Esoteric Telling
Functionality of a
Printed Alchemical Dialogue
between Master and Student
Kid-Lee R. Vermaase 1876104 August 2014
Research Master Classical, Medieval & Renaissance Studies University of Groningen
Ramon Llull1
The image on the front page is taken from the Aureum vellus, part III, p. 239, and is adapted by Kid-Lee Vermaase.
1 Introduction ... 1 1.1 General ... 1 1.2 Historiographical Framework ... 1 1.3 Approach ... 8 2 Sources ... 12 2.1 Manuscript sources ... 12 2.1.1 Manuscripts ... 12
2.1.2 Identification and incipits ... 16
2.1.3 Titles and authors ... 17
2.2 Printed sources ... 20
2.2.1 Aureum Vellus oder Guldin Schatz und Kunstkammer ... 20
2.2.2 Duytsche Alchimie ... 24
2.2.3 De denario medico ... 26
2.2.4 Penotus Palimbios or the Alchymists Enchiridion ... 28
2.2.5 Observations ... 30
3 Nature of the printed Dialogue ... 34
4 The dialogue genre ... 37
5 The content ... 45
5.1 Structure ... 46
5.2 Alchemical themes ... 47
5.2.1 Nature of the Stone ... 48
5.2.2 Sublimation ... 50 5.2.3 Separation ... 50 5.2.4 Furnace... 51 5.2.5 Conjunction ... 52 5.2.6 Tinging ... 52 5.2.7 Secrecy ... 53 5.2.8 Transmutation ... 54 5.2.9 Multiplication ... 55 5.3 Observations ... 56 6 Textual change ... 58 6.1 Dialogus philosophiae ... 59
6.4 Inserted explanations ... 62 6.5 Manuscript elements ... 64 6.6 Observations ... 65 7 Textual corruption ... 70 8 Meta-text ... 73 8.1 Aureum vellus ... 73 8.2 Duytsche alchimie ... 74 8.3 De denario medico ... 75 8.4 Alchymists Enchiridion ... 78
9 Markings and notes ... 80
10Conclusion ... 84
10.1 The publication of the books ... 84
10.2 Intended readership ... 85
10.3 Editing the Dialogue ... 88
10.4 Tradition ... 90
10.5 The Dialogue as complementary ... 90
10.6 Further research ... 92
Bibliography ... 93
Appendix I: Transcripts ... 100
Appendix II: Photos ... 113
1
1
Introduction
1.1
General
In this thesis the content and context of a hitherto uninvestigated concise didactic alchemical dialogue is researched. The dialogue’s subject is the process of producing the Philosopher’s Stone in order to transmute base metals into gold, together known as the Great Work. In total four prints were published that contained an edition of the dialogue. These are the German Aureum vellus tractatus III (1599), the Dutch Duytsche alchimie (1600), the Latin De denario medico by B.G. Pe-not (1608) and the English translation thereof, the Alchymists Enchiridion (1692). Because there is no consensus on the dialogue’s title, the text will be referred to as Dialogue hereafter. This text, however, turns out to have circulated in manuscript already since at least the late fifteenth centu-ry, under different titles and with several authors attributed to them, from the Catalan theologian Ramon Llull2 to a certain Uguictius of Pisa. The variety is remarkable. The Dialogue continued to be copied into the nineteenth century, leading to a list of thirthy manuscripts in total, although some cases remain uncertain. The amount of versions suggests the Dialogue saw a fairly broad distribution in Western Europe and was not unknown to individuals interested in alchemy.
1.2
Historiographical Framework
In the past twenty to thirty years, the historiography of alchemy has been changed without ques-tion and continued to be enriched significantly with new perspectives and informaques-tion. There has been a positive re-evaluation of alchemy as research object and it is being studied more extensive-ly than before. In this chapter this re-evaluation is explained, together with the historiographical aspects found in the current state of research.
Alchemy as a discipline has long since been the subject of prejudice, which apparently mani-fested itself so strong that various present-day researchers still consider it necessary to attend to the problem. Usually, the bias revolves around the terms rationality, experiment and reasoning and their antonyms. Alchemy has long been considered irrational, and alchemists were believed to be poor scientific observers and experimenters, which identified the whole discipline as the opposite of chemistry. This anachronistic assessment has been complemented with equally anachronistic interpretations that became popular, such as its association with Victorian occultism, ‘black arts’ and the Jungian explanation of alchemical metaphors and allegories.3 In practise some researchers
define their approach to alchemy with a reference to these anachronistic and simplified
2 I follow A. Bonner in maintaining this spelling, which is modern Catalan. Medieval Latin varieties are
(Ray-mundus/Raimundus) Lul, Lullus and Lullius; English also has Lully. See Bonner 1993, 9, n. 13.
3 Principe & Newman, in Secrets of Nature. Astrology and Alchemy in Early Modern Europe. Edited by W.R. Newman
2
ceptions which permeate popular and even academic conceptions through the imagery of, say, C.G. Jung and Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. Indeed much has been done to vitiate mis-conceptions and re-evaluate alchemy, especially in the last two to three decades.4 Researchers
have shown that alchemy is in fact on a par with other early modern scientific disciplines and cannot be seen separate from and opposite to the Scientific Revolution. In fact, it really is not opposite to some ‘modern’ and ‘experimental’ chemistry either. Instead, alchemy laid an im-portant foundation for what we now know as chemistry today. Strictly separating the two has become untenable, and even the distinction with cookery was sometimes blurred.5 Hence the
term chymistry has been coined to refer to the whole of early modern alchemy/chemistry, in order to avoid unwanted and anachronistic connotations.6 This term will be used in the rest of this chapter, but not in the rest of this research, because the Dialogue is medieval.
In recent historiography chymistry has been investigated extensively within the scope of the Scientific Revolution and early modern society by scholars, who permitted the discipline to speak more for itself.7 Through this research, an image arises of a rational and experimental chymistry
that formed an important and inherent part of that Revolution. Research went beyond the out-moded dichotomy, and this seems to have become the habit in present-day scholarship. Hence recent historiography of the subject acknowledges all of chymistry’s aspects and its influence on other fields, and deals with the Philosopher’s Stone, alchemical metaphors, scientific experiment, medicine and modern developments which are in debt with premodern developments, without including Jungian and occult interpretations of alchemical metaphors.8 Instead, scientific
explana-tions are given for them.9
In line with this rehabilitation and reassessment of chymistry, the discipline has not been treated as monolithic or static.10 Instead researchers are well aware of the fact that words like
alchemy and chemistry were, and are, umbrella terms, covering for example natural philosophy, la-boratory practice, technological developments and medicine. Chymistry is studied in its diversity
4 See the Isis Focus section 2011, vol. 102, no. 2. In there, especially: Newman 2011, 313-314; Principe 2011,
307. Also M. Martinón-Torres, ‘Some Recent Developments in the Historiography of Alchemy’, Ambix, 2011, vol. 58, no. 3: 215-237. For alchemy, chemistry and medicine, see A. Debus, ‘Chemists, Physicians, and Changing Per-spectives on the Scientific Revolution’, Isis, 1998, vol. 89, no. 1: 66-81.
5 Moran 2005, 62-64.
6 Newman & Principe 1998, 41. Their article is central to recent historiography of alchemy.
7 Notable examples are the following books: D. Kahn, Alchimie et Paracelsisme en France à la fin de la Renaissance
(1567-1625), 2007; B. Moran, Distilling Knowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry and the Scientific Revolution, 2005; W. Newman, Atoms and Alchemy: Chymistry and the Experimental Origins of the Scientific Revolution, 2006; W. Newman & L. Principe, Alchemy Tried in the Fire: Starkey, Boyle, and the Fate of Helmontian Chymistry, 2002; T. Nummedal, Alchemy and authority in the Holy Roman Empire, 2007; L. Principe, The Secrets of Alchemy, 2013.
