Byzantine Alchemy, or the Era of Systematization by Cristina Viano

Byzantine Alchemy, or the Era of Systematization by 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 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 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 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

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).

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  Greco- Egyptian 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, 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 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 (391CE). 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 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). 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.

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 CE.

The work of Olympiodorus is a rich source of information on  cultural conditions and educational methods of Alexandria in the 6th century. A very typical form characterizes his comments: they are composed of a certain number of lessons (praxeis), each with the general explanation (theōria) and a particular explanation, of a section of text from Aristotle (generally designated as lexis). Following the tradition of the school of Alexandria, Olympiodorus was  interested in  Aristotle’s logic and natural philosophy. In particular, his commentary on  the Meteorologica is an extremely interesting work for  the history of science. Olympiodorus completes and fixes the Aristotelian classification of meteorological and chemical phenomena, thus performing a tremendous job  of systematizing notions sometimes barely sketched by  Aristotle, like that of  “chemical analysis” (diagnosis) of homogeneous bodies in book 4 (On Aristotle’s ‘Meteorology’, p. 274.25–29). He takes part in  the  debates of  the  commentators on  difficult and problematic issues of the Aristotelian text, such as the theory of vision, on  how the rays of the sun warm the air, or on  the origin of the saltiness of the sea. Finally, it transmits much information about the state of science and technology of its period, such as mathematics, optics, astronomy, medicine, agriculture, and metallurgy. As for  the commentary on  book 4 of the Meteorologica, the  first “chemical” treatise of  antiquity, the  systematic influence of Olympiodorus is fundamental: he contributes significantly toward defining a new field of investigation on  the properties, states, and transformations of sublunary matter. His commentary is the most widely used not  only by Arabic and Renaissance authors but also by Greek and medieval alchemists.

It is therefore not  surprising that there has survived under the name of Olympiodorus one of  the  most “philosophical”  writings of  the  corpus of  Greek alchemists, which presents itself as the commentary on  a (lost) treatise of Zosimus and on  the sayings of other ancient alchemists (CAAG  vol. 2,  p.  69.12—104.7). In  the  principal manuscript of  the corpus, the Marcianus Graecus 299  (M), the  treatise has the  title: “Olympiodorus, philosopher of Alexandria, On the book About the Action of Zosimos <and> everything that was  said by  Hermes and the  philosophers” (eis to Olympiodorou philosophou alexandreōs Kat’energeian Zosimou <kai> osa  apo  Hermou tōn  philosophōn ēsan eirēmena). In  the  other manuscripts one  finds: “The Philosopher Olympiodorus to Petasius, king of Armenia, About the divine and sacred art of the stone of the philosophers,” where Petasius is probably a fictitious name and “philosophers’ stone” is a late term, added later by scribes to define the content of the commentary. The author explicitly presents his commentary as a work at once exegetical and doxographical. He  explicitly claims that Greek philosophy, including pre-Socratic philosophy, is the epistemological basis of transmutation. Indeed, near the middle of commentary (CAAG  vol. 2,  pp. 79.11–85.5; par. 18–27), Olympiodorus sets out  the opinions of nine pre-Socratic philosophers (Melissus, Parmenides, Thales, Diogenes, Heraclitus, Hippasus, Xenophanes, Anaximenes, and Anaximander) on  the sole principle of things, and then sketches a comparison between these theses and those of the principal masters of  the  alchemical art  (Zosimos, Chymes, Agathodaimōn, and Hermes) on  the  efficient principle of  transmutation, designated as  “divine water” (theion hudōr).

Like most texts of the corpus of Greek alchemists, the commentary of Olympiodorus presents a composite and seemingly unstructured nature. It has neither preface nor conclusion: it begins and ends abruptly. One can divide the text into two  sections. Only the first (CAAG  vol. 2,  pp. 69.12–77.14; par. 1–14)  presents a coherent structure: the  author begins by  commenting on  a saying of Zosimos about the operation to extract gold flakes from ore, through “maceration” (taricheia) and “washing” (plusis). Par. 1–7  follow the  typical schema of Olympiodorus the commentator: first the lemma, the phrase of Zosimos to explicate, and then a general explanation (theōria), and after that the detailed exegesis of terms (lexis). The general explanation also introduces the  theme of  the  obscurity of  the  “ancients,” extended to Plato and Aristotle, which has a dual purpose, to hide the doctrine from the uninitiated and to stimulate adepts to research. Then he introduces gold “soldering” (chrysocolla: par. 8–11), which consists of  collecting the  gold particles obtained into a homogeneous body. These two  specific operations, separation and reunion, are here interpreted as allegories of the transmutation of metals. The three types of  dyeing of  the  ancient alchemists come next (par. 11–14): one  that dissipates, one that dissipates slowly, and one that does not  dissipate. The third attributes to metals an indelible nature. This means, in operative terms, to fix the color of a metal in a persistent manner.

