594 TEE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



vitriol upon iron, though he made no mention of the escape of "air" 

 in the process. And so with most of the above mentioned experimental 

 data of Paracelsus. Basil Valentine had also announced the doctrine 

 of the three elements — mercury, sulphur and salt — though he had not 

 made the interpretation of their significance as qualities of bodies as 

 had Paracelsus. Basil Valentine had also advocated the use of metallic 

 preparations of antimony, mercury, etc., in medicine, and he also had 

 abused and ridiculed the physicians of his time. 



Indeed, to any one who compares the many similar data and ideas in 

 the two collected writings the conclusion seems unavoidable that one of 

 these authors drew from the other, or else that both drew from the same 

 common third source. But no such common source was known or is 

 yet known. If then the writings of Basil Valentine were authentic and 

 of the fifteenth century as assumed, then assuredly Paracelsus must 

 have had access to a copy of the manuscripts and have freely utilized 

 the contents without reference to the author. As he freely refers to 

 other authors in approval or disapproval, this omission was notable. If 

 the writings of Basilius were forgeries of the time of the publication, 

 then they were written some sixty years after the death of Paracelsus 

 and were borrowed not only from him, but presumably also from Agri- 

 cola and minor writers whose works appeared in the latter half of the 

 sixteenth century. 



In favor of the genuine character of the newly published author 

 spoke the real value of the contributions in the " Triumphal Chariot." 

 Why should any one who could write such a work conceal his identity 

 and lose the credit for it by attributing it to another? It was not 

 probable. This conclusion was doubtless also encouraged by the dis- 

 repute in which the name of Paracelsus was held by the medical pro- 

 fession and the scholarly classes of the time. Here was an explanation 

 for the apparently profound knowledge of chemistry which Paracelsus 

 seemed to possess, but to whom they gave no credit for scholarship of 

 any kind. 



Doubtless also the name and standing of the editor and presumptive 

 possessor of the original manuscript, Johann Tholde, a chemist, owner 

 in the salt-works at Franckenhausen in Thuringia, and member of the 

 Chamber of Councilors (Kathskammerer), gave additional presump- 

 tion of the genuineness of the find. 



Against the originality of the writings in so far as they were to be 

 assigned to an earlier century, was in the first place the fact that pre- 

 vious to their publication by Tholde no knowledge existed of any such 

 person as Basilius Valentinus. No writer of the fifteenth or sixteenth 

 century had referred to any such author. 



Examination of the records of the order of St. Benedict in Germany 

 or at Borne failed to discover any such name on the rolls. No original 

 manuscript was preserved or placed in evidence at any time. 



