Other Arabian Alchemists.

[44]Ernst von Meyer:A History of Chemistry(translated by Dr. McGowan, 1906), p. 31.

§33.Among other Arabian alchemists the most celebrated wereAvicennaandRhasis, who are supposed to have lived some time after Geber; and to whom, perhaps, the sulphur-mercury theory may have been to some extent due.

The teachings of the Arabian alchemists gradually penetrated into the Western world, in which, during the thirteenth century, flourished some of the most eminent of the alchemists, whose lives and teachings we must now briefly consider.

PLATE 7.[by de Bry]PORTRAIT OFALBERTUS MAGNUS.To face page 44]

PLATE 7.

[by de Bry]

PORTRAIT OFALBERTUS MAGNUS.

To face page 44]

§34.Albertus Magnus, Albert Groot or Albert von Bollstädt (seeplate 7), was born at Lauingen, probably in 1193. He was educated at Padua, and in his later years he showed himself apt at acquiring the knowledge of his time. He studied theology, philosophy and natural science, and is chiefly celebrated as an Aristotelean philosopher. He entered the Dominican order, taught publicly at Cologne, Paris and elsewhere, and was made provincial of this order. Later he had the bishopric of Regensburg conferred on him, but he retired after a few years to a Dominican cloister, where he devoted himself to philosophy and science. He was one of the most learned men of his time and, moreover, a man of noble character. The authenticity of the alchemistic works attributed to him has been questioned.

§35.The celebrated Dominican,Thomas Aquinas(seeplate 8), was probably a pupil of Albertus Magnus, from whom it is thought he imbibed alchemistic learning. It is very probable, however, that the alchemistic works attributed to him are spurious. Theauthor of these works manifests a deeply religious tone, and, according to Thomson’sHistory of Chemistry, he was the first to employ the term “amalgam” to designate an alloy of mercury with some other metal.[45]

[45]Thomas Thomson:The History of Chemistry, vol. i. (1830), p. 33.

§36.Roger Bacon, the most illustrious of the mediæval alchemists, was born near Ilchester in Somerset, probably in 1214. His erudition, considering the general state of ignorance prevailing at this time, was most remarkable. Professor Meyer says: “He is to be regarded as the intellectual originator of experimental research, if the departure in this direction is to be coupled with any one name—a direction which, followed more and more as time went on, gave to the science [of Chemistry] its own peculiar stamp, and ensured its steady development.”[46]Roger Bacon studied theology and science at Oxford and at Paris; and he joined the Franciscan order, at what date, however, is uncertain. He was particularly interested in optics, and certain discoveries in this branch of physics have been attributed to him, though probably erroneously. It appears, also, that he was acquainted with gunpowder, which was, however, not employed in Europe until many years later.[47]Unfortunately, he earned the undesirable reputation of being in communication with the powers of darkness, and as he did not hesitate to oppose many of the opinions current at the time, hesuffered much persecution. He was a firm believer in the powers of the Philosopher’s Stone to transmute large quantities of “base” metal into gold, and also to extend the life of the individual. “Alchimy,” he says, “is a Science, teaching how to transforme any kind of mettall into another: and that by a proper medicine, as it appeareth by many Philosophers Bookes.Alchimytherefore is a science teaching how to make and compound a certaine medicine, which is calledElixir, the which when it is cast upon mettals or imperfect bodies, doth fully perfect them in the verie projection.”[48]He also believed in Astrology; but, nevertheless, he was entirely opposed to many of the magical and superstitious notions held at the time, and his tract,De Secretis Operibus Artis et Naturæ, et de Nullitate Magiæ, was an endeavour to prove that many so-called “miracles” could be brought about simply by the aid of natural science. Roger Bacon was a firm supporter of the Sulphur-Mercury theory: he says: “. . . the natural principles in the mynes, areArgent-vive, andSulphur. All mettals and minerals, whereof there be sundrie and divers kinds, are begotten of these two: but I must tel you, that nature alwaies intendeth and striveth to the perfection of Gold: but many accidents coming between, change the metalls. . . . For according to the puritie and impuritie of the two aforesaide principles,Argent-viveandSulphur, pure, and impure mettals are ingendred.”[49]He expresses surprise that any should employ animal and vegetable substances in their attempts to prepare the Stone, a practice common to some alchemists but warmly criticised byothers. He says: “Nothing may be mingled with mettalls which hath not beene made or sprung from them, it remaineth cleane inough, that no strange thing which hath not his originall from these two [viz., sulphur and mercury], is able to perfect them, or to make a chaunge and new transmutation of them: so that it is to be wondered at, that any wise man should set his mind upon living creatures, or vegetables which are far off, when there be minerals to bee found nigh enough: neither may we in any wise thinke, that any of the Philosophers placed the Art in the said remote things, except it were by way of comparison.”[50]The one process necessary for the preparation of the Stone, he tells us, is “continuall concoction” in the fire, which is the method that “God hath given to nature.”[51]He died about 1294.

