Previous section | Next section | Back to Rosarium index | Back to main page
[p. 3]Here begins the book of the rose garden of the philosophers, most carefully composed and compiled into one volume.
Let those who wish to have true knowledge of the greater science of the philosophical art inspect this little book diligently. Let them often read it through, and they shall attain their prosperous desire. You sons of the ancient philosophers! Hear what I proclaim in the loudest voice I can. I come to open up for you an extraordinary state of humanity, a treasury that of all the secrets of the whole world is the most secret. And I shall accomplish this neither falsely nor mockingly, but openly, with the greatest certainty and refinement. May you, therefore, show me that you are zealous to listen, and through this I shall bring you the magisterium of doctrine. For I am now able to give you a truer account of what I saw with my own eyes and touched with my hands.
There are some [in this art] who go about even more confidently than the many fraudulent flatterers. They finally find for themselves, after great [p. 4]expense and labour, no result but misery. This is why I speak to you clearly and openly: so that the inexperienced are able to understand the secret of this magisterium just as well as the experienced. No one will be able, with any right, to cast blasphemies against me for doing this. The ancient philosophers seem not to be coherent, much less intelligible, because they wrote as obscurely as they did confusedly. The result was that inquirers into this most precious of arts were either deceived or deterred from their purpose. As for me, I have taken away every deceit and obscurity. Openly, before your eyes, I will set down each true demonstration, together with the philosophers’ opinions (brought as well as possible to bear on the subject), so that the matter at hand will be that much opener and more plainly understood.
We note from the start that all who work outside of nature are deceivers. They labour at what they ought not to. From man only man is born, and from animal only animal, and every kind produces only its kind. For this reason, whoever does not have his own cannot freely have what is another’s. Now, we say this so that nobody loses his money. If some, through sluggishness of mind, should be deceived and seduced into poverty, then they also try to seduce and compel others into misery. But I counsel that [p. 5]nobody should admit himself to the discovery of this art, unless he knows the principle of true nature and of her rule. If he grasps this, then he does not need many substances, but only one. Nor does he require great expenses, for the stone is one, the medicine one, the vessel one, the rule one, and the disposition one. And know that the art is very true, for the philosophers would never have studied so many diversities of colours, and explained their order, if they had not seen and touched them. Thus we repeat: all who work outside of nature are deceived and deceivers. Let our exercise be within nature and our service directed to it, for our stone is of animal, vegetable, and mineral substance.
Be then of one will in the work of nature. Do not presume now to attempt one thing, now another, for our art is not perfected in a multitude of things. However much its names should vary, there is nevertheless only one substance, and this comes from the same substance. Nothing in nature comes into nature that is not of its own nature.
Agent and patient must be one and the same substance with respect to their genus, but with respect to their species they must be distinct from each other. This is according to Mercury. Woman is differentiated from man even though they agree in genus, since they nevertheless have a distinctive difference between them, like the difference between matter and form. Matter suffers action, but form acts, [p. 6]making matter like unto it. Thus matter naturally longs for form, just as woman longs for man, and the ugly longs for the beautiful. Likewise the body freely embraces the spirit, so that it may attain to its perfection.
You will fashion your work better out of natural roots if you know them. I can in no other way explain our stone; I cannot name it by any other name. It is evident from our premises that our stone is of four elements. The rich have it as much as the poor, and it is found everywhere, and it is like all things. It is composed out of body, soul, and spirit. It is transformed from nature into nature, to the last degree of its perfection.
It is said that our stone is made out of a single substance, and this is true. Our whole magisterium comes into being with our water. Our water is the sperm of all metals, and all metals are redissolved into it, as has been shown.
Again, the salt of metals is the philosophers’ stone. Our stone is water congealed in gold and silver, and it resists fire. It is redissolved in its water, out of which it is composed with respect to its genus. Therefore the reduction of bodies into first matter, that is to say, into quicksilver, is nothing but [p. 7]the redissolution of congealed matter. Through this redissolution, what binds together is opened up via the ingression of one nature into another.
The philosophers have said that Sun is nothing but mature quicksilver. In Mercury there are only two elements in actuality, namely earth and water, which are passive elements. The active elements, air and fire, are in it only potentially. When these elements in pure Mercury are drawn out from pure potential into actuality (following the required digestion and proportional decoction), then gold is made. In gold, therefore, there are four active elements in equal proportion, and it is for this reason that mature and active sulphur is there. Our art aids nature to attend upon Mercury. But mature gold, in which (as it was said) there is mature and well-digested sulphur, comes from nature through nature’s work.
Arnaldus: Whoever wishes to attain to this science, and is not a philosopher, is foolish. This science is nothing if not [drawn] from the philosophers’ secrets. Senior:[1] For that art has been preserved in the power of God and is an enemy to laymen. Geber: Therefore this science is not suitable for the poor and wanting, [p. 8]but rather is an enemy to them. In the second book of the Politics, the philosopher [Aristotle] says: It is impossible for a poor man to philosophize.
