# The Fifteenth-Century Alchemical Mass, Its Literary Form, and Reception by Michael Maier

Didier Kahn

► To cite this version:

Didier Kahn. The Fifteenth-Century Alchemical Mass, Its Literary Form, and Reception by Michael Maier. Michael Maier und die Formen (al)chemischen Wissens um 1600, 35, Harrassowitz Verlag, pp.125-136, 2024, Episteme in Bewegung. Beiträge zu einer transdisziplinären Wissensgeschichte, 10.13173/9783447121453.125. hal-04837287

HAL Id: hal-04837287

https://cnrs.hal.science/hal-04837287v1

Submitted on 13 Dec 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
# The Fifteenth-Century Alchemical Mass, Its Literary Form, and Reception by Michael Maier

Didier Kahn*

Michael Maier was certainly the most effective of propagandists in spreading the fame of Melchior of Sibiu and the alchemical mass attributed to him.<fnref n="1" /> Maier's commitment with this alchemical mass was, however, paradoxical. In order to contextualize his reaction to this text, I will first focus on the text itself, then return to Maier and compare his reaction with that of his contemporaries.

The alchemical mass attributed to a certain Melchior is one of the strangest texts of medieval alchemy. Although it was expressly presented as an alchemical process,<fnref n="2" /> it was conceived, however, as a mass formulary, carefully structured with all its standard, i.e. variable, parts.<fnref n="3" /> Here those parts are: *Introitus – Kyrie – Gloria – Collecta – Epistola – Graduale – Alleluia – Sequentia – Evangelium – Credo – Offertorium – Secretum – Praefatio – Commune – Complenda (Postcommunio).*

Thanks to recent scholarship, we now know that this text was *not* composed by an alchemist named Melchior. This name, which in most manuscript and printed sources of the text is actually given as 'Nicolaus Melchior', and in a chronicle of sixteenth-century Prague and an alchemical recipe appears as just 'Nicholas', was that of a priest convicted of counterfeiting coins and beheaded in Prague in 1531.<fnref n="4" />

<footnote>* CNRS, Cellf 16–18</footnote>

<footnote n="1">1 Michael Maier: Symbola aureae mensae duodecim Nationum. Hoc est, Hermæa seu Mercurii Festa ab Heroibus duodenis selectos, artis Chymicæ usu, sapientia et authoritate Paribus celebrata [...]. Frankfurt a.M. 1617, pp. 507–510.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2 In its various manuscripts and editions (listed further below) it is always described as a “Processus sub forma Missæ”. In the Czech translation by Bavor Rodovský it is entitled *Missa de lapide philosophorum*. See Didier Kahn: La Messe alchimique attribuée à Melchior de Sibiu. Paris 2015, pp. 29–32.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">3 See numerous examples of mass formularies in Adolph Franz: Die Messe im deutschen Mittelalter. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Liturgie und des religiösen Volkslebens. Freiburg i.Br. 1902.</footnote>

<footnote n="4">4 Ivo Purš: The Habsburgs on the Bohemian Throne and Their Interest in Alchemy and the Occult Sciences. In: Alchemy and Rudolf II. Exploring the Secrets of Nature in Central Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. Ed. by Ivo Purš and Vladimír Karpenko. English trans., Prague 2016 (first ed. in Czech: Prague 2011), pp. 93–127, on p. 100 f.: “on Friday, May 5, 1531, following the saint day of Philip and James, a certain priest named Mikuláš was beheaded at the courtyard of the Old Town Hall for making fake coins. Some said of him that he was a good alchemist.” See also Leiden, UB, Voss. Chym. F. 16, fol. 86r–87v: “Dealbacio peroptima per Nicolaum prespiterum decolatum hic in arce Pragensi qui Alchimista erat aput D. Oppel Vitztum a Petro Mock in ponte donatum.”</footnote>
His name also appears in other sources as ‘Mikuláš Smolec’, or ‘Nikolaus von Winterwitz’.<fnref n="5" /> In Budek’s manuscript, which we will discuss below, he is named “dominus Nicolaus Matzerus Cibinensis Transsylvanus”. It is tempting to hypothesize that ‘Matzerus’ is a misreading for ‘Melchior’: a paleographically plausible explanation. Likewise, the mention of Sibiu in Transylvania in this very detailed description may explain why ‘Nikolaus Melchior’ appears as “Cibinensis Transsylvanus” in the two editions of the mass and two of its four manuscripts.<fnref n="6" /> Anyway, this Melchior, or Nicholas, who apparently had the reputation of a good alchemist, is said to have ‘used’ the alchemical mass to make gold, but not ‘authored’ the text, as we shall see now.