The second section—the most extended part of  the  text (CAAG vol. 2,  pp. 77.15–104.7; par. 15–55)—consists of  a suite of  unstructured excerpta and digressions, accompanied by notes on  the main alchemical operations. Par. 16 is focused on  fire, because according to Zosimos, moderate fire has a fundamental function in the practice of the art of transmutation since it is the principle agent. The reflection on  fire leads to the function of the four elements and theories of the pre- Socratics on  principles. In par. 18 a doxographic presentation starts on  pre-Socratic doctrines about the single principle, which extends from par. 19 to par. 25. The author then compares (par. 25–27) those principles with the  principles of  the  ancient alchemists. The second half of  the  treatise (par. 28–55) reproduces the  arguments of  the  first part, plus the description of the stages of transmutation and theorizing of the prime metallic material. Par. 28 considers the status that the elements had for  ancient alchemists: they constitute the dry, warm, cold, and wet bodies. Par. 32 returns to the distinction between a stable body and an unstable body sketched in par. 15. Olympiodorus now distinguishes substances and incorporeal substances, that is to say, between the fusible metallic substances and ores that have not  been subjected to fire. The fragment of Zosimos’ Final Account about the role of alchemy among the kings of Egypt (par. 35) is connected to the discourse on  minerals. From par. 36, Olympiodorus fixes attention on the prime metallic material, and he reports the dialogue between Synesius and Dioscorus on  mercury. After reflections on  the separative function of white, and the “comprehensive” function of  black, in  coloration (par. 38), Olympiodorus identifies, as Zosimos did, the prime metallic material with black lead. In par. 43, the divine water is cited as responsible for  transmutation. In par. 44, Zosimos defines lead by the symbol of the philosophical egg formed of the four elements. The following paragraphs discuss the “powers” of  lead and stages of  transmutation, assimilated to  colors (black, white, yellow, and red). In par. 54 we  find a reflection on  the art of transmutation, which is called eidikē (special) and not  koinē (common). The conclusion (par. 55) recapitulates some key concepts of the work: substances like molybdochalc (lead-copper) and etesian stone, the fusion and production of gold, the causal action of fire. Beyond this appearance of disorder, one can grasp a rational and coherent design as the treatise unfolds, revealed by two  threads. The first is the red thread of the logic that links the alchemical operations, the principles, and the fundamental substances, which shows a progression in the presentation of the components of alchemy, ranging from basic operations (levigating, fusing, dyeing) to its active and material principles, to finish with epistemological considerations on  this discipline as technē.

The second red  thread consists of  expressions that one  can define as  “joining and accompanying,” where the  author speaks in  the  first person and signals the  transition between the different parts, as well as the purpose, method, and internal organization of his effort. His work proves to be  an epitome and a summary with a protreptic goal, offering a selection of testimonies, with commentaries, extracted from the writings of the ancient alchemists, but also from philosophers properly so-called, on  the foundations of the art (the operations, the ingredients, and also the history). It seems addressed to someone young and high ranking, with the  aim  of  offering him  a “comprehensive view of the  complete art” (par. 38). This suggests that at the origin of the text we  have, there must have been a now-lost work of Olympiodorus, composed in a more structured form. The text that we  have would consist of at least two  layers: the commentary of Olympiodorus on  the Kat’energeian of Zosimos, and the arrangement by a compiler. This person could have copied Olympiodorus up to a point and then added a series of notes on  the main alchemical operations, accompanied by excerpta of Zosimos and other alchemical authors, organizing everything according to the double criterion mentioned. Presumably, the original piece and a good part of the doxography on  pre-Socratics come directly from the commentary on  the Kat’energeian by Olympiodorus the Neoplatonist. It is also entirely plausible that the Kat’energeian of Zosimus was already a doxographic work that concerned the opinions of alchemists, and that Olympiodorus in his commentary added a doxography on the pre-Socratics, which is structured according to the typical pattern of Neoplatonic doxographies. The parts that derive directly from the commentary of Olympiodorus are characterized precisely by striking similarities that are formal (like the typical schema of Neoplatonic commentary in the beginning of the treatise and the arrangement of the doxography), terminological, and conceptual, with the commentary on  the Meteorologica, and other works of Olympiodorus the Neoplatonic.

Now  if this is true, we  can explain how later, this text was attributed in its entirety to Olympiodorus of  Alexandria, by  a sort of  “attraction” of  the  initial part. The compiler could not  have intended to allocate the patchwork to the name of Olympiodorus. The title only reflects precisely what this book is: the commentary of Olympiodorus on  Zosimos and a collection of excerpta. As for  the compiler, one could probably think of Theodore, who had assembled the entire collection of alchemical texts. Thus, the whole debate on  the authenticity must be  set in a new perspective, because the situation of this text is not  that of a pseudepigraphy in the usual sense, but that of a typical product of this sui generis scientific literature that is Greco-Alexandrian alchemy. The issue of pseudepigraphy among Greek alchemists thus rejoins that of the place of alchemy with respect to the official philosophical knowledge of its period. We will return to why Olympiodorus the commentator might have been interested in alchemy.

