Works of Thomas Vaughan

THE

WORKS

OF

THE

WORKS

OF

THOMAS

VAUGHAN:

EUGENIUS

PHILALETHES

BY

ARTHUR

EDWARD

WAITE

"

I callGod to witness that I write not this to amaze

men; but I write that which I know to be certainly true." AULA Lucis.

PREPARED FOR

THE

LIBRARY

COMMITTEE OF

THE

THEOSOPHICAL

SOCIETY IN

ENGLAND AND WALES

AND

ISSUED BY

THE

THEOSOPHICAL

PUBLISHING HOUSE, i

UPPER

WOBURN

_PLACE,

LONDON,

W.C.i

FOREWORD

THIS

is the first

volume

of a series of Transactions to be

issued

_by

the _Library

Committee

of the _Theosophical Societyof

England and

Wales.

The

choice hasfallen

upon

Thomas Vaughan

for

two

reasons: inthefirst

place,because ofJiis _{unique position} in the chain of the

Hermetic

tradi-tion_duringthe_{seventeenth century}; and, secondly, because

it has been _possible to secure the services of

Mr

A. E. Waite,

who

is _recognised

_by

all students of the hidden truth as one

who

is

particularly fitted, not only

by

temperament

and predilection, but also

by

special training

and _{ripe scholarship, for} the task of _editing one of the profoundest

and most

difficult of all visionaries

who

have seen "the

new

East

_beyond

the stars."

The

mantleof Robert

Fludd

_may

be said to havefallen

upon

the -shoulders of

Vaughan,

who

in his time and generation continued the apostolate of the Secret

Tradi-tion, as thisis _represented

_by

the secret

and

more

_spiritual

side of_{alchemical philosophy.}

The

two

writers

drew from

the

same

sources :

from

the school of the Kabalah in all its extensions

and

_reflections,

from

the

Hermetic

Neo-Platonists,

and

from

those Latin-writingscholarsof

Europe

who,

subsequent to the Renaissance, represented and not infrequently typified the struggle for liberation

from

the

yoke and

aridity of scholastic methods.

Fludd

was

a physician,

and

when

not dealing with cosmical philosophy he _paid attention to the

Hermetic

foundation

_upon

which the true art of medicine is built.

_{Vaughan, on}

the other hand,was an exponent of _alchemy

;

and though

first

and

foremost a

of

Vaughan

the less a

practical alchemist

upon

the material side it

was, in _fact,

from

_inhaling the

fumes

of

_mercury

_during a chemical _experiment that he

met

his death.

Both

Fludd

and

_Vaughan

wereinfluenced

_by

the

move-ment

known

as _Rosicrucian, which

came

into _prominence inthe_earlypartofthe_{seventeenth century.}

But

_Vaughan

was an unattached _interpreter, while there is

_ground

for

believing that

Fludd

may

have been connected

more

or less _directlywith the so-called "Fratres R. C."

At

_any

rate he was a _personal friend of Michael _Maier,

who

cannot be dissociated

from

the

movement.

There

is a _living interest in

_{Vaughan on}

the _personal

side

; he belongs to the history of English literature,

more

_especially as a _{prose writer,}

_though

also

_by

the

occasional _felicity of his metrical exercises.

Above

all

and

this _{concerns the present} venture

more

_closely than anylighter consideration, he hasa position of his

own

as

an _{interpreter of} the Secret Tradition.

His

works, which

are valued _possessions to thosewith sufficient

_knowledge

to appreciate their occult significance, are here

made

avail-able for the first time in a collected edition.

THE

LIBRARY COMMITTEE.

BIOGRAPHICAL

PREFACE

THE

_Vaughan

_family is of _{old repute} in _history in that of

_England

as well as Wales. It is said that an _early

representative, Srr

David Vaughan,

fell at the Battle of

Agincourt.

The

branch with which I

am

concerned had Tretower Castle

_by

the

Usk

in Brecknockshire as

its ancestral seat. This is

now

in ruins _{and was perhaps} falling into decay at the

end

of the sixteenth century,

for it was left

_by

the master of the _place about that

period in favour of a residence at

Newton,

near Seethrog, in the _parish of _{Llansaintffraid,}

some

five miles

_away

in the

same

shire. This is

Newton-St-Bridget, also

on

the banks of the

Usk.

In the next _generation

_Henry

or

Thomas

_Vaughan

1 _was

of

Tretower

and

Llansaint-ffraid.

At

the latter

place,

and

in

what

has been called

the farmhouse at

_Newton,

2 there were born to

him

of a wife about

whom

there is no record the twin _boys

Thomas

and

_Henry

_Vaughan.

The

traditional_{or accepted} date, as I

must

term it, is between 1621

and

1622, but the tradition

_may

_{be regarded} as _{sound,* since} it rests

on

the _authority of

_Wood,

8

who

_{almost unquestionably}

had for his informant the

_younger

of the

two

brothers.4

1 _The

Rev. A. B. Grosart, who first edited the _complete writings of

Henry Vaughan inthe FULLER WORTHIES LIBRARY, four beautiful

volumes exceedinglyvaluable for thelives ofboth brothers says that

the father was _Henry and that he was a magistrate in 1620. The

Register of Oxford University describes him as "Thomas of Llansan-fraide, co. Brecon,//^."

2 _See

Theophilus Jones: HISTORY OF THE COUNTYOF BRECKNOCK, vol. ii, part 2, p. 540. He speaks of a farmhouse at Newton, once

"

occupied by two brothers of the name of_Vaughan, of_very eccentric character."

3

_ATHENE

OXONIENSES,edited_{byPhilip Bliss, vol.}iii,p.722. 4

Ibid.,subnomineOlor Iscanus. vii

of

Thomas Vaughan

There

_{are, however,}

no

_registers of births for that _period in the _district, nor for almost a _century later.

We

shall

find further

on

that _importance attaches to the birth-date

of Thojnas

Vaughan,

and it is _necessary therefore to note at this _point that there is a

minimum

element of

un-certainty hereon.

1

Thomas

and

_Henry

_{Vaughan became famous}

respec-tively in the annals of

two

departments of literature, the

first as a _mystic and alchemist

whose

little books have

long been sought eagerly

and

prized highly by students, the second as _{a beautiful, though very unequal, religious}

poet.

With

vocations sufficiently distinct, they yet be-longed to one another in the spirit as wellas inthe blood,

for after his

own

manner

Thomas

was also _{a poet,} or at least a

maker

of _{pleasant verse,} while

_Henry

was

drawn

into occult _paths as a translator2

and

indeed _otherwise,

as a record of his _repentance testifies.3

Between

and above both there stands the _{saintly figure} of

_George

Herbert, their _contemporary

_{and kinsman by}

_marriage,

albeit in remote _degree.*

The

_pathsof the secretsciences

were

_beyond

his

ken

_entirely,

and

this is one distinction

in the triad.

