147077963 Prophecy and Alchemy by William Newman

7/29/2019 147077963 Prophecy and Alchemy by William Newman

1/22


2/22

Source: AMBIX, Vol. 37, Part 3, November 1990


3/22

Publishedb

yManeyPublishing(c)Soc

ietyfortheHistoryofAlchemyandChemistry

AMBIX, Vol. 37, Part 3, November 1990

PROPHECY AND ALCHEMY: THE ORIGIN OF EIRENAEUS PHILALETHES

By WILLIAMNEWMAN*

THIS essay will elucidate the composition ofa famous alchemical text-the Introitus apertus ad

occlusum regis palatium written by the pseudonymous Eirenaeus Philalethes. The author of the

In troi tus, who has been called "the last great philosophical alchemist," Icomposed his oeuvre

in the mid-seventeenth century. The roots of his work, however, lie in an extraordinary

mixture of prophecy, legend, and alchemical "transmutation histories" that were the daily

fare of mid-century hermetic enthusiasts.2 In order to grasp the modus operandi of the Introitus'

author, we must first acquaint ourselves with the stock of such conventional literature that

he had at his disposal. After this we shall concern ourselves with the problem of the identity

of this Philalethes, and finally we shall turn to a consideration of the text itself, in order to

explain, insofar as possible, the fascination that it held for its early modern audience.

ELIASARTISTA,ALEXANDERSETON,ANDMICHAELSENDIVOGIUS

At the beginning of the seventeenth century, Europe seems to have been travelled by

mysterious adepts bent on converting the learned to a belief in the powers of alchemy. This is

not surprising, since Paracelsus von Hohenheim had predicted that sometime after his death

"Elias the Artist" would come and reveal the hidden secrets of nature. This "Elias" was of

course the prophet Elijah, whose second coming had already been predicted by the Bible.

The prophetical tradition of medieval Europe had made Elias a cornerstone of its

predictions: hence the twelfth century prophetjoachim of Fiore longed for his arrival as theopening to an age ofrenovatio.3 But to Paracelsus, Elias was more than a prophet-he was a

magus and alchemist who would perform miracles oftransmutation.4 In his Von den natiirlichen

Dinge n, Paracelsus says the following (in Walter Pagel's translation):

Many arts are witheld from us because we have not ingratiated ourselves to God sothat He would make them manifest to us. To make iron into copper is not as much asto make it into gold. Hence what is less God has allowed to emerge. What is more isstill hidden up to the time of the arts of Helias when he will come. For the arts haveHeliam in the same way as other fields have theirs.5

In a Paracelsian work of doubtful authenticity, the date when Hohenheim's theories

"will begin to ripen" is fixed with some ambiguity at the "year fifty eight".6 Since the sametext openly refers to the coming of Elias artista in a later passage, Paracelsus' followers

interpreted this "year fifty eight" as the date when Elias would arrive. At least one

Paracelsian writer gave the date 1602 or 1603, assuming that it referred to the fifty-eight year

after his master's death in I 544(!). 7 Thus Elias would usher in the new century as well as the

new saeculum, the "golden age" in which "man will arrive at true intellect, and will live in

humane fashion, not in the way of beasts, in the manner of pigs, nor in a den (like

brigands)."8 In this new age God would reveal the natural secrets that He had formerly

withheld, since man would now be simple and pure, lacking in the deceit and invidious greed

that would otherwise lead him to subvert such knowledge.9

Almost as if to satisfy the prophecy of Elias the Artist, we encounter numerous

* Department of the History of Science, Harvard University, Science Centre 235, Cambridge, Mass. 02 I38


4/22

Publishedb



98 WILLIAM NEWMAN

contemporary sources describing a Scottish adept, sometimes named Alexander Seton or

Sidonius, who traversed the continent between 1602 and 1604, transmuting base metals

before the eyes of erstwhile sceptics. According to the Freiburg physician]ohann Dienheim,

this Seton was a shy, elderly man, "with a chestnut-brown beard cut in the French fashion,and dressed in a black silk tunic" 10 Dienheim describes in some detail the transmutation of

lead to gold that Seton performed in the summer of1603 before himself and] acob Zwinger, a

Basel physician. The adept claimed to have travelled over the whole world, and thus in other

sources he is called the "Cosmopolite". It was perhaps this reference to Seton's

peregrinations that opened the flood-gate to later biobibliographers, who describe him as

performing transmutations under such varied names as Hirschberger, Gustenhofer, and

] ustenhofer.11 The historians of the latter seventeenth century were in fact trying to reconcile

an "extraordinary farrago of received information" 12 and their comments are of little

reliability. Nonetheless, they reflect the state of knowledge available at the time, and are thus

invaluable for gauging the myth of the Cosmopolite in its development.In 1604, a little after the transmutation witnessed by Dienheim and Zwinger, a book

entitled De lapide philosophorum Tractatus duodecim appeared simultaneously in Prague and

Frankfurt under the anagram Divi Leschi Genus Amo.13 This was a work that would soon

acquire tremendous fame under its more usual title, Novum lumen chemicum. The

anagrammatizedauthor, MichaelSendivogius, was a Polish courtier to Emperor Rudolfll,

and a well-known alchemist. Although it is now accepted that Sendivogius was the real

author of the Novum lumen chemicum, this was not the case in the latter half of the seventeenth

century. The Tresor de recherches et antiquitez gauloises ... of Pierre Borel contains an interesting

letter from a "Monsieur des Noyers" dated 1651. This describes how a "Cosmopolite,"

supposedly of Catholic, English extraction, was imprisoned by the Duke of Saxony after

revealing that he had possession of the philosophers' stone. According to this account the

Cosmopolite was tortured without mercy and near to death when Sendivogius, who had

been in the vicinity, devised a strategem to free him. Shortly after his escape the Cosmopolite

died, leaving Sendivogius his wife, the Novum lumen chemicum, and some of the transmuta-

tional powder. As des Noyers tells it, Sendivogius tried

to multiply his powder, and his principal material for this was common mercury; butsince he did not work on a correct material, he accomplished nothing" .14

Thus Sendivogius squandered. his elixir in the greedy attempt to augment it with

mercury. As des Noyers says, Sendivogiuseventually used up the remaining powder and fellinto poverty. We shall presently encounter this theme again.

In later accounts of Sendivogius, des Noyers' "Cosmopolite" unequivocally becomes

Alexander Seton. Thus the historian Daniel George Morhof, writing in 1673, says

Sendivogiusknew nothing whatsoever pertaining tothe essence of the thing [quod adsummam rei faceret). But he had the book of Seton-who called himself theCosmopolite-printed .... 15

So Sendivogius became in the eyes of later chroniclers a devious bumbler, who

undeservingly assumed the authorship of his master's magnum opus without having the secret

knowledge necessary to make use of it. Despite the inaccuracy of des Noyers' letter, this viewof Sendivogius became widespread in the second half of the seventeenth century, and may


5/22

Published

byManeyPublishing(c)So

cietyfortheHistoryofAlche

myandChemistry

PROPHECY AND ALCHEMY 99

well have circulated orally somewhat before. According to this view it was not Michael

Sendivogius, but the mysterious Cosmopolite Alexander Seton who had \vritten the Novum

lumen: after travelling through Europe under various assumed identities Seton had finally

performed one transmutation too many, and paid with his life.

THE ApPEARANCE OF THE PHILALETHES CORPUS

The story of the Cosmopolite underwent a sort of palingenesis in the latter half of the

seventeenth century with the publication of the Introitus apertus ad occlusum regis palatium

ascribed to "Eirenaeus Philalethes" or "Philaletha" (Philaletha is a variant and it seems

erroneous form ofPhilalethes).I6 Although the Introitus was not printed until 1667, the work

was written sometime between 1651 and 1654, as I shall presently show, and it was widely

circulated in manuscript soon after its composition. Once printed, the Introitus acquired

tremendous popularity: it went through at least eight different Latin editions between its1667 editio princeps and 1749, and translated versions of it were printed in English, German,

and Spanish.I? The work had a great inftuenceon the alchemy of Isaac Newton, and the

well-known Danish savant Olaus Borrichius reported in 1697 that Philalethes' Introitus was

considered "by the whole family of chemists" to belong among "their classics". 18 The author

of the Introitus opens his text with an autobiographical brief:

I decided to write this tractate after I, Anonymous Philalethes, a philosopher, had

arrived at medical, chemical, and physical secrets in the year 1645, when I wastwenty three, so that I might pay back my debt to the sons of art and hold out a~handto those involved in the labyrinth of error, and so that it would appear to the adepts

that I was their peer and brother, while those seduced by the nonsense of sophistswould see and embrace its light, and be led safely back thereby.I9

Although the author of the Introitus refers to himself onlyas Anonymous Philalethes here,

the epithet "Cosmopolita" was soon added to his name. William Cooper's printing ofSecrets