According to the philosophers, the way into this art is twofold, namely universal and particular. The universal way is easy and rare. It is drawn from those true, natural principles by which a seminary and transformative force instantly hardens Mercury and tincts any duly prepared metal into true gold or silver. This kind of force has been [directed] toward its end from the very beginning, by virtue of the conjunction of actives to passives. The second way is called particular. It is difficult and laborious.[2] Note: although Alchemy in the universal way is partly natural and partly artificial, it is natural to a greater extent. In the way of true Alchemy, nothing alien or extraneous is introduced by nature. Nature has what it works in. Actives are joined to passives through a joining together or application; but as for the rest, nature works through itself. Plato:[3] Our stone is a substance that fire has not touched. Mercury arises from it.
There are three kinds of laborers in the Alchemical art, namely the Alchemist [Alchimista], the Lauchimist [Lauchimista], and the Lachrimist [Lachrimista].[4] Not everyone who says, “receive me, receive me” [recipe, recipe] [p. 9]shall enter into the art, for “receive me” [recipe] is one thing only. One body does not enter into another. [5] Gratianus:[6] Take this and this, and do thus and thus, and you shall have this, and that is the truth among all philosophers. A philosopher: The first word, “receive me, receive me” [recipe, recipe], has caused many errors. Therefore the first work is to dissolve the stone’s substance, that is, Mercury not common.
Arnaldus: Fools who understand the philosophers’ sayings by the letter are blind and will find nothing but falsehood. They say, “the science is false, for we have attempted it and found nothing.” And then they are like desperate men, and they despise the books and the science, and for that reason the science despises them. Our science of nature’s secrets has no enemy but the ignorant.
Verses:
Hic lapis exilis extat precio quoque vilis,
Spernitur a stultis amatur plus ab edoctis.
This meager stone is above the precious and the base.
It is rejected by fools, loved more by the learned.
Alphidius[7] says likewise: Know that God did not set this stone, which the mystery deals with, to be bought at a high price. It is found in a street, having been cast away; a poor man may have it as well as a rich man. Anyone may reach it easily through reason and science.
Quicksilver is not the stone. Constantinus:[8] Because it is meltable [fusibile], it is not the stone. Quicksilver is fire. A philosopher: Know then that quicksilver is fire and burns bodies to a greater extent than fire.
[1] Muhammad ibn Umayl al-Tamimi (ca. 900–960).
[2] The “particular way” is elaborated in the section on “Illumination” and “Nourishment.”
[3] Here, not the ancient Greek philosopher (428/427–349/348 BC), but two originally Arabic texts attributed to Plato: the Summa Platonis (“Summa of Plato”), and a commentary on it, the Liber quatuorum Platonis (“Book of four of Plato”).
[4] “Lachrimist” would seem to suggest “one who practices the art of tears.” “Lauchimist” is unknown; perhaps related to the root of λαγχανω (lankhano),” to obtain by lot,” whence Λάχεσις (Lachesis), the second of the three Fates of Greek myth, whose function is to “allot” the length of life. This would suggest a practitioner of chance, or fate (divination?).
[5] The first part of this passage follows the Vulgate’s translation of Matthew 7:21. In English the Biblical passage reads, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.” “Lord” [Domine] is replaced by recipe, grammatically an imperative meaning “take back” or “receive”; and “the kingdom of heaven” is replaced by “the art.” Unusually, the marginal note that accompanies this passage (Recipe, id est, Decipe—“Receive, that is, deceive”) could be read as an editorial commentary that adds something substantive to the main text, rather than merely summarizing or highlighting a key term. Perrot favours this interpretation, stating that “L’adage vise les donneurs de recettes” [the adage is aimed at those who give recipes].
The second part of the passage is the most obscure. It reads, quia unum tantum est recipe, unum corpus non intrat alterum. Perrot’s translation reads, “Car ‘Prends’ est seulement une chose, et ‘Un corps n’entre pas dans un autre corps’ est une autre chose.” [For “take” is only one thing, and “One body does not enter into another body” is another thing.] This is tortured, since the correlative sense of “one thing ... another thing” would require unum ... alterum in Latin, but the alterum which occurs is already necessary to complete the sense of unum corpus non intrat alterum [corpus] (“one body does not enter into another [body]”). Alterum cannot mean “autre corps” and “autre chose” at the same time.
The reading offered in my translation interprets recipe in the text of Matthew 7:21: “Receive [me] into the art.” As in the Biblical parable, the one who cries to be received is admonished that to beg entry is one thing only; to merit entry requires work. This seems to make sense of the various admonishments that directly follow the current passage, which remind the reader that one thing cannot simply be received into another without first pursuing the alchemical work of dissolution. Moreover, it allows us to interpret the marginal note as a summary, in accordance with the Rosarium’s stylistic rule, rather than as an independent adage. “Receive, that is, deceive”: the one who merely stands outside and cries “receive me” is in fact wishing to be deceived, just as the Rosarium says earlier about those who stand outside nature and think they are entering into the art.
[6] Of uncertain identification, but attested in various medieval alchemical texts.
[7] A frequently cited authority of the late Middle Ages, but otherwise unknown.
[8] Constantinus Pisanus (13th c.), author of the Liber secretorum alchimiae (“Book of alchemical secrets”), cited here. Otherwise unknown.