But

there is another of

more

_living im-portance. Herbert was an artist in verse, "beautiful

exceedingly "

in

_workmanship,

and if he did not attain

the _heights which were reached in rare

moments

_by

1 _There

isextant a letter from_HenryVaughanto_{JohnAubrey, dated}

June 15, 1673. It issaid thatheandhisbrotherwere born in _1621,but

as a second letter mentions that _{Thomas Vaughan} died in 1666in his

forty-seventh year, there is a mistakeon one sideor the other,and the

birth-dateis still_{opento question.}

2 _See

AppendixIXof the_{present volume,p.489.}

3 _SeeThe

Importunate Fortune,writtentoDrPowellof Llanheff. The

poetcommitshis_{bodyto earth, his"growing} faculties ... tothehumid

moon,"his _cunning arts toMercury,his"fond affections" to Venus,his

pride"iftherewas _aught in me" to _{the royalty of} Sol,his rashness

and_presumptionto_Mars,thelittlehehashad_{of avarice to Jupiter};

And

my

false_Magic,which I didbelieve,

Andmysticlies,toSaturn I do_give." 4 _Grosart

:

WORKS

ofHenry_Vaughan,vol.i,p.xxiv. Anotherkinsman

was_{the antiquary,}JohnAubrey.

Biographical

Henry

Vaughan, he

knew

still less of his descents. I

mention these matters to indicate the kind of race and

royalty to which the triad belongsin literature.

Herbert

is still the

known

_poet

whose

_popularity is witnessed

_by

innumerable editions.

_Henry

_Vaughan,

_designated the Silurist,

1

is

known

indeed but after another

manner

and one

much

more

restricted.

His works

have been

collected twice

and

the selections are few.

As

_regards

Thomas

_Vaughan,

with a. _{single exception} in _{respect of}

the tract entitled

_EUPHRATES,

he has been edited in

modern

times

_by

_{myself only,}

and

the

volume

to which the present

words

_{are prefixed represents theonlyattempt}

to _produce his _writings in collected form.

In the _vicinity of

Newton

and Tretower

is the little

town

of _Llangattock, still within the voices of the

_Usk,

and there at _{the period dwelt the} Rev.

Matthew

_Herbert,

a

kinsman

_{perhaps also,} to

whom

Thomas

2 and

_Henry

wrote Latin _{and English verses,}

and

to

whom

the former

may

have dedicated

AULA

Lucis,

3

addressing

him

as Seleucus Abantiades or such at least is

_my

suspicion.

The

records4 on which I

_depend

tell

me

that the _boys were _placed in his _chargeat _{the age} of eleven _years for schooling,

and

so profited therein that in 1638 they proceeded apparently together to Jesus College,

Ox-ford,

6

where

Thomas

in

due

course took

"one

_Degree

in Arts."6

This is stated _by

Wood

and seems final

on

1

Thomas Vaughan isas much entitled to be termed Silurist as his

brother. Ina_sense,itwasa family_{designation,belonging}to thatbranch

which had its home in _{South-East Wales,} where dwelt once the war-likeSilures.

2

SeeAPPENDIXII, p. 475.

3 _{The tract entitled}

_THE

_MAN-MOUSE

in reply to Henry More was

alsodedicatedtoMatthewHerbert byhis "pupilandservant,"Eugenius

Philalethes.

4 _{In addition to the researches of Grosart there are those of E. K.}

Chambers in his

WORKS

of _HenryVaughan,2 vols.,MUSES' LIBRARY, 1906. It must notbesaid thatthe discoveriesmade byeither editor are

considerablein_{respect of}ThomasVaughan,thematerials_{being wanting.}

6 _The

University Register saysthat"Thos._Vaughan . . . matriculated from Jesus Collegeon 14 Dec,1638,aged16."

ATHENA

OXONIENSES.

of

Vaughan

the _subject, but it has been said that he

became

a Fellow

of his _Collegel or _{alternatively} a Master of Arts.2

His

age at the time of matriculation is also_{described variously}

as _eighteen, seventeen and sixteen.

The

last is on the authority of the University Registers,

and from

this it

would

follow that he was born in 1622.

The

date of his baccalaureat is

February 18, 1640,

and

thereafter I

find

no

_{particulars concerning}

him

until he was ordained

by

Dr

Mainwaring, Bishop of St Davids,

and

was pre-sented to the _living of Llansaintffraid

_by

his

kinsman

Sir

_George

_Vaughan

of Follerstone in Wiltshire.

_Again

the date is _{uncertain, that of 1640,}which is _{usuallygiven,}

seeming too early.

3

In _any case he

became

in this

manner

the rector of his native _parish

and

was at least

in nominal _possession till _1649,

when

he was

ejected

by a Parliamentary Commission, under an Act for the Propagation of the Gospel.

4

The

more

immediate reason

was

_{unquestionably that,} in

common

with his brother, he was an ardent Royalist.

He

had alsofought

for _{the King, notwithstanding} the fact of his _ministry

where

or under what circumstances

we

are never _likely

to

know.

But

the

White

_King

_perished in the _Royal Cause on January 30, 1649, and

Wood

says that the loyal but dispossessed subjectsoughtthe reposeof

Oxford

to _pursue his studies.6

He

alternated between there

1

_"Was

_made

Fellow of the said House" are the words of Wood,

referring to _{Jesus College,} but it is a _{mistake according} to _Grosart,

who gives no reason. The fact of this Fellowship is affirmed _by

Foster, ALUMNI OXONIENSES, following Walker's SUFFERINGS OF

THE CLERGY.

2 _Grosart

says that he _{"passed M.A.," but} mentions no authority.

There is, _however, an expression of_opinion in the letter from _Henry

Vaughan to _{John Aubrey, already quoted}:

"

(I think) he could be no

lessthanMasterof Arts."

3 _See

Grosart,op.cit.,vol.ii,p.301.

4

Theophilus Jonessays:

"_{Hewas ousted}

by the propagators of the gospel in _Wales, for _{drunkenness, swearing, incontinency} and _carrying arms for the King." Loc. tit. The last _{charge implied} the others

presumably.

5 "

The unsettledness ofthe_{time hindering}hima quietpossession of

the _{place" meaning} hiscureof souls "heleftit,and retired to Oxon,

Biographical

and London,

and _{the suggested repose notwithstanding} was _{busy about .many} things. Chief

among

these

were _{the publication} of his first five tracts, in

two

small

duodecimo

_volumes, in _1650,

and

his _marriage to a _lady

named

Rebecca _patronymic

unknown

on

_September

28, 1651. In this year also he issued three further tracts

and

one other in _1652.

