he does not say that he ever saw him transmute any metal into gold, only that sometimes when nights were very poor, he would show him in the morning some gold and silver coins, as if he had made them by the art of Alchemy. . But where do we know that Paracelsus did not have those hidden coins, to show them off to Oporinus at the time, and make him believe that he possessed the secret of the Philosopher's Stone, as he wanted the whole world to believe? There is so little to establish in all that he said, and wrote Paracelsus, that it is excused to dwell on this. The Authors who boasted of possessing the Chrysopeia wrote of this art in gibberish: Paracelsus [175] also wrote Medicine in gibberish.

26. Regarding Bernardo Trevisano, or Count of the Marca Trevisana, I do not know that it is known who knew about the artificial gold factory, but that he himself says so in the book of Secretissimo Philosophorum opere Chemico. And I don't think we're obligated to take his word for it; especially when in that writing he gives enough signs of a vain and lying Author. It is not necessary for disappointment more than to see the Authors, or supposed books that he cites, such as the Chronicles of Solomon; the Pandects of Mary the Prophetess; the will of Pythagoras; the Path of Wanderers, written by Plato; I don't know what brief treatise of Euclid; the book of an Aristaeus, who he says ruled the whole world for sixteen years, and who was the most excellent of all the Alchemists, after Hermes.

27. Where it must be noted that what the Alchemists say about these, and other very ancient Authors who dealt with Chrysopeia, is invention and dream. The famous Liege Physician Herman Boerhave, who carefully examined this matter, says (in Prolegom ad institu. Chemmiae) that the oldest Author who wrote down anything about the Chrysopeia was Aeneas Gaserus, who flourished at the end of the fifth, or at the beginning of the sixth century of our Restoration; and the first who dealt doctrinally with this matter was Geber, or Gebro, which some make Arabic, others Greek, and he flourished in the seventh century.

28. Cardano tells of the Apothecary of Treviso that in the presence of Andrés Gritti, Doge of Venice, and the main Patricians of that Republic, he converted quicksilver into gold. Julius Caesar Scaliger makes to Cardano about this news the same objection that we made above about that of Arnaldo de Villanova. If this, he says, were true, the Venetian Senate would have used that man to enrich the Republic with immense treasures, and would even have forced him to reveal the secret. Father Delrio despises this argument, and answers first that where Scaliger knew that the Senate did not do it. The [176] second thing he answers is that he believes that those Senators either dismissed the event as doubtful, or had that experience through pure sleight of hand. Weak solution to a strong argument! As for the first, I say that Scaliger knew, and I also know, that the Senate did not become master of the art of Chrysopeia; because if this were the case, he would also have become master of the Ottoman Empire, and even of the entire World, as any Republic will become that can increase its treasures without limit. As for the second, who will believe that when the Senate could seriously examine the fact, and learn the truth in a matter of such importance, it would not do so? The Trevisan Apothecary was a subject of the Republic, because Treviso is under the dominion of Venice, and thus could justly force him to work for her: so it is undoubtable that if he had the experience for sure, he would use the Artificer; and if he judged it doubtful, with severe examination he would apply himself to find out the truth. If he did it, since he did not use the Artificer, it is clear that he found it to be the delusory art. Father Delrio, to strengthen the testimony of Cardano, adds that of Guillermo Aragosio, who is found in the Theater of human life, verb Chymia. But the fact that Aragosio's Relation is found in said Theater without any citation, contains some circumstances that make it implausible.

29. Nicholas Flamel, a resident of Paris, who lived at the beginning of the fifteenth century, and also boasted of possessing the secret of the Philosopher's Stone, was the one who, among all the pretended adepts, had the most apparent right to be believed. La-Croix Dumaine, cited in Moreri's Dictionary, paints this man as very skillful, since he says that he was a Poet, Painter, Philosopher, Mathematician, and above all a great Alchemist. In the Cemetery of the Holy Innocents, where he was buried, he left a panel painted in oil, where under enigmatic figures, they say, the secrets that he had achieved of Alchemy are represented. The main thing, and what is most relevant, is that while those who boast of knowing the great secret of the Philosopher's Stone, they are usually poor [177] defeated people, who in their nakedness bear the testimony of their falsehood. It is known that Nicolás Flamel had the wealth of more than five hundred thousand escudos, a prodigious sum for that age. However, some French Authors of good judgment discovered in this acquisition of goods another secret very different from that of the Philosopher's Stone. They say that Flamel, having control of finances, earned such a large wealth through robbery and extortion, especially on the Jews of the Kingdom; and to hide the iniquitous means by which he had obtained so much wealth, and to avoid the punishment he deserved, he pretended to owe those treasures to the secret of the Philosopher's Stone. [178]

