Alchemical Dialogues in Literary Tradition

The dialogue is an intrinsic part of literary tradition in Europe, as a genre dating back to Antiquity, and there are good reasons for this long continuation. The genre has been utilised as a didactic means to convey and spread ideas in an attractive and comprehensible manner, ranging from scholastic disputations to downright polemics to moralising conversations for laymen. The variety of these dialogues and the motivation for their use is discussed hereafter. Furthermore, the dialogue in the form of individual revelation has been firmly placed within the hermetic tradition, where hermetic must be understood as the whole body of occult arts and disciplines current and practised since at least the Hellenic period, such as Hermetism, Gnosticism, natural magic, astrology and alchemy. Hellenic-Egyptian hermetic arts were studied extensively by A.J. Festugière, whose useful typology of hermetic dialogues will be used below. The alchemical dialogue stands in a tradition that is concerned with both these treads of literature. It follows didactic as well as hermetic conventions and motivations with regard to the form of the text and formulation. To get a better understanding of the traditionality of its characteristics and their motivation, this essay will focus on ancient hermetic dialogues and medieval didactic ones. As an example, I will use a brief dialogue that is known under a variety of names. Four prints in total were published that contained an edition of the dialogue. These are the German Aureum vellus tractatus III (1599), the Dutch Duytsche alchimie (1600), the Latin De denario medico by B.G. Penot (1608) and the English translation thereof, the Alchymists Enchiridion (1692). Because there is no consensus on the dialogue’s title, the text will be referred to as Dialogue hereafter.

The types of dialogues are abundant.^[1] There are many types of dialogues that convey didactic subject material (morals, religion, manners, philosophical topics etc.). This category contains disputes and argumentations. From there the learned conversation developed, in which there was room for doubt and learned men conversed as equals. A second main category is made up by the quaestiones, which deal with questions and answers. Disputations on guilt, scholarly debates and, subsequently, the scholastic disputations and quaestiones disputatae form this category. Lastly there is the dialogue in professional works.^[2] The scholastic disputations certainly allow for further elaboration, but it is not relevant for this research. Through Humanism the letter as a form of dialogue arose, and humanist dialogues in general moved away from stringent scholastic formats, with more scepticism, doubt and genuine discussion (amongst equals).^[3] Many of these dialogue forms would find their way into vernacular in the late Middle Ages.^[4]

In general, the medieval instructive dialogue shows several distinctive features. First and foremost, the characters are hardly described, and in some cases they are but mere names. The relationship between the characters also remains the same throughout the conversation. Third, there is hardly any embedding of the acts, but above all focusses on the interaction and actual information that is to be conveyed. This interaction among the participants (often two) also serves the purpose of structuring the information, for example into paragraphs or disparate arguments. Finally, such dialogues are not made up of several episodes with several encounters and so forth, but are closed units.[5]

Quite differently coloured is the hermetic dialogue. As part of hermetic literature in Classical Antiquity it deals with special philosophical, spiritual and/or religious topics (if these can be separated from each other in the first place). These are revealed to mortal man by means of revelations that have been written down. In his extensive study on this hermetic literature, Festugière discerns two main categories of revelation, namely direct revelation and mediated or transmitted revelation. The first is split up into four types: 1) received during a dream or extacy; 2) during a conversation with a god; 3) with the discovery of a book or stele; 4) through signs in the heavens. The second is split up into three types: 1) instruction from a sage to a king; 2) letter from a prophet to a person; 3) the tradition of the father and son.^[6] This latter one takes the form of a dialogue and was widely in use for passing on knowledge in the occult sciences (forms of magic, astrology, alchemy and the like).^[7]

The tradition of the father and son has some characteristics. The father is basically some sort of prophet who also may be referred to as ‘master’, whereas the son may be referred to as ‘disciple’ or ‘student’. The revealed knowledge is special, if not divine, and hence the words of the master are taken very seriously. As Festugière puts it, ‘the word of the master is considered to have creative and life-saving value’.^[8] This borders on the fact that the somewhat numinous genre was also enriched by traditions from the mystery traditions. It may concern initiation into rites and trade secrets, and all this knowledge ultimately derives from a god.^[9] This knowledge must remain hidden from outsiders, which accounts for the use of coded language.