An

_{"intercepted letter"}

included

_among

the

THURLOE

PAPERS

*

indicates his

pres-ence at

Newton

in the _{early part} of _1653. It is not

possible unfortunately to identify the Pinner of

Wake-field, 2

where

his

Note-Book

tells us that he lived with

his wife "in those dear _days"

when

"_{the gates}

_opened

"

and in _{a sedate repose prosecuted} his medicinal genius (in a manner valued to him), and at length became eminent in the chemical part

thereof,atOxonandafterwardsatLondon." Wood,loc. cit.

1

_AN

_{INTERCEPTED LETTERofM.Vaughan}toMrCharles Roberts. Cousin Roberts: Bythe inclosed from Captain Jenkin John Hewettto MrsLewesof_Lanvigan,youmaysee that he threatens the country with

his troop. MrMorgan ofTherwand divers others of the best of the

country were at this _cock-fight, which was _kept no otherwise than

ac-cording to the custom ofall other schools.

We

conceived that there

was no troop in our country, nor underhis command; but it appears

by this his own letter that he haththemstilllisted and _keeps them up

privately. For though he came not to the cock-fight, according to his

menaces,yet he hadthatmorning at his house above thirty horse, with

saddlesand_pistols,whichdidmuchtroubleand_terrifythecountrypeople.

I _pray learn if his _highness hath lately granted him a commission.

Otherwise I knownoreason butthese actionsshouldbetaken notice of.

Ourjustices ofthe peacestillslightthe Lord Protector's authorityand

have now issued forth their warrants for _{the contribution,} some in the

name of the _keepers of the liberty by authority of parliament, others

without_anyname at all; and divers gentlemen have been served with

them but refused to execute them. I wonderat these _proceedings and

more at those that suffer them. I'll _{assure you, the people by} reason

ofthis _public and _{persevering contempt} will not believe that there is

aLordProtectorand do_laughatsuchrelations. I could wishthatthose

whomit concerns wouldlook to it,lesttheir too much clemencyprove

hurtful to them. I _prayletmehear from_youwiththefirst_conveniency,

andhowthebusiness goes betwixtmeandMrs Games. Farewell.

Yourfriendandaffectionatekinsman,

THO.VAUGHAN

Newton,Ash-Wednesday, 1653.

For

my

respected kinsman,

MR

CHARLESROBERTS,

at hischamberin _{Gray's- Inn, This.}

2

SeeAPPENDIX I.

of

Thomas Vaughan

and

he believed himself to have entered _deeply into the realm of natural secrets.1

The

next traceable event is

the _publication of

_EUPHRATES,

his last _text, in _i655 2

There

follows _{another period} of _silence, but

on

_April

17, 1658,

we

learn byhis

own

_testimony3 that Rebecca

Vaughan

died, and was buried at Mappersall in

Bedford-shire.4 It was the _{great grief} of his _life, as the _private memorials _shew,

and

he _{was presumably}henceforth alone, for there is no reason to think that a son was born to the marriage,as inferred

by

one writer.

5

Thomas

_Vaughan

was

now

about _{thirty-six years} of

age

and

had not reached therefore the prime of life;

but he _disappears

from

the field of _authorship, and all

that

we

_{can glean concerning}

him

is contained _bya few

lines in the _biographical notice of

Wood.

He

is said to

have been under the _protection

and

_patronage of Sir

Robert

_Murray,

_Secretary of State for Scotland in the days of the

Commonwealth,

6

but also a _{persona grata}

under the Restoration in those of Charles' II.

When

the _plague of _{1665 drove} the Court

from

London

to

Oxford

Thomas

_{Vaughan went}

thither with his _patron,

and a little later took

_up

his residence with the Rector

of _Albury, the Rev. Sam. _Kern,7

at

whose

house,

on

February 27 of that year, he was killed by an explosion in the course of chemical _experiments.

He

is said to

have been buried

on

March

i in the church of

_Albury

1

SeeAPPENDIX I. 2

See, however, APPENDIX IX, s.v. ATTRIBUTED _WORKS, accord-ing to _{which Eugenius} Philalethes _published a translation of Nollius

in _1657.

3_APPENDIX

I,p.446.

4 _MrE.

K.Chambersobtained the following extractfromthe Register

of Mappersall: _1658. Buried: _Rebecka, theWife of MrVahanne,the

26th ofApril.

6 _{DICTIONARYOFNATIONAL}

BIOGRAPHY,s.v.Thomas_Vaughan.

6

_Wood

:

ATHENE

OXONIENSES.

7 _{DICTIONARY OF}

NATIONAL BIOGRAPHY, s.v. Samuel Kem. He

was on the _{Parliamentary} side in the _days of the Civil War, and was

notorious_{for fighting,preaching}and plundering; but he becamea

con-vincedloyalist atthe Restoration. ItisdifficulttounderstandVaughan's

connectionwiththisdissolutecharacter. xii

Biographical

Preface

village "

by the care

and

charge of the said Sir Robert

Murray."

* This is

on

the _authority of

Wood

and

is

supported

by

Henry Vaughan

in his _{Elegiac Eclogue,}

to be _quoted later.

The

"care

and

_charge"

must

have

meant

_something

more

than burial _fees,

and

there is a tradition that a

monument

was erected. If _so, all trace of it _{has vanished,} and the _registers of

_Albury

contain no record of _Vaughan's interment.2 It seems to follow

that

we

know

as

much

and as little about _{the passing}

of

Thomas

_Vaughan

as_{might be expected}

from

his

literary

importance and repute at that period.

3

His

little books

could have _appealed to a few _only,

_though

it

_may

be

granted that occult philosophy was a

minor

fashion of the time.

He

was

satirised

_{by Samuel}

Butler in his

CHARACTER

OF

AN

HERMETIC

_{PHILOSOPHER,*} and as

some

_say also in

HUDIBRAS

itself.

_Among

his con-temporaries therefore he

was

not at least

unknown.

I _proceed

now

to the consideration of a

somewhat

involved _question.

_{Thomas Vaughan}

_published

AULA

Lucis,

one

of the later _texts, under his terminal _initials,

1

_ATHENE

_{OXONIENSES. But the letter of}

Henry Vaughanto _John

Aubrey says only that his brother died _{"upon an employment} for His

Majesty."

2 _He

gaveallhisbooks andMSS.to SirRobert_Murray.

3 _{The DICTIONARY OF NATIONAL BIOGRAPHY is}

wrong in _supposing

that the will of Thomas_'Vaughan is in Somerset House reference 53 Mico though there is one of a person bearing that name. He was, however, of _Cropredy in _Oxfordshire, and _{a son William,} to

whom

he bequeathed most of his _property,was the father of fourchildren at the

date of _making the will _namely,FebruaryI7th, 1662-63 whereas any

issue of_{Thomas Vaughan} ofNewton and Rebecca his wifewould have

bqenonly abouttenyearsoldatthat period.

