Friday, September 14, 2007

More information on Antimony and Alchemy

Since my last post I have done a little more reading, which has been most interesting, but not substantially changed by conclusion.
Biringuccio says about Antimony:
“The practical philosophers make great use of it in their alchemistic works, in order, they say, to make an oil that they believe gives the colour of gold to fixed silver. For this reason many of them hold it in high repute, especially the kind that has long thin fibres like a bundle of bristles. And they say that they can obtain greater results with it than Sulphur, since it is nearer the metallic species than sulphur is. This I know for certain because I have seen them extract from it a bloody liquor in the form of an oil. The alchemist who made that which I saw told me that it had not only the property of giving a golden colour to silver but also the properly of fixing silver. This may be true, but as I said, I have seen only the liquor, and I have never seen silver coloured by it or anything else.”

He also mentions that it was mined and used in Pewter and bells. Interestingly enough, one article in the journal of the Historical Mettallurgy Society says that many Bronze cooking vessels in the medieval period had around 5% Antimony, but that it was most likely from the use of Copper ore rich in Antimony. Unfortunately none of my information sources mention the use of Antimony in pewter.

Biringuccio was writing in the 1530’s, so we can safely say that Antimony was then in use by Alchemists. This pushes its use back to the early 16th century. Now of course it would be really interesting to know who was actually using it, but it is hard to find real evidence of alchemy from the 15th century. We have some, but it is not very informative, at least not in the way I want.

Or do we?

I have also found a translation of a text about Antimony which purports to have been written by Roger Bacon, called “Tract on the tincture and oil of Antimony”, apparently from a German book published in the 17th century.
http://www.levity.com/alchemy/rbacon2.html
Of course it is not likely to have been written by Roger Bacon, since he was around in the 13th century, and many texts were written by people who wanted to give them false authority and antiquity (It being a general tenet of Alchemy that the ancients had quite a few people who knew the secret, thus old texts were better than new ones), and thus affixed the name of someone like Roger Bacon to them.

Given what I quote Biringuccio as saying above, it is interesting to find that the aforementioned tract says:
“Several poor and common Laborers, when they have prepared the Antimonium thus, have taken one part out, to take care of their expenses, so that they may more easily do the rest of the work and complete it, They then mixed it with one part Salmiac, one part Vitro (alii. Nitro, alii. Titro), one part Rebohat, to cleanse the Corpera, and then proceeded to project this mixture onto a pure Lunam. And if the Luna was one Mark, they found two and a half Loth good gold after separation; sometimes even more. And therewith they had accomplished a work providing for their expenses, so that they might even better expect to attain to the Great Work. And the foolish called this a bringing into the Lunam, but they are mistaken. For such gold is not brought in by the Spiritibus (alii. Speciebus), but any Luna contains two Mark gold to the Loth, some even more. But this gold is united to the Lunar nature to such a degree that it may not be separated from it, neither by Aquafort, nor by common Antimonium, as the goldsmiths know. When however the just mentioned mixture is thrown onto the Lunam in flux, then such a separation takes place that the Luna quite readily gives away her implanted gold either in Aquafort or in Regal, and lets herself separate from it, strikes it to the ground and precipitates it, which would or might otherwise not happen. Therefore it is not a bringing into the Lunam, but a bringing out of the Luna.”
What this looks like to me is a recipe for preparing an Antimonial solution, which when added to Silver makes something that looks like gold. The moon is usually Silver, at least according to my familiarity with Alchemy, gold being called the Sun.
What is more amusing is that on the levity.com website from which the above quote is taken, is mention of “The secret book of Artephius”,
http://www.levity.com/alchemy/artephiu.html
This was allegedly written in the 12th century, and translated by someone called “Lapidus”, who published a book called “In pursuit of Gold” in 1976. Oddly enough, I can find no other mention of Artephius online, except connected to this “In pursuit of gold”, or in other words, this person and manuscript may well not exist. Neither of my two modern books on Alchemy mention Lapidus or Artephius. The book of Artephius apparently describes the use of Antimony to do the usual Alchemical operations.

The mystery becomes farcical when you read this thread from the Levity.com archives, about Lapidus:
http://www.levity.com/alchemy/t_lapid.html
In summary, someone asks if Lapidus is still alive and going to publish something else, and if he is a certain named person. One person replied that he was dead, and not the named person. Someone else then replied that Lapidus was in fact alive, and possibly going to publish another book soon.

This goes to show the confusion that surrounds the modern practise of Alchemy, and the opportunities for fraud and lies. Which is a shame.

2 comments:

Andrew Judd said...

John Tyndall wrote in 1864 that Bacon was aware of the Modern theory of heat. So assuming this is the same Bacon then Bacon knew quite a bit.

The Caloric theory of heat was not annilated, as Tyndall put it, until 1798 but it was still hanging around for another hundred years.

Andrew Judd said...

Oops Tyndall was refering to Francis Bacon 1560 to 1626