Alchemy texts archives - Historical periods

From: Adam McLean
Date: 3 Jan 1997

It is obvious that there are some distinct historical periods in the tradition of western alchemy, which are not necessarily merely a projection of our own late twentieth century views. It might be instructive for us to try and identify some of these periods and provide a description of these on the alchemy web site, so I would welcome peoples views. Some historical periods or phases which immediately spring to my mind are:-

1. The early period 11th-14th centuries in which documents are transmitted from arabic sources and translated into Latin. This is the period of the 'Turba philosophorum', and the scholars.

2. The period in the 15th century when original western alchemical works are created in manuscript, often anonymously. This is the period of the 'Buch der heilgen Dreifaltigkeit', the 'Aurora consurgens' and George Ripley's writings.

3. The Paracelsian phase which extended from the mid-16th century to the early decades of the 17th Century.

4. The 'Rosicrucian phase' in the early part of the 17th century. Rudolf II, Fludd, Maier etc.

5. The Boehmists, beginning with Boehme but extending through Franckenburg, Gichtel in the German speaking world and through John Pordage and the English followers.

6. The English alchemists of the mid-17th century, initially focussed around Hartlib, and encompassing Thomas Vaughan, Boyle, William Cooper, Eireneus Philalethes, Newton etc.

7. The 'Golden and Rosy Cross' and related masonic-alchemical groups in the German speaking world in the mid to late 18th Century.

These periods, of course, overlap, and are not necessarily to be seen as forming a serial evolution, but each of these has a kind of integrity, a core of ideas and coherent approach to alchemy, and many texts and authors can be seen as working within that particular current.

I would welcome any view on this analysis, or ways of extending it, and wonder if it might provide a picture of alchemy as forming a number of loose groupings and alliances, where alchemists at a particular time felt a certain resonance with the ideas of others, rather than the flat evolutionary picture which some historians have tried to present.

Adam McLean

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 18:11:44 +0100
From: Michela Pereira

Dear Adam, I strongly appreciate your idea of focusing a discussion about
periodisation of Western alchemy. Some remarks on your proposed list.

>1. The early period 11th-14th centuries in which documents are transmitted
>from arabic sources and translated into Latin. This is the period of the
>'Turba philosophorum', and the scholars.
>
>2. The period in the 15th century when original western alchemical works are
>created in manuscript, often anonymously. This is the period of the 'Buch
>der heilgen Dreifaltigkeit', the 'Aurora consurgens' and George Ripley's
>writings.

Original western alchemical works began to appear already in the XIII
century (the Latin Geber Summa perfectionis magisterii being the most
important but absolutely not the only one), and a flourishing of alchemical
writings took place in the first half of the XIV century: the Testamentum
attributed to Lull, the Rosarius attributed to Arnald of Villanova, the
works of John Dastin, the De consideratione quintae essentiae by John of
Rupescissa all date to that epoch (many others could be added). So far, an
outlook to XV century production seems me to show indeed a numerical
increase of alchemical writings, but not a marked originality, as the
majority of them depended on the previous named as well as on the alchemical
literature of arabic origin (among those you name, this is perhaps the case
of Ripley; not of the Dreif.; as regards the date of composition of Aurora
Consurgens, it seems not so sure that it is as late as XV c.). What I think
is that after 1350 there was taking place a change of orientation as regards
authorship: although the corpuses attributed to Medieval philosophers
continued growing, many 'minor' authors appeared, i.e. we can suppose that
more alchemists gave their name to their treatises. The material assembled
by Lynn Thorndike, and more recent published and unpublished research, show
a diffusion of alchemy and an increase of its 'visibility' in XV century
society. Yet it does not seem to imply originality in alchemical doctrines
(they seem rather 'stuck' to ideas of the previous century); as far as
practice is concerned, things seem more uncertain: there is surely a growing
interest in copying recipes and practical parts of longer and more complex
texts, but I do not know whether it means new discoveries and so on
(although it seems not improbable).

>These periods, of course, overlap, and are not necessarily to be seen as
>forming a serial evolution, but each of these has a kind of integrity, a
>core of ideas and coherent approach to alchemy, and many texts and authors
>can be seen as working within that particular current.

