RAMPLING, Jennifer M. The alchemy of George Ripley, 1470-1700

SAVE OFFLINE

THE ALCHEMY OF GEORGE RIPLEY, 1470-1700

Jennifer M. Rampling Clare College November 2009

m This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Declaration This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration, except where specifically indicated in the text.

Length of dissertation This dissertation does not exceed the agreed word limit of 87,000 words, including

footnotes but excluding bibliography and appendix. This word limit includes an extension of 7,000 words approved by the Board of Graduate Studies on 3 July 2009.

The Degree Committee has given special permission for the Appendix.

10

Jennifer Rampling: PhD abstract ‘The Alchemy of George Ripley, 1470-1700’

Alchemy, encompassing both the transmutation of base metals into gold and the preparation of medicinal elixirs, was the subject of continual debate throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Yet even as alchemists aspired to effect changes in the material world, alchemy was itself continually transmuting : providing the subject of competing doctrines and polemical disputes, outlined in separate manuscript traditions. This thesis examines such changes through the lens of the ‘Ripley Corpus’ : a collection of approximately forty alchemical poems and prose treatises attributed to the famous English alchemist, George Ripley, Canon of Bridlington (d . c.1490). While several of these works, including the famous Compound of Alchemy (1471), may plausibly be linked to the historical Canon, most are pseudoepigraphic. This thesis provides the first systematic account of the growth of the ‘Ripley Corpus’, tracing the posthumous transformation of Ripley’ s reputation from late medieval commentator to archetypal English alchemist.

This thesis employs a twofold methodology of bibliographic research and source criticism in order to assess the authenticity and practical orientation of items in the Corpus. It falls into two parts. Part I considers Ripley as commentator on an earlier alchemical tradition. The core works of the Corpus are identified in Chapter 1, and in Chapter 2 I examine these treatises for evidence of Ripley’ s own alchemical philosophy and practical pursuits, identifying his skill at resolving potential conflicts between his fourteenth-century authorities. While Ripley is usually portrayed primarily as a commentator on alchemical texts attributed to Raymond Lull , Chapter 3 demonstrates that the major source for his Compound was a Latin treatise attributed to a French adept, Guido de Montanor. By tracing Ripley’ s adaptation of specific doctrines, including the use of mineral acids and the process of fermentation, Chapter 4 isolates the distinctive features of Ripley’ s own theoretical and practical alchemy. These features enable us to distinguish the core works of the Ripley Corpus from later attributions, while demonstrating the diversity of fifteenth-century alchemical practices.

Part II maps the development of Ripley’ s own reputation as an alchemical authority. I consider how specific aspects of Ripley’ s alchemical practice were interpreted and reframed by readers and practitioners throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Chapter 5 charts the reception of one Ripleian text over the course of a century, identifying diverse communities of readers, including courtiers, priests, medical practitioners, scholars, and merchants. Chapter 6 examines how Ripley’ s increasingly authoritative status was regularly deployed by practitioners seeking patronage, culminating in 1573 with the fortuitous ‘discovery’ of his Bosome Book by Samuel Norton (1548-1621), who translated the work for Elizabeth I. At the same time, Ripleian texts were exported in manuscript and print to mainland Europe, a movement examined in Chapter 7. Ripley’ s alchemy was studied, tested, and reinterpreted throughout the seventeenth century. Practitioners turned to his writings as repositories of practical experience, reinventing his now authoritative texts in light of newer, continental philosophies. As an appendix, I provide the first catalogue of the Ripley Corpus: an annotated bibliography of extant copies of works attributed to Ripley in manuscript.

CONTENTS

List of tables and illustrations Acknowledgements Abbreviations Conventions

1

Introduction

1

n IV

v

PART I: Ripley as Commentator 1.

Problems with the Canon Textual Transmutations The Compound in Manuscript Royal Associations The Medulla in Manuscript Cycles of Translation

2.

Ripley and Raymond : Reconciling the Authorities

One Matter Four Fires Two Waters Three Mercuries

3.

Ripley and Guido: Structuring the Alchemical Work Ripley and Guido Gates and Ladders: Adapting the Scala The Wheel of Philosophy Reinventing the Wheel Conclusion

4.

Questions of Attribution: The Accurtations of Raymond

The Evidence of the Manuscripts: the Corthop Group The Alchemy of the Text: the Accurtations ’ Theorica Ripley on Fermentation Ripley on the Green Lion Questionable Attributions Conclusion

15 18 20 25 28 35

41 44 51 55 64 69 70 79 85 94 99

101 104 110 114 118 121 124

PART II: Ripley as Authority 5.

6.

7.

Transmitting the Corpus: Ripley’ s Cantilena

127

George Ripley’ s Song? The Phoenix in the Library Survival on the Margins The Cantilena and the Corpus Conclusion

129 132 142 151 154

Ripley at Home: Fraud, Patronage, and the Bosome Book

157

Fraud and Patronage in sixteenth-century England Ripley’ s Book and Norton’ s Key The Bosome Book in Manuscript The Alchemy of the Bosome Book The Name of the Alchemist Adapting the Bosome Book Conclusion

158 166 172 176 180 183 188

Ripley Abroad: the European Reception of the Corpus Penot and Barnaud Combach and his Sources Kelley and the Canon The Bosome Book in Bohemia Conclusion

Conclusion: Ripley Revis’ d? Ripley’ s Vision: Two Readings Ripley as Antimonialist Ripley Revised

190 191 195 200 206 209

211 212 215 219

Bibliography

221

Appendix: Catalogue of the Ripley Corpus

249

1

LIST OF TABLES AND ILLUSTRATIONS TABLES Table 1.1: Three Medulla incipits compared .

35

Table 1.2: Manuscript variants of ‘Recipe Kybrith puri partem vnam’ .

36

Table 4.1. The Compound cited in Sloane 3579.

106

Table 4.2: The Accurtations and ‘As the philosopher’ compared.

108

Table 6.1 . The Type I and II Concordantia.

175

Table 6.2. The WorkofSericon and Whole Work compared .

186

FIGURES Cover: Cambridge, Trinity College MS R.14.14, f. 80r. Fig. 3.1. Cambridge, Trinity College MS 0.8.9, f. 36r.

73

Fig . 3.2. Oxford, Corpus Christi College MS 136, f.4v.

73

Fig. 3.2. Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh MS Anonyma 2, vol. 5.

89

Fig. 5.1. Cambridge, Trinity College MS 0.8.24, f.5 r.

135

Fig . 5.2. Cambridge, Trinity College MS 0.8.24, f.47r.

137

Fig. 5.3 . Cambridge, Trinity College MS 0.8.24, flyleaf.

138

Fig, 5.4. Oxford , Corpus Christi College MS 118, end flyleaf.

138

Fig. 5.5. Cambridge, Trinity College MS R.14.14, f.73v.

144

Fig. 5.6. Cambridge, Trinity College MS 0.8.32, f.32r.

148

Fig. 5.7. Cambridge, Trinity College MS 0.2.16 (2), f.27v.

149

Fig. 5.8. Cambridge, Trinity College MS 0.2.16 (2), f.31 r.

149

Fig. 6.1. The ‘gliding fire’ spreads outward from a glowing coal.

185

11

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS As is usually the case with alchemical literature, this thesis rests upon the work of

previous authorities, whom (in a departure from many medieval compilations) 1 hereby gratefully cite. This thesis would never have left port without the enthusiasm and erudition of Peter Forshaw and Stephen Clucas, who mentored my MA studies at

Birkbeck, University of London, encouraged me to consider doctoral research, and supplied valuable advice and camaraderie throughout the PhD. Once embarked upon,

the project remained on an even keel thanks to the calm good sense, humour, and unflagging patience of my supervisor, Lauren Kassell . Her generous support

underwrites both the thesis and many other ventures undertaken over the past three years. My advisor, Peter Jones, trimmed sail with learned advice on many topics. Throughout my studies I have benefited from the expertise, comradeship and

hospitality of many scholars, including Marco Beretta, Harmut Broszinski, Chiara

Crisciani, Jenny Downes, Roger Gaskell, Anne Hardy, Katherine Harloe, Felicity Henderson, James Hyslop, Didier Kahn, Elly Kingma, Iris Montero Sobrevilla, Ayesha Mukherjee, Bill Newman, Signe Nipper Nielsen, Cesare Pastorino, Will

Poole, Daniela Sechel, Katie Taylor, Pierre Teissier, Brigitte van Tiggelen, Koen Vermeir, Tessa Webber, Sophie Weeks, and Lydia Wilson. I owe particular thanks to

Hiro Hirai, Bruce Moran, Nicky Reeves and Anke Timmermann, who read portions

of the thesis, and to Lawrence Principe for a remarkable practical demonstration of

‘Ripleian’ alchemy. My Latin usage was knowledgeably surveyed and greatly improved upon by Elisabeth Leedham-Green, Debby Banham, Nick Jardine and the incomparable Latin Therapy Group, which I had the privilege of convening for two-

and-a-half years. Valentina Pugliano performed the same office for my Italian.

Tamara Hug, David Thompson, Tim Eggington, Dawn Moutrey and Steve Kruse gave much practical advice and assistance, while the scholarly community of the

Department of History and Philosophy of Science provided an inspiring and

intellectually munificent setting for doctoral research.

My doctorate was funded by the Darwin Trust of Edinburgh Martin Pollock

Scholarship. The award of an Allington Fellowship enabled me to spend three months

Ill

IV

the Wellcome Trust Centre at the Chemical Heritage Foundation, Philadelphia, while second home in London as a for the History of Medicine at UCL provided me with a greatly profited from the research associate for the duration of the PhD . I have resources of these stimulating research environments and superb bibliographical by the British Society institutions. Further support for archival research was awarded College, Department of , for the History of Science, Cambridge European Trust Clare , Royal Historical Society, History and Philosophy of Science, Richard III Society for Renaissance Studies, Society for the History of Alchemy and Chemistry, Society thanks to all these bodies and and J. B. Trend Fund. I should like to express my ardent

institutions for making my research materially possible.

Harley

London, British Library MS Harley.

LIMES

Lynn Thorndike, A History of Magic and Experimental Science . 8

consultation of a Preparation of the Catalogue of the Ripley Corpus has also required . I am grateful beyond large number of primary sources in archives worldwide their hospitality and measure to the librarians and archivists of these institutions for th ; the University Library, kind assistance : the National Library of Wales, Aberystwy Edinburgh University Fitzwilliam Museum, and Trinity College Library, Cambridge; of Edinburgh; Glasgow Library; the Library of the Royal College of Physicians Cathedral; the University Library; Yorkshire Archaeological Society, Leeds; Lincoln and Christie’ s (Book British Library, Lambeth Palace Library, Wellcome Library, the Bodleian Library and Department), London ; John Rylands Library, Manchester; Office; Longleat Corpus Christi College Library, Oxford ; Southampton City Records Library of Copenhagen; House, Wiltshire; Universitaria Biblioteca di Bologna; Royal he Bibliothek der Biblioteca Nazionale di Firenze; Landesbibliothek und Murhardsc Leuven; Osterreichen Stadt Kassel; Centrale Bibliotheek, Katholieke Universiteit ; Library of the Nationalbibliothek, Vienna; Houghton Library, Harvard University , Los Angeles; Massachussets Historical Society, Boston; Getty Research Institute Heritage Foundation, Beinecke Library, Yale University ; Othmer Library, Chemical Firestone Library, Philadelphia; Van Pelt Library, University of Pennsylvania; and Technology at Princeton University; and Dibner Library of the History of Science

ABBREVIATIONS Ashmole

Oxford, Bodleian Library MS Ashmole.

BCC

J. Manget, Bibliotheca Chemica Curiosa , 2 vols. Geneva, 1702.

eVK

Linda Ehrsam Voigts & Patricia Deery Kurtz, comps, Scientific and

Medical Writings in Old and Middle English: An Electronic Reference .

Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000; on CD-ROM. DNB

Press, 2004; online edition, 2007.

vols. New York: Macmillan, 1923-58.

MWME

1998). Vol. X: XXV, Works of Science and Information (ed. George

R. Keiser). OOC

George Ripley, Opera omnia chemica. Kassel, 1649.

Singer

Dorothea Waley Singer & Annie Anderson, Catalogue of Latin and Vernacular Alchemical Manuscripts in Great Britain and Ireland

dating from before the XVI Century. 3 vols. Brussels: Maurice Lamertin, 1928, 1930, 1931. Sloane

London, British Library MS Sloane.

TC

Lazarus Zetzner, Theatrum Chemicum , 6 vols. Ursel and Strasburg, 1602-1661.

TCB

Elias Ashmole, Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum. London, 1652.

Testamentum Michela Pereira & Barbara Spaggiari, 11 Testamentum alchemico

attribuito a Raimondo Lullo: Edizione del testo latino e catalano dal manoscritto Oxford, Corpus Christi College, 255. Florence: Sismel,

1999. Excerpts are denoted by book, chapter, and page reference (e.g.

1.53.172). TK

(245

Albert E. Hartung (ed.), A Manual of the Writings in Middle English 1050-1500 (New Haven : Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences,

the Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

canvas for all my Finally, my deepest thanks go to those whose support is the Sutton; and, in loving endeavours: my parents, John and Susan Rampling; Robin memory, my grandmother, Dr Molly Rampling.

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University

Lynn Thorndike & Pearl Kibre, A Catalogue of Incipits of Mediaeval Scientific Writings in Latin. Cambridge, MA : Mediaeval Academy,

1963. Trinity

Cambridge, Trinity College MS.

V

CONVENTIONS When citing source texts, italics denote the expansion of abbreviations. Text between

‘\ /’ indicates subsequent addition or amendment. Where additional text is required to

determine the sense of a passage, this is placed within square brackets, as in the representation of alchemical symbols (e.g. [mercury]). When manuscripts are cited in

references, c I ’ represents line endings and ‘||’ page endings. Original spelling and capitalisation have been retained, although punctuation has been modernised by the

substitution of commas for periods and dashes, where appropriate.

In early modern England, 25 March marked the first day of the new year. Dates between 1 January and 24 March are therefore indicated in the format ‘5 March 1573/4’ .

The names of famous alchemists are preserved in their usual anglophone forms (Raymond Lull for Ramon Llull, Amald of Villanova for Amau de Vilanova). All translations are my own unless otherwise stated.

[245

INTRODUCTION I have judged itt Expedient to Admonish thee, before thou settest on the readeing of the following tract, that tis as yet a doubt, whoe is the true Author. Ludwig Combach , Clavis aureae portae Georgii Riplaei

The first English alchemical work published in England appeared in London in 1591:

a quarto volume of some hundred pages, printed by Thomas Orwin. The work was the Compound of Alchymy ... divided into Twelve Gates , a long poem composed in late

Middle English rhyme royal . The author was the fifteenth-century alchemical authority George Ripley, Canon of Bridlington. The purchaser of this landmark

publication could have been left in little doubt of its significance. The editor, Ralph

Rabbards, dedicated the work to Queen Elizabeth I, and the printed Compound came laden with endorsements and laudatory verses, including Rabbards’ own praise of the author, Ripley, who “ liued in the time of king Edward the 4 & Richard the vsurper, in great fame & estimation, for his rare knowledge in these secrets.

5?

2

A little over 60 years later, the English Compound received its second outing

in print, providing a major component of the first compendium of English alchemical verse, the Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum (1652). Edited by Elias Ashmole (1617-

1692), who took both an antiquarian and a practical interest in the fifteenth-century adept, the TCB supplemented the Compound with a variety of shorter works attributed to Ripley , supported by Ashmole’ s copious notes.

These moments in printing history were to prove decisive not only in cementing contemporary views of Ripley, but also those of successive generations of

scholars. The George Ripley known to the early twenty-first century is the same in most essentials as the Ripley presented by Rabbards at the close of the sixteenth, and

Ashmole midway through the seventeenth. This Ripley is a canon-regular of Bridlington Priory in Yorkshire, yet also continental traveller. He studied at Louvain and learned alchemical secrets in Italy, which he enshrined in numerous English and

Latin works, the most important of which he dedicated to King Edward IV . A pious

man, he served the Pope as chamberlain in Rome, and donated fabulous sums to the Sloane 3732, f.25r, translated from OOC , 225 . George Ripley , The Compound of Alchymy ... Diuided into twelue gates ... Set foorth by Raph Rabbards Gentleman, studious and expert in archemicall artes (London , 1591 ), 9.

2

2

3

Knights of St John on Rhodes for the defence of Christendom. These exploits failed to us impress his canonical brethren back in Bridlington. The Ripley who comes down to ended his days as a lonely and somewhat persecuted figure: an anchorite in a

To accept the conventional biography and list of ‘canonical’ works as unproblematic is to miss an opportunity for mapping the evolution of an influential body of alchemical ideas and practices over time. The complexity of alchemical

Carmelite monastery, excluded from his original Augustinian house, and the victim of 3 envy and accusations of magical practice. This Ripley is the invention of later generations. While a large corpus exists of works bearing his name, the relationship between these texts and the historical Canon is often problematic. Little fifteenth-century evidence survives of Ripley’ s life or . work, the material for his later biographies stemming primarily from later sources

writing is notoriously difficult to decipher. Theoretical and practical innovations are

frequently masked by the deliberate obscurity in which practitioners tended to veil their processes, and the continual reinterpretation of standard tropes and Decknamen (cover names) by successive generations. 5 Such strategies are easily misread , creating

a misleading impression of alchemy as conceptually static and unresponsive to practical concerns. Only by tracing their evolution over substantial periods can

Even the much cited connection with Edward IV lacks substantial support. The historical Canon remains an elusive figure: slipping deeper back into the shadows as

changes in alchemical practice be truly evaluated , and the impact of new trends be

each facet of his reputation is held up to the light. Such myth-making represents the high tide-mark, rather than the beginning , of a process which saw Ripley established as a major alchemical authority of the early

This thesis uses the corpus of works attributed to Ripley as a lens for studying

modem period. His works survive in hundreds of manuscripts in Middle English, Latin, and European vernaculars. Many of his Latin treatises were ‘Englished’ in the course of the sixteenth century, to circulate alongside his original vernacular writings.

understood .

such developments in English alchemy. Over two and a half centuries the ‘Ripley Corpus’ accreted through processes of textual amalgamation, misattribution, and

deliberate pseudoepigraphy, as its components were incorporated into new treatises for prospective patrons; reinterpreted to accommodate new practical developments and theoretical principles; and gathered into compendia by collectors anxious to

Ripley’ s name is attached to more Middle English scientific and medical texts than that of any other author, outweighing Chaucer and Roger Bacon, Galen and 4 Hippocrates. These documents testify to Ripley’ s posthumous fame, yet individually

Corpus (CRC) appended to this thesis. This Corpus of approximately 45 texts

cannot explain the remarkable popularity of this fifteenth-century Yorkshire alchemist

comprises both the Canon’ s authentic works and those later ascribed to him . All the

in early modem Europe.

main genres of alchemical writing are represented : prose treatises consisting of

, John The seeds of this ‘vita’ are detectible in early modem accounts by the antiquarians John Leland had vita The . 459 ; 456 444 , , TCB Ashmole Bale, and John Pits (see below, 14-19) and developed by la de Histoire s ’ Dufresnoy Lenglet Nicolas in , attained its mature form by the mid-eighteenth century Britannico Bibliotheca s ’ Tanner Thomas and , Philosophie Hermetique ( Paris, 1742), 264-266 , floruerunt initium XVII saeculi ad Hibernia et , Scotia , Anglia Hibernica: sive, de scriptoribus, qui in Components . 633 , ) ( 1748 , London commentarius dispositis nomina literarum ordine juxta familiarum , 186; recur in most modem accounts, including E. J. Holmyard, Alchemy (Harmondsworth, 1957) Alchemy of Charles Nicholl, The Chemical Theatre ( London, 1980), 32; Gareth Roberts, The Mirror , ( London, 1994), 41; Stanton J . Linden (ed .), George Ripley’ s Compound ofAlchymy ( 1591) (Aldershot , The Stuart Maxwell DNB Peter and , ) \ 2001 ), vii-xvi; Anthony Gross, ‘Ripley , George ( d. c. 1490 ’ Chemical Choir: A History of Alchemy ( Hambledon , 2008), 61 . The argument of one recent study relies in part on an uncritical acceptance of this history , furnished with several new myths: Jonathan Hughes, Arthurian Myths and Alchemy: The Kingship of Edward IV (Stroud, 2002). For a more critical view, see Lawrence M . Principe, ‘Ripley , George’ , in Claus Priesner & Karin Figala. Alchimie. Lexicon ( .): einer hermetischen Wissenschaft (Munich , 1998), 305-306; Didier Kahn, ‘Stanton J . Linden ed des George Ripley’ s Compound of Alchemy (1591)’ (review), Archives Internationales d’ Histoire Sciences 53 (2003): 347-353. of 4 Linda Ehrsam Voigts, ‘Multitudes of Middle English Medical Manuscripts, or the Englishing : A Medicine Medieval of Sources Manuscript ) , Science and Medicine’ , in Margaret R. Schleissner (ed . . eVK the in are detailed findings Voigts ’ Book of Essays (New York , 1995), 183-195.

recover the knowledge of England’ s great adepts. The resulting body of related

writings constitutes the ‘Ripley Corpus’ , as recorded in the Catalogue of the Ripley

theorica and practica ; collections of recipes; allegorical poetry; letters to

3

[245]

distinguished recipients; commentaries and concordances; dialogues and diagrams; a song, a dream and a vision.

The key to this Corpus lies within the archive. Ripley’ s alchemy is preserved in hundreds of volumes, often annotated, sometimes cross-referenced with other manuscripts, printed books, and personal experimental findings. A wealth of unpublished material testifies to the intense interest in the Canon and his alchemical

writings manifested throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Stud y of 5

On secrecy in alchemical writing, see Barbara Obrist, ‘Alchemy and Secret in the Latin Middle Ages’ , in D. de Courcelles (ed .), D’ un principe philosophique a un genre litteraire: Les secrets, Actes du colloque de la Newberry Library de Chicago, 11-14 Septembre 2002 (Paris, 2005), 57 78; Pamela O. Long, Openness, Secrecy, Authorship: Technical Arts and the Culture of Knowledge from Antiquity to the Renaissance (Baltimore and London, 2001).

-

4

the thesis with its case these manuscripts and the interplay between them provides sources, and providing histories, grounding long-term evaluations in textual s who read and produced information not only on Ripleian texts, but on the individual them, and the ideas which informed them . from chrysopoeia The pursuits of alchemy were many and varied, ranging the alchemist was the ‘great’ (gold-making ) to therapeutics. The most exalted goal of into gold, healing bodily work, a universal elixir capable of transmuting base metals also offered an array of sickness, and prolonging life. Practicas and recipe collections transmuting particular metals, and more modest applications, from ‘petty elixirs’ for of ‘blanchers’ , ‘citrinations’ , medicines intended to treat specific diseases, to a host 6 and length of decoction, a and ‘calcinations’ . Depending on selection of ingredients argyropoetic ‘white work’ and single procedure might yield many outcomes, from the potabile , or elixir vitae . chrysopoetic ‘red work’ to the alchemical panacea: aurum short of , or accurtations’ , were available for practitioners

‘ Abbreviated procedures of alchemical receipts attained time. From the sixteenth century, varied collections manuals printed cheaply as wide circulation and popularity as a staple of the craft 7 the privilege of any one site or ‘books of secrets’ . Nor was engagement with alchemy courts, universities, and private social order. Alchemical processes were unpicked in households, in town and country, England and abroad . are similarly varied. The theoretical underpinnings of this mass of material mercury’ theory derived Chief among theories of metallogenesis was the ‘sulphurthought to originate from the from Aristotle’ s Meteorology, whereby metals were , earthy one (‘sulphur’ ) in commixtion of a moist, cold vapour (‘mercury’ ) and a dry theoricas are framed in terms different proportions within the earth. Many alchemical terms ‘mercury’ and ‘sulphur’ of these primordial principles, although in practice the , Bosome Book , and Philorcium . See also Peter For instance, the Ripleian Accurtations of Raymond of Alchemical Recipes in the Middle English Grund , ‘The Golden Formulas : Genre Conventions 455 475 . Period’ . Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 4 CIV (2003 ), Books of Secrets in Medieval and Early Modern : 7 Nature of the Secrets and William Eamon , Science : Leonardo Fioravanti and the Search for the Culture (Princeton , 1994); ‘Alchemy in Popular Culture ), 196 213. Philosopher ’ s Stone’ , Early Science and Medicine 5 (2000 universities (see William R. Newman , medieval at 8 Although alchemy was not taught formally Late Middle Ages’ , Isis 80 [1989]: 423-445), court ‘Technology and Alchemical Debate in the medicine during the seventeenth century: influence helped establish teaching positions in chemical Court: Occult Philosophy and Chemical Bruce T. Moran , The Alchemical World of the German ) (Stuttgart, 1991 ); Chemical Pharmacy Enters Medicine in the Circle of Moritz of Hessen ( 1572- 1632 Care of Chymiatria ( Madison , 1991 ). Alchemy in the University: Johannes Hartmann and the Didactic of Alchemy: Science and Culture in the Holy court settings is explored by Pamela Smith , The Business Alchemy and Authority in the Holy Roman Roman Empire ( Princeton , NJ , 1994); Tara Nummedal, Empire (Chicago, 2007 ).