8 In particular Principe 2013 and Newman 2006. Of particular interest for anachronistic interpretations of
chy-mistry is Principe & Newman 2001 (note 3).
9 See also C. Priesner & K. Figala 1998. They edited Alchemie: Lexikon einer hermetischen Wissenschaft, thus providing
a sound, academic chymical lexicon for the first time, at least in German.
3
and with due observance of that diversity. In early modernity there was a variety of natural-philosophical theories on matter, substance composition and how to manipulate it,11 and ap-proaches to the production of the Philosopher’s Stone were different as well. This complicated subject will only briefly be illustrated below, in order to introduce concepts which are relevant for this thesis.
‘Alchemy’ has been associated with the Philosopher’s Stone since Antiquity. In theory this Stone could turn base metals into noble metals, a process called transmutation. There are many treatises that inform the reader on how to produce this Stone, how to transmute base metals and thus produce silver and, far more frequently, gold. In early modernity, these transmutational kinds of alchemy were also known as argyropoeia and chrysopoeia, Greek for ‘silver making’ and ‘gold making’. These terms are also current in scholarship. Not all chymistry, however, deals with transmutation.
In the sixteenth century a medical reform was brought about with Paracelsus and his follow-ers. They focused on the application of alchemical theory and practice for medicine and pharma-cy, with an emphasis on medicines based on minerals, and less on (traditional) herbal medicines. This approach is known as iatrochemistry or chemiatry, contemporaneous concepts that are still used as denominations by academics.12 However, for Paracelsus it was embedded in a Neoplatonically
inspired philosophy and cosmology.13 Taken together, this thought is known as Paracelsianism, which may include magic, astrology and unorthodox Christian ideas as well, on which Paracelsus also wrote.14 However, not every iatrochemist would have called himself a Paracelsian, for
scien-tific, philosophical and theological reasons. Therefore in some cases it is best to speak of an iat-rochemist (or chemiatrist).
The final example for the differentiation within chymistry is the variety of views on how to produce the Philosopher’s Stone. For this, chymists turned to a wide variety of materials. Three of the more important ‘schools’, though, were the ones who defined vitriol (usually iron sul-phate), nitre (saltpetre) and mercury as the respective prime ingredients for the Great Work.15
Although a full discussion of all theories and approaches would cover many more pages, the three essential examples indicate that early modern chymistry was made up of multiple approach-es and lacked uniformity. The cause of this, along with how individuals dealt with this problem, has been discussed by scholars. It was ultimately due to the absence of organisation of chymistry
11 See C. Lüthy, J.E. Murdoch & W. Newman (ed.), Late Medieval and Early Modern Corpuscular Matter Theories,
2001.
12 See Priesner & Figala 1998, 98-100. 13 Hannaway 1975, 27.
14 For a discussion of the denomination and its difficulties (in relation to recent scholarship), see B.T. Moran, in
Hanegraaff 2006, 915-922.
4
through guilds and universities,16 which meant the lack of regulated training, prescribed
hand-books and official consensus on theoretical matters and definitions. This entails sufficient room for chymists to develop their own ideas.17 In order to establish a sound chymical discipline and
secure chymical knowledge, acceptance within the academic curriculum was important, which chymistry did not have since it entered Europe in the Middle Ages. For some part, this had to do with a lack of classical and therefore authoritative sources. It also conflicted with traditional Aris-totelian philosophy.18 According to Aristotle a metal, for instance, may change its colour, but this
aspect is only arbitrary and not essential; the essence of the matter cannot be altered.19 Furthermore,
there has been a series of religious condemnations of chymistry and producing gold from the late thirteenth century.20 This was due to the claim of some alchemists that art could match nature, and, assuming that the produced gold is never true gold, its trade would be fraud. Still, the con-demnations may also be related to the contemporaneous obsession with heterodox beliefs and temptations.21 Moreover, this hostile religious attitude is connected to education. The effort of making chymistry acceptable for universities was, however, taken up by some iatrochemists,22 and
eventually it would be through medicine that chymistry found acceptance at universities.23
None-theless chrysopoeia with the idea of transmuting metals remained controversial throughout early modernity amongst academics, its popularity notwithstanding.
Besides academic circumstances, scholars in the history of science and literature have paid at-tention to the private and artisanal circumstances, in relation to the increase of vernacular in-formative texts and chymistry. Outside the universities, there were networks of knowledge as well. As literacy and the demand for it increased from the thirteenth century onwards (particularly for the relatively urbanised Netherlands),24 there was a growing demand for theoretical and
prac-tical knowledge.25 Therefore texts on for instance medicine, surgery, husbandry and chymistry
became increasingly available.26 What texts on such subjects share is their informative, instructive
purpose and intention to convey theoretical and practical knowledge, and are known as artes litera-ture, where artes refers to the medieval disciplines. Artes texts were generally written down and
16 Nummendal 2007, 18-19. 17 Cf. Moran 2005, 35. 18 Moran 2005, 104. 19 Fraeters 1999, 35-36. 20 Newman 1989, 439-440. 21 Newman 1989, 441. 22 Moran 2005, 104. 23 Newman 2006, 510.
24 Huizenga et al. 2001, 17. Fudge 2007, 22. 25 Moran 2005, 57.
26 Pettegree 2011, 300. E. Huizenga signals the rise of Middle Dutch medical artes literature in prose in the
5
copied for personal use and the direct environment.27 Chymistry itself was sometimes classified as
one of the artes mechanicae, because there was a strong practical aspect to it.28 From the late Middle Ages onwards chymical literature appeared more frequently, not only in Latin, but also in the vernaculars. This susceptibility for vernacularisation is related to chymistry’s practical and useful aspects and the idea that it is unlikely that artisans spoke Latin while operating a furnace.29 Many a person lacked the education and skills to read Latin, a situation which gave rise to vernacular literature on ‘the arts’. Since the fourteenth century vernacular alchemical texts were produced for the upper class (nobility and bourgeoisie),30 and the tendency to vernacularisation appeared in
Western Europe in particular, but was comparatively strong in sixteenth-century Germany.31 In
order to provide more people, such as the growing group of artisans, with chymical theory and instructions, printed vernacular textbooks appeared in the sixteenth century. Of all chymical books published between 1469 and 1536, texts meant for artisans formed the most significant group, and many were in vernacular.32
The history of the book, the role of the printing press and the use of vernacular and their in-teraction has been researched for some decades now. For example, focus has been put on the process of translating and on the intrinsical relationship between text and the physicality of the text.33 Nonetheless, hitherto the production, distribution, and readership of chymical books has
received less attention. Chymical books appeared in an early stage of the printing era: first slowly in the 1470’s, but considerably more in the 1480’s, notably in German-speaking areas.34
Pharma-copoeian material in German vernacular was comparatively well-presented in the 1520’s.35 The
amount of chymical material in Latin and vernaculars had become bewildering around 1600.36 As the book business was internationally oriented, it can be assumed these chymical books spread throughout Europe early on. The amount of publications declined in the late seventeenth centu-ry, together with the position of transmutational alchemy, a tendency which continued well into the 1720’s.37
Together, then, the printing press, artisanal activities, the use of vernacular and the demand for knowledge stimulated the circulation and development of chymical knowledge, but also blurred the boundary between specialisms, between artisanal and natural-philosophical
27 Huizenga et al. 2011, 31. 28 Newman 1989, 426. 29 Pereira 1999, 337. 30 Pereira 1999, 338. 31 Pereira 1999, 347. Hirsch 1950, 118. 32 In Moran 2005, 47.