Reveal 'Jd : or ) an Op en En tra nc e to the Sh ut -Pa lace of the King ... (London: 166g),an English

version of the Introitus, refers to the author as "A most famous English-Man, styling himself

Anonymous, or Eyrenaeus Philaletha Cosmopolita".2o Cooper's addition of the epithet

"Cosmopolita" does not representmere editorial licence. In 1654 and 1655the two parts of

another Philalethanwork had already appeared, in which the author, called Eirenaeus

PhiloponosPhilalethes, styled his alchemical teacher "a citizen of the world", that is, a

"Cosmopolite". This work, entitled The Marrow of Alchemy, appeared with two prefaces

bearing anagrams of the name George Stirk.2IStirk, or Starkey as heis usuallycalled, claims

to have persuaded this Eirenaeus to write the book, as well.as several in Latin.22 According

to the prefaces, Eirenaeus Philoponos Philalethes is not yet a complete master, but hasonly

attained "the Elixerofthefirstorder".23 The author of The Marrow has himself been given a

portion oftransmutational powder by his teacher,.acompleteadept:this adept is the author

ofa number of alchemical works, among them the Introitusapertus ad occlusum Regispalatium.24

In the text of The Marrow the relationship between the adept and his pupil is described at

length. There Philoponos Philalethes tells us that his master is still living, that he is "By

Nation an Englishman", and that his present residence is unknown:

His present place in which he doth abide I know not, for the world he walks about, Ofwhich he is a Citizen .... 25


6/22

Published

byManeyPublishing(c)SocietyfortheHistoryofAlchemyandChemistry

100 WILLIAM NEWMAN

Hence The Marrow oj Alchemy gave Cooper all the information that he needed in order to

ascribe the Introitus to an English-born Cosmopolite. It has long been known that the

"editor" of The Marrow, George Starkey, was in fact its real author. In various other texts

Starkey signed his name "Philoponos Philalethes" or "Eirenaeus Philoponos Philalethes,"

and in an unpublished manuscript, Starkey claims to be the author of The Marrow.26 Thus

the master/pupil relationship set out in The Marrow between the Cosmopolite and Eirenaeus

Philoponos Philalethes is really between the adept and George Starkey. Of Starkey we shall

hear a great deal more presently, but first let us proceed with the remarks of The Marrow.

Philoponos Philalethes tells us there that the Cosmopolite gave him more than two ounces of

'the white medicine", 27a substance capable of converting mercury to silver. The maladroit

student then tried to multiply his elixir by "fermenting" it with a portion of "philosophical"

mercury, also given him by the adept.28 The result of his ill-fated attempt was "that few

grains excepted I did waste .... ,,29 Philalethes was then forced to consume most of the

remaining elixir "to serve expense". Only "Some few grains (very few)" remained to him:these he vowed to keep unused except "to preserve My life on urgent need .... "30Eventually

Philalethes taught himself how to arrive at the "white elixir" that could transmute base

metals into silver, but at the time of writing The Marrow he had not yet produced the summum

bonum of alchemy, the red "tincture" that could produce gold.

The attentive reader will already have noticed the similarity between Eirenaeus

Philoponos Philalethes' account and that of Sendivogius as described in the letter of des

Noyers.Just as Sendivogius supposedly received his elixir from an English "Cosmopolite" so

Philoponos Philalethes received his from the English "Cosmopolite" described in Th e

Ma rro w. Just as Sendivogius is said to have wasted most of his tincture by greedily trying to

multiply it with mercury, so Philoponos Philalethes. Finally, both Sendivogius and

Philoponos Philalethes are supposed to have slipped into a poverty that forced them to

consume most or all of their remaining elixir in order merely to survive. It is not far-fetched,

therefore, to hypothesize that when George Starkey composed The Marrow of Alchemy he not

only created the literary personage of Eirenaeus Philoponos Philalethes, but also that of his

Cosmopolite, basing himself either on the spurious tale of the English adept told by des

Noyers or on similar stories about Sendivogius that were in current circulation. Before

proving that the Cosmopolite was a literary fiction, however, we must first reckon with the

circumstances surrounding the acknowledged author of The Marrow, George Stirk or

Starkey.

George Starkey was born in June, 1628, in Bermuda, then considered part of New

England.31 After his father's death in 1637, he was sent to Harvard College, where hereceived a B.A. in 1646, and an M.A. in or before 1650.32After practising medicine for

several years in the Boston area, he then migrated to London in 1650. Soon after his arrival

he became a member of the scientific and utopian circle surrounding the German expatriate

Samuel Hartlib. In 165I Starkey was engaged in experimentation with Robert Boyle to

produce a pauper's medicine, the ens veneris. An important cache of letters from Starkey to

Boyle still exists in the library of the Royal Society, and Boyle's own "Memorials

Philosophicall" testifies to the impression made on him by Starkey.33 There is no doubt that

Hartlib and his associates, such as Benjamin Worsley and John Dury, were initially

impressed by Starkey's knowledge of alchemy and iatrochemistry as well as his friendship

with a mysterious adept from New England. Hartlib's Ephemerides of early 1650/Ireport that

Starkey had told Boyle about "A filius Hermetis in N(ew) E(ngland) who had the elixir.,,34


7/22

PublishedbyManeyPublishing(c)SocietyfortheHistoryofAlchemyandChemistry


Dury and others passed on other information to Hartlib about Starkey's "Anon(ymous)

Adeptus" in the next few months. As a result of his own knowledge and that of his adept,

Starkey was invited to join an alchemical venture in which antimony would be exploited to

produce gold. He initially refused, but was eventually persuaded (May 30, I 65I) to write to

the alchemist and minister Johann Morian, describing the sum of his arcane knowledge.

This letter, to which we referred earlier, contains a description of the adept who figures so

prominently in The Marrow of Alchemy. In the letter to Morian, Starkey says the following:

Once I saw and likewise possessed the Chrysopoetic and Argyropoetic stone-that is,I was an ocular witness of the first, and an actual possessor of the second. But it wasgiven to me by a certain young friend, still living, (who had both elixirs). I amdetermined to hide his name foreover (being constrained by an oath). Several ouncesof it were given to me, of which I lost the greater part when I tried to multiply them.35

Starkey goes on to say that his "young friend" also gave him about a half pound of

"sophic mercury", with which his futile attempt at "multiplication" was performed. Having

thus squandered both the elixir and most of the mercury, Starkey then learned how to

produced the mercury himself, by an arduous process involving antimony.

Starkey's letter to Morian is instructive on two counts. First, it agrees in most particulars

with the account of the Cosmopolite given in The Marrow of 1654/5' Second, the reader can

see how Starkey has subtly altered his portrait of the mysterious adept between the

composition of the letter and The Marrow. In the letter he is simply called a "young friend"

who is still living. Although we know that Starkey had told Boyle and others that the adept

was from New England, in The Marrow he becomes "a citizen of the world" though still "Bynation an Englishman". By I654, therefore, the story of Starkey's Cosmopolite was fully

developed. Since des Noyers' letter to Borel was not published until 1655, we cannot assert

that Starkey drew on it directly. The international connections of the Hartlib circle,

however, make it eminently possible that its members had communications about the

Sendivogian Cosmopolite before 1655, and it is an established fact that the Hartlibians were

interested in Seton.36

Starkey's relations with the Hartlib circle took on a new dimension when he began

circulating manuscripts supposedly written by the Ne,'V England adept. Hartlib's

Ephemerides of summer, 1652, contain references to "The Chym(ical) MS. of Stirk's

Adeptus."37 By summer of 1653 more than one manuscript may have been in circulation. InJune of that year, Friedrich Clodius told Hartlib that "Alex(ander) von Suchten's Books

being diligently read w(i)th MS. Stirkianu(m) Adepti unfold cleerly the whole

Phil (osophical) Mysterie".38 But several days later, Clodius reported that "The MS. of

Riply to K(ing) Edw(ard) with van Suchten ... and the Stirkianum MS. Adepti will clearly

discover the Mystery". 39As a previous historian has noted, Clodius thus seems to have had

two manuscripts by Starkey's adept by the summer of 1653. One of them was apparently Sir

George Riplye's Epistle to King Edward Unfolded, which was published without Starkey's consent

in 1655 in a volume dedicated to Hartlib.40 The other manuscript need not have been the

Introitus, however, since a number of Phil alethan texts were circulated by the Hartlibians at

various times.41

The publication ofSir George Riplye's Epistle to King Edward unfolded infuriated Starkey,

and in a manuscript copied 16June, 1657, now in the British Library, he angrily maintains

that the printed work was not really by the New England adept, but a mere compendium


8/22

Publishedb



102 WILLIAM NEWMAN

made by himself of the original in 1651/2.42 In this broadside, Starkey maintains that his

adept gave him many other "chemicall coppyes" on the understanding that the former

would not make them "common to ye world" for seven years. Some or all of these works that

the adept putatively gave to Starkey are listed both in The Marrow and in a collection entitledRipley Reviv 'd: Or an Expo sit ion up on Sir Ge orge Ripley's He rm eti co-Poe tical Wo rks published by

