of a Magician; that Paracelesus applied himself to the cure of 
disease and the prolongation of life as the first considération, ai- 
though his greatest achievements seem to modem thinkers to hâve 
been ratifier his discoveries of opium, zinc, and hydrogen; so that 
we tend to think of him as a chemist no less than we do of Van 
Helmont, whose conception of gas ranks him as one of those rare 
geniuses who hâve increased human knowledge by a fundamentally 
important idea. 
The literature of Alchemy is immense. Practicaliy ail of it is 
wholly or partially unintelligible. Its treatises, from the aAsch 
Metzareph” of the Hebrews to the “Chariot of Antimony” are 
deliberately couched in hieratic riddles. Ecclesiastical persécution, 
and the profanation of the secrets of power, were equally dreaded. 
Worse still, from our point of view, this motive induced writers 
to insert intentionally misleading statements, the more deeply to 
bedevil unworthy pretenders to their mysteries. 
We do not propose to discuss any of the actual processes. Most 
readers will be already aware that the main objects of alchemy 
were the Philosopheras Stone, the Medicine of Metals, and varions 
tinctures and élixirs possessing divers virtues; in particular, those 
of healing disease, extending the span of life, increasing human 
abilities, perfecting the nature of man in every respect, conferring 
magical powers, and transmuting material substances, especially 
metals, into more valuable forms. 
The subject is further complicated by the fact that many 
authors were unscrupulous quacks. Ignorant of the first éléments 
of the art, they plagiarized without shame, and reaped a harvest 
of fraudulent gain. They took advantage of the general ignorance, 
and the convention of mystery, in just the same way as their 
modem successors do in the matter of ail Occult sciences. 
But despite all.this, one thing is abundantly clear; ail serious 
writers, though they seem to speak of an infinity of different 
subjects, so much so that it has proved impossible for modem 
analytic research to ascertain the true nature of any single process, 
were agreed on the fundamental theory on which they based their 
practices. It appears at first sight as if hardly any two of them 
were in accord as to the nature of the “First Matter of the Work”. 
— 184