33 Allen et al. 2011. Goyens et al. 2008. 34 Hirsch 1950, 119.
6
knowledge.38 This borders on the earlier mentioned difficulty that chymistry is not monolithic or
static.
Book production and distribution is one thing, reading habits another, and its research is still a young discipline.39 It still is not always clear what readers did with chymical texts: how were
certain texts precisely intended, and how did people read them? A distinction can be made be-tween pragmatic and recreational reading,40 and reading does range from hasty to slow and
studi-ous, from progressive to to-and-fro. Moreover, the same text may appear in different contexts (e.g. composite manuscripts), and readers probably read different types of texts in different ways.41 This notion seems to have been barely connected to chymical treatises or scientific genres
in general, yet certain genres have been connected to certain recipients. Textbooks, for example, were connected to students; essays and dialogues to nonspecialists and uneducated people.42
More generally, scholarship has also realised that early modern readers, including scholars, were not merely passive readers, but were actively trying to explain and use texts,43 which allowed for possibly dozens of interpretations or foci. Whatever this may mean, it still seems likely that schol-ars read for a purpose and were goal-oriented readers,44 although this assumption has been
re-cently nuanced for husbandry books, a practical genre of texts.45
As was stated earlier, book production as well as the use of vernacular in chymical texts were comparatively well present in the early modern Holy Roman Empire. There were many chymical activities which included the trade in chymical texts and techniques, for which there was a con-stant supply and demand.46 Chymistry’s scientific and technological benefit did not remain
unno-ticed by princes either, and their patronage as a political and social factor has also been investi-gated. For prestige and in particular economical and technological benefit patrons were willing to take chymists into service, particularly in the German lands at princely courts.47 Paracelsians or
iatrochemists too were put into service at courts, and houses of distillation were founded for the production of medicinal waters at princely and royal courts throughout Europe.48 The interaction
38 Martinón-Torres 2011, 224. 39 Blair 2004, 421. 40 Schurink 2010, 455. 41 Blair 2004, 426. 42 Blair 2004, 427.
43 See the notable study of Jardine & Grafton 1990, 31-32. Also Blair 2004, 428. 44 The term is used in Jardine & Grafton 1990.
45 See Schurink 2010. 46 Nummedal 2007, 12. 47 Principe 2013, 189.
48 Principe 2013, 190. Despite this, however, the De denario medico of the Paracelsian Penot was put on the index
7
of patrons and chymists would stimulate chymical activities and would have a lasting effect on scientific developments.49
Naturally, scholars have made efforts to disclose chymical material through catalogues and enhance the availability of texts through editions. In the Netherlands and Flanders in particular, the literary study of artes texts only manifested itself roughly twenty-five years ago, and some studies on Dutch alchemists and chymical texts, together with editions, did appear fairly recent there.50 Moreover, parts of some collections of manuscripts, incunabula, and early modern prints
have been digitised and made available through the internet. On the whole, however, many texts remain unedited still and (online) library catalogues are sometimes unclear as to what chymical material is exactly present in manuscript collections of libraries.
To my knowledge, only in one source some discussion is included of the Dutch version of the Dialogue which is central to this thesis,51 and it seems that no other publications exist that deal
with any of the printed Dialogue editions or any of the manuscript versions. It is safe to say that not much is known about the Dialogue editions: how they were edited, why they were published, what the intentions for the publications were, how many editions exist and how they relate to manuscripts, of which it is equally unclear how many exist, how far the original Dialogue dates back and who authored it. The manuscript entries in few of the library catalogues offer references to other manuscripts or to the prints, and sometimes those catalogues are plainly wrong or con-tradictory, which in total suggest librarians and scholars are unaware of the fact that indeed there are several manuscripts of the Dialogue which eventually appeared in print around 1600.52
By now the broad outline of the modern perspective on chymistry and the approaches to-wards the subject are understood. Next, the approach of this research will be presented.
49 Nummedal 2007, 10.
50 Notable are the dissertations Fraeters 2001 and Van Gijsen 2004. R. Jansen-Siebens’ Repertorium van de
Mid-delnederlandse artesliteratuur, 1989, has an entry for alchemy, under which twenty Middle Dutch manuscripts and eight prints are summarised. Three editions are mentioned there, by Braekman (one in cooperation with Devolder). W.L. Braekman published in 2003 on a series of short alchemical texts in Londen, British Library, Sloane 1416. In 2004 an edition by E. Huizenga appeared of Hs. Wenen, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek, 2818, which contains alchemical material (not mentioned in the Repertorium). In 2008, A. van Gijsen published on an alchemical part of the Gentse Boethius, and in 2010 on the alchemist Isaac Hollandus. Again in 2010, the Werkgroep Middelnederlandse Arteslitera-tuur started a project to digitise and edit Handschrift Hattem C 5, which contains alchemical material.
51 Van Gijsen, forthcoming.
52 See e.g. Calames online catalogue of archives and manuscripts in French university and research libraries;
8
1.3
Approach
Ultimately, the approach towards the chrysopoetic corpus to be researched in this thesis is in debted to the re-evaluation of chymistry and what has been called its ‘New Historiography’.53 In
general it is therefore aimed to understand the chrysopoetic texts on their own terms, and with attention to contemporaneous scientific, political and book historical circumstances. Thus it will complement existing knowledge, not about the general history of chymistry, but about one small part of that discipline: four prints that, together with innumerable documents, discussions, labor-atory practice and exchanges of ideas contributed to the existence and dynamics of the discipline. By investigating these four printed books, this thesis ties in with the current trend to pay atten-tion not only to the text itself, but also to social context, and their mutual influence. In line with research on the history of the book, these printed works are considered as cultural and intellectu-al manifestations of ideas and practices, with their very form and assembled content either im-plicitly or exim-plicitly interacting with contemporaneous traditions, debates and audiences.54 This
leads to the actual focus of this thesis, namely to find out to what extent the printed Dialogues are traditional in form and content, what features set them apart from each other and from earlier manuscripts, why this is so, why the prints appear in their respective dimensions and languages and who were the intended readers. Attention is also paid to the recipient side of the transmis-sion. Eventually this entails that there is less room for a thorough explanation of the precise chrysopoetic content with its metaphors and descriptions of processes. Yet it would also be naive to pretend that disclosing chymical material and making the texts available to more readers plays no part at all, banal and fundamental as this is. In fact a strong motivation behind this research also was the mere absence of studies on the chrysopoetic Dialogue, with no overview of authors, editors, date of origin, transcripts and the like. This also applies to the field of Dutch research on artes literature, where a lot of work remains to be done. Another objective was therefore to meet this lacuna.
For the realisation of the abovementioned aims, the following main question is posed: what is the functionality of the four printed Dialogues in the context of the books, the textual history, the historical circumstances, and readership. Functionality must be understood as the intended and actual function and use of the text, based on its appearance and on intended readership, but also as the way in which it uses traditional didactic and alchemical-theoretical themes and topoi. In every instance, this usage of themes and topoi serves the function of the text, namely bringing fundamental chrysopoetic information to a certain kind of readers.
53 Martinón-Torres 2011, 222.
9
In order to get new insights in the functionality of the Dialogues, both a contextual and text-internal approach is required. Therefore, the main question will be answered systematically in the next chapters that in essence are based on these approaches.
