598 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY 



in 1875, while he was disposed to acquit Tholde of the authorship, he 

 nevertheless clearly expressed his opinion that the authorship followed 

 rather than preceded the time of Paracelsus. 7 Eleven years later, how- 

 ever, after failing to find new evidence from any source, he comes to the 

 conclusion that the most reasonable assumption is that Tholde himself 

 was the author. There is therefore nothing "uncompromisingly" 

 different in his views at the two periods rather is it a case of the care- 

 fully guarded expression of a gradually maturing conviction. It is 

 not without significance in connection with this Tholde to note that he 

 also published (1605) an alleged "Kleine Hand-Bibel, etc.," of Para- 

 celsus, claimed by Tholde to have been reproduced from a long-hidden 

 manuscript of Paracelsus. Sudhoff in his bibliography of Paracelsus 8 

 pronounces this an undoubted imposture, reserving for another place 

 the discussion as to whether Tholde were himself the author. This 

 discussion, however, I have not met with. 



Since Kopp's time other competent students of the science of that 

 period have come to similar conclusions. Thus M. Berthelot 9 referring 

 to " antimony," says that this name is far earlier than the mythical 

 personage called Basil Valentine, to whom has sometimes been attrib- 

 uted the discovery of this substance, and under whose name have ap- 

 peared various works which did not appear previous to the sixteenth 

 century. 



Dr. Karl Sudhoff, the eminent student of the early history of medi- 

 cine and author of the monumental bibliography of the literature of 

 Paracelsus, and whose researches into the books and manuscripts of the 

 period in question have been most exhaustive, covering many years of 

 labor, has recently 10 unquestionably assigned Basil Valentine's writings 

 to the beginning of the seventeenth century. 



Dr. Franz Strunz, another well-known scholar in the history of 

 chemistry and natural philosophy of the medieval and renaissance 

 periods, asserts with similar conviction: 11 



The writings of the so-called Basil Valentine, who never existed at all, are 

 by Joh. Tholde. He, however, was in post-Paracelsan time. 



Mention may also be made of Lasswitz 12 and Lehmann, 13 amongst 

 modern students of the period who have expressed themselves as accept- 

 ing the post-Paracelsus origin of the Basil Valentine literature. 



It would seem, therefore, in the light of this evidence and in the 



'"Beitrage z. Ges. d. Chemie," III., pp. 117-119. 



8 ' ' Versuch einer Kritik der Echtheit der Paraeelsichen Schrif ten, ' ' I., 465. 

 ""Introdn. a l'Stude de la Chimie," p. 279. 



10 ' ' Beitrage aus der Geschichte der Chemie, dem Gedachtniss von G. W. A. 

 Kahlbaum," 1909, p. 254. 



11 In his "Paracelsus, Leben und Personlichkeit, ' ' 1903, p. 30. 

 ""Geschichte der Atomistik," etc., 1896. 

 u "Aberglaube und Zauberei," 1908. 