In Medieval alchemy up to the XV century we see three currents which have
different beginnings: metallurgical alchemy, that represents the first
understanding of alchemy on the Latins' part; alchemy of the elixir,
searching for the perfection of human bodies as well as of metals and slowly
giving way to medical, or pharmacological, alchemy centered around the idea
of quinta essentia; and alchemy as a spiritual quest, that begins to appear
in connection with the developments in the field of the elixir, probably by
way of the connection between bodily and spiritual salvation. Is it possible
to think of later alchemy as varied and differing combinations of such
'basic ingredients'?

>I would welcome any view on this analysis, or ways of extending it, and
>wonder if it might provide a picture of alchemy as forming a number of loose
>groupings and alliances, where alchemists at a particular time felt a
>certain resonance with the ideas of others, rather than the flat
>evolutionary picture which some historians have tried to present.

This sound quite true, and an enlarged exchange of ideas among searchers in
the history of alchemy cannot but reach the goal of a more complex (and more
correct, I think) view about it, without forgetting the continuous exchanges
between alchemists and philosophers/scientists well into the XVII and XVIII
centuries.

Thank you

Michela Pereira

From: Jon Marshall
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 17:52:27 -0800

I hope people will forgive the shameless egoism of me posting an excerpt from the
introduction to my 1992 MA thesis about historical periods in British alchemy.

It has been slightly modified by the deletion of 'controversial' matter and the
addition of some comments at the end.

jon

----------------

This work aims to show in what ways alchemy was caught in the social processes of its time, and in particular how the conflicts between groups in the wider society influenced its trajectory. This is not to argue that ideologies stand for, or represent, politics or interests but that the attempt to couch a statement so that it is acceptable to a group, or produces some kind of victory, influences the form of the discourse. To obtain consent, or even understanding, represents an exercise of power and this power can derive its effect from the results of other conflicts.

Following these notions it is argued that the history and fortunes of Alchemy can be divided into four phases and that these four phases are marked, not only by differences in method and objects, but by the relationship of the alchemist's writings and work to those of the conductors of other discourses, and particularly by relations of power in society in general.

This approach shows quite clearly that alchemical discourse was not static, and was not one thing but many, changing over time. This would not seem intuitively surprising, but many analysts behave as if alchemy was a uniform thing, and in some cases act as if there was no difference between 4th Century Alexandrian Alchemy and 17th century British Alchemy.

The four main periods revealed by the investigation are as follows:

Firstly, the period 1200-1520. During this time alchemy was part of the background, occasionally the subject of Papal or Regal condemnation, usually in connection with false coinage or infringement of monastic discipline. It was the subject of some skepticism, despite considerable research and innovation (extraction of alcohol, manufacture of the mineral acids and discovery of some metals etc.). Most textual production was anonymous or pseudonymous. The earlier part of this period was concerned primarily with translation or with exposition of the theory ('scientia') of alchemy. The discourse appears to have been largely unorganised and individual as alchemists did not seem to share work, though they might pass on disconnected 'secrets'. Some transmission occurs from adepts to chosen pupils usually under oath and in private. There was an absence of dialogue, the determining factor is secrecy due in part to the threat of prosecution by Church or State. In England there were tw!
o main categories of people who performed alchemy, firstly clerics and secondly people who had licenses from the king to practise and who were expected to infor
m the monarch of their progress. In both cases transmutation of metals and production of wealth seems to have been the main interest. {{comment1}}

The next period, 1520-1620 (dates are approximate, not absolute of course)
can be associated with the Reformation. This connection was made explicitly by some alchemists who saw themselves as reformers challenging established beliefs with ancient truths. The emergence of the phase can be associated with Paracelsus (1493-1541), who not only was one of the first alchemists to go public {{comment 2}}, but also enunciated a clear challenge to medical orthodoxy. This challenge consisted of proposing new modes of treatment and diagnosis, putting forward different theories of the workings of the body, and by violent disparagement of the orthodox medical profession as a whole.

After his death, numerous people seem to have used Paracelsus as a tool to attack the establishment, not only by using his writings but by attributing their own writings to him.
Simultaneously organisations of Physicians pressed for more control over other medical practitioners (Folk, Surgeons, Apothecaries, Paracelsians)

In Britain this debate with the medical profession, began later than on the continent and was not as intense or as embroiled in religious politics. There was initially less overt challenge to medical monopoly and Paracelsian remedies were assimilated into orthodox practice, while they largely ignored the theories.