In chapter two, first and foremost, it is necessary to introduce the source material. On the one hand these concern manuscripts that contain a version of the Dialogue. These sources offer in-formation on the Dialogue’s medieval origin and age, titles and alleged authors. On the other hand, the printed books are discussed, along with the editors, printers and publishers. The manuscript information is necessary to put the printed editions into perspective and account for their Dia-logue titles and authors. What is equally important is establishing the publication context. It must be taken into account who the editors were, and what their interests were, because this proves to be important to understand why they edited the Dialogues. The same goes for the printers and publishers. The other treatises in the books and the way in which front pages, titles and refer-ences in the tables of contents were used, indicates that the Dialogues should be seen as comple-mentary, rather than central to the books. Such contextual information, together with the size of the books and the presence of decoration, also indicates the ambitions of the individuals in-volved, and their intended readership.
In the third chapter the general main features of the printed Dialogues are put into perspective and explained. These features are the language in which the text appears, the type of text (prose versus poetry), and the size of the prints. These can be explained by taking historiographical in-formation into account. This serves the purpose of clarifying what the editor’s, printer’s and pub-lisher’s intentions were. They had good reasons to publish the prints in their respective language, and with their respective content in the period around 1600.
Chapter four focusses on tradition in two ways. In the first place, a discussion is given of me-dieval dialogue types and their general characteristics. In the second place, a discussion is also given of the dialogue as it appeared in hermetic texts from late Antiquity.55 This is necessary,
be-cause the Dialogue is medieval in origin, but at the same time is part of a long tradition of alchemi-cal ‘dialogialchemi-cal’ literature that adopted hermetic elements. Both the tradition of the medieval di-dactic, instructive dialogue and the hermetic alchemical dialogue were used for good reasons, and these motivations are taken into account too. The assessment of the Dialogue as traditional from a medieval didactic and hermetic perspective also helps to clarify why the editors, printers and pub-lishers chose to edit and publish the text as they did.
In chapter five the focus lies with the alchemical content of the printed Dialogues. The struc-ture of it is made clear, along with the general content. Of course the intention is also to make
10
the text more comprehensible, but it also shows how the text worked. Readers were guided through specific themes, but at the same time the dialogue remains rather general and abstract, not to say vague. This is connected with the motivation writers had for hermetic literature, and can also be connected to the complementary position the Dialogues have within the prints.
Chapter six deals with textual change. Six manuscripts, predating the prints, have been exam-ined to find out what the text’s content originally was. The mutual differences between the print-ed versions are for some part explainprint-ed by the comparison with these manuscripts. It turns out that generally little material is unique, and most differences between the printed texts can be ex-plained by the exemplars that were used, instead of deliberate additions or omissions. The few elements that are unique can be connected to the intentions of the individuals involved, and sub-sequently to the functionality of the texts. The chapter, therefore, provides an overview of the unique elements in the printed Dialogues.
Chapter seven is in itself rather complementary, because instances of textual corruption are presented and explained here. Yet it is important in addition to the content description and textu-al change, as some peculiarities are corruptions.
In chapter 8 attention is paid to the meta-text in the printed books. Both the fact that the Duy-tsche alchimie and Aureum vellus hardly have any, and that the De denario medico has a lot, is revealing with regard to the (intended) readership and contemporaneous cultural circumstances. It is also important to note and discuss the way the editor of the De denario medico’s English translation ren-dered the original meta-text, which can be explained with the circumstances of the late seven-teenth century. The given historiographical framework, therefore, is important for putting the editor’s, printer’s and publisher’s actions into perspective.
Finally, the ninth chapter focusses not on the actual text or the individuals involved with the publication, but on the readers. Some copies of the Aureum vellus and De denario medico have been found that contain markings and notes that were left by readers. The Latin notes help to establish the text’s readership, whereas markings and cross-references suggest studious reading and leafing to and fro. Although such evidence does not rule out recreational reading, it does indicate that educated persons were seriously and actively thinking about the content. The findings again are connected to the hermetic nature of the alchemical material, to the physical properties of the prints (size, decoration etc.), and also to the intentions of the editors, printers and publishers as reconstructed so far.
11
finds this useful. Accordingly, references are made to the turns in the Dialogue transcripts, not to the original folios.
12
2
Sources
In this chapter, the source material for this thesis is introduced. In first place, to begin with the oldest material, a discussion is given of manuscripts. Admitted, some of those date from the sev-enteenth century or later, but the majority of the material found in catalogues predates 1600. Sec-ondly, the prints, which are the main corpus of the whole research, are discussed.
2.1
Manuscript sources
A list of the manuscripts is presented, along with several observations with regard to their date, origin and assumed authors, in order to provide a background for the subsequent discussion of the prints. This in turn will hopefully serve as a first step towards the further reconstruction of the Dialogue’s history. It nevertheless does not pretend to be an exhaustive list of manuscripts for reasons explained further on, but it must already be noted that a most thorough investigation would go well beyond the limitations of this research. Therefore, no attempt has been made to construct a stemma either.
2.1.1 Manuscripts
Based on titles and incipits the following list can be made of manuscripts that likely or certainly contain the Dialogue.
1. Augsburg, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. II. 1. 4° 74 (Alchemistische Sammelhandschrift). Ca. 1490. ff. 65v-66v: Lilium intelligentiae (Epistula Hermetis).
2. Bologna, University of Bologna library, 143 (110). 16th century. ff. 64v-77r: Sarne philosophus, Lilium intelligen-tiae philosophorum.
3. Brugge, MS. 566. 19th century. ff. 264-299: Opus Arislai, vetustissimi philosophi, de lapide philosophico, in modum dialogi, hactenus non excussum.
4. Cambridge, Parker Library, ms. 99. 15th century. ff. 99-102: Lumen intelligentiae.
5. Heidelberg, Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg, Cod. Pal. germ. 467. ca. 1550. German. ff. 337-349v: Dia-logus philosophiae. Incipit: [Erste] Antwort der Magister. Im dem Namen Unsers herren, Amen. Weisse aller liebster Sun, das der geist des herren sweebe ob dem wasser, Et himmel unnd Erde beshaffen wurdt, Aller man list im dem buech der Schüpfunge…56
6. Leiden, university library, VCF 10. Before 1578. German and Latin. ff. 2-9v: Textus philosophiae naturalis per dialogum inter magistrum et discipulum de tota arte alchimiae.57
7. Leiden, university library, VCF 29. Early 16th century. German. ff. 115-120: In nomine Domini, Amen. Aller-liebster Szon wisse das der geyst, des herren, von der shaffunghe hymmels und der Erden, ist getragen oder gefurt worden.
8. Leiden, university library, VCQ 25. 16th century (before 1522). ff. 87v-90: Disputatio magistri cuiusdam cum
dis-cipulo. Incipit: Fili charissime. Nunc manifestabo tibi naturali coniunctione in hoc proposito meo de lapide omnium philoso-phorum occulto….
56 For a detailed description of the manuscript and its content, see the document provided by the library:
http://www.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/digi-pdf-katalogisate/sammlung2/werk/pdf/cpg467.pdf. This manuscript cannot, however, have been the exemplar for the Dialogus philosophiae in the Aureum vellus, despite their similar titles and the reference to the print in the aforementioned document. The differences could only be explained if the editor used multiple manuscript versions.
13
9. Leiden, university library, VCQ 50. Early 17th century. Latin. ff. 168-182v : Dialogus de compositione
philosopho-rum ex quodam tractatu Haugwitionis Pysani.58
10. London, British Library, MS. Sloane 1255. 16th century. ff. 29-35: Een dyalogus magistri et discipuli de magisterio Lapidis, uyt den latijne in neerduyts gestelt, door Justus de Balbian.