[46]Ernst von Meyer:A History of Chemistry(translated by Dr. McGowan, 1906), p. 35.[47]SeeRoger Bacon’sDiscovery of Miracles, chaps. vi. and xi.[48]Roger Bacon:The Mirror of Alchimy(1597), p. 1.[49]Ibid.p. 2.[50]Roger Bacon:The Mirror of Alchimy(1597), p. 4.[51]Ibid.p. 9.

[46]Ernst von Meyer:A History of Chemistry(translated by Dr. McGowan, 1906), p. 35.

[47]SeeRoger Bacon’sDiscovery of Miracles, chaps. vi. and xi.

[48]Roger Bacon:The Mirror of Alchimy(1597), p. 1.

[49]Ibid.p. 2.

[50]Roger Bacon:The Mirror of Alchimy(1597), p. 4.

[51]Ibid.p. 9.

§37.The date and birthplace ofArnold de Villanova, or Villeneuve, are both uncertain. He studied medicine at Paris, and in the latter part of the thirteenth century practised professionally in Barcelona. To avoid persecution at the hands of the Inquisition, he was obliged to leave Spain, and ultimately found safety with Frederick II. in Sicily. He was famous not only as an alchemist, but also as a skilful physician. He died (it is thought in a shipwreck) about 1310-1313.

§38.Raymond Lully, the son of a noble Spanish family, was born at Palma (in Majorca) about 1235. He was a man of somewhat eccentric character—in his youth a man of pleasure; in his maturity,a mystic and ascetic. His career was of a roving and adventurous character. We are told that, in his younger days, although married, he became violently infatuated with a lady of the name of Ambrosia de Castello, who vainly tried to dissuade him from his profane passion. Her efforts proving futile, she requested Lully to call upon her, and in the presence of her husband, bared to his sight her breast, which was almost eaten away by a cancer. This sight—so the story goes—brought about Lully’s conversion. He became actuated by the idea of converting to Christianity the heathen in Africa, and engaged the services of an Arabian whereby he might learn the language. The man, however, discovering his master’s object, attempted to assassinate him, and Lully narrowly escaped with his life. But his enthusiasm for missionary work never abated—his central idea was the reasonableness and demonstrability of Christian doctrine—and unhappily he was, at last, stoned to death by the inhabitants of Bugiah (in Algeria) in 1315.[52]

[52]SeeLives of Alchemystical Philosophers(1815), pp. 17et seq.

A very large number of alchemistic, theological and other treatises are attributed to Lully, many of which are undoubtedly spurious; and it is a difficult question to decide exactly which are genuine. He is supposed to have derived a knowledge of Alchemy from Roger Bacon and Arnold de Villanova. It appears more probable, however, either that Lully the alchemist was a personage distinct from the Lully whose life we have sketched above, or that the alchemistic writings attributed to him are forgeries of a similar nature tothe works of pseudo-Geber (§ 32). Of these alchemical writings we may here mention theClavicula. This he says is the key to all his other books on Alchemy, in which books the whole Art is fully declared, though so obscurely as not to be understandable without its aid. In this work an alleged method for what may be called the multiplication of the “noble” metals rather than transmutation is described in clear language; but it should be noticed that the stone employed is itself a compound either of silver or gold. According to Lully, the secret of the Philosopher’s Stone is the extraction of the mercury of silver or gold. He writes: “Metals cannot be transmuted . . . in the Minerals, unless they be reduced into their first Matter. . . . Therefore I counsel you, O my Friends, that you do not work but aboutSolandLuna, reducing them into the first Matter, ourSulphurandArgent vive: therefore, Son, you are to use this venerable Matter; and I swear unto you and promise, that unless you take theArgent viveof these two, you go to the Practick as blind men without eyes or sense. . . .”[53]

[53]Raymond Lully:Clavicula, or, A Little Key(seeAurifontina Chymica, 1680, p. 167).

