Byzantine Alchemy, or the Era of Systematization PDF

Preview

Summary

Byzantine Alchemy, or the Era of Systematization Oxford Handbooks Online Byzantine Alchemy, or the Era of Systematization   Cristina Viano Oxford Handbook of Science and Medicine in the Classical World Edited by Paul T. Keyser and John Scarborough Print Publication Date: Aug 2018 Subject: Classical ...

Description

Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Byzantine Alchemy, or the Era of Systematization Cristina Viano Oxford Handbook of Science and Medicine in the Classical World Edited by Paul T. Keyser and John Scarborough

Cite this paper

Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers

Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

GRECO-EGYPT IAN ALCHEMY Crist ina Viano

"Divine Wat er" in t he Alchemical Writ ings of Pseudo-Democrit us, "Ambix" 2009 Mat t eo Mart elli Byzant ine Geography Andreas Külzer

Byzantine Alchemy, or the Era of Systematization

Oxford Handbooks Online Byzantine Alchemy, or the Era of Systematization   Cristina Viano Oxford Handbook of Science and Medicine in the Classical World Edited by Paul T. Keyser and John Scarborough Print Publication Date: Aug 2018 Subject: Classical Studies, Ancient Science and Medicine Online Publication Date: Jul 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734146.013.46

Abstract and Keywords The chapter shows how the texts of early Byzantine alchemy transformed the alchemical tradition. This period is characterized by a generation of “commentators” tied to the Neoplatonic milieu. Their writings, designed primarily to clarify the ideas of the previous generations, represent the most advanced stage of ancient alchemical theory. In the fifth century, authors external to alchemy explicitly speak of alchemy as a contemporary practice to produce gold from other metals. Around the seventh century, the corpus of alchemical texts began to be assembled as an anthology of extracts. The object of the research was agents of transformations of matter. The cause of the transformation is an active principle that acts by dissolution: “divine water” (or sulfur water), mercury, “chrysocolla” (gold solder), or raw sulfur. Mercury is at once the dyeing agent and the prime metallic matter, understood as the common substrate of the transformations and the principle of liquidity. Keywords: Aristotle, Heliodorus, mercury, Olympiodorus, Stephanus, Synesius, transmutation, Zosimus

1. Introduction: Byzantine Egypt and the Period of the Commentators THE Byzantine period of Egypt begins at the death of emperor Theodosius I in 395 CE, when the province of Aegyptus came under the Eastern Roman Empire. It ends under the reign of Heraclius, with the Arab conquest in 640 CE. Byzantine Egypt experienced a period of peace, which extends from the 5th to the beginning of the 7th century, during which Alexandria is at the center of intense intellectual and spiritual activity. Philosophical and scientific debates continue to flourish, and lively doctrinal disputes