6

-

-

[24f

5

supported a wide range of interpretations. Thus, while an influential thirteenth-century treatise, the Summa perfectionis magisterii , stresses that only mineral ingredients may be employed for the transmutation of metals,9 other medieval texts describe a range of

animal and vegetable ‘mercuries’ , including blood , vinegar, tartar, and spirit of wine

distilled with plants and herbs.10

Not all these alchemical applications and approaches have received equal, or simultaneous, attention. Scholarship on English alchemy has generally favoured the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, particularly in relation to Paracelsian and

Helmontian iatrochemistry. ' ' The contribution of pre-Paracelsian alchemical medicine has suffered in consequence, although fifteenth-century interest in the therapeutic

promise of treatises attributed to Raymond Lull has been noted by Michela Pereira.12

Charles Webster has emphasised the continuing importance of alchemical medicine in the sixteenth century, both before and after the consolidation of Galenic authority.13

Ripley’ s writings contributed to this tradition, to the extent that one Elizabethan practitioner, Samuel Norton, even proposed his alchemy as a via media between the

extremes of Galenic and chemical physic. 14 A more recent focus on chemical matter theories among historians of science

has switched attention back towards chrysopoeia, particularly the role of alchemical

principles and practitioners in advancing experimental philosophy in the seventeenth century . These practitioners include individuals of the stature of George Starkey,

Robert Boyle, and Isaac Newton, all the subjects of major studies, and all careful 9

William R . Newman , The Summa Perfectionis of Pseudo-Geber: A Critical Edition, Translation and Study (Leiden , 1991 ). 10 Disputes over the validity of organic ingredients, including blood , hair, and eggs, recur throughout Arabic and Latin alchemy. Their use was criticised by Ibn Umail in the tenth-century Ma’ al-Waraql, prescribed in the eleventh -century, pseudo-Avicennan De anima in arte alchimiae , and interpreted as Decknamen for mineral products in the fourteenth-century Secretis naturae of pseudo-Amald of Villanova . See H . E. Stapleton, Three Arabic Treatises on Alchemy by Muhammad bin Umail ( 10th Century A. D.), Memoirs of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, XII (Calcutta, 1933), 142; Paola Carusi, ‘ Animalis herbalis naturalis. Considerazioni parallele sul ‘D’ anima in arte alchimiae ’ attribuito ad Avicenna e sul Miftah al-hikma’ (opera di un allievo di Apollonia di Tiana )’, Micrologus 3 ( 1995 ), 4574; Antoine Calvet (ed . ), ‘Le De secretis naturce du pseudo-Arnaud-de Villeneuve’ , Chrysopoeia: Cinq trades alchimiques medievaux VI (1997-9): 155-206. 11 For example, Allen G. Debus, The English Paracelsians ( London , 1965); 2001 ; Andrew Wear, Knowledge and Practice in English Medicine, 1550-1680 (Cambridge, 2000); Allen G. Debus, Chemist / y and Medical Debate: Van Helmont to Boerhaave (Canton , MA , 2001 ). 12 Michela Pereira, Mater Medicinarum: English Physicians and the Alchemical Elixir in the Fifteenth Century ’ , in Roger French , Jon Arrizabalaga, Andrew Cunningham , & Luis Garcia - Ballester (eds.), Medicine from the Black Death to the French Disease (Aldershot, 1998), 26-52. 13 Charles Webster, ‘Alchemical and Paracelsian Medicine ’ , in Charles Webster (ed.) Health, Medicine and Mortality in the Sixteenth Century (Cambridge, 1979), 301 -34. 14 Discussed below, 188. 4

4

6

7

readers of Ripleian writings. 15 Starkey, a Harvard-educated physician, wrote a series

of chrysopoeia.” 19 The commentary forms part of a wider programme intended both

of commentaries on Ripley’ s works in the 1650s under the pseudonym of an

to critique Paracelsian alchemy, and to defend transmutation against its critics.

American adept, Eirenaeus Philalethes. Newton owned Ashmole’ s edition of the

Although Ripley’ s works have not themselves been subjected to sustained

Compound, a work which he also transcribed in full, while his manuscript notes

examination, these studies reveal that their early modern reception was far from

contain hundreds of references to Ripleian works; usually within the context of the

passive. The operative bent of Ripley’ s alchemy was recognised by later readers, who

Philalethes commentaries.

16

sought to integrate his precepts with knowledge gleaned from other sources. Whether

These studies present Ripley as an established and trusted authority, whose

interpreting obscure phrases in light of new continental innovations, or attaching his

works continued to be mined for practical information in the seventeenth century, and

name to previously anonymous texts, Ripley’ s successors brought their own interests

whose name bestowed auctoritas even on treatises which, like Starkey’ s, are rooted in

and agendas to bear on his works.

different alchemical traditions. William Newman and Lawrence Principe have

This re-reading of authority provides a major theme in the history of alchemy,

evaluated such ‘classic’ works as the Compound from the perspective of practitioners

as yet little explored in the context of English practice prior to the seventeenth

like Starkey, suggesting that they served as early witnesses to the veracity of

century.

alchemical procedures, “ like accounts of natural history from distant lands, describing

new treatises were often framed in relation to established ‘philosophers’. From the

creatures and phenomena seen by their authors but inaccessible to Europeans at „ home. 17 A similar respect for Ripley’ s combination of authority and practical

sixteenth century alchemy was increasingly the subject of competing doctrines and

relevance characterises his continental reception. As Bruce Moran has observed, the

books. Rival ‘schools’ posited different principles by which the ends of the

Saxon physician Andreas Libavius (c.1550-1616), author of the first chemical

alchemical work might be achieved, adopting distinct theories of matter and change,

textbook, Alchemia (1597), considered the late medieval ‘Hermetic’ alchemy of

practical

pseudo-Lull and Ripley superior to more recent Paracelsian works, both in practical

‘antimonialist’ , ‘salinist’ , or Paracelsian, practitioners often looked back to the great

efficacy and consistency of terminology.

Libavius’ commentary on the Compound

adepts of the past, seeking in ancient writings confirmation of contemporary

runs to 37 folio pages, and ranks the English Canon “ among the best who have written

approaches, and evidence to legitimise and defend alchemical practice against

Alchemy was neither a monolithic entity nor a static tradition, although

polemical disputes, outlined in separate manuscript traditions, pamphlets, and printed

procedures,

accusations of fraud .

and

preferred

ingredients.

Whether

‘mercurialist’ ,

91

15

Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs, The Foundations of Newton’ s Alchemy, or ‘The Hunting of the Greene Lyon’ (Cambridge, 1975 ); Michael Hunter, ‘Alchemy, Magic and Moralism in the Thought of Robert Boyle ’ , British Journal for the History of Science 23 ( 1990), 387-410; William R. Newman , Gehennical Fire: The Lives of George Starkey, an American alchemist in the Scientific Revolution (Cambridge, MA , 1994); Lawrence M. Principe, The Aspiring Adept: Robert Boyle and his Alchemical Quest ( Princeton, NJ, 1998); William R. Newman & Lawrence M . Principe, Alchemy Tried in the Fire: Starkey, Boyle, and the Fate of Helmontian Chymistry (Chicago, 2002 ). On alchemical matter theories, see Antonio Clericuzio, Elements, Principles, and Corpuscles: A Study of Atomism and Chemistry in the Seventeenth Century (Dordrecht, 2000), William R. Newman, Atoms and Alchemy: Chymistry and the Experimental Origins of the Scientific Revolution (Chicago, 2006 ); and the essays in Christoph Luthy , John E. Murdoch , & William R. Newman (eds.), Late Medieval and Early Modern Corpuscular Matter Theories ( Leiden , Boston , and Koln , 2001). 16 Many of Newton ’ s Ripleian notes are online through ‘The Chymistry of Isaac Newton ’ project ( www .chymistry .org ). For representative examples, see also ‘The Regimen ’ in Washington DC, Dibner Library MS 1032 B, and Yale University Library , MS Beinecke- Mellon 78 (4 ). 17 Newman & Principe, Alchemy Tried in the Fire, 175. Bruce T. Moran , Andreas Libavius and the Transformation of Alchemy: Separating Chemical Cultures with Polemical Fire (Sagamore Beach , MA , 2007).

|24f

19

“ [NJoster Riplaeus... videatur inter optimos, qui de chrysopoea scripserunt.” ‘Analysis Dvodecim Portarvm Georgii Riplaei Angli, Canonici Regularis Britlintonensis’ , in Andreas Libavius, Syntagmatis arcanorum chymicorum: tomus [primus] secundus ... ( Frankfurt, 1613-1615 ), 400-436, at 400. This lack is partly due to a lack of critical editions. TCB remains the main source for English alchemical poetry, other than Thomas Norton , The Ordinal of Alchemy, ed . John Reidy ( London, New York and Toronto, 1975 ), and modem editions of two printed books : Stanton J. Linden (ed . ), The Mirror of Alchimy composed by the Thrice-Famous and Learned Fryer, Roger Bacon (New York and London , 1992 ); George Ripley’ s Compound of Alchymy ( 1591). Encouragingly, critical editions based on manuscript sources have been supplied by two recent dissertations: Anke Timmermann , The Circulation and Reception of a Middle English Alchemical Poem: The Verses upon the Elixir and the Associated Corpus of Alchemica ( PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 2006); Peter Grund , uMisticall Wordes and Names Infinite. ” An Edition of Humfrey Lock ’ s Treatise on Alchemy, with an Introduction, Explanatory Notes and Glossary ( PhD diss., Uppsala University , 2004). 9 On the case for more nuanced differentiation between alchemical pursuits and traditions, see Lawrence M . Principe, ‘Diversity in Alchemy: The Case of Gaston “ Claveus” DuClo, a Scholastic Mercurialist Chrysopoeian ’ , in Allen G . Debus & Michael T. Walton (eds.), Reading the Book of Nature: The Other Side of the Scientific Revolution ( Kirksville, 1998): 181 -200. i

8

the richness of the Corpus and its value Such a multiplicity of readings adds to of ical ideas. It also raises the danger alchem in shifts g mappin for vehicle a as ters, the assessment of Ripley’ s later interpre adopt to easy too all is It . anachronism ’ readings of certain passages. nialist antimo ‘ or ’ ialist mercur ‘ le plausib who provided and Ripley’ s own role as an interpreter To do so is to risk losing sight of h-century English alchemists concerned commentator, one of numerous late fifteent with expounding earlier authorities. in the unique position of the Corpus The structure of this thesis reflects and between late medieval alchemical texts ion mediat of point a as , alchemy English back to Ripley’ s role as a commentator early modern audiences. The first part looks textual reformulated his authorities in light of on medieval alchemical traditions, who the . The second part looks forward to exegesis and his own practical findings for whom , to the generations of practitioners es centuri eenth sevent and th sixteen . Ripley had in turn become an authority

of early manuscripts. Any study of This task is complicated by the paucity :a rely to an extent on late copies of his works Ripley’ s fifteenth-century corpus must ical derance of pseudoepigraphy in alchem dangerous assumption given the prepon nt survives, for example, of several importa writings. No fifteenth century witness ndi , iae , Concordantia Guidonis et Raimo alchim la Medul the ng includi , texts n Ripleia we known as the Bosome Book . Yet ndium compe ious myster the and , Philorcium other early provenance for such works, since cannot, on this evidence alone, discount single early century only by the existence of a items are anchored to the fifteenth

-

manuscript.

differentiating

ge to the task of Pseudoepigraphy poses a particular challen historical . Attribution to famous or quasiworks ’ s spuriou ‘ and ’ tic authen ‘ between auctoritas of a text, and ensuring wide the ing increas of means one was adepts 22 of the authority’ s name and reasons manuscript publication. Prominent placement other biographical information, is a common for writing, sometimes accompanied by of opening of the Epistola accurtationis , one feature of this strategy. For instance, the nd from the Majorcan philosopher Raymo Ripley’ s own sources, is framed as a letter

Lull to King Robert of Sicily: authorship more (Tumhout, 1979), 97-100. On medieval ues alchimiq textes Les , Halleux Robert Attitudes in the Theory of Authorship: Scholastic Literary l Medieva , . Minnis J Alastair see , y generall below, 79-81. Later Middle Ages ( London , 1984), and

22

[245

9

To kyng Robert. Raymund Lully philosophor , In f^ e name off god sendyth gretyng. Suwtyme I Raymund Lully off {oe ylys off mayork in days past hath mayd many secrete bookes off transmutacyon. 23 In such a case the forgery is apparent. The historical Lull was no believer in

transmutation, and none of the alchemical works ascribed to him, however authentically ‘Lullian’ in tone, may be convincingly linked to his pen . Lull’s

authorship and the myths surrounding his alchemical activities provide fertile ground for scholars, not for the light they shed on a historical figure, but as evidence for the construction, propagation and deployment of authorial identity within alchemical

literature. This approach is best characterised by Pereira’ s catalogue of the pseudoLullian corpus, which has been instrumental in establishing the parameters of this vast and theoretically complex body of alchemica.24

While the present study builds on Pereira’ s work, the nature of the Ripley

Corpus makes additional demands. An absolute division between reputed author and pseudoepigraphic corpus is not possible in the case of Ripley, whose historical identity is shaped almost exclusively by his role as an alchemist. For this reason the

attribution of further works cannot be dismissed out of hand , particularly since a number of items in the Ripley Corpus are, unlike their pseudo-Lullian antecedents,

dateable to the lifetime of their putative author. In this thesis I address these difficulties by employing a dual methodology. My first approach is bibliographic: relying on the internal and material evidence of surviving manuscripts to resolve issues of date, authorship, and content . Not only

textual variations, but also ex libris marks, marginalia, epigrams, figures, and

accompanying texts provide the basis for reevaluating the composition, reception and

adaptation of Ripleian works.25 Fifteenth-century Middle English translation in Sloane 1091, f.97r. Michela Pereira, The Alchemical Corpus attributed to Raymond Lull (London, 1989). The corpus of pseudo-Arnald of Villanova has also been studied by Antoine Calvet: La version d’ Oc du Rosarius Philosophorum attribue a Arnaud de Villeneuve (PhD diss., Universite de Paris-Sorbonne [ Paris IV], 1995); ‘Mutations de Palchimie medicale au XVe siecle. A propos des textes authentiques et apocryphes d’ Amaud de Villeneuve’, Micrologus 3 (1995), 185 209. 25 A task greatly facilitated by several valuable references, catalogues and finding aids dedicated to scientific and alchemical texts, notably Lynn Thorndike, HMES; Dorothy Singer, Catalogue; George Reiser (ed.), MW ME ; Adam McLean ’ s online bibliography of alchemical manuscripts at ‘The Alchemy Website’ (www . levity .com/alchemy /); and the catalogues of Latin and Middle English incipits compiled by Thorndike & Kibre ( TK) and Voigts & Kurtz (eVK) respectively. On early modem annotation practices, see William H . Sherman , Used Books: Marking Readers in Renaissance England ( Philadelphia, PA , 2008). 24

-

10

11

of the most frequently I begin in Chapter One by dispensing with several tracing the evolution of recycled myths relating to Ripley and the Corpus, through Epistle , and Medulla. In common three of Ripley’ s best known works: the Compound , texts are often cited yet little with many aspects of Ripley’ s life and work, these that the early printed studied . Examination in light of earlier manuscripts shows far from canonical. In one editions on which most modem studies rely are often to English, back into Latin (the extreme case, the Medulla was translated from Latin English (printed in 1692). version printed in 1614 and 1649), then once more into in time and place, the While the first approach situates Ripleian manuscripts through source criticism. This second attempts the same for his alchemical philosophy characteristics of approach, employed in Chapters Two to Four, isolates distinctive distinguishing authentic from Ripley’ s thinking on alchemical topics as a means of wider context of early modern spurious attributions, and positioning items within the provide the The views expressed in Ripley’ s genuine works therefore

Raymond was not, however, Ripley’s only authority. Chapter Three shows how the Canon derived the Compound' s, structure and much of its content from a Latin prose treatise, the Scala philosophorurn , which Ripley attributed to the French adept Guido de Montanor. 27 Besides providing the basis for the Compound' s architectonic structure (the ‘Twelve Gates’), the Scala inspired Ripley’ ‘ s Wheel’ : a complex figure attached to many early copies of the Compound , which encapsulates both the theoretical and practical aspects of his work in a single image. Having so far focused on Ripley’s more reliably attributed works, in Chapter Four I turn to a lesser known treatise, the Accusations of Raymond . This text outlines the same distillation-based approach encountered in other fifteenth-century works

influenced by pseudo-Lullian doctrines, which I term ‘sericonian’ alchemy. A common outlook does not, however, ensure conformity of practice, and I identify a potential clash between Ripley’ s principal authorities, Raymond and Guido, regarding the appropriate ingredients to be employed as alchemical ‘ferments’. Although the Accusations solves the dispute in favour of Guido, this solution conflicts with material found elsewhere in the Corpus, revealing a hitherto little known contemporary anxiety concerning fermentation, a topic with immediate

alchemy.

measure for the authenticity of unproven ones.

Ripley’ s adaptation These chapters proceed in cases. Chapter Two evaluates , the Compound and Medulla. of pseudo-Lullian alchemy in two well known works recognised, his use of this While Ripley’ s interest in the doctrines of ‘Raymond’ is dismissed as obscure material has not received detailed examination, and has been 26 and his strategies for and derivative. By identifying Ripley’ s major sources of the Canon as a resolving apparent conflicts between them , I present a new picture light of textual exegesis and skilful commentator, who reinterpreted his authorities in the full range of Ripley’ s his own practical findings This analysis also reveals Ripley as a chrysopoeian chemical interests. I argue that the conventional view of on primarily from the Compound, distracts from an emphasis ,

alchemist, derived

which the ‘alchemical’ medicinal products encountered throughout the Corpus, in instance, Ripley s own use elixir for metals is subordinated to an elixir for health. For refers not only to mineral of the freighted term ‘mercury’ to describe his solvents wine, and hence safe for substances, but also to a ‘vegetable’ menstruum derived from , which describes animal, human ingestion. The pseudo-Lullian Epistola accuSationis for Ripley’ s Medulla, vegetable, and mineral ‘stones’, provides a tripartite structure authorising a broad palette of alchemical products. general, a rehash of previous alchemical Lynn Thorndike considered Ripley’ s use of Lull “ in commonplace.” HMES, IV, 352 .

[241

practical

implications. Knowledge of such disputes, and the strategies employed to resolve them, contributes towards a more nuanced understanding of early modem alchemical practice, while supplying critical tools for assessing the relationship between separate texts and practitioners.

In the second part of the thesis, I consider the mechanisms by which the Corpus was transmitted, amended, and compiled throughout the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. While a detailed study of English alchemy remains to be written, scholars including Charles Webster, Mordechai Feingold, Deborah Harkness, and George Reiser have gleaned references to numerous alchemists from late sixteenth-century manuscripts, pointing to the richness of archival resources for this 28 period. Alchemical material has also contributed to studies of several well known •

27

Parts of Chapters Three and Four have been published in Jennifer M . Rampling, ‘Establishing the Canon: George Ripley and his Alchemical Sources’, Ambix 55 ( 2008), 189-208. 28 Webster, ‘Alchemical and Paracelsian Medicine’ ; Mordechai Feingold , ‘The Occult Tradition in the English Universities of the Renaissance: A Reassessment , ’ in Brian Vickers (ed.), Occult and Scientific Mentalities in the Renaissance (Cambridge, 1984), 73-94; Deborah E. Elizabethan London and the Scientific Revolution (New Haven, 2007); Harkness, The Jewel House: George R. Keiser, ‘Preserving the Heritage: Middle English Verse Treatises in Early Modem Manuscripts’ , in Stanton J. Linden (ed.), Mystical Metal of Gold: Essays on Alchemy and Renaissance Culture (New York, 2007), 189 214.

-

12

13

.29 These

an expositor of pseudo-Lull, to the reappearance of the Bosome Book in connection

practitioners: John Dee, Edward Kelley, Simon Forman, and Thomas Harriot Many individuals were united by a close acquaintance with Ripley’ s alchemy. a transcribed or translated copies of Ripley’ s works, using the English Canon as model both for practice and their own alchemical compositions. The networks between several previously unconnected figures are excavated : the Latin in Chapter Five, which provides a longitudinal case study of a single work

-by-step song best known as the Cantilena. By tracing the song’ s transmission step the text was from the late fifteenth century to the mid-seventeenth, I show how of interpreted by successive readers. These readings were affected by material aspects distinctive series of the work’ s transmission, including the accumulation of illustrations, and the acquisition of alternative authorial attributions. , While Chapter Five traces a work over the course of repeated transcriptions the this was not the only method by which texts survived . Chapter Six considers England : a sudden reappearance of a fifteenth-century manuscript in Elizabethan Ripley’ s neglected episode which played a key role in shaping both the Corpus and

Book , reputation in the closing decades of the sixteenth century. The Bosome into reputedly written in Ripley’ s own hand, injected a large volume of ‘new’ content of the Corpus, including a famous poem, the Vision. While the Ripleian attribution

of their these reclaimed works has seldom been questioned, the circumstances , raise the discovery, in the context of a bid for royal patronage by Samuel Norton the possibility of pseudoepigraphy or even outright fraud. The chapter examines task authenticity of this substantial collection of treatises, recipes, and poems, a

complicated by the fact that the original Book has not survived. The impact of the Book illustrates Ripley’ s increasing importance in the last throughout decades of the sixteenth century, while also contributing to his reputation , his ’ the seventeenth. The Canon retained his status even beyond England s shores of authority providing both a spur to practical activity, and support for the legitimacy transmutation. Chapter Seven investigates the routes by which his writings reached as their continental editors, and the reasons for their appeal: from Ripley’ s reputation Religion (London and Nicholas H. Clulee, John Dee’ s Natural Philosophy: Between Science and References at the New York, 1988); Jan Backhand, ‘In the Footsteps of Edward Kelley: Some MSS Kelley’ , in Edward Royal Library Copenhagen concerning an Alchemical Circle around John Dee and Kassell, ; Lauren 330 ) 295 , Stephen Clucas (ed.), John Dee: Interdisciplinary Studies (Dordrecht, 2006 and the Harriot Thomas , ‘ Clucas Medicine and Magic in Elizabethan London (Oxford, 2005 ); Stephen Elizabethan An : Harriot ) . Thomas ( ed Field of Knowledge in the English Renaissance’ , in Robert Fox Man of Science ( Aldershot and Burlington , 2000), 93-136. 29

[245

with another celebrated English alchemist, Edward Kelley. These strands coincide in

Ludwig Combach’ s edition of Ripley’ s Opera omnia chemica ( Kassel, 1649): still the most substantial record of the Corpus in print.

Combach ’ s editorial endeavours rest upon a l o n g and complex history of textual exegesis and practical endeavour. Ripleian expositions, commonplaces,

references, and attributions proliferated in early modem books and manuscripts, in numbers too great to be exhaustively treated in a single study. Rather than attempting such a feat, I conclude by contrasting the interpretations of Ripley’ s alchemy provided by two practitioners: Samuel Norton in the sixteenth century, and George Starkey in

the seventeenth. Each used the Canon’ s authority as a touchstone for their own compositions, yet, in alchemical terms, each describes a very different Ripley.

Alchemical reputations, like alchemical texts, changed over time. The Ripley Corpus gives ample evidence for both.

PART I Ripley as Commentator

15

CHAPTER ONE Problems with the Canon George Ripley was a canon-regular. This is one of few reliable details known of the

English alchemist, a member of the priory of Bridlington, a coastal town in east

Yorkshire. In the fifteenth century, Bridlington Priory was one of the more prominent Augustinian houses in the north of England , due in part to the fame of an earlier

canon of Bridlington, John Thwing. Thwing, later St John of Bridlington, served as prior from c.1362 until his death in 1379, and was subsequently canonized in 1401 :

the last English saint created before the Reformation . Popular and royal veneration for Bridlington’ s saint contributed to the priory’ s subsequent fortune, which included grants and exemptions from every English monarch to reign between Thwing’ s day

and Ripley’ s. 1 The Priory possessed a large library, although on a lesser scale than that of its sister house in York. Having benefited from the bibliophilia of an earlier

prior, John Erghome, the York convent included, besides the more conventional fare

of the monastic library, works on magic, astrology, and alchemy.3 Whether Ripley was familiar with the alchemical holdings at nearby York

remains unknown. The sole contemporary reference to his life, other than the internal evidence of alchemical writings, is a papal letter of 1458-9, concerning “ George

Ryphey . .. a canon of the Augustinian monastery or priory of Bitzidlington [sic] in the

diocese of York.” Here, Ripley is granted the right to leave his priory “ and to dwell for seven years in a university, even without the realm of England, and study

theology,” while holding in commendam benefices, on the proviso that he return to his priory at the end of the period . 4 George Ripley therefore lives on primarily in his own writings. Of these, the

Compound of Alchemy is the only work whose authorship is uncontested , and , in

consequence, the most reliable source of information on Ripley himself. It is also one 1

J . S. Purvis, ‘St John of Bridlington ’ , Journal of the Bridlington Augustinian Society 2 ( 1924), 48-9. The library of Bridlington Priory was catalogued by Leland. Marmaduke Prickett, An Historical and Architectural Description of the Priory Church of Bridlington (Cambridge, 1831 ), 21. 3 Books on or related to alchemy included the ‘fourth book ’ of Aristotle’ s Meteorology, the Isocedron of Walter of Odington , Hortulanus’ s commentary on Hermes, and various works attributed to Albertus Magnus and other authors. M . R . James (ed . ), ‘The Catalogue of the Library of the Augustinian Friars at York , now first edited from the manuscript at Trinity College, Dublin ’ , in Fasciculus Joanni Willis Clark dictatus (Cambridge, 1909), 2-96, at 49, 58, 65, 93. 4 Calendar of Entries in the Papal Registers relating to Great Britain and Ireland: Papal Letters, vol. XI : 1455-1464, prepared by J .A . Twenlow ( London , 1893), 530-31 . “

[24:

16

17

his lifetime, in two late of very few works which may be dated with confidence to College MS 172 and fifteenth-century manuscripts: Oxford, Corpus Christi authorship, and several Cambridge, Trinity 0.5.31 . The work’ s title, a statement of quatrains. This ‘Titulus details of Ripley’s career are asserted in the opening four , in its earliest extant operis’ is often placed at the start of the poem , as here incarnation in Corpus Christi MS 172:

attempted to identify it with Oxford, or a location in Italy.9 A more likely candidate is,

perhaps, the fenland parish of Exning in Suffolk , a few miles north east of Cambridge, and a flourishing village during Ripley’s time. There is no particular reason for us to doubt the extension of Ripley’ s tenure outside his priory. Canons-regular (as opposed to monks) were not bound to enclosed life within a convent, and were

in

consequence

eligible to manage parishes in the absence of an incumbent priest. Canons from Bridlington had been serving vacant churches since the late twelfth century.10 One

Here foloweth the Compend of Alkymye made by a channon of Brydlyngton affter hys lernyng in Italye at Exnyng for tyme he there dyd worm in whych ben declared openly both the secretys of mone and sonn how they her kynd had to multyply in one body together must wonn whych channon syr George Reppley hyght exempt from clausturall observance for whom ye pray both day and nyght syth he dyd labor yow to advaunce. he turned darknes into lyght intendyng to help yow to happy chaunce gevyng counsayle to lyffe ryght5 doyng to god no dysplesaunce.

alchemical text, probably pseudoepigraphic, even gives Ripley’ s occupation as farmer and curate. 11 While this source should be treated with due caution, such occupations

are not incompatible with the generous terms of his licence:

[T]o receive and retain in commendam during the said period a benefice with or without cure wont to be held by secular clerks, even if it be in a parish church or its perpetual vicarage or a chantry, and be of lay patronage ... and to resign such commenda as often as he pleases, and receive and retain another benefice in commendam , and accept and hold a stipend from any regular place or monastery. 12 Priestly activity might explain the Canon’ s promotion to ‘Sir George Ripley’ by the

later sixteenth century, since ‘Sir’ denoted the profession of priest as well as that of knight. 13 From this period, details of Ripley’ s life and death also began to acquire a in the opening lines

Several key elements of Ripley’ s later biographies are represented coheres with of his masterpiece. The claim of exemption from claustral observance to a later licence, since the known papal dispensation, although more probably refers in Italye” was also Ripley was apparently still at large in 1476.6 His “ lernyng during his travels permissible under the terms of the dispensation, and it is perhaps