§39.In 1546, a work was published entitledMagarita Pretiosa, which claimed to be a “faithful abridgement,” by “Janus Lacinus Therapus, the Calabrian,” of a MS. written byPeter Bonusin the fourteenth century. An abridged English translation of this book by Mr. A. E. Waite was published in 1894. Of the life of Bonus, who is said to have been an inhabitant of Pola, a seaportof Istria, nothing is known; but theMagarita Pretiosais an alchemistic work of considerable interest. The author commences, like pseudo-Geber in hisSum of Perfection, by bringing forward a number of very ingenious arguments against the validity of the Art; he then proceeds with arguments in favour of Alchemy and puts forward answers in full to the former objections; further difficulties, &c., are then dealt with. In all this, compared with many other alchemists, Bonus, though somewhat prolix, is remarkably lucid. All metals, he argues, following the views of pseudo-Geber, consist of mercury and sulphur; but whilst the mercury is always one and the same, different metals contain different sulphurs. There are also two different kinds of sulphurs—inward and outward. Sulphur is necessary for the development of the mercury, but for the final product, gold, to come forth, it is necessary that the outward and impure sulphur be purged off. “Each metal,” says Bonus, “differs from all the rest, and has a certain perfection and completeness of its own; but none, except gold, has reached that highest degree of perfection of which it is capable. For all common metals there is a transient and a perfect state of inward completeness, and this perfect state they attain either through the slow operation of Nature, or through the sudden transformatory power of our Stone. We must, however, add that the imperfect metals form part of the great plan and design of Nature, though they are in course of transformation into gold. For a large number of very useful and indispensable tools and utensils could not be provided at all if there were no copper, iron, tin, or lead, and if all metalswere either silver or gold. For this beneficent reason Nature has furnished us with the metallic substance in all its different stages of development, from iron, or the lowest, to gold, or the highest state of metallic perfection. Nature is ever studying variety, and, for that reason, instead of covering the whole face of the earth with water, has evolved out of that elementary substance a great diversity of forms, embracing the whole animal, vegetable and mineral world. It is, in like manner, for the use of men that Nature has differentiated the metallic substance into a great variety of species and forms.”[54]According to this interesting alchemistic work, the Art of Alchemy consists, not in reducing the imperfect metals to their first substance, but in carrying forward Nature’s work, developing the imperfect metals to perfection and removing their impure sulphur.

[54]Peter Bonus:The New Pearl of Great Price(Mr. A. E. Waite’s translation, pp. 176-177).

PLATE 8.PORTRAIT OF THOMAS AQUINAS.PORTRAIT OF NICOLAS FLAMEL.To face page 52]

PLATE 8.

PORTRAIT OF THOMAS AQUINAS.

PORTRAIT OF NICOLAS FLAMEL.

To face page 52]

§40.Nicolas Flamel (seeplate 8) was born about 1330, probably in Paris. His parents were poor, and Nicolas took up the trade of a scrivener. In the course of time, Flamel became a very wealthy man and, at the same time, it appears, one who exhibited considerable munificence. This increase in Flamel’s wealth has been attributed to supposed success in the Hermetic Art. We are told that a remarkable book came into the young scrivener’s possession, which, at first, he was unable to understand, until, at last, he had the good fortune to meet an adept who translated its mysteries for him. This book revealed the occult secrets of Alchemy, and by its means Nicolas was enabledto obtain immense quantities of gold. This story, however, appears to be of a legendary nature, and it seems more likely that Flamel’s riches resulted from his business as a scrivener and from moneylending. At any rate, all of the alchemistic works attributed to Flamel are of more or less questionable origin. One of these, entitledA Short Tract, or Philosophical Summary, will be found inThe Hermetic Museum. It is a very brief work, supporting the sulphur-mercury theory.