2.3 Stephanus

Stephanus is the author of nine praxeis (lessons) on  the divine and sacred art and a letter to Theodore (Ideler [1841] 1963, 2.199–253). Lesson 9 is addressed to  the  Emperor Heraclius and therefore can be  dated in  the  years of  his  rule (610–641 CE). Some astronomical data in his work would moreover enable us to date it to exactly 617 CE. We saw that in the corpus of Greek alchemists, Stephanus is mentioned with Olympiodorus among “the masters famous everywhere and worldwide, new exegetes of Plato and Aristotle.” Indeed, the  Emperor Heraclius appointed him  “worldwide professor,” that is, professor of  the  imperial school of  Constantinople. The current scholarly trend is to consider this Stephanus of Alexandria identical to the Neoplatonic commentator on  Plato and Aristotle, author of a commentary on  the On Interpretation and one on  the third book of the On the Soul, and to Stephanus of Athens, commentator on Hippocrates. He  would also commented on  the Handy Tables of Theon of Alexandria and written an Apotelesmatical Treatise addressed to his pupil Timotheos. In his alchemical work, Stephanus comments in a very rhetorical style on  the ancient alchemists, and he connects alchemy to medicine, astrology, mathematics, and music. He declares alchemy compatible with Christianity and defines it as  “mystical” knowledge, woven into a cosmology based on  the principles of unity and universal sympathy. Alchemical transformations are considered natural and enter a close relation of analogies and correspondences between the microcosm and the macrocosm, the human body and the four elements, the heavenly bodies and earthly bodies.

Berthelot characterized the  commentaries of  Synesius and Olympiodorus as  “mystical commentaries” and attributed to  them an  undeniable philosophical value. He considered, however, successive commentators, such as Stephanus, the Christian Philosopher, and Anonymous, as  “Byzantine glossators” who  have expressed, in (p. 952) an exalted tone, scholastic subtleties devoid of any scientific interest (CAAG  vol. 3, p. 377). But on  the contrary, the Praxeis of Stephanus are very interesting philosophically, from the point of view of both method and contents. Indeed, on  the one hand, Stephanus plans to build a new system through the critical comparison of theories and admission of their difference. This form of  “status quaestionis” of  existing theories is one  of  the  most “scientific” aspects, in  the  modern sense, of  the  work of  Stephanus. On  the  other hand, he creates a synthesis of Aristotelian, Platonic, and Neoplatonic doctrines to build his alchemical doctrine. In particular, he presents a model of matter and the transformations of metals that is one of the most original in the corpus of Greek alchemists, since it appears to be  based both on  the  theory of  surfaces in  Plato’s Timaeus, and on  the theory of exhalations in Aristotle’s Meteorology. Indeed, to explain the constitutions of metals, Stephanus introduces “bodies indivisible and without parts,” the  “very special figures” that are fundamentally “solids of  every kind extended in  three dimensions, and composed of length, width, and depth” (praxis 6,  p.  223.22 Ideler). These are “planar surfaces” (epipeda) that correspond to the ethereal particles resulting from the decomposition of the metal body (praxis 3, p. 209.4 Ideler), a decomposition necessary so that the dyeing spirit can slip into a body and achieve the transmutation. The vaporous exhalation (“dyeing spirit,” pneuma, “cloud”), responsible for  composing and coloring metals, is thus likened to the planar surface. An  abstract geometric principle is thus identified with something physical and elemental (pneuma, humid exhalation, made of water and air), but subtle and rarefied, at the limit of body. The work of Stephanus was well-known by the Arabs. According to the Arab-Latin tradition transmitted by the Morienus (Stavenhagen 1974), it will be  precisely one of his students, the monk Morienus (or  Marianos), who will broadcast alchemy in the Arab world between 675 and 700 CE, by initiating the Ummayad prince Khalid ibn Yazid (Bacchi and Martelli 2009).

2.4 The Christian Philosopher, the Anonymous Philosopher, and the Four Alchemical Poems

We  thus arrive—with Stephanus  and two  anonymous commentators commonly called the “Christian Philosopher” (CAAG vol. 2,  pp. 395.1–421.5) and the  “Anepigraphos”  (or Anonymous) (CAAG  vol. 2,  pp. 421.8–441.25)—at the  period when the  first collection of Greek alchemists was constituted. As  in  other “commentators,” these two  anonymous works present themselves as compilations, with commentaries, based on  ancient writers (Hermes, Zosimos, Democritus), about specific topics or questions. For example, the Christian wrote a work Objection That Divine Water Is One According  to Species (CAAG  vol. 2, p. 405.6), and the Anonymous wrote a work On the Divine Water Eater  of Whitening (CAAG  vol. (p. 953) 2, p. 421.6). As Berthelot remarked, these compilations, especially that of the Christian, follow the general system adopted by Byzantines of the 8th and 10th centuries, which was to draw from ancient authors excerpts and summaries, such as those by Photius and Constantine Porphyrogenitus, a method that has preserved fragments but also contributed to the dismemberment of the texts. Berthelot records a dozen fragments of the Christian Philosopher, which concern essentially the notion of divine water and the method and operations of the science. As with Synesius and other commentators, the obscurity of the language of the ancient alchemists is explained as having the dual purpose of deceiving the jealous and of exercising the minds of adepts.