William Cooper in 1678 and attributed to "Eirenaeus Philalethes an Englishman, stiling

himself Citizen of the World".43

We may briefly summarize the relationship between Starkey and the Cosmopolite thus:

Starkey wrote T he M arro w o f A lch em y under the pseudonym Eirenaeus Philoponos

Philalethes. He claimed there to have received the white elixir from a mysterious "citizen of

the world", and elsewhere he asserts that this Cosmopolite gave him a number of alchemical

manuscripts under the proviso that Starkey was not to publish them before a probationary

period of seven years. Neither in The Marrow, nor in his letter to Morian, nor in Hartlib's

Ephemerides does it seem that Starkey refers to his Cosmopolite as "Eirenaeus Philalethes".The Introitus apertus does claim to have been written by "Anonymous Philalethes", but the

earliest printing does not mention "Eirenaeus" even in the title. It seems probable, therefore,

that Cooper himself coined the composite name "Anonymous, or Eyrenaeus Philaletha

Cosmopolita" by combining elements from The Marrow (the "Eirenaeus" of "Eirenaeus

Philoponus Philalethes" and the "Cosmopolita" of "a citizen of the world") with other

elements found in the Introitus ("Anonymous" and "Philaletha"). This opens the possibility

that the name "Anonymous Philalethes" is merely an alternative form of Eirenaeus

Philoponos Philalethes, and that when the Introitus was written, its author had no intention

of distinguishing between two Philalethan writers. Since we know that George Starkey was

himself Eirenaeus Philoponos Philalethes, this hypothesis would necessarily entail thatStarkey wrote the Introitus. As it happens, Starkey's authorship of the Introitus can be proven

with the aid of further documents, which I shall now proceed to do.

THE IDENTITY OF ANONYMOUS PHILALETHES

I shall here show by means of source criticism that the author of the Introitus apertus ad

occlusum regis palatium was actually the New England alchemist George Starkey. Although

Harold Jantz and later Ronald Sterne Wilkinson argued in the I970's that Starkey wrote

other works belonging to the corpus ofPhilalethes,44 they did not concern themselves directly

with the Introitus. Nor have their attempts at identification been universally acclaimed. The

editor of William Cooper's Catalogue of Chymicall Books argued in 1987, for example, that

Wilkinson's identification of Starkey with Philalethes is based on "circumstantial

evidence".45 Similarly, another scholar, speaking of Eirenaeus Philalethes in Ig86, states

"we know he is a master, but we do not know who the master is".46It will not therefore be

otiose if we provide a convincing case for Starkey's authorship of the Introitus.

Neither Jantz nor Wilkinson made use of the remarkable Latin letters written by Starkey

to Robert Boyle between 3January 1651/2 and 3 February 1651/2. Five letters from Starkey

to Boyle are found in the Royal Society library-one in English and four in Latin. I have

already published the English one, and plan to include the other four in a future monograph

on Philalethes.47 Among many other topics of interest, the letter of 3 January 1651/2

describes Starkey's preparation of "volatile gold", a medicinal preparation using antimony

sulphide as its starting point. To quote from the letter, Starkey says:


9/22

Publishedb




It easily promotes excretion, especially vomiting, by which unexpected effect I wasmuch astonished until finally, having consulted the book of Alexander von Suchten, I

learned that this sulphur or oil cannot be digested or coagulated in the stomach, and[Suchten] adds that it is a specific purgation of our balsam, by which the body iswholly freed from the exhalation of all malevolent stars, and with this remedy thephysician can resist the heavens themselves.48

The unusual thing here is Starkey's reference to the sixteenth century Paracelsian

Alexander von Suchten, who does not figure prominently among his authorities in the works

analyzed byJantz and Wilkinson. Suchten's most influential work in England seems to have

been the Antimonii mysteria gemina, which went through a number of editions, one of them

prepared by Johann Thoelde of Basil Valentine fame.49 Suchten's work on antimony was

also translated into English by one Dr. C. and published in London in 1670, five years after

Starkey's death.5o

To one who has read Starkey's English letter to Boyle of spring 165 I, published in

1987,51 Suchten's Mysteria gemina may excite the sensation of deja vu. The antimonial

processes described in Starkey's letter, the theories, even the language will seem strangely

familiar. In a moment we shall detail the significance of Such ten in this, but first let us

describe the English letter and its relationship to Philalethes. That letter contains the so-

called "Key" or "Clavis" which Isaac Newton later transcribed and used as a basis for his

own laboratory practice. The processes described there, in brief, concern the production of

the star-regulus ofantimony (i.e. metallic antimony), the purification of mercury, and finally

the fabrication of an amalgam of mercury, silver, and antimony in which gold was supposed

to be digested for a long period.52

As many recognized in the seventeenth century, among them J. F. Hertodt von

Todtenfeldt, who wrote a scathing attack on Philalethes in the Ephemerides ... academiae naturae

curiosorum, precisely the same processes form the infrastructure of the Introitus apertus.53

Philalethes tells us in the Introitus to take four parts of the "fiery dragon", which Hertodt

assures us is iron, and nine of "our magnet", which is antimony sulphide. 54 Mix them with

the aid of Vulcan, fire, throw out the scoria, purge the compound three more times, and you

will have the infant "hermaphrodite", i.e. regulus m artis, what we would call antimony

reduced by iron. This hermaphrodite, the Introitus says, is a "rabid dog", thirsty yet

hydrophobic, whose thirst can be assuaged by the "twin doves of Diana", or as Hertodt

interprets for us, two part of refined silver. But lest this fail to cure the dog's hydrophobia, he

must be submerged in water, or as Hertodt points out, in mercury. Then, like an eagle, the

amalgam must "flyaway" seven times: Hertodt's interpretation is that the amalgam must be

sublimed repeatedly. The rest of the path to the philosophers' stone will be "the game of boys

and the work of women".

The identity of the Introitus processes and those found in Starkey's Key comes as no great

surprise, and in itself constitutes no proof that Starkey was himself the author of the Introitus.

But if Starkey was not the author of the Introitus, the exact agreement of the processes

described in the Key with those of the Introitus would virtually necessitate that Starkey, like

Hertodt, was closely interpreting Philalethes. The Key, for sample, dictates the precise same

proportions of iron to antimony sulphide, four parts to nine, both texts require four

purgations of the regulus, both advise the fabrication of an amalgam including mercury,

regulus, and silver, both claim that the amalgam must be sublimed seven or more times, and

perhaps most telling of all, both the Key and the Introitus use the same "cover name" -the


10/22

Publishedb



104 WILLIAM NEWMAN

"two doves of Diana", to signify the two parts of very pure silver that must be added to the

amalgam.55

At this point, two obvious possibilities emerge. Either Starkey was using the Introitus as

the source for his Key, or else he actually wrote the Introitus himself. Ifwe can therefore showthat Starkey did not use the Introitus in composing the Key, but instead relied on a much

earlier source, it would seem to follow that he wrote both the Key and the Introitus. As we shall

presently show, the only other possibility can be excluded easily: this would be the

hypothetical situation that both Starkey and another unknown author who happened to

write the Introitus independently relied on the same prior source.

Let us now reintroduce Suchten's Mysteria gemina, or for the sake of convenience, Dr. C.'s

English translation. We know that Starkey was acquainted with this work around the time

when he wrote the Key, because it is the Mysteria gemina to which he refers in the Latin letter of

3January, 1651/2. The Mysteriagemina, like the Key, gives a recipe for the stellate regulus of

antimony.56 Suchten's proportions are eight parts of antimony sulphide to four parts of iron,or two to one, and thus different from Starkey's nine to four given at the end of the Key. But if

we consult the beginning of the Key, where Starkey introduces the process of refining

antimony, he gives-quite anomalously-the proportions as two to one,just as Suchten did.

Does it not seem as though Starkey has hastily copied from his source here, and later

forgotten that he did so?

Notice also the close verbal similarity between Starkey and Suchten when the two

describe the role of iron as a reducing agent:

Starkey

(1987,572.)... It [antimony] is digestedtruly by Sulphur which

lyeth in c J ' & nowhereelse[.]

Suchten

(1670,64.)... this metalline sulphurthat purifieth 0 is onlyin c J ', and nowhereelse.

Another striking clue is found when Starkey and Suchten speak of the slack produced as abyproduct of the process:

Starkey

(1987,574)... keepe ye slackt in a

dry pot[.] there is qmystery Couched in itwch it will be sufficientfor me to hint only inthis place.

Suchten

(1670,65.)The faeces you may lay upuntil you know what to dowith it, for in it is aMystery, of which I willnot speak at this time.

Starkey's phrase, which he clevery made to look like a spontaneous aside to Boyle, is

borrowed verbatim from the discourse of Suchten. Continuing thus, we find both authors

recommending four purgations of the antimony. But let us pass now to the theoretical part of

both texts, where I have been forced to make some abridgements:


11/22


Starkey

(1987, 572.)