Italian wanderings are that he met the master referred to in the Compound. Ripley’ s to Edward IV described in the Medulla , Philorcium and Cantilena , and the Epistle , as will be seen, mentions time spent at “ the Universitie of Lovayne,” although 8 Corpus. difficulties accompany the placing of all these works within the in Ashmole’ s) The reference to Exnyng (Ixninge in Rabbards’ edition; Yxning readers, who nowhere else in the Corpus, and evidently perplexed later

recurs

been suggested that these verses date Corpus Christi College, Oxford, MS 172, f , 12v . While it has ' Alchymy , 106 n .20), they are in fact of Compound s Ripley from the sixteenth century ( Linden, George written in the original hand . 6 See below, 28. , TCB , 131 ; “ I cowde never fynde hym 7 “ The same my Doctour to me did shew,” ‘Calcination ’ 9 , Fermentation’ 16, TCB , 177. wythin Englond / whych on thys wyse to Ferment cowde me teche ” ‘

5

8

(24;

TCB , 110.

life of their own. Bale dates his death to 1490, although on uncertain grounds. 14 Antiquarian investigators, including Elias Ashmole, were later intrigued by a

sixteenth-century illustration of the ‘Sepultura Georgii Ripley’ : a tomb decorated with alchemical emblems, including peacocks, entwined snakes and dragons, and a “ Post reditum Oxoniae studuit, et scripsit Compendium alchymiaef Tanner, Bibliotheca BritannicoHibernica, 633. “ Ixninge in Italy,” Corpus Christi College MS 172, f. l2v (marginal note in later hand). The Oxford connection is dismissed in A. B. Emden , A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford to A. D. 1500 , Vol . Ill (Oxford, 1959), 1577. 10 One Bridlington canon , for instance, served as vicar of Grinton in north-west England . J. C. Dickinson , The Origins of the Austin Canons and their Introduction into England ( London, 1950), 228240. On the distinction between monks and canons clerks living according to rule (regulariter viventes ) - see Dickinson, 197-223. 11 For example: “ farmoz/r & Curate of Flixburch Churche, ” Sloane 83, f.2r (‘Breviation’, CRC). 12 Papal letters, vol. XI , 530-31. 13 Even Fuller was uncertain on this point: “ Sir George Ripley (whether Knight or Priest, not so soon decided )” (Thomas Fuller, The History of the Worthies of England [London : 1664], 363). Sandys, amending Fuller’ s entry, put the Canon back in his place: “ never more then Sir Priest, and Canon of Bridlington ” (George Sandys, Anglorum Speculum, or, The Worthies of England in Church and State alphabetically digested into the several Shires and Counties therein... [London, 1684], 896). 14 “ Claruit anno a Christi natiuitate. 1490, sub Henrico septimo.” John Bale, Illustrium Majoris Britanniae Scriptorum, hoc est, Angliae, Cambriae, ac Scotiae Summarium, in quasdam centurias diuisum, cum di ueritate doctrinarum atque annorum recta supputatione per omnes aetates a Iapheto sanctifiimi Noah fdio, ad annum domini ( Ipswich and Wesel, 1548), f.210 v. 9

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY Y

18

is the third in a set of sketches of fountain. This highly improbable structure Church, the first asserted to be that of Priory ton Bridling in tombs cal fantasti anonymous, but spectacularly tiered Gregorius, Prior of Bridlington, and the second 16 to suppose that the sketch is an imaginative like a wedding cake. It seems reasonable have looked like, rather than a genuine recreation of what Ripley’s tomb ‘should’ surely have scandalised Ripley’ s Augustinian structure, the design for which would 17 ent seems oddly appropriate for an monum ’ virtual us ‘ mysterio this Yet . brethren truly concrete. In the end, the hints and adept whose legacy offers little that is us so far, and we must turn to Ripley’ s speculations of later biographers can only take alchemical inheritance: the Corpus itself. 15

Textual Transmutations alchemical career did not end with his s ’ Ripley , tomb his e elaborat r Howeve the to catalogue the manuscript works of interment. Attempts were already afoot In the course of a monumental project to English Canon by the mid-sixteenth century . , , the Protestant churchman and antiquarian explore the libraries of his contemporaries bio-bibliography of the English adept. Of John Bale (1495-1563), produced a short , only two are readily identifiable, and the nine works listed in his 1548 Summarium be attributed to Ripley. The other is the only one, the Compound, may reliably English poem which seems to have Mystery of Alchemists , an anonymous Middle century, incorporating material from evolved during the second half of the fifteenth 19 to Ripley is therefore later than alchemical poetry of the period . Its attribution other

19 temperaturis - are unidentifiable under these titles, and may not have survived.20 Bale

omitted the last named work from his 1557 Catalogus, while adding several more, including another four unknown, and possibly lost, titles: Practicam ceremonialem ,

Dictata aegri, Artem breuem uel clangorum , and Dialogorum suorum.21 The

remaining works on Bale’ s 1548 list are devotional, including vitae of St John of Bridlington and St Botulph, the patron saints of the two houses with which Ripley

was later connected . The former

as a late addition to the Nova legenda

Anglie , although without attribution to Ripley, and it is possible that the Bridlington connection led Bale to father the work on the alchemist.22 Bale may also have

conflated Ripley with the Carmelite monk Gregorius Ripolegus, whom John Leland,

one of Bale’ s sources, records as the author of a life of St Botolph.23 The story of Ripley’ s retirement as an anchorite at St Botulph’ s perhaps stems from the conjunction of these histories.24

Composed less than seventy years after Ripley’ s death, Bale’ s catalogues already illustrate the difficulty of assembling an alchemical corpus. One item ( the

Mystery ) is probably a late attribution, while others suggest lost works. Several items which would later be closely related to Ripley are absent from the list, at least in any

recognisable form, including the Philorcium , Pupilla, and Epistle.

These difficulties are magnified when we consult the manuscripts themselves. The translation histories of alchemical texts are often extraordinarily complex:

looping back on one another in a process not dissimilar to circulations within the

alchemist’ s flask. The famous Cantilena travelled in two Latin redactions (sometimes amended with reference to one another) and at least three English translations. The

Medulla and Concordantia were each translated into English at least three times, and

its composition. magia naturali is perhaps the Of the remaining works in Bale’ s list, De tary on ’ authority, Raymond Lull , or a commen ‘Natural Magic’ attributed to Ripley s , Carmina et Epistolae , and De rerum this work. Other tracts - Philosophorum secreta

Terrarum , included by Pitts in his 1619 expansion of Bale’s list.25 This work, a Latin

1671, as 227v. Ashmole copied this sketch in November 15 British Library , MS Cotton Vitellius E.x, f. in a MS Draught a from taken : t at Bridlington in Yorkshire and raphical Autobiog “ The Draught of George Riplies Monumen His ) . 1692 1617 .), Elias Ashmole ( , Work and in Bibliotheca Cotton .” C. H . Josten (ed Contemporary Sources Relating to his Life Historical Notes, his Correspondence, and Other vol. Ill (Oxford, 1966), 1229. 16 MS Cotton Vitellius E. x, f .227 r. on of the priory in 1537. 17 Only the nave of the church survived the dissoluti 18 Bale, Summarium, f .210 r-v. on and alchemica discussed in Timmermann, Circulati

Bale, Summarium , f.210v. John Bale, Scriptorum Illustrium Maioris Brytanniae ... Catalogus ( Basel, 1557), 622-623. “2 ‘De Sancto Iohanne de Brydlington Confessore ’ , added to the Nova legenda Anglie (an English hagiographical compendium) around 1499, has the same incipit as the work Bale attributed to Ripley ( Nova legenda Anglie: as collected by John of Tynemouth, John Capgrave, and others [Oxford, 1901], 64). 23 “ John Leland , Commentarii de Scriptoribus Britannicis, Vol. II ( London , 1708), 383. 24 Also suggested by Robert Steele, ‘George Ripley’, in DNB, Vol . XVI, ed. Sir Leslie Stephen & Sir Sidney Lee ( London , 1937-38 ), 1202-3. John Pits, Relationem Historicarum de Rebus Anglicis Tomus primus, (de illustribus Anglicae Scriptoribus) ( Paris, 1619 ), 677.

subsequently translated back into Latin. This process in reverse produced the Terra prose translation of a fifteenth-century Middle English poem, ‘Take Erth of Erth’, was 20

The Mystery forms part of the corpus of Reception.

19

(24

survives

21

20

21

later re-translated into English, apparently without being connected to the earlier

Practicing what he preaches, Ripley opens his subsequent poem, the Preface, with five „ stanzas in praise of God: “ O Hygh Yncomprehensyble and gloryous Mageste. 30 Once

poem.26 While such peculiarities are perhaps unsurprising at the peripheries of the Corpus, we might expect to find relative stability at its hub: Ripley’ s famous

stanzas from manuscript copies.

Compound of Alchemy. As a brief survey reveals, a plethora of forms existed even for

acknowledged by the division of the Preface into two parts, with separate titles. The

this most canonical of treatises.

first comprises the five ‘religious’ stanzas, sometimes titled ‘A prayer unto almighty

more, the lack of practical content surely accounts for the frequent omission of these O 1

Indeed, the implicit boundary is often

God’.32 The second includes the alchemical material of stanzas 6-29.33 Of the 39

The Compound in Manuscript

copies listed in the CRC , ten divide the Preface in this way.

The fifth stanza provides a suitably modest close to the prefatory material The success of the Compound is evident in the number of surviving manuscripts: 39 complete or near complete English copies, in addition to numerous fragments and

translations.

27

before the commencement of the treatise proper. It includes the Compound' s second

direct reference to its author, reaffirming his religious profession:

At least part of the work’ s popularity seems to rely on the

Among other which be professyd to thee I me present, as one wyth humble Submyssyon, Thy Servant besechyng that I may bee, And trew in levyng acording to my professyon: In order Chanon reguler of Brydlyngton.34

distinctiveness of its premise: a twelve-gated castle of texts, each gate signifying an alchemical process to be mastered. The ‘Twelve Gates’ are supplemented by prefatory and epigraphic material, much of which is included in the printed editions. However, these elements did not always travel together, posing a problem for later compilers. In both printed editions and in approximately half of all manuscript versions, the ‘Titulus operis’ is followed by a Prologue of 13 stanzas. The Prologue is absent from the two earliest manuscripts, although it appears in other early copies. The

The Preface is one of the Compound' s key components, providing vital context for the practical information which follows in the course of the Gates. At 29 stanzas, it is also

one of the longest. The final two stanzas provide an index of sorts, introducing the

frequent omission of this component is probably due, at least in part, to its lack of practical alchemical content. Rather than providing technical advice, the Prologue

‘Twelve Gates’ by name: Calcination, Solution (or Dissolution), Separation,

exhorts the would-be adept to live religiously and well, cultivating the virtues of wisdom and prudence. For the successful alchemist, practice commences not with

Exaltation, Multiplication, and Projection .

prima materia but with humble recognition of the need for divine grace:

greatly in length, from the six stanzas of the seventh gate, ‘Cibation’, to the 51 stanzas

Conjunction, Putrefaction, Congelation, Cibation, Sublimation, Fermentation,

The ‘Twelve Gates’ comprise the bulk of the work . These chapters vary of the fifth, ‘Putrefaction’ . To the alchemical content of the fifth gate is added a long

Therefore with God looke thou begyne, That he by grace may dwell with thee, So shall thou best to Wysdom wyn; 29 And knowledge of our grete prevyte.

satirical digression on the iniquities of false alchemists (stanzas 21-46). Once more, 30

Preface, 1. TCB, 121. The sixth and seventh stanzas are also occasionally excluded . The pattern of omissions may be summarised as follows: stanzas 1 5 missing from Trinity 0.5.31 , Glasgow University MS Ferguson 102, and Southampton City Record Office SC 15 /97; stanzas 1-6 from Ashmole 1485 (3); stanzas 1 -7 from Sloane 1092 and Sloane 2174 ; stanzas 4-5 from Sloane 299 and Sloane 3580A. Such omissions probably result in most cases from transcription of an incomplete exemplar. 32 Stanzas 1 -5: ‘Prologus’ (Trinity 0.2. 16 [3]), ‘Prefacio ’ or ‘Prefatio’ (Ashmole 1486 [3] and Ashmole 1490), ‘A prayer unto almighty God ’ ( MS Ferguson 58 [ 1 ]; Harley 853; Sloane 2198). A variant arrangement occurs in Sloane 300, where the sections divide into stanzas 1 -8 (‘To the Reader’ ) and 929 (‘Prologos’ ). 33 Stanzas 6-27: ‘The Auctor beginnith ’ (Gonville and Caius Library MS 399 [2]), ‘Narracio’ (Trinity 0.2. 16 [3]), ‘Prohemium ’ (Ashmole 1486 [3], Ashmole 1490). 34 Preface, 5. TCB, 122. Jl

-

The poem was printed by Ashmole as ‘Pearce the Black Monke upon the Elixir’ , TCB , 269-274 . Ashmole also included the Terram Terrarum in his list of Ripley’ s works (459 ). The relationship between ‘Take Erth ’ and the Latin text is discussed by Timmermann , Circulation and Reception, 43; 112-113. 27 See CRC . 28 Edinburgh University MS Laing III . 164; Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh MS Anonyma 2 . 29 Prologue, 12. TCB, 120. 26

22

23 we must suspect that the lack of practical information in this section is responsible for

intriguing components: Ripley’ s

alchemical confession, in which he admits to the errors and misdemeanours of his early alchemical practice. The text catalogues the unprofitable materials upon which he laboured without success, concluding,

its complete or partial omission from almost half of all manuscript copies, including the two earliest. Support for this notion is provided by the fact that another routinely

omitted, ‘non-alchemical’ component, the Prologue, is reproduced only in manuscripts which also include the satirical section of the fifth gate.

I never saw true worke truely but one, Of whych in thys treatys the trewth I have

Other scribal

idiosyncrasies affect the ordering of the fifth gate, including the reversal of stanzas

23-24 in eleven copies, and the omission of stanza 28 from three.

37

With this warning Ripley brings the body of the Compound to a close, commending his readers to God and contemplating an afterlife which - did he but know it - would eventually encompass not only the kingdom of heaven, but also the courts and libraries of early modern Europe. While many copies end on this salutary note, the story does not end here. Ten manuscripts also append a short verse colophon, or ‘Explicit Alchimicae’, which reiterates Ripley s ’ authorship and, importantly, dates the poem:

The Gates conclude with a ‘Recapitulation of the whole work’ in 13 stanzas. This, the most consistently transcribed section of the entire work, is absent from only

one English manuscript .39 The final major element of the Compound is a poem of 15 stanzas, printed by Rabbards as ‘An Admonition, wherein the Author declareth his 40 erronious Experiments’ , but circulating under various titles in manuscript . This text,

found in both fifteenth-century Compounds , furnishes the work with one of its most

Here ends the treatise of alchemical philosophy of which George Ripley, Canon, was the author, which was composed and set in order in the year 1471. Reader, I beg, give aid to the author with prayer, that after life he may have gentle purging. Amen. 42

35

Substantial sections are omitted from the following ( missing stanzas detailed in CRC ): Gonville and Caius MS 399 (2), Trinity 0.5.31 , MS Ferguson 102, Sloane 299, Sloane 1092, Sloane 2174, Sloane 3580A (although missing material was later added to the companion volume, Sloane 3580 B), Sloane 3809, Ashmole 1445 ( 1 ), Ashmole 1486 (3), Bodleian Library MS Rawl. poet 182 , Corpus Christi College, Oxford , MS 172, University of Pennsylvania MS Codex 111 , Christies ( London, 24 November 2009), Lot 15. Stanzas 22-43 are missing from Southampton City SC 15/97, apparently due to a lost leaf. 36 The one exception to this rule is Ashmole 1486, which includes the Prologue but an incomplete fifth gate . Both the Prologue and satirical section were initially absent from Sloane 3580A , only to be added a year later to the companion volume Sloane 3580 B, following comparison with a more complete exemplar. 37 The stanza reversal occurs in Gonville and Caius Library MS 399 (2 ); Edinburgh Univ. MS Laing III.164; Edinburgh , Royal Coll . MS Anonyma 2, vol . 5 (2); Sloane 3170, Sloane 3580 B; Longleat House, MS 178; Ashmole 1445 ( 1 ), Ashmole 1485 (3), Ashmole 1490; MS Rawl . poet 182; and Univ. of Pennsylvania MS Codex 111 . The stanzas are also reversed in a Latin translation , Kassel , 4° MS chem . 67. Stanza 28 is missing from MS Ferguson 58 ( 1 ); Harley 853; and Bodleian Library MS Rawl . poet 121. 38 ‘Recapitulac /one totius Opens (Sloane 3170, f.42 v). This Latin title is also given in MS Ferguson 117, Gonville and Caius MS 399 (2), and Sloane 3809. 39 The unfinished copy in Sloane 299. The Recapitulation appears complete in all but one instance: the exception being a very rough transcription of the Compound found in Harley 367, in which several portions, although absent from the body of the text, have later been appended . It sometimes closes with Ripley ’ s name and a prayer for the good of his soul: “ Quod Georges Rypla canonicws de Brydlyngton / Cuiws amme propxcxoiur deus dicamws omnes Amen .” (Trinity 0.5.31 , f.37 r; also Ashmole 1486, f.71 r ). 40 The title “ Sequitur monicio auctoris una cum deteccione quorumdam experimentorwm invtilium que non prosunt” in Corpus Christi College MS 172 ( f.36 r ) is apparently the basis of Rabbards ’ title. This copy may also be the source of an annotation in Edinburgh Univ . MS Laing III . 164 : “ This is annexed immediately to the recapitulatc /o /7 in on boke with this title | Sequitur praemonitio autoris vna cum detectione quorumdam experimentorum | in vtilium quae non prosunt” (115). Alternative titles found in pre-1591 manuscripts include : ‘Prohibicio’ (National Library of Wales MS 734 B, MS Rawl . poet 182 ), ‘The proofe of diuers thinges’ ( Harley 853 ), ‘Experiments’ (Sloane 2598, Ashmole 1479 ), ‘A savegarde to all thos yt wyle ytt regarde’ (Sloane 3170 ), ‘Premotione’ [sic] (Longleat MS 178), ‘Sequiter pranonicio autoris’ (MS e mus 63), ‘Erronious experiments of the aucthor’ ( Ashmole 1485 [3 ]), and ‘The power of diuers thinges as foloweth ’ ( MS Rawl . poet 121 ). '

(24

told.41

The presence of this colophon in Trinity 0.5. 31 indicates that the Compound was already dated to 1471 during Ripley’s lifetime or soon after, supporting this year as the actual date of composition. Yet even the colophon does not always provide the last word . A complex circular diagram, the ‘Wheel ’, is either reproduced or referenced in fifteen manuscript copies, besides appearing in both print editions.43 We may conclude this survey of the Compound with a few observations regarding the descent of Ripley’s famous poem. First, no early copy of the Compound is ‘complete’ according to the standard set by later print editions. The Prologue and a large portion of the fifth gate are missing from both the earliest witnesses, while the 41

Admonition 12. TCB , 192. “ Explycyt Alkimice tractatws philosophic . Cuiws Rypla george canomcws quis auctor erat | . M. qwadrigentes septuaginta vnusque tenerat [sic]. Annis qui script / composite we fuit. Auctori | praebo praece qweso iuuame /7. Illi lector pwrgametf leue post vitam sit ut. Amen . ” This early version , in Trinity 0.5.31, f. 37v, differs slightly from that printed in TCB , ( 193 with ’ s verse Ashmole ). The following verse is sometimes added: “ Hic auctor per se qui scripsit rithmata per te |translation tu miserere sibi qui dedit ista tibi | diuitias dat Corporeas In spirituales | dans impende sibi que prece (Trinity 0.2.16, f. l 31v; added to visa tibi ” the original 1539 text on 2 August 1555 in a different hand). This verse appears after the ‘Explicit’ in 42

'

^

Harley 367, Harley 853, and MS Ferguson 58, and after the

Admonition in National Library of Wales MS 734 B.

43

Discussed in Chapter Three.

24

25

are routinely

and learned worke of George Ripley, should so long lye hidden in obscuritie, & passe from hand to hand a hundreth and fiftie yeares without vtter defacing; seeing that many notable works published, haue in far shorter time perished.47

considered complete but for the loss of while Trinity 0.2.16 (3 ), dated 1539, might be probably Bodleian Library MS e mus 63, the final leaf. The oldest ‘full ’ Compound is

Editorial rhetoric aside, the publication of the poem does, in fact, seem to have served the function envisaged by Rabbards. Certainly the result left its mark on subsequent

and stanzas from the Gates ‘Titulus opens’ , colophon, and various lines but-complete Edinburgh Royal College omitted from manuscript copies. Even the alldating from around 1500, lacks three lines, of Physicians MS Anonyma 2, vol. 5 (2),

transcribed around 1550.44

dating from Ripley’ s lifetime We therefore have no authoritative ‘master text’ editions are preserved. Rather, the text of in which all the elements of the later printed course of its century-long transmission, the Compound was adapted in the copies by diligent scribes. Thus necessitating its later recombination from multiple his “ very falsse corrupte copy,” one Elizabethan compiler, Thomas Potter, updated from a “ perffect true copy” obtained in made in 1579, with numerous amendments section of ‘Putrefaction’ and the 45 1580 These later additions include the satirical of which were present in his original bulk of the Prologue, only the first two stanzas : exemplar, as Potter’ s conscientious note makes clear

manuscript copies, providing the exemplar for at least two seventeenth-century

Compounds.

from the print edition to amend or ‘complete’ existing copies. In Corpus Christi MS

172 the original fifteenth-century text has been updated by its later owner, Brian Twyne, to include several elements of the 1591 edition .49 Where material is absent

from the Compound itself, Twyne draws on Rabbards to repair the omission .50 Twyne

also follows Rabbards in making another important addition to his text. This is the transcription of a poem in 30 stanzas, best known as the Epistle to Edward IV : the

element which, more than any other, seems to have contributed to Ripley’s later reputation as a royal alchemist.

in folio 124 ffor, ye copy, The resydue of this prologe ys wrytten afterwarde fallse, But I gotte afterwards a oute of which. I wrate this booke firste was very 46 very true copye, by which I amended this booke.

s in 1591 provided a benchmark for The edition of the poem printed by Ralph Rabbard on authenticity and completeness. Indeed, readers who, like Potter, placed a premium , explaining that his own manuscript Rabbards claims just such an object in his preface - reputably amended . In publishing this copy has been carefully, and - importantly life of the text, and to cauterise it, redaction, Rabbards sought both to preserve the

Royal Associations It is by now apparent that the Compound of sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century

Europe was not the Compound known today, primarily from the editions of Rabbards and Ashmole. 51 In the course of the survey, we have encountered no mention of a

dedicatee. Yet according to Rabbards, his own edition was not the first time the Compound had been dedicated to a royal patron: First written by the learned and rare philosopher of our nation George Ripley, sometime Chanon of Bridlington in Yorkeshyre: & dedicated to K. Edward the 4. Whereunto is adioyned his epistle to the King.

preventing further corruption:

, and gentle Readers) these Hauing reserued the Copie hereof (Right Honorable the most learned of our time, fortie yeares for many secrete vses, corrected by . . . I haue thought good to and feeling my self, now through age declining a few copies left, and those publish the same, the rather for that there are but mistaking of ignorant writers for the most parte corrupted by negligence, or Monument as this most rare thereof. .. Finding it strange, that so excellent a 1559 by , 3792. A note on the inner flyleaf is dated This manuscript is dated to 1525- 1550 in MWME the scribe, W. Typsell . anno 1580 I | amended all false places of ye | former 45 (ed .), “ And by this said | true copy, w /z / ch I gott on strategies are also discussed in Linden copy ,” Sloane 3580 A , f . l 40 r . Potter’ s transcripti . 193 ’ 192 , Heritage the , and Reiser, ‘Preserving George Ripley’ s Compound of Alchemy , xviii -xix 46 Sloane 3580A , f.!40 v .

44

124

In other cases, individual elements, such as the Wheel, were copied

47

Ripley, Compound of Alchymy , 9. Royal Coll of Physicians of Edinburgh MS Anonyma 2, vol . 1 ; MS Ferguson 117. These additions are noted in H.O. Coxe, Catalogus Codicum MSS. Collegii Corporis Christi ( in Catalogus Codicum MSS qui in Collegiis Aulibusque Oxoniensibus hodie adservantur , vol. 2 [Oxford , 1852]), 70. Twyne’ s use of Rabbards’ edition is also described by Linden (George Ripley ’ s Compound of Alchymy, xxii), who does not, however, distinguish between original components ( including the Titulus operis’ ) and post- 1591 additions (including the Epistle ) . 50 Thus, finding that the first three stanzas have been omitted from the ninth gate, ‘Fermentation’ , he inserts an additional sheet with the verses, noting, “ The first 3 staues supplied , out of ye printed copie” (Corpus Christi MS 172, f.30 r). Linden (ed . ), George Ripley ’ s Compound of Alchemy is based on Rabbards’ 1591 edition . 52 Ripley, Compound of Alchymy , A 1 . 44

,

26

27

royalty : Lydgate and Several fifteenth-century alchemical poems are connected with for Henry VI, and Burgh arranged the pseudo-Aristotelian Secretum secretorum Henry VII. Rabbards’ Thomas Norton’ s Ordinall was probably presented to rhyme royal (the same conclusion is therefore a reasonable one. Ripley’ s choice of material support the meter used by Lydgate) and the poem’ s voluminous prefatory high-ranking patron. Yet notion that the Compound was designed for presentation to a Ripley with short the sixteenth-century antiquarians Leland and Bale, who furnished alchemist and the king, and approximate biographies, cite no relationship between the 54 to Edward IV. The nor an y suggestion that the Compound may have been dedicated generally accepted in connection alluded to by Rabbards, followed by Ashmole, and append another poem, subsequent literature, apparently originated in the decision to dedicatory epistle in 1591 . the ‘Epistle to the King’ referred to in Rabbards’ title, as a to Edward IV, “ O However, although the opening of the Epistle must indeed refer of England, & Honorable Lord, and most victoryous Knyght, The savegard 55 the poet . As far as I maynteyner of right,” it does not follow that George Ripley was in manuscript until can determine from extant copies, the two works do not coincide connected prior to well into the sixteenth century, and were seldom explicitly

In the said Boke the Philosopher speaketh also, Therein if it please your Highnes for to reade.57 In the two surviving fifteenth-century copies, the deferential address is absent:

In the said boke the philosopher speketh also Who lyst theryn for to rede.58 The nature of the omission suggests design rather than accident, but whether by the

scribe or the author of the Epistle is not easily determined. We can only speculate whether the scribe deliberately chose to anonymise a pre-existing text, or whether ‘As the philosopher’ was subsequently ‘worked up’ into a poem suitable for presentation to the king. The task of differentiating between these possibilities is not aided by the

fact that both policies are common features of fifteenth-century alchemical poetry. A further difficulty in situating the Epistle is the fact that it accompanies no early copy of the Compound. The sixteenth-century Gonville and Caius College MS

399 is probably the earliest extant manuscript to contain both works, where an

unattributed Epistle is placed before the Compound. Yet the title of the codex still

leaves open the question of whether or not the Epistle was even conceived as part of

Rabbards’ edition.