As for  the divine water, the active principle of transmutation, the Christian insists upon the apparent disagreement among the ancient alchemists as to its designations, and especially the meaning of its unity (CAAG  vol. 2,  pp. 400.9‒401.16). As  Zosimos would already have done, the Christian wants to show the basic agreement among the authors about the specific unity of this principle (CAAG  vol. 2, p. 40.5). In particular, he shows that Democritus speaks of the unique species in general, and that Zosimos speaks of its multiple material species (CAAG  vol. 2, p. 407.6), and he concludes that ultimately all multiplicity is reduced to unity. Some considerations bear on  the method. The distinctions of materials and treatments show the influence of the descriptions of states of physical bodies (liquids, solids, composite nature) and transformative processes (cooking, melting, decomposition by fire or  liquid) in  book 4 of  Aristotle’s Meteorology. The treatments are compared to planar geometric figures (CAAG  vol. 2,  p.  414.13‒415.9), a comparison that recalls the  concept of metals by  Stephanus and Plato’s Timaeus. Finally, the Christian applies the dialectical method of Plato, which divides and unites by species and genera, to the explanation of the operations, with the aim of clarity (CAAG  vol. 2, p. 418.4). Far from being without scientific interest, the compilations of the Christian show a direct application of the conceptual tools of philosophy, especially of Aristotle and of Plato, to alchemical exegesis. One notes also some features of classical exegesis by the commentators, such as the search for  agreement among opinions and the effort to derive the multiplicity of principles from a single one. The “Anonymous” presents a doxography on  the  “prime ministers” of  aurifaction. He mentions Hermes, John the  Archpriest, Democritus, Zosimos, and then “the famous worldwide philosophers, commentators of Plato and of Aristotle, who used dialectical principles, Olympiodorus and Stephanus”:  they deepened aurifaction, they composed vast commentaries, and they bound by oath the composition of the mystery (CAAG  vol. 2, p. 425.4). In particular, the Anonymous examines the mixture of substances by liquid means, without the assistance of the fire of which Olympiodorus also speaks (CAAG  vol. 2, p.  426.7). There is still, as we  saw with Synesius, influence from the Aristotelian theory of mixture, the basic composition of all natural bodies (CAAG  vol. 2, p. 439.21). As for methodology, the Anonymous makes a curious analogy between the general and (p. 954) specific instruments of music and the general and specific parts of the alchemical science (CAAG  vol. 2,  p.  433.11–441.25). 

Finally, close to Stephanus are four iambic poems on  the divine art, placed under the names of  Heliodorus, Theophrastus, Archelaus, and Hierotheus (7th–8th centuries CE). These poems, highly mystical in inspiration, contain litanies about gold and show parallels with Stephanus in style and in content. Some scholars think the names probably refer to a single character, namely Heliodorus, who said he sent his poems to the emperor Theodosius, probably Theodosius III  (716–717 CE).

3. The Alchemists and Their Knowledge 

3.1 Transmutation and Its Principles

Although these authors have their individual characteristics, from their writings we  can reconstruct the lines of a fairly homogeneous theory of transmutation. The idea of the transmutation is based on  the concept that all metals are constituted of the same material. We must first remove the qualities that particularize a metal, reverting it to the indeterminate prime metallic material, and then assign to it the properties of gold. Thus, the production of gold results from a synthesis out  of a common and receptive prime metallic material, onto which are incorporated the  “qualities,” that is, substances which are responsible for  the coloration or transmutation into gold, according to the principles of sympathy. Among these substances,  “divine water” (theion hudōr) or  “sulfur water” (hudōr tou theiou) plays a fundamental role. It is frequently indicated as the goal of research and the principal agent of transmutation. It is an active principle derived from the metallic material itself, endowed with a double power, generative and destructive, which one then causes to act on  the material itself. The common metallic material is not  a substrate inseparable from the form, unknowable and indeterminate in itself, but is a concrete body having an independent existence and on  which one can operate. It can be  black lead or mercury.

Similarly, the active principle is identified with dyeing agents, which in practice are volatile substances, such as mercury vapor. The distinction that the alchemists made, starting with Zosimos, between two  components in metals, the one nonvolatile (sōma) and the other volatile (pneuma), was surely inspired by observing the coloring action of some vapors on  solid metals, such as mercury and arsenic vapors that give a silvery color to copper. Often, transformation into gold is described as a deep dyeing. From this perspective, the coloring agent and the colored body become a single thing through transmutation.