In their form and style, alchemical texts in Latin and European vernaculars have been rightly connected to the hermetic tradition of Antiquity before.^[10] In fact the aforementioned hermetic characteristics such as revelatory and overall esoteric situations, philosophical content, initiation in secrets and coded language were present in hermetic texts in late Antiquity, continued in Arabic literature and became ubiquitous in chrysopoetic literature.[11] The dialogue such as the father-son or the sage-king revelation remained an efficacious means to convey chrysopoetic secrets in a revelatory embedment. Hence various chrysopoetic texts have (generic) titles such as dialogue between master and scholar.^[12] Despite its classical roots, the alchemical instructive dialogue underwent changes in medieval times, and generally adopted the aforementioned features of other medieval dialogue types.[13] The interaction is static, has no embedding in a fictional world or elaborated characters, and forms a closed unity, although the relationship between master and student is of course more personal. 

Secrecy and the exclusiveness of the offered knowledge in general are topoi that recur in alchemical literature, and are the main motivation for employing cover names (Decknamen) to obscure texts. In this respect the didactic dialogue between master and son is common, and parallels are found with the tradition of the father and son. Recurring elements in didactic alchemical dialogues, such as The Dialogue of Arislaus in The Alchymists Enchiridion, are praise and encouragement among both interactants, criticism towards ‘others’, advise for the student, the need for secrecy and the absence of any narrative context.^[14]

The widespread use of dialogues in all its varieties is no coincidence. The setting of the conversation makes the text well-digestible. Compared to non-dialogic (rambling) prose, a dialogue is more pleasant to read and allows for better processing and memorizing of the matter. After all it shows vividness and puts forward personae to which certain ideas and utterances are attributed. Moreover, the dialogue is a natural locus for juxtaposing distinct opinions and statements, thus reaching a conclusion in a dialectical way. Such an elaboration is relatively clear and comprehensible. Speech turns can also help structuring a text into separate subjects or chapters, and this is done quite explicitly in the Dialogue. In general then, the Dialogue appeals to the imagination, and subsequently can invite to meditation and reflection.^[15] At the same time the Dialogue within the alchemical tradition, besides being obviously topical in the Middle Ages, could possibly still reflect a concrete situation of practicing masters and initiates, as occurred in Hellenic Egypt.^[16]

A dialogue per definition involves a certain kind of language use, and a didactic text usually implies clear and well-presented information, but often this is not the case in alchemical literature. This paradox deserves further explanation. Since authors or copyists who knew their alchemy frequently used specific alchemical terminology and cover names, treatises offered a nut to crack for readers. Several reasons can be discerned that motivated this usage of difficult language.

Alchemy is concerned with natural philosophy, but this theoretical part also has a practical counterpart, because alchemy is artisanal too.^[17] As the alchemist Basil Valentine explains it eloquently in his Triumphant Chariot of Antimony (1604),

‘[n]ext to the Theory, which researcheth out the inmost properties of things, follows Preparation, which is performed by Operations of the hands, that some real work may be produced. From Preparation ariseth Knowledge […] Operation shews how all things may be brought to light, and exposed to sight visibly. […] the operation […] draws the latent and hidden nature outwards, and brings it to light for good.’^[18]

It comes as no surprise that at the very beginning of the Dialogue the focus is said to be the ‘natuere der dingen’ (‘nature of things’) in Tsamenspraecke vanden Meester ende Discipel (turn 1), which is the older Dutch version. Intimate knowledge thereof is not meant for the commoner. Hence the master’s remark in Tsamenspraecke:

‘Maer de clausel van dese aldermeeste Secreten en wil ick niet openbaren, ten waer dat ick versekert ware met eene grooten eede.’^[19] (turn 8; also in the German edition)

The utterance is revealing, yet the notion is old and serves as an illustration. In his well-known Commentarii in Somnium Scipionis the fifth-century Platonist Macrobius wrote that nature ‘withheld an understanding of herself from the uncouth senses of men by enveloping herself in variegated garments’ and ‘desired to have her secrets handled by more prudent individuals through fabulous narratives’.^[20] This very remark was even picked up in the famous alchemical Rosarium philosophorum (1550, reprinted 1593).^[21] In other words, man has to be at pains to truly understand nature, and this reflects the esoteric atmosphere of hermetic writings from late Antiquity.[22] That is why the master says to the student:

‘O sone, ick en begeere van u anders niet dan dat ghy bemint uwen Heeren, uwen Godt, uyt alle uwer herte, ende uyt alle uwer zielen, die u geheel de conste gegeven heeft niet door my, maer door zijn eygen gratie. Ende zijt getrou ende heymelick te onderhouden dit werck, opdat ghy niet en wort meyneedich in tgene ghy gesworen hebt.’^[23] (turn 29; also in the German edition)

It boils down to the idea that ultimate knowledge of nature and how to analyse and manipulate it should be protected against unworthy people, because the knowledge is special or even divine, as were the revelatory hermetic secrets from Hellenic Egypt. One can see through the hermetic language of chrysopoetic treatises and fulfil the Great Work when helped by God, and God’s grace is bestowed on the student only when he is virtuous.

Another reason for the use of hermetic language since Hellenic alchemy is the value of the Stone, which would ‘cure’ base metals and turn them into gold, but also cure the human body from all diseases.[24] Therefore, the trade secret of how to produce it must be protected against the greed of people, including kings.[25]

However, there is also another, less flattering reason for obscurity pointed out by the semiotician U. Eco. Although he agrees with the forgoing arguments, he also mentions a lack of knowledge as a motivation. The practicing alchemist simply was not capable ‘to describe accurately properties and processes which, essentially, he did not fully understand’.^[26] Even more so for a copyist.

The Dialogue would probably have been recognisable in its form for the late medieval and early modern reader or listener. By then, a long tradition existed of scholastic and vernacular didactic dialogues that offer intellectual and moralising discussions in several forms, in prose and poetry.

First, the Dialogue presents two persons, which is quite a common number. Reminiscent of ancient hermetic tradition, the adept is referred to as ‘master’ in all four editions, but is also called ‘father’ in the Dutch one (turns 2 and 32), whereas the student is called ‘son’. Clearly, the adept’s authority is beyond doubt and remains unquestionable, as is the adept in ancient hermetic revelatory literature. In various medieval didactic dialogues a (rigid) hierarchy exists between masters and students, so in this respect a reader is hardly presented with anything new. This is made clear with the many positive adjectives used by the student to address the master. In the Latin, for example, these are ‘bone’, ‘dilecte’, ‘excellentis doctrinae’ and ‘amantissime’. Such expressions occur at the beginning of most speech turns of the student. If not, certain speech acts are a second means to express the status of the master. First of all there are simply the questions, and the answers are never disputed. Second, the student gives thanks (German: 4, 6, 18; Dutch: 6, 8, 20, 36; Latin: 14; English: 12, 14). Third, the student explicates his own lower status (which, it must be said, is confirmed by the master). Fourth, the master requires an oath from the student before resuming his teaching in the German and Dutch versions. Especially this final aspect is reminiscent of initiation, which can serve as an argument of this element’s authenticity. Another factor to consider is modality: the master is the one who uses by far the most imperatives.

Second, the given knowledge is special, and meant only for those who have a virtuous character, incisive and are worthy in the eyes of God. In the prologue of the Dutch version, the master brings to the student’s attention that he should never share the secrets with others, or eternal damnation awaits him. The fact that the alchemical art is referred to as ‘secret’ is also significant: 1, 13, 18, 20, 21, 19, 25, 26, 27; German: 1, 10, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27, 36; Latin: 3, 13; English: 3, 13.