The date of the text is a crucial piece of this puzzle. As evidenced by the most reliable manuscript of the work, the mass was originally a mere alchemical process offered by Stjepan Tomašević (1438–1463), the last king of Bosnia, to Ladislaus the Posthumus (1440–1457), king of Hungary and Bohemia.<fnref n="7" /> As Ladislaus died in 1457, the text must be dated from the middle of the fifteenth century. The same manuscript states that it was a chaplain of Ladislaus who gave the recipe this theoretical form (“a Ladislai Capellano in hanc theoriam redactus”), i.e. the form of a mass. Unfortunately we do not have the name of the chaplain.

The dating of the mass has evidently strong religious implications. In the fifteenth century, a mass was not a sacrosanct ceremony as it became later, when the Reformation had a massive impact on the Christian world. Back in the fifteenth century, a number of parodic masses were commonly written and performed. There were even votive masses written specifically to beg God for rain, or for making the Turkish flee from the borders of the Empire.<fnref n="8" /> How could an alchemical

<footnote n="5">5 Mikuláš Smolec is the name given by Bavor Rodovský in his alchemical MS: see Purš: The Habsburgs (fn. 4), p. 101. For the name Winterwitz, see Vienna, Ö.N.B., cod. 11334 (ca. 1620/1625), fol. 68v–69r: “Ein process Hern Nicolai von Winterwitz eines Catholischen Pristers welchen Kayser Ferdinandus wegen der Chimischen Kunst zu Prage Anno 1531. enthaupten lassen.” See the discussion in Kahn: La Messe alchimique (fn. 2), pp. 35f.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">6 See the description and discussion of all known sources in Kahn: La Messe alchimique (fn. 2), pp. 29–39.</footnote>

<footnote n="7">7 See the lengthy title of the mass given by Simon Thadeas Budek (died after 1608) in his alchemical MS (Vienna, Ö.N.B., cod. 11133 [ca. 1604–1608], fol. 308r): “Processus chymicus Serenissimo Hungariae ac Boëmiae Regi Ladislao a Stephano ultimo Bosniae Rege communicatus et a Ladislai Capellano in hanc theoriam redactus. Cujus praxin expertus dominus Nicolaus Matzerus Cibinensis Transsylvanus, qui summe erat familiaris Bohemo Andreae Schampasae Pattenstati, cum quo ne illorum thesaurorum arcanum propalaretur, taleros excussit bonitate et regios superantes quibus delatis aufugit nobilis et compraehensus presbiter. Divo Ferdinando regnante hic Pragae proxima die Veneris post Philippum [et] Jacobum anno 1531 capite plectitur. Post ejus exitum repertum est hoc opus chymicum sub forma myssae de scriptum.” On Budek, see Jaroslava Hausenblasová and Ivo Purš: Simon Thadeas Budek and his Contacts at the Court of Rudolf II. In: Alchemy and Rudolf II (fn. 4), pp. 607–624.</footnote>

<footnote n="8">8 See Franz: Die Messe im deutschen Mittelalter (fn. 3), first part, and pp. 754–761; Paul Lehmann: Die Parodie im Mittelalter. Munich 1922; and the discussion in Kahn: La Messe alchimique (fn. 2), pp. 39–41.</footnote>
mass be perceived, back then? Certainly not as a blasphemous material: rather as a mere literary game, a playful, recreational alchemical writing.

This playful aspect clearly appears when one studies the liturgical sources of the text. The *Gaudeamus* used for the Introit, the *Kyrie fons bonitatis* that follows, and the *Credo*, among other details, are clear indications that this mass followed a model designed for important feasts other than those of the season of Advent, of the time of Lent and Easter.<fnref n="9" /> However, the author *also* borrowed from the liturgy of Christmas and the Advent time.<fnref n="10" /> As a result, the text is not rooted in one specific liturgy. It appears, rather, as a patchwork of Biblical, liturgical and alchemical sources, regardless of any liturgical consistency. The author chose whatever suited his alchemical or literary purpose and assembled his heterogeneous material as skillfully as possible to have it fit into the carefully structured shape of a mass. The religious material was so closely interwoven with alchemical topics and sayings that the whole mass resulted in a complex echo chamber where every liturgical, Biblical or alchemical topic subtly resonates with other excerpts from previous or ulterior parts of the work. Sometimes echoes appear in the back of the reader's mind as they emerge not from the text itself, but from its context or implicit source. As an example, the Introit's antiphon and verse are obviously alchemical; yet they are modelled on John's first Epistle:<fnref n="11" />