3.2 The Discipline and Its Method

We now turn to some reflections of the alchemists on  the nature and method of their knowledge. Let us start with Olympiodorus. We saw that he presented his writing both as a commentary and protreptic book, addressed to someone who wants to learn the principles of alchemy. It defines both the object of research and the method. Consequently, it is, in the intention of the author (or  his compiler), a philosophical work, not  just a technical treatise. Indeed, in his treatise, he designates the discipline sometimes as technē, sometimes as philosophy. The inextricable link between the two  is expressed early in his doxographic statement where he says that the ancient (alchemists) were properly philosophers and addressed themselves to philosophers, that they introduced philosophy to technē, and that their writings were doctrines and not  works (CAAG  vol. 2,  p.  79.16–20). Stephanus, too, speaks of  “philosophy,” which he  identified with the  imitation of  god: “So there is a great relationship among the principles, especially between God  and the philosophical soul. For what is that philosophy, if not  assimilation to God, as far as it is possible for  a human?” The philosopher, bringing the  multiplicity of  compositions to  unity, will  succeed in  “theoretical and diagnostic accuracy” (praxis 6,  p.  224.25 Ideler). The most important features of the method described above are, firstly, the profound study and critical comparison of all philosophical theories on  the subject, and secondly, the construction, from these, of a philosophical system of nature.

Stephanus also designates this discipline as chēmeia and distinguishes it as “mythical” (muthikē, fabulous) and “mystical” (mustikē, symbolic, allegorical, but also for insiders). The mythical is reduced to  a mass of  empty statements, whereas: “The mystical chemistry methodically deals with the creation of the world by the Word, so that the man inspired by God  and born of him is instructed by a proper effort (eutheias ergasias) and by  divine and mystical statements” (Letter to Theodore, p. 208.29 Ideler). These passages show that, for  the alchemist, to know and to make, or better, to remake, are the two  inseparable moments of a single act: it is through analysis, the reconstruction of the unity and accuracy of the process, that the work of the craftsman reproduces the organization of the world. Note that the analysis is not  just about the distinction of the components but  also about the  “theories” that concern the  compositions. The Christian, in a writing entitled What Is the Purpose of This Treatise, characterizes the knowledge in  question as  both “divine science” (theia epistēmē) and as  “valuable and excellent philosophy” (entimos kai  aristē philosophia) (CAAG  vol. 2, p. 415.10). We saw that he applies to the operations the dialectical method that divides and unites by species and genera. The Anonymous, for  his part, compares alchemy to music to show the affinity of the structure of these two  disciplines, characterized by the development of multiple practical applications rigorously regulated by a single principle (CAAG  vol. 2, p. 437.13). 

Note that these authors agree on  two  fundamental points: the need to proceed by a rigorous method, and also their own philosophical identity. Indeed, with the exception of Stephanus, who first employs (only once) the proper term chēmeia, all alchemists, including Stephanus, refer to  themselves and their predecessors as  “philosophers” and conceive their knowledge as a philosophy, an art (technē) or science (epistēmē), often accompanied with attributes such as  “divine,” “excellent,” and “universal.” The epistemological status of this discipline is that of a reflection at once on  the theory and practice, on  the natural world, and on  the rational method of the technē. Theory and practice are always dialectically and indissolubly linked. Stephanus speaks of  “theoretical practice” (theōrētikē praxis) and “practical theory” (praktikē theōria) (praxis 1, p. 201.27–33 Ideler). Medicine often appears as  the  most appropriate term of  comparison for this form of knowledge. This is in fact a dual theoretical education, concerning on  the one hand the principles of nature, and on  the other of the principles of medicine. Aristotle also said that the  “expert” (empeiroi) physicians are those who complete their education through manuals (Nicomachean Ethics 10.10, 1181b2–5). These manuals classify particular cases according to general principles. As for  the relationship between technē and nature, we  have seen in the Greek alchemical texts the emergence of a view by which the technitē, just like the doctor, does not  replace nature but creates conditions for  nature to act, so that natural processes can happen. In  Olympiodorus’ commentary, one  finds this idea repeated in  several places, shared with Zosimos. The correct method is to proceed according to nature, without violence or opposition to it. Ultimately, it is nature that acts because man cannot replace it. This method demands, therefore, a profound knowledge of the specific properties of bodies to make them react naturally. We can now summarize some characteristics of the alchemical literature of the commentators.

First, we  found that most of these treatises are excerpts and summaries of other lost works, but they nevertheless have an order and purpose. The exegetical intention is often declared and focuses especially on  the deliberate obscurity of the authors. This obscurity has a double explanation: first, it is a strategy for  defending the doctrine against those who do not  deserve it; second, it has the pedagogical and protreptic function to exercise the intelligence of adepts and push their minds toward the ultimate principles. These are the same reasons that the Neoplatonic commentators give for  the obscurity (asapheia) of Aristotle’s writings. For example, Simplicius attributes obscurity to  the  precise and concise language of Aristotle, who often expresses in a few syllables what another would have said in numerous clauses. Next, the exegesis of the Alexandrian alchemical commentators touches on  both the practice of operations and the theoretical and methodological principles, frequently expressed through well-known concepts of Aristotelian natural philosophy (e.g., notions of mixing, of change of species, of potential/actuality, of matter/form), or of Platonic natural philosophy (such as elementary surfaces which form bodies). Finally, all the Greek alchemical commentators, having identified the basic purpose of research with the principle responsible for  transmutation, generally identified with the  divine water (the “philosopher’s stone” of  the  Middle Ages), that which represents, in Aristotelian terms, a form of efficient and effective causality. Alchemists consider this goal, like the art and method concerned with it, unique. On this point, one can observe, especially in doxographies, research on  the agreement among opinions, both of alchemical authors as well as of philosophers, such as the pre-Socratics, Plato, and Aristotle. However, the agreement among the doctrines of Aristotle and Plato on  a single object of research is also a common topos of Neoplatonic exegesis.