{(a) 1. Monsieur de Segrais gives news of another Frenchman, named Nicolás Duval, in the time of Francis the First, who was also believed to know the mystery of the Philosopher's Stone because of his many riches. But the aforementioned Author assures that since Duval had a large estate, he earned very large interests in a grain trade with Spain. Monsieur de Segrais speaks on the matter with authentic proof; Well, he says that the Records of an Associate of Duval in that business came into his possession. In a beautiful house that Duval built in Paris there are some bas-reliefs, which represent some stories from the Holy Scripture. Some Germans conjectured that those were symbolic figures where the secrets of Alchemy were represented, and on that assumption they made a useless trip to Paris.

2. With other extremely ridiculous stories the Alchemists try to confirm their dreams as true. As they believe, or want to make people believe, that the Philosopher's Stone benefits the man who possesses it another benefit much greater than enriching him: that is, preserving him from all illness, and prolonging his life for many centuries, it was necessary that some people also pretend to this attempt. facts. That's how they executed it. They publish about a certain Artefio that by the virtue of his Philosopher's Stone he lived one thousand and twenty-five years. In the time of Roger Bacon they said that Artefius had traveled throughout the East; that he knew the highest secrets of all the Sciences; and that he was still in Germany. Juan Francisco Pico, Count of Mirandula, laughing at such simplicity, adds that there were Alchemists who claimed that Artefio was the same as Apolonio Thyáneo.

3. A few years ago in Madrid one of those who, searching for [178] gold by means of the Philosopher's Stone, did not even find copper, counted the purpose as true, and as recent, an event capable of making ten people burst into laughter. hypochondriacs, according to what a person from my Religion told me, who claimed to have heard it. The case is as follows:

4. A Stranger arrived in Toledo, who, either by chance or by intent, established communication with a Dominican Religious, whose cell he began to frequent. The Religious had in it a painting of the Passion of our Savior. The Religious One noticed that whenever the Stranger came to talk to him he would pause for a while in suspense, looking with a kind of admiration, or amazement, at that canvas. He asked her the cause. The Stranger responded that the reason for the suspension was that, having seen countless paintings of the Passion, this was the only one that he had found entirely in accordance with the original. The Religious replied, from where, or how could he know it? To which the Stranger coolly satisfied, saying that he had witnessed firsthand the tragedy that that canvas represented. The Religious judged that he was speaking purely in jest; but he continued to assure that he had reached those times, and that he was one of those who had witnessed that great event. The Religious continued to despise what the guest testified, it came time to explain the mystery to him, which was none other than that he had the Philosopher's Stone, with the benefit of which he had lived so many centuries, and hoped to live many more; because from fifty to fifty years he became younger with the use of it. The way was this. He took a portion of those precious powders (what powders they say they are, although they are called Stone), and he immediately fell asleep. He slept for three calendar days, at the end of which he woke up, finding himself reduced to the most flowery youth. The Dominican always persisting in despising the entire narrative as fabulous, the Stranger offered to verify its truth with experience. This was done on a dog, the oldest of his species that could be found. In the Religious's cell the Stranger gave his powder to the Dog, who immediately fell into a deep sleep; and warning the Religious not to wake him up or worry him until he saw what he was up to, he said goodbye, as if he were returning to his inn. The dog slept for three days, after which [179] he woke up with all the vigor and robustness that he had had in his best years. Seeing this prodigy by the Dominican, he went to look for the Stranger, probably to request from him, if not the discovery of the secret, at least some quantity of those powders, even to cleanse himself two, or three times. But the Stranger did not appear, neither in the inn, nor in the City, nor could anyone give an account of the course he had taken.

