CHAPTER III

THE ALCHEMISTS[41] (A. BEFORE PARACELSUS) Hermes Trismegistos. § =29.= Having now considered the chief points in the theory of Physical Alchemy, we must turn our attention to the lives and individual teachings of the alchemists themselves. The first name which is found in the history of Alchemy is that of =Hermes Trismegistos=. We have already mentioned the high esteem in which the works ascribed to this personage were held by the alchemists (§ 6). He has been regarded as the father of Alchemy; his name has supplied a synonym for the Art--the Hermetic Art--and even to-day we speak of _hermetically_ sealing flasks and the like. But who Hermes actually was, or even if there were such a personage, is a matter of conjecture. The alchemists themselves supposed him to have been an Egyptian living about the time of Moses. He is now generally regarded as purely mythical--a personification of Thoth, the Egyptian God of learning; but, of course, some person or persons must have written the works attributed to him, and the first of such writers (if, as seems not unlikely, there were more than one) may be considered to have a right to the name. Of these works, the _Divine Pymander_,[42] a mystical-religious treatise, is the most important. The _Golden Tractate_, also attributed to Hermes, which is an exceedingly obscure alchemistic work, is now regarded as having been written at a comparatively late date. [41] It is perhaps advisable to mention here that the lives of the alchemists, for the most part, are enveloped in considerable obscurity, and many points in connection therewith are in dispute. The authorities we have followed will be found, as a rule, specifically mentioned in what follows; but we may here acknowledge our general indebtedness to the following works, though, as the reader will observe, many others have been consulted as well: Thomas Thomson’s _The History of Chemistry_, Meyer’s _A History of Chemistry_, the anonymous _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_ (1815), the works of Mr. A. E. Waite, the _Dictionary of National Biography_, and certain articles in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_. This must not be taken to mean, however, that we have always followed the conclusions reached in these works, for so far as the older of them are concerned, recent researches by various authorities--to whom reference will be found in the following pages, and to whom, also, we are indebted--have shown, in certain cases, that such are not tenable. [42] Dr. Everard’s translation of this work forms vol. ii. of the _Collectanea Hermetica_, edited by W. Wynn Westcott, M.B., D.P.H. It is now, however, out of print. The Smaragdine Table. § =30.= In a work attributed to Albertus Magnus, but which is probably spurious, we are told that Alexander the Great found the tomb of Hermes in a cave near Hebron. This tomb contained an emerald table--“The Smaragdine Table”--on which were inscribed the following thirteen sentences in Phœnician characters:-- 1. I speak not fictitious things, but what is true and most certain. 2. What is below is like that which is above, and what is above is like that which is below, to accomplish the miracles of one thing. 3. And as all things were produced by the mediation of one Being, so all things were produced from this one thing by adaptation. 4. Its father is the Sun, its mother the Moon; the wind carries it in its belly, its nurse is the earth. 5. It is the cause of all perfection throughout the whole world. 6. Its power is perfect if it be changed into earth. 7. Separate the earth from the fire, the subtle from the gross, acting prudently and with judgment. 8. Ascend with the greatest sagacity from the earth to heaven, and then again descend to the earth, and unite together the powers of things superior and things inferior. Thus you will obtain the glory of the whole world, and all obscurity will fly far away from you. 9. This thing is the fortitude of all fortitude, because it overcomes all subtle things, and penetrates every solid thing. 10. Thus were all things created. 11. Thence proceed wonderful adaptations which are produced in this way. 12. Therefore am I called Hermes Trismegistos, possessing the three parts of the philosophy of the whole world. 13. That which I had to say concerning the operation of the Sun is completed. These sentences clearly teach the doctrine of the alchemistic essence or “One Thing,” which is everywhere present, penetrating even solids (this we should note is true of the ether of space), and out of which all things of the physical world are made by adaptation or modification. The terms Sun and Moon in the above passage probably stand for Spirit and Matter respectively, not gold and silver. Zosimus of Panopolis. § =31.= One of the earliest of the alchemists of whom record remains was =Zosimus of Panopolis=, who flourished in the fifth century, and was regarded by the later alchemists as a master of the Art. He is said to have written many treatises dealing with Alchemy, but only fragments remain. Of these fragments, Professor Venable says: “. . . they give us a good idea of the learning of the man and of his times. They contain descriptions of apparatus, of furnaces, studies of minerals, of alloys, of glass making, of mineral waters, and much that is mystical, besides a good deal referring to the transmutation of metals.”[43] Zosimus is said to have been the author of the saying, “like begets like,” but whether all the fragments ascribed to him were really his work is doubtful. [43] F. P. VENABLE, Ph.D.: _A Short History of Chemistry_ (1896), p. 13. Among other early alchemists we may mention also =Africanus=, the Syrian; =Synesius=, Bishop of Ptolemais, and the historian, =Olympiodorus= of Thebes. Geber. § =32.= In the seventh century the Arabians conquered Egypt; and strangely enough, Alchemy flourished under them to a remarkable degree. Of all the Arabian alchemists, =Geber= has been regarded as the greatest; as Professor Meyer says: “There can be no dispute that with the name _Geber_ was propagated the memory of a personality with which the chemical knowledge of the time was bound up.”