... yCsoule ofd' is by

yCVirtue of yC0 madetotally Volatile[.]

PROPHECY AND ALCHEMY

Suchten

( 1670, 67-68).

Antimony draweth forth the

soule from d', that is,his best ~, and

reduceth the same into ~

. . . . this ~ of

Mars is also nothing else...

then as a spirit or Air.

105

By "Mercury of Mars", Suchten simply means the metallic antimony reduced by iron,

usually called regulus martis. Thus in both texts we find the notion that the crude antimony

sulphide has "drawn out" or extracted the soul of the iron, and that this volatile soul or "Air"is itself the regulus. Not only does Starkey agree with Suchten in his manual practice, but

even the elaborate hylozoic theory of the Key is derived from the German iatrochemist.

Let us now briefly pass to Starkey's description of some alchemical silver that he

"extracted" from antimony. He describes it as being "very pure" in all assays, but "farre

heavyer than ordinary" silver.57 Now in the forementioned letter of30 May, 165 I, to Johann

Morian, Starkey adds that his silver is close to gold in weight and can only be corroded by

aqua regia, rather than the usual nitric acid.58 What I want to show here is that even this,

Starkey's luna fixa, is derived from Suchten. Let us quote the Mysteria gemina:

The c r [produced from antimony] is bright, and may be cast, hammered, and beatenas other natural c r , and may be driven off in " 5 , and goeth not away in the Test; Ithought a long time that it was nothing but the best c r , but my companion said that inweight it was heavier than other c r , I therefore being jealous what it was, didendeavor to dissolve it in aquafortis made of Vitriol! and Nitre, but it would not touch it;then I was much troubled in my thoughts, and I laid it in Aqua regis, and it wasdissolved totally .... 59

Suchten's antimonial silver, like Starkey's, was thus heavier than natural silver, and

could only be dissolved in aqua regia. This information is not found in the Introitus, and thus

provides further evidence that Starkey was drawing on the work of Such ten rather than the

Cosmopolite.It is therefore clear that Starkey's Key is based on Suchten's Mysteria gemina rather than

on the Introitus. But the close textual affiliation between the Key and the Introitus virtually

necessitates that the author of the Key knew the latter work. Indeed, he knew it not as the

source of his own inspiration, but rather as the product thereof. Hence I conclude that

Starkey himself wrote the Introitus. But one could object here that Starkey may simply have

independently discovered the source of the Introitus itself. In other words, perhaps there

really was a Philalethes who used Suchten's work independent of Starkey. This, however, is

improbable in the highest degree. Starkey had been telling the Hartlib circle of his American

adept as early asJanuary 1650/1,60 and he began circulating the adept's manuscripts by the

summer of 1652. But if we consult Starkey's own journals kept in the 1650'S, we find no

mention there of the Cosmopolite. Suchten, however, is well represented indeed, and

Starkey openly refers to him as a source for his own experiments on antimonial alloys.61

Would it not stretch the limits of belief if Starkey actually ha d sole access to the works of a


12/22


106 WILLIAM NEWMAN

mysterious adept, as he claimed, and yet never once referred to him in his own private

notebooks? Does it not seem even more odd that both Such ten and the Cosmopolite describe

the same philosophical mercury and yet that Starkey fails to note the fact, while copiously

extracting all the information he can get on this elusive substance from Suchten? At thispoint I think we are free to conclude that Starkey made no mention of Philalethes in his

notebooks precisely because he did not exist, or as George Lyman Kittredge put it in 19I9,

because the New England Cosmopolite was a fiction of Starkey's "teeming brain and not too

scrupulous conscience". 62

Having established the authorship of the Introitus, we may now briefly consider the date

of its composition. The Introitus cannot have been written before Starkey's letter to Boyle

containing the Key. The Key is so heavily dependent on Alexander von Suchten - both from a

literary as well as a technical standpoint-that it clearly represents Starkey's first draft of the

process for the antimonial amalgam that underlies the Introitus. The Introitus contains no

references to Suchten, and no such direct literary borrowings as' I have shown to exist in theKey. As I have established elsewhere, this letter must have been written between late April

and 30 May, 1651.63Therefore the Introitus must have been composed after that period. The

first references to the manuscripts of Starkey's adept in the Hart1ib circle appear in the

summer of 1652.64But such references as the "MS. Stirkianu(m) Adepti" of Clodius and

Hart1ib cannot be taken automatically to refer to the Introitus. Indeed, the first unequivocal

reference to the Introitus in Hart1ib's Ephemerides seems to be from 1658.65Nonetheless, the

1654 preface to The Marrow refers to the Introitus as a work already written, and the

laboratory procedure of the Introitus is closer to the chemistry of the Key than is that of Th e

Ma rro w.66 Therefore the composition of the Introitus can be placed with great confidence

bet\veen the spring of 165I- probably after the letter to Morian of 30 May - and before theprinting of The Ai/arrow in 1654.

Starkey cannot possibly have brought the Introitus manuscript with him from America as

his earliest bio-bibliographers, such as Morhof, maintain. Although Wilkinson claimed for

years that the Introitus was composed in America by the first governor of Connecticut John

Winthrop Jr.,67 we can now say with certainty that the Introitus was composed by Starkey

himself in England.

THE INTROITUS AND THE HARTLIB CIRCLE

It is clear that Starkey himself composed the Introitus, after the writing of the Key in late

April 1651, and before the first part of The Marrow was published in 1654. Now Starkey metSamuel Hartlib on IIDecember, 1650,68and was an active member of his circle until some

time before late February, 1653/4. On 28 February of that year, Hart1ib wrote an angry

letter to Boyle, in which he says that Starkey has been "in prison for debt" a second time, and

that he "hath always concealed his rotten condition from us". Hart1ib complains that

Starkey has "most wretchedly seduced and deceived" a "Mr. Webb," and accuses the New

Englander of "ungrateful obstinacy" .69Although Starkey continued to have relations with

members of the Hart1ib circle (such as Boyle) after 1654, and is even mentioned in Hart1ib's

Ephemerides after that date, the disillusionment expressed in Hart1ib's letter to Boyle marks

the end of Starkey's serious involvement with the group as such.

As we have shown in the previous section, however, the period in which Starkey was an

active member of the Hart1ib circle coincides with the time in which the Introitus was written.

This opens the obvious question: was the Introitus written to fulfil the "program" of the


13/22

Publishedb




Hartlibians in some sense, and does the work betray any signs of a "Hartlibian" origin? As I

shall demonstrate, both questions can be answered affirmatively. Given the context of the

Intro itu s' origin, we \vill then begin to understand the immense popularity of that text in themid and late seventeenth century. Before passing to the Introitus itself, however, we must say

a few words about Hartlib and his group.

Thanks to the work of George Turnbull and Charles Webster, the involvement of

Hartlib's group in the Baconian advancement of science, the utopianism ofjohann Valentin

Andreae, and the Pansophia oflan Amos Comenius, is now common knowledge. 70 Webster

has stressed above all the utilitarian and utopian goals of Hartlib and his friends, as well as

their commitment to the free and unrestricted promulgation of knowledge. These goals \vere

articulated quite clearly by Hartlib's close associate Gabriel Plattes, an inventor and

alchemist whose Macaria, a Baconian utopia, was published in 1641. Although written in the

form of a utopia, it is clear from remarks made by both Plattes and Hartlib that Macaria wasthe blueprint for a real-if never realized-society.71 Alchemy forms a major focus of

Ma ca ria , for in it Plattes describes a "Colledge of experience"72 containing an alchemical

laboratory. Plattes' desire for a well-funded alchemical laboratory is repeated in his Caveat

for Alchem ists, published in the Chymical, Medicinal and Chyrurgical Address: Made to Samuel

Ha rtl ib Esqu ire (1655) where Starkey's Epistle to King Edward Unfolded had also appeared.

Plattes' request for a laboratory, which he made to Parliament, typifies his and Hartlib's

view that alchemy could be put to the public good, just as agriculture and medicine:

But now I have been a Petitioner to the High and Honourable Court of Parliament,that I may demonstrate my ability, to do the Common-wealth ofEngland service,

which service consisteth in three things principally; to wit, to shew how thehusbandry of this Land may be so improved, that it may maintain double the numberof people, which now it doth, and in much more plenty: also to shew how the Art ofPhysick may be improved: and lastly to shew the Art of the transmutation ofMettals,if I may have a Laboratory, like to that in the City of Venice, where they are sure ofsecrecy, by reason that no man is suffered to enter in, unless he can be contented toremain there, being surely provided for, till he be brought forth to the Church to be

buried.73 .