Ripley’s poem:

d by its The greater part of the Epistle dates to Ripley’ s time, as demonstrate century alchemical inclusion in Sloane 3747 and Ashmole 759, two late fifteenth56 , lacking the compendia written in the same hand . Neither version is complete , with the incipit eulogistic preface (stanzas 1-9). They begin instead at the tenth stanza

The boke wherin ys conteined the most Secrete treasure called alchame made by Mr George Riplay . . . devided into 12 chapters with his recapitulation, & other many profitable experiments and sentenses of philosophers.59

, those stanzas explicitly “ As the philosopher in metheors doith write.” In consequence

The Epistle appears separately from the Compound in several later sixteenth-century

addressing the king are lost.

compendia, as ‘A Compend upon the Philosophers Stone sent unto King Edward the

no alchemical One explanation is that the prefatory section, which includes As we have seen, material, has simply been omitted by a practically-minded scribe. Compound. Another extraneous material was routinely cut from early copies of the the Epistle. This possibility is that the shorter poem was itself the source for full Epistle , the hypothesis is supported by a curious adaptation to the text. In the eleventh stanza once more addresses the king:

Fourth from Lovayne’ .60 Again, these copies make no reference to Ripley’ s authorship. On the other hand, the Epistle once more precedes the Compound in another Elizabethan copy, Ashmole 1445 ( l ).61 Ashmole 1585 (3) provides one of the first explicit attributions of the Epistle:

“ Ripley his booke vnto King Edwarde the iiij.” 62 Yet this copy is separated from the 57

Epistle 11. TCB, 111. Sloane 3747, f 102 r ; Ashmole 759, f. 103 r. 59 Gonville and Caius MS 399 (2), f. ir. f ’° Harley 853 and Copenhagen , Royal Library MS GKS 1748. 61 Although currently bound after the Compound, the contemporary foliation shows that the Epistle was originally placed before the longer poem . 62 Ashmole 1485 (3), f.51r. 58

: a version of the Secreta Robert Steele (ed .), Lydgate and Burgh' s Secrees of Old Philisoffers of Ordinal Alchemy. , Secretorum (London , 1894); Reidy’ s introduction to Norton the de scriptoribus Britannicus , , Commentarii 54 Bale, Summarium , f.210r; Bale, Catalogus , 622; Leland

,

53

383. Epistle 1. TCB , 109. Four . 56 Sloane 3747, ff. l 02r- 105r. These manuscripts are discussed in Chapter

55

(24

,

28 is, furthermore, incomplete, once more Compound by several intervening texts, and attributed, dated copy of the Epistle to lacking the opening nine stanzas. The first , where Palace Sion College MS Arc.L .40.2/E.6 accompany the Compound is Lambeth 1562.63 ber Novem 6 dated , hand another in added it has been that George Ripley did not write the These examples are not intended to prove ected with Edward IV. For Ripley to Epistle , nor that the Compound was unconn plausible. 1471 was, after all, the year in dedicate his poem to the king is perfectly establishing way back to the throne of England, his fought ully successf Edward which simply not a viable patron. Early Epistles may hence , and h monarc secure a as himself attaching s us of the difficulties inherent in have survived. Yet the uncertainty remind of taking modern corpus, and points to the dangers a single author’ s name to an early ds’ of the Compound , at face value. Rabbar a synthetic text, like Rabbards’ edition dedicatory preface to Elizabeth I, may be own patronage aspirations, apparent in his many Ripley’ s royal associations. Scholars face ise emphas to decision his in d detecte l which lacks a convincing early materia ruct reconst to ing attempt in s such problem when only relatively late transcriptions exemplar. These problems are exacerbated work in the Ripley Corpus: the Medulla survive. This is the case with another central

alchimiae.

make a complementary pair. The former is In many ways, the Compound and Medulla prose treatise ; yet more than any other items a Middle English poem, the latter a Latin phy, to offer a consistent alchemical philoso in the Corpus these two works appear doctrines. The two works are the only items hinting at similar and sometimes identical . by colophon, to 1471 and 1476 respectively dated ntly consiste be to Corpus the in patron: the Compound for Edward IV , ished distingu a for written ly reputed is Each chancellor, George Neville, Archbishop the Medulla for Edward’s disgraced former

or Marie of Alchemy. To establish Ripley’ s authorship it is necessary not only to

examine its textual history, but also to gain an understanding of Ripley’s alchemical philosophy as expressed in both works. The Medulla thus makes a valuable test case

for the dual methodology advocated in this thesis.

In making the case for Ripley’s authorship, I will take each strand in turn. For the remainder of this chapter I trace the peculiar textual history of this important

alchemical treatise. I will show that, despite the lack of early exemplars, the Medulla was circulating at an earlier date than that indicated by extant manuscripts.

Furthermore, the work contains several elements very characteristic of fifteenthcentury texts. These findings will pave the way for the more detailed exposition of Ripley’ s alchemy in Chapters Two and Three.

The case is worth making, for, if written by Ripley, this treatise provides one of the most important items in the Corpus. Ideas barely hinted at in the Compound

here receive more detailed and sophisticated treatment. If we accept Ripley’ s authorship, this treatment offers insights into the Canon’ s own reading and alchemical practice which cannot be extracted from the Compound alone. Manuscript copies of

the Medulla also contain information on Ripley’ s life, travels, and aspirations which

look very different. While the The textual afterlives of the two works and early sixteenth-century copies, Compound survives in a number of late fifteenth, earlier than the mid-sixteenth century . Indeed ript manusc no in found is a Medull the Lambeth Palace Sion College MS Arc. L .40.2

scholarship. To begin with, the Medulla is the only work in the Ripley Corpus framed explicitly as a bid for patronage. This end is evident in the structure of the work, which begins with a Latin prefatory poem, ‘Haec mea praeclare, presul dictamina

care’ , addressed to the Archbishop of York : Right noble lord, and prelate deare. vouchsafe of me these verses take which I present vnto you heere that mention of the stone doth make.64 The poem refers to the three stones, mineral, animal, and vegetable, which provide the

of York.

[24

the earliest extant copies exist not in Latin, but in English translation, as the Marrow

have never been published, and in consequence remain virtually unknown to

The Medulla in Manuscript

63

29

/ E.6 (1 ), f.46 v .

Medulla' s subject matter. In these verses, as in the treatise, Ripley emphasises the

64

“ Haec mea preclare, presul dictamina care / Suscipe quo puro, metra tibi dicere euro / En tibi de petra,” Trinity R. 14.58, f. lr. Unless otherwise stated, I use the English translation of William Bollisse as recorded in Trinity 0.2.33, ff.2 r-3 r.

30

31

is.” 65 Given the poor stones’ medicinal properties: “ To cure all things their vertue emphasis is surely not state of Neville’ s health in 1476, the year of his death, this

soueraigne lord king Edward, within this realme, w/zzch were of the partie of Henry, by whose gifts in times past I was refreshed, w/zzch now are lamentably dead, with many other; what can now helpe my heavines, or what can swaye my secret wepings & sighings, day & night, though I resist them : what should I intangle my selfe with, worldly vanities, & noisom observations, or with the pleasures of the world , vaine, and transitory, vanities of vanities, all is vanity, all things passe but the loue of god. I speake things rather with my heart then with my lippes, if peradventure I may finde grace in your sight, yt by you I may atteine abiding in some certain house of my religion, within yozzr dioces in the service of god, untill the end of my life, wherby I may be bownd day & night to pray continually for the encrease of yozzr health in either maner. Now I pray god yt your gratious Lordship & fatherhood may fare well, vnto whom in all things I submit my selfe, in the embracing of our redeemer Jesus Christ with the father & the holy ghost, to whome all wayes be praise in all your gyfte. Amen. '

'

accidental . Nor is Ripley shy about presenting his services: If thou vnbroken long wouldst keepe in perfect health thy vessell still then for thy chanon looke thou seeke 66 remember him that hath good will. travels and reasons A prose dedicatory preface follows, detailing Ripley’ s continental an introductory section for composing the present work. This short preface precedes structure of the which some basic alchemical precepts are laid out, and the

/

in

treating of the mineral, following chapters explained . Three chapters then follow, on the animal stone, vegetable, and animal stones in turn. The shortest of these, worded an account of the Ripley family’ s misfortunes and a movingly

concludes with

Archbishop’ s diocese. As plea for the author to be received into a monastery in the most extended piece of this unpublished text (hereafter the Epilogue) provides the : autobiographical writing in the entire Corpus, it is worth quoting in extenso

be accompted And truly I graunt my selfe no philosopher nor worthy to chanon, taken humble amongst philosophers , but a poore servant of Christ, an the gift of god , to the banquets of philosophers , not by deserving, but by my selfe in this w /zz ch banquets I haue now in this very rude stile, endevoured truly . treatise, from the most desire of my hart to communicate vnto you w/zz ch am a , ] sic [ Wherfore render vnto me yozzr gratious supportalis state of living, poore religious man, desiring with all greedines to keepe my wherby I may notwithstanding that I haue a licence to liue without the cloister, matters. so liue, yt hereafter I may no more busy my selfe with worldly shut my And seing it is best to stablish the hart with grace, yt I may , & yt I desire my selfe againe within the cloister, from the world according to shall finde me may be hid , if you thincke so good, being well assured, yt you performe, shall I always most secrett. And some of these secrets aforesaid body, for by both for thzs comodity, & also for to conserue the health of your speedily to yt meane I thincke I shalbe the better able, more perfitly & most my selfe attaine to the accomplishment of my desire, wherby I may dispose the more quickly to sticke to god both body & soule. being Moreover my camall parents being dead , & also my kinsfolk , Hedley, gentlemen of Yorkeshire & Lincolneshire, as Yeuersley, Ripley of violence by , Welley, Willoughby, Burnham, Waterton, Fleming, Tailboy it, of our the conquering sword , & the mighty hand of God so permitting '

'

'

65 66

(3), f . lr.

R. 14.58 “ Omnibws in curis, hec subueniu /?t valeturis.” Trinity memor esto tui sibi ferto Canonici / viuas tempore bene longo “ Infractum vi vas,

f. lv .

iuvamen.” Ibid .,

The modest acknowledgement of his lowly status, the reference to a “ licence to liue without the cloister,” and the passionate religious sentiment, all evoke the tone of the earlier Compound. The content also makes sense historically. The families mentioned in the text were prominent in north-east England during the fifteenth century, and certainly suffered as a result of the northern rebellions of 1469 and

1470.68 Richard,

• Trinity MS 0.2 .33, ff. l 7r-v . The Latin text reads: “ Et quidem non me fateor philosophum aut | inter philosophos computandum, sed pauperem [christi] seruulum humilem canonicum non meri|tis, sed dono dei ad philosophorum assumptum epulas quas stilo incultissimo hoc in tractatu exiguo vobis ex intimis an\ me mee votis communicare veraciter iam sategi. Mihi | igitur pauperculo religioso viuendi status temere, htf ita foris claustra co/7 uersa /7di | licentia non obstante sedulo disquisita anxmx affectanti , vas7re gratiosiose supportac / oms | asilum animat /s quo sic viuam , quo me vltra secularibws negotijs non immisceam, | quo cum optimum sit gratia stabilire cor intra claustra a seculo me iterum vt opto | claudam habeamque si dignemini secretes secretum & me semper secretissimum com|perietis. Vnde aliqwa premissorwm vos7ra pro commoditate, co/7seruanda quoque corporis | sospitate perficiam secretorum . Eo enim me posse puto affectas mei compleme/7tum per|fectiws me expedites obtinere qwo deo me disponam corpore, et omnxa quietius adherere, parentibws camalibws defu /?ctis, co /7sa/7guineorumqwe meorum generosorurn | Eboracentium & Yxncolnensium comitatus yeuersley , Ripley, Medeley, Welley , Willeby, Burnham , | Watirton, fflemmyng, Taylbus in ore gladij victrici et preualida manu deo permit|tente dominx nostrx Regis Edwardi infra regnum istud ex parte R [egis] H[enrici ] existenter quorum | olim largic / o /? ibws honesties exibebat [sic] flebiliter cum pluribws iam peremptis quid | mee mederetur m [a]estitie quid secretis fletibws inuitisqwe diumis suspirijs | et noctumis secwlaribws vanitatibws. nociuis oblectac /teibws me vemu /?di hums | solatijs tarn vanis tarn tra /7sitorijs vlteriws implicare. Vanitas vanitatum et | ornma vanitas. Omnxa pretereu /7t preter amare deum. Corde plusqwam labijs | ista loquor si forte gratiam inveniam in ocwlis vas/ris vt per vos infra aliquam | mee religiones domum vostra in dioces / existe /7tem vsqwe in fine/?? vite mee in dei ser|vitio manere mercar . quo apud altissimu /77 die noctuqwe astringar\ostraque incolumi|tate in vtroqwe homme amplianda qwe adiu /7 xer iugiter exorare vostra iam valeat dominacio \ gratiosaque patemiatas cui in omrixbus me submitto in nos/ri redemptoris amplexibws Jesu [christi] | qwi semper sit cum patre et s[ancto] s[ piritu ] in vniuersis donis suis benedictws. ” Trinity R. 14.58 (3), f.6r. 68 John H . Tillotson (ed . and trans. ), Monastery and Society in the Late Middle Ages: Selected Account Rolls from Selby Abbey, Yorkshire, 1398- 1537 ( Woodbridge, Suffolk, 1988); A . J. Pollard , NorthEastern England during the Wars of the Roses (Oxford , 1990).

67

^

32

33

Welles, led the Lincolnshire Lord Welles and Willoughby, and his son, Lord Robert field .69 rising of 1470; the latter losing to Edward IV at Losecoat indicative Such a wealth of personal detail in alchemical treatises is sometimes 70 an exercise in creative reof forgery. That the Epilogue provides no more than recorded until January enactment at first seems supported by the fact that it is not 71 Richard Walton 1561/2, in a manuscript transcribed by the London haberdasher print editions of the Medulla , The Epilogue is also absent from the 1614 and 1649 the chapter on the animal which open with the prose dedicatory preface and close with unpublished in Latin, although 72 stone. Accordingly, the prefatory verses also remain prefixt to Sir Geo: Ripley’ s they appear in translation in the TCB as ‘The Preface

[H]ere endith the tretis calid ye marie of allchimy compiled by GR in ye yere of owr lord 1476 & wryttyn by ye copye in ye yere of our lorde 1561 the 1 of februe’ by Rychard Waultowne alias Walton.77 It is also in the colophon that we first find the Medulla' s English translation credited to one David Whitehead, and dated to 1552:

,

Medulla’ .

Here endyth the treates called the Marye of Alkamye compiled by gorge Rypley the yere of our Lord 1476 And turned into Englyse by Mr Davye Whithede clarke. anno 1552.78 This translator is perhaps the ‘Mystar Whithed ’ described as an alchemist by John Stow, who may in turn correspond to the Protestant divine David Whitehead (1492 1571).79 A challenge to the Whitehead ascription is found in the ‘ Marrowe’ copied by

-

73

Epilogue is routinely Yet in spite of its exclusion from printed editions, the copies, and 21 out of 22 included in manuscript. It appears in five of the 13 Latin 74 includes both the English manuscripts, Walton’ s 1561/2 transcription, which dateable witness of the prefatory verses and the Epilogue, is in fact the earliest

Christopher Taylour, where the title and colophon attribute the English translation to 80 “ John Mayre parson of Chipsted 1552.” As the 1552 dating might lead us to suspect, the ‘Mayre’ and ‘Whitehead ’ translations are actually identical . This Mayre must be the same priest cited in similarly confusing circumstances by Thomas Potter in his 1580 compilation. Having

Medulla in any language. are revealed by A few clues to the Medulla' s rather tortuous transmission manuscripts. This is the colophon, another routine inclusion in both Latin and English by his initials: “ Explicit which ascribes the treatise to Ripley either by name or 75 Anno domim 1476.” This coOTpilatws . R . G per dictws mie / Alk Medulla tractates translation since, like colophon was clearly regarded as an integral part of the English 76 all its brevity, it nonetheless the Epilogue, it appears in all but one English copy. For pronouncements on a variety of information, providing a site not only for

preserves

concerning translators and authorship and date of composition, but also for details : . It is here, for instance, that Walton records his own contribution

scribes

initially stated that his text is “ Copyed of a booke once belonginge to Mayer , parson of Chipsted in Surrey,” Potter later deletes Mayer’ s name, replacing it with “ one 81 Spencer an Allchimyste. ” It may be that the mysterious parson had a habit of putting his name to other alchemists’ work, or that transcription has at some point become 82 confused with authorship . Certainly, the dual attribution demonstrates the fluidity of such ascriptions. The colophons so far cited are all attached to the Whitehead translation. Yet a rival English translation was also circulating by the early seventeenth century, under the title of Medulla warchadumiae . The unusual title apparently refers to the Voarchadumia contra alchimiam of Johannes Pantheus, published in 1550, although 77

Ashmole 1479, f.42v. Sloane 3667, f, 104v. Another Elizabethan ‘Marye’ provides only initials: “ translated into English D. W. an «o 1552,” Ashmole 1480 (5), f. 15v. 79 ‘Introduction : Documents Illustrative of Stow’ s Life , ’ A Survey of London, by John Stow : Reprinted from the text of 1603 (1908), XLVIII-LXVII. URL: http://www. british-history .ac. uk/report .aspx ? compid =60007&strquery=alchemy (accessed 13 May 2009). 80 Ashmole 1492 (9), 157. The colophon reads, “ translated out of | Latin into English ff ° 1552 by John Mayre Priest” (175). On Taylour, see Backlund, ‘In the Footsteps of Edward Kelley’, 295-330; Penny Bayer, ‘Lady Margaret Clifford’ s Alchemical Receipt Book and the John Dee Circle’ , Ambix 52 (2005), 271 78

307. Pollard, North-Eastern England during the Wars of the Roses, Three. Chapter , Corpus In relation to Lull, see Pereira, The Alchemical 71 Ashmole 1479, ff.35r-42v . Philosophiae Chemicae ... Omnia partim 72 Opuscula quaedam Chemica. Georgii Riplei Angli Medvlla 1614); OOC . ex veteribus Manuscriptis eruta, partim restituta (Frankfurt, 73 TCB, 389-392. 1423, which ends after the third chapter, as 74 See CRC . The exception among English copies is Sloane Sloane 2036 from the count . in the Latin print editions. I exclude the truncated copy in 75 Trinity R. 14.58 (3), f .6 r . 76 The exception is Ashmole 1487 (2).

69

70

[22

-284. Sloane 3580B, f. lr. 82 A not unusual practice in the transcription of alchemical texts. 81 “

See below , 134.

34

35

83

. be compared to the later work should lla Medu the why for no explanation is given , (vt habet John in a marginal note: “ Vourchadumia it explic made is ction conne The transmutation the arte & theorie of the in ian Venet , eus Panth Augustine

„84

Metalli[que].

into n was “ Translated out of Latine According to the colophon, this versio ].” 85 The Higgins translation r of heste Winc Vicar , s Higgin John . Englishe by Mr owned by mainly Ripleian alchemical works of tion collec a , 1842 survives in Sloane one of a group of by Sir Thomas Browne. This was uently subseq and Dee 86 r Arthu y 1658/9. Januar in ole Ashm Elias to lend manuscripts which Browne offered to the Higgins translation “ much the text , noting with interest that

Ashmole copied „87 . hath ouse Backh father my differs from yt translac /on which Medulla postdate Whitehead s 1552 the of copies extant all , seen have As we h of English translations: 23 Englis arity popul the to point als translation. These surviv d). Given this (seven of which were made abroa Latin in 13 to red compa , copies Medulla was , we may question whether the ation circul cular verna , late ely relativ er it can be stated in its colophon, and wheth as 1476 in sed compo indeed ence the . Can we regard with confid Ripley e Georg to linked convincingly ' s epilogue? The answer, I would lla Medu the in ed provid ation biographical inform explained as the biographical insights might be argue, is yes in all cases Although l history rceful forger might invent , the textua resou a that detail of kind the ely precis for Ripley’ s , taken together, argue strongly lla Medu the of ts conten ical and alchem rdinary evidence points to an extrao cript manus the , rmore Furthe . authorship original was English translation of the Latin first the which , in history translation more, into into French, German, and, once thence , and Latin into back itself translated ,

English.

Cycles of Translation The earliest dated witnesses of the Medulla alchimiae are not Latin texts, but English translations. One fact that all subsequent readers seem to agree upon, however, is that the text was originally composed in Latin. In the absence of an early exemplar, it i tacitly assumed that printed Latin editions of the text, published in Frankfurt in 1614,

and by Ripley’ s continental editor Combach in Kassel in 1649, provide the original text of the Medulla. The text printed in these editions, with the incipit “ Conatus ego

tractare de secretis Chemiae,” is also found in numerous manuscript copies both in England and mainland Europe. Of these, the earliest dated copy is a manuscript

transcribed in Venice in 1566, only a few years after the earliest of all extant

Medullae , Walton’ s English copy of 1561/2.88 Yet this is not the only Latin version of the Medulla. A radically different

translation, with the incipit “ Praecellenti dominacioni tractaturus de secretis Alkimice ” survives in five manuscripts.89 From comparison of the two texts, it is clear that the extent of the differences can only be explained if one version was itself converted back into Latin from an English translation of the other. Nor is the answer

to this conundrum the one we might expect. As I will argue, the Medulla printed in 1614 and 1649 (hereafter Type II) is in fact a translation of Whitehead’s English ‘Marrow’ . The original Latin text used as an exemplar by Whitehead ( hereafter Type

I) was never published, but survives in late sixteenth- and seventeenth-century manuscripts. Importantly, the earlier Type I text contains the autobiographical

elements absent from printed versions: both the prefatory verses, and the Epilogue in which Ripley’s recounts his family’s misfortunes. The earliest example of the Type I text I have identified is in Trinity R.14.58, completed some time after 25 February 1564/5 by one ‘W.B.’ 90 Comparison with the

Type II text, the English translations of Whitehead and Higgins, and related material in other manuscripts, reveals the priority of this version (table 1.1). This is particularly et sophia, alchimiam, ars distincta ab archimia , veneti contra adumia Voarch , 83 s Pantheu Augustini Panthei Joannes Antonius numeris et figuris opportunis Joannis cum additionibus , proportionibus, le 1507 (f. l 09v), sacerdotis (Paris, 1550). note into his transcription in Ashmo same the copied 84 le Ashmo . r , . 78 f dated Rome, 1654. Sloane 1842 le 971-972 (f.4r); the latter note Ashmo , TCB of copy ted annota his and also into 85 (ff. l 09v-120v). Sloane 1842, f.98v. le’ s transcription is in Ashmole 1507 s alchemical master, Ashmo . 5 86 , 754 le Ashmo Elias , ) . ( ed Josten Backhouse (1593-1662) was Ashmole’ 87 Note in Ashmole 971-2, f .4 r . William the Whitehead translation. who presumably owned a copy of

-

E

clear in cases where the Medulla cites from other works, as the following case

illustrates.

Firenze, BNC. Magd . XVI . 113 (ff. lr- lOv). See CRC. 90 The preceding text ends: “ W.B. Anno dow / ni .1564. Febr: 25°” (Trinity MS R . 14.58, f.iii r). 00

89

'

36

Trinity College MS R.14.58: Type I Latin

MS Ashmole 1479 (Whitehead trans. )

Opera omnia (Kassel , 1649): Type II Latin

Precellenti do/w /nac/om tractaturus de secretis Alkimice que progressu et indagatu annorum nouew in Italia

I beyng abowght to intreate to your most excelent lordshype of the secretts of alchyme wyll indever my sellfe to mak open vnto yow the thyngs the which great payne & travell by the space of 9 yeres I have attaynd vnto in Itally & in the costs thar abowght dravyn forthe as yt were the mary of natur, before experyencyd from inward & secrett bonys the grose & fecye substance of the fetysse cut a waye.

Conatus ego tractare de secretis Chemiae ad D.T. enitar reserare ea, quae multis laboribus novem annorum spatio obtinui & didici in Italia & circum vicinis regionibus, extrahendo quasi naturae medullam , antea experimentatam, ab intemis & secretis ossibus, & substantiae faecibus abscissis.

circuwvicinisqwe ipsius partibws na^ciscebar medullaw quo&ammodo nature ipsa grossiori feculentioriqwe substantia camium resecata ex ipsiws interioribws secretioribws.

Table 1.1 : Three Medulla incipits compared

adapted from pre-existing sources. A The Medulla includes a variety of recipes Kibrith,” which Ripley includes typical example is the process beginning “ Recipe feature of alchemical texts to within the chapter on the mineral stone. It is a common text , either by elaborating the borrow a popular incipit and then alter the subsequent 91 the incipit “ Recipe Kibrith original work, or substituting a new one in its place. Thus ” accompanies several different, puri partem vnam mundi maris aquae ciathos bissenos fifteenth-century compendia: Trinity but related , recipes. One version is found in two The original incipit is retained 0.8.9 and Corpus Christi College, Oxford, MS 136.92 of the Bosome Book attributed to in a variant recipe found in Harley 2411, a copy George Ripley .

‘Recipe Kibrith’ Although the Medulla provides yet another variant on the incipit in place. Indeed, the Type I theme, we might still expect to find the original (table 1.2). The Type II version accurately reproduces the fifteenth-century formula purissimi Kybric, & duodecim text is completely different: “ Accipe unam partem This divergence is easily . partes aquae marinae, & cum illis dissolve Kybric ” from the Whitehead version, where the original

explained if Type II was translated

37

incipit is rendered as “ Take one part of pure kibright of 12 oz of the water of the cleare sea, & therwith dissolue kibright. 94 ??

Trinity 0.8. 9 (recipe appended to Scala philosophoruni) Recipe Kybrith puri partem vnam, mundi maris aque ciathos bissenos, & in vase competenti decoquantur per viginti quatuor horas, tunc exprime suc[... ] cum per pannum lineum & reserua scorsum , globum vero terrestrem remanentem in panno, in kimia super atthanor.

Trinity R. 14.58 (Type I Latin Medulla )

Harley 2411 (recipe in Bosome Book )

Opera omnia ( Kassel, 1649) (Type II Latin Medulla )

Recipe Kibrith puri

Recipe Kibrith puri partem vnam , Mundi maris aquae cyathos bissenos, et dissolue, amagamando tunc constringe, et quod exit serua in phiola per se, globum vero in panno remanentem fortiter constrictum pone in

Accipe unam partem purissimi Kybric, & duodecim partes aquae marinae, & cum illis dissolve Kybric: quando, vero dissolutum est, percola aquam per pannum lineum , massam vero non solutam, quae in panno remansit, pone in Chemia . ..

partem vnam mundi

maris aquae ciathos bissenos et dissoluatur cum eis kibrith, quo dissoluto: constringatur materia per pannum lineum , globum vero in panno remanentem pone in kimia .

kimia .

Table 1.2: Manuscript variants of ‘Recipe Kybrith puri partem vnam ’ .