In this period alchemy was defined by its attack on medical orthodoxy. It was shaped by open dispute. There was less anonymity, and in order to carry out this attack alchemists began to co-operate, though they may still have worked alone. It appears that many alchemists depended upon their own abilities as practitioners to survive.

Undoubtedly this period was influenced by the spread of the invention of movable type face printing sometime after 1445. The first book printed in Britain with this new technology was produced in 1477. Books on alchemy were not printed in Britain until the late 1500s, and not commonly until the mid 1600s.

The next period , 1610-1660, features the association of alchemy with organisations for the reform of Society, Religion and Learning. Some of these groups were secret and some, such as the Rosicrucians, were probably fictitious. In Britain these groups flourished during the Civil Wars and the Commonwealth (1642-60). The graphs in the appendixes show that the number of alchemical publications and active alchemists increased rapidly during the 1650s. This boom seems largely to correspond with an increase in the number of alchemists focusing on medicine as interest and career. The best known and most influential group of alchemists was that linked to Samuel Hartlib. The formation of these (lossely linked) groups gradually changed the mode of discourse: fewer alchemists seem to have been working completely alone, manuscripts were transmitted rapidly, joint projects begun, and texts shifted to being operational rather than coded. Medical aspects of alchemy intensified, and alchem!
ists were drawn into debates with the Universities on the nature and function of Learning, and into debates on the nature of Religion- tending on the whole to f
avour an individual experiential religion rather than a dogmatic one.

In this period the space from which to enunciate the theories and practice of Alchemy seems to have been perceived as secure. Alchemists saw themselves as part of a wider process of reform, as part of a new era. There was co-operation, distribution and publication of texts, public lectures, simple manuals and dialogue. In this phase, and the previous one, alchemists tended to be itinerants, neither well off nor poor enough to be labourers, they generally made a living through medicine or the support of the wealthy interested in establishing metallic technologies for profit (Thomas Charnock, in the 16th century seems to have been one of the earliest british alchemists interested in industrial alchemy)- perhaps these are the educated people who would have previously made a living in the Church and the monasteries. Alchemists with independent incomes tended to be more traditional and less involved with reform.

This period flows into the final period (1660-90), which in Britain was marked by the Restoration and the establishment of the Royal Society. In this period alchemy was marginalised and rendered incomprehensible by the "New Philosophy" which eventually became what we know as Science. Real decline in the number of alchemical publications and active alchemists appears to set in during the 1680s. This happens despite quite a few active members of the Royal Society being practitioners of alchemy. The main cause of the marginalisation of alchemy seemsto be the necessity to avoid controversy with the State and Religion. Reform groups moved their position from one of General Reform to one of reform of Learning only. Thus the Royal Society disassociated itself from earlier reform groups, such as the Hartlib Circle and kept quiet about the activities of itsmembers during the Interregnum, condemning revolutionary politics in general. It also embraced a rhetoric of condemnation of reli!
gious 'Enthusiasm' [[footnote 1]] which was associated with the 'extreme' popular movements of the Commonwealth. One of the consequences of this rhetoric was to
remove the psychological state of the observer from the observation, substituting a theory of concrete and separated perception for the alchemical theory of the `Light of Nature' and revelation from God. This theory of perception narrowed the kind of responses possible to phenomena and the kinds of phenomena that could be considered. This in turn affected the kind of metaphors and language that could be considered appropriate for use in description. Thus there was a removal of tropes considered poetic and a substitution of tropes considered sober, plain or mechanical. This indirectly removed the legitimation for alchemical activity and it soon became less open. Alchemy then had to be practised secretly for fear of ridicule or openly only outside the main stream of public discourse. It was obvious to the younger apologists of the Royal Society that no one 'sensible' practised alchemy, therefore they didn't see it around them. As the split between material and spiritual accel!
erated it only became possible to talk about alchemy in a 'Spiritual' sense, because it was ideologically obvious that it couldn't work in a 'Material' sense {{
comment 3}}. This position was reinforced by the deaths of a large number of established alchemists in Britain between 1660 and 1670 which removed them from any debate. In comparison with earlier periods, members of the Royal Society tended to have regular sources of income, often dependent upon the State or upon the judgment of others with the power to grant funds.