Third, since the relationship that allows for this teaching is exclusive and so is the teaching itself, both interactants distance themselves from all other individuals, whom the master calls ‘idioten’ in the Dutch version, meaning ‘unlearned’. There is only one correct way to succeed in this alchemical enterprise, and hence there are many errant manners. For this reason the student complains about his long-lasting endeavour to produce the Philosopher’s Stone but until now never succeeded (German: 26; Dutch: 28; Latin: 14; English: 14).

Fourth, the knowledge ultimately comes from God (donum dei).^[27] It is He who allows man to know nature’s secrets by means of His divine grace. Therefore the student, or anyone who desires to be one, must prove himself eligible, which entails discretion. This is stressed in: German: 1, 8, 9, 11, 18, (24), 26, 27; Dutch: 1, 2, 10, 11, 13, 26, 28, 29, 30, 36; Latin: 1, 14, 19; English: 1, 14, 17.

Together these four elements make it clear that the relationship between the master and student is a special one, which makes the Dialogue all the more rigid from a pragmatic point of view. There is no room for doubt and discussion, and the student has to work long and seriously in order to become an adept himself. A medieval or early modern reader who was well-read or informed would have recognised the interactional hierarchy and the master’s secured status, but what makes the Dialogus more akin to hermetic tradition are the second, third and fourth aspects, which revolve around exclusivity and specialness. In literal sense, the information exchange is here esoteric. All elements described in this paragraph are typical for alchemical didactic dialogues.^[28] It is unlikely that the editors of the printed Dialogues were ignorant of the tradition in which the Dialogus stands. The editors of the books were acquainted with alchemical literature, and probably realised the effectiveness of such a short and concise Dialogue.

Now it can be explained why the Dialogue as a conversation is maintained in the editions, despite the fact it is but a small and complementary text. The editors were familiar with alchemy, and probably offered texts and information to the printers (whether or not on request). On the other hand, the printers and publishers had to know their readership. The meta-text in the English edition, printed by a probably less experienced Wyatt, does not suggest much confidence with regard to the recipience of the book. However, decades earlier, well-established printers like Raphelengius (for the Dutch edition) and Le Preux (for Penot's Latin edition) must have had some notion of what people liked and needed, in a period where vernacular informative literature was circulating more than ever before. They probably realised the appeal of a brief and concise treatise in the form of a dialogue, which was an efficacious genre, and thus maintained its form. Given the fact that the Dialogue not only emphasises the donum dei and special relationship between the interactants, but also stresses the importance of good Christian conduct and appraisal of the Lord, is another argument for printers to keep the text as it was. After all, motives for editors and printers were not only to disseminate knowledge, but could also be the development and sustainance of morals.[33]  For example, Gillis van Cranenbroeck, if his identification as the printer is correct, printed learnsome, instructive, and moralising material. Within the alchemical discipline it also happened that alchemy already interacted with Christian morals and doctrines during the late Middle Ages,[34]  and therefore there was no real need to omit such material. All this is less obvious as it may seem, because two of the manuscripts that were examined for this research reveal that the student’s share is omitted.[35] It is likely, then, that these texts were meant for personal use, a motivation the printers did not have.[36]  Although printers could, in principle, change texts, they clearly did not strive for a sheer summary of the alchemical theory. The effectiveness of the dialogue as such is more explicitly recognised by Philalethes, the name of the English translator, since he claused the entire conversation and numbered the paragraphs. 

---

[1] G. Bernt, in Bautier et al. 1986, vol. III, 951.

[2] G. Bent, in Bautier et al. 1986, vol. III, 951-952.

[3] W. Rüegg, in Bautier et al. 1986, 955.