The Higgins translation, like the Whitehead version, is also derived from the Type I text. A ghost of the Type I incipit, “ Praecellenti dominacioni,” is present even in Higgins’ opening line: “ I going aboute for your precellent Lordshippe to intreate of „ the secretes of Alkimie. 95 The existence of several English translations suggests that the Medulla , like

the Compound , once circulated in numerous early copies. This impression is reinforced by variations between surviving Type I manuscripts. For instance, although

the Type I Medullae in Trinity R.14.58 (c.1564) and Sloane 1524 (c.1599) are textually extremely close, each contains portions of text not present in the other.96 In

spite of the lack of early exemplars, it seems likely that Type I was circulating for

some time prior to 1552, when it was translated into English by Whitehead . Both this conclusion and the dating of Whitehead’ s translation are supported

by an apparent reference to the Medulla in Bale’ s Catalogus , which includes among

94

Trinity 0.2 .33, f 12r. Sloane 1842, f.78 r (my emphasis). Ashmole, transcribing this manuscript, silently corrected precedent” to “ excellent” (Ashmole 1507, f. l 09 v). For instance, the phrase “ superaatat a vino ortum . Ad cuiws notitiam Ray /nzmdas et Amaldus” ( Trinity R.14.58 [3], f.5 r) is omitted in the Sloane manuscript, while “ et luventus pristina restauretur” (Sloane 1524, f.68r) is absent from Trinity R. 14.58. ,

is the incipit for several variants of a Latin 91 For example, “ Est lapis occultis secreta valle sepultus” works, as in Ashmole 1492 (9), 148. alchemical poem, and is occasionally borrowed for prose MS 136, ff. 53 r-v . The relationship between , 92 Trinity 0.8.9, f.34 v; Corpus Christi College, Oxford . Two Chapter in discussed is these two important manuscripts 93 OOC , 160.

^

J

38 7 . Although the bland ium Summar earlier the from absent title Ripley’s works a quandam ) , offers few clues to its description, “ A certain theorica” (Theoricam Medulla by the incipit provided by Bale the with d identifie be can tract this , contents , mi Domine, pro hoc thesauro” primum m Requira : “ k noteboo ipt manuscr in his 98 wording treasure” ) In the Medulla , similar (“ First, my lord, shall I ask for this great passage therefore marks the start of immediately follows the dedicatory preface. This I opens with the rhetorical question: “ But shall the Medulla proper, where the treatise ?” treasure, a great sum of gold or silver require at my lord’ s hands for this great at this point, omitting the preface Indeed, several manuscript copies begin Q

99

altogether.

actually differs from the precise However, the Latin incipit given by Bale 100 , This seems to indicate that the item wording in either of the Latin translations English one, and that Bale translated catalogued by Bale was not a Latin copy, but an catalogue (as he had already done for Latin the in n inclusio for himself incipit the may infer ). Given the dates concerned, we other English items, notably the Compound and the Whitehead translation, made in 1552 that Bale described an early copy of the Summarium , printed in 1548. hence unavailable when he was preparing Latin prefatory verses, as may be Whitehead seems not to have translated the Walton, perhaps working from more than seen from Richard Walton’ s transcription. 101 with the Type I Latin verses An English text ad Whitehe the prefaces , r exempla one l attribution, “ here af[t]er folowyth thes verse translation then follows, with a margina „102 This may be the same bolisse. am wylh by myttor in put & e ynglyssh versys in Medulla (minus the verses) is preserved in William Bolles whose personal copy of the 103 same as that printed by Ashmole, although MS Ferguson 102 . The translation is the without crediting Bolisse, in the TCB . ,

'

39 As might be expected, such a profusion of translations created difficulties for

their readers and compilers, and sometimes resulted in hybrids. The seventeenthcentury scribe of MS Ferguson 92 may have used up to three exemplars in producing his copy: a full Type II Latin Medulla , preceded by the Type I prefatory verses and

followed by an English translation of the Epilogue.104 At other times, multiple exemplars were compared to provide the most reliable translation possible. The late sixteenth-century Trinity 0.2.33, for instance, includes numerous corrections to the original Whitehead translation following comparison with a Type I exemplar. To take just one example, where Whitehead renders “ auri purissimi non maiorem sed minorem

libraw vnaw ” 105 as “ not one great pound, but one lesser pound of fine gold,” the scribe of Trinity 0.2.33 correctly amends the text to “ most fine gold „106 Such ,

accuracy is lacking from the Type II version, which follows Whitehead ’ s phrasing. 107 Through study of these notes and fragments, it is possible to piece together the convoluted and hitherto unknown history of the Medulla alchimiae . Since both the

Type I text and its two English translations preserve the Epilogue, we can state with confidence that this intriguing autobiographical passage is an authentic part of the text. The verses, too, are original, although translated separately, and consequently

transmitted through different channels, reaching only four out of 23 English manuscript copies. The absence of the verses from the Whitehead translation

doubtless explains their omission from the Type II Latin version, whereas the absence of the Epilogue from Type II may result either from an abbreviated exemplar, such as

Sloane 1423, or an editorial decision to omit non-alchemical content As a result, print ,

editions of the Medulla, based on Type II, have been ‘topped and tailed’; lacking the tidbits of information on Ripley that might have lent much needed substance to the myths which propagated in their stead. This material is also omitted from a third

English version of the Medulla , apparently translated from Type II by William Bale, Summarium, f.210 v. Writers , ed. John Bale’ s Index of British and Other 98 John Bale, Index Britanniae Scriptorum: incipit was ed abbreviat . An , repr. Cambridge, 1990), 84 Reginald Lane Poole and Mary Bateson (1902 preface printed in the Catalogus , 622. .78 r; and Sloane 3667 at f.94r (with verses and 99 continuing Ashmole 1480 (5) at f.9r; Sloane 1787 at f before preface ed abbreviat an 1487 includes added later from another source). Ashmole . ) r 72 l . ( f text the /w with the main body of meo pro hoc magno thesauro magnam auri suma 100 The Type I text reads “ Sed numquid a domino Domini manibus de , f. lv ). Type II reads “ Sed postulabone expectam aut argenti?” (Trinity R.14.58 [3 ] thesauro detegendo . ..?” (OOC , 126). mei magnam auri & argenti quawtitatem pro hoc 101 Ashmole 1479, ff.31r-32r. 102 Ibid., f.32r. R . 14.58 was 102, f.3v. The Type 1 Medulla in Trinity 103 “ William Bolles. possessor,” MS Ferguson during this period , given the preponderance of ‘W. B.s’ also transcribed by a ‘W . B.’ However ,

97

&

Salmon (1644-1713) for inclusion in his Medicina Practica.108

including the alchemist William Blomfild, and William Burghe, who transcribed the Medulla in Sloane 3721, it seems unwise to refine too much upon this fact. 104 Glasgow University MS Ferguson 91 . The English text is preceded by the note, “ Sequentia haec Anglicanus textus ultima habebat,” f.52 r. 105 Trinity R.14.58 (3), f.2v. 106 Trinity 0.2.33, f.6r. 107 u ; ‘[ N ]on magnum auri pondus, sed minimam portiunculam .” OOC, 134. 108 The Marrow of Alchymie\ in William Salmon , Medicina Practica, or, Practical Physic: shewing the method of curing the most usual diseases (London , 1692), 644-87.

40 the Ripley Corpus, is still The story of the Medulla , like that of many items in editions of Ripley’ s works record not wholly told . Manuscript copies show that print editions rest upon a complex only late incarnations of the text, and that such us both to identify the translation history. Bibliographical analysis has enabled to the early sixteenth century . It original text of the Medulla , and to push its date back authorship. In the next chapters, we has not answered with certainty the question of to isolate elements of Ripley s will pursue a different line of enquiry, by attempting , the processes he adopted, and own alchemical philosophy: the authorities he followed . Once isolated, the distinctive the secrets he elected to reveal in written form to identify practical components of Ripley’ s alchemy may be used

theoretical and

determine the extent to relationships between different items in the Corpus, and to which a given text is truly ‘canonical’ .

41

CHAPTER TWO

Ripley and Raymond: Reconciling the Authorities In translating the encomium of Ripley ’ s Latin editor, Ludwig Combach, the antiquarian Elias Ashmole stressed George Ripley’ s fame as an expounder of the

alchemical texts attributed to the Majorcan philosopher and mystic, Raymond Lull (1232-1316): “ Besides, he hath great Affinity with the Writings of Lully , insomuch

that the one explaineth the other.” 1 Although the historical Lull denied the possibility

of alchemy, over 120 alchemical texts are pseudonymously ascribed to him, all

composed after his death. These date from between the early fourteenth century and the seventeenth, and espouse a variety of alchemical doctrines. As we will see,

Ripley’ s reputation as an alchemist rests in large part on his clear and practical

exposition of pseudo-Lull, or ‘Raymond’ , to adopt the name used by English

alchemists in the fifteenth century and beyond .

In the previous chapter, we considered the circulation of two important Ripleian works, the Compound and the Medulla. Although the latter contains intriguing details of Ripley’ s life, our acceptance of this history is troubled by the lack

of surviving fifteenth-century witnesses. The large number of pseudoepigraphic Lullian texts, several of which mimic the style of the authentic Lull and supply plausible biographical details, reminds us that more than a name is required for a convincing attribution. We must also feel confident that the contents of the work do not rule out common authorship.

This chapter addresses this issue by exploring the complexity of the

relationship between Ripley and the pseudo-Lullian corpus. Both the Compound and the Medulla name ‘Raymond’ as an authority with reference to a range of Lullian works. This use goes beyond mere citation, demonstrating serious and sustained

attempts to reconcile the intricacies of pseudo-Lullian alchemy. Studying these attempts enables us not only to confirm the Medulla’’ s place within the Ripley Corpus,

but also to identify elements of Ripley’ s alchemical thinking . The earliest text in the pseudo-Lullian corpus, the Testamentum , was composed around 1332 in Latin, although apparently translated into Catalan soon TCB , 458: translation from Combach ’ s Preface to OOC: “ Est autem Riplaeus autor procul dubio dignus, qui ab amatoribus Chemiae sedulo evolvatur . .. Habet insuper cum Luliij scriptis magnam affmitatem, ut unus alterum explicet” (ff .6 v-7r).

i$

42

or 2 the corpus are presented as commentaries in items ent subsequ Many . after the early works, which accumulated from other and entum Testam the on elucidations ible to to the seventeenth. While it is imposs second half of the fourteenth century of Lullian corpus Ripley knew, the influence know exactly what proportion of the refers to his work, and the Medulla helpfully pseudo-Lullian doctrines is evident in o, are the Libro mercurio and Alphabeto practic five treatises by name. Two of these, another, the Quaestiones , forms part of while , entum Testam the the of ions subsect naturae seu de quinta essentia. Ripley another influential work, the Liber de secretis , an alternative title for the Compendium also cites the Libro transmutatoriae animae makes extensive use of Raymond’ s famous animae transmutationis metallorum , and Ripley a accurtationis } In the Compound Letter to King Robert of Sicily, the Epistol can rium , a short practical All these texts refers to Raymond’ s ‘Reportory’ , or Reperto from works, in English manuscripts dating Lullian of dia compen in often , found be 6

the mid-fifteenth century and earlier. -Lullian alchemy has long been While Ripley’s connection with pseudo es remains little understood . In acknowledged , his exposition of these obscure doctrin the of this difficult body of writings, and part this is explained by the demands The foundational texts as the Testamentum . extreme theoretical complexity of such , ical principles are extremely diffuse and alchem Lullian that means corpus the of size Pereira & Barbara its linguistic peculiarities, see Michela and 2 tum Testamen the of origins the e catalano For a Raimondo Lullo: Edizione del testo latino Spaggiari, 11 Testamentum alchemico attribuito , 255 (Florence, 1999), ix-liv; Pereira, ‘Alchemy and College , at 354-355. dal manoscritto Oxford, Corpus Christi Middle Ages’ , Speculum 74 (1999), 336-356 s Compound late the in the use of vernacular languages Ripley ’ the Liber secreti secretorum ( George 3 Stanton Linden equates the Alphabeto with of surviving manuscripts of this text, as catalogued by of Alchymy, xxxvii). Flowever, the distribution English copies, and Ripley’s reference seems closer no Pereira ( The Alchemical Corpus , 80), includes which the Liber secreti was sometimes confused . with , in spirit to the practica of the Testamentum guide to Ripley’s of the Medulla does not provide a reliable 4 n translatio English s ’ Salmon William nes ), while references (the Libro mercurio and Quaestio these of two omits Salmon . Codicilla, the sources Lullian works, including the Clovis and , interpolating the names of various other pseudo(Salmon Medicina I Medulla or subsequent translations which are not mentioned in the Type Practica ). 5 Yale University ‘Calcination ’ 9. TCB , 131. fifteenth-century English provenance include ; and Corpus 6 Major collections of pseudo-Lulliana of 395 MS , e Cambridg Corpus Christi College, Library , MS Beinecke- Mellon MS 12 ; in 1455 by John edition of the latter, a compilation made an For . 244 MS , Oxford , College Christi Kirkeby, see Testamentum . , The Alchemical Lullian inclinations are mentioned by Pereira 7 In recent scholarship, Ripley’s pseudowithout detailed , Ripley’ s Compound of Alchymy , 116-171 voyage in the Corpus, 23; and Linden (ed .), George sea a that Ripley employs the metaphor of ( Urszula explication . Although it has been suggested motion and y Lullian notions of circularit Compound and Wheel, drawing on pseudo- George Ripley’ s Maps and Routes as developed by of Szulakowska, ‘The Pseudo-Lullian Origins) the poem gives no support for this reading. The sources , 126 Michael Maier’ , Cosmos 9 [ 1993 ], 107- Three. of Ripley ’ s Wheel are discussed in Chapter

43

often, contradictory. A few essential characteristics can be separated out from the general massa confusa , enabling us to discern two broad currents within the corpus. On the one hand are those texts which seek to accommodate existing alchemical ideas (notably those of Roger Bacon and pseudo-Geber) within a traditional Aristotelian

natural philosophical framework, often with eschatological overtones.8 On the other,

texts influenced by De secretis naturae elaborate the theories of the Franciscan friar John of Rupescissa (C.1310-C.1364), based on the extraction of pure, incorruptible

‘quintessences’ through repeated distillation.9 The legacy of the first current, most marked in the earliest work of the corpus, the Testamentum , is an alchemical cosmology in which the practitioner’s ultimate goal is the liberation of the quintessence (here employed in a purely Aristotelian sense

as the element of the superlunary regions) from the corrupted matter of a postlapsarian earth. The alchemy of the Testamentum is primarily metallurgical, although

the elixir also provides a medicinal panacea. 10 References to an unidentified liquid, the ‘juice of lunaria’, hint at an organic component, but the main emphasis is upon the use of mineral ingredients for chrysopoetic ends. 11 All this contrasts with the alchemy of De secretis , which foregrounds the

extraction of ‘quintessences’ (now in the Rupescissan sense of distilled products)

from both metallic and organic ingredients, particularly wine. In this branch of the corpus, acceptable ingredients include a host of animal and vegetable products, from

blood and urine to medicinal herbs. The products of this strand lend themselves particularly well to medical applications, and De secretis privileges the ‘great work ’ ( opus maius ) , based on Rupescissa’ s methods, over a traditional, chrysopoetic ‘lesser

work’ (opus minus ) }2 The connection with Bacon is discussed by Michela Pereira, L’ oro deifilosofi: saggio sulle idee di un alchimista del Trecento (Spoleto, 1992 ), particularly 48-83. While the alchemy of the Testamentum often departs radically from that of the earlier Summa Perfectionis of pseudo-Geber, there are nonetheless many correspondences; see Newman (ed .), The Summa Perfectionis of Pseudo-Geber, 199204. 9 For detailed studies of John of Rupescissa (Jean de Roquetaillade ) and his use of quintessences, see: F. Sherwood Taylor, ‘The Idea of the Quintessence’ , in Edgar A . Underwood (ed .), Science, Medicine and History, vol . 2 (Oxford, 1953), 247-265; Robert P. Multhauf, ‘John of Rupescissa and the Origin of Medical Chemistry ’ , Isis 45 ( 1954), 359-367 ; Robert Halleux, ‘Les ouvrages alchimiques de Jean de Rupescissa’ , Histoire litteraire de la France 41 (1981), 241 -277; Leah DeVun , Prophecy, Alchemy, and the End of Time (New York, 2009). 10 Michela Pereira, ‘Medicina in the Alchemical Writings Attributed to Raymond Lull ( 14th - 17th Centuries)’, in Piyo Rattansi and Antonio Clericuzio (eds. ), Alchemy and Chemistry in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Dordrecht, 1994), 1 -15. 11 On the difficulty of identifying ‘lunaria’ , see Pereira, L ’ oro dei filosofi , 104. 12 Discussed in Pereira, The Alchemical Corpus , 11 - 15.

44

45

The difficulties for alchemists like Ripley are readily apparent. If both strands falls to are regarded as stemming from the pen of a single author , ‘Raymond’ , then it to Lull’ s commentators to distentangle the seemingly contradictory doctrines in order

medicine for both metals and man. Each new extreme, once obtained, in turn becomes the mean through which the next stage in the work is achieved , a stage which is itself

superseded, until the elixir is obtained:

the achieve success in the work. This approach assumes the underlying unity of corpus. The reconciliation of such divergent theoretical and practical approaches

Wherefore the extreme of our stone in its first creation is argent vive, which in the first place is extracted from the body, and in the second is the complete elixir. And our stone is the mean between those two when it is created of the substance called argent vive, from which, without any other mean, it presently becomes the complete elixir, which is the last extreme of our stone, and the completion of our mastery. 13

would seem to require an almost Solomonic acumen. At the least, the task demands interpreting both wide knowledge of alchemical literature, and flexibility in

problematic passages. Ripley’ s success as an alchemical commentator stems from his ability to meet of these demands. In particular, his synthesis relies upon the ingenious interpretation and such fluid concepts as ‘mercury’ , ‘fire’ , and ‘water’ , providing a theoretical basis for manufacturing a wide range of alchemical products. While these

practical

concepts are described in the Preface to the Compound , they receive more elaborate exposition in the Medulla. By studying how Ripley read and interpreted his source

establish texts, it becomes possible for us to go beyond the manuscript record, and to the Medulla as a central text in the Ripley Corpus.

One Matter in the One central tenet of pseudo-Lullian alchemy is found in the earliest work corpus, the Testamentum . This text describes the necessity of achieving a median state as between two extremes in order to obtain perfection, a process envisaged in material third well as abstract terms. The passage between extremes takes place through a pseudoterm, the mean, a notion underlying the significance of the number three in 13 Lullian alchemy. In the Testamentum , the concept is applied to the consecutive

the stages for making the philosophers’ stone. Thus ‘argent vive’ (mercury) provides mean between the starting matter of the work and the philosophers’ stone, distinct 14 merely from each, yet partaking somewhat of the nature of both. The stone is itself

another mean between argent vive and the ultimate goal of the elixir, a perfect and Codicillus , For the use of media in the pseudo-Lullian corpus, particularly in the Testamentum iii.I, 200 b29, Physics s ’ Aristotle in originates doctrine The see Pereira, L’ oro deifllosofi, 166-173. 201 a9. argentum vivum’ 14 In order to avoid the pitfalls of the term ‘mercury’ , where a Latin source uses ‘ by rendering writers rather than ‘mercurius’ for quicksilver, I follow Ripley and other Middle English it ‘argent vive’ . 13

1

This conception of a ladder of consecutive means maps conveniently onto the

practical operation of cohobation: repeated circulations within a sealed flask. The material is subjected to a continual cycle of sublimation and dissolution under heat, resulting in an ever more purified substance. With each circulation, the previously

attained state becomes the starting point for a new cycle of purification ; each extreme providing in turn the mean for an improved product. As discussed below, when

George Ripley directed his readers to “ turne about thy Whele,” transforming their matter from air into earth and back again, he distilled the complex theoretical and practical system of pseudo-Lullian alchemy into a simple and picturesque metaphor. 16 The succession of media lies at the conceptual heart of Lullian alchemy,

positing a dynamic and reversible scale of transmutations within a broadly

Aristotelian framework, and even, in the case of the Testamentum , underpinning an entire theory of metallic generation . For the ‘Magister Testamenti ’ , author of the

earliest (and most theoretically abstruse) work in the corpus, the elixir represents the apex of a hierarchy of means stretching back to the most basic constituents of

matter.17

In the fourth chapter of the Testamentum , the generation of metals

receives

detailed treatment . 18 The first extreme is the material substratum of the four 1

“ Quapropter extrema nostri lapidis in sua prima creacione est argentum vivum , quod est extractum a corpore in primo latere; et in secundo est elixir completum . Et medium istorum duorum est lapis noster, quando de substancia dicti argenti vivi creatur, de quo statim sine alio medio fit elixir completum , quod est ultimum extremum nostri lapidis et complementum nostri magisterii .” Testamentum , 1.60. 196. 16 ‘Cibation ’ 5. TCB , 170. See Chapter Three. The ‘Magister Testamenti ’ is the name suggested by Pereira for the anonymous author of a group of early works in the pseudo- Lullian corpus, notably the Testamentum. Unlike later tracts, such as De secretis , these do not claim to be authentic Lullian works ( Pereira, The Alchemical Corpus , 6-8). Pseudo-Lullian metallogenesis is also discussed by Pereira, ‘Prima Materia. Echi aristotelici e avicenniani nel Testamentum pseudolulliano’ , in C. Viano (ed . ), Aristoteles Chemicus. I I I V Libro dei Meteorologica nella tradizione antica e medievale (Sankt Augustin, 2002), 145-164.

47

Aristotelian elements; the last is the metals themselves. Between these extremes lie

alchemy accommodates the alchemical precept that the stone is generated of ‘one thing’ only, or, in this case, the same thing at different stages. The metals, and, consequently, the philosophers’ stone, effectively give birth to themselves. In this principle we recognise such popular alchemical motifs as the son united with his mother, the mercury congealed by its own odour, and the endless assurances that only one ingredient is necessary for the work .

five means, making seven stages in total . The early stages evoke the well known

‘sulphur-mercury’ theory of metals, according to which two primordial vapours - a dry, earthy ‘sulphur’ and cool, moist ‘mercury’ - combine in varying proportions to create different metals. The Magister, however, breaks this process down into discrete steps. His second stage, one up from the elements themselves, is that of the two

primordial vapores.' 9 From the moist, mercurial vapour is derived a further mean,

Essentially for the alchemist, however, what goes up may also

come down : the entire complex process also operates in reverse. The destruction of metals entails backtracking through the stages described above, a process which enables nature to continue working on metals which would otherwise be considered ‘finished’ . The Magister ends his account of metallic generation by noting that, although completed by nature (and hence without a mean), the metals may also be undone by natural processes, in order that nature may begin her work again. The Testamentum employs a useful analogue in the biological function of ingestion:

aqua clara , a fluid substance which is, the Magister advises, “ the most near matter of „20 The liquid, airy quality of this aqua causes it to flow with the argent vive. movement of the wind into sunken places, where it mingles with the dry, sulphurous

vapour of the preceding stage. This results in the fourth step: a series of glassy, vitreous compounds, ‘calcadis’ and ‘azoch vitreum’ , perhaps corresponding to the alums and vitriols. Although not yet metalline, these might be considered proto„ metals, “ drawing more closely to the nature of metal. 21 From these are generated a new series of vapores, “ the first, nearest matter to the generation of all metals, „22 impregnated by natural vivificative heat in the form and kind of aqua vive . In these

Seventhly, metals are generated by vapours of the said sulphurs and of argent vives by successive decoction, which are true extremes without mean, with a perfect closure in the work of nature. But by corruption , when they are [taken from] their mines, Nature intends to go back by circular motions, undoing and generating them a second time, and with another turn, such that they are terminated into a new generation by digestion in their mines... and there by its motion they are dispersed until they are terminated into a better kind, just as the generation of flesh happens in the body of an animal by digestion of eating and drinking .23

‘quick waters’ we can probably detect the mineral acids, obtainable from vitriol .

These in turn produce dry sulphurs, the sixth stage of the work, which generate new

vapores capable of coagulating other ‘argent vives’ . The various metals are then produced from the commixtion of the vapores of the sixth-stage sulphurs with appropriate argent vives, through successive decoctions in the bowels of the earth. It will be noted that at several points one mean is required to provide the reagent for another. At times the process seems more like snakes than ladders, its

products feeding back on themselves like the alchemical ouroboros , subsuming the products of earlier stages in order to generate the next. In this sense, pseudo-Lullian 19

“ Et cum superius diximus quod sua principia sunt universaliter omnia extrema et omnia media illorum, dicimus quod primum et principale extremum omnium sunt quattuor elementa, que declaravimus forma elementa . . . Secundo sunt vapores, qui sunt compositi ab illis elementis dictis immediate, et sunt de prima composicione nature. . . in quos vapores omnia corpora elementata resolvuntur ad intrandum novam generacionem.” Testamentum , 1.4. 19 20. 20 “ Tercio est aqua clara composita ex dictis vaporibus quattuor elementorum , cum condensacione sue nature, que venit in dictis vaporibus quattuor elementorum ; et ista est magis proxima materia argenti vivi, quod invenitur super terram currens. .. Et quod humidum est forte ponderosum cum aeritate omogenea discurrit per motum venti per loca venosa perforata decliva subterranea et cadit in minera sulphureis causatis ex vapore calido et sicco.” Testamentum , 1.4.20. 21 “ Et quarto est una substancia, que est infra mineram suam magis approximando ad naturam metalli, et clamatur ‘calcadis’ et ‘azoch vitreum’ , que est terra et mater metallorum.” Testamentum , 1.4.20. 22 “ Quinta extrema vel media sunt vapores immediate generati cum resolucione per rarificacionem a dicto vitreo, et ista est prima et proxima materia generacioni omnium metallorum impregnatorum a calore naturale et vivificativo in forma et specie aque vive.” Testamentum , 1.4.20.

Such a process assumes a natural evolution of metals, whereby the less perfectly digested bodies are gradually improved by the circular digestions of nature. While the process described is natural, the possibility of such material retractions also encourages the alchemist to ape nature’s processes: to reduce a metal to an earlier extreme, then rebuild it in a purer and more valuable form. The reversibility of these

-

23

“ Septimo generata per vapores dictorum sulphurum et argentorum vivorum per successivam sunt vera extrema sine mediocritate cum perfecta clausura in opere nature, sed per corrupcionem , quando sunt extra suas mineras, intendit natura ad redeundum per motus circulares, ilia corrumpendo et iterum generando; et ista altera vice terminantur in novam generacionem per digestionem in suis mineris... et illic per suum motum digeruntur, donee terminentur in speciem meliorem , sicut generacio camis fit in corpore animalis per digestionem comedendi et bibendi.” Testamentum, 1.4.22.

decoccionem sunt metalla, que

48 advises “ Thys done, go backward, circular motions was also important to Ripley, who „24 turnyng thy Wheele againe. alchemical cosmology This process also has theological connotations. In the the first extreme of metals are of the Testamentum , the four elements which provide from which God created formed from a divine fifth essence: the primordial substance All matter originally shared in the the heavens, the angels, and terrestrial matter. when Creation was corrupted by purity of its parent substance, “ until the time of sin” 26 her unsullied building blocks, lost the Fall of Man. Post-lapsarian nature, stripped of of her gross and corrupt matter, the ability to generate true perfection: “ For, by reason „21 at the beginning. did she as perfect as thing a make cannot Nature remedied in the While this situation will be ultimately and catastrophically human and divine intervention refining fires of Judgement Day, in the meantime both helping nature regain her lost are necessary to achieve material perfection. By very serious enterprise: the perfection, the alchemist therefore contributes to a his alchemy in terms of absolution of matter. While it is clear that Ripley regards present in his work. As material processes, this additional spiritual dimension remains evoked in the Compound , will be seen in the next chapter, this theme is strongly to the soul’ s journey through the where the perfection of matter is continually related fires of purgatory, and into a long-awaited paradise

:

49

the correct starting point is vital to success: one cannot ascend the ladder unless the first step is sturdily in place. Consequently, the identity of the elusive first matter is, in many alchemical texts, both the most closely guarded secret and the most intently

sought. The plaintive enquiry “ Quid est prima materia?” features largely in lists of

alchemical quaestiones. The answer is usually given as mercury or argent vive, yet,

as seen in Lullian metallogenesis, such terms remains highly ambiguous : their sense

ranging from common quicksilver to any one of the host of liquid states encountered during the production of metals.