4 _The

satireremainedinMS.for_somethinglikea_century. Itiscertain

that Butlerintendedto depictVaughanand was_{acquainted with}someof

hiswritings. TheHermeticPhilosopherin question"adored"Cornelius

Agrippa, magnified theBrethren of the RosyCross,was atwarwith the

schoolmen, recommended Sendivogius and the ENCHIRIDION of _Jean

d'Espagnet to all of which _Vaughan answers. See

THE

GENUINE REMAINSofMrSamuel Butler . . . From the original MSS. ... byR. Thyer, voU ii, p. 225 et seq., 1759. The suggestion that _Ralpho the

squire ofHudibras was also intended for _Vaughan can have beenmade

by noone acquaintedwith theworks ofEugeniusPhilalethes. Thereis

no_{vestige of similitude.}

Thomas Vaughan

S.

N.

Otherwise he wrote_alwaysas

_Eugenius

_Philalethes,

and

out of this fact there arises a _{very curious question} of _{identity, involving}a confusion of distinct or_apparently

distinct _{personalities,}

on

which I

_hope

to cast such

light that it

_may

_perhaps be _regarded as determined. In the year 1667 being

two

years after

Vaughan,

according to

his _history, had _departed this life there _appeared at

Amsterdam

a

work

entitled INTROITUS

APERTUS

AD

OCCLUSUM

REGIS

_PALATIUM,

edente Joanne _Langio, the accredited author _{being Eirenseus} Philalethes, described as _{anonymus philosophus,}

_{and by}

himself as natu _tAnglus^

habitatione _cosmopolita. It _sprang at once into

fame

as a treatise of undeniable

Hermetic

_authority

and

_exceptional

clearness

on

the Great

Work

of

_Alchemy.

1 So _far,

how-ever, it

would

_{appear only} that _{an English} writer had chosen Latin as his

_medium,

the continent as _place of publication,

and

a

pseudonym

recalling that of Eugenius,

in all which there is _{nothing which} calls for notice.

But

an examination of the

work

and

the circumstances

under

which it was issued arrest attention. In the first _place,

it

came

into the editor's _hands, not _{long prior} to its

publication,

"from

a

most

excellent

knowing

man

of these matters," not otherwise described, while as _regards

the author himself _{Langius says} : "I

know

no

more

than he

who

is

most

_{ignorant," not} even whether he was still

living. In the second place, he did not in his opinion possess a "true manuscript copy," so that his edition appeared subject to all faults.

2

For

the next

significant fact

we

must

pass, however,

1 _Itwas

reprintedin MUSJEUM HERMETICUMReformatumet

Amplifi-catumin 1677; in 1683 at Venice; at Jena in 1699; in 1706at

Frank-furt; and in 1754 a French translation appeared in BiBLlOTHEQUE des

PhilosophesAlchimiques,vol.iv,together withEXPLICATIONdeceTraiti de Philalethe_parlui-mme,the authenticity ofwhichisdoubtful.

2 _The

preface ofLangiusisofconsiderableinterestand_{bibliographical}

consequence. He points out acutely that

THE

OPEN ENTRANCEisnot only reminiscent of _Sendivogius and his

NEW

LIGHT OF ALCHEMY in

respect of perspicuityand.candourbutalso inthematterofstyle. There

isnodoubtthat Sendivogius or Alexander Setonbehindhim wasthe

modelofEirenaeus; bothalsoadoptedthe descriptivetitleofCosmopolite.

Biographical

from the editor's _preface to that of the writer,

who

opens with the following testimony :

"

I, being an adept

anonymous,

a lover of learning

and

a philosopher, have undertakentowritethislittletreatise_concerningmedicinal, chemical and _physical secrets, in the year of redemption 1645 and in the _{twenty-third year} of

_my

_age."

The

motives

_by

which he was actuated were _(i) that he might lead the Sons of the Art out of the labyrinth of

errors

and

the deceits of _sophisters

; (2) that he might

be _recognised

_{by Adepts}

at

large as their peer and their

brother.

These

reasonsset_aside,itremainsthatEirenseus

Philalethes, according to his

own

statement, accomplished

the Great

Work

at the _age of

twenty-two, and otherwise

that his _{memorial concerning} it did not see the _light for

twenty-two years. It is of course an interesting

coinci-dence

and

_nothing follows therefrom ; but as the result

of a _simple calculation

we

shall find that he was born in

1622, or in the

same

_year as

Thomas

_Vaughan,

if

we

accept ^the

Oxford

University record, that the latter

matriculatedat_{the age}of sixteen in 1_638.* I

am

_obviously

not prepared to

_deny

that here is another coincidence,

however

remarkable as such ; but I

must

confess that

imagination is

disposed,

on

the other hand, to _speculate

whether

_Vaughan

_really died in _1665, whether he did not change his local habitation, adopting another

pseudonym,

as he had

done

once _previously.2

_A

certain romantic

1 _Therecord

isinagreementwiththe birth-dategivenbyWood.

2

HenryVaughanwassatisfiedonlytoo wellonthe fact of his brother's

death,forhemakeshimthe subject ofan_elegiaceclogueunderthetitleof

DAPHNIS,recording"ourlong sorrowsandhis lastingrest." The

follow-ing lineshavetheunmistakable noteof identity:

Let_Daphnisstillbetherecordedname Andsolemn honourofourfeastsandfame.

For thoughthe Isisandthe_prouderThames Canshowhisrelics_lodgedhard bytheir streams,

Andmustforevertothehonour'dname OfnobleMurraychieflyowethatfame,

Yetherehisstarsfirstsawhim

a reference toUskandits_vicinity.

of

Vaughan

colouring is reflected

on

such a notion

_by

the fact that

nothing wasissuedunderthestyleof EirenaeusPhilalethes

till

_{Eugenius had}

been settled in his _grave at

Albury, according to rumour.

Our

next task is to ascertain whether the _subsequent

literary history of the

two

alchemists throws

any

light on

the_subject,

and

it _happens that so _early as _{the year 1705} a

German

translation of

THE

OPEN

ENTRANCE

was published at

Hamburg

under the

name

of

Thomas

de Vagan.

1

Since that date the confusion of the

two

alchemists

became

almost a matter of habit2 until after

being misled myself by bibliographies then current I endeavoured to clear

_up

the _question in i888.3

But

it continues in certain _quarters even to this _day. It

follows that the birth coincidence is illustrated

_by

_early

identification, which

may

well have arisen through

similarity of

pseudonyms,

4

but _certainly not

_owing

to

the coincidence _itself, with which no one

would

have been _acquainted

on

the continent. It was _perpetuated in

_England

_subsequently

_by

transmission

from

writer

to writer.