§41.Probably the most celebrated of all alchemistic books is the work known asTriumph-Wagen des Antimonii. A Latin translation with a commentary by Theodore Kerckringius was published in 1685, and an English translation of this version by Mr. A. E. Waite appeared in 1893. The author describes himself as “Basil Valentine, a Benedictine monk.” In his “Practica,” another alchemistic work, he says: “When I had emptied to the dregs the cup of human suffering, I was led to consider the wretchedness of this world, and the fearful consequences of our first parents’ disobedience . . . I made haste to withdraw myself from the evil world, to bid farewell to it, and to devote myself to the Service of God.”[55]He proceeds to relate that he entered a monastery, but finding that he had some time on his hands after performing his daily work and devotions, and not wishing to pass this time in idleness, he took up the study of Alchemy, “the investigation of those natural secrets by which God hasshadowed out eternal things,” and at last his labours were rewarded by the discovery of a Stone most potent in the curing of diseases. InThe Triumphal Chariot of Antimonyare accurately described a large number of antimonial preparations, and as Basil was supposed to have written this work some time in the fifteenth century, these preparations were accordingly concluded to have been, for the most part, his own discoveries. He defends with the utmost vigour the medicinal values of antimony, and criticises in terms far from mild the physicians of his day. On account of this work Basil Valentine has ranked very high as an experimental chemist; but from quite early times its date and authorship have been regarded alike as doubtful; and it appears from the researches of the late Professor Schorlemmer “to be an undoubted forgery dating from about 1600, the information being culled from the works of other writers. . . .”[56]Probably the other works ascribed to Basil Valentine are of a like nature.The Triumphal Chariot of Antimonydoes, however, give an accurate account of the knowledge of antimony of this time, and the pseudo-Valentine shows himself to have been a man of considerable experience with regard to this subject.

[55]“Basil Valentine”:The “Practica”(seeThe Hermetic Museum, vol. i. p. 313).[56]SirH. E. Roscoe, F.R.S., andC. Schorlemmer, F.R.S.:A Treatise on Chemistry, vol. i. (1905), p. 9.

[55]“Basil Valentine”:The “Practica”(seeThe Hermetic Museum, vol. i. p. 313).

[56]SirH. E. Roscoe, F.R.S., andC. Schorlemmer, F.R.S.:A Treatise on Chemistry, vol. i. (1905), p. 9.

§42.Isaac of Holland and a countryman of the same name, probably his son, are said to have been the first Dutch alchemists. They are supposed to have lived during the fifteenth century, but of their lives nothing is known. Isaac, although not free from superstitious opinions, appears to have been a practicalchemist, and his works, which abound in recipes, were held in great esteem by Paracelsus and other alchemists. He held that all things in this world are of a dual nature, partly good and partly bad. “. . . All that God hath created good in the upper part of the world,” he writes, “are perfect and uncorruptible, as the heaven: but whatsoever in these lower parts, whether it be in beasts, fishes, and all manner of sensible creatures, hearbs or plants, it is indued with a double nature, that is to say, perfect, and unperfect; the perfect nature is called the Quintessence, the unperfect the Feces or dreggs, or the venemous or combustible oile. . . . God hath put a secret nature or influence in every creature, and . . . to every nature of one sort or kind he hath given one common influence and vertue, whether it bee on Physick or other secret works, which partly are found out by naturall workmanship. And yet more things are unknown than are apparent to our senses.”[57]He gives directions for extracting the Quintessence, for which marvellous powers are claimed, out of sugar and other organic substances; and he appears to be the earliest known writer who makes mention of the famous sulphur-mercury-salt theory.

[57]One hundred and Fourteen Experiments and Cures of the Famous Physitian Theophrastus Paracelsus, whereunto is added . . . certain Secrets of Isaac Hollandus, concerning the Vegetall and Animall Work(1652), p. 35.

§43.Bernard Trévisan, a French count of the fifteenth century, squandered enormous sums of money in the search for the Stone, in which the whole of his life and energies were engaged. He seems to have become the dupe of one charlatan after another,but at last, at a ripe old age, he says that his labours were rewarded, and that he successfully performed themagnum opus. In a short, but rather obscure work, he speaks of the Philosopher’s Stone in the following words: “This Stone then is compounded of a Body and Spirit, or of a volatile and fixed Substance, and that is therefore done, because nothing in the World can be generated and brought to light without these two Substances, to wit, a Male and Female: From whence it appeareth, that although these two Substances are not of one and the same species, yet one Stone doth thence arise, and although they appear and are said to be two Substances, yet in truth it is but one, to wit,Argent-vive.”[58]He appears, however, to have added nothing to our knowledge of chemical science.

