A SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY HOAX 595 



Tholde explained in his preface to one of the early publications 

 that it was from a very old manuscript which he had great difficulty in 

 deciphering and translating from the original Latin script. From the 

 evidence of the books themselves little could be learned. The author 

 claimed to be of German nationality from the region of the Bhine, and 

 to be an inmate of a Benedictine monastery and a brother of that order. 

 They contained no reference to any contemporary persons or events 

 which might serve to locate their exact time. 



From allusions to the use of antimony in the making of types for 

 printing, it became evident that the date of the writing was not earlier 

 than the latter half of the fifteenth century, and from several allusions 

 to the application of chemical medicines to the cure of the "Morbus 

 Gallicus" (or "French Disease") which was known to have made its 

 appearance in Europe about the end of that century (1493 is the date 

 usually quoted) it was evident that the writing could not have been 

 earlier than about the close of the fifteenth century. While this internal 

 evidence established the end of the fifteenth century as the earliest 

 possible date no internal evidence indicated that the date of the author- 

 ship was necessarily earlier than the date of publication. Though there 

 have apparently always been critics who have disputed the genuineness 

 of the find/ yet the general opinion gained credence and authority that 

 Basil Valentine was the assumed name of an unknown writer of the 

 end of the fifteenth century, and that to him, therefore, was to be credited 

 the priority of announcement of a large part of the more prominent 

 facts and theories of chemistry which already existed in print in the 

 works of Paracelsus. It was taken for granted and asserted that Para- 

 celsus had had access to a copy of his works or of some of them, and 

 therefore had appropriated his ideas without acknowledgment. No less 

 an authority than van Helmont (1577-1644) states that Paracelsus lived 

 more than a hundred years after Basil Valentine and had appropriated 

 his knowledge without due credit. 3 



In time also certain legends grew up and became adopted into cur- 

 rent literature which seemed to give a greater definiteness to the 

 existence of the assumed author. Gudenus in his history of Erfurt 

 (1675) stated that a monk of that name was a member of the Bene- 

 dictine order in that city in 1413. Though Gudenus cited no authority 

 for this statement, and the records of the monastery gave no confirma- 

 tion, and though, for reasons above mentioned, the works of Basil 

 Valentine could not have been written before the end of the century, 



2 Ferguson, "Bibliotheca Chemica, " 1906, mentions Stolle, 1731, Kestner, 

 1740, the author of "Beytrag zur Gesehichte d. Hoheren Chemie," 1785. Waite 

 ("The Triumphal Chariot of Antimony," London, 1893) quotes Plaecius, 1708, 

 as skeptical of B. Valentine. 



s Cf. Van Helmont, "Opera Omnia." Francofurti, 1682. "Tria Prima 

 Chym.," p. 386. 



