192 
NATURE 
[FEBRUARY I0, 1923 

et le mercure. Ce sont la, en réalité, des théories 
nouvelles, postérieures a celles d’Avicenne. 
10, (All the Swmma) “est d’une fermeté de pensée 
et d’expression, inconnue aux auteurs antérieurs, 
notamment au Djaber arabe.”’ 
II. There is no mention in the Arabic work of 
nitric acid, aqua regia, or silver nitrate, all of which 
are described in the Latin works. 
It will be observed that all these arguments are 
negative ones, and rest upon the difference between 
the Latin works and the Arabic opuscules of Jabir 
known to Berthelot. Up to the present I have not 
found any Arabic works which can be considered as 
the originals of the Latin treatises, but that there is 
much to be said against Berthelot’s conclusions will be 
apparent from the following remarks, which I have 
numbered to correspond with the preceding quotations. 
1. Jabir enunciates the sulphur-mercury theory of 
metals in the first book of his ‘“‘One Hundred and 
Twelve Books ” (quoted by Al-Jildaki in vol. 1. of the 
“Nihayat at-Talab”). He says very definitely that 
“the seven fusible bodies are composed of mercury 
and sulphur.” Compare this with chap. i. of the 
“Investigation of Perfection ’’: ‘ All metallick bodies 
are compounded of argentvive and sulphur.” This is 
expanded in the “ Book of Properties,” section 12 
(B.M. manuscript), where Jabir advances the theory 
that all minerals, whether metallic or not, are composed 
of mercury, sulphur, gold, and sal-ammoniac. 
2. Jabir can be quite definite when he likes; the 
three preparations given below are taken from the 
“* Book of Properties.” 
(a) Section 36. ‘‘ Take a pound of litharge, powder 
it well and heat it gently with four pounds of wine 
vinegar until the latter is reduced to half its original 
volume. Then take a pound of good galz (crude 
sodium carbonate) and heat it with four pounds of 
fresh water until the volume of the latter is halved. 
Filter the two solutions until they are quite clear 
and then gradually add the solution of galz to that 
of the litharge. A white substance is formed which 
settles to the bottom. Pour off the supernatant 
water and leave the residue to dry. It will become 
a salt as white as snow.” (b) Section 38. ‘Take a 
pound of litharge and a quarter of a pound of soda, 
and powder each well. Then mix them together 
and make them up into a paste with oil and heat 
in a descensory. (The metal) will descend pure and 
white.”’ (c) Section 36. ‘‘To convert mercury into a 
red solid. Take a round glass vessel and pour a 
convenient quantity of mercury into it. Then take 
a Syrian earthenware vessel and in it put a little 
powdered yellow sulphur. Place the glass vessel on 
the sulphur and pack it round with more sulphur up 
to the brim. Place the apparatus in the furnace for 
a night, over a gentle fire . . . after having closed 
the mouth of the earthenware pot. Now take it 
out and you will find that the mercury has been 
converted into a hard red stone of the colour of 
blood. . . . It is the substance which men of science 
call cinnabar.”’ 
3. That many of Jabir’s books are couched in 
allegorical language no one will deny, but in others 
there is scarcely any trace of allegory (e.g., the ‘‘ Book 
of Properties ”) and Jabir is quite capable of sustaining 
a closely reasoned argument. Lack of space prevents 
me from illustrating this point as fully as I could wish, 
but I may perhaps refer to the ‘‘ Book of Balances,” 
where he says, ‘“‘It must be taken as an absolutely 
NO. 2780, VOL. 111 | 
rigorous principle that any proposition which is not 
supported by proofs is nothing more than an assertion 
which may be true or may be false. It is only when 
a man brings proofs of his assertion that we say, your 
proposition is true.” Similarly, he is at pains in the 
‘Book of Properties” to make it clear that he is describ- 
ing his personal experiences ; “ we have described only 
that which we ourselves have seen, and not that which 
was told us or what we heard or read.”’ Jabir is very 
precise, again, in his ‘“‘ Book of Definitions.” 
4. Berthelot’s fourth argument is sufficiently answered 
by the evidence I have brought forward in r, 2, and 
| 3. In his “ Book of the Divine Science,” Jabir refers 
to Pythagoras and Plato, and defines chemistry as 
“that branch of natural science which investigates. 
the method of formation of the fusible bodies” (z.e. 
the metals). His views on the structure of cinnabar, 
given in the same book, are so precise, and refute 
Berthelot’s charge of vagueness so well, that I cannot 
refrain from quoting them here. 
‘‘When mercury and sulphur combine to form one 
single substance it has been thought that they have 
essentially changed and that an entirely new substance 
is formed. The fact is otherwise, however. Both 
the mercury and the sulphur retain their own natures 
—all that has happened is that their parts have 
become attenuated and in close approximation to 
one another, so that to the eye the product appears 
uniform. But if one could find an apparatus to 
separate the particles of one sort from those of the 
other, it would be apparent that each of them has 
remained in its own permanent natural form and 
has not been transmuted or changed. We say, 
indeed, that such transmutation is not possible for — 
natural philosophers.” 
5. If Albertus Magnus and Vincent de Beauvais 
knew no Arabic, and if the Swmma, etc., (supposing 
that they were originally Arabic) had not yet been 
translated into Latin, the absence of mention would 
be explained. In any case, the argument a silentio is 
always unsatisfactory. : 
6. It is here that Berthelot’s ignorance of Arabic 
has led him astray. As a matter of fact, the Swmnma 
is full of Arabic phrases and turns of thought, and so 
are the other Latin works. It is obvious that a full 
discussion of this point would require far more space 
than is available here, and I hope to treat of it else- 
where. I will, however, quote one or two passages 
of Russell’s English translation of Geber which are of 
unmistakable Arabic origin. ‘‘Our Art is reserved in 
the Divine Will of God and is given to, or withheld 
from, whom he will, who is Glorious, Sublime, and full 
of all Justice and Goodness.” “.. . transmute with 
firm transmutation” (a well-known construction in 
Arabic). “This Divine Art, which is both necessary 
and known.” “Now let the high God of Nature, 
blessed and glorious, be praised, who hath revealed 
to us the Series of all Medicines.” ‘“‘ We have dispersed 
the special things pertinent to this Praxis, in diverse 
Volumes ” (often said by Jabir). ‘‘ Gold Obrizon ” 
(dhahab ibriz). ‘‘One part tingeth infinite parts of — 
Mercury into most high Sol, more noble than any 
natural Gold.” ‘‘Festination is from the Devil’s 
part.” 
7. So far, I have not found in Jabir any mention 
of the arguments against the possibility of transmutation 