3.3 Philosophy and Alchemy: The Case of Olympiodorus

Although one can spot among Greek alchemists the influence of the philosophy of their period, testimonies about alchemy are rare in the writings of contemporary philosophers. Thus, even if one can perceive many similarities in the alchemical commentary of Olympiodorus with the commentary on  the Meteorology, as well as with other texts of Olympiodorus the Neoplatonist, in contrast, in the commentary on  the Meteorology, there is no  explicit connection with the art of transmutation. One may thus wonder what interest a Platonist philosopher like Olympiodorus could have in alchemy. One can overcome this impasse by  noting that what we  now  mean by  “alchemy” would not  be  perceived in the same way in the period of Olympiodorus and Stephanus. When we talk about alchemy, we  immediately think of transmutation, of knowledge defined and characterized by a precisely determined goal, the transformation of lead into gold, and so forth. Indeed, while this may be  true for  alchemy during the Middle Ages, Western and Arabic, the boundaries of this knowledge would have seemed much more fluid in the Greco-Alexandrian world. First, the  proper name of  this knowledge, “al-chemia,” is an  Arabic term consisting of  the article “al” and a Greek word of  uncertain etymology, “chēmeia, chumeia.” This is also a late term, used by the Byzantines. We saw that on  one occasion Stephanus employed it. The Byzantine lexicon Suda (10th century) defines “chēmeia”  as  the  art  of  making money and gold (Χ–280). As  we  have seen, the  authors speak instead of  the  “divine art,” of  the “great science,” of  “philosophy.” Its  scope is not  only the  production of  gold and of precious metals, or the path of self-transformation, but the primary recipes also concern the coloring of stones and fabrics, that is, the production of pigments. Hence the use of a repertory of organic and inorganic substances and processes that affect matter and matter’s transformations. The revolutionary concept—revolutionary in  the  Greek world— of  transmutation is absent from the  first “technical” treatises, but  it appears in  the  more philosophical authors such as Zosimos (4th century), and then in the commentators. And even among those authors who speak of transmutation, there are also concrete substances and clearly identifiable procedures, which are in no  way mysterious or (p. 958) metaphysical. This is the case with the descriptions of the distillation devices of Zosimus, whose ambix (a term that will, via  Arabic “al-anbīq,” give us  the  well-known “alembic”), or  as  we  shall see later, the  recipe for  making “black bronze” found in fragments of  Zosimos in  Syriac, or  Olympiodorus’ description of  “maceration” and the phases of extraction and washing of gold ore.

It is therefore understandable that Olympiodorus, the commentator on  the Meteorologica, could be  interested in these texts we  group in the category of Greek alchemy, to fill out his commentary and update the Aristotelian data, especially those of book 4 about craft skills. For example, Olympiodorus mentions glass artisans (On Aristotle’s ‘Meteorology’, p. 331.1 Stüve), while Aristotle never mentions artisanal glass. Olympiodorus describes techniques of purifying and refining metal, effecting a separation of metal from its impurities, primarily of an earthy nature, or of one metal from another, as in the case of silver and gold. In  particular, he  explains the  metaphorical “boiling” of  gold in Meteorology 4.3 (380b29), in terms of a technique that has been identified with “cupellation”  (which involved separating the  metals by  an  oxidation, during which the impurities were absorbed in part by the cup into which the mixture had been poured; p. 292 Stüve). It is interesting to note that for  Olympiodorus, each metal is a different species. Separation of silver and gold by heat is cited as an example of the fact that heat unites things of the same species (homoioeidē) but separates things of different species (anomoioeidē) (pp. 274.38‒275.1 Stüve). So, it is not  absurd to suppose that Olympiodorus the commentator on  Aristotle might have wanted to go further and choose to comment on  a work by one of the most prominent authors of this science under construction, namely the Kat’energeian of Zosimos of Panopolis, which probably was already itself a doxographic and protreptic work on  the foundations of alchemy. That’s why  Olympiodorus represents an  emblematic case of  Alexandrian alchemy and constitutes a fundamental step in the epistemological identification of this fluid knowledge and the transition from the chemistry of the Meteorology to alchemy. This transition will in turn be  theorized and formalized in the Middle Ages by authors such as Albert the Great, Avicenna, and Averroes.

4. Conclusions: Methodological Questions; Toward a Multidisciplinary Approach

Now  we  come to the second question posed: How should we  study Byzantine alchemy? What is the approach most consistent with its specific nature? This question is crucial for  all periods of the history of alchemy. But the period of the commentators is privileged because it contains an explicit epistemological reflection on an already established tradition. From this, one can envisage an interdisciplinary approach, which can account, in a fruitful way, for  the composite nature of the writings and for  the wealth of content that this tradition conveys.

