596 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



yet this statement added in time a certain weight to the belief in his 

 reality. Still later apparently arose a tradition that in 1515 the 

 Emperor Maximilian I. had instituted a search to establish the identity 

 or existence of the alleged Basil Valentine, though with negative 

 results. 4 This statement found its way into most of the histories of 

 chemistry and is still frequently met with. The importance of the 

 acceptance of the statement lies in the fact that it assumes that at that 

 early date Basil Valentine was known and an object of interest, instead 

 of a century later. Kopp, who in his "History" (1843) repeats and 

 credits the statement, in his "Beitrage" (1875) calls attention to the 

 baselessness of the rumor. 5 It may be that there is confusion here 

 between the Emperor Maximilian I. (1459-1519), and Duke Maximilian 

 I. of Bavaria (1573-1651). (This explanation has been suggested, 

 though the writer can not now locate the source of the suggestion.) 



The question of priority in important contributions to the history of 

 chemistry and the question as to plagiarism by Paracelsus or imposture 

 by Tholde both hinge upon the fact as to whether the Basilius writings 

 were written about 1500 or about 1600, and from what has preceded it 

 would seem that the presumption is in favor of the latter date and that 

 the burden of proof lies with the supporters of Basil Valentine. 



But the evidence is not closed with the above-mentioned considera- 

 tions. Though in his " History of Chemistry," Kopp had accepted the 

 prevalent view that the writings of Basil Valentine were of earlier date 

 than those of Paracelsus, his researches did not cease with the publica- 

 tion of that work. In 1875 in his above quoted "Beitrage zur Ge- 

 schichte der Chemie" he entered anew and in great detail into the 

 problem. One by one he traces back through the literature the sources 

 of the traditional statements upon which are founded the supposed 

 identification of the period of Basil Valentine. His continued investi- 

 gations of the manuscripts in the libraries had failed to develop any 

 originals or copies of apparently earlier date than the printed works. 

 He announces his opinion that the evidence favors the judgment that 

 the works of the supposed Basil Valentine are of later date than Para- 

 celsus rather than earlier. He hesitates, however, to accuse Tholde 

 himself of intentional deception, as nothing was known against his 

 reputation, and it could hardly be supposed that he would not have 

 published such a work as the antimony monograph under his own name 

 if he really wrote it. 



Eleven years later (1886) in his latest work, "Die Alchemie," and 

 as the result of failure in the meantime to obtain from any source any 

 evidence favoring the prevalent theory, he reiterates more decidedly his 



4 Schmieder ("Geschichte d. Alchimie," 1832), who refers to Motschmann, 

 "Erfordia literata," Erfurt, 1729-32. 



5 Kopp, "Beitrage," III., p. 112. 