Page 1 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

Byzantine Alchemy, or the Era of Systematization arise around the tenets of Christianity, which intersect with the doctrines of Gnosticism and Hermetism. In this bustling atmosphere, Greek alchemy experiences a crucial moment in its development, because at that period doctrines and operations and the conceptual tools for thinking are developed and defined that will be the basis for all subsequent periods. This period is characterized indeed by a generation of “commentators” tied to the Neoplatonic milieu, like Synesius (4th century CE), Olympiodorus (6th century CE) and Stephanus (7th century CE). The writings of these commentators, designed primarily to clarify the thinking of the great figures of previous generations, including Democritus and Zosimos, represent the most advanced stage of ancient alchemical theory. We are witnessing a genuine process of defining and systematizing alchemical doctrine through the intellectual tools of philosophy available to these authors. This process, already begun by previous authors, now finds its full realization. From this perspective, through the systematic search for causes, historia of the recipes is integrated (p. 944) through theōria. Indeed, these authors, seeking to develop the links between theory and practice, between nature and technē (art), between the doctrine of transmutation, philosophical theories of matter on one hand, and technical processes on the other, laid the basis for a reflection on the possibility and on the nature of alchemy as an autonomous knowledge. It was also at that period, around the 7th century, that the corpus of alchemical texts began to be assembled under its very particular form of an anthology, essentially of extracts, as found in a large number of manuscripts, among which these three are the most important: (1) the oldest and most beautiful, the Marcianus Graecus 299 (M) (10th– 11th century), brought back from Byzantium by Cardinal Bessarion in the 15th century and currently kept at the Library of St. Mark in Venice; (2) the Parisinus Graecus 2325 (B), of the 13th century; and (3) the Parisinus Graecus 2327 (A), copied in 1478. Finally, it is in the 5th century that authors external to alchemy explicitly speak of alchemy as a contemporary practice to produce gold starting from other metals. Proclus (5th century CE) compares astronomers who make astronomical tables to “those who claim to produce gold by the mixture of certain species (of metals)” (On Plato’s ‘Republic’ 2.234.14–25 Kroll). Aeneas of Gaza (5th–6th centuries CE), Christian philosopher and orator, pupil of the Neoplatonist Hierocles, talks about the possibility of improving the material of bodies by changing their form, and offers the example of those who produce gold by melting together and dyeing silver and tin (Theophrastus, 71 Barth). Here it is proposed to develop a picture of the most characteristic aspects of the alchemy of that period starting from the specific contributions of its most representative protagonists. This presentation seeks to answer two closely related questions, which are essential for identifying and understanding this complex and paradoxical knowledge, which will not even receive a proper name until a relatively late period. Indeed, the Greek

Page 2 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

Byzantine Alchemy, or the Era of Systematization term chēmeia is found in Stephanus in the 7th century, and the Latin term alchimia, an Arabic derivation, appears only in the Western world in the 12th century. The first question is essentially internal to the texts: How did the alchemical authors view their knowledge? We seek to understand, through the methodological reflections of the authors, how they defined, and what epistemological status they attributed to, their field. The second question is external and concerns our epistemological approach to this knowledge: How should we study the alchemical texts? Can one sketch the rules of a proper approach that can take account at once of the multiple facets and also of the unique specificity of this cultural phenomenon we call Greco-Alexandrian alchemy?

2. The Protagonists and the Question of Pseudepigraphy

Page 3 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

Byzantine Alchemy, or the Era of Systematization To locate the generation of the commentators and show their position in the core of Greek alchemy, we must draw a brief sketch of its historical development. Greek alchemical literature is usually divided into three parts. The first part is located between the 1st and 3rd centuries CE. It includes the chemical recipes of the Physika and mystika attributed to “Democritus” (1st–2nd centuries CE) and the anonymous papyri of Leiden and Stockholm (3rd century CE). These recipes focus on imitation of gold, silver, precious stones, and purple. One finds there the idea of the fundamental unity of matter and that of the relations of sympathy between substances, expressed by the famous “small” formula revealed by mage Ostanes, which can be considered as the zero degree of alchemical theorizing, in the essentially technical context of the recipes: “Nature is delighted with nature, nature conquers nature, nature dominates nature” (Hē phusis tē phusei terpetai, kai hē phusis tēn phusin nika, kai hē phusis tēn phusin kratei). In these recipes the model of production of gold seems to be that of an imitation (mimesis) through coloring that acts on the external properties of bodies. This notion of imitation is the crux of the old conception of the art, and contains, as we shall see, in embryo the idea of transmutation. At this stage we also see reported a series of short quotes or treatises of the mythical “old authors” such as Hermes, Agathodaimon, Isis, Cleopatra, Mary the Jewess, Ostanes, Pammenes, and Pibechius (between the 1st and 3rd century CE). (p. 945)