Although it is easy to domesticate Plattes by referring to his alchemy as "chemistry", 74

and by taking the emphasis off metallic transmutation, Plattes obviously ha~ a deep-seated

interest in the conversion of base metals into noble ones: indeed, this forms the unique

subject of the Caveat for Alchemists. Nor should we be surprised that Plattes rejects the

principle of scientific openness when he comes to alchemy, insisting that his laborants

remain sequestered for a lifetime. The alchemical laboratory of Venice with strict rules of

silence was a well-known alchemical topos, and one with which Plattes was clearly familiar. 75

Hartlib, like Plattes, was deeply interested in the transmutation of metals. When his

daughter married the alchemist and Helmontian physician Friedrich Clodius in the early

1650's, Hartlib was overjoyed, and allowed the kitchen of his house to be converted into a

laboratory.76 That Hartlib was not merely interested in the production of pharmaceuticals,

but actively aspired to the "great work", is demonstrated by a letter from Hartlib's friend

Morian to Boyle, written on 28 October, 1658.77Here Morian describes how between 1649

and the time of the letter's composition Hartlib was trying to capture "the universalsubject", namely the "salt of nature", directly from the atmosphere, possibly by means of

hygroscopic salts.78 However, even though he could collect "fifty pounds in a short time",


14/22

Publishedb



108 WILLIAM NEWMAN

this "water from our sea", once sealed up in alembieo and heated, did nothing. Over time,

however, Hartlib learned "1. the seal of Hermes. 2. the incombustible fire of the

philosophers. 3. the true golden sulphur". 79Having made these discoveries, Hartlib began

again, and this time

All succeeded favorably, and [the material sl?assed] through various inconstantcolors, arriving then at perfect blackness ....

Morian is here describing Hartlib's attempt to produce the philosophers' stone: the

process was usually considered to involve sealing up the proper substance in a vessel and

heating it for long periods of time (forty days is not uncommon). It was hoped that the

contained matter would then undergo a distinct series of color changes, including the

"perfect blackness" ofputrefa etio. 81Morian terminates his letter by saying that the process

"requires the whole man". Therefore "Our Hartlib is often very busy at this affair, along

with his son [Clodius]".82

It is quite sure then that Hartlib was not merely a promoter of chemistry or alchemy: he

was himself an active alchemist. In this he was no different from Plattes, and it should come

as no surprise. Also in the manner of Plattes, Hartlib fused alchemy with utopianism. In a

well-known letter to John Winthrop Jr. of 16 March, 1660, Hartlib informs Winthrop of

rumours that the latter has direct knowledge "both of the medicin and the tincture .... ,,83

Then replying to an earlier query of Winthrop's about the philosophers' stone, Hartlib says

that he is "enabled by a sweet secret providence" to report about a society

that is and will be (which I count far more) not onely a true possessor, but a real

dispenser of these Mysteries for the ends for which God hath as stewards entrustedthem withall. They are come from beyond seas into England and are still in those

parts though most secret and hidden. They had putt out a declaration or invitation totheir society before this time but the extremest dissettlement hath differed theirresolutions. They are scattered over the world, but are minded in England for theysay according to Postellus-ab insulius incipiet reformatio to make themselvesvisible to other mens observations and applications as soon as there is quietnessunder any form of government.84

Although Hartlib's description of a secret society devoted to alchemy and iatrochemistry

sounds superficially like the Rosicrucians, it is far more likely that he is describing another

group that he believed was about to fulfil Plattes' vision ofMacaria.85 The prophetic tone of

Hartlib's remarks, however, in which alchemy is linked to the reformatio mundi of Guillaume

Postel brings to mind 'Paracelsus' vision of Elias artista-the alchemical prophet who will

usher in a new age of revelation.

Such predictions were a commonplace of mid century England. Mary Rand, a well-

known Fifth monarchy chiliast, prophesied the imminent revelation of the philosophers'

stone to the masses, and this was taken up with slight reservations byJohn Beale,86in a letter

to Hartlib of22 March, 1659. From another source, however, we know that such predictions

were linked directly to Elias artista by certain among the Hartlibians. The adventurer

Robert Child, who attempted to reform the New England charter in 1647, knew George

Starkey andJohn WinthropJr. in Massachussetts.87 Child was a skilled metallurgist steeped

in the alchemical literature of the time, and he supplied books on that subject to Winthrop.

After he returned from his abortive trip to New England in 1647, he became immersed in the


15/22

Publishedb




Hartlib group's alchemical endeavors. In a letter of 13 May, 1648, Child conveys the

following news to Winthrop:

Its reported by diverse, yt ye Emfor of Germany hath found a secret to turn into (0by yCwch he pays his Army yCDuke of Holstein in turnd a great Chymist. Some say(yt have good intelligence) y Helia Artista is borne. I saw letters ~t came to a learnedDr from yCFratres R C to yt purpose but he is not of or nacon. 8 .

Here we learn that Elias the artist has already been born, that the Rosicrucians have

announced it in certain letters, and that the alchemical Elias is not of English extraction.

Child confidently looks forward to the arrival of the Paracelsian herald of the saeculum aureum

in which the ability to transmute metals will be commonplace. We found the same theme in

Hartlib's letter to Winthrop of 1660, though without specific reference to Elias. It was

precisely this ambience of prophecy, secret societies, and alchemy, that met Starkey when he

made Hartlib's acquaintance in 1650. Being ambitious and endowed with literary talent,

Starkey proceeded to capitalize on these circumstances during or after the spring of 1651,

when he felt that he had attained the great secret from Alexander von Suchten. Thus he

began to write the Introitus.

The prophetic character of the Introitus becomes obvious with the first few lines of the

text. After "Anonymous Philalethes" has recounted his discovery of the philosophers' stone

at the age of twenty three, he claims that all real adepts will recognize the truth of his ensuing

discourse. No one, Philalethes says, has every written so clearly as he. Indeed, he would have

preferred to be more secretive,

but God forced me, whom I could not resist, He alone who knows the hearts (of men),to Him alone (let there be) eternal glory. Hence I know that many men to come inthis final age of the world will be blessed by this secret, because I have writtenfaithfully, nor have I left any uncertainty of the studious beginner unsatisfied.89

Here we learn that the Introitus was written by divine decree: the author did not compose

his work merely to fulfil his own human desires, but was enjoined upon by the holy spirit.

The chiliastic theme of the u ltim a a eta s m u nd i is then introduced, with the defining

characteristic that in this golden age, the blessed will receive the secret of the philosophers'

stone. Moreover, the Introitus itself is the vehicle by which such revelation will occur, since

Philalethes has made the secret plain even to studious beginners.

This reverential tone is maintained throughout the Introitus, where the author repeatedly

invokes God with the formula nuti Dei90 and employs the concept that alchemy is itself a

Don um Dei revealed only to those who are worthy.91 In a chapter "On the Use of Sulphur in

the Work of the Elixir", Philalethes describes his life as a wandering adept. He has often

considered the lamentation of Cain to God, "Behold, whoever finds me ,vill kill me", to be

appropriate to the adept.92 He cannot dare to have a family, but must wander over the world

in constant danger. Although he has all wealth in potentia, he has nothing in actu, for whoever

discovers that he has the secret of transmutation will try to pry it from him by force. "Oh

filthy wretch! Oh empty nothing", cries Philalethes, speaking of the gold that he can make:

the adept hides his secret not out of pride and stinginess, but fear.93 Indeed, he says, "I havefound the world to be in the most evil state possible,,94 Recently, motivated purely by mercy,

Philalethes has cured a desperate case of disease, but rumours got out that he possessed the


16/22


110 WILLIAM NEWMAN

"Elixir of the Wise", and so, "having changed my name, I fled in the night with new clothes,

shaved head, and a wig" .95 Otherwise, Philalethes says, he might have found himself

"strangled in his bed", like others he has known who were rumored to be adepts, but who in

fact did not even possess the secret. This is because there is "so much evil in men ... more in~his age of the world than ever before". 96

In these passages Starkey is playing on a traditional millenarian view that the rule of

Antichrist must precede the Golden Age.97 Indeed, the very wickedness of the present age

gives reason for hope, since it reveals to us that the final age of the bad, old world has arrived.

Nor must we look far to find Antichrist referred to openly:

I hope and expect that after a few more years money will be common, and thisfulcrum of the Antichristian monster will fall down into rubbish, (for) the populacegoes mad, and whole races are insane to have this useless weight rather than God.Will this not attend our imminent and so long expected redemption?98

Hence alchemy will provide the means by which money, the tool of Antichrist, will

become valueless, for who will want gold when everyone had the philosophers' stone? In the

"New Jerusalem" gold will line the streets, and whole doors will be made ofa single precious

stone. Moreover, everyone will be healthy, since the "tree of life" will provide "leaves for the

healing of men" . Then the earthly paradise will have arrived, and "gold and silver will grow

cheap, like dung". 99

How does Philalethes know this? Not merely because of the wickedness of the times, but

also

Because Elias Artista is already born, and glorious things already predicted of theCity of God.IO O

So we are once again in the world of Elias the artist, the Paracelsian agent ofrenovatio

mundi. Now in the opening paragraph of the Introitus, Philalethes had announced that he was

himself inspired-even forced-by God to write his book. Is the reader then supposed to

assume that Philalethes himselfis Elias? Not exactly, though the intimation would be close

to the mark:

I send word to the world in the manner of a herald, so that I shall not be buried

uselessly. Let my book be a precursor to Elias, who will prepare the royal way of theLord .... 101

Philalethes is not Elias, but a harbinger of times to come. Perhaps he is intended to

"prefigure" Elias in the way that Biblical exegetes (such as Paracelsus) argued that Eve was

a symbol of Mary, or that Adam, Isaiah, and Elisha, for example, prefigured the three status

of Joachim of Fiore. 102 The world is not quite ready for all men to have access to the

philosophers' stone, and therefore Philalethes writes for the "sons of art" to whom God is

willing to grant his Donum Dei . But those who do understand him will have access to

precisely those gifts that Philalethes enumerated in his description of the New Jerusalem.