[58]Bernard, Earl of Trévisan:A Treatise of the Philosophers Stone, 1683 (seeCollectanea Chymica: A Collection of Ten Several Treatises in Chemistry, 1684, p. 91).

§44.Sir George Ripley, an eminent alchemistic philosopher of the fifteenth century, entered upon a monastic life when a youth, becoming one of the canons regular of Bridlington. After some travels he returned to England and obtaining leave from the Pope to live in solitude, he devoted himself to the study of the Hermetic Art. His chief work isThe Compound of Alchymie . . . conteining twelve Gates, which was written in 1471. In this curious work, we learn that there are twelve processes necessary for the achievement of themagnum opus, namely, Calcination, Solution, Separation, Conjunction, Putrefaction, Congelation, Cibation, Sublimation, Fermentation,Exaltation, Multiplication, and Projection. These are likened to the twelve gates of a castle which the philosopher must enter. At the conclusion of the twelfth gate, Ripley says:—

“Now thou hast conqueryd thetwelve Gates,And all the Castell thou holdyst at wyll,Keep thy Secretts in store unto thy selve;And the commaundements of God looke thou fulfull:In fyer conteinue thy glas styll,And Multeply thy Medcyns ay more and more,For wyse men done saystore ys no sore.”[59]

[59]SirGeorge Ripley:The Compound of Alchemy(seeTheatrum Chemicum Britannicum, edited by Elias Ashmole, 1652, p. 186).

At the conclusion of the work he tells us that in all that he wrote before he was mistaken; he says:—

“I madeSolucyonsfull many a one,Of Spyrytts, Ferments, Salts, Yerne and Steele;Wenyng so to make the Phylosophers Stone:But fynally I lost eche dele,After my Boks yet wrought I well;Whych evermore untrue I provyd,That made me oft full sore agrevyd.”[60]

[60]Ibid.p. 189.

Ripley did much to popularise the works of Raymond Lully in England, but does not appear to have added to the knowledge of practical chemistry. HisBosom Book, which contains an alleged method for preparing the Stone, will be found in theCollectanea Chemica(1893).

§45.Thomas Norton, the author of the celebratedOrdinall of Alchemy, was probably born shortly beforethe commencement of the fifteenth century. TheOrdinall, which is written in verse (and which will be found in Ashmole’sTheatrum Chemicum Britannicum),[61]is anonymous, but the author’s identity is revealed by a curious device. The initial syllables of the proem and of the first six chapters, together with the first line of the seventh chapter, give the following couplet:—

“Tomais Norton of Briseto,A parfetMasterye maie him call trowe.”

[61]A prose version will be found inThe Hermetic Museumtranslated back into English from a Latin translation by Maier.

Samuel Norton, the grandson of Thomas, who was also an alchemist, says that Thomas Norton was a member of the privy chamber of Edward IV. Norton’s distinctive views regarding the generation of the metals we have already mentioned (see§ 20). He taught that true knowledge of the Art of Alchemy could only be obtained by word of mouth from an adept, and in hisOrdinallhe gives an account of his own initiation. He tells us that he was instructed by his master (probably Sir George Ripley) and learnt the secrets of the Art in forty days, at the age of twenty-eight. He does not, however, appear to have reaped the fruits of this knowledge. Twice, he tells us, did he prepare the Elixir, and twice was it stolen from him; and he is said to have died in 1477, after ruining himself and his friends by his unsuccessful experiments.