4.1 A Fluid Manuscript Tradition

The relationships among the  three main manuscripts containing the  alchemical corpus— M, B, and A—have long been discussed. They indeed display important textual differences in the number and in the organization of the texts they contain. The structure of M would seem dictated by a theoretical choice, B would be  more practical, and A would have both features at once. The tradition of  Greek alchemical texts is “fluid,” meaning open to  additions, alterations, clarifications, rewrites, and updates. Like other practical scientific texts, these writings were considered texts for  use, as instruments to adapt to the latest discoveries and to the experiments performed by their authors. Furthermore, various anthologies of alchemical texts circulating in the Byzantine period were the sources of the chief manuscripts and were the explanation for  their composite nature, as well as differences in presentation and elaboration of the same material. However, this situation calls for  a revision and adaptation of the usual criteria of philology, because one is dealing with a literature sui generis whose contents evolve over time. Indeed it has to do not  with reconstituting a unitary text in its original form out  of the manuscript transmission, as could be  done for  a treatise of Aristotle or a dialogue of Plato, but with understanding the reasons for  the choices, presentations, and taxonomies adopted in different witnesses, which precisely reflects the ongoing constitution of alchemical knowledge. Therefore, the choice to provide a “broad” critical apparatus, as  recent editors of  Greek alchemical texts have chosen to do,  based on  the principal manuscripts, on  the indirect tradition of testimonia, and on  parallel passages in the alchemical corpus, as well as on  the Syriac versions, is fundamental. Now, these two  characteristics of the manuscript tradition of alchemical texts, fluidity and anthological character, paradoxically seem to reduce the importance of the question of relationships and mutual dependence of manuscripts, since each witness has its own scientific value and history just as much as do each treatise or group of treatises.

4.2. Composite Knowledge, Varied Competences

We have already noted that the nature of the Greco-Alexandrian alchemical knowledge appears undeniably twofold: theoretical and practical. It comprises texts and recipes that concern at once mystical, physical, and cosmological ideas, and the production of concrete and historically identifiable objects, such as working and coloring of metals, fabrics, and precious stones. So, it concerns not  just the ideal goal, dreamed of and never attained, of aurifaction, that is to say the production of gold out  of other metals. The earliest texts are probably artisan’s notebooks, published in  the  milieu of  the  goldsmiths of the Egyptian pharaohs. That is why we  can consider Greek alchemy as a domain shared between the history of philosophy and of religion, between philology and the history of science and technology, a composite subject that therefore demands sharing of many competences, not  only theoretical and historical but also practical and technical, in direct contact with matter, such as archeology, metallurgy, and chemistry that studies the materials and their transformations by artistic processes. On this point, I would like to cite two  recent and emblematic examples of the fertility of an interdisciplinary collaboration among philologists, historians, archaeologists, and chemists around a common object of study. The first consists of  the  recipe for  making “black bronze” found in  fragments of  Zosimos in Syriac (Cambridge Manuscript Mm.6.29). This is the only ancient recipe that we  have for  this famous and mysterious “black bronze” of  Corinth, prized by  the  Romans and mentioned by Pliny (34.8), which is a real head-scratcher for  archaeologists and chemists who have long wondered about the link between the allusions of the classical authors and some objects in museums that have an amazing black patina. Modern laboratory analyses reconstructed the history of this technique, which involved enriching a copper alloy with a small amount of gold and/or silver, which then enabled, via a chemical surface treatment, the formation of an artificial black patina that was particularly shiny and served to emphasize the beauty of the metallic decorations. The Syriac recipes of Zosimos are the only ancient recipes for  this technique that have survived, and their reproduction could provide the key to this process, on  the condition of a very close cooperation with philologists to decipher the texts.