Such adepts will be able to "tint all imperfect metals into true gold and silver, if they should

desire it"; they "will be able to make precious stones and gems by this art"; and finally, they

will have a "universal medicine", so that "just one adept can cure all the afflicted in the


17/22

PublishedbyManeyPublishing(c)Soc


PROPHECY AND ALCHEMY III

whole world". 103But whoever should acquire such power must "use his talent for the honor

of God and the benefit of his neighbor lest ... he be condemned as a criminal on the final

day" .104In this fashion Starkey held forth a potent promise to those who read his tractconscientiously. Ifhis readers were deserving of the Donum Dei, they would obtain a scientific

knowledge allowing them to enter the New Jerusalem before the arrival of the Golden Age

proper. Such a message would resound in the ears ofHartlib and his associates like the blast

of an angelic trumpet summoning the faithful.

When Starkey composed the extraordinary mix of millenial vision and laboratory

practice that make up the Introitus, he knew that he had hit upon a formula guaranteed to

excite the interest of the Hartlibians. The young American had observed the fusion of

chiliasm, utilitarianism, and practical goodwill that bound together Hartlib's group, and he

at once developed a formula calculated to exploit it. The evidence suggests that Starkey

succeeded even beyond his own high expectations, for Hartlib soon began circulating thetext outside the immediate environs of the London based group. Thus the German

polyhistor Georg Horn received a copy,105 as did the medical writer Johann Hiskius

Cardilucius, while other continentals who visited Hartlib, such as Johann Harprecht,

Johann Schlezer, and Frederick Kretschmar, were encouraged to consult Philalethes in

situ. 106

It is likely that Starkey grew somewhat chary of the sudden fame that attended his

literary creation, just as his forebear Johann Valentin Andreae had dismissed his Chymische

Ho ch ze it of Christian Rosenkreutz as a ludibrium after the tremendous uproar that

accompanied its publication.107 Whether such apprehension troubled Starkey we cannot

definitely say, but it is not improbable that something similar underlines the curious fact

that the Cosmopolite is only referred to as "Philalethes" in the Introitus.108 Perhaps Starkey

originally intended to claim the Introitus as his own, in the way that he signed his letter to

Morian "Philoponos Philalethes", but then realized that it was far too uncomfortable to be

an adept, and just as useful to have one as a friend. This could explain why Starkey

abandoned the epithet "Philalethes" for his adept in The Marrow, and styled him simply a

"citizen of the world", retaining "Eirenaeus Philoponos Philalethes" for his own use

elsewhere. 109By distancing himself in this fashion, Starkey retained the anonymity of the

Cosmopolite so successfully that readers could claim the latter had performed trans-

mutations in the presence of Charles II. 110Even as late as the 1680'S, some believed "the

adept to be still living in one of the islands under English rule", long after Starkey's death in

1665. Having revealed the birth of the Cosmopolite in his original Hartlibian setting,however, we may now gracefully retire, and allow him a peaceful if belated rest.

NOTES

I. Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs, The Foundations of Newton's Alchemy, or "The Hunting of the GreeneLyon" (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1975), p. 179.

2. For example- Theobald von Hoghelande, Historiae aliquot transmutationis metallicae... (Cologne, 1604).

3. 1I1arjorie Reeves, The Influence of Prophecy in the Later Jtfiddle Ages: A Study in joachimism (Oxford: Clarendon

Press, 1969), p. 174.

4. Walter Pagel, "The Paracelsian Elias Artista and the; Alchemical Tradition", in Kreatur und Kosmos:

Internationale Beitriige zur Paracelsusforschung (Stuttgart: Guitav Fischer Verlag, 1981), p. 9.

5 Pagel, 1981, p. 7

6. Theophrast von Hohenheim, Saemtliche Werke, Karl Sudhoff, ed., (Muenchen: K. Olden bourg, 1933), I. Abt.,

14 Band, p. 392.

7. Will-Erich Peuckert, Die Rosenkreutzer (Jena: Eugen Diederichs, 1928), p. 51.


18/22



112 WILLIAM NEWMAN

8. Nicolaus Niger Hapelius, Disquisitio Heliana de metallorum transmutationes, in Lazarus Zetzner, ed., Theatrum

chemicum (Strassbourg: 1659), Vol. IV, p. 303.

9 Reeves, Prophecy (cit. n. 3), p. 456.

10. John Ferguson, Bibliotheca chemica, (Glasgow: Ig06), Vol. II, p. 375.

II.

Ibid.12. R. J. W. Evans, R udol f I I and H is W orld (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), p. 202.

13. Wodzimierz Hubicki, "Michael Sendivogius's Theory, its Origin and Significance in the History of

Chemistry", in Actes du Xlr congres internationale d'histoire des sciences (26, VIII, 1962-2, IX, 1962, II), s.d., s.l., p.

829.

14. Pierre Borel, Tresor de recherches et antiquitez gauloises .... (Paris: 1655), p. 480: " ... multiplier sa poudre, et pour

cela sa matiere principale fut du Nlercure commun; mais comme il ne travailloit pas sur une matiere propre, il

ne fit rien".

IS. Daniel George Morhof, De metal lorum transmutatione ad . .. Ioelem Langelottum . .. , inJ. J. Manget, Bibliotheca

chemica curiosa (Geneva: 1702), Vol. I, p. 189: "Nihil quicquam quod ad summam rei face ret, Sendivogius

scivit. Librum tamen Setoni, qui se Cosmopolitam vocavit, duodecim scilicet Tractatus imprimi curavit".

16. "Philaletha" is nothing but the Latin ablative form of the Greek adjective c j n A c x t . . 'l l 'f r r g ; , here used as asubstantive. The form "Philaletha" occurs within the Philalethan texts only in the ablative case, as in the

Intr oitu s- "Adepto me, Anonymo Philaletha" (Eirenaeus Philalethes, Introitus apertus ad occlusum regis palatium,

in Jean Jacques Manget, ed., Bibliotheca chemica curiosa (Geneva: 1702), Vol. II , p. 661). But the editors of thePhil ale than works, such as William Cooper, sometimes treat "Philaletha" as a nominative form (see the title

page of Cooper's 1669 edition of Secrets Reveal'd). This has led Harold Jantz to assert that "those

contemporaries who evidently had the best knowledge of the matter took care to distinguish between the works

of the mysterious unknown Eirenaeus Philaletha Cosmopolita (who can be called the Cosmopolite for short)

and the works of Eirenaeus Philoponos Philalethes who, by double signatures, anagrams, and otherwise, can,

in the end, be clearly identified as George Starkey". Cf. Harold Jantz, "America's First Cosmopolitan",

Proceedings of the Alassachusetts Historical Society, Vol. 84, 1972, p. g. George Lyman Kittredge had already

discovered several of the "double signatures" alluded to by Jantz, as evinced by the followed quotation from

Kittredge's "Dr. Robert Child the Remonstrant", Transactions of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, 1919,21: p.

134, n. 4: "Stirk prefixed a Latin poem, with an English translation, toJohn Heydon's Idea of the Law, 1660,

and another Latin poem (dated l\1ay 4, 1663) to the same author's Theomagia, 1664, and on both occasions he

added his pseudonym "Eirenaeus Philoponus Philalethes" to his own signature- George (in the second case

Georgius) Starkey". Yet another of the tracts that allows Eirenaeus Philoponos Philalethes to be "clearly

identified as George Starkey" is a letter written by Starkey to Johann Morian on 30 May 1651 (University of

Sheffield, Hartlib Papers XVII, 7). The letter is signed "A Philaletha Philopono ... Georgio Stirkio". The

signature in the letter to Nlorian, when compared to the inscriptions discovered by Kittredge, indubitably

shows that Starkey himself considered "Philaletha" merely to be the ablative singular of the nominative

"Philalethes". Jantz's assertion is further weakened by the fact that Cooper himself does not treat "Philaletha"

and "Philalethes" as separate authors in his 1678 publication of Ripley Reviv'd, a collection of Philalethan

tracts. Here Cooper includes Secrets Reveal'd in a list of fifteen printed works by "Eirenaeus Philalethes". cr.StantonJ. Linden, William Cooper's A Catalogue ofChymicall Books (New York: Garland Publishing, 1987), pp.