In the Testamentum, where argent vive is named as the first extreme of the

philosophers’ stone, it is clearly essential to interpret this term correctly. It is equally clear that something other than common quicksilver is intended. The author

thoughtfully devotes his sixtieth chapter to the conundrum, explaining that the

manufacture of argent vive requires three principal roots - two extremes and a mean:

Now, we declare the extremes of our argent vive... on the first side it is the water of the green lion, conjoined with metal . And on the second, it is the stone, which is created. And their mean is sol and luna, from which comes our argent vive, which is a body liquified, melted and putrefied, from which the stone is made once it is purged of its original taint. O f\

The ‘argent vive’ in question is therefore not common mercury, but a liquid substance extracted from gold and silver which, following rigorous purification, produces the

For lyke as Sowles after paynys transytory Be brought into paradyce where ever ys yoyfull lyfe; So shall our Stone after hys darknes in Purgatory 28 Be purged and joynyd in Elements wythoute stryfe .

stone. Furthermore, its extraction is accomplished using the mysterious ‘water of the green lion’ . On the identity of this material, Raymond offers further clues:

Son, the green lion azoqueus , which is called ‘vitriol ’ , is made by nature of the substance of common argent vive, which is the root of nature, from which metal is created in its proper mine .

the Lullian system still poses For all its philosophical and theological ingenuity, any other serial procedure, having serious difficulties for the practical alchemist. As in ‘Calcination ’ 18. TCB , 133. this passage, see Newman, Gehennical Fire, 25 Testamentum, 1.4.12-14. For a ‘corpuscular’ reading of

24

98-103. clara racione clare partis nature ex qua erant 26 « Ista quattuor elementa sic creata remanserunt pura et et adhuc est ad tempus indulgencie post peccatum . creata usque ad tempus peccati, quod exivit a natura nascentia terre desiccata cum destruccione Sed postquam mortui sunt homines et animalia et generacione in corrupcionem , sic quod de generacionis, veniendo de corrupcione in generacionem et de et corrumpit elementa, per quam contagiat corporibus impuris resolutis mutantur elementa in id , quod . . 14 , 1.3 m corrupcionem omnis res viva est parve duracionis.” Testamentu grosse et corrupte, sicut materie sue racione , 27 “ [Q] uoniam natura non potest facere rem tarn perfectam operando imperfeccionis participat cum magna fecerat in suo [sic?] principio. Sed natura in , quam quotidie ipsa invenit .” Testamentum, corrupcione propter materiam elementorum minus purorum 1.3. 14. 28 ‘Putrefaction ’ 14. TCB, 151 .

O

1

This passage recalls the glassy compounds, ‘calcadis’ and ‘azoch vitreum’ , produced at the fourth stage of the creation of metals, which themselves provided the mean for

producing ‘quick waters’ at the fifth stage. This process is highly suggestive of the 29

*

It comes first, for •instance, •in the Notabilia Guidonis, Sloane 3744 (f.27r). 30 “ Postquam diximus extrema nostri lapidis . . . ad primum latus est aqua leonis viridis cum metallo coniuncta . Et in secundo est lapis, qui creatus est . Et medium illorum est sol et luna, unde exit nostrum argentum vivum, quod est corpus liquefactum , fusum et putrefactum , de quo creatur lapis, quando purgatum est a sua macula originali .” Testamentum, 1.60. 196-8. 31 “ Fili, leo viridis azoqueus, qui dicitur ‘vitriolum ’ , per naturam fit de substancia argenti vivi communis, quod est radix nature, unde creatur metallum in sua propria minera.” Testamentum, 1.60. 198.

50

vitriol. According to the manufacture of mineral acids through dry distillation of it are therefore discrete Magister’ s account, both vitriol and the acid derived from a vitriolic ‘green lion azoqueus’ stages in the evolution of metals. The description of Testamentum’’ s the with consistent entirely thus is vive argent derived from primary ingredients metallogenesis. Such a reading also identifies vitriol as one of the , where key ingredients are of the philosophers’ stone, as confirmed in the practica , while D is “ vitriol assigned letters of the alphabet. Thus C represents saltpetre „33 Later, when one part of D is ground and azoqueus, which corrupts and disorders menstruum ’ (menstrualis distilled with half a part of C, the two produce a ‘stinking „34 first matter. its into reduced quickly is body every which by ) , “ putentis , or foetens re of aqua fords : nitric This combination provides a coherent recipe for the manufactu

51

Yet the danger of assuming such straightforward correspondences when interpreting

alchemical texts becomes apparent when we turn to Ripley’ s treatment of vitriol, and its relationship to the ‘Green Lion’. This elusive ingredient features large in Ripley’ s alchemy, although he explicitly rejects the common association of the lion with

vitriol, and takes pains to distinguish his Green Lion from the familiar sulphate. In the Compound, vitriol is one of the many substances he warns his readers away from:

, Also I wrought in Sulphur and in Vitriall oo Whych folys doe call the Grene Lyon.

,

The Medulla is equally emphatic : those who identify the spirit or blood of the Green „ Lion with vitriol are deceived , for vitriol is merely the “ Green Lion of fools 39 As ,

discussed below, a mineral acid made from vitriol is still central to the Medulla ,

acid .

are ubiquitous in As identified by Multhauf, mineral acids made using vitriol .35 Vitriol also provides many pseudo-Arnaldian and pseudo-Lullian alchemical tracts in Latin and Middle a staple ingredient of fifteenth-century recipe collections of metals, owing 36 English . The mineral acids were key instruments in the dissolution fire alone. The Magister their ability to effect physical changes unattainable using to

where it is identified with another substance alluded to in the Testamentum , the ‘fire against nature’ (ignis contra naturam). For Ripley the true Green Lion is also a kind

of fire: the ‘fire of nature’ ( ignis naturae ). These two contrary substances are the basis of Ripley’ s discussion of the ‘four fires’ , a concept essential to understanding his own

alchemical philosophy.

emphasises this point: fires our gold and Son, this water is called fiery water, because it burns and natural heat, silver better then elemental fire can do, for it contains in itself common fire which somehow rends, breaks and dissolves without force, which 37 cannot do.

Four Fires The difficulty of regulating temperature before the advent of thermometers is apparent

from descriptions of the various grades of heat encountered in alchemical texts.40 The

doctrine of the four fires is an entirely different matter. These four fires - elemental, can be manufactured , which in turn The vitriols are crystalline sulphates, from which sulphuric acid acid with common salt or sal produces nitric acid when prepared with saltpetre, or hydrochloric acids based on the contents of the ammoniac. Multhauf also posits the Testamentum’ s use of mineral and Natural Philosophy, ca.1250Theorica: Robert P. Multhauf, The Relationship between Technology . diss., University of California, (Ph.D 1650, as Illustrated by the Technology of the Mineral Acids 1953), 64-67 . , quod corrumpit et confundit omne id, 33 “ C significat salem petre... D significat vitreolum azoqueum . quod non est de argento vivo communi .” Testamentum , II.2.310 precepto. . . per quam omnia corpora in tuo in 34 “ Quia nunc potes dicere quod menstruale fetens habes . suam primam materiam reducentur breviter.” Testamentum , II.7.318 , 62-76. Philosophy Natural 35 and Technology Multhauf, The Relationship between a variety of pseudo-Lullian among found is recipe 36 , this ’ lion ‘ To give just one example of a vitriolic the Name off god Amen . Take A greet texts in the fifteenth-century collection, Sloane 1091: “ In it by A | limbyk & fan put ferin a greet qwantite off | the strongyst vineegre ft may be godon & distill mak stronge fyer & fou shaft resa|ve fe qwantite off vitriall hard and | roche to to dissolue .. . Than blood off A lyon mervelus redd” (f. l 02r). , magis quam ignis elementalis potest facere, 37 “ Fili, ista dicitur aqua ignea, que cremat et ardet aurum et dissolvit sine aliqua vi, quod non possit ideo quia continet in se calorem nature, qui scindit, rumpit facere ignis communis.” Testamentum , 1.60.200.

32

|2

natural , unnatural , and against nature

provide a leitmotif throughout the Ripley

Corpus. They are first introduced in the Compound:

Fower Fyers there be whych you must vnderstond, Naturall, Innaturall, against Nature, alsoe Elementall whych doth bren the brond ; These foure Fyres use we and no mo.41 38

Admonition , 4. TCB , 190 . “ Hie enim tingitwr auruiw spiritu minerali qui est vis quedam sulphuris simplicissima absque terrestreitate | multa quern spiritum leonis viridis vocant, quidam sanguinem eius in quo pene omnes sunt decepti.” Trinity R.14.58 (3), f.3r. 40 See, for example, the discussions of the levels of heat in the Scala philosophorum ( BCC , II, 141 ), and Norton ’ s Ordinall of Alchemy ( TCB , 103-105). 41 ‘Separation ’ 15. TCB , 142 . 39

52

medieval natural fires are named according to the contra , and ral unnatu , natural The ) non naturales , and contra (or praeter , es natural res between n divisio medical s to health, and ‘contra-natural’ to sicknes naturam , in which ‘natural’ usually relates the 42 several pseudo-Lullian works, particularly and death. They are discussed in way.43 Ripley’ s own diffuse fairly a in h althoug , lus Codicil Testamentum and the Scala be a passage from another text, immediate source is more likely to 44 of ‘Calcination’ . heading the under treated are fires philosophorum , where the ion’ . to the third of his twelve gates, ‘Separat ion discuss the s relocate , r howeve , Ripley , since terms of the alchemy of the Compound This makes a certain amount of sense in tial not with fire but with water. A substan for Ripley calcination is achieved , is given over to teasing on this very point proportion of his first gate, ‘Calcination’ hard Scyence meaning of calcination should “ Fro thys those who fail to grasp the true „45 wyth the Wynd. doth Myst as wander forth “ ise withdraw theyre hond,” or otherw ral or ‘occasional’ fire is a one fire, the elemental, is true fire. Unnatu

-

Only

53

This passage reappears almost verbatim in the Type I Medulla, where the four fires

merit even more detailed treatment than in the Compound 48 The two contrary fires, or ,

waters, exemplify the alchemical principle of solve et coagula: one dissolving as the other congeals. Of particular importance is the ignis naturae , which corresponds to

one of three menstruums described in the Compound 49 In the Medulla, natural fire is

also described as a necessary ingredient both for transmuting metals and creating

medicinal elixirs.

Given its importance, it is hardly surprising that Ripley should bury the identity of this marvellous water beneath mysterious hints and Decknamen. In the

Medulla, for instance, we learn that the elusive substance exists naturally, providing

the “ spirits of ardent waters and the potential vapours of mineral and natural virtues of

living things,” which are generated through the influence of the celestial bodies.50 This fire is Ripley’s true Green Lion, although his description does not initially seem to offer much help in identifying it:

use of direct flame, for instance by means temperate, artificial heat generated without .46 The ction putrefa for useful larly particu is It of hot ashes, a water bath, or dung. , as itself, derived from pseudo-Lullian texts other two are key ingredients of the work

The Green Lion of philosophers is that by which all things wax green, by reason of its attractive virtue, in the bowels of the earth, and raised up from the winterly caverns; whose child is most acceptable to us, and sufficient for all the elixers, which are to be had of it.51

summarised in the Scala: as the fire against nature dissolves Here lie contrary operations, because just the cloud , and the body of the volatile the spirit of the fixed body into water of , so contrariwise the fire of nature spirit is bound fast into congealed earth body into glorious earth, and the congeals the dissolved spirit of the fixed against nature, not into water of the body of the volatile spirit is fixed by fire47 cloud, but into water of the philosophers. Logic, Signs and in medical literature, see Ian Maclean, res various the between on distincti the On 2002), at 251 -259. Nature in the Renaissance (Cambridge, lapidis’ ; while ignis d in chapter 29 , ‘De humiditate nostri est contra naturam ’ , 43 discusse is For instance, ignis naturae 34, ‘De informacione cum calore, qui contra naturam is treated in chapter Testamentum, 1.29. 100; 1.34 .114-116 . d in Chapter Three. 44 Ripley’ s familiarity with the Scala is discusse 45 to a third ‘Calcination’ 2, 4. TCB , 129 130 . us, in which the ‘innatural fire’ equates mecvm Codicill the of 46 that from diverges reading This , Vade and contra-natural fires (Codicillvs, sev menstruum , the mean between the naturalRipley’ s description follows the Scala, where this fire Raymvndi Lvlli [Rouen, 1651 ], 30-34). represents moist heat. | corporis fixi in siewt ignis contra naturaw dissoluit spirituw 47 modo, | ignis “ Hie iacewt | co^trarie operaciones quia trario co constringxtur | in terram congelatam, ita ^ volatilis | aquam nubis, & corpws spiritws volatilis spiritws corpws fixum in Xerram gloriosaw , & ,” Trinity natwre co^gelat sp/Wftjm | dissolutuw corporis horum philosop aquam \ noA? in aquam nubis, sed in , r resoluitw natwram contra ignew fixuw per source, although the to identify the Scala' s pseudo- Lullian unable been have I . r 12 llv . , ff 0.8.9 ipsa apparuit, et non in in the Testamentum: “ In tali aqua nobis roots ultimate its has probably passage

The positive role of this fire of nature contrasts with its opposite, the violent and

terrible ‘fire against nature’ :

Its operation is against all natural operations, according to Raymond, since all that which nature makes, this fire unmakes and brings to corruption, unless fire of nature is added to it.52

42

-

£

aqua nubis,” Testamentum, 1.11 .40 (although the Magister’ s play on nobis/nubis is lost in the later text ). 48 Trinity R. 14.58 (3), ff.2v-3r. 49 “ Fyre of Nature ys the thyrd Menstruall .” ‘Separation ’ 16. TCB, 143. 50 “ Naturalis est qui corporibws influxes est a sole et luna et | stellis: vnde et spiritiritus aquaru m ardentiu /w et vapores potentiates mineralium ac naturales virtutes animaMum generantur.” Trinity R. 14.58 (3), f.2 v. 2, 1 “ [ L]eo viridis philosophorum est id per quod virescuM omnia, sua virtute at | tractiua a visceribws terre et cavemis hiemalibws eleuata, cuiws proles ad | elixera de se omnia hahenda et sufficientissima et acceptissima nobis est. .. Sed proles | hec magnifica eo quia dissoluta statim vesti viridi induatur: leo viridis nuAicupatwr.” Ibid . f.3 r. 5 “ [S]ic dictus contra naturaw: eo quod eius operatio sit contra omnes operations | naturales. secundum Kaymundum quoniam hoc totum quia natura componit: iste ignis dis|co/wponit. Et portat ad corrupc / o /76?m nisi ei suporaddatwr ignis nature.” Ibid ., f.2 v . “

54

55

the specific form of bodies, Fire against nature is destructive and corrosive, destroying 53 to decode, since Ripley, like and “ Fersely brennyng as Fyre of Hell .” It is also easier

Two Waters Thus far we have focused on the metallurgical strand of pseudo-Lullian alchemy,

Raymond, gives details of its manufacture: call aqua fords , with Yet from the Green Lion of fools is drawn that which we ... And the thing from strong fire, in which the said Lion should be elixerated , that is to say, which this aqua fords is drawn is vitriol, green and azoqueus 54 not artificial but natural, namely, the dropping of copper. occurring vitriol: specifically, the Ripley’ s ‘Green Lion of fools’ is therefore naturallyof vitriol, either copper salt we would identify as copper sulphate. The dry distillation , and Ripley s account of alone or with other ingredients, produces the mineral acids straightforward account of their the ignis contra naturam gives us a remarkably

manufacture.

manufacture of Unlike the ‘fire of nature’ , this product cannot be used in the against ingesting medicinal elixirs. Little wonder that the Canon warned his readers the products of the mineral work:

embodied primarily by the Testamentum. As the Magister’ s account of metallogenesis makes clear, the alchemy of the Testamentum requires that only substances present in the ‘evolutionary scale’ of metals be employed in the work of alchemy, lest the

golden chain of media become uncoupled . On this topic, Ripley and the Magister

Testamenti at first appear to agree. Again and again in the Compound, Ripley emphasises that the alchemist should mix “ kynde only wyth kynde,” employing

metalline substances as the starting point of the work, and rejecting such organic

products as eggs and blood.56 Yet alchemists also had a long history of employing organic materials in their work: a tradition assimilated into the pseudo-Lullian corpus. One rationale for its acceptance was the notion of a multiplicity of stones, whereby different ingredients

produced different results, with different properties. Thus, in the mid-fourteenth century John of Rupescissa distinguished between an ‘alchemical gold’ requiring

corrosives. And for For all alchemical gold, as Raymond says, is made from for a man to , that reason, gold thus made does not enter medicine: indeed safer 55 nature. eat the eyes of a basilisk than gold made with our fire against

corrosives, and hence unsuitable for ingestion, and a medicine made from distilled alcohol, the quintessence of wine, good for man’ s body.57 Rupescissa’ s De consideratione quintae essentiae forms the basis of another

the Medulla, since the This distinction has significance for the development of stone given medicinal vegetable stone, which follows the description of the mineral gold is ineligible as above, requires gold in its manufacture. Alchemically-produced difference between an ingredient by reason of its toxicity, implying a fundamental therapeutics. The common and alchemical gold, at least from the perspective of are to be made, and distinction also raises the question of how non-toxic preparations remedies. The answers why ignis naturae should be considered appropriate for such to these questions lie elsewhere within the pseudo-Lullian

corpus.

central work in the pseudo-Lullian canon, De secretis. The first two books of the latter

effectively reiterate the earlier work, with some readjustment and addition by the compiler.

CO

De secretis thus inherits Rupescissa’ s predilection for the quintessence of

wine. Furthermore, the text has been enlarged by the addition of a Tertio distinctio in

which a vegetable solvent made by repeated distillation of wine infused with plants and herbs is extolled for both chrysopoetic and medicinal purposes.

In describing his solvent, the Raymond of the Tertio distinctio does not refer to the contrary fires of the Testamentum tradition. Rather, he speaks of a twofold ‘menstruum’ , apparently adapted from the Rupescissan tradition of vegetable and

‘Separation’ 15 . TCB , 142. aqua fortis: igne forti | in qua dictws leo “ [D]e fatuorum turn leone viridi extrahitur ea quam diximws est vitrioluw viride & azoqueum , hoc est debet elixerari . .. Res au|tem de qua trahitwr hec aqua fortis . 14.58 (3), f.3 r. In modern chemistry non ar|tificiale: sed naturale scilicet stillicidiu/n cupri,” Trinity R sulphate. Ripley’ s green vitriol, copper green vitriol usually corresponds to iron sulphate and blue to that care must be taken when demonstrating , however, is clearly stated to be derived from copper . practitioners considering the materials available to early modem ex | corrosiuis. Ideoqwe aurum sic factum 55 “ Quoniam omm aurum alkimzcum vt Raymzmdws asserit fit oculos basilisci qz/ am aurum cu m non ingreditur medicinas. Tutizzs quidem hominx esset I comedere .3 . igne nostto contra naturam factum .” Trinity R.14.58 (3), f r

53

mineral quintessences. In a series of quaestiones , he demonstrates how the

54

g

56

‘Calcination ’ 12, 14 ; TCB , 132. “ Et aurum alchimicum , quod est ex corrosiuis compositum , destruit naturam .” loannis de Rvpescissa Qyi ante CCCXX. Annos Vixit, de consideratione Quintae essentiae rerum omnium, opus sane egregium ( Basel, 1597), 22. 58 The priority dispute was settled by Halleux, ‘Les ouvrages alchimiques de Jean de Rupescissa’, who dated Rupescissa’ s treatise to 1351-52.

56

57

is used to answer various practical information provided throughout the three books question “ What is Menstruum?” he conundrums. For instance, responding to the (that which dissolves what has explains that this liquid is of two sorts, resolutive is dissolved by the resolutive): previously been dissolved) and resoluble (that which

outcome of mineral manipulations. Indeed, this dissonance provides one of the major

sprung from wine, perfectly This menstruum is a burning water [ aqua ardens\ dissolved, putrify, and are rectified, by virtue of which . . . all those metals are , and the earth exalted into a putrified; and the elements are divided from them , by its a[ttract]ive virtue. And foliate earth which is called sulphur of nature metals, proceeding into act... the menstruum resoluble is the quintessence of . The menstruum is a Likewise, the resoluble menstruum is defined thus alone argent vive is potential vapour existing in every metal, by whose odour into act without the brought converted into metal, of which it is, which is not 59 silver. and gold resolutive. And this menstruum springs from the mean between the metals on one The menstruum may be generally defined as 60 side, and the stone on the other. with pure alcohol obtained Raymond’ s resolutive menstruum is thus identified is used to extract the resoluble by repeated distillations of wine. This menstruum vapour’ ) from precious metals. menstruum (a metallic quintessence, or ‘potential nature, it is capable of dissolving Although the resolutive menstruum is of vegetable from metals but is dissolved by the metal, while the resoluble menstruum originates and mineral, and may be vegetable. The menstruum is therefore both vegetable vive of the essence of metals.” referred to as “ aqua ardens actuated,” and “ argent 61 hical as precious.” Together these two may create any stone, “ as well philosop insoluble conflict with These definitions create an immediate and outwardly have seen, treats the stone as the the alchemy of the Testamentum, which, as we

conflicts which Ripley sought to reconcile in his Medulla alchimiae. The Medulla is structured after the pseudo-Lullian Epistola accurtationis,

which describes the manufacture of animal, vegetable, and mineral stones. Besides citing the Epistola , Ripley devotes a chapter to each of these stones, beginning with

the mineral, which employs an acid for its menstruum. The chapter on the vegetable stone opens with some reflections on the identity of the mysterious vegetable solvent, the resolutive menstruum referred to in the Tertio distinctio. Apparently on the basis

of his own experience, he immediately rejects ‘quintessence of wine’ of the kind

described by John of Rupescissa, observing that even multiple distillations fail to

produce a water sharp enough to dissolve metallic calces: Some assert that this fire is drawn from wine, according to the common way, and should be rectified, being distilled as many times as possible . . . yet, when water of this kind (which fools call the pure spirit), even if rectified a hundred times, is put upon the calx of whatever body, however well prepared, nevertheless we see it will be found weak and entirely insufficient for the act of dissolving our body with conservation of its form and species. Wherefore it seems there is an error in the choice of this principle, which is called the resolutive menstruum . /T O

Yet it is exactly this unhelpful substance that Raymond seems to prescribe in the

Tertio. Ripley’s solution is to interpret this substance as an ‘unctuous moisture’ imported from another Lullian work, which is ultimately derived from wine, but still possesses dissolutive power. This is Raymond’s famous “ black blacker than black” { nigrum nigrius nigro), also described in the Epistola accurtationis,64 Although

enigmatic, the term may describe black vinegar, or the lees of wine, from which tartar (potassium carbonate) is made.63

est aqua ardens, perfecte rectificata, Quod aliud resolutiuum menstruum diffinitur sic. Menstruum eis r, putrefiunt & purificantur, & elementa ab orta a uino cuius uirtute . . . ilia omnia metalla dissoluuntu Et . actiua , quae dicitur sulphur naturae sua uirtute diuiduntur, & terra exaltatur in terram foliatam resolubile , deuenit in actum . .. Item menstruum menstruum resolubile quinta essentia metallorum in quocunque metallo, in cuius solo odore existens diffinitur sic. Menstruum est uapor potentialis est qui non nisi resolutiue ducitur ad actum . Et conuertitur argentum uiuum in metallum , cuius . Raimundi Lullii Maioricani de alchimia opuscula menstruum resolubile oritur ex auro & argento ” ... (Nuremberg, 1546 ), f. l 07r. quae sequuntur . .. De secretis naturae, seu de quinta essentia est medium coniunctionis... & lapides Menstruum 60 “ Item menstruum in generali diffinitur sic. . Ibid . diuidantur ” alia principaliter, & omnia quo dissoluuntur metalla; & menstruum quod 61 « Menstruum quod est in uegetabilibus, est liquor cum dicitur aqua ar. acuata: secundum dicitur argentum est in mineralibus dissoluitur a uegetabili . . . Primum quiuis, tarn istis duobus tanquam natura componitur lapis uiuum de essentia metallorum . Et ex philosophicus, quam preciosus.” Ibid . , f.62 r.

59 «

g

69“

“ Sed quia de primo elixire in hoc | primo capitulo agemzzs: ideo de hoc igne contra naturam que est aqua minerals fortissima et mortalis . .. vt Raymundus dic / t in epistola. accurtac /oms.” Trinity R.14.58 (3), f -3r. “ Quida/w autumazzt igncm istu /w aquam esse | a vino tractam vulgari modo rectificariqwe debere eam multotie^s distillando vt possit | ab ea eius aquosuw flegma vires et pote ^tias sue igneitatis impediens, penitzzs | extirpari. Sed cum tabs aqua centies rectificata quam dicuzzt fatui sp/W/wm esse purum mittitur super calce/77 corporis optime preparataw: videmz/s quod ad actum dissolue^di | corpus cum co/7seruac /o«e sue forme et speciei impotens ac ommno insufficiens rcperxiur | Quare videtur quod in electione huiws principij quod menstruum resolutiuum dicitur | error fit.” Ibid ., f.5 r. “ Ad quod dicendum quod iuxta sapientum priscorum tradic /'o/?es, et quas no|vimz/s probac /ozzes: vnctuosum humidum est materia propinquior nostri mercurij vegetabilis | et philosop\\a\\s, quod Raymzmdws nigrum nigriz/s nigro vocat, quod certe michi minime | est ignotum ,” ibid . This Deckname is also used in the pseudo- Lullian Magica natural is. 65 Tartar of wine is commonly employed in alchemical recipes (see the ‘Vegetable Work ’ , CRQ . '

58 a literal us substance is substituted for Even if the Epistola' s black, unctuo s. This alcohol, a more serious problem remain reading of the Tertio distinctions pure illus , specified (in the Testamentum and Codic ere elsewh has nd Raymo that fact the is rather than vegetable in nature: al miner be must water his that ) for instance

the tartar menstruum springs from wine or If, as Raymond says, the resolutive water “ Our : says to be understood thereof, how is what the same philosopher from a metalline kind” ?66 produced is a metalline water, because it is

from the , this is almost a direct quotation source his name not does Ripley Although exposition in the Compound , which provides an cited also work short a , Repertorium interface 61 This problem therefore marks an of the metallurgical-based Codicillus alchemy: a fact of ing strands of pseudo-Lullian between the two distinct and oppos unaware. Having unity of the corpus, was of course the of ced convin , Ripley which ss of , he therefore settles down to the busine n dictio contra nt appare the out pointed a range of pseudo-Lullian texts. resolving it, continuing to draw upon mind , Ripley explains that when in tio distinc Tertio the g keepin Clearly resolutive nd must be referring either to the prescribing a metalline water Raymo . If the former, Raymond cannot mean menstruum or the resoluble menstruum derived from the resolutive menstruum is clearly since , sense literal the in ine metall certain might be regarded as metalline “ after a uum menstr this , ously ingeni , Yet wine. : , it is both sulphurous and mercurial metal like , since ) quid um secund ( manner” , when dried and mercurial because tartar of wine sulphurous because it burns like fire, therefore be .68 The resolutive menstruum may in the sun, shines like mercury . regarded as metalline in a figurative sense ts that this ingenious suggestion should Ripley’ s use of secundum quid sugges logician’ s sion, a standard item in the expres The . ly serious too taken not be moving from the general to the particular of fallacy l logica the s denote , lary vocabu

59

without accommodating special circumstances. Its appearance here underlines the

playful aspect of an otherwise preposterous attempt to render aqua ardens ‘metalline’ .