<table><tr><td><i>Introitus missae</i></td><td>1 John, 5: 6–8</td></tr><tr><td>“Fundamentum vero artis est corporum solutio, quae, non in aquam nubis, sed in aquam mercurialem resolvenda sunt, ex qua generatur verus lapis philosophorum.”</td><td>“Hic est, qui venit per aquam et sanguinem, Jesus Christus: non in aqua solum, sed in aqua et sanguine. Et Spiritus est, qui testificatur quoniam Christus est veritas.”</td></tr><tr><td>“Vitrioli, et salis nitri, aequales partes, dant solutionis testimonium: Gloria patri, et filio, per spiritum sanctum.”</td><td>“Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cœlo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt.”</td></tr></table>

Another, less obvious example is the verse of the Gradual: “Descendit sicut pluvia in vellus, et sicut stillicidia, stillantia super terram.” This is of course an allusion to distillation *per descensum*, but it is first and foremost an excerpt of Psalm 72 (Vulg. 71). Now if we consider the context of this excerpt we will find it illuminating in the light of the alchemical mass, as it offers much potential for other alchemical interpretations:

<footnote n="9">⁹ Kahn: La Messe alchimique (fn. 2), p. 67, summarizing remarks made to the author by French liturgy specialist Jean-Baptiste Lebigue. See Franz Xaver Haberl: Magister Choralis. A Theoretical and Practical Manual of Gregorian Chant. English trans. by N. Donnelly. Regensburg, New York, Cincinnati 1892, chap. 23, § II.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">10 Kahn: La Messe alchimique (fn. 2), pp. 75f., 91f.</footnote>

<footnote n="11">11 Kahn: La Messe alchimique (fn. 2), p. 68.</footnote>
Et permanebit cum sole et ante lunam in generationes generationum. De-
scendet sicut pluvia in vellus et sicut stillicidia stillantia super terram. Orietur in
diebus ejus justitia et abundantia pacis donec auferatur luna. [...] Coram
illo procident Æthiopes, et inimici ejus terram lingent. [...] Et vivet, et dabi-
tur ei de auro Arabiae, et orabunt de ipso semper, tota die benedicent ei.<fnref n="12" />

Moreover, although the whole work has been preserved in prose, much of the
original text was obviously written in verse, which it is possible to reconstruct.
In this case, a vague liturgical rythm was used, not connected with any specific
liturgical model:<fnref n="13" />

Introitus missæ

"Fundamentum vero artis est corporum
solutio, quae, non in aquam nubis, sed in
aquam mercurialem resolvenda sunt, ex
qua generatur verus lapis philosophorum."

"Fundamentum artis
corporum solutio,
non in aquam nubis,
sed mercurialem,
ex qua generatur
lapis philosophorum."

"Vitrioli, et salis nitri, aequales partes, dant solutionis testimonium: Gloria patri, et filio, per spiritum sanctum."

"Vitrioli, salis nitri,
aequales partes dant
solutionis testimonium:
Gloria patri, et filio,
per spiritum sanctum."

A spectacular example is the whole Sequence. Looking at it closely, verses can be
tentatively reconstructed:<fnref n="14" />

"Salve, O cœli jubar speciosum, mundi
lumen radiosium; hic cum luna copularis, fit
copula maritalis, mercuriique conjunctio.
[...] nunc petit copulari virgini, sponsæ des-
ponsari, eamque in balneo impregnare, per
ignis temperantiam: sed non repente virgo
impregnatur, nisi amplexibus crebris oscu-
lum ei tribuatur; tunc in matrice concipitur,
et sic felix fœtus procreatur, hocque naturæ
ordine. Tum in fundo vasis apparet Æthiops

"O cœli jubar speciosum,
Lumen mundi radiosium,
Hic cum luna copularis,
Fit copula maritalis
Mercuriique conjunctio.
[...] Nunc petit copulari
Virgini, sponsæ sponsari,
In balneo impregnare
Per ignis temperantiam:
Sed non virgo impregnatur

<footnote n="12">12 Psalm 72 (Vulg. 71), 5–7, 9, 15. See Kahn: La Messe alchimique (fn. 2), p. 72.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">13 Kahn: La Messe alchimique (fn. 2), p. 69.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">14 Kahn: La Messe alchimique (fn. 2), pp. 77f.</footnote>
fortis, combustus, calcinatus, calore discoloratus, et penitus mortuus, vita carens; jam rogitat inhumari, et suo humore subrigari, atque suaviter calcinari, donec ex ignis fortitudine appareat candidissimus. [...]"