§46.That erratic genius,Paracelsus—or, to give him his correct name, Philip (?) Aureole (?)Theophrast Bombast von Hohenheim—whose portrait forms thefrontispieceto the present work—was born at Einsiedeln in Switzerland in 1493. He studied the alchemistic and medical arts under his father, who was a physician, and continued his studies later at the University of Basle. He also gave some time to the study of magic and the occult sciences under the famous Trithemius of Spanheim. Paracelsus, however, found the merely theoretical “book learning” of the university curriculum unsatisfactory and betook himself to the mines, where he might study the nature of metals at first hand. He then spent several years in travelling, visiting some of the chief countries of Europe. At last he returned to Basle, the chair of Medical Science of his old university being bestowed upon him. The works of Isaac of Holland had inspired him with the desire to improve upon the medical science of his day, and in his lectures (which were,contrary to the usual custom, delivered not in Latin, but in the German language) he denounced in violent terms the teachings of Galen and Avicenna, who were until then the accredited authorities on medical matters. His use of the German tongue, his coarseness in criticism and his intense self-esteem, combined with the fact that he did lay bare many of the medical follies and frauds of his day, brought him into very general dislike with the rest of the physicians, and the municipal authorities siding with the aggrieved apothecaries and physicians, whose methods Paracelsus had exposed, he fled from Basle and resumed his former roving life. He was, so we are told, a man of very intemperate habits, being seldom sober (a statement seriously open to doubt); but on the other hand, he certainly accomplished a very large number of most remarkable cures, and, judging from his writings, he was inspired by lofty and noble ideals and a fervent belief in the Christian religion. He died in 1541.

Paracelsus combined in himself such opposite characteristics that it is a matter of difficulty to criticise him aright. As says Professor Ferguson: “It is most difficult . . . to ascertain what his true character really was, to appreciate aright this man of fervid imagination, of powerful and persistent conviction, of unbated honesty and love of truth, of keen insight into the errors (as he thought them) of his time, of a merciless will to lay bare these errors and to reform the abuses to which they gave rise, who in an instant offends by his boasting, his grossness, his want of self-respect. It is a problem how to reconcile his ignorance, his weakness, his superstition, his crudenotions, his erroneous observations, his ridiculous inferences and theories, with his grasp of method, his lofty views of the true scope of medicine, his lucid statements, his incisive and epigrammatic criticisms of men and motives.”[62]It is also a problem of considerable difficulty to determine which of the many books attributed to him are really his genuine works, and consequently what his views on certain points exactly were.

[62]John Ferguson, M.A.: Article “Paracelsus,”Encyclopædia Britannica, 9th edition (1885), vol. xviii. p. 236.

§47.Paracelsus was the first to recognise the desirability of investigating the physical universe with a motive other than alchemistic. He taught that “the object of chemistry is not to make gold, but to prepare medicines,” and founded the school of Iatro-chemistry or Medical Chemistry. This synthesis of chemistry with medicine was of very great benefit to each science; new possibilities of chemical investigation were opened up now that the aim was not purely alchemistic. Paracelsus’s central theory was that of the analogy between man, the microcosm, and the world or macrocosm. He regarded all the actions that go on in the human body as of a chemical nature, and he thought that illness was the result of a disproportion in the body between the quantities of the three great principles—sulphur, mercury, and salt—which he regarded as constituting all things; for example, he considered an excess of sulphur as the cause of fever, since sulphur was the fiery principle, &c. The basis of the iatro-chemical doctrines, namely, that the healthy human body is a particular combination ofchemical substances: illness the result of some change in this combination, and hence curable only by chemical medicines, expresses a certain truth, and is undoubtedly a great improvement upon the ideas of the ancients. But in the elaboration of his medical doctrines Paracelsus fell a prey to exaggeration and the fantastic, and many of his theories appear to be highly ridiculous. This extravagance is also very pronounced in the alchemistic works attributed to him; for example, the belief in the artificial creation of minute living creatures resembling men (called “homunculi”)—a belief of the utmost absurdity, if we are to understand it literally. On the other hand, his writings do contain much true teaching of a mystical nature; his doctrine of the correspondence of man with the universe considered as a whole, for example, certainly being radically true, though fantastically stated and developed by Paracelsus himself.