11. London, Wellcome library, MS. 526. 1515-1527. German and Latin. ff. 84-95. Uguictius, Lilium intelligenti-ae.59
12. London, Wellcome library, MS. 530. ca. 1625. German. ff. 35-40. Ascribed to Raymon Llull
13. London, Wellcome library, MS. 2865/2866. 1725. French. pp. 314-322: Dialogue touchant la composition de la pierre des philosophes tire d’un traite de Hugontion de Pise.60
14. Marburg, Universitätsbibliothek, Mscr. 24. 15th century, Swiss. Latin. ff. 345r-351r: Lilium intelligentiae.61
15. Melbourne, university library, 6151 (Ashmole 1384).
16. Modena, Biblioteca Estense - Universitaria, Estense, Lat. 362 = alfa.P.4.14. 1501-1560. Latin. ff. 90v-95v: Incipit lilium intelligentiae magistri artis generalis de Florentia.
17. Manchester, John Rylands Library, MS Latin 65. 15th century. Latin. ff. 154-155: Liber Uguictii qui dicitur. Lil-ium intelligentie philosophorum.
18. Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS. Ashmole 1490. 16th and 17th centuries. English and Latin. ff. 140-141: A
dia-logue of the philosopher’s stone between a Master and Sonne. Incipit: In the name of God. Amen. My lovinge child knowe thou this, that the sprite of the Lord was borne upon the waters before ye creation of heaven and earth.
19. Paris, Muséum national d’histoire naturelle, Ms 359. 18th century. French. p. 433: G. Gratarolo, Dialogue d’Arislaus.
20. Rome, Vatican library, Barb. 273. Latin. ff. 39r & 298r: Lilium intelligentie per modum dialogi magistri artis de Flor-entia.
21. Washington D.C., Catholic University of America, MS 129. 15th century/ca. 1500. Latin and German. ff.
92r-97r: Magister ad discipulum Arnaldi de Nova Villa.62
22. Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, Cod. Guelf. 23.17 Aug. 4°. 1497. ff. 177-181v: Raymundi Lulli vel Lullii tractatus, qui dicitur Lilium intelligencie per modum dialogi. Incipit : In nomine domini, Amen. Fili carissime, scias spiritus domini qui supra aquas.
A list of manuscripts possibly containing the Dialogue:
1. Amsterdam, Bibliotheca Philosophica Hermetica, M5; 1698/99. Aureum vellus.
2. Budapest, Hungarian National Museum, K5. VI. 8. 15th century. Item 253b: Explicit autor qui dicitur Lilium
in-telligencie etcetera.63
3. Cambridge, Trinity College, O.8.5 ALCHEMICA. 16th century. ff. 186-191: Dialogus inter magistrum et
discipu-lum. Note (by John Dee?): Hic inc. tract. Alkemiae compositur per Arn. de noua Villa ut habet vetustum quoddam exemplar scriptum anno 1474 In hoc libro loquar de secretis naturae.64
58 Copied for Emperor Rudolf II, from a Heidelberg manuscript of 1523, written by the jurist François
Heck-man. Boeren 1975, 216. It should be noted that it is not the Heidelberg manuscript Cod. Pal. germ. 467.
59 The online catalogue of the Wellcome Library is uncertain.
60 The online catalogue states that it ‘seems to be a translation of the tract Lilium intelligentiae entered as No. 161
in D. W. Singer’s Catalogue’. i.e. Singer’s Catalogue of Latin and Vernacular Alchemical Manuscripts in Great Britain and Ire-land, Dating from before the Sixteenth Century, 3 vols., Bruxelles, 1928-1931.
61 Not recorded in the online-catalogue, but in the printed one: Die mittelalterlichen Handschriften der
Universitätsbib-liothek Marburg, Sirka Heyne. Wiesbaden 2002.
62 See Wilson 1939, 166. He uses signature No. 129. Wilson provides a partial transcript of the beginning and
ending: ‘Magister ad discipulum Arnaldi de Nova Villa. Mein allerliebster junger, du solt wissen das vor der beschaf-fung himels und der erdt der heilig geist hat geschwebt auf dem wasser durch sein gottheit, als wir lesen an dem puech der gsch6pffung an dem I2; darumb ist zu wissen, das alle naturliche ding dises ertrichs geschofft sein worden, und iren ursprung haben, von dem wasser als offt untzt er tingier das lebentig quech silber und auch alle andere corpera in solem und lunam. Hie enden sich die frag des jungers.’
14
4. Chantilly, bibliothèque du château de Chantilly, Ms 416; third treatise of the Aureum vellus; Latin; sixteenth century.
5. Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale, II. iii. 28. 16th century. ff. 84r-88r. Pseudo-Llull, Liber naturae et lumen nostri lapidis. Incipit: Rex scias quod spiritus domini ferebatur super aquas […] quoniam viso nobis me traditurum omnia secreta sibi.
6. Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale, Magl. XVI.51. Pseudo-Llull, Liber naturae et lumen nostri lapidis.
7. Rome, Vatican Library, MS. reg. lat. 1144. Dialogus inter magistrum et Discipulum.
8. Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, Cod. Guelf. 16.5. Aug. 4to. 15th century. ff. 45r-51r: Incipit liber novi testamenti Arnoldi de Villanova.65
So far, twenty-two manuscripts have been found that with a high degree of probability contain the Dialogue. Eight more were found that could possibly contain the Dialogue, but so far there is no way of knowing. In catalogues mentioning the manuscripts some references exist to other manuscripts, albeit scarcely, and an occasional link is established with the Latin edition De denario medico and the English edition Alchymists Enchiridion. Moreover, some other manuscripts have since long been recognised and connected in academic literature. Despite these occasional con-nections, no overview existed before, and the total of the listed manuscripts has not been mutual-ly linked either. Certain reservations exist on the search for such manuscripts. As it turns out, not all library catalogues have been put online complete, which limits accessibility, and those that are, do not always have detailed descriptions of the content of manuscripts. This is important, be-cause quite often artes texts appear in composite volumes and may comprise many small inde-pendent texts, like recipes and excerpts.66 For example, this has been shown with medical and surgical material.67 Again this is relevant, as alchemical recipes and treatises do co-occur alongside
medical material in both manuscripts and prints. The table of contents of, say, London, Well-come Library, MS. 526 shows no less than 42 separate sections, some of which are copies taken from a single medical or alchemical sources (such as Geber), while others are yet again divided, as they are collections of recipes. Another difficulty which is evident from the list is the protean appearances of the Dialogue, with a variety in titles and alleged authors. There seems to have been no consensus on a title, let alone who authored the text. Titles vary from the elegant Lilium intelli-gentiae and Lumen intelliintelli-gentiae to simple generic titles like ‘Dialogue between master and disciple’. This makes it hard to identify the text, since the didactic dialogue as a genre was widely in use
64 Possibly it concerns a copy related to the composite referred to by Thorndike. This manuscript is composed
between 1476 and 1477 and contains a Flower of the Lily and De secretis naturae.
65 According to Thorndike 1934, 64. However, the catalogue of the library shows nothing which supports this.
http://diglib.hab.de/?db=mss&list=ms&id=16-5-aug-4f&catalog=Heinemann. A photograph of the first folio shows no dialogue either. The full incipit is: Incipit liber noui Testamenti Et Diuidit[ur] in tres p[ar]tes principales. In p[ri]ma p[ar]te loquit de lapidem […]. The Novum testamentum was printed in the Artis auriferae, vol. III, 1610, 175-185. There too it becomes clear the text does not resemble the dialogue.
66 For example, this has been shown by E. Huizenga with medical and particularly surgical texts. Huizenga 2008,
91.
15
throughout the Middle Ages and early modernity. In sum, it is safe to say that this list is not complete, and more manuscripts will probably be found in the future.