1

_Mr

_{E.K.Chambersstates that the}

Jena Latinedition of

THE

OPEN

ENTRANCE, published in _1699, has a preface by G. W.Wedelius, who

saysof the author,

Ex

Anglia tamenvulgo habetur oriunduset Thomas

de _{Vagan appellatus, a} still earlier ascription, but he was not able to

verify it. There _{is, however,} a _copy in the British Museum at the

present timeandI havebeenableto determine the point. The opinion expressedby Wedelius at the end of the _{seventeenth century} rests on

the authority ofG. Hornius,aneditorofGeber. The ABYSSUS ALCHEMIZE

describesVaughan on the title-page asan_{Englishadept, the}translator's

short prefacecontaining no particulars concerning him. The

character-istic_pseudonymof_{Thomas Vaughan does not appear anywhere, nor}that

ofEirenasusPhilalethes. 2

Theyare distinguishedcarefully,however,by AnthonyaWood.

3 _{LIVESOFALCHEMYSTICAL}

PHILOSOPHERS,pp. 187-200.

4 _{The DICTIONARY OF NATIONAL}

BIOGRAPHY,s.v. George Starkey,

affirms thatEirenaeus Philalethes used the _pseudonym ofEugenius "in

onecase atleast." It isunfortunatethat the case is not mentioned, but

I makenodoubtthat thereisanerroronthe point offact. Thereference

maybeto

A

BRIEF NATURAL HISTORY by Eugenius Philalethes, 1669,

onwhichseeAPPENDIX IX,pp. 489, 490. There are two things certain

aboutthis tract,thefirst_beingthatitisnot_byThomasVaughan, andthe

secondthatitisnot_byEirenasus.

Biographical

Preface

Passing

now

to the question whether the identification

is

justified or can be regarded as tolerable,

we

are

con-fronted _by the fact _that, with the _exception of

some

metrical exercises _belonging to his earlier _days,

_Vaughan

did not write in Latin.

That

he could have

done

so

there is no _question if it

became

_{expedient or} desirable for _{any purpose} in _view, but the _appearance of

THE

OPEN ENTRANCE

in that _language cannot be said on the

surface to _help an affirmative answer.

The

whole _story

of the tract _{is, however,} curious. I have

mentioned

that

Langius was in search of a better text than that which he was induced to _publish

_by

his belief in its _signal

importance.

Two

years after the

Amsterdam

edition,

or in ₁₆₆₉ and with a _preface dated

_August

_9, 1668 there _appeared in

London

and in

English an edition

of

THE

OPEN

_ENTRANCE,

edited _by William _Cooper,

who

_styled himself "a true

Lover

of Art

and

Nature."

By

the hypothesis it is not a translation of the _Langius text,

1

but is described as "the true _{manuscript copy} which

_John

_Langius in his _preface doth so

much

thirst

after." It is affirmed to have been in the editor's

possession for "

many

years before the publication in Latin." _Moreover, the reader is directed to find "

con-siderable

enlargements

and

explanations, wherein the Latin translation is deficient." I have checked these

variations, and

some

at least of

them seem

important to

the text. It is difficult to _speak with

certainty,

and

I

am

putting the point tentatively, but on the whole I

am

_disposed to infer that William

_Cooper

really had an

1

Lenglet du Fresnoy renders _Cooper's title into Latin as follows:

INTROITUS APERTUS, ex _{manuscripto perfection} in _linguain

Angli-canain versus et _impressus, thus _{making him} a translator. But the

English title in full is: SECRETS REVEALED, or An _Open Entrance _to

the Shut Palace of the _King. Containing the Greatest Treasure in Chemistry, never yet so plainly discovered. _{Composed by} a most famous Englishman,styling himselfAnonymus,or_Eyraeneus Philaletha

Cosmopolita, who, by Inspiration and Reading, attained to the

Philo-sopher's Stone at his _Age of _{Twenty-three Years,} Anno Domini _1645.

Publishedforthe Benefit ofall_{Englishmen by}W.C.Esq.

of

Vaughan

English version in his possession,

however

he

came

by

it. It is _part of the Eirenaeus _mystery.

_Cooper

does not pretend that it was the author's _autograph

manu-script, but regards it as transcribed _probably therefrom and

_"very

little _corrupted." In this case

THE

OPEN

ENTRANCE

would

have been written _originally in _English.

But

_against this-1 have toset the fact that in his _preface to

RIPLEY

REVIVED

Eirenseus Philalethes _specifies that

he wrote itinLatin.

He

_speaks of various _{tracts, giving}

titles in

most

_{cases, including} "one in _{English, very}

plain but not perfected. Unfortunately it _slipped out

of

_my

hand

: I shall be _sorry if it

comes

abroad into the

world."

He

_goes

on

toenumerate BREVIS

MANUDUCTIO

and

FONS CHYMIC^E

VERITATIS, which he has resolved to

suppress.

He

thenadds : "

Two

other Latin_treatises,the

oneentitled

ARS

METALLORUM

_{METAMORPHOSES,}

the_other, INTROITUS

APERTUS

AD

OCCLUSUM

REGIS

_PALATIUM,

I latelywrote."

l

This_{looks obviously}final

on

the_question, but it does not follow that

_Cooper

_produceda fraudulent

version, translated

from

the Latin.

The

manuscripts of Eirenaeus

seem

to have been scattered in

_many

places,and

the INTROITUS had been written_{twenty-two years before} it

appearedin

Germany.

An

Englishtranslationis therefore far

from

_{improbable, and,} in addition to_Cooper,there was one _possessed

_{by Hornius}

alsoin

MS.

form. _Nothing, however, accounts for variations

from

the _Latin,

more

especially

when

they

seem

important.

These

facts and considerations are of no

consequence to

any

issue

respect-ing the identity of Eirenaeus and Eugenius, butthey are

of

moment

on the _{bibliographical}side.

The

_question of distinction or _identity is in

_my

opinion capable of determination by reference to the memorials themselves, in _respect of their _{subject-matter}

and

mode

of _treatment, and

_by

reference to _{the personal} side I have put

clearlyand impartially all that can be

1 _He

speaksalso oftwo lost _poems in _{English, of}an ENCHYRIDION

and DIURNAL.

Biographical

said for the identification of the

two

_writers, and it will be seen that it

comes

to _nothing

_beyond

the _similarity

of

age. Against this trap to catch the unwary,

we

have

to set _{the following} facts, _(i)

At

no _period of his life,

and

much

less at the _beginning of his _{literary activity,} he being then in his twenty-eighth year, did

Thomas

Vaughan

claim to have _accomplished the _physical

Magnum

Opus.