5. So far the Relation of the Matritense Alchemist. May God rest his soul, which, according to what someone told me, has already died: and I do not think that in his will he left great legacies, nor founded many pious works. This story is likely to have been created in imitation of another that I heard about someone who in the last century claimed to have been in the Maccabean Wars (or some Alchemist faked the existence of such a man), and also owed his very long age to the Stone. Philosopher. What in Volume 8, Disc. 5 no. 18 we refer to by Federico Gualdo, it is also natural that it was the invention of some Alchemist.}

VI

30. Filaleta's translator, omitting some of the proposed examples, which are common, alleges three other more particular, or less vulgarized ones. The first [179] is from King Don Alonso the Wise quoting him in his treatise on the Treasury, where he says that with the Philosopher's Stone he made gold, and his wealth grew many times over. I answer that I did not see, although I have news of it, this writing of King Don Alonso; but I am certain that he did not possess the secret of the Philosopher's Stone; Because if this were the case, he would not have been so strapped for resources that due to lack of them he lost the Kingdom. Read chap. 5 of the fourteenth book of the History of Father Mariana, and in it these words, speaking of Don Alonso: Nothing more afflicted him than the lack of money, which thwarts the great attempts of the Princes. And then this great Historian adds, that to prevent the drowning he had new silver coins beaten, and copper of a lower grade, and less weight than the ordinary one, retaining the same value: with which he finished irritating his vassals. Good idea of ​​being able to multiply his wealth as much as he wanted with the alchemical art.

31. The second example is from the Emperor Ferdinand the Third, who about Zuvelfero's faith in his Spagyric Mantissa says that with his own hand he made in the City of Prague from three pounds of Quicksilver two and a half pounds [180] of pure gold, With only one grain of the tincture of the Philosophers, of which gold he sent some coins to Father Kirquer, who was in Rome, so that he could examine them; and having passed through all the tests, he found that it was gold like natural gold.

32. I am allowed to contradict Zuvelfero on this fact; because I remember very well having read in the Underground World of Father Kirquer, that having reached this learned Jesuit, while in Rome, the news that the Emperor Ferdinand had made artificial gold, he wrote to that Prince, of whom he was very dear, asking him if it was true; and the Emperor, whose letter Father Kirquer places there verbatim, replied that there was no such thing. The testimony of Father Kirquer in this matter is of much higher appreciation than that of Zuvelfero. And the truth is worth it; If that Emperor had achieved this secret, he would make it hereditary in his Augusta family, for the good of her, and of Christianity. How, then, did the three Emperors who succeeded him use the same means as the other Princes to meet their needs, and sometimes due to lack of gold, they, like their vassals, found themselves in no small straits?

33. The third copy, even more recent than the second, that the Translator of Filaleta alleges, is from Count Rocheri, Neapolitan, of whom he says, not that he knew the secret of making the Philosopher's Stone, but that he had it, having taken it from him. together with the life of a poor Adept who had hosted in his house: and using it said Count deceived and defrauded many Princes, in whose presence he performed the transmutation with the promise of teaching them the secret of making the Stone, until stopping in the Court of Brandenburg, where he also deceived that Sovereign, the imposture finally being discovered, he was hanged from his order in the year 1708. The Translator adds that he himself witnessed some transmutations made in Brussels, not only by said Count Rocheri, [181] but also by Mr. Maximilian Emanuel, Duke of Bavaria, at that time Governor of the Low Country, to whom the Rocheri had given some portion of the philosophical tincture which he had stolen from the Adept.

34. It was necessary, for this example to persuade us, to be sure that the said transmutations did not involve any illusion, or sleight of hand of so many who have discussed, and practiced various liars to persuade that they knew the secret of the transmutation. In the Theater of Human Life we ​​read of a Venetian named Bragadino, who with such illusions demented many Princes, and by force of his apparent operations had persuaded the whole World that he possessed the secret of the Stone; until also wanting to deceive the Duke of Bavaria, this Prince, exploring his way of acting with more caution than the others, learned of the imposture, and had him hanged. Why wouldn't the transmutations made by the Rocheri be purely delusional, as those of the Bragadino were? One and another had the same end; and I think also the same artifice. But what will we say to the transmutations made by the Duke of Bavaria? That the Rocheri taught His Highness the sleight of hand that he knew; and this Prince sometimes took pleasure in the execution of that innocent spectacle, in which no one was harmed; because Princes also have their humors like other men.

VII

35. Here it will be good to discover some of the tricks that Alchemist liars use to persuade them to convert other metals into gold. In short, they are reduced to the fact that they have hidden the gold in dust, or in mass, now in the coals with which they set fire, now in the ashes, now in the same metallic matter that they say they must transmute into gold (so that they put the fire, I say, for example, a piece of iron; but only the outer surface is iron, and inside it is gold), and [182] on the tip of a metal staff, with which they stir the mixture in the fire; and the gold that appears later made into a mass at the bottom of the cup, and that they want to persuade, was made of another metal, it is the same one that they had hidden, and it melted during the operation. These are the artifices that I have read; but there may be many others.