The second period is that of authors properly so-called: Zosimos of Panopolis, Pelagios, and Iamblichus (3rd–4th century). Zosimos appears as the greatest figure of the GrecoEgyptian alchemy. Coming from Panopolis of Egypt, he perhaps lived in Alexandria around 300 CE. From his work, we have fragments gathered in four groups in the manuscripts: the Authentic Memoirs, the Chapters to Eusebia, the Chapters to Theodore, and the Final Account with two excerpts from the Book of Sophē. One of the major problems is to identify the “28 books kata stoicheion” (in alphabetical order) mentioned by the Byzantine lexicon Suda, which seem to comprehend the entirety of the work of Zosimos and to relate them to the titles transmitted by direct and indirect traditions. Among the most famous pieces should be mentioned: On the Letter Omega and the three Visions, which are part of the Authentic Memoirs; the Visions describe dreams that unveiled to Zosimos the properties of metals. Metal-processing operations are accompanied by a ritualization of the symbols of death and of resurrection, and of purifying the mind of matter. Indeed, the concept of metals is often paralleled in Zosimos with the concept, inspired by Gnostic and hermetic thought, of the double nature of humans, composed of body and spirit, of soma and pneuma. Finally, the third and final period is precisely the one that interests us: that of the commentators. The most important are Synesius (4th century), Olympiodorus (6th century), and Stephanus (7th century). Close to Stephanus are four poems transmitted under the names of Heliodorus, Theophrastus, Hierotheus, and Archelaus (7th century). Later, perhaps between the 6th and 8th centuries, two anonymous commentators, commonly called the Christian Philosopher and the Anonymous Philosopher, lead directly to the period of the most extensive compilation of the main manuscript of the collection, Page 4 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

Byzantine Alchemy, or the Era of Systematization the Marcianus Graecus 299. Indeed, it is assumed that this anthology was compiled in Byzantium in the 7th century, at the period of Heraclius, by a certain Theodore, who wrote the verse preface, which is found at the beginning of this manuscript (folio 5v), and who was probably a pupil of Stephanus. Thereafter, the alchemical tradition in Byzantium continues with Michael (p. 946) Psellus (11th century), Nikephoros Blemmydes (13th century), and Cosmas (15th century). The issue of identification of the commentators Olympiodorus and Stephanus with their namesakes the Neoplatonic commentators was raised very early by historians of alchemy and until now has made much ink flow. Indeed, in the alchemical literature, pseudepigraphy is a frequent phenomenon. In the corpus, we can find Plato, Aristotle, Democritus, and Theophrastus mentioned among the alchemical authors. From a chronological point of view, however, Olympiodorus and Stephanus constitute the borderline between these obviously false attributions and authentic attributions to known characters, such as Psellus. In the corpus of Greek alchemists these two authors are defined as “the masters famous everywhere and worldwide, the new exegetes of Plato and Aristotle” (Berthelot and Ruelle, Collection des anciens alchimistes grecs vol. 2, 425.4; hereafter CAAG). And there is good reason to attribute the writings of Olympiodorus and Stephanus, at least in their original versions, to their Neoplatonist namesakes. Indeed, the latest studies are turning more and more toward the hypothesis of identity, but for Olympiodorus, because of the especially composite and discontinuous form of his work, the question of attribution is more complex and delicate than in the case of Stephanus, who offers on the contrary a more homogeneous collection of treatises. As we shall see, the commentary of Olympiodorus the alchemist is an exemplary product of the alchemical literature.

2.1 Synesius Synesius is the author of a commentary on the Physika kai mystika of pseudo-Democritus in the form of a dialogue entitled Synesius to Dioscorus, Commentary on the Book of Democritus (CAAG vol. 2, 56.20–69.11). Synesius is unknown to Zosimos but cited by Olympiodorus, who inserts long sections of Synesius in his commentary On the Kat’energeian of Zosimus. Dioscorus had been, as indicated by Synesius himself, a priest of Serapis in Alexandria. Synesius has been identified with the homonymous Christian bishop of Cyrene, Neoplatonic and student of Hypatia, but the dedication to Dioscorus, pagan priest, makes this argument difficult to sustain. In addition, this dedication shows that the work of Synesius is prior to the destruction of the Alexandrian Serapeion (391 CE). The conclusion of the dialog Synesius to Dioscoros reads (CAAG 2.69.5 and 11): “it suffices to say this briefly,” and a few lines later: “With the help of God, I will begin my