[44] Geber is supposed to have lived about the ninth century, but of his life nothing definite is known. A large number of works have been ascribed to him, of which the majority are unknown, but the four Latin MSS. which have been printed under the titles _Summa Perfectionis Mettalorum_, _De Investigatione Perfectionis Metallorum_, _De Inventione Veritatis_ and _De Fornacibus Construendis_, were, until a few years ago, regarded as genuine. On the strength of these works, Geber has ranked high as a chemist. In them are described the preparation of many important chemical compounds; the most essential chemical operations, such as sublimation, distillation, filtration, crystallisation (or coagulation, as the alchemists called it), &c.; and also important chemical apparatus, for example, the water-bath, improved furnaces, &c. However, it was shown by the late Professor Berthelot that _Summa Perfectionis Mettalorum_ is a forgery of the fourteenth century, and the other works forgeries of an even later date. Moreover, the original Arabic MSS. of Geber have been brought to light. These true writings of Geber are very obscure; they give no warrant for believing that the famous sulphur-mercury theory was due to this alchemist, and they prove him not to be the expert chemist that he was supposed to have been. The spurious writings mentioned above show that the pseudo-Geber was a man of wide chemical knowledge and experience, and play a not inconsiderable part in the history of Alchemy. [44] ERNST VON MEYER: _A History of Chemistry_ (translated by Dr. McGowan, 1906), p. 31. Other Arabian Alchemists. § =33.= Among other Arabian alchemists the most celebrated were =Avicenna= and =Rhasis=, 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. [Illustration: PLATE 7. [by de Bry] PORTRAIT OF ALBERTUS MAGNUS. _To face page 44_]] Albertus Magnus (1193-1280). § =34.= =Albertus Magnus=, Albert Groot or Albert von Bollstädt (see plate 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. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). § =35.= The celebrated Dominican, =Thomas Aquinas= (see plate 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. The author of these works manifests a deeply religious tone, and, according to Thomson’s _History 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. Roger Bacon (1214-1294). § =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, he suffered 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. _Alchimy_ therefore is a science teaching how to make and compound a certaine medicine, which is called _Elixir_, 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, are _Argent-vive_, and _Sulphur_. 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-vive_ and _Sulphur_, 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 by others. 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] See ROGER BACON’S _Discovery 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. Arnold de Villanova (12--?-1310?). § =37.= The date and birthplace of =Arnold 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. Raymond Lully (1235?-1315). § =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] See _Lives of Alchemystical Philosophers_ (1815), pp. 17 _et 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 to the works of pseudo-Geber (§ 32). Of these alchemical writings we may here mention the _Clavicula_. 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 about _Sol_ and _Luna_, reducing them into the first Matter, our _Sulphur_ and _Argent vive_: therefore, Son, you are to use this venerable Matter; and I swear unto you and promise, that unless you take the _Argent vive_ of these two, you go to the Practick as blind men without eyes or sense. . . .”[53] [53] RAYMOND LULLY: _Clavicula, or, A Little Key_ (see _Aurifontina Chymica_, 1680, p. 167). Peter Bonus (14th Century). § =39.= In 1546, a work was published entitled _Magarita Pretiosa_, which claimed to be a “faithful abridgement,” by “Janus Lacinus Therapus, the Calabrian,” of a MS. written by =Peter Bonus= in 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 seaport of Istria, nothing is known; but the _Magarita Pretiosa_ is an alchemistic work of considerable interest. The author commences, like pseudo-Geber in his _Sum 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 metals were 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). Nicolas Flamel (1330-1418). § =40.= Nicolas Flamel (see plate 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 enabled to 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, entitled _A Short Tract, or Philosophical Summary_, will be found in _The Hermetic Museum_. It is a very brief work, supporting the sulphur-mercury theory. [Illustration: PLATE 8. PORTRAIT OF THOMAS AQUINAS. PORTRAIT OF NICOLAS FLAMEL. _To face page 52_]] “Basil Valentine” and “The Triumphal Chariot of Antimony.” § =41.= Probably the most celebrated of all alchemistic books is the work known as _Triumph-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 has shadowed out eternal things,” and at last his labours were rewarded by the discovery of a Stone most potent in the curing of diseases. In _The Triumphal Chariot of Antimony_ are 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 Antimony_ does, 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”_ (see _The Hermetic Museum_, vol. i. p. 313). [56] Sir H. E. ROSCOE, F.R.S., and C. SCHORLEMMER, F.R.S.: _A Treatise on Chemistry_, vol. i. (1905), p. 9. Isaac of Holland (15th Century). § =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 practical chemist, 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. Bernard Trévisan (1406-1490). § =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 the _magnum 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 (see _Collectanea Chymica: A Collection of Ten Several Treatises in Chemistry_, 1684, p. 91). Sir George Ripley (14--?-1490?). § =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 is _The 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 the _magnum 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 the _twelve 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 say _store ys no sore_.”[59] [59] Sir GEORGE RIPLEY: _The Compound of Alchemy_ (see _Theatrum 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 made _Solucyons_ full 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. His _Bosom Book_, which contains an alleged method for preparing the Stone, will be found in the _Collectanea Chemica_ (1893). Thomas Norton (15th Century). § =45.= =Thomas Norton=, the author of the celebrated _Ordinall of Alchemy_, was probably born shortly before the commencement of the fifteenth century. The _Ordinall_, which is written in verse (and which will be found in Ashmole’s _Theatrum 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 parfet _Master_ ye maie him call trowe.” [61] A prose version will be found in _The Hermetic Museum_ translated 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 his _Ordinall_ he 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.