§48.Between the pupils of Paracelsus and the older school of medicine, as might well be supposed, a battle royal was waged for a considerable time, which ultimately concluded, if not with a full vindication of Paracelsus’s teaching, yet with the acceptance of the fundamental iatro-chemical doctrines. Henceforward it is necessary to distinguish between the chemists and the alchemists—to distinguish those who pursued chemical studies with the object of discovering and preparing useful medicines, and later those who pursued such studies for their own sake, from those whose object was the transmutation of the “base” metals into gold, whether from purely selfish motives, or with the desire todemonstrate on the physical plane the validity of the doctrines of Mysticism. However, during the following century or two we find, very often, the chemist and the alchemist united in one and the same person. Men such as Glauber and Boyle, whose names will ever be remembered by chemists, did not doubt the possibility of performing themagnum opus. In the present chapter, however, we shall confine our attention for the most part to those men who may be regarded, for one reason or another, particularly asalchemists. And the alchemists of the period we are now considering present a very great diversity. On the one hand, we have men of much chemical knowledge and skill such as Libavius and van Helmont, on the other hand we have those who stand equally as high as exponents of mystic wisdom—men such as Jacob Boehme and, to a less extent, Thomas Vaughan. We have those, who, although they did not enrich the science of Chemistry with any new discoveries, were, nevertheless, regarded as masters of the Hermetic Art; and, finally, we have alchemists of the Edward Kelley and “Cagliostro” type, whose main object was their own enrichment at their neighbours’ expense. Before, however, proceeding to an account of the lives and teachings of these men, there is one curious matter—perhaps the most remarkable of all historical curiosities—that calls for some brief consideration. We refer to the “far-famed” Rosicrucian Society.

§49.The exoteric history of the Rosicrucian Society commences with the year 1614. In that year there was published at Cassel in Germany a pamphlet entitledThe Discovery of the Fraternity of the Meritorious Order of the Rosy Cross, addressed tothe Learned in General and the Governors of Europe. After a discussion of the momentous question of the general reformation of the world, which was to be accomplished through the medium of a secret confederacy of the wisest and most philanthropic men, the pamphlet proceeds to inform its readers that such an association is in existence, founded over one hundred years ago by the famous C.R.C., grand initiate in the mysteries of Alchemy, whose history (which is clearly of a fabulous or symbolical nature) is given. The book concludes by inviting the wise men of the time to join the Fraternity, directing those who wished to do so to indicate their desire by the publication of printed letters, which should come into the hands of the Brotherhood. As might well be expected, the pamphlet was the cause of considerable interest and excitement, but although many letters were printed, apparently none of them were vouchsafed a reply. The following year a further pamphlet appeared,The Confession of the Rosicrucian Fraternity, addressed to the Learned in Europe, and in 1616,The Chymical Nuptials of Christian Rosencreutz. This latter book is a remarkable allegorical romance, describing how an old man, a lifelong student of the alchemistic Art, was present at the accomplishment of themagnum opusin the year 1459. An enormous amount of controversy took place; it was plain to some that the Society had deluded them, whilst others hotly maintained its claims; but after about four years had passed, the excitement had subsided, and the subject ceased, for the time being, to arouse any particular interest.

Some writers, even in recent times, more gifted forromance than for historical research, have seen in the Rosicrucian Society a secret confederacy of immense antiquity and of stupendous powers, consisting of the great initiates of all ages, supposed to be in possession of the arch secrets of alchemistic art. It is abundantly evident, however, that it was nothing of the sort. It is clear from an examination of the pamphlets already mentioned that they are animated by Lutheran ideals; and it is of interest to note that Luther’s seal contained both the cross and the rose—whence the term “Rosicrucian.” The generally accepted theory regards the pamphlets as a sort of elaborate hoax perpetrated by Valentine Andreä, a young and benevolent Lutheran divine; but more, however, than a mere hoax. As the late Mr. R. A. Vaughan wrote: “. . . this Andreä writes theDiscovery of the Rosicrucian Brotherhood, a jeu-d’espritwith a serious purpose, just as an experiment to see whether something cannot be done by combined effort to remedy the defect and abuses—social, educational, and religious, so lamented by all good men. He thought there were many Andreäs scattered throughout Europe—how powerful would be their united systematic action! . . . He hoped that the few nobler minds whom he desired to organize would see through the veil of fiction in which he had invested his proposal; that he might communicate personally with some such, if they should appear; or that his book might lead them to form among themselves a practical philanthropic confederacy, answering to the serious purpose he had embodied in his fiction.”[63]His scheme was afailure, and on seeing its result, Andreä, not daring to reveal himself as the author of the pamphlets, did his best to put a stop to the folly by writing several works in criticism of the Society and its claims. Mr. A. E. Waite, however, whose work on the subject should be consulted for further information, rejects this theory, and suggests that the Rosicrucian Society was probably identical with theMilitia Crucifera Evangelica, a secret society founded in Nuremburg by the Lutheran alchemist and mystic, Simon Studion.[64]

Back to Index Next