[4] For the diversity of scholastic dialogues and their influence in Middle Dutch literature, see Kinable 2008. For Humanistic dialogical influence, see Fleurkens 1994, 90-91. More general is the article of Warnar 2010. For an extensive discussion of Latin dialogues between 1200 and 1400, see Cardelle de Hartmann, 2007.

[5] Cardelle de Hartmann 2007, 261-263.

[6] Festugière 1944, 312-354.

[7] Festugière 1944, 336, 347.

[8] ‘La parole du maître est tenue pour avoir valeur créatrice et salvatrice.’ Festugière 1944, 335.

[9] Festugière 1944, 348.

[10] Fraeters 1999. For the genre of the alchemical dialogue in particular, see Cardelle de Hartmann 2007, 78-79.

[11] See Principe 2013, pp. 18-19, 44-45.

[12] Grund 2004, 35-37.

[13] Cardelle de Hartmann 2007, 270-271.

[14] Cardelle de Hartmann 2007, 77.

[15] Warnar 2010, 71, 73.

[16] I agree with Fraeters at this point. Fraeters 1999, 114.

[17] Halleux 1979, 74-83. Also see Principe 2013, 72.

[18] Ed. Kelly 1990, 9-10, §3.

[19] ‘But the clause on this grand secret I do not want to reveal, unless I am assured of a serious oath.’

[20] Citaten genomen uit Whitman 2010, 104-105.

[21] In 1593 the Rosarium was reprinted as part of the Artis auriferae, vol. II. On 274: ‘[…] talis materia debet tradi mysticè, sicut poesis fabulosè & parabolicè. Et cum philosophi loquuntur de magnis rebus, non admiscent parabolas, nec fabulas, vt dicit Macrobius’.

[22] An author or copyist could also opt for spelling words backwards, or changing the correct order of the treatise, to mislead the reader. Fraeters 2000, 266-267.

[23] ‘O son, I desire above all else that you love your Lord, your God, with your entire hearth and all of your soul, who [i.e. God] gave you the entire art not through me, but through His grace. And be loyal and discrete while doing this work, so that you will not become perjurious with regard to what you have sworn.’

[24] The cure-all was known as the panacea, a notion that was introduced into alchemy during the Arabic period. B.D. Haage, in: Hanegraaff 2006, 16

[25] B.D. Haage, in: Hanegraaff 2006, 21.

[26] Eco 1993, 76.

[27] In fact, titles of some treatises indicate this from the outset. One of the first alchemical treatises in medieval Europe was the so-called Donum dei. The Rosarium philosophorum’s full title is Rosarium philosophorum sive pretiosissimum donum Dei.

[28] For further reading, see Cardelle de Hartmann 2007, 77-79.

[29] Pleij 1982, 22.

[30] Fraeters 1999, 131-134, 221-222.

[31] Augsburg, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. II. 1. 4° 74. Ca. 1490. ff. 65v-66v. London, Wellcome library, MS. 526. 1515-1527. ff. 84-95.

[32] This is more often the case with artes texts. Huizenga et al. 2002, 31. These manuscripts were part of codices that assembled a variety of texts that were considered useful. Probably elements were added or left out as the copyist saw fit with regard to the immediate use of that particular text. In the case of MS. 526, we deal with a paper manuscript and a littera hybrid, which also suggests an informal environment. 

[33] Pleij 1982, 22.

[34] Fraeters 1999, 131-134, 221-222.

[35] Augsburg, Universitätsbibliothek, Cod. II. 1. 4° 74. Ca. 1490. ff. 65v-66v. London, Wellcome library, MS. 526. 1515-1527. ff. 84-95.

[36] This is more often the case with artes texts. Huizenga et al. 2002, 31. These manuscripts were part of codices that assem-bled a variety of texts that were considered useful. Probably elements were added or left out as the copyist saw fit with regard to the immediate use of that particular text. In the case of MS. 526, we deal with a paper manuscript and a littera hybrid, which also suggests an informal environment.