He

testifies,

on

the contrary, that he

reached

no

term in the

work

on

_metals,

and

even

from

his

own

_standpoint he was not _acquainted with

what

is called the First Matter

when

he _published his first

two texts.

He

was therefore ex _hypothesi in a _very different position

from

Eirenaeus _Philalethes,

who

claimed in his _{twenty-third year} that he could extract _gold

and

silver out of it.1 "

The

things which

we

have seen

"

he _says otherwise "which

we

have _taught

and

_wrought, which

we

_possess and

know

these

do

we

declare."1

(2)

Vaughan, on

the other hand, as

we

shall find at sufficient _length in the

INTRODUCTION

which follows this

PREFACE, was a cosmical philosopher, cherishing all kinds

of doctrines and theories

on

the creation of _{the world,}

on

_{the primitive} state of

_man,

on his Fall

and

Redemp-tion as seen in the _light of Kabalistic

and

otheroccult

theosophies, about which Eirenaeus

knew

nothing

appar-ently. (3)

The

personalities of the

two

men

were almost

as the _poles asunder, the

Welsh

mystic being an ardent lover of _Nature, a

man

of sentiment

and

_imagination, a typical poet of his period,belonging to aparticular school,

whereas his co-heir in

Hermetic

tradition was _positive,

practical, disturbed or consoled very little

_by

the _beauty

of external _things,

and

but little of the humanist order. (4)

The

identity of Eirenaeus has never transpired,

3

and

1 _He

saysthat "thewholesecret consistsin _Mercury,"whichis _sophic

and not _vulgar. It is a chaos "related toallmetalsas a _mother,'1

and "out of it I know how toextractall_things,even Sol and _{Luna, without}

thetransmutingElixir."

THE

OPEN_ENTRANCE,c._i,2. 2

Ibid.,c.13.

3 _{Inoneofthe BritishMuseum}

copies of

THE

MARROW

OF ALCHEMV,

of

Vaughan

there are _only traditional

rumours

_concerning his life,

with one _{important exception.} I think personally that

he

must

have visited

_George

_Starkey in America _prior

to _1654.*

He

has been identified otherwise with that

"

stranger in a plain rustic dress,"

who

"

seemed

like a

native of the

North

of _Holland,"

and

who

called on

John

Frederick Helvetius at

The Hague

on

Dec. 27, publishedin ₁₆₅₄ reference 1033,g.35, s.v.Eirenaeus Philoponos

Phila-lethes thereisanote in an old _handwritingwhich _{says that the} name

ofEirenaeuswas Childe. I have failed_{to carry}this intimation further.

MrsAtwood's SUGGESTIVE INQUIRYaffirms onp. 51 of thenewedition that the author of

THE

OPEN ENTRANCE was Alexander Seton, but

contradictsitwith characteristicconfusion onp. 61.

1

George Starkey was born in the Bermudas, graduated at Harvey

Collegein _{1646,practised as} a doctor in_America,and cameto _England

at an uncertain date _{prior to 1654,} when he published

THE

MARROW

OF ALCHEMY as the workof _{Eirenaeus Philoponos} Philalethes. In his

first _{preface thereto} he recounts his acquaintance with adisciple of the

true Eirenaeus,andenumeratesmostof thelatter's_{writings thirteenyears}

before thefirstofthem appearedinGermany. Heclaimsthat_{they were}

lenttohim by the Master's pupil. He claimsalso that inresponseto

his solicitation the latter wrote BREVIS MANUDUCTIO ad _Campum

Sophicum,atract entitled ELENCHUS Errorum in Arte Chemica Devi-antium,andin fine

THE MARROW

OFALCHEMY. _{By means}ofallthese manuscripts, Starkey says that he "attained theMysteryof the_Mercury

and byitthe FirstWhiteness." Heexpressedalsoa_hopethatheshould

have experience of the Red in ashort time,buthisteacher hadnotso

farinstructed him,fortheperiod of his own pledge given to Eirenaeus

Philalethes was_unexpired In Part I of

THE

MARROW

OFALCHEMY

the supposed Eirenaeus Philoponos being the _{supposititious pupil}

narrateshisownadventuresandfailures inthe _quest ofthe Great Work

anddescribes theadepttowhomheowedeverything. Thisartistbearsall

themarks andsigns ofEirenaeus Philalethes,issaidtobe anEnglishman

ofancientand honourablefamily, "his years scarce thirty-three," anda citizenofthe world,atpresentonhis travels. After_{careful consideration,}

I am led to conclude: (i) That the supposed pupil ofEirenaeus is a figment of Starkey's imagination; (2) That owing to some prohibition

imposed bythe"adeptanonymous," who desired to_{remain unknown,}or for_{reasons proper}toStarkey,he concealedin this manner his

acquaint-ance with the great alchemist; (3) That either

THE MARROW

was his

ownworkorheinserted therein that section which contains_{the story of}

Philoponos, which is _actually his own story. There is _nothing in the

poem to make the introduction of_{a biographical} narrative in the least

likelyor needful: onthe_contraryitinvolvesa break in _continuity. The poemseems_{scarcelyworthy}of_{a great} Hermetic _reputation, but on the

whole the second alternative _appears more probable. In either case,

Starkey's story of the pupil was ignored by William Cooper when he

editedRIPLEY REVIVED. Itremainstoaddthat_{Starkey died}of theplague

Biographical

1666, to discuss the claims of _alchemy

and

to exhibit the Stone of the _{Philosophers.}1

It is to be noted also that in 1668

when

his tract

on

THE

PREPARATION

OF

SOPH

ic

MERCURY

was _published at

Amsterdam

_{by Daniel} Elzevir he is described as an

American

_philosopher.

It is obvious

on

the faith of these statements whether

all or one that the life of Eirenaeus Philalethes

was

a _complete contrast to that of

Thomas

_Vaughan,

the measure of

whose

_wanderings was circumscribed _by Wales,

London

and Oxford.2 (5)

But

the real

and

crucial _point is a _question of the _literary sense.

On

in _{1665, or} in the same yearthat Thomas Vaughandied from inhaling

the fumes of _Mercury. Theprecious MSS.ofPhilaletheswhich he had

seen andstudiedbeganto_{be published two years}after in _Germany,with

the exception of RiPLEY REVIVED, whichappeared in London in 1678.

In two cases they were produced by editors abroad, while William

Cooper was answerable for the English work, presumably another text

which had come into his _{possession. Nothing} seems to have been

issued under the supervision of the author himself, and Mr E. K.

