Alchemy

...the sordid work of chemistry may no longer be chemistry, except by its origin. Other arts also share things among themselves, and the faculties especially make use of many shared elements, but they are not for that reason confused.

Some will want Chemistry to be divided into metallurgy and pharmaceutics; some will demand a third part concerning the judgment of mineral waters, and will even weave in the assaying of metals. Regarding these, I feel as I do about the rest of those who lack method. I myself have thought diligently about a suitable arrangement; I have often changed thoughts that were previously approved. At last, the nature of the method unfolded itself; its guidance had to be followed. And why should I make pharmaceutics a distinct part, when medicines are also made from metals by the same preparation? One person employs the same thing for the wonders of metals, another for human health. It is not to be taught here twice or repeatedly. A single operation should be explained in one way and in one place, even if the work serves a thousand different uses. However, the treatise on mineral waters and testing is partly contained within synthetic precepts, and partly belongs to several arts that share their use. I shall deal with these in the commentary joined to this art.

I have appended my own notes to certain examples from authors. These will seem unpolished to some. Let them indeed also seem foolish. Is it a wonder to stumble in such great darkness? Mine shall yield to those whose opinion shall be better. The Paracelsians will want everything spoken according to the taste of their master. 1. Tom. Chir. mag. Indeed, I have not rejected any good formulas I found in Paracelsus, of which perhaps he himself is not the author. For he admits that he received many things from his father Wilhelm, from the Bishop of Seckau, Erhard of Lavanttal, Nicholas, Bishop of Hippo, Matthew Schacht, Suffragan of Freising, Archelaus, Johannes Trithemius, Abbot of Sponheim, likewise from the ancients and countless others; and part of these he himself learned through use, which were afterwards proven true, although they had to be unearthed from the darkest shadows.

But I have cited all the fewer things, and very hesitantly, because he most studiously entangles everything in enigmas, and obscures even the most manifest things, nor does he wish to be understood. Why then should he not remain consistent with himself and the teachers from whom he learned, since [to them] authority carries more weight than experience? It is well enough known what great men—Crato, Arragosius, Gesner, Zwinger, Pithopoeus, Muffet, etc.—judged concerning him. It is not