Lives of alchemystical philosophers To which is added a...

This list is accepted without suspicion or criticism by M. Delécleuze, but as Raymond Lully did not begin writing till 1270, and as he died in 1318 at latest, this calculation requires us to suppose that he produced ten treatise every year without intermission for the space of eight and forty years, which would have been perfectly impossible for the most cloistered, book-devoted student, and Raymond Lully was a man of indefatigable activity, as the facts of his itinerant existence abundantly reveal. A writer in the Biographie Universelle, Paris, 1820, has the following pertinent remarks on this subject:—“Some of his biographers have extended the number of his treatises to several thousand.[M] The more moderate have reduced them from five hundred to three hundred, which lie scattered among the libraries of Majorca, Rome, Barcelona, the Sorbonne, St Victor, and the Chatreux at Paris; but scarcely two hundred can be found distinguished by their titles and the first words of the work; and this number must be still further diminished as the difference between some of them is very slight, as chapters have been given for the titles of separate works, and as the explanations of professors or disciples have often been mistaken by uncritical writers for the lessons of the master.”

Now, the great problem in the chequered life of the illuminated theosophist and possessor of the universal science who died thus violently at Tunis, or Bugia, in the cause of his Master, is this—whether or not he is to be identified with that Raymond Lully whom Éliphas Lévi terms “a grand and sublime adept of Hermetic science,” who is said to have made gold and Rose nobles for one Edward, King of England, and who left behind him, as monuments of his unparalleled alchemical proficiency, those world-famous treatises, testaments, and codicils which, rightly or wrongly, are attributed, under the title “chemistry, 49 treatises,” to the heroic martyr of Majorca. On this important point, the writer, already quoted, in the Bibliothèque Universelle, testifies that “the works on alchemy must be referred to another Raymond, of Ferrago, a Jewish neophyte, who lived after 1315, and with whom Abraham Bzovius confounded the first in attributing to him some propositions condemned by Gregory XI.” And again:—“The works on alchemy attributed to him are too opposed to the evangelical poverty of a man who had renounced everything in his zeal for the religion of Jesus Christ, and who protests in many places against the chimera of the philosopher’s stone, sought in his time by Arnaud de Villeneuve, whose disciple he was supposed to be. The circumstances and the dates even in several of these books—of which that on natural wisdom is addressed to Edward III.—prove, moreover, that they must be referred to a later epoch.”

Raymond Lully repaired to Vienna to be present at a general council of the Church in the year 1311. While in this city it is alleged that he received letters from Edward, King of England, who had ascended the throne in 1307, and from Robert, King of Scotland, who both invited him with much persuasion to visit their realms. Hoping to encourage these princes to assist him in his plans against the infidels, he soon arrived in London in the company of John Cremer, Abbot of Westminster.

This ecclesiastic is said to have been one of the most celebrated Hermetic artists of his age. He worked thirty years to attain the end of alchemy, but the obscurities of the Hermetic writers, which he could not clear up, cast him into a labyrinth of errors. The more he read, the more he wondered; at last, tired of the loss of his money, and much more of his precious time, he set out to travel, and had the good fortune to meet with Raymond Lully in Italy. With him he formed a strict friendship, remaining some time in his company, edified by his penitent life, and illuminated by his philosophical conversations. The adept, though he spoke upon alchemy, would not, however, entirely discover the essential points of the operation. Cremer was insinuating and affectionate; he perceived that Lully’s zeal for the conversion of the infidels extended to the false enthusiasm of exciting open war against the Mohammedans, and easily persuaded him to visit England, in the hope of King Edward’s assistance. The adept lodged with his friend in the Abbey of Westminster, where he worked, and perfected the stone which Cremer had so long unsuccessfully sought. He was duly presented to the King, who, previously informed of the talents of the illustrious stranger, received him with regard and attention.

When he “communicated his treasures,” the single condition which he made was that they should not be expended in the luxuries of a court or in war with a Christian prince, but that the King should go in person with an army against the infidels.

Edward, under pretence of doing honour to Raymond, gave him an apartment in the Tower of London, where the adept repeated his process. He transmuted base metal into gold, which was coined at the mint into six millions of nobles, each worth three pounds sterling at the present day. These coins are well known to antiquarians by the name of Rose Nobles. They prove in the assay of the test to be a purer gold than the Jacobus, or any other gold coin made in those times. Lully in his last testament declares that in a short time, while in London, he converted twenty-two tons weight of quicksilver, lead, and tin into the precious metal.