15 2-3.

17. Ronald Sterne \Vilkinson, "The Problem of the Identity ofEirenaeus Philalethes", Ambix, 1964, 12( I) : pp. 28-

29, and n. 22.

18. Olaus Borrichius, Conspectus scriptorum chemicorum celebriorum, in BCC I, p. 50: "Introitus Apertus ad occlusum Regis

pal atiu m Philalethae, classicis scriptis jam diu a tota Chemicorum familia accensetur .... "

19. Philalethes, Introitus (cit. n. 16), p. 661: "Adepto me, Anonymo Philaletha, Philosopho, arcana medicina

chimica, physica, Anno mundi Redempti millesimo sexcentesimo quadragesimo quinto, aetatis autem meae

vigesimo tertio, quo Filiis Artis debitum persolvam, involutisque Erroris Labyrintho manum porrigerem;

Tractatulum hune conseribere deerevi, ut adeptis appereat, me illis parem et fratrem, seducti vero

Sophistarum nugis, lucem, per quam tuto revertantur, videant et amplectantur".

20. Cooper (cit. n. 16).

21. Cheryl Z. Oreovicz, Eirenaeus Philoponos Philalethes: "The Marrow of Alchemy" (London, 1654~55):A Cri tica l Edi tion(Diss. Penn. State University: 1972), pp. 3~6, 82~86.

22. Philalethes, The Marrow (cit. n. 2 I), p. 4.

23 Ibid., p. 324. Ibid.

25, Ibid" p. 32.26. Kittredge, "Dr. Robert Child", p. 134, n. 4 (cit. n. 16). The manuscript referred to above, Sloane 633, has been

analyzed by Harold Jantz, "America's First Cosmopolitanl' (cit. n. 16), and by R. S. Wilkinson, "Some

Bibliographical Puzzles Concerning George Starkey", Ambix, I973, 20(3): pp. 235~244.27. Philalethes, The Marrow (cit. n, 2 I), p. 29.


19/22

Published


PROPHECY AND ALCHEMY I13

28. Ibid., pp. 33-36.

29. Ibid ., p. 36.

30. Ibid., p. 3731. Jantz, "America's First Cosmopolitan" (cit. n. 16), p. 23.

32. R. S. Wilkinson, "George Starkey, Physician and Alchemist", Ambix, 1963, 11(3): pp. 125-126.

33. Boyle Papers XXV, "Memorials Philosophicall Beginning this First day of the Yeare 165I!52" acknowleges on

p. 341 that the "ens veneris" is Starkey's recipe. lowe a debt here to l'vlichael Hunter's preliminary handlist of

the Boyle papers.

34. R. S. Wilkinson, "The Hartlib Papers and Seventeenth-Century Chemistry: Part II", Ambix, 1970, 17 (2), p.

9'35. University of Sheffield, Hartlib papers, XVII, 7: " ... vidi quondam, possidebam item Lapidem

Chrysopejum, atque Arguropejum, prioris ocularis testis, posterioris actualis possessor fui, Erat autem mihi

datus a quod am amicojuvene (qui utrumque Elixerem habuit) adhuc vitali aura fruente. Cujus nomen (voto

obstrinctus) aeternum celare statuo, jus datae sunt mihi aliquot unciae, quas dum multiplicare tentavi,

majoris partis jacturam feci".

36. Hartlib Papers XXI, 30, contains a copy ofa medical diploma attributed to Alexander Seton and dated thus:

"Datum Cadomi Anno Domini millesimo secentesimo quinquagesimo primo, die vero decima quartaNovembris" .

37. Wilkinson, "Hartlib Papers" (cit. n. 34), p. 97

38. Ibid.

39 . Ibid.

40. Ibid.

41. The Hartlib Papers today contain at least the following copies of Philalethes manuscripts: fragments of the

Int roi tus (XVIII, 12), the complete De metallorum metamorphosi (XVIII, 7), fragments of the Brevis manuductio ad

rubinum coelestem (XXV, 21), and the Georgii Riplaei Equitis r. 'pistola ad Regem Eduardum explicata (XXVII, 15)'

42. Wilkinson, "Bibliographical Puzzles" (cit. n. 26), pp. 236-237.

43. 'Ibid., pp. 240-241.

44. Jantz, "America's First Cosmopolitan" (cit. n. 16), ';\!ilkinson, "Bibliographical Puzzles" (cit. n. 26).

45. Linden, A Catalogue, p. 149 (cit. n. 16).

46. Ron. Charles Hogart, Alchemy: A Comprehensive Bibliography of the iHanly P. Hall Collection (Los Angeles: The

Philosophical Research Society, Inc., 1986), No. 126.

47. Royal Society Library, Boyle Letters VI, ff. 99r-l00v (English), published in vVilliam Newman, "Newton's

Clavis as Starkey's Key," Isis, 1987,78: pp. 564-574. The Latin letters are the following: Boyle Letters V, ff.

1291'-136v.

48. Boyle Letters V, 1291':" ... lenissime secessum movet, at praecipue vomitum, cujus inexpectato effectu, ipse

primo attonitus eram, donec tandem libro Alexandri Van Suchten comparato, didici, quod hoc (sulphur) sive

oleum coagulatum in stomacho digeri nequit, additque quod sit purgatio specifica Balsami nostri, qua corpus

penitus liberatur a fumo omnium malevolarum stellarum, quo remedio caelo ipsi medicus valet resistere".

49. Alexander von Suchten, Antimonii mysteria gemina . .. Durclzjolzann Tlzoelden, Hessum (Leipzig: 1604).

50. Alexander von Suchten, Alex. van Such ten of the Secrets of Antimony: In Two Treatises Translated Out of High-Dutch by

Dr . C. a Person of Great Skill in Chymistry (London: 1670). Although this translation was not printed until 1670, it

was clearly circulating in manuscript before that time, as a copy is found in the Hartlib Papers, XVI, I.

Although Ferguson attributes the translation to one Dr. Cable (Bibliotheca chemica, II , 41 7), a manuscript in the

Ferguson collection claims that the translation is by "Dr Child" or "DIl Child" (U. of Glasgow, !vIS. Ferguson

163, p. 97). This could well be Robert Child, Starkey's friend. It is known that Child had a copy of the German

i\;fysteria gemina and lent or gave it to John Winthrop Jr. (vVilkinson, "The Alchemical Library of John

WinthropJr., Ambix, 1963, 11(1): pp. 40-41). Child could read German, and might well have translated the

Afyste ria gem ina for the use of the Hartlib circle.

51. Newman, "Starkey's Key" (cit. n. 47).

52. An excellent chemical interpretation of these processes may be found in Dobbs, Foundations (cit. n. I), pp. 146-

148,175-186.

53. Joannis Fernandi Hertodt a Todtenfeldt, "Epistola", in Afiscellanea curiosa sive r.'phemeridum medico-physicarum

Germanicarum academiae naturae curiosorum, annus octavus, anni iH DC LXXVll (Vratislaviae & Bregae:1678), pp.380-386. Part of Hertodt's letter is translated in Kittredge, "Robert Child", pp. 135-136 (cit. n. 26).

54. Philalethes, Introitus (cit. n. 19), Chapter VII, pp.'663-664. Hertodt (cit. n. 53), p. 380.

55. Dobbs, Foundations (cit. n. I), p. 252.

56. Suchten, Secrets (cit. n. 50), p. 64.

57. Newman, "Starkey's Key" (cit. n. 47), p. 572.58. Hartlib Papers XVII, 7, " . .. extrahere novi ... (lun)am mirandam, valde ponderosam, fere

aequiponderantem Auro. Aquae forti resistentem solaque Aqua Regia corrodi sepatientcm".

59. Suchten, Secrets (cit. n. 50), p. 101.


20/22

Published


114 WILLIAM NEWMAN

60. Wilkinson, "Hart1ib Papers" (cit. n. 34), p. 90.

61. British Library, MS. Sloane 371 I, 3f, 6f-i.62. Kittredge (cit. n. 16), p. 146.

63. Newman, "Starkey's Key" (cit. n. 47), p. 568, n. 14.

64 Wilkinson, "Hart1ib Papers" (cit. n. 34), p. 97.

65. Hartlib Papers, LVII, 4 (Hart1ib's Ilphemerides): "NIS. Adepti N. A. in yat NIS. Introitus ad occ1usum Regis

Palat". Turnbull dates this section of the Ephemerides to 1658 (George Turnbull, "George Stirk, Philosopher by

Fire", in Transactions of the Colonial Society of A1assachusetts, February, 1949, 38: pp. 239-240). Wilkinson,

without commenting on Turnbull's dating, asserts that it was written in the spring of 1657 (Wilkinson,

"Hart1ib Papers" [cit. n. 34], p. 107).