Nisi amplexibus crebris
Osculum ei tribuatur.
In matrice concipitur,
Felix fœtus procreatur,
Hocque naturæ ordine.
In fundo vasis apparet
Æthiops fortis calcinatus
Calore discoloratus
Et mortuus, vita carens.
Jam rogitat inhumari,
Suo humore subrigari
Et suaviter calcinari.
Ex ignis fortitudine
Apparet candidissimus. [...]"

In other words, the original text, possibly a mere practical process, was first rewritten into a mass – in verse. Later on, it was reshaped into prose, the rewriter adding some words, modifying others, so as to erase the poetic form and increase the impression of an actual alchemical prose treatise within the clothes of a mass.<fnref n="15" />

Of course the alchemical interpretation of the Bible and the mysteries of Christian faith is also a major component of the mass.

The work is not a speculative text but, rather, practical recipes allegorically written. The central allegorical recipe consists of whitewashing the Ethiopian to regenerate him – an obvious allusion to the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch by Philip the Evangelist, as told in the Acts of the Apostles (Ac 8: 26–40).<fnref n="16" /> Here we have an alchemization of baptism, left implicit of course, but evident to all readers well versed in the Bible.

But the most striking aspect of this practical side of the text is how close it is, at the same time, to a well-known medieval alchemical treatise, the *Flos florum* attributed to Arnaldus of Villanova. This could be easily demonstrated through an obvious parallelism between this text and the whole Sequentia, where the entirely discoloured Ethiopian corresponds, in the *Flos florum*, to the earth to be whitened – among others obvious parallelisms. In addition, an entire sentence from the *Flos florum* has been used in the Postcommunio of the mass.<fnref n="17" /> To show this here succinctly, let us consider the very beginning of the mass. We have already seen it as a paraphrase of an excerpt of John’s first Epistle. It is, at the same time, a paraphrase of the *Flos florum*:<fnref n="18" />

<footnote n="15">15 Kahn: La Messe alchimique (fn. 2), pp. 73, 76, 92, 127.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">16 Kahn: La Messe alchimique (fn. 2), pp. 75f.</footnote>

<footnote n="17">17 Kahn: La Messe alchimique (fn. 2), pp. 82f., 85–87, 90, 92.</footnote>

<footnote n="18">18 Kahn: La Messe alchimique (fn. 2), pp. 82f., n. 1, with a quotation from the *Flos florum* in Antoine Calvet, Les Œuvres alchimiques attribuées à Arnaud de Villeneuve. Grand œuvre, médecine et prophétie au Moyen Age. Paris, Milano 2011, pp. 386–388.</footnote>
<table><thead><tr><th>Introitus missae</th><th>1 John, 5: 6–8</th><th>Flos florum</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>“Fundamentum vero artis est corporum solutio, quae, non in aquam nubis, sed in aquam mercurialem resolvenda sunt, ex qua generatur verus lapis philosophorum.”</td><td>“Hic est, qui venit per aquam et sanguinem, Jesus Christus: non in aqua solum, sed in aqua et sanguine. Et Spiritus est, qui testificatur quoniam Christus est veritas.”</td><td>“Primum enim est corporis in Mercurium reductio: et scias quod istud est, quod vocaverunt philosophi Solutionem, quæ artis est fundamentum et principium huius magisterii. [...].</td></tr><tr><td>“Vitrioli, et salis nitri, aequales partes, dant solutionis testimonium: Gloria patri, et filio, per spiritum sanctum “.</td><td>“Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in coelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt.”</td><td>Non enim philosophorum aqua nubis, sed ipsorum corporum conversio in aquam, ex qua primo fuerunt creata, scilicet Mercurio. [...].”</td></tr></tbody></table>

Perhaps, thus, the alchemical process first offered by King Stjepan Tomašević to King Ladislaus the Posthumus was indeed the *Flos florum*, which was, then, drastically abridged, mixed with other alchemical excerpts, and put into new clothes under the form of the mass – originally in a poetic form.