36. Sometimes these liars proceed with such a double pretense that they will deceive the most forewarned man. The following event serves as an example. A Chemist appeared at the Palace of Ernest, Marquis of Bade, offering that Prince to make gold in his presence. Regarding the execution, he said that he did not have the material to do it; but they were inexpensive powders that could be found in any pharmacy or drugstore. He told what their names were; A servant of the Marquis, on his orders, came out to look for them. The first shop he found was that of a foreign druggist who had displayed his merchandise at the gates of the Palace. He asked him if he had such powders, he answered yes, and sold him some quantity at such a low price, as if they were from a sandbox. He took them to the Chemist, who, putting them on the fire, and mixing a little quicksilver, finally took out a piece of gold. The Marquis magnificently rewarded him for the great secret that he had revealed to him; and later wanting to exercise it himself, he requested a greater quantity of those powders; But in no Apothecary did they appear, nor was there found an Apothecary, nor a Druggist who did not say that he had never heard the voice with which the Chemist had named them. The Druggist who was at the door of the Palace, and from whose shop they had been taken, had already disappeared. Likewise, the Chemist had already gone to deceive elsewhere. Finally, it is known that the Chemist and the Druggist were companions, and worked in concert: that with a formed plan the Druggist had placed his tent in such an opportune place, so that he would later stumble upon it, at the same time that the Chemist was using his showbiz; and finally, that the powders, sold at such a vile price [183] ​​for dissimulation, were gold, mixed, and obfuscated with art. Beyerlinck relates this joke, quoting Jeremías Medero; and Father Gaspar Scotto tells of another one very similar to this one, which happened in Brussels.

VIII

37. Lately I can be argued with the bar that the Duke of Florence has among the precious things in his cabinet, which is half of iron and the other half of gold; Therefore the half that is gold could not be made except by alchemical transmutation of iron. I answer that Mr. Homberg, an excellent chemist of the Royal Academy of Sciences, discovered the fallacy of this bar, and in the printed Memoirs of the Academy the artifice with which two separate portions, one of iron , another of gold, were joined together so that they appear to be the same piece.

IX

38. Up to this point I have contested the possibility of the metallic transmutation that the Alchemists claim; But since I do not have the presumption that my arguments are conclusive, I will now add that even if this art is possible, no one should apply itself to it: rather it would be imprudence to undertake its study, due to the great implausibility of achieving a good success.

39. This implausibility is derived from several reasons. The first is that, as the Alchemists themselves confess, among thousands of men who with great diligence spent their entire lives searching for the Philosopher's Stone, only one, or another very rare one, found it. Who, then, can plausibly be persuaded that he must be one of that small number of the happy, and not before the immense multitude of the unfortunate? Or who will prudently enter into a business, where one becomes rich out of a thousand, and all the rest derive no other fruit from their labor than to be reduced to greater poverty? It is good for everyone to keep [184] in mind what he said at the time of the death of Bernardo Penoto, a skilled chemist, who died almost at the age of one hundred, and all his life he was searching for the Philosopher's Stone. His disciples and friends, who surrounded the bed, asked him to communicate to them the secrets that he had obtained regarding the Chrysopeia; and he answered them: Friends, I have no other secret to trust but this one; If you have a powerful enemy, whom you want to destroy, try to inspire in him the desire to search for the Philosopher's Stone. This is the greatest harm you can do. Mr. Duclos, Physician of Paris, who died at the age of eighty-seven, and visited very few sick people, spending most of his time studying Chrysopeia, he said almost the same thing, when he was about to die.

40. The second reason, by which the achievement of the Philosopher's Stone is made implausible (and even morally impossible), is the lack of instruction. The means used to achieve it is to read the books that deal with it; but these, instead of giving any light, give only shadows: such is the darkness with which they are written. The Authors who spoke most clearly only revealed those few general principles of theory, which we report above. But when it comes to dealing with the operations with which gold must be extracted and dyed, they all, without reservation, involve the matter with such enigmas that even if a thousand Oedipus were gathered together, they would not be able to decipher them; so that he who does the most, does what the river Alfeo does, which uncovers a small stretch, and most of the way is hidden underground. Filaleta (of whom Translator writes that he wrote more clearly than all the others) confesses of himself, chap. 14, that he does not name things by their own names. If this is how the person who speaks more clearly than everyone explains it, what will we expect from the rest? nor what will we expect from this same

41. In fact, the same Authors of first estimation among the Alchemists agree that only they understand what they write; But those who do not know the art will gain nothing [185] from their books, except by divine revelation. Teobaldo Hoghelande in the book of Difficultatibus Alchemicae, part. 2, gather some testimonies of these. The Author himself confesses that although he had a hundred books on this art (which he is known to have read well), he could not advance anything in it.

