P H I 
philofopher.—Few there be, that with EpiCletus can phi- 
lofophate in flavery, or, like Cleanthes, can draw water all 
the day, and (hidy mod: of the night. Barrow. 
PHILOSOPHA'TION, f. Piiilofophical difcudion.— 
The work being to be the bads of many future inferences 
and philof'ophations. Sir \V. Petty's Aelv. to Hartlih. 
PHILOS'OPHEME, f [Greek.] Principle of reafon- 
ing; theorem. An unufual word.—You will learn how 
taaddrefs yourfelf to children for their benefit, and derive 
fome ufeful philofopliemes for your own entertainment. 
WttttSm ' 
PHILOS'OPHER, f. [philofophus, Lat. pliilofophe, Fr.] 
A man deep in knowledge, either moral or natural.—The 
philofopher hath long ago told us, that, according to the 
divers nature of things, fo mud the evidences for them 
be; and that ’tis an argument of an undifciplined wit 
not to acknowledge this. Wilkins.— Adam, in the date of 
innocence, came into the world a philofopher, which fuffi- 
ciently appeared by his writing the nature of things upon 
their names; he could view effences in themfelves, and 
read forms without the comment of their refpe&ive pro¬ 
perties. South. 
When a race of felf-created preceptors arofe in Greece, 
who aflumed the name of fophijls, or wife men, their ar¬ 
rogant pretendons gave great offence to fuch as were ca- 
palfle of diflinguilhing between real and counterfeit wif- 
dom, and led them to adopt an appellation more fuitable 
to the character of men who modeflly profeffed themfelves 
to be in the purfuit, rather than in th e pojffion, of truth 
and wifdom; viz. that of philo-fophers, or lovers of wildom. 
Cicero afcribes the invention of this term to Pythagoras, 
and gives the following account of the manner in which 
it was introduced. “Every one knows, that among the 
Greeks there were feven eminent men, who have fince 
been univerfally denominated the feven wife men of 
Greece; that, at a dill earlier period, Lycurgus, and, 
even in the heroic ages, Ulyd’es and Nedor, were called 
wife men-, and, in (hort, that this appellation has, from 
the mod ancient times, been given to thofe who have de¬ 
voted themfelves to the contemplation of nature. This 
title continued in ufe till the time of Pythagoras. It 
happened, while this great man was at Phlius, that Leon, 
the chief of the Phliulians, was exceedingly charmed with 
the ingenuity and eloquence with which he difcourfed 
upon various topics, and alked him in what art he prin¬ 
cipally excelled ; to which Pythagoras replied, that he did 
not profefs himfelf metjler of any art, but that he was a 
philofopher. Leon, druck with the novelty of the term, 
alked Pythagoras who were philofophers, and in what 
they differed from other men. Pythagoras replied, that 
as, in the public games, while fome are contending for 
glory, and others are buying and felling in purfuit of 
gain, there is always a third clafs of perfons, who attend 
merely as fpe&ators; fo, in human life, amidd the various 
characters of men, there is a lelect number of thofe, who, 
defpifing all other purfuits, affiduoudy apply themfelves 
to the dudy of nature, and the fearch after wifdom : 
thefe, added Pythagoras, are the perfons whom I call phi. 
Itfophers .” Cicero Tufcul. Difp. 1 . v. c. 3. 
This appellation, thus affumed merely through mo- 
dedy, to intimate that even they who have made the 
greated advances in knowledge are rather to be confider- 
ed as “lovers of wifdom” than as “ wife men,” foon loff 
its original meaning, and was borne with as much haugh- 
tinefs and vanity as if it had implied an exclufive right 
to the poffedion of wifdom. “Some there are,” lays 
Quintilian (Protein. Inft.) “ who, defpifing the occupation 
of an orator, have employed themfelves in prefcribing 
rules for the conduct of life; thefe have infolently aflumed 
to themfelves the title of the J'ole profejfors of wifdom .” 
The fefts of philofophers are very numerous; and their 
dogmata or tenets very contradictory. Thus, Helmonr, 
and fome of the chemifts, denominate themfelves “phi¬ 
lofophers by fire.” The alchemifls, and adepti, are fre- 
PHI 103 
quently denominated the “ philofophers,” by way of 
eminence. 
PHILOSOPHER’S STO'NE, the great obje£l of alche¬ 
my, is a long-fought-for preparation, which, when found, 
is to tranfmute or exalt impurer metals, as tin, lead, and 
copper, into gold and filver. 
Some of the Greek writers in the fourth and fifth cen¬ 
turies, fpeak of an art, as being then known, of tranf- 
muting the bafer metals into gold ; and towards the end 
of the thirteenth century, when the learning of the eaft 
had been brought hither by the Arabians, the fame pre- 
tenfions began to fpread through Europe. It is fuppofed 
that this art, called alchemy, was of Egyptian origin; and 
that, when the ancient Greek philofophers travelled into 
Egypt, they brought back fome of the allegoric language 
of this Egyptian art, ill underftood, which afterwards 
palled into their mythology. Alchemy was the earlieff 
branch of chemiftry, confidered as a philofophical fcience: 
in the other parts of chemical knowledge, fa&s preceded 
reafoning or fpeculation; but alchemy was originally 
fpeculative. 
The alchemifls fuppofed the general principles of metals 
to be chiefly two fubflances, which they called mercury 
and fulphur; they apprehended alfo, that the pure, 
mercurial, fulphureous, or other principles of which they 
imagined gold to be compofed, were contained, feparately, 
in other bodies: and thefe principles, therefore, they en¬ 
deavoured to coiled, and to concoCt and incorporate by 
long digeffions ; and by thus conjoining the principles of 
gold, if they could be fo procured and conjoined, it might 
1 be expected that gold would be produced. But the al- 
cbemifts pretend to a product of a higher order, called the 
elixir, the medicine for metals, the tincture, the philc- 
fopber’s ftone; which, by being projected on a large 
quantity of any of the inferior metals in fufion, fliould 
change them into fine gold ; which being laid on a plate 
of filver, copper, or iron, and moderately heated, fliould 
fink into the metal, and change into gold all the parts to 
which it was applied; which, on being properly heated 
with pure gold, fliould change the gold into a fubftance 
of the fame nature and virtue with itfelf, fo as thus to be 
fufceptible of perpetual multiplication ; and which, by 
continued coition, fliould have its power more and more 
exalted, fo as to be able to tranfmute greater and greater 
quantities of the inferior metals, according to its different 
degrees of perfection. 
There are three ways by w'hich the alchemifls have at¬ 
tempted to arrive at the making of gold. The firff by 
J'eparation ; for it is affirmed, that every metal yet known 
contains fome quantity of gold : only, in moll, the quan¬ 
tity is fo little, that it will not defray the expenfe of 
getting it out. 
The fecond is by maturation ; for the.alchemifls hold 
mercury to be the balls and matter of all metals; that 
quickfiiver purged from all heterogeneous bodies would 
be much heavier, denfer, and Ampler, than the native 
quickfiiver; and that by fubtilizing, purifying, and di- 
gefting it with much labour, and long operations, it may 
be converted into pure gold. This method of maturation 
is only for mercury : the other metals it is ineffectual for, 
on two accounts : 1. becaufe their matter is not pure 
mercury, but has other heterogeneous bodies adhering to 
it; 2. becaufe the digeftion, by which mercury is turned 
into gold, would not fucceed in other met.ds, in regard 
thefe had not been long enough in the mines. Weight 
was called the individual and inimitable character of gold, 
&c. Now mercury, they fay, has ever fome impurities in 
it; and thofe impurities are lighter than mercury: could 
thofe be purged quite out, as it does not appear to them 
impoffible but they might, mercury would be as heavy as 
gold ; and, “ what is as heavy as gold is gold, or at lealt 
might very eafily be made gold.” What is to be faid 
then of platinum, which is heavier than gold ? 
The third method is, that of tranfmuting, or of turning 
all 