Coincidentally, its use also provides additional support for the priority of the Type I Latin translation of the Medulla. Secundum quid is used in Type I, but not in Type II, which renders Whitehead’ s translation, “ after a certain manner, ” more literally as 69

“ nisi quodam modo. ” Indeed, the Medulla' s second translator, John Higgins, did not even feel it necessary to alter the term in his own rendering of the passage: “ Yf of the first waye, Then is it not water metallicke, but secundum quid.

Ripley is thus merely toying with the notion that the Repertorium's metalline water denotes the resolutive menstruum . If, however, Raymond means the resoluble

menstruum, then further rhetorical quickstepping is uncalled for, since he has already explained the metallic origins of this substance in the Tertio distinctio:

So much as for the second manner, the answer is clear following Raymond in his Questionary, where, when it is asked “ What is mercury vegetable in gold and silver,” it is answered, that it is a simple essence of its proper parts, coessential and concrete, reduced to this by the resolutive menstruum, by virtue of which it is able to multiply their likenesses in [those] mercuries which are without, and to be made medicinal to human bodies, to expel from them many diseases, and to restore former health up to the time appointed by God.71

The question cited by Ripley, “ Quid est mercurius vegetabilis in auro vel argento,” appears in no printed edition of the Tertio , although it does feature in several

manuscript copies. In particular, it is one of the selected quaestiones copied from the

Tertio by the Bridlington scribe into Trinity 0.8.9.72 The answer to the quaestio also sheds light on the conundrum posed by Ripley . The resoluble menstruum is truly a metalline water: it iis the essence of gold and silver, extracted by agency of the resolutive menstruum which releases the resoluble by dissolving the metal in which it 69

tartaro eiws: quomodo resolutiuum vt vult Raymundus vel a 66 “ Sed si a vino oritur menstruum , quia ex solo genere metal lico . Aqua nostra est aqua | metallina intelligitur quod id cm philosophus dicit generatur.” Trinity R .14.58 (3), f.5 r. , eo quod ex solo genere philosophicam, quae dicitur metallina 67 “ [U]t patet per aquam nostram Codicilli Raymundi Lullij, seu intelligentiam Testamenti ad ria summa sio Conclu ‘ . r metallico generetu ” tota intentiva, quae aliter argenti vivi, in quo pendet intentio non nec ; ejus librorum & aliorum in ‘Calcination ’ 1 . , III , 731 . Ripley cites the ‘Reportory ’ TC , ur ’ appellat di Raymun vapor | sulphurews et Repertorium aqua nisi secundum quid , quia est ca metalli 68 est non sic : modo primo Si in tartaro sole tantum “ sue ardet cum igne. | Videmws etiam mercurialis, et racionc suae sulphureitatis respletf|dere. Gem/s autem metallicum: et sulphur est et oculum desiccato: mercuriales qualitates ad , f.5 r. ) 3 ( 14.58 . R Trinity argentum v/ wwm.” '

i

„70

OOC, 165. Sloane 1842, f.92r. The term is also occasionally highlighted in manuscript annotations, as in Trinity R . 14.58, where “ Aqua Metdl / ca secundum quid’ appears, underlined, in the margin of the text (f.5r). “ Si secundo modo: solutio | patet secundum Raymundum in suo questionario vbi cum queritur quid est mercuriws vegetabilis | in auro vel \xgento\ respondetur et dicitur, substantia simplex de suis proprijs p^rtibws coesse|ntialibws et comretis dissolutivo me /7Struo sibi inducta virtute cuiws poterint multipli|care suas similitudines in Mercurijs qui sunt extra, et esse humanis corporibws me|dicinalia vt eis qwam plures egritudines expellantwr, | et \sque [Iuventus pristina restauretur &] ad periodum a deo co ^stitutum sanitas co^seruetwr.” Trinity R.14.58 (3), f.5r; interpolated text from Sloane 1524, f.68r. “ [Q]Vestio. quid est mercurius vegetabilis, in auro & argento. So| lucio. Est mercurius vegetabilis in eius , vel. m . vel .q . | substamda simplex de suis specialibws cowcretis, & qwe qwidem co /?cre|ta mercuri] vegetabilis wducta exisUmt ibi de dictorum yartibus & | eorum qualitatibws.” Trinity 0.8.9, f.32v . 70

'

“

*

60

61

the sense that it can replicate lies hidden . This metalline water is also ‘vegetable’ in : itself by reproducing the likeness of gold and silver in other substances

there be drawn with an easy fire, first a weak water, no sharper to the taste c then well water.

of the body, 73 Therefore our true metalline water is an unctuous moisture . dissolved, like liquid black pitch, and this is called the resoluble menstruum

Although the key ingredients in the recipe, the metallic calx and its solvent, are not

resolving tricky texts, Ripley With this demonstration of his mastery at reading and he posed at the start of his chapter on the vegetable stone.

answers the riddle

ingenuity, had a We may question whether such exegetical juggling, for all its was intended solely significant impact on Ripley’ s alchemical practice, or whether it his sources. As we turn to the to convince readers of his expertise in interpreting it becomes clear that this theoretical recipes contained within the Medulla , only in the groundwork does provide a basis for the practices described, not and animal works. manufacture of the vegetable stone, but also for the mineral to the success of Justifying his use of a product derived from wine is therefore central Ripley’ s treatise as he moves from theorica to practica. chapter on the Unlike the preceding discussion of the mineral work, the It describes the vegetable stone contains only one, highly significant recipe. chrysopoetic and manufacture of ignis naturae , used to prepare an elixir both

medicinal : of healing all And then it has power of turning all bodies into pure gold, and is the true infirmities, more then the potions of Hippocrates and Galen, for this gold so potable gold, and none other, which is made of74 elementated ingeniously turned around by the wheel of philosophy.

menstruum is to be Here, at last, Ripley provides instructions on how the resolutive metal, ‘sericon’ : used in practice to draw the resoluble menstruum from an imperfect the body, Take the sharpest humidity of grapes, distilled, and in it dissolve , crystalline into well calcined into red ( which by masters is called sericon) which tastes like clear and heavy water. Of which water let a gum be made, this gum let from alum, which by Raymond is called vitriolum azoqueus , and

picis liquide nigri aqua nostra verior “ Est igitur vnctuosa humiditas dissolute corporis instar 14.58 (3), f. 5 r. metallina. et ilia | menstruum resolubile num; upatur.” Trinity R. corpora in aurum pu|ruw et sanandi omncs 74 “ [ E]t tunc \\abct pototatem co^ uertendi omma est verum aurum potabile, et nulluw infirmitates supra omncs potac /o^es Ypocratis et Gali|eni quia illud circu /wducto co^fectum est ” artificialiter aliud , quod de auro ele|mefltato sic per rotam pMasophalem

73

Ibid .

£

n

clearly defined, they are decodable. ‘Sericon’, the imperfect metallic body, is a staple

ingredient of fifteenth-century English texts, which usually equate it with lead ore: minium (red lead), or litharge. The ‘sharpest humidity of grapes’ is apparently distilled wine vinegar, which dissolves the sericon. Ripley equates the resulting gum with the vitriolum azoqueus described by the Magister Testimenti, thus substituting a

product which is simultaneously mineral and vegetable for the minerally-derived “ leo viridis azoqueus, qui dicitur vitriolum” described in the Testamentum. Even at this stage, Ripley keeps both Lullian strands tightly plaited.

This gum is the basis of Ripley’ s “ green lion of philosophers,” hinted at earlier, “ whose child is most acceptable.” However, the extraction of the ‘child’ is not yet complete. The weak water is only a precursor to the alchemist’s true goal : a white

fume which should be collected in a receiver. The resulting ‘water’ dissolves metallic bodies, separating their elements and exalting their calces into “ a marvellous salt. ” 77

This water has several properties. When the vapour condenses, it is found to have a sharp taste and a bad smell, earning it another name familiar from the pseudo

-

Lullian vocabulary : the ‘stinking menstruum’ . It is also extremely volatile, and if the practitioner wishes to proceed to the elixir, he must do so within an hour of its

distillation . When the ignis naturae is added to its calx, it begins to boil without the addition of any extraneous heat. For this reason, only just enough liquid should be

added to cover the calx.

At this promising juncture Ripley refers his readers back to an earlier chapter for the remainder of the process: “ One may then proceed in order, as in the work of

75

“ Rx acerimam vuarum humiditatem et in ea distillata dissolue | corpus optime calcinatuw in rubeum ( quod a magistris vocatur sericon) in aqua/w | cristillinam limpidam et ponderosam . De qua aqua fiat gummi gustui alumi|nosum quod vocatur a Raymundo vitriolum azoqueu m et de hoc gumwi t rah at Mr lento | calore primo aqua debilis que gustui no« est acrior fontana aqua.” Ibid ., f.5v. 76 Ripley apparently reinterprets the Lullian vitriolum azoqueus in this passage, since earlier in the Medulla he uses it to denote vitriol, as we have seen . The boundary between the alums and the vitriols was not always distinct in medieval alchemy, so Ripley perhaps treats the term as a Deckname inspired by the taste of the gum . 77 “ Cum autem | furrms albws inceperit apparere, mutetwr receptoriuw, et lutetur firmissime | ne respiret. Et recipiatwr nostra aqua ardens. . . vapor potentialis potens corpora dissol | uere, putrefacere et purificare c\ementa diuidere terram quia exaltare in solem mira|bilew sua virtute attractiua .” Trinity R.14.58 (3), f.5v.

62

63

78 • to the recipe for a the compound water, to its whole completion.” This refers in the chapter on the ‘compound water’ (aqua composita) already encountered vegetable waters, made mineral stone. This water is a composite of both mineral and

to the test. For instance, his dismissal of rectified spirit of wine as “ entirely

,

p

insufficient for the act of dissolving our body” speaks of personal experience, as do his warnings concerning the volatility of the fire of nature. Yet we should be wary of

using the two contrary ‘fires’ .

accepting such details at face value. Returning to Ripley ’ s sources, we find that his

is similar to that Other than the starting materials, the account of this process mass with natural vitriol and for the medicinal elixir. The fire of nature is joined in a water is first obtained, saltpetre, and the whole mixture distilled . As before, a weak into a stinking followed by the valuable white fume, which is once more condensed vegetable only in the menstruum . The mineral recipe therefore differs from the fortis , the fire against addition of vitriol and saltpetre, which of course makes aqua

practicas are just as likely as his theoricas to be shaped by earlier textual accounts.

denoting the manufacture of a mineral acid using vitriol. However, the three virtues

nature, as Ripley himself points out:

appear in a different order in Ripley’ s recipe, perhaps suggesting an attempt to read

called against For that water is the stinking menstruum, in which is our beast, , of which we will on nature, which if he were absent would be our natural fire . speak in its proper place, namely in the following chapter which accordingly serves The use of aqua fortis restricts the use of the mineral stone, However, the close only for the transmutation of metals and not for medicine. be “ sufficient relationship recalls Ripley’ s earlier assurance that the fire of nature will names, the blood of the for all the elixirs.” Although disguised by a superfluity of naturae all describe green lion, stinking menstruum, resoluble menstruum, and ignis . Read in light exactly the same liquid, embodying both the mineral and the vegetable to a natural fire of his pseudo-Lullian sources, Ripley’ s earlier, enigmatic reference vapours of mineral and engendered of “ the spirits of ardent waters and the potential

natural virtues of living things” begins to make sense. recipes, deeply The question still remains of the extent to which these practice. embedded within an existing textual tradition, reflect genuine alchemical accounts of Throughout the Medulla Ripley provides numerous and plausible indeed been put processes and observations, suggesting that his careful exegesis has ad cius totale complementum per omnia “ Eo deinceps ordine sicwt in opere aque composite usque procedatwr .” Ibid. et sericone confectum cum vitriolo 79 7) “ Vitriolum ignis nature ex | acerima vuarum distillata humiditate ; et pr /mo ascendet aqua debilis \ distilletur commassatum nitro , sale et desiccato diocriter | me naturali alba que vasa faciet | lactea absque vapore discolorac /o^e que abijciatur deinde ascendet fumositas . v r 3 . ff , apparere que colligatur donee cesset.” Ibid . naturam dicta . | quod absente 80 u Ipsa enim aqua est menstruum fetens in quo est bestia nostra contra seque^ti | capitulo dicturi sumws.” Trinity ea: noster esset ignis naturalis de quo suo in loco videlicet in R. 14.58 (3), f.3 v.

78

This is apparent in Ripley’ s conflation of the green lion (leo viridis ) , white fume ( fumus albus ), and stinking menstruum { aqua foetida ).- a threefold trope of

alchemical literature which would doubtless have been familiar to his readers. 81 The

same three virtutes are also described in chapter 60 of the Testamentum , apparently

practical observations in light of a pre-existing scheme, and hence situate his own

findings within a well known and authoritative tradition. His adaptation of one previously circulating recipe, beginning “ Recipe Kibrith,” has already been noted, and seems to represent another attempt to integrate personal findings into a recognisable

framework. Ripley’ s adaptation thus provides a form of ‘practical exegesis’ , in which source recipes are adjusted to accommodate his own observations.

Just as Ripley modified his pseudo-Lullian sources in order to reconcile conflicting instructions, so he adapted recipes to fit practical findings, and practical findings to fit established tropes. Ripley’ s recipes and theoretical arguments have their origins in fourteenth- and fifteenth-century exemplars. Yet the Medulla may be

reduced neither to a compilation from earlier theoricas, nor a straightforward recipe

collection. In its consistent elaboration of the doctrine of contrary fires, supported by textual exegesis and applied to practical processes, it provides a commentary on a pre-

existing tradition, and a serious engagement with the challenges posed by the pseudoLullian corpus.

81

• source, at least in Latin alchemy, appears to be the Liber de compositione alchimiae The ultimate pseudonymously attributed to Morienus: “ The philosophers referred to the impure body as lead . . . The green lion is glass . . . The white vapor quicksilver . .. This is the nature of the white vapor, the green lion , and the foul water.” Translation by Lee Stavenhagen, A Testament of Alchemy ( Hanover, NH, 1974), 43-45. ‘Vitriolum ’ derives from ‘vitrum ’ (glass), and this passage should probably be read as concerning vitriol. 8 “ Aurum et argentum et mercurius dissolvuntur in nostro menstruali, eo quod participat cum illis in propinquitate nature . Ex exinde trahes fumum album , qui est nostrum sulphur; et leo viridis, qui est nostrum unguentum ; et aqua fortis, que est nostrum secundum argentum vivum . Et tamen necessanum est quod leo viridis dissolvatur in aqua fetenti cum solempniali dissolucione, antequam fumum album possis habere, qui dicitur sulphur. ” Testamentum , 1.60.200. “

i

64

Three Mercuries

65 86 Medulla was drawn from sericon. Once calcined, these bodies are treated with the second mercury, this time a ‘vegetable’ water. This evokes the Tertio’ s resolutive

ps with that of the The alchemy of the Medulla includes some striking overla the emphasis upon a Compound, particularly in the treatment of the four fires and composed by George non-vitriolic Green Lion. However, if both works were indeed anticipation of the Ripley, we might also expect to find in the Compound some importance in the mineral and vegetable menstruums which would later assume such introduces several alchemy of the Medulla. In the Compound’ s Preface, Ripley indeed es three menstruums, ‘mercuries’ encountered in the work, although here he describ

menstruum, in which the metallic calx is dissolved:

rather than two.

The ‘dead’ , in this case, represent the calcined metals, which must be opened by the

l observation The alchemical content of the Preface opens with the conventiona is “ not the comyn callyd that the philosophers’ stone is found in mercury, but that this „83 of the science: Quicksylver by name. Rather, there are three mercuries, the keys

resolutive or vegetable menstruum in order to produce the third water. Calcination and dissolution are thus achieved using the first and second menstruums respectively ;

Raymond hys Menstrues doth them call, Without which trewly no truth ys done, But two of them are Superfycyall: The third essentyall of Soon and Moone; Theyr propertyes I wyll declare ryght soone, And Mercury of other Mettalls essencyall84, Ys the pryncipall of our Stone materyall .

Wyth the Second whych ys an Humydyte Vegetable revyvyng that earst was dede, Both pryncyples materyalls must loosed be; And formalls; els standyth they lytle in stead: The Menstrues therefore know I the rede: Wythout whych neyther trew Calcynatyon, Don may be, nether yet naturall Dyssolutyon.

O

7

an ordering also stated, rather more clearly, in the Scalaphilosophorum: And thus Sol and Luna with the first water are philosophically calcined, so that the bodies are opened and become spongious and subtle; so that the second water is better able to enter with a view to the operation of its work, which is to exalt the earth into a marvellous salt.88

The ‘superficial ’ waters are necessary to draw forth the third, which is none other than the elusive ignis naturae:

act on the exterior of The first two menstruums are superficial in the sense that they uum is an occult metallic bodies to calcine or dissolve them, whereas the third menstr tion, or ‘opening’ , of substance drawn from within. The first is used for natural calcina to be calcined: metallic bodies. Ripley also gives a clue to the nature of the bodies

Bodyes wyth the fyrst we Calcene naturally Perfyt, but none whych be unclene, Except one whych usually 85 Namyd by Phylosophers the Lyon Greene.

Wyth the thyrd humydyty most permanent Incombustyble and unctuous in hys nature, Hermes tre to ashes must be brent: Hyt is our Naturall Fyre most sure.89

As noted above, Ripley has already described this third menstruum as “ essentyall of

Soon and Moone,” and “ Mercury of other Mettalls essencyall.” This phrasing reminds

us of the language of the Tertio, specifically of Raymond’s definition of the resoluble menstruum as “ argent vive of the essence of metals,” made from gold and silver . This

mends a third , Besides the perfect bodies of gold and silver, Ripley therefore recom Lion, which in the non-precious metal for use in the work: the mysterious Green

connection is even more explicit in the following stanza:

86

On the identity of Ripley’s Green Lion , see below, 118-120. Preface 17. Ibid . 88 “ Et sic Sol & Luna cum prima aqua calcinantur philosophice, ut corpora aperiantur: & fiant spongiosa & subtilia; ut aqua secunda melius possit ingredi ad operandum suum opus, quod est exaltare terram in salem mirabilem.” BCC , II , 138. Preface 18. TCB , 125. This identification is confirmed in ‘Separation ’ 16 ( n .49 above ). 87

Preface 10. TCB , 123. Preface 13. TCB, 124. 85 Preface 16. TCB , 125 .

83

84

66 Theyr propertyes I wyll declare ryght soone, Thys Stone alsoe tell thee I dare, Is the vapor of Mettalls potentyall , How thou shalt geyt hyt thou must beware: For invysible ys truly thys Menstruall : Howbehytt with the second Water phylosophycall , By seperatyon of Elements yt may 90appeare, To syght in forme of Water cleere.

in the Tertio distinctio as a It will be recalled that the resoluble menstruum is defined by means of the resolutive, hidden “ potential vapour existing in all metals” extracted presents its mysteries more or vegetable, menstruum. Although the Compound nonetheless adopts enigmatically than in the Medulla , and without citing its sources, it . Accordingly, Ripley’ s the same language from the same pseudo-Lullian source menstruum of De “ second water phylosophycall” seems to equate to the resolutive

67

Ripley’ s natural fire has just such an effect when projected on common quicksilver.

Like the resoluble menstruum described in De secretis , it instantly congeals argent vive into precious metal :95 Whych as the syght of a Basylysk hys object Kyleth, so sleyth it crude Mercury, When thereon itt ys project, In twynke of an Eye most sodenly, That Mercury teynyth permanently ; All bodyes to Son and Moone perfyt, Thus gyde thy base both Red and Whyte.96

In its account of alchemical processes, the Compound’’ s Preface therefore draws on the same source as the Medulla’ s, account of the vegetable stone: the pseudo-Lullian De secretis. Both Ripleian works gloss the Tertio’ s menstruums with the language of

, hidden within secretis , while the third water corresponds to the resoluble menstruum

contrary fires borrowed from the ‘metallurgical’ strand of the pseudo-Lullian corpus.

the precious metals:

They also include very similar descriptions of the four fires, apparently derived from a

common source: a passage in the Scala. In Soon and Moone our Menstrue ys not sene , Hyt not appeareth but by effect to syght 91 That ys the Stone of whych we mene. oil resulting from the The source for the Preface is confirmed a few stanzas on . The vegetable menstruum to draw ‘calcination’ of metals is circulated together with the „92 We have . Baselysk Our “ called is it that fiery so liquid a , out the third mercury Medulla. The already encountered the stone’ s venomous ‘basilisk’ quality in the stone’ s astonishing analogy originates in De secretis, which describes the

transmutational power:

However, while the alchemy of the two works is generally consistent, it is not

identical . Although the Medulla’ s recipes are predominantly chrysopoetic, the text assigns more value to medicinal products, and discounts alchemical gold for this

purpose: “ good enough for all the goldsmith’s works, but, as I said, it does not enter „ into medicine. 97 In contrast, the Compound’ s main focus is the mineral work, as

indicated by the passage of the ‘Twelve Gates’ from calcination towards the chrysopoetic processes of multiplication and projection . ‘Vegetable’ content is also less overt, particularly within the body of the ‘Twelve Gates’ , where the vegetable stone appears only fleetingly in the penultimate stanza of ‘Fermentation’ :

metals, that is The transforming venom is an artificial stone compounded from which acts on the from their most subtle nature, and the vegetable menstruum , on animals, basilisk the former just like the gall of the leopard and the94gaze of and also like lightning in the fusion of metals.

Preface 19. TCB, 125. Preface 14. TCB , 124. 92 Preface 24. TCB , 127. 93 See n.55 above. diffinitur : Venenum transformans est lapis 94 “ Item lapis qui dicitur transformans uenenum sic natura, & menstrui uegetabilis, quae artificiatus ex metallis cowpositus, hoc est ex subtilissima eorum , & etiam fulgur in fusione basilisci uisus sic agit in illis sicut fel Leopardi in animalibus, & . r . 71 metallorum .” Raimundi Lullii ... De secretis naturae, f

And yet a way there ys most excellent, Belongyng unto another workyng...

A Quyntessens thys Water we call In man, whych helyth Dysesys all.98

90

91

E

95

“ [l ]n cuius solo odore conuertitur argentum uiuum in metallum .” Raimundi Lullii ... De secretis naturae , f. l 07r. 96 Preface 25. TCB, 127. 97 [Q] uod Argentum vivum et omnia corpora co/7 uertit in aurum purum , | scilicet alkimicuw ad omnia opera aurifabrilia satis bonum . Sed vt dixi: non ingreditur medi|cinas.” Trinity R. 14.58 (3), f.3r. 98 ‘Fermentation ’ 18. TCB, 177. tc

68

69

chrysopoetic This alternative procedure is also alluded to in the Preface. While the requires a process uses oils drawn from precious metals, the medicinal aurum potabile „99 evoke different base: “ Or lyke thereto out of our fine Red Lead . Such references the Medulla’ s use of sericon and vinegar in the vegetable work . that The fact that such remedies are reserved for “ another workyng” suggests his Compound. the alchemist has deliberately chosen to focus on chrysopoeia in may account for this decision. Most obviously , there is no reason to

CHAPTER THREE Ripley and Guido: Structuring the Alchemical Work As the best known item in the Corpus, George Ripley’ s ‘Twelve Gates’ is also undoubtedly the most studied. Yet the alchemical contents of this long English poem

have perplexed commentators. In particular, the order of the twelve processes which together comprise Ripley’ s philosophical castle does not always make sense.

Several reasons

five

suppose that Ripley’ s own knowledge and interests remained constant during the aspects years which separate the two works. As discussed in Chapter Four, particular changed over of Ripley’ s alchemy, including the identity of the Green Lion, may have , The Compound and Medulla were also apparently written to attract patronage

‘Separation’ , ‘Sublimation’ , and ‘Exaltation’ , for instance, all describe essentially the same process: the separation and reconstitution of constituents within a flask by

distillation and sublimation. While some of Ripley’ s remarks appear startling in their clarity, other passages are bafflingly obscure. From the sixteenth century onwards,

time.

of specific and it is probable that their contents are catered towards the requirements makes audiences. The Compound is an eye-catching work in English verse, which from repeated references to gold and silver. While the poem’ s link to Edward IV is far

readers have expressed their exasperation at the Canon’s “ misty parables.„i

Yet, unknown to many of his readers, Ripley borrowed his parables, along with much else, from another treatise. In constructing his Compound he produced

to proven, it clearly speaks more to England’ s chronic shortage of bullion than medicinal outcomes. The Medulla , however, is dedicated to a learned Archbishop in the failing health, and consequently invests more in the exegesis of Latin sources and

neither an original work, nor a simple compilation of excerpts from the pseudoLullian canon. Instead he employed a typical late medieval method of composition, by selecting an authoritative text as the template for his own alchemical exposition. Read in this light, the ‘Twelve Gates’ make considerably more sense. In particular, I will argue that the alchemy of the Compound is not intimately related to the twelve

therapeutic aspects of the work, particularly the vegetable stone. A further explanation may lie in the very structure of the two works. The relationship between the organisation of the Medulla and that of the Epistola

processes which seem on first examination to determine the work ’ s structure. Rather, its key is found in the unusual diagram which accompanies the poem in both print and

accurtationis has already been noted . It is therefore plausible that the arrangement of trace the Compound itself derives from an earlier source. The next chapter will , Ripley’ s appropriation of another Latin treatise, with a primarily chrysopoetic focus

manuscript: Ripley’ s Coelum philosophorum , or Wheel. Perhaps surprisingly, Ripley takes neither the exemplar nor the Wheel from his usual authority, Raymond, but from

in the construction of his famous poem.

a text already encountered in our discussion of the four fires, the Scala

philosophorum. Thus far, we have noted the influence of pseudo-Lullian alchemical ideas on both the Preface to the Compound and throughout the Medulla. Each work expounds what initially appear to be contradictory alchemical philosophies identified in different strands of the pseudo-Lullian corpus, exemplified by the Testamentum and

De secretis. This level of influence might lead us to anticipate a similar adherence to 1

Discussed below, 141. ‘Diagram ’ is used throughout in its modern sense . For the early modem usage of diagrammata , see Ian Maclean , ‘Diagrams in the defence of Galen : Medical use of tables, squares, dichotomies, wheels, and latitudes, 1480- 1574’ , in Sachiko Kusukawa & Ian Maclean (eds.), Transmitting Knowledge: Words, Images, and Instruments in early modern Europe (Oxford, 2006), 135- 164, at 135 . “

99

E

Preface 23. TCB, 126 .