His lodging in the Tower proved only an honourable prison, and when Raymond had satisfied the desires of the King, the latter disregarded the object which the adept was so eager to see executed, and to regain his own liberty Lully was obliged to escape surreptitiously, when he quickly departed from England.

Cremer, whose intentions were sincere, was not less grieved than Raymond at this issue of the event, but he was subject to his sovereign, and could only groan in silence. He declares his extreme affliction in his testament, and his monastery daily offered up prayers to God for the success of Raymond’s cause. The Abbot lived long after this, and saw part of the reign of King Edward III. The course of operations which he proposes in his testament, with apparent sincerity, is not less veiled than are those in the most obscure authors.[N]

Now, in the first place, this story is not in harmony with itself. If Raymond Lully were at Vienna in 1311, how did John Cremer contrive to meet him in Italy at or about the same time? In the second place, the whole story concerning the manufacture of Rose Nobles is a series of blunders. The King who ascended the throne of England in 1307 was Edward II., and the Rose Nobles first appear in the history of numismatics during the reign of Edward IV., and in the year 1465.

“In the King’s fifth year, by another indenture with Lord Hastings, the gold coins were again altered, and it was ordered that forty-five nobles only, instead of fifty, as in the last two reigns, should be made of a pound of gold. This brought back the weight of the noble to one hundred and fifty grains, as it had been from 1351 to 1412, but its value was raised to 10s. At the same time, new coins impressed with angels were ordered to be made, sixty-seven and a half to be struck from one pound of gold, and each to be of the value of 6s. 8d.—that is to say, the new angel which weighed eighty grains was to be of the same value as the noble had been which weighed one hundred and eight grains. The new nobles to distinguish them from the old ones were called Rose Nobles, from the rose which is stamped on both sides of them, or ryals, or royals, a name borrowed from the French, who had given it to a coin which bore the figure of the King in his royal robes, which the English ryals did not. Notwithstanding its inappropriateness, however, the name of royal was given to these 10s. pieces, not only by the people, but also in several statutes of the realm.”[O]

In the third place, the testament ascribed to John Cremer, Abbot of Westminster, and to which we are indebted for the chief account of Lully’s visit to England, is altogether spurious. No person bearing that name ever filled the position of Abbot at any period of the history of the Abbey.

The only coinage of nobles which has been attributed to alchemy was that made by Edward III. in 1344. The gold used in this coinage is supposed to have been manufactured in the Tower; the adept in question was not Raymond Lully, but the English Ripley.

Whether the saint of Majorca was proficient in the Hermetic art or not, it is quite certain that he did not visit the British Isles. It is also certain that in the Ars Magna Sciendi, part 9, chapter on Elements, he states that one species of metal cannot be changed into another, and that the gold of alchemy has only the semblance of that metal; that is, it is simply a sophistication.

As all the treatises ascribed to Raymond Lully cannot possibly be his, and as his errant and turbulent life could have afforded him few opportunities for the long course of experiments which are generally involved in the search for the magnum opus, it is reasonable to suppose that his alchemical writings are spurious, or that two authors, bearing the same name, have been ignorantly confused. With regard to “the Jewish neophyte,” referred to by the Biographie Universelle, no particulars of his life are forthcoming. The whole question is necessarily involved in uncertainty, but it is a point of no small importance to have established for the first time the fabulous nature of the Cremer Testament. This production was first published by Michael Maier, in his Tripus Aureus, about the year 1614. The two treatises which accompany it appear to be genuine relics of Hermetic antiquity.

The “Clavicula, or Little Key” of Raymond Lully is generally considered to contain the arch secrets of alchemical adeptship; it elucidates the other treatises of its author, and undertakes to declare the whole art without any fiction. The transmutation of metals depends upon their previous reduction into volatile sophic argent vive, and the only metals worth reducing, for the attainment of this prima materia, are silver and gold. This argent vive is said to be dryer, hotter, and more digested than the common substance, but its extraction is enveloped in mystery and symbolism, and the recipes are impossible to follow for want of the materials so evasively and deceptively described. At the same time, it is clear that the operations are physical, and that the materials and objects are also physical, which points are sufficient for our purpose, and may be easily verified by research.