42. The third foundation is taken from the inconsistencies and contradictions of the Alchemists, not only regarding the material of the Philosopher's Stone, but also regarding its preparation, in which some ask for a greater number, others a lesser number. operations; They also vary in the substance, and series of them. Some want the first operation, or first degree of the work to be the Solution, others the Calcination, others the Sublimation. Where I notice that the Translator of Filaleta took charge of the contradictions that exist about the matter of the Stone, and he reconciled them very well; but not the ones about preparation, which are almost as many as those.

43. But the most visible, and at the same time most ridiculous, inconsistency that I notice in the Alchemical Writers, is the following. All, or almost all the Christian Authors who have written about it, take it as an indispensable precept that the one who is applying himself to this art be a good Christian, devout, humble, of right intention, of pure conscience; and they affirm that without that inexcusable circumstance the great secret of the Philosopher's Stone will never be achieved. On the other hand, they confess that this secret was communicated from the Arabs to the Latins, and the primordial Authors, or Princes they allege, are all Saracenic and Mohammedan scoundrels: Geber, Rasis, Avicenna, Haly, Calid, Jazich, Bendegid, Bolzain, Albugazal. From these they took everything that Lullius, Villanova, Paracelsus, Basil Valentinus, Trevisan, Morienus, Rosinus, and the rest of the Europeans wrote, celebrating those as distinguished adepts, especially Geber, who carries the flag before everyone. Make these measurements clear to me. They tell us that it is necessary to achieve the practical Chrysopeia of the Gospel, [186] and at the same time they propose to us the Cultists of the Alcoran as the greatest Masters of the art.

X

44. From what has been said, it can be inferred that the writers of Alchemy can only be useful to those who read them, not for instruction, but for entertainment, such as the Novels of Don Belianis of Greece, and Amadis of Gaula. That is not why I condemn those Authors who, without boasting of possessing the secret of the Stone, treat this matter philosophically, like the Translator of Filaleta, proving its possibility, to which many men of judgment and doctrine have agreed. This matter is as worthy of serious discussion as other philosophical matters. But with the books of those Alchemists who promise, by force of their precepts, the achievement of the great secret, I believe that one could do what the Alchemists do with metals: that is, calcine them, dissolve them, amalgamate them, melt them, precipitate them, &c . And when this rigor is not reached, let us make of them the estimate that Leo X made of a book that an Alchemist dedicated to him. The Author expected considerable gratification from that generous Protector of the Arts, and good letters; But the one that the Pontiff made for him was reduced to an empty bag that he sent him, saying that since he knew the art of making gold, he did not need anything other than a bag to put it in.

Addition

45. The Filaleta Translator says, fol. 64 that Saint Thomas in his Moral Works confesses the possibility of artificial gold, and claims to have done so. Since the Author does not indicate the place except below the generality of Obras Morales, he makes it impossible to examine the testimony on which it is based. But without recklessness I believe I can affirm that in none of the Works of Saint Thomas does one read [187] that the Angelic Doctor claims to have made the gold; and when he had done so, he could, not only confess the possibility, but affirm the existence. Far from that, in the second of the Sentences, dist. 7, quaest. 3, art. 1, considers Chrysopeia impossible. It is true that the Saint's reason does not seem very effective to me; Well, it is based on the fact that the substantial form of gold is not made by the heat of fire, but by that of the Sun; and in the Physical Paradoxes we have shown the opposite; That is, the formation of gold is not due to the heat of the Sun, it being impossible for it to penetrate to the depth of the mines, but rather to the underground fire.

46. ​​He also cited Saint Thomas, 2, 2, quaest, in favor of Chrysopeia. 77, art. 2, the Author of an anonymous paper, which was printed two years ago; but there the Saint does not determine anything, and only speaks conditionally, saying that if the Alchemists made real gold, they could sell it as such: Si autem per Alchimiam ièret verum aurum, non esset illicitum ipsum pro vero vendee (But if real gold went through alchemy, it would not be illegal to sell it for real gold). Rather, the conditional si feret seems to assume that it is not actually done.