Chambers says that "he cannot be shewn to have outlived Thomas

Vaughan." The remark is_gratuitous,forthere is_nothing to _prove that

heexistedafter_1654,when_Starkeyfirstmade knownthat such a _person

had been abroadintheworldand hadachievedgreat things in _alchemy.

Itfollowsfromthe prefaceto RiPLEYthat Philalethesobtained his

initia-tionfrombooks andnotfrom a Master,asStarkeystates. Itfollows also thatby1645he hadwrittenfive tracts,ifnotmore hisinformation being

worded _vaguely an extraordinary outputfor_{a youth} of_{twenty-two, not}

to_speakof the studiesand_{attainments presupposed}thereby.

-*

See VITULUS AUREUS, 1667. The narrative withwhich I

am

con-cernediscontainedinthe third chapter,andtheage of thevisitorissaid

to have been about_{forty-three or} forty-four,being approximatelythat of Eirenaeus in _{that year.} Heexhibitedan_{ivory box,}"inwhichtherewere

three large pieces of a substance resembling glass or pale sulphur,and

informed me that here_{was enough} of the tincture for theproductionof

twentytons of gold." Heowedhisownknowledgeto a Masterwhohad

stayed a _{few days} inhishouseand hadtaughthim"this Divine Art" whichseems _contrarytothe story of Eirenaeus. Helvetiusconfesses that

when he held the substance in his hand he scraped off some particles

with his nail,but theychangedlead into glass instead of into _gold. He

mentioned the fact when hesawhisvisitoron a lateroccasion,and was told that he should have protected the spoil with yellow wax before administering it to the metal. The adept ended by giving Helvetius another morselwith instructions,byfollowingwhich he succeeded

subse-quentlyin _transmuting sixdrachmsoflead into thefinest_{gold ever seen}

byacertaingoldsmithtowhomitwasoffered forexamination.

2

Grosart suggeststhathe _mayhavevisitedEdinburgh,presumably on

accountofhisconnection with _{Murray, but}itispurespeculation.

of

Vaughan

the evidence of that

faculty, it is certain that the books written under the

name

of

_Eugenius

are not _by the hand which wrote

THE

OPEN ENTRANCE

and _produced

RIPLEY

REVIVED. It is a _question which lies _wholly

outside the issues of debate

and

is for those

who

can

see

_meaning

for those

who

_{possess the} sense. It will be final for _them, if _they are at the _pains to

_compare

the _texts, even as it is final for me. I conclude that

Thomas

_Vaughan

was not Eirenaeus _Philalethes,

who-soever the latter

_may

have _been,

and

that _they have been

_merged

one into another

solely over a confusion of

_pseudonyms.

The

name

of

_Vaughan

was _{forgotten speedily} in

England,

and

on

the Continent1

it survived mainly

_by

its identification _{with Philalethes the Cosmopolite.}

The

reputation of

THE

OPEN ENTRANCE

magnified its author and encompassed

him

with a halo of romance.

Thomas

Vaughan

the Silurist denies

specifically his connection with _any Rosicrucian Brotherhood ; but

Thomas

de

Vagan, Adeptus Anglus and supposed author of ABYSSUS

ALCHIMI^

EXPLORATUS, had attained the Elixir of Life

and

was' the concealed _Imperator of the Invisible Fraternity.

When

Leo

Taxil in

modern

days created Diana

_Vaughan,

as the heroine-in-chief of Luciferian Palladism, he furnished her with an ancestor in the person of

Thomas

Vaughan,

author of

THE

OPEN

ENTRANCE

and Chief of the

_Rosy

Cross.2 It

_may

be

1 _{ANTHROPOSOPHIA}

THEOMAGICA and MAGIA _ADAMICA, with its

continuation, CCELUM TERR/E, were translated into German in 1704.

EUPHRATES_appearedintheDEUTSCHES THEATRUM CHEMICUM,vol.i,

Niirnberg, 1728. AtBerlin,in _1782,allthesetracts,together withANIMA

MAGICA _ABSCONDITA, LUMEN DE LUMINE and AULA Lucis, as also the METAMORPHOSIS OF METALS, CELESTIAL RUBY and FONT OF

CHEMICAL TRUTH,appeared underthename of_Eugenius Philalethesin

HERMETISCHES

_ABC,

_{Berlin, 1788-89.}

2

Itwill be sufficient to refer

_my

readers to a volume called

DEVIL-WORSHIP IN _{FRANCE, which}I had occasion _{to publish} in 1896,for the

exposure of the Taxil _{conspiracy against}

Masonry. See the chapter

entitled Diana Unveiled. LeoTaxil_putbackthe birth-date ofThomas

Vaughanto1612and _represented him as received into the Rosicrucian xxii

Biographical

added that in _theosophical circles

Thomas

_Vaughan

is

now

_regarded as a Master, but that is a denomination which each of us

must

_{be permitted} to understand after his

own

manner. I think on

_my

_{part that} he had seen

the

end

of _adeptship, but there is no record

and no

suggestion that he attained it.

Though

Eugenius

Philalethes

comes

before us above

all _things as an occult

and

_mystical writer,1

we

shall

make

a mistake if

we

_disregard his _{literary side,} not for

what

it

marks

in achievement but for that which it connotes

in ambition. I set _apart his Latin exercises, though as Holofernes might have said _{they argue facility,}

and

_they have been praised, moreover, for their elegance.

They

indicate a bent at best.

But

if he had not been carried

over by zeal into the _paths of the Secret Tradition I

believe that his

_memory

_mightwell have remained

_among

us as a writer of

English verse, for he

would

have

gone

further in that field.

His

metrical _fragments are _proofs of considerable _faculty.

He

would

have followed the

lead of his _brother,whether or not _{he might have}reached

a _{higher grade} than that which is _represented

_by

_Henry

Vaughan'soccasional but qualified excellence.

It remains to _say that in _{preparing the various} texts for

Fraternity by Robert Fludd in _1636. In 1644 he presided over a

Rosicrucian assembly,at which Elias Ashmole was present. He wrote

THE

OPEN ENTRANCE in 1645. In 1654 he became Grand Master

of the R.C. Order,which worshipped Lucifer as the _{good god,} and in 1678 he wastranslatedtothe _paradise of Lucifer. It isnotworth while dwelling on these inventions at thepresentday,but Leo Taxil had not

actedthelastscenes of hismemorable_{comedy when}

Mr

E. K. Chambers published hisedition of Henry Vaughan, and he gaveconsiderable space

to_{the subject}inhissecond volume.

1

It _may be convenient for _{bibliographical} purposes to mention here

thatin 1888 I edited ANTHROPOSOPHiA THEOMAGICA, ANIMA MAGICA

ABSCONDITA,MAGIA ADAMICA,and COELUM TERR^E underthe general

titleof

THE

MAGICALWRITINGSofThomasVaughan.