So far, three observations can be derived from the list. For one, with regard to the period in which the alchemical Dialogue originates, it is no later than the late fifteenth century. Five manu-scripts which contain the Dialogue with certainty date from this period. A sixth has a note in the margin, which says that it was copied from a manuscript from 1474. It is likely that the Dialogue is older than this, because it takes some time to reach the syntactical and lexical variety that is ob-served among the manuscripts, highlighted in chapter 6. A brief indication is given by the incipits below. Most of the manuscripts found, however, are sixteenth century. Nonetheless there are hardly manuscripts from the second half of the seventeenth century and later: only two instances from the eighteenth, and one from the nineteenth century. Moreover, of the post 1600 manu-scripts, five could be copies of a printed edition.68
The evidence also leads to the assumption that the Dialogue was quite widely distributed in Western Europe and was possible fairly known to various individuals, who evidently assessed the Dialogue as useful. Useful for mainly private purposes, that is, since in many cases the text is writ-ten on paper in a littera cursive, which is indicative of such ends. When looking at the survival rate of medieval manuscripts and in particular the pragmatically intended texts for private use, it can be hypothesised that the current list telling about the original distribution of the text. Addi-tional support for this may still be found in premodern library catalogues and inventories. The exact relations between the manuscripts are nevertheless unclear, because they have to be com-pared more extensively. At any rate, it can now be assumed that this availability of the Dialogue paved the way for later scholars to publish it in print, as they searched about for new alchemical material.
With the data obtained thus far, it appears that many manuscripts originate in the Holy Ro-man Empire, in particular from the GerRo-man-speaking area. This can be related to the fact that in the first place alchemy as a discipline grew fairly strong within the Empire, and in the second place the comparativel well-established tendency of vernacularisation of texts. Of course there is the question of representation: are all surviving manuscripts with the Dialogue found? Probably not. Moreover, how many copies from outside the German-speaking area and the Empire have been lost? There is no way of knowing this. Clearly, Latin manuscripts dominate the list, and of all vernacular Dialogue versions, threeare German, against one in Dutch (Britisch Library, MS. nr Sloane 1255) and one in English (British Library, MS. Ashmole 1490). German are Heidelberg,
68 Arislai tractatus: probably Brugge, MS. 566, Paris, Muséum national d’histoire naturelle, Ms 359, and
16
Cod. Pal. germ. 467; Leiden, VCF 29; Washington, MS 129. In addition, the latter one is fairly old, i.e. fifteenth-century. Hence it is at least possible that the Dialogus philosophiae was not trans-lated from the Latin, but copied from a German exemplar.
Next, it is important to account for the establishment of the list. Thereafter explanations are proposed for the titles and authors.
2.1.2 Identification and incipits
The comparison of incipits and looking for manuscripts based on incipits prove fruitful. First of all the four printed editions have the incipit
‘In the name of God, amen. Know, my dear Son, that before the creation of the world, the spirit of the Lord rested upon the waters.’
or some variation. As is known so far, the manuscripts show similar incipits. Despite the fact that formulas like ‘In the name of the Lord’, ‘Know that’, ‘Know, my Son’ and references to Genesis are found in all sorts of medieval texts, no other manuscripts have been found that show the same incipit and at the same time deal with a different subject. Secondly, the manuscript versions listed below show dialogues between masters and students, and tend to be short in length (6 à 7 folios on average). Thirdly, the names of alleged authors reappear, namely Ramon Llull, Arnold of Villanova and Uguictius of Pisa. Moreover, six manuscripts have been examined for this re-search, and the same incipit is found in all Dialogue versions. In all, the correspondence is no co-incidence, and these points were used to form the list, supported by the positive confirmation of the six inspected manuscripts that they are in fact the Dialogue. A comparison of incipits is given below.
The Dialogue of Arislaus: ‘In the Name of God, Amen. Know my Dear Son, that before the Creation of the World, the Spirit of the Lord rested upon the Waters’.
17
Tsamenspraecke: ‘In den naem des Heeren, amen. Mijn alderliefste sone, in tbeghinsel was twoort etc. Weet dat die geest Godes die rusten op de wateren voor des werelts beginsel also het staet in Genesi.’69
Arislai tractatus: ‘In nomine Dei omnipotentis, Amen. Scias, Charissime, quod Spiritus Domini ante coeli & terrae creationem, serebatur super aquas.’
VCF 10: ‘In nomine Domini Amen. In principio erat Uerbum. Fili mi mi carissime. Spi-ritus Domini qui serebatur supra aquas ante coeli et Terrae creationem, ut in Genesi ha-betur.’
VCQ 50: ‘In nomine Domini, Amen. Fili mi charissime, scias spiritus Domini serebatur super aquas ante caeli et terrae creationem, ut legitur Genesi.’
Augsburg Cod. II. 1. 4° 74: ‘In nomine domini Amen Fili Carissime Scias Spiritus domini Ante celi et terre creacionem Ferebatur super aquas vt legitur primo capittulo.’
Washington D.C., MS. 7: ‘Mein allerliebster junger, du solt wissen das vor der beschaf-fung himels und der erdt der heilig geist hat geschwebt auf dem wasser durch sein gottheit, als wir lesen an dem puech der gsch6pffung an dem I2’.
Wolfenbüttel hs. 3282: ‘In nomine domini, Amen. Fili carissime, scias spiritus domini qui supra aquas.’
2.1.3 Titles and authors
A search through extensive works such as Thorndike’s now out-of-date History of Magic and Exper-imental Science indicates that in the course of time various texts circulated which bore titles with lilies or roses in them. A famous example is the alchemical Rosarium philosophorum. These flowers were not chosen at will, but are recurring symbols in Christian Europe. They were perceived as august and were believed to have medicinal properties, as Walahfrid Strabo’s influential poem De cultura hortorum from the first half of the ninth century shows. To him, the rose and lily form a couple, the first symbolising the blood of martyrdom, the second shining faith, and so the two symbolise the highest treasures of the Church.70 Their status of excellency offers the opportunity
for authors and copyists to use them to suggest an exceptional text or a sublime anthology. Thorndike already connected some of the listed manuscripts, to which five authors were as-cribed.71 These are ‘an adept’ from Florence, Sarne, Uguictius, Arnald of Villanova and Ramon
Llull. So far three more have been found: Hermes Trismegistus, Arislaus and G. Gratarolo. In total, the anonymous master of Florence occurs twice, Sarne, Hermes and Gratarolo each only
69 English: ‘In the name of the Lord, amen. My dearest son, in the beginning there was the word etc. Know that
the spirit of God rested upon the waters before the beginning of the world, as is written in Genesis.’
18
once. Arislaus, of course, is to be expected with regard to the prints. Sarne (Sarni, Sernin) is the author of a different alchemical Lilium, as is stated elsewhere, which might explain this occur-rence.72
All manuscripts that mention Arislaus are seventeenth century or later, and thus are likely to be copies of Penot’s edition. This view is supported by the fact that, prior to 1608, no manu-scripts have the name Arislaus connected to them. Searching for Arislaus, Arisleus, a variant with different case ending, or Archelaos proved futile. Gratarolo is only mentioned in the catalogue of the Muséum national d’histoire naturelle, Ms. 359, titled Dialogue d’Arislaus. That it has been at-tributed to Gratarolo has to do with the fact that he used Arislaus as a pseudonym, but to all like-lihood the attribution is wrong, for the simple reason it appears just this instance.73 It seems un-likely that during the process of text transmission Arislaus’ name (or Arnold of Villanova’s and Ramon Llull’s for that matter) was omitted and forgotten in all instances. Instead it is more plau-sible that Penot himself put the name into the title. It is quite posplau-sible that the Dialogue initially circulated anonymously.