Furthermore, the text of this beginning of the mass (“Vitrioli, et salis nitri, aequales partes, dant solutionis testimonium”) is, still at the same time, a standard recipe for aqua fortis (nitric acid).<fnref n="19" /> Thus, the beginning of the alchemical mass is not only a skilled combination of John’s first Epistle and the *Flos florum*: it also offers a process for producing nitric acid for the dissolution, presented as the basis of the art. The practical side of alchemy is never excluded from the mass, regardless of its scriptural and liturgical connections and literary overtones – a point not lost on commentators like Libavius and Maier.

The text was transmitted by at least five very different people, all between 1580 and 1608. No earlier manuscript has been found. Catalogues of manuscripts in Central Europe libraries are often unsatisfactory, however. Furthermore, the text of the mass takes up very little space inside a whole manuscript: only two to four sheets. It can be left easily unnoticed by librarians. Probably more copies exist, but have not been found yet.

The five copyists and editors of the mass were of course alchemists. One was a Catholic: Bavor Rodovský (1526–ca. 1600).<fnref n="20" /> Another, Simon Thadeas Budek,

<footnote n="19">19 Dry distillation of vitriol (copper sulfate $CuSO_4$) and salt nitre (saltpeter $KNO_3$) with additional water (x $H_2O$) yield nitric acid ($HNO_3$). See Vladimir Karpenko: Some notes on the early history of nitric acid: 1300–1700. In: Bulletin for the History of Chemistry 34 (2009), pp. 105–116.</footnote>

<footnote n="20">20 Rodovský translated the mass into Czech around 1579. See Kahn: La Messe alchimique (fn. 2),</footnote>
served in 1601 as a Lutheran minister.²¹ Nicolas Barnaud (ca. 1539–1604?), the first editor of the mass (1597), was initially a Calvinist, but ended up a Socinian before 1587 and was actually close to Fausto Sozzini himself.²² Karl Widemann (1555–1637), who copied the text around 1585/1589, was a Paracelsian and Schwenckfeldian.²³ Benedictus Figulus (1567–after 1624), who published another edition of the mass in 1608, was originally a Lutheran minister, but ended up a fierce Paracelsian and a strong advocate of the *Theophrastia sancta*.²⁴

This striking diversity of confessions led me to wonder whether it was possible to detect specific religious motivations behind the transmission of the alchemical mass by each of these five copyists and editors. After due consideration and a careful comparative study, I was led to the conclusion that the interest of our five people in this text was primarily alchemical.²⁵ All of them *were* of course attracted to this text by its highly peculiar form; no religious motivation could be observed, however – not even any hint of it, except perhaps on the part of Benedictus Figulus, who may have added some mentions like that of the Antichrist in the version published by him. I will not, however, enter into more details, as our focus is on Michael Maier, not Figulus.²⁶

Maier, a Lutheran, was the author who contributed most to spread the fame of Melchior Cibinensis, the alleged author of the mass, after 1617. In the chapter of his *Symbola* devoted to Melchior, however, he scarcely quoted the text. He introduced the mass as follows:

> Melchior of Sibiu [...], a pious man initiated into the Priestly Order, [acted] as a true artist in incorporating and concealing the secrets of this most hidden science into a sacred form, that of the mass. Indeed, this learned man

pp. 32 and 45–47. On Rodovský, see Ivo Purš and Vladimír Karpenko: Alchemy at the Aristocratic Courts of the Lands of the Bohemian Crown. In: Alchemy and Rudolf II (fn. 4), pp. 47–92, on 50, 61–62, 74–80 (plates), 81, 82–87.

21 Hausenblasová and Purš: Simon Thadeas Budek (fn. 7), p. 608.

22 Didier Kahn: Between Alchemy and Antitrinitarianism: Nicolas Barnaud (ca. 1539–1604?). In: Socinianism and Arminianism. Antitrinitarians, Calvinists and Cultural Exchange in Seventeenth-Century Europe. Ed. by Martin Mulsow and Jan Rohls. Leiden, Boston 2005, pp. 81–96.

23 Carlos Gilly: Theophrastia Sancta. Der Paracelsismus als Religion im Streit mit den offiziellen Kirchen. In: Analecta Paracelsica. Ed. by Joachim Telle. Stuttgart 1994, pp. 425–488, on p. 447f.; Julian Paulus: Alchemie und Paracelsismus um 1600. Siebzig Porträts. In: Analecta Paracelsica, pp. 335–406, on pp. 335–339; Günther Hoppe: Zwischen Augsburg und Anhalt. Der rosenkreuzerische Briefwechsel des Augsburger Stadtarztes Carl Widemann mit dem Plötzkauer Fürsten August von Anhalt. In: Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