It may be considered that there was a final period for alchemy after the start of the eighteenth century, when the process of accepting the 'newtonian philosophy [[footnote 2]] lead not only to an acceleration of trends in the fourth phase, but to a more or less complete neglect of the subjects of alchemy (chemistry and medicine to name but the obvious), and science became the province of those who were theoreticians supporting the social order from university or pulpit, or who were prepared to help the 'capitalist' use of machinery and material resources. The Universe was no longer alive, but dead and to be moved only at the command of God or man, but not of itself.

footnotes:
1 the term 'enthusiasm' was used to refer to the doctrine of direct, individual experience of the spirit. The word was originally used in English to refer to the possession and ecstacies experienced in classical pagan religions. Hence it not only became associated with poetry and the inspiration of the muse, but also with falsity.
By the 1640s it was commonly applied by the orthodox to anabaptists and the like (OED. V:196-7).

2 the 'newtonian philosophy was not necessarily the philosophy of Newton himself. Newton spent a lot of effort to hide his own views, and at least until 1696 his views encompassed both alchemy and the philosophy with which he is more usually associated.

comments

1 I would now regard this treatment of this 300 years of alchemical history as crass in the extreme but the divisions are hard to isolate or be at all firm about. As Michela points out there seems to have been an explosion of originality in the late 14th century, though dating of the Lullian works is complex (I guess you are the Perreira that wrote the excellent "alchemical corpus attributed to Ramon Lull" so I won't press the point :) ). It has been argued that there was a flourishing Lullian school in Britain at this time, but it would need a great deal of work among the manuscripts to determine the truth of this matter and to find out information about the people involved and the nature of their contacts if any.

2 Of course Paracelsus was not the first non-psuedonymous alchemist, Norton and Ripley were slightly earlier, but it is interesting that the appearance of non-psuedonymous alchemists should occur at about the same time.

3 It is this division plus the retreat of the radical religious from social involvement into isolated quietism which seems to provide the social basis for the Behmenist 'movement'. The same kind of change occurred amongst the Quakers as well.

Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 22:46:15 -0700 (MST)
From: Thomas S Willard

The remarks of Adam and Michela seem very important to me. The fascination
of the "tradition" in alchemy is partly in the way that one author (or one
school or period) interprets another. For example, Michael Maier's
alchemical summa, Symbola Aureae Mensae Duodecim Nationum, establishes his
understanding of the Rosicrucian/Paracelsian tradition but also of Western
alchemy back to the Byzantine (Democritus, Maria Prophetessa). It would be
very helpful, to me at least, to identify some of the assumptions that
give a specific "period" its distinguishing characteristics.

The pseudepigrapha (or "false writings") under names like Aristotle
may pose a special problem in periodization: they show how one age wants
to read its predecessors, yet are the creation of that age. Titus
Burckhardt brought out the problem very nicely in his book on alchemy.

Tom Willard

Date: Sat, 04 Jan 1997 22:47:42 -0800
From: Belle Hall

This is from Belle Hall and my apologies in advance for being so ...so
philosophical?

Dear Adam McLean,

Forgive my simplicity; it is my nature to take the simple and complicate
it and, in this instance, to take that which is over my head and make it
childlike.

While my thoughts were preoccupied with the ouroboros image, I was
opening my "e-box" and reading weekend alchemical updates.
Consequently I began to see alchemy as an idea that seems to be
coming, like the ouroborous, full circle... perhaps in sync with the
millenium? I might even be so bold as to suggest that the whole
historical knowledge of transmutation in respect to humankind is
following the same type of process as the individual working on the
inner and/or the individual working on the practical?

Our first alchemists, the Egyptians, as members of humankind, did
not KNOW atoms and relativity equations. What they KNEW was
that GOD was in Everything/everything.The alchemists/priests taught
this as religion/secret Knowledge. It was not an idea for discussion.
There was NO DISCUSSION; the center of life was GOD. Therefore
time could be spent turning base metals into gold as they already
seemed to see some of their own as "gold" and One with Ra.