Uguictius of Pisa remains a bit vague, but he is referred in four instances. The only Uguictius of Pisa found is Uguccione da Pisa (Uguccio, Hugutio Pisanus), a canon lawyer who also became bishop of Ferrara (†1210).74 Among his works are the grammatical Liber derivationum, an
etymo-logical dictionary, the theoetymo-logical Expositio symboli apostolorum, and the large canonical Summa of Gratianus. Not one of his writings is alchemical. Moreover, he seems not to be referred to in recent scholarship on alchemy at all. Uguccio is almost certainly the same name as Haugwitius. A copy of the etymological dictionary, for example, has ‘Haugwiniusza’.75 So far, only two other names with Pisanus are associated with alchemy, namely the thirteenth-century Constantinus Pisanus (Constantine of Pisa) with his Liber secretorum alchemiae, and Claudius Berigardius, some-times referred to as ‘Pisanus’. His writings, though, date from the early seventeenth century. For now, it is impossible to formulate any good hypothesis as to why Uguccio was associated to the Dialogue. Perhaps this happened through Constantinus Pisanus. It is also unknown to what extent Uguccio was known outside northern Italy, and hence no conclusions can be drawn on the likeli-hood of attributing the Dialogue to him, in stead of renowned scholars like Villanova and Llull. Therefore no conclusion can be drawn on the text’s provenance either.
72 Wilson 1939, 513-514.
73 According to the CERL. Consulted at 13-04-2014.
http://thesaurus.cerl.org/cgi-bin/record.pl?rid=cnp01322573
74 R. Weigand, ‘Huguccio (Uguccio, Hugo, Hugutio)’, in Lexikon des Mittelalters, vol. 5, 1991. See also Müller
1994.
75 Dykcyonarz łaciński Haugwiniusza 1415, in: Janusz Pezda, Volumen hoc deest. Volumen hoc desideratur. O brakach
19
Arnold of Villanova (ca. 1240 – 1311), a Catalan physician, and Ramon Llull (1232/33 – ca. 1316), a Catalan theologian, are more interesting cases. Both were learned men to whom many alchemical treatises were ascribed since their death. Arnold likely did not write any of these works,76 and Ramon himself explicitly denied the possibility of transmutation and did not think
of alchemy as real science.77 Yet his reputation as a magician, due to his works, and his Ars combi-natoria and theory of the elements allowed alchemical interpretations and the attribution of al-chemical texts to him.78 All alchemical texts attributed to Ramon Llull are pseudo-Llullian.
Llullian alchemy arose at the end of the fourteenth century with the Liber de secretis naturae. This dialogue, which exhibits features typical for alchemical dialogues, set off a pseudo-tradition which really began in the early fifteenth century. One legend about Llull being an alchemist had it that the he learned the alchemical art from Arnold de Villanova,79 thus linking the two scholars again.
The attribution of the Dialogue to Arnold de Villanova might in turn be related to the fact that other Lilies were already ascribed to him.80 It could also very well be that copyists followed (un-knowingly the pseudo-)tradition, believing that the Dialogue gained credibility through their sta-tuses.
As was stated earlier, catalogues sometimes offer inadequate or incorrect information on the prints or manuscripts. This is also the case with Ms. 359, Muséum national d’histoire naturelle, Paris. The online catalogue mentions the Italian protestant and scientist Guglielmo Grataroli (also Guglielmus Gratarolus, Wilhelm Gratarolus, Gratarolo; 1516-1568) as the author or editor of the Dialogue in the De denario medico or handwritten copies thereof.81 The dates of many manuscripts
indicate that Gratarolo cannot be the author. The explanation for the occurrence of his name is that, according to the BnF catalogue general, Arislaus and Arisleus were Gratarolo’s pseudonyms. The attribution of the Dialogue to Gratarolo also appears in other online catalogues. Gratarolo did publish alchemical works, and dialogues as well,82 but none of these turn out to be the Dialogue.
Hence it is unlikely he was an editor before Penot. Both Penot and Gratarolo were scientists in-volved with Paracelsianism, alchemy and medicine in general, and both stayed at Basel at some
76 Principe 2013, 67.
77 Thorndike 1934, vol. IV, 7-8.
78 A. Clericuzio, in Figala & Priesner 1998, 226. 79 Bonner 1993, 59. Thorndike 1934, vol. IV, 22-23. 80 Thorndike 1934 vol. III, 62-63.
81 E.g. Libris National Library of Sweden: http://libris.kb.se/bib/2672832. Online Catalogue of Archives and
Manuscripts in French University and Research Libraries:
http://www.calames.abes.fr/pub/#details?id=PA2010963. University of Wisconsin-Madison Library Catalogue:
http://madcat.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?v1=2&ti=1,2&Search_Arg=alchymists%20enchiridion&SL=None&Search_Code=GKEY%5E %2A&CNT=100&PID=d0pOCVnUP6Kdse0EU_RsOrVBahK&SEQ=20140809075350&SID=1.
82 Dialogus de substantiis physicis, 1567. Lignum vitae, 1542. Artis auriferae, 1572, containing an edition of the Turba
20
point or had contacts there within the academic milieu.83 However, no solid link between the two
could be established so far.
In general there is no evidence to claim with any certainty that any of the given names is in-deed the real author. The authors are either known to have been falsely credited for alchemical writings, or do not appear prior to the prints. Perhaps they lived before the earliest known dates of the manuscripts, which raises new questions.
2.2
Printed sources
Each book has a translator, editor, printer and/or publishers. These will be elaborated upon, to-gether with the books as such, with the aim of contextualising the prints and to get a basic under-standing of which persons were involved and what the physical appearances of the prints are. The language and textual genre will be commented upon in the next chapter. For the contextuali-sation, modern and seventeenth- and eighteenth-century reference resources have been used. Since printing houses are known to have cooperated with other translators, printers, publishers and investors,84 further archive research might provide additional information on networks of the concerned individuals.
No other editions are known to exist but these four:
1. Dialogus philosophiae, in: Aureum Vellis oder Guldin Schatz und Kunstkammer. By Salomon Trismosin (ed.) and Straub (publ.). Rorschach am Bodensee: 1598. (High/Swiss) German language.
2. Tsamenspraecke vanden Meester ende Discipel, in: Duytsche Alchimie van Iehan Saignier. By Joos Balbian (ed.), Christophorus Raphelengius (print.), Gillis van Cranenbroeck (publ.). Lei-den: 1600. Dutch language.
3. Arislai tractatus, in: De denario medico. By Bernard G. Penot (ed.) and Iohannes le Preux (publ.). Bern: 1608. Latin language.
4. The Dialogue of Arislaus, in: Penotus Palemeis, Alchymists Enchiridion. B.P. Philalethes (ed.) and John Wyat (publ.). London: 1692. English language.
2.2.1
Aureum Vellus oder Guldin Schatz und Kunstkammer
85The ambitious title means ‘golden fleece or golden treasure and chamber of art’. The explanation for this title is that the story of Jason and the Argonauts was read as an alchemical allegory: after
83 CERL Thesaurus, entrance ‘Gratarolo, Guiglelmo (1516-1568)’, consulted on 09-08-2014. Kahn 2007, 345. 84 Goldstein 2012, 5, 17. On authorship, publishing and collaboration, see Hirschfeld 2001. Also Van Rossem
2010, 45, and Pleij 2007, 502.
21
a long and difficult quest Jason obtains the Golden Fleece, which was the goal of his journey.86
Similarly, alchemical truths and the Philosopher’se Stone are the objective for the alchemist, who awaits a long and difficult journey because of the obscure and hidden nature of alchemical texts. So the title suggests that the book offers a wealth of information.