70

71

Compound. Yet of the pseudo-Lullian doctrines throughout the remainder of the associated prefatory work’ s seven direct references to Raymond , five occur in the only two references, poems. The main body of the text, the ‘Twelve Gates’ , contains taken from one accompanying a piece of practical information on proportions Recapitulation . Raymond’ s Repertorium , and one in the final stanza of the

and probably not long before Ripley himself. 5 The difficulty of positioning Guido’ s output in relation to Ripley’ s seems to have taxed early modern readers. A marginal note in one early seventeenth-century manuscript suggests that the two alchemists were contemporaries.6 Given the paucity of evidence, Ripley’ s encomium in the Compound , of “ Guido de Montayno whose fame goyth wyde,” strikes modem ears

those of another Throughout the twelve chapters, references to Lull are balanced by outweighs even that of authority, Guido de Montanor, whose influence, I will argue, Gates’ . Although Raymond in determining the structure and content of the ‘Twelve us to evaluate the few of Guido’ s works survive, what remains will enable has been all but significance for Ripley of this obscure alchemist, whose reputation

with a hollow ring.

Although scarce, some manuscripts do offer tantalising hints of Guido’ s vanished fame. One text, succinctly titled Notabilia Guidonis Montaynor , survives in a fifteenth-century manuscript, Sloane 3744. A longer version of this work was printed by Hermann Condeesyanus as De arte chymica in 1625, in the first decade of a curious compound publication, the Harmoniae imperscrutabilis Chymico-

eclipsed by Ripley’ s own.

Ripley and Guido authorities. We do not Guido de Montanor is one of the most elusive of alchemical commentator on this know where he was born, or when he lived. The principal Compound and mysterious adept is, in fact, Ripley himself, who cites him in both the the Medulla.

de Monte, Guido de Montanor, also named in manuscripts as Guidonis Magni de Monte Rocherii is at times confused with the fourteenth-century theologian Guido of a popular pastoral (d. c.1350), archbishop of Tours and Reims, and author , and Guido the 3 handbook . There appears to be no evidence to connect these persons Medulla as a alchemist remains maddeningly elusive. Ripley describes him in the of Greece, although the learned alchemist and physician Michael Maier

philosopher

»4 Frenchman. Outside the (1568-1622) would later consider him “ without doubt a manuscripts survive bearing Ripley Corpus, only a handful of late fifteenth-century the fifteenth century, Guido’ s name, suggesting that Guido was active no earlier than

See Singer, III, 941. Maier, Symbola Aurae 11 Guido de Montanor , philos. verus fuit, absque dubio Gallus,” Michael went further in Condeesyanus ) 347. Mensae duodecim nationum (Frankfurt, 1617; repr. Graz, 1972 , , & abunde , authenticus verus stressing Guido’ s French connections: “ Guido de Montanor, Philosophus ex Gallico dubio , sine falso experientia chymica imbutus, quern plu[r]imi Graecum fuisse adserunt , Philosophicae Chymico imperscrutabilis sol [ e] fuit oriundus.” Hermann Condeesyanus, Harmoniae . 125 ) , 1625 , sive Philosophorum Antiquorum Consentientium ( Frankfurt

3

4

E

Philosophicae of Condeesyanus (alias Johann Grasshoff ) and the Harmoniae Chymico-Philosophicae of Johann Rhenanus.8 Neither the manuscript nor the printed version is complete, each containing lengthy passages missing from the other. The Notabilia apparently represents extracts taken from a more substantial work, only part

of which was, in turn, available to its seventeenth-century editor. 9 In addition to De arte chymica, a number of recipes and other texts connected

with Guido circulated throughout the second half of the fifteenth century, and can be traced through a small number of related manuscripts. The Notabilia in Sloane 3744,

for instance, is followed by a macaronic selection of recipes in Latin and Middle English, compiled from other works of Guido, as the title, De operationibus colaturalibus Guydonis Montaynor , indicates. Several of these recipes turn up in 5

For fifteenth-century references to Guido outside the Compound, see Sloane 3579 (f.6r), 3744 (ff.27r, 31 v), and 3747 (ff.4 v, 8r); Ashmole 759 (ff.87v, 90v); and Corpus Christi College, Oxford MS 136 (ff. 15 r, 16v, 42r). Of these five manuscripts, three (Sloane 3579, Sloane 3747, Ashmole 759 ) are in the hand of a single scribe (see Chapter Four). 6 “ Guido erat coetaneus Riplaii.” Harley 2411, f. l 3r. 7 Conjunction’ 8. TCB , 146. ‘ g Condeesyanus, Harmoniae imperscrutabilis Chymico Philosophicae , Johann Rhenanus, Harmoniae Chymico- Philosophicae, sive Philosophorum Antiquorum Consentium (Frankfurt, 1625 ). Schmieder’ s assertion that another tract attributed to Guido, the Deer eta chymica, was printed in Rhenanus’ section of the work apparently stems from a misreading of De arte chymica, since no Decreta is recorded in the second decade or elsewhere (Karl Christoph Schmieder, Geschichte der Alchemie [Halle, 1832], 156). Schmieder’ s error seems to be the source of Ferguson ’s later reference to a Decreta chymica (John Ferguson , Bibliotheca Chemica: A Catalogue of the Alchemical, Chemical and Pharmaceutical Books in the Collection of the late James Young of Kelly and Durris , vol. 2 [Glasgow, 1906], 100). Although Schmieder ( Geschichte der Alchemie, 156) claimed that the Thesaurus Chymiatricus, oder lange verborgener Schatz der Chymie ( Halle, 1623), attributed to Guido Magni de Monte, was a translation of De arte chymica, these are two distinct works. The former is entirely practical in content. However, the German text is evidently translated from Latin, and, given some similarity in the ingredients used , may constitute a lost practica of Guido, perhaps once associated with De arte chymica. If so, I have yet to encounter such an association in manuscript.

-

'

11 modus de lapide minerale” ; and certain Latin recipes. The Trinity manuscript also

Fig. 3.1: Trinity 0.8.9, f.36r. By permission of the Master and Scholars of Trinity College, Cambridge.

offers further links with Guido de Montanor, including a set of anonymous alchemical 12 aphorisms, which, a century later, circulated as Notable Rules taken from Guido.

r.

eiu«

Although later copies contain over 40 aphorisms, the Trinity version (the earliest copy

fry*? |

of this work) is truncated by the loss of several folios, leaving only the first 16 aphorisms intact.

1

o

UCILILT jixttw* bcu#

^

Wes, although familiar with Ripley’ s Philorcium , did not connect the song with the Yorkshire Canon . This copy also differs in several respects from the earlier version in

Harley 3528. First, in an apparent concession to the theme of the collection, Du Wes

altered the song’ s title from Carmen perpulcrum to De Lapide philosophico ceu de phenice 45 Second, he added eleven painted illustrations.

Fig. 5.2. Trinity 0.8.24, f.47 r. By permission of the Master and Scholars of Trinity College, Cambridge.

This eye-catching sequence provides more than straightforward illustration . Although most images, including one of the king retreating beneath his mother’ s

skirts, follow the poem’ s narrative, others, including a smith at his forge, have no

straightforward parallel in the text. Another image represents successive phases of the work as coloured bands on a heraldic shield : black at the base, then white, green, and

red , signifying the transition from putrefaction (nigredo ) to the white work { albedo ) ,

the Green Lion (which also features in the text), and finally the red work (rubedo). Du Wes also attempts to relate text and image to specific alchemical processes through

marginal annotations. For instance, where the king is reborn and received into heaven,

the accompanying figure shows a red, haloed child kneeling to receive God’ s blessing, labelled ‘Fermentacio’ (fig. 5.2). The caption suggests that Du Wes equates

This is best demonstrated by the fate of Du Wes’ own manuscript. In contrast to the plain copy in Harley 3528, Du Wes seems to have prepared this illustrated volume as a gift for another alchemical enthusiast. Certainly Trinity 0.8.24, a well -produced

classical compendium of phoenixes, adorned with striking illustrations, has the appearance of a presentation piece. This appearance is further supported by a clue to

the identity of the gift’ s recipient. Although badly torn and faded, on the flyleaf the following inscription can still be discerned : /Egidius

du Wes alias De Vadis Me dedit Robe[ ]eene Anno saluatoris 153[2]

the reborn king with the alchemical ferment, extracted from gold and raised to

paradisical perfection: a reading close to the Ripleian account discussed in Chapter

Above is a monogram comprising the letters ‘R’ and ‘G’ , and a second, badly

Four.

damaged inscription (fig. 5.3). The same monogram is found in a manuscript at

Besides providing a level of commentary on the poem, these additions simplify the task of tracing the influence of the phoenix manuscript throughout the

sixteenth century. The distinctive sequence of images and annotations was copied

Corpus Christi College, Oxford, known to have belonged to another alchemist of the period, Sir Robert Greene ol Welby (fig. 5.4). Greene’ s name exactly fits the lacuna

alongside the verses, or else left other traces of its presence in later copies. In the

in the damaged inscription, creating a statement of ownership which, again, matches that in the Oxford manuscript.

process, they enable us to link many well known and previously unconnected names

The monogram and the date 1532 appear again in the Du Wes manuscript at

in English alchemy.

the base of the page, in Greene’ s distinctive hand. These overlooked details point to a previously unsuspected relationship between the two alchemists, possibly fostered by

44

For Du Wes’ s copy of the Chrysopoeia, see Zweder Von Martels, ‘Augurello’ s “ Chrysopoiea” ( 1515) - A Turning Point in the Literary Tradition of Alchemical Texts.’ Early Science and Medicine 5, ‘Alchemy and Hermeticism’ (2000), 178-195 . 45 Trinity 0.8.24, ff.44 r-48r.

the proximity of both men to the Henrician court. Yet the nature of the relationship is

difficult to evaluate further, since even less is known of Greene than of Du Wes.46

rr£

^

Fig. 5.3. Trinity 0.8.24, flyleaf. By permission of the Master and Scholars of Trinity College, Cambridge .

Fig. 5.4. Oxford , Corpus Christi College MS 118, end flyleaf. By permission of the President and Fellows of Corpus Christi College, Oxford.

To date, details of Greene ' s life have been gleaned almost entirely from the evidence of his own writings, including his convenient habit of signing those books and manuscripts in his possession . Like Du Wes he was an avid collector of alchemica,

owning, among other works, two important mid-fifteenth-century compendia of pseudo-Lullian works and two copies of the pseudo-Aristotelian Secreta secretorum,

but also a twelfth -century copy of Boethius' De musica, and a printed copy of Berengarius' medical work , the Isagoge breues in anatomiam humani corporis

46

As Andrew G . Watson has observed , Greene 's writing seems influenced by the English Common Law hand, suggesting a legal background (‘Robert Green of Welby, Alchemist and Count Palatine, C . 1467-C . 1540, Notes and Queries [ Sept. 1985], 312 313). In two colophons, Greene styles himself Comes Palatinus ( Ashmole 1467, ff. l 82r, 202 v, the latter dated 1532 ). Count Palatine powers were conferred on notaries throughout the sixteenth century by the Holy Roman Emperor. Charles V, elected Emperor in June 1519, actually visited the English court in May 1520.

-

i

139 (Frankfurt, 1532).

A

y

In 1538 he composed an alchemical work of his own , in which he reported himself to be 71 years of age.48 By this reckoning , Greene must have been

around 65 at the time of Du Wes’ gift in 1532, and, judging by the quantity of texts he compiled between 1528 and 1534, deeply interested by alchemy. 49 The two men were apparently alike in age as well as interests. Du Wes, who died in 1535, was approaching the end of his life when he presented Greene with the phoenix codex . The relationship between Greene and Du Wes seems to have begun almost 30 years before the gift was made. Two of Greene’ s manuscripts, now Yale University

Library MS Beinecke-Mellon 12 and Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 395, rank among the earliest surviving collections of pseudo-Lullian writings made in England (c.1450). The former contains many core works of the Lullian canon,

including several known to Ripley: notably the Testamentum , De secretis , and Epistola accurtationis.50 Around the turn of the fifteenth century, the collection was rebound with extensive annotations and interpolations in the hand of a later scribe,

referred to in the catalogue as ‘the second hand’ . The second hand is that of Giles Du Wes, who transcribed the additional material around 1506: apparently for Greene, who began annotating the manuscript in the same year.51 Corpus Christi MS 395 is also replete with articles in Du Wes’ s hand . Yet the name attached to these works, again dated 1506, is not his, but Greene’ s.52

47

Much useful information on Greene’ s books and manuscripts is compiled in Watson , ‘Robert Green of Welby’ , 313 . Watson notes that Greene reported himself as having been 71 in 1538 , and was “ therefore bom around 1467 and presumably had connections by birth or residence with Welby , Lincolnshire, or Welby, Leicestershire” (ibid., 312). 48 Copies of this English tract are found in Ashmole 1415, ff .85 r-96 r (seventeenth century , in Elias Ashmole ’ s hand ); Ashmole 1426 (9), ff.3r- 17r (mid-sixteenth century); Ashmole 1442 ( 3) (seventeenth century ); Ashmole 1490 , ff . l 65 r- 166 v (dated 13 August 1592 , Simon Forman s hand ); ’ Ashmole 1492 (9), 197-205 (dated 23 August 1604, Christopher Taylour’ s hand). Extracts are found in Sloane 1744, ff.22 v-23 v and 58r-v (early seventeenth century, Thomas Robson ’ s hand). 49 Cambridge University Library, MSS Ff.4.12 and Ff.4.13 (texts transcribed between 1528-29); Ashmole 1467 (texts transcribed between 1530-34). 50 A later owner, Denis Duveen, suggested that the collection may previously have belonged to Ripley himself, although no evidence exists to support this intriguing hypothesis (front pastedown , MS Beinecke- Mellon 12 ). 51 “ Reliquaw istiws lapidarij partew in fine practice magni Lap /dis replies | Robertus greene de Welbe a^ w) 1506” (f.97r ). This colophon has been overwitten , leading the cataloguer to conclude that the manuscript “ belonged in the early sixteenth century ( probably not so early as 1506, a rewritten date; perhaps about 1522, as the apparently miswritten date on f. l 29v suggests) to Robert Greene de Welbe” ( Laurence C . Witten II & Richard Pachella, Alchemy and the Occult: A Catalogue of Books and Manuscripts from the Collection of Paul and Mary Mellon given to Yale University Library. Vol. 3: Manuscripts 1225- 1671 [ New Haven , 1977 ], 81 ). However , one item in Du Wes ’ s hand , which has not been interfered with , is dated 1506 (f. l 30v ). 59 For example, “ R G de welbe aw?o. 1506 ” is written over an erasure following a treatise in Du Wes’ s hand (Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS 395, f. 57 v). )

“

140

141

The Lullian compendia and Trinity 0.8.24 therefore provide the termini of a

For by the space of 30 yeares I ever studied and busied my self vpon the misty parables figures and sayings of the old philosophers in the which I was marvelously seduced and overseene and specially by one booke which is of 12 chapters in meter in english which was made by a sufficient and a well learned clarke. But I warne every man to beware of him for he will bring thee out of the way.57

30 year relationship between two prominent alchemists. Beyond this, it is difficult to

refine further on the nature of the connection, since the evidence is capable of supporting several conclusions. While Du Wes’ s transcriptions for Greene may represent gifts or commissions indicative of a patron and client relationship, the two men may simply have enjoyed a productive friendship. It will be recalled that in Trinity 0.8.24 Du Wes included an alchemical letter instructing his “ singulari amici,”

and, while there is no evidence that such a letter was ever sent, its inclusion in the manuscript may have been intended for the edification of its eventual owner, Greene. That 0.8.24’ s sister manuscript, Trinity 0.8.25, was also presented to Greene is

The only alchemical work readily identifiable from this brief account is Ripley’ s Compound of Alchemy. If this is the case, Greene’ s warning represents a rare early

example of negative criticism of Ripley. Greene was certainly familiar with the Compound, although he cannot have found it wholly without value, since he cites it in

What can be known of Greene from his own alchemical collection ? The

relation to Lull’ s “ most royall ferment both to [sol] and [lune] as yow may read in Georgius Riplays preparation in his chapter of fermentation.” 58 Like Ripley, Greene uses a “ vegetable mercury” (equated unambiguously with “ pure Aqua ardens drawen

manuscripts in his hand are all Latin alchemical compendia, including works

out of good and noble wyne” ) to prepare ferments from precious metals.59 His account

attributed to Avicenna, Roger Bacon, John Dastin, and Arnald of Villanova, and a

of successive menstruums also evokes the Compound , particularly where he describes

suggested by a friendly note in Du Wes’ s hand: “ Experto crede Roberto.

»53

54

poem on the phoenix. Besides Bacon and Dastin, Greene was familiar with the work

the creation of a ‘tree’ in his flask, “ springing with leaves like vnto hawthome with

of other English alchemists, whom he mentions in his own tract, the ‘Work’ or

flowers marvelous in sight to behold .»60

‘Admonition’ of Robert Greene. This includes a reference to George Ripley -

For all his reading, and in spite of his passionately declared belief in the truth of alchemy, “ without doubt or fable,” Greene admits in his Work that his years of

although perhaps not a flattering one. Like many practitioners before him, Greene took the opportunity in his work to bemoan the riddling language commonly employed in alchemical writings. He took

study and practice have yielded ambiguous results. On one occasion, he explains, a poor choice of lute for a flask allowed his mercury to escape.61 In spite of his failure

this common complaint seriously enough to recommend texts to his readers on the

to conclusively attain the stone (or perhaps because of it) Greene’ s experimental

basis of their clarity. The author who helped him most, he discloses, is Raymond Lull,

accounts do suggest that he was attempting to put into practice what he read. His

particularly in the second chapter of the Testamentum: “ for I never could fynde in all

observations in the Work also suggest a concern with measuring the weight and volume of his materials:

the authours that over I red the preparation so plainly declared

,

» 55

Also praised are

verses attributed to Merlin, the “ first Book of Mineralles” of Albertus Magnus, and

I take God to witnes. .. I have had both my lights [i.e. gold and silver] ioyned togither in one body growen like a tree with most fragrant smell . .. nor nothing lost nor diminished nor yet corrupt neither lost any weight nor quantity.62

the Stella complexionis of John Bumbelem, which “ expowndeth all the figures and 56 metaphors of the philosophers openly.” Unfortunately, not all English alchemists

lived up to Bumbelem’ s example: 53

Trinity 0.8.25, f.3v. The note follows Du Wes’ s own commentary on the first text in the compilation : the Visio mystica of Arnald of Villanova, perhaps transcribed by Du Wes from his own fifteenth-century copy in Harley 3528. While this manuscript includes no definitive signs of Greene’ s ownership, it seems plausible that he is the Robert addressed. 54 “ Est locus in primo felix oriewte remotws” (Cambridge University Library , MS Ff.4.13, ff.309v 322v). Greene dates this transcription in his colophon : “ Per me Robertum greene | De Welbe Anno 1528. cwrrente | vltima aprilis” (f.322 v ). 55 Ashmole 1492 (9), 199. 56 Ibid ., 202-203.

-

57

Ibid ., 203. Later in the tract Greene mentions having “ the space of 40 yeeres and more in the Theoricke” ( 199). Perhaps we are to understand that he worked a further ten years after his renunciation of “ misty parables.” 58 Ibid., 205. 59 Ibid . 60 Ibid., 199. Ripley compares his material to hawthorn leaves in ‘Cibation ’ 6. 61 Ibid ., 197- 198. • 62 ibid ., 205. On the reproduction of alchemical ‘trees ’ , see Principe, ‘Apparatus and reproducibility in alchemy’ , 65-71.

142 the works of past The contents of the Work suggest that Greene’ s interest in collecting Greene’ s own authorities served practical ends. Yet the collections of transcriptions in describe, and hand reveal no personal engagement with the practices his authorities a 1557 poem by were it not for the contents of the Work , and his appearance in rather than William Blomfild, we might well assume his interest to be theoretical his alchemical practical. Similarly, Du Wes’ s manuscripts offer few indications that , describing a pursuits took him beyond the library in which he worked . His Dialogus grapples with scholarly conversation between Nature and a hapless disciple, of gauging theoretical problems of alchemy rather than the experimental travails comprise Latin calcinations and luting flasks. His transcriptions and compositions compilation, the poems, classical extracts, and the Epistola included in his phoenix a theoretical enigma tone of which is literary rather than practical, concentrating on , relegated to presented by one of his alchemical authorities. Only a few short recipes with Greene, the flyleaves of Trinity 0.8.25, and the evidence for a relationship of their actual suggest that Du Wes indeed practiced what he preached. Regardless

143 speculated whether his interest in alchemy contributed to the pecuniary difficulties which led to his imprisonment for debt in early 1574.65 From the White Lion prison in

Southwark, Thynne wrote twice to Lord Burghley in March 1576, requesting relief from his destitute circumstances, and was eventually released around May that year.

During his incarceration he clearly had opportunity to pursue his alchemical interests, since a number of his transcriptions date from this period.66 In particular, Thynne

must have had access to Du Wes’ phoenix manuscript during this time, since in late 1574 he copied the contents of Trinity 0.8.24 (the Augurello excepted ), including the

phoenix image and other coloured illustrations.

It seems likely that Thynne was acquainted with the Du Wes manuscript before this date, as the phoenix plays a prominent role in an alchemical treatise he composed a year earlier. This treatise forms part of a series of works on heraldic

themes, each illustrated by a coat of arms, which Thynne dedicated to Lord Burghley, composed at “ Barmondsey streathe the 2 of August 1573.

??

68

The third of these is an

alchemical treatise, A Discourse vpon the Philosophers Armes. The work , written in

leave us with practical engagement, in their self-presentation in manuscript both men we should be the picture of the alchemist as scholar rather than practitioner : a picture

alexandrine couplets with lengthy mythological digressions, seems to have been

wary of taking at face value.

suggests:

intended as an alchemical version of Ovid’s Metamorphoses, as Thynne’ s colophon

This metalls Metamorphosis is nowe ended by mee in yere of Christe a thousande, fiue hundred seventie three.69

Survival on the Margins of the phoenix For the next forty or so years after Du Wes’ gift, no more is heard up, manuscript. At some point after his death, Robert Greene’ s collection was broken into the and by the late sixteenth century items from his library had gravitated perhaps MS possession of a variety of distinguished collectors. The Boethius and Isagogue Beinecke-Mellon 12 were acquired by John Dee, while the printed to St eventually formed part of Sir William Paddy’ s large donation of medical books John’ s College, Oxford, in 1602.64 an The trail of the phoenix compendium picks up again, albeit in rather ). Thynne, indirect fashion, in 1573/4, in the company of Francis Thynne (c.1545-1608 Herald from an antiquarian and alchemical enthusiast, held the post of Lancaster have 1602, and habitually complained of financial dire straits. Thynne’ s biographers 63 64

On Blomfild ’ s poem , see below, 159- 160. Watson , ‘Robert Green ofWelby’ , 313.

The phoenix is central to Thynne’ s poem, as appears from the table of contents, which lists the works on phoenixes by Claudianus, Lactantius, and Ovid previously collected

65

David Carlson, ‘The Writings and Manuscript Collection of the Elizabethan Alchemist, Antiquary, and Herald, Francis Thynne’, Huntington Library Quarterly 52 (1989), 203-272, at 205; Louis A . Knafla, ‘Thynne, Francis (15457-1608)’ , DNB. 66 British Library MS Additional 11388, discussed below. Thynne ’ s writings in Longleat House MS 178 include an Ordinall of Alchemy dated June 1574, and Tractatus de magnete dated 20 August 1574. 67 Not, admittedly, in the order in which they appeared in his exemplar. According to Thynne’s dates, the tracts were copied as follows: De vetula, 20 September 1574; De pomo, 28 September 1574; Lactantius, 1 November 1574; Claudianus, 3 November 1574; and the Cantilena, 18 November 1574. The texts have subsequently been bound in a different order. 68 Trinity R.14.14, f.64r. Thynne’s work survives in two manuscripts, Trinity R. 14.14 and Ashmole 766 (1 ), each bearing his signature. The illuminations are particularly magnificent in the former copy, which is also written in a clearer hand than Thynne’ s, suggesting it may have been the presentation copy intended for Burghley. 69 Trinity R.14.14, f, 140 v .

, consist of a shield The accompanying philosophical arms, or Insignia green, black , white, and red stripes depicting a parti-coloured lion rampant, whose The shield, supported by the figures of denote the phases of the alchemical work. (fig. 5.5). is crowned with a triumphantly burning phoenix Vulcan and Mercury, is 70

by Du Wes.

more carefully than his exemplar (doubtless he had

time

on his hands), the two

schemes are not identical. In the Du Wes manuscript, the fourth illumination shows the pregnant Queen about to take to her bed, fulfilling the sense of the poem : The Mother unto her Chast Chamber goes Where in a Bed of Honour she Bestowes. Thynne, however, illustrates the passage differently. In his interpretation, the Queen is

seated upright in the bed, in prayer, her skin blotched with lesions. Rather than

departing from the poem’ s narrative, this amendment actually provides an accurate illustration of the succeeding stanzas. Thynne has therefore chosen to illustrate what is, alchemically speaking, a more interesting passage than the one selected by Du

Wes: an account of the physical changes manifested in the alchemist’ s flask following

the dissolution of gold into its ‘mother’ . This decision may thus be treated alongside his marginal annotations as a form of commentary upon the poem’ s contents. A further addition to the collection is provided by a painted version of

Thynne’ s Insignia , here embellished with five couplets in Latin, English, and

fragmentary Greek, throwing down an interpretative gauntlet: Who rightly blasonne canne these armes of heuenly grace 72 in secret cause of Natures Woorkes deserueth cheifest place. ,

The phoenix manuscript, linked to Thynne’ s Discourse and Insignia through text and

cj( fcJ?’j fes rVTu ( nnifa fine qin

^

fiijujnia j

image, provides one key to such a blazon. While the text of the Discourse recycles

ISLatura eaujas mini rcjcrctrcjjotcCE

rmciyihmqs rerunt^Jcrutnrifcit LaCyrintfos