As the centuries progressed and homo sapien intellectus (or in some
cases pseudointellectus) discovered more and more about his natural
world through the manifestation of printing presses, killing utensils,
genetics, taxonomies, pharmaceuticals etc. GOD became less of the
ordinary/sublime and seemed relegated to places and buildings and
things. And to get those things, homo sapien intellectus needed gold
or so he convinced himself. One of those things was the church and
the state and ironically, the true alchemist (not puffer) then had to veil
himself still further in enigmatic language to escape various reigns of
terror/ persecution etc. stemming from those things to continue the Truth.

Homo sapien intellectus had to ponder who or what was the gold and
who or what was the lead. Consider, please, what the times were called...
dark ages, middle ages, Renaissance, age of enlightenment... loosely
there's a thread of CONNECTEDNESS to nigredo? distillation? baptisma?
coniunctio? (I'm not an expert or a history major or I'd align these better
and into a 7, 10 or 12 stage allegory. Someone else more scholarly than
me is welcome to do that)

But as things (material) seemed to become more readily available to wider
audiences (base metals?) and homo sapien intellectus learned so much
about himself that he needed machines to assist, he paid even less
attention to what inspired his creativity and more to using machines
(usually made of metal) to turn raw materia into profit (gold). Finally GOD
(who is, for me, our only ESSENSE) was seen and experienced in less
and less, and homo sapien intellectus chose to alternatively see Him in all
(transcendentalists, for example) and nothing (the lost generation).
Perhaps there's a hint of separatio here.

And then came the pestilence of twentieth century. Where was the
alchemist to link our individual and universal soul with Home? So is it
any wonder that alchemy and Jung met up in his dream? That inspired one
about the pigskin bound books with the strange symbolic copper
engravings? The one that "lead" CGJ to the books and synchronicity and
the "Golden flower? Hey,"I Ching" Jung was on to something! Looking
at alchemy through historical periods would certainly be a means
for adding knowledge. But in the end will we not find ourselves at the
beginning? Back where GOD was/is in Everything/everything... NO
DISCUSSION. GOD is again the center of life. Yin/yang... a place of
oxymorons. A place of harmonic dissonance, changing constants,
nouveau ancients, and sage initiates. A concept where East greets
West and the Lamb lies with the Lion.

Again and as always grateful am I for Grace, without which I am not.

Belle

From: Michela Pereira
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 23:47:21 +0100

To Jon Marshall

Your MA thesis seems to be a very interesting work; are you bringing forth
your research on alchemy?

>Following these notions it is argued that the history and fortunes of
>Alchemy can be divided into four phases and that these four phases are
>marked, not only by differences in method and objects, but by the
>relationship of the alchemist's writings and work to those of the conductors
>of other discourses, and particularly by relations of power in society in
>general.

As regards this problem, a systematic study of the condemnations and
official prohibitions of alchemy should be of interest.

>This approach shows quite clearly that alchemical discourse was not static,
>and was not one thing but many, changing over time.

As you certainly know, this is not uncontroversial for people approaching
alchemy from inside the esoteric tradition: historical research on alchemy,
on the other side, cannot alone explain the deep attraction that alchemy
still has on many thoughful people ... Things are more complex than any
onesided approach to alchemy can show.

> In England there were two main categories of people who performed
>alchemy, firstly clerics and secondly people who had licenses from the
>king to practise and who were expected to inform the monarch of their
>progress. In both cases transmutation of metals and
>production of wealth seems to have been the main interest.

Not only this: there is at least a rather famous episode of 1455 concerning
the alchemical search for the elixir for medical purposes, studied by D.
Geoghegan (Ambix ("Ambix" 6, 1957). Moreover, the interest for medical use
of alchemy dates back to the authentic works of Roger Bacon.

>1 I would now regard this treatment of this 300 years of alchemical history
>as crass in the extreme but the divisions are hard to isolate or be at all
>firm about. As Michela points out there seems to have been an explosion of
>originality in the late 14th century, though dating of the Lullian works is
>complex (I guess you are the Perreira that wrote

Yes I am that; thank you for the 'excellent'.

> the excellent "alchemical
>corpus attributed to Ramon Lull" so I won't press the point :) ). It has
>been argued that there was a flourishing Lullian school in Britain at this
>time, but it would need a great deal of work among the manuscripts to
>determine the truth of this matter and to find out information about the
>people involved and the nature of their contacts if any.