The Aureum vellus is quarto sized. Its content is diverse but alchemical in nature, and is divided in three main parts or ‘tractati’. The first contains ‘gar alten Buecher’ (‘all old books’), among
which several writings from Salomon Trismosin, the second contains Paracelsian writings, and the third miscellaneous alchemical texts, among others the first printed edition of Trismosin’s Splendor solis. The first two tractates were published in 1598, and the third was published the year after. The Dialogus philosophiae inter magistrum & discipulum is part of the third one.
All parts of the Aureum vellus are decorated with initials and various types of ornaments. The second part that contains Paracelsian material also has Paracelsus’ portrait at the beginning. The third part shows a series of allegorical alchemical illustrations, pertaining to the treatise Splendor Solis.
The Aureum vellus saw through several reprints both of the entire book as well as of the sepa-rate tractates, but information on them differ in catalogues. The first edition contained only the first two tractates and dates from 1598, and was printed in Rorschach (am Bodensee), a town in Switzerland.87 The online Universal Short Title Catalogue (USTC), as the only one, indicates it was published by a certain Georg Straub, but his name does not appear in the book. Again, ac-cording to the USTC the book was reprinted already in 1599, this time by a certain Henning Grosse in Leipzig. One of the copies thereof is kept at the Sächsische Landesbibliothek Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Dresden, but nor its catalogue or the facsimile mention Grosse or Leipzig.88 It shows Rorschach instead. A very late reprint appeared in 1708, Hamburg, and again
in 1718, Hamburg.89
Moreover, there are other editions as well. In 1599 the Aureum vellus, i.e. the first two tractates, was reprinted in Rorschach, and the third part appeared separate in the same year at Gottshaus S. Gallen Reichshoff, Rorschach am Bodensee, and again in 1600.90 Furthermore, in addition to the
first three tractates, two more were published. The fourth was printed in Basel by Janum in 1604, the fifth was printed in Basel by Jacobum Treüm, 1604.
86 As was done earlier by Giovanni Aurelio Augurello (1441 – 1524), in order to give alchemy a classic pedigree.
Principe 2013, 180.
87 See e.g. München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, 4 Alch. 89#Beibd.2; Zürich, Stiftung der Werke von C.G.
Jung, Rar 8234. More copies have been preserved.
88 See Chem.381.d,misc, online available via:
http://digital.slub-dresden.de/werkansicht/dlf/1646//2/cache.off?tx_dlf%5Bdouble%5D=0
89 München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, 4 Alch. 95. See Kühlmann & Telle 2013, 284.
90 See München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, 4 Alch. 91-3. The specifications of the latter in the catalogue have
22
The first three tractates were originally intended as a unity, which is made clear by a note at the end of the content description:
‘Von kuertze wegen der Zeyt, haben der ander vnd dritte Tractat dises Wercks (in
ob-gemeldtem Catalogo begriffen) nicht moegen gefertigt werden, welches aber mit der hilff Gottes, auff kuenfftige Herbstmeß, dises lauffenden 1598. jahrs geschehen soll.’
‘Because there was not enough time, the other and third Treatise of this Work (in-cluded in the abovementioned Catalogue) could not have been finished, but with the help of God, will appear for the learned fair, in fall this year 1598.’
Due to shortage of time the third part of the Aureum vellus had to be postponed until the fall of 1598, in time for a book market, which was an international place to be for professionals. Which market is uncertain, but one assumption is that it is Frankfurt’s autumn market, which was re-nowned and of utmost importance for the book business since the late fifteenth century.91
In-deed, if printers simply referred to ‘the fair’, they likely meant Frankfurt.92 It was in the last week
of September and first week of October. Because of its size and importance, the fair formed a good place to try and sell more expensive (because of its size and decorations) volumes such as the Aureum vellus. Still, the third tractate would turn out to appear only in 1599. It was reissued in 1600, this time also including the Twelve Keys of Basil Valentine. The title page of the third tractate shows Aureis velleris instead of Aureum vellus. It also mentions the Gottshaus S. Gallen Reichshoff.
The Aureum vellus was translated into French and printed in Paris in 1612, but this seems to be a translation of the Splendor solis, part of the first treatise, and it does not contain the Dialogue.
Two manuscripts of the Aureum vellus have been found, but not checked on their precise con-tent:
1. Amsterdam, Bibliotheca Philosophica Hermetica, M5; 1698/99.
2. Chantilly, bibliothèque du château de Chantilly, Ms 416; copy of the third treatise; Lat-in; sixteenth century.
The front page indicates that all the content has been brought together and translated into German by the great and outstanding philosopher Salomone Trissmosino (Salomon Trismosin), the teacher of Paracelsus. He has been considered to be the author of a well-known alchemical text, the Splendor Solis, which is also included in the Aureum vellus.93 However, nothing about
91 Fudge 2007, 29-30.
92 Pettegree 2010, 78-79. Another notable fair of particular importance for southern Germany was in
Nördlingen.
93 See editions Solomon Trismosin, Splendor Solis, ed. Julius Kohn, London: Kegan Paul, 1920; Salomon
23
mosin is certain, and he was not really Paracelsus’ teacher.94 Also, biographical information can
be contradictory. A.P. Coudert states he lived in the sixteenth century,95 but R. Patai places him in fifteenth-century Germany.96 Further explanation is missing. In fact Trismosin’s authorship is
unlikely, if only because of the amount and variety of treatises within the book and the authors attributed to it in the content description itself, and the fact that the origin of the Dialogus is un-clear but in any case is never directly linked to Trismosin. Patai probably meant to connect Tris-mosin solely to the first treatise, where all texts are indeed ascribed to TrisTris-mosin. The name is possibly be a pseudonym. As with ‘Arislaus’ in the Arislai tractatus it could have been added to give the texts more authority.
No publisher is mentioned at first. All that is provided is a place and date: Rorschach am Bo-densee, 1598. Without explanation the name L. Straub does appear in sources as the supposed printer.97 Now, the separate reprint of the third part was printed at the Gottshaus Sanct Gallen
Reichshoff in Rorschach. This name appears in other contemporaneous copies as well, which do have a printer’s name: Leonhart Straub.98 Since at this point no other printers have been
identi-fied to be active at this period and precise location in catalogues, it is very likely that Straub’s business is the one responsible for the Aureum vellus. He lived from 1550 to 1607, and was subse-quently active in St. Gallen (1578-1584), Rorschach (1584-1598) and finally Konstanz (1598-1601), Swiss and German towns in the same region. After having settled as a printer in Konstanz, his brother Georg Straub became in charge of the Rorschach business.99 This explains the USTC
mentioning a Georg Straub as the printer of the Aureum vellus. Leonhart Straub’s son, also named Leonhart, took over the business in 1611.100 The Straub printing house shows the same strife as Plantin-Moretus: through the establishment of multiple branches of the printing house with sev-eral family members trained and employed in the business, chances of survival increased a lot.101
The Straub business seems not to have published other alchemical or iatrochemical works.102
94 Buntz, in Hanegraaff 2006, 40. 95 Coudert, in Hanegraaff 2006, 48. 96 Patai 1995, 268.
97 Kühlmann & Telle 2013, 225.
98 See for instance the New corrigirter Schreibkalender, sampt dem alten : mit der Practic, und anzeygung der Jahrmärckten,
auff das Jahr M.D.XCII.
99 Müller 1983, 34.
100 Consortium of European Research Libraries Thesaurus (CERL), online. Consulted on 09-03-2014.
101 Van Rossem 2010, 42. This easily allows further specialisation. It is worthwhile to further investigate the
books produced at each location. The same goes for the Leiden branch of the Plantin-Moretus business which was responsible for the Duytsche alchimie..
