AN ALCHEMICAL COMPILATION OF THE THIRTEENTH CENTURY, A.D. 
61 
“I have written this treatise on Friday, the 3rd of the 2nd Rabi‘, of the year 
607 Hijrce. I have found it stated at the end of the copy from which this has been 
transcribed the following words: — ‘At the end of the treatise from which this book 
has been copied, the following words occur. ‘ Khalid ibn Yazid ibn Mu‘awiyah ibn 
Abi Sufyan wrote this at Damascus at the house of Khalid ibn Maslamah ibn Zaid in 
the year 10 1. 1 2 He worked before me wonders of the kind described, and tested all the 
bodies in order that there might be formed new copper excellently made. Peace! ’ ” 
III. Another Treatise by Khalid ibn Yazid Al-Umawi, similar to the preceding 
pamphlet, but expressed in more sensible language. (Folio 12 v., 1. 5, to f. 16 v., 
bottom.) It apparently consists of two separate extracts, the first six and a half 
pages in length, describing how the author learnt from Stephanos, the Monk, and 
the knowledge he acquired from him; and the second an account, extending over 
two pages, of a process of manufacturing gold. There is nothing to show that the 
work is a forgery, and the couplet quoted at the commencement of the second part 
is a type of verse such as Khalid might be expected to have written. 
Begins: “Saith Abu Hashim Khalid ibn Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah ibn Abi Sufyan : 
‘In the name of God I begin and on Him I rely. I saw that people have sought the 
Art of Wisdom \i.e., Alchemy] in every age, but I observed that the Sages have ever 
been averse to publishing it, etc.’ ” 
The following is the account given of Khalid’ s visit to Stephanos a : — 
“ I had read many of the books of the philosophers and searched their writings 
and compared one with another, but I was perplexed and could not ascertain the 
meaning of their allusions. I was therefore forced to journey to Stephanos the 
Monk, out of desire for the Art and seeking to comprehend it. I went to him, but 
concea'ed my identify and acted as his servant. When he saw my knowledge and 
good address, he began to explain the Art to me in the simplest manner. After I 
had mastered everything I informed him that I was a Muslim and the son of the 
King of the Arabs.” Stephanos then sent him away, saying that he had attained 
his desire of learning the Art. 
1 There is nothing inherently impossible in the statements made in this colophon, as Khilid might have lived for 
37 years after Marwan’s usurpation, while in ioi A. H. (A.D. 719) Yazid II had just succeeded his cousin ‘Umar II as 
Umayyad Khalifa at Damascus. They are, however, contradicted by Ibn Khallikan’s statement (trails, cit., I, p. 481) 
that Khalid died in 85 A.H. As the date given by the copyist differs from those of the other dated colophons in the col- 
lection a suggestion may be made that the year 607 (=A.D. 1210) indicates the date of the forgery of the treatise. 
2 This Stephanos must not be confused with the Alexandrian alchemist who wrote a short Greek treatise dedicated 
to Heraclius, Kmperor of Constantinople from A.D. 610 — 641. The only definite statement made in the Fihrist regarding 
the teachers or assistants of Khalid is that Istifanul-Oadim (the Old) translated chemical and other works for him (ed. cit.. 
p. 244), but another Stephan ‘ ‘ the Monk,' ’ who was an alchemist, is referred to on p, 359. No date is given, but he is 
said to have been a priest at Mosul in the Church of St. Michael. Au-Nadlm quotes the names of 7 of Stephan's books, 
which were only published after the latter’s death. It would, therefore, appear likely (if the treatise be not a forgery) that 
the monk referred to by An-Nadim is the teacher of Khalid, though it is somewhat strange that he makes no reference to 
this being the case. The phrase ibnu Maliki-l-' Arab would confine the date of the meeting of Khalid and Stephanos to 
narrow limits, if it could certainly be translated “ son of the king of the Arabs,” for Yazid onlv reigned from 
A.D. 680-683. Seeing, however, that Khalid was speaking to a subject of the Khalifa (such as Stephan, the Monk of 
Mosul, presumably was) it is more likely to mean merely ‘‘ a prince of the royal house,” as if his father had been alive 
he would probably have said ibnu-l- Khalifa. 