66. Oreovicz, "The Nlarrow" (cit. n. 21), p. 3. Later in the text (pp. 103-104), Starkey appears to reject the

reliance of the Ke y and the Introitus on "Diana's doves" (silver), here advocating copper: "And this by Venus

mediation must/Attained be, or else by no mans skil/They will be severed, no though to dust/You them

resolve, yet joyn'd reduce they will,/But only by Venus association,/ Diana makes of them a separation./Some

use Dianaes Doves for to prepare/The water, which a tedious labour is,! And for to hit it right, an Artist rare/

Nlay twice for once unfortunately misse;/The other way (which is most secret) we/Commend to all that artists

mean to be".

67. R. S. Wilkinson, "The Problem of the Identity of Eirenaeus Philalethes", Ambix, 1964,12

(I), pp. 24-43.Wilkinson, "Hart1ib Papers" (cit. n. 34), pp. 97~98.

68. Wilkinson, "Hart1ib Papers" (cit. n. 34), p. 87.

69. Letter from Hartlib to Boyle, 28 February, 1653/4, in Robert Boyle, Works, ed. Thomas Birch (London: 1772),

Vol. VI, pp. 79-80.

70. George Turnbull, Hartlib, Dury, and Comenius: CleaningsJrom the Hartlib Circle (Liverpool and London: 1947)'

Charles Webster, The Creat Instauration: Science, J\!fedicine and Reform 1626-1660 (New York: Holmes and Meier,

1975)'71. Webster, "Great Instauration" (cit. n. 70), pp. 47-51 et passim.

72. Ibid., p. 48.

73. Gabriel Plattes, "Caveat for Alchymists", in Ch)'mical, j\!fedicinal, and Chyrurgical Addresses Made to Samuel Hartlib,

Esquire (London: 1655), p. 87.

74. Webster, "Great Instauration" (cit. n. 70), p. 48.

75. Solomon Trismosin, Aureum Vellus, Oder Cueldin Schatz und Kunstkammer (Rorhrschach am Bodensee: 1599).

76. Dobbs, Foundations (cit. n. I), p. 74.77. Royal Society, Boyle Papers 44, ff. 2Ir-22r Morian transposes Hart1ib's name to "Libhart" throughout the

letter.

78. For similar attempts by other alchemists, see Dobbs, Foundations (cit. n. I), pp. 188-189.

79. Boyle Papers 44, f. 211':"I. Sigillum Hermetis. 2. Ignem Philosophorum.incombustibilem. 3. Verum aureum

Sulphur".

80. Ibid. ". . . omniaque prospere successisse, seque per inconstantes et varios colores iam ad perfectam

nigredinem pervenisse .... "

81. The nigredo stage of the alchemical process receives a long description in Philalethes' Introitus apertus (cit. n. 16),

p.672.

82. Boyle Papers 44, f. 22r: " . ideo non raro Libhartus noster simul cum filio huic redi intentissimus est".

83. Samuel Hartlib to John WinthropJr., 16 Nlarch, 1660, in George Turnbull, "Some Correspondence ofJohn

Win throp, J r., and Samuel Hartli b" , Proceedings of the J.Wassachussets Historical Society, October, 1957- Decem ber,

1960, 72: p. 45.

84 Ibid. , pp. 47-48.

85. Letter from Samuel Hart1ib to Dr. John Worthington, 3oJanuary, 1659/60. The Diary and Correspondence of Dr.

Joh n Wo rth ing ton , in Remains Historical and Literary Connected with the Palatine Counties of Lancaster and Chester

Published by the Chetham Society (Nlanchester: 1847), pp. 162-177.

86, Webster, Creat Instauration (cit. n. 70), pp. 392-393.

87. Kittredge, "Dr. Robert Child" (cit. n. 16), pp. ]00~]46.

88. Ibid. , p. 129.

89. Philalethes, Introitus (cit. n. 16), p. 66]: " ... at cogebat Deus, cui non potui resistere, qui solus corda novit, cui

Soli gloria in seculum. Hinc indubie colligo, multos futuros hac ultima aetate mundi hoc arcano beatos. Quia

fideliter scripsi, nec studio so Tyroni ullum reliqui dubium, non perfecte satisfactum".

90. Ibid., p. 665

91. Ibid., p.,666.

92. Ibid.

93. Ibid. , p. 668.

94. Ibid. , p. 666: "Inveni mundum in malignissimo statu positum .... "

95. Ibid.: " . .. mutatis vestibus, raso capite, crinibusque aliis indutus, alterato nomine noctu fugam facerem .... "


21/22




96. Ibid.: "Tanta est in hominibus ncquitia ... insuper hac aetate mundi plus, quam ulla priori".

97. Reeves, Prophecy (cit. n. 3), pp. 468-470, et passim.

98. Philalethes, Introitus (cit. n. 16), p. 668: "Spero et expecto, quod post paucos annos pecus erit pecunia,fu1crumque hoc belluae Antichristianae ruet in rudera, delirat populus, insaniunt gentes, inutile pond us vice

Dei habent. Haeccine nostrum tamdiu expectatam brevique emersuram redemptionem concomitabuntur?"

99. Ibid.: " . .. Aurum argentumque per haec mea scripta vilescent ins tar fimi .... "

100. Ibid.: "Quia natus est iam Elias Artista, et gloriosajam praedicantur de Civitate Dei".

101. Ibid.: "Haec praemitto in mundum praeconis instar, ut non inutilus mundi sepeliar. Esto Liber meus

praecursor Eliae, qui paret viam Domini regiam .... "

Reeves, Prop/leC)' (cit. n. 3), p. 18.

103. Philalethes, Introitus (cit. n. 16), p. 676: "Qui ergo hoc talento a Deo beat us est, huic talis voluptatis campus

patet: In primis si viverit annos mille, et quotidie hominum millium mille aleret, non egeret, quia pro voto suo

Lapidem multiplicare valet tam pondere quam virtute. Ita ut omnia imperfecta, quae sunt in mundo, metalla

comparabilia, posset, si hoc in votis haberet, omnia in verum aurum argentumque tingere. Secundo lapides

pretiosos ac gem mas poterit hac arte conficere, quales nullae in rerum natura sine hac arte comparari

poterunt. Tertio ac tandem universalem omnium morborum medicinam habet, sic ut unus saltern vere

Adeptus omnes in universo orbe aegrotos curare valeat".104. Ibid.: "Quisquis proinde talento hoc fruitur, in Honorem Dei et proximi utilitatem utatur moneo, ne ingratus

erga Creditorem Deum, qui tanto eum talento beavit, reperiatur, ac reus ultimo die condemnetur".

105. Horn mentions the Introitus, "ante multos annos ex Anglia !vIss. ad me transmissum", in Georg Horn, ed.,

Gebri Arabis clzimia sive traditio summae peifectionis .... (Leiden: 1668), 8v His source for these manuscripts was

probably Hartlib, as the latter definitely sent Horn a copy of the Clzymical, iHedical, and Chyrurgical Addresses of

1655. In a letter of 28 November, 1657, Horn refers to Philalethes' commentary on George Ripley's l!.pistle and

asks Hartlib whether Ripley's work is extant in English (British Library, Birch Collection, !vIS. 4279, fT.64r).

106. Johann Hiskius Cardilucius, J.Hagnalia medico-clzymica ... (Nuremberg: 1676), I, App. 4. For Harprecht,

Schlezer, and Kretschmar, cf. George Turnbull, "George Stirk" (cit. n. 65), pp. 239-24.

107. Peuckert, Die Rosenkreutzer (cit. n. 7), pp. 88-116.

108. In The iHarrow (cit. n. 21) Eirenaeus Philoponos Philalethes is only a pupil: his alchemical master is the

unnamed "citizen of the world". Another work by Starkey, the Vade-mecum philosophicum sive breve manuductorium

ad eampum sophiae, is a dialogue between the pupil Philalethes and the master, this time called "Agricola

Rhomaeus" (in Aeyrenaeus Philalethes, Enarratio methodica trium Gebri medicinarum (London: 1678), pp. 191-

222). Ifwe accept that Starkey made no distinction in his own mind between the Philalethes of the Introitus and

that of the j\;farrow and Vade-mecum, as I have argued in n. 16 above, then it is c1ea~ that he attempted to demote

the adept Philalethes to the status of a pupil in the two latter works. While Starkey may have feared the

possibility of being considered an adept, it also seems that he considered the base-processes of the introitus to

have been outmoded by those of the later j\;farrow and Vade-mecum (cfn. 66 above). This recognition of the

introitus' inadequacy could be an alternative reason for Philalethes' demotion to pupil in the later works.

109. Kittredge, "Dr. Robert Child" (cit. n. 16), p. 134, n. 4.

110. Ibid., p. 143.

III. Ibid., p. 137.


22/22

Source: AMBIX, Vol. 37, Part 3, November 1990

147077963 Prophecy and Alchemy by William Newman

Documents