My

discoveryof

Vaughan's precious Note-Book is announced therein. In 1910 I edited

LUMEN DE LUMINE with an introduction to which reference is made

elsewhere. EUPHRATES _appeared in the series entitled COLLECTANEA

HERMETICA, 1893, being edited with notes _by Miss Florence Farr, i.e.,

S. S. D. D.

of

Vaughan

the present edition I have

met

with _singular difficulties

overthe

Greek

and Latincitations. I

do

notrefer _merely to _{the corrupt} state of the former, but, firstly, to the

ex-treme _difficulty of

checking in both cases,

owing

to the vague nature of the references

when

indeed there are references at all ; and, secondly, to the extraordinary

dis-covery,

when

a certain proportion of the extracts have been at last _identified, that

_{Thomas Vaughan}

was

too often _quoting

_{from memory,}

_giving the _general sense of a _passage but _apart

from

literal _accuracy.

A. E.

WAITE.

INTRODUCTION

THOMAS

VAUGHAN

is the

most

_{interesting figure} in

Hermetic

literature of_{the seventeenth century}in

England, though it

must

be admitted that he is one of a triad

between

whom

it is difficult to _{choose, speaking} within

that restricted measure. In the _generation which pre-ceded _immediately there was the illuminated _master, full of _{high intimations} after his

own

_manner,

who

wrote

A

NEW

LIGHT

OF

ALCHEMY.

He

_belongs to the list in

so far as I

am

_right in _believing that his true

name

was Alexander _Seton,

_though

his

work

_{appeared under} that of Michael _Sendivogius, a _pupil or follower

who

issued

it in this case as his own.

The

_question is obscure

and the last

word

remains to be said thereon unless ultimately it

_may

be left over for

want

of materials

_by

which to reach a settlement.1

In the

same

_generation as

Vaughan and

almost his

_pseudonymous

_namesake, there

is Eirenaeus Philalethes that _{inspired "adept}

_anonymous

and lover of

learning" with

whom

I have dealt in the

preface.

There

is

no

conviction to

_compare

inalchemical

literature with that which

moves

_through the written memorials of these two _peers and co-heirs

whom

I have

classed with the

Welsh

_mystic. It certifies _everywhere

that _they had reached in their

own

view the term of search

and

_{had completed} the _great adventure.

Within

their _proper limits of _{symbolism, both} are

more

clear,

more

_positive,

more

constructive than

Thomas

_Vaughan,

though all at their best were on firewith a _strange zeal of

mission

and

were_{assuredly brothers}in

God.

In_particular

1

It istobe understoodthat the

NEW

LIGHTwaswritten in theLatin

tongue.

of

Vaughan

as _regards the third of this

Hermetic

_triad, there is

no

growth of the

mind

from small beginnings unto greater

ends in the _{shining records} of Eirenaeus.

That

BREVIS

MANUDUCTIO

which is

presumably his first

work

repre-sents the

same

_height of certitude as

THE

OPEN

EN-TRANCE

or

RIPLEY

_REVIVED, which

_may

be ranked I

suppose

among

his last.

But

ANTHROPOSOPHIA

THEO-MAGICA

and its

_companion

tract are _products of a prentice

hand

in comparison with

LUMEN

DE

LUMINE

or

EUPHRATES.

There

is another distinction between

them

which is worth _noting : the

predominant tempera-mental characteristics of

_Vaughan

_through all his books

are those of sentiment

and

_{emotion, and}

we

know

to

/

what

lengths he was carried by these dispositions in his

duels with

_Henry

More.

His

_personal element is there-fore _always in the _ascendant,

_{and though}

it is attractive

and _{even winning} the calamities of his _quarrels not-withstanding and notwithstanding all their Billingsgate

it contrasts _strangely with the intellectual _repose of

Eirenseus

and

_Seton,which is so like a _repose in science.

Finally there is a third distinction, and it is that _{by which}

I

am

brought to

my

proper point of departure. So far

as it is _{possible to}

speak with certainty in the absence of

an established canon of _criticism, the

NEW

LIGHT

and

THE

OPEN ENTRANCE

are alchemical

works

of their _period

in the

more

strict

understanding of the term,

by

which I

mean

that the transmutation of metals is their sole or

main

concern ;

and

the claims of their authors to the

mastery attained and placed

on

record are to be taken in this _sense, and in this I think

only.

They

were

men

of _religious

_{mind by}

the indubitable _testimony of their writings, and because it follows

from

all

Hermetic

litera-ture that an

undevout

alchemist

would

be still

more

mad

than even an _impious astronomer.

But

_theyare not

men

who

come

before us _carrying

great lights or indeed any lights at all on the

supreme

subject of religion.

The

analogy of things above

and

below instituted for

them

xxvi

a

bond

of union between the mysteries of

Hermetic

practice

and

the practice of those other mysteries which belong to the

Kingdom

of

Heaven

; but in the

recogni-tion of this _{correspondence they} reached the term of

their _proposal in

spiritual things, so far as their

books

wereconcerned.

_They

were _{dealing with} another

subject.

It was otherwise with

Thomas

_Vaughan, albeit he had

worked

in metals

and

did often recurthereto.

As

one

who

comes

out of

Wild

Wales

and sets towards

London, Vaughan

entered into _literarylife_{with an abiding}

implicit in his heart that the great adventure is

God,

attained and

known

in the entire _being, all _{deeps and}

heights thereof.

He

may

have followed

many

false processes in outward and inward life ; he

may

have

misread

some

_symbols which were

common

modes

of

expression in the school to which he belonged ; he

may

have devised fantastic _points of _{meeting between paths} of _thought

and

_experiment which

do

not _belong to

one another ; but he never changed consciously the

ground

of his intent.

He

began in the " narrow

name

ofChemia"l

and

found

_nothingtohis_{purpose, following}in their course "

who

will hear of

nothing but metals."

He

enlarged his field of consideration and believing that he stood

_upon

the threshold of _great secrets he set _open

a

glass of

dream upon

the cosmicprocesses. It is certain

again that he

came

to nothing therein, though he had looked _{to surprise creative} art at

work

in _{the laboratory}

of the universe and to direct _{experiments thereby} for his

own

ends in research.

But

he

knew

_always that Dominus

non_parsestsedtotum alike in _{Art and Nature, above} all

in

things of the

human

soul.

He

understood or divined

that

man

is the _{great subject,} to which the universe

appeals, that

God

appeals therein,

and

that the terminus

ad

quern of our nature is attained in so far as that which is

without us is received or shall I _{say acquired}?

_by

that

which is within.

For him

as for the _{great theosophists}

1 _{ANIMA MAGICA}

ABSCONDITA,p. 95.