Much work is needed: anyone is welcome.

>2 Of course Paracelsus was not the first non-psuedonymous alchemist, Norton
>and Ripley were slightly earlier, but it is interesting that the appearance
>of non-psuedonymous alchemists should occur at about the same time.

This seems true not only for English alchemy: it is interesting indeed that
the period of growth of the alchemical 'corpuses' (ps. Lull, ps. Bacon, Ps.
Arnold of Villanova etc.) is the same when an increasing number of
alchemists sign their works.

Best wishes
Michela Pereira

From: Jon Marshall
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 15:23:33 -0800

> From: Michela Pereira
> Your MA thesis seems to be a very interesting work; are you bringing forth
> your research on alchemy?

Well there has been some interuptions, health problems etc., and I'm an
anthropologist and have to do field work - so I had to change topics a bit, but
hopefully I'll be back soon, i.e. next year...

> >Following these notions it is argued that the history and fortunes of
> >Alchemy can be divided into four phases and that these four phases are
> >marked, not only by differences in method and objects, but by the
> >relationship of the alchemist's writings and work to those of the conductors
> >of other discourses, and particularly by relations of power in society in
> >general.
>
> As regards this problem, a systematic study of the condemnations and
> official prohibitions of alchemy should be of interest.

Well in Britain, at least, there are also official encouragements of alchemy
like the two Commissions of 1456 and 1457 to see if alchemy was a good method of
increasing the wealth of the nation and paying off its debts...

Most of the British laws against alchemy seem to be to ensure that the monarch
gets to hear of the results or to apprehend false coiners...

> >This approach shows quite clearly that alchemical discourse was not static,
> >and was not one thing but many, changing over time.
>
> As you certainly know, this is not uncontroversial for people approaching
> alchemy from inside the esoteric tradition: historical research on alchemy,
> on the other side, cannot alone explain the deep attraction that alchemy
> still has on many thoughful people ... Things are more complex than any
> onesided approach to alchemy can show.

Absolutely which is why as historians (or 'with our historian's hat on' as the
phrase might be) we cannot assume that the tradition is uniform. such an
assumption usually leads to us dismissing interest in whole groups of people
who might have considered themselves alchemists but whom we might think
were doing the wrong thing.

I was planing at one time to do factor analysis on the alchemists quoted in
various texts to see if the texts could be divided into 'traditions', thus if
Eireneus Philalethes praises Ripley and condemns Geber, and say Eugenius
does the opposite then we might feel that they represented two different
traditions etc.. or where at least doing different things (which we might feel
already obviously)

> > In England there were two main categories of people who performed
> >alchemy, firstly clerics and secondly people who had licenses from the
> >king to practise and who were expected to inform the monarch of their
> >progress. In both cases transmutation of metals and
> >production of wealth seems to have been the main interest.
>
> Not only this: there is at least a rather famous episode of 1455 concerning
> the alchemical search for the elixir for medical purposes, studied by D.
> Geoghegan (Ambix ("Ambix" 6, 1957).

But you will have noticed that these were licensed by the king...

I read somewhere and I'm afaid I can't remember where, the suggestion that the
medical tradition was well developed in Britain (more so than on the continent)
before Paracelsus and this was another reason why the conflict between alchemist
and physician was initialy much less severe.

> > As Michela points out there seems to have been an explosion of
> >originality in the late 14th century, though dating of the Lullian works is
> >complex (I guess you are the Perreira that wrote
>
> Yes I am that; thank you for the 'excellent'.

well its true and i look forward to your next work, and we need more such
studies of the textual traditions and dates.... who owned the mss who gave
them to who etc..

> > Of course Paracelsus was not the first non-psuedonymous alchemist, Norton
> >and Ripley were slightly earlier, but it is interesting that the appearance
> >of non-psuedonymous alchemists should occur at about the same time.
>
> This seems true not only for English alchemy: it is interesting indeed that
> the period of growth of the alchemical 'corpuses' (ps. Lull, ps. Bacon, Ps.
> Arnold of Villanova etc.) is the same when an increasing number of
> alchemists sign their works.

Definitely. So who else do we have?

Best wishes in return

jon