The second example concerns the first lines of commentary of Olympiodorus on  the Kat’energeian of  Zosimos, speaking about “maceration” (taricheia), the paradigmatic operation of processing gold ore, involving several stages. Here Olympiodorus commented on  the passage of Zosimos regarding the operation of extracting flakes of gold ore, through “maceration” (taricheia) and “washing” (plusis) (1–7), followed by  the description of  “soldering” (chrysocolla) the  gold (8–11), which is collecting the  gold particles obtained into a homogeneous body. These two  specific operations, separation and reunion, are here interpreted as allegories of the transmutation of metals but, in fact, the exegesis of Olympiodorus, beyond a number of obscurities, seems essentially technical and refers to real processes concerning the steps, the times, the tools, and the phases of the operation of levigating gold ore. Now  among non alchemical testimonies, these technical stages of ore  extraction and its processing up to its transformation into gold are described in detail by the geographer Agatharchides, tutor to Ptolemy III (2nd century BCE), who left a vivid account of the activities of  the  gold mines in  the  Eastern Desert (Diodorus 3.12.1–14.5; Strabo 16.4.5– 20, and Photius, Library, 250). This testimony is not  entirely outside the corpus since we find an abstract in the alchemical manuscript Marcianus 229  (folii 138–141).* The precise descriptions of Agatharchides on  the four fundamental technical operations of  ore  processing—crushing, grinding, washing, (or  levigating), and refining—allow confirmation that the passage from Olympiodorus referred to real procedures, long-established and which would form the fundamental technical basis against which * alchemists developed their theoretical reflection, both in theorizing methodological principles and in the allegories of transmutation. But there is also another very recent and concrete testimony on  the procedure for extracting and washing the gold ore, which represents another element of crucial importance for  reconstructing the operations of the Greek alchemists. These are the results of excavations in Egypt in 2013 at the gold-mining sites of the Ptolemaic period (late 4th to mid-3rd century BCE) at Samut, by the French mission in the Eastern Desert (Brun et al. 2013). The great clarity of the surface remains revealed facilities illustrating different stages of the work: first the mechanical phase of the sorting; crushing blocks of gold-bearing quartz; transformation into  “flour” (powdered ore)  by  mills; then the  washing phase, in washing basins, for  separating the metal particles to melt; and finally the metallurgical phase of refining on  site, shown by the presence of an oven.

The testimony of Agatharchides was essential in interpreting the remains of these facilities. Indeed, the four basic technical operations of transforming ore  after its exit from the mine that he described, crushing, grinding, washing, and refining, have been located on  the site. By putting together the pieces of this puzzle, we  can advance a hypothetical reconstruction of what Olympiodorus tells us in his commentary, and we  can show that Olympiodorus, or Zosimos, refer to concrete and real operations. These two  examples illustrate well the fecundity and the necessity of applying a multidisciplinary approach to the Greek alchemical texts. Indeed, on  one hand, the appeal to other disciplines and evidence, whether literary, archaeological, or chemical, allows us to interpret the alchemical texts. On the other, alchemical texts shed light on  the historical and archaeological investigations. In the current state of research in this area, it appears essential to continue research on  a multidisciplinary front and enhance the systematic and positive side of alchemy, which is legitimate because the ancient authors often opposed natural and rational research as a deceptive practice subject to the laws of chance and the will of demons.

Bibliography

Texts

Albini, Francesca, ed., Michele Psello, La  Crisopea: ovvero come fabbricare l’oro. Genova: Edizioni culturali internazionali, 1988.

Bidez, Joseph, Franz Cumont, J. L. Heiberg, and Otto Lagercrantz, ed. Catalogue des manuscrits alchimiques grecs. 8 vols. Bruxelles: Lamertin, 1924–1932.

Berthelot, Marcellin, and C.-É. Ruelle. [CAAG]. Collection des anciens alchimistes grecs. 3 vol. Paris: Steinheil, 1888–1889. Reprint Osnabrück: Otto Zeller Verlag, 1967. Vol. 1, Introduction, by Berthelot; vol. 2, Greek texts; and vol. 3, French translations.

Colinet, Andrée, ed. Alchimistes grecs. Vol. 10: Anonyme de  Zuretti. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2000.

———, Alchimistes grecs. Vol. 11: Recettes alchimiques (Par. Gr. 2419; Holkhamicus 109)

—Cosmas le Hiéromoine—Chrysopée. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2010.

Goldschmidt, Günther. Heliodori carmina quattuor ad fidem codicis Cassellani. Giessen: Töpelmann, 1923.

Halleux, Robert. Alchimistes grecs. Vol. 1: Papyrus de  Leyde, Papyrus de  Stockholm, Recettes. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1981.

Holmyard, Eric John, and Desmond C. Mandeville, ed. Avicennae De congelatione et conglutinatione lapidum. Paris: Guethner, 1927. [See esp. 53–54.]

Irby-Massie, Georgia L., and Paul T. Keyser, eds. Greek Science of the Hellenistic Era: A Sourcebook. New York: Routledge, 2002. [See pages 226–254.]

Ideler, J. L. Physici et medici graeci minores. 2 vols. Berlin: Reimer, 1841. Reprint Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1963.

Jackson, Howard M. Zosimos of Panopolis: On the Letter Omega. Missoula, MT: Scholars’ Press, 1978.

Martelli, Matteo. Pseudo-Democrito, Scritti alchemici con il commentario di Sinesio.

Milano: Archè, and Paris: Société d’étude de  l’histoire de  l’alchimie, 2011.

———. The Four Books of pseudo-Democritus. Society for  the History of Alchemy and

Chemistry. Wakefield: Maney, 2013.

Mertens, Michèle. Alchimistes grecs. Vol. 4: Zosime de  Panopolis, Mémoires authentiques. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1995.

Papathanassiou, Maria K. Stephanos von Alexandreia und sein Alchemistisches Werk: Die kritische Edition des griechischen Textes eingeschlossen. Athens: Cosmosware, 2017.

Taylor, F. Sherwood. “The Alchemical Works of  Stephanus of  Alexandria.” Ambix 1 (1937): 116–139, and 2 (1938): 39–49.