SILVER-MAKING AND GOLD-MAKING

...had bought [it], as if he were held at fault for the ignorance of his own craft. On the other hand, the goldsmith original: "faber aurarius" argued that he had only been asked for a test by the Lydian stone The "lapis lydius" or touchstone, used to test the purity of precious metals by the color of the streak they leave behind, which he had reported truly, but that he had not attempted a test with a chisel original: "scalprum," a tool used to scrape or cut into the metal to see what lies beneath the surface, and had received no payment for that specific task. Being consulted by a most wise and noble man, who is now my colleague, as to what I thought should be judged, I replied: if the necklace were only gilded original: "deauratus," meaning surface-level gold plating, the judgment ought to be given against the goldsmith, because the gilding alone could have been detected by repeated testing with the Lydian stone. But if, in truth, the gold had been attached to the surface while the body of the necklace remained a distinct substance underneath, the goldsmith would be protected by the legal exception and should be acquitted, because such a thing could by no means be judged by the Lydian stone, but only by the chisel. Immediately after this interlocutory decree A provisional court order was issued, a test by nitric acid original: "aqua acri," literally "sharp water," a common term for nitric acid used to separate gold from silver was performed on one of the filaments; we saw the body of gold remain at the bottom of the glass vessel, while the silver was poured out and dissolved in the nitric acid. If it had been mere gilding, it would have settled at the bottom of the same glass vessel as an impalpable and very thin powder. When the buyer learned this, he withdrew from the lawsuit, for he foresaw a prejudicial judgment. But the case could not have been so judged unless goldsmiths had been consulted on this matter and their advice obtained.

As for what I shall attempt to answer near the end of the Apology to Erastus Thomas Erastus (1524–1583), a Swiss physician and theologian famous for his fierce intellectual attacks on Paracelsus and alchemy—who has attacked this part of Philosophy, of which he was ignorant, with many insults and reproaches—I leave it to the judgment of saner men whether our response will be superior to his insults and reproaches. Indeed, Erastus was a man of the highest authority, but he was a man, and he was ignorant of many arts, even easy ones, which men of weaker intellect did not ignore. He brought forward many universal propositions, but he was ignorant of those which are proper and peculiar to this art. As for others, let them value this undertaking of mine as they will. I write only for those who judge rightly—not with an unheard cause, but after all things have been examined and weighed from both sides—and who look upon and venerate the secrets of God. Nor let anyone impute it to me as a vice or a crime if I bring to light things that have been hidden until now.

Rather, the ancients must be rebuked, as well as the others, who rendered a matter obscure enough in itself even more obscure with their riddles original: "inuolucris," literally "wrappings" or "coverings," referring to the allegorical language of alchemists. For if they were allowed to hide the method of operation, they at least ought to have opened up the reasons and causes from which, by which, through which, and for which the art can exist; which I see has been performed by none of them.

Nor yet was it to be feared that one might arrive at this art [easily]...