Page 5 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

Byzantine Alchemy, or the Era of Systematization review (hupomnēma).” This makes one think that it is at once a summary (or extract) and a preamble to a more extensive work. However, the text that has reached us presents an orderly and systematic development. The exegetical intent is explicit from the beginning: it is necessary to investigate the writings of Democritus, to learn his thought and the order of succession of his teachings (CAAG vol. 2, p. 57.17). Democritus’ oath to reveal nothing clearly to anyone is explained in the sense that we should not reveal teachings to outsiders but reserve them solely for initiates and practiced minds (CAAG vol. 2, p. 58.12). The multiplicity of names that Democritus has given to substances thus has the goal of exercising and testing the intelligence of adepts (CAAG vol. 2, p. 59.5). (p. 947)

The exegesis of Synesius bears at once on practical explanations (e.g., “the dissolution of metallic bodies” means bringing metals to the liquid state, CAAG vol. 2, p. 58.22), and on general principles (for example, the enunciation of the principle that liquids derive from solids, relative to coloring principles provided by dissolution, called “flowers,” CAAG vol. 2, p. 59.17). As in most of the texts of that period, the object of the research is identified with agents of transformations of matter (CAAG vol. 2, p. 59.25). The cause of the transformation is an active principle, called “divine water”, mercury, “chrysocolla,” or raw sulfur, and acts by dissolution. Mercury is at once the dyeing agent and the prime metallic matter, understood as the common substrate of the transformations and the principle of liquidity (CAAG vol. 2, p. 61.1). One can detect in the explanations of the general principles of the transformation of metals the strong influence of Aristotelian terminology. First, the object of the research is identified as an efficient cause. Then, the fabrication of metals is conceived as a mixture (mixis), especially among liquids (which according to Aristotle is the optimal condition, cf. Generation and Corruption 1.10, 328b 1); the preliminary condition is that of dissolution, which in Aristotle represents the culmination of the separation of compounds, thus of mixtures (see Meteorology 4.1, 379a4–11). The transformation is conceived as a change of specific quality, generally through color. Mercury is compared to the material worked by the artisan (CAAG vol. 2, p. 62.23) who can change only the form. The distinction between potential and activity is applied to the coloring activity of mercury: “in activity it remains white, in potential it becomes yellow” (CAAG vol. 2, p. 63.6). As we will see in other authors, Synesius presents a natural conception of alchemy: it is always nature that, ultimately, is the true principle agent of the operations. The task of the artisan is to create the conditions so that the active properties, buried in the substances, become operative and act on the substances themselves in virtue of their affinity.

Page 6 of 26

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice). Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

Byzantine Alchemy, or the Era of Systematization

2.2 Olympiodorus Olympiodorus is one of the most interesting authors of the alchemical corpus. The question of attributing the Commentary On the “Kat’energeian” of Zosimos to his namesake the Neoplatonic commentator touches on two issues vital to the understanding of Greco-Alexandrian alchemy: the constitution of treatises in the corpus, and the interest of Neoplatonist exegesis on Aristotle in alchemy. For this reason, it is worthwhile to devote to him a more detailed analysis. Let’s start with the Neoplatonic philosopher. Olympiodorus, pupil of Ammonius, taught the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle in Alexandria in the second half of the 6th century. Pagan and defender of Hellenism, he will have Christian successors, such as David (aka Elias) and Stephanus. We still have his three Platonic commentaries: on the Alcibiades I, on the Gorgias, and on the Phaedo, and two Aristotelian commentaries, one on the Categories (which contains the usual Prolegomena to the philosophy of Aristotle), and the other on the Meteorology, as well as fragments on the On Interpretation. Among his works, the only one that can be dated with certainty is the commentary to the Meteorologica, where Olympiodorus mentions (CAAG vol. 2, p. 52.31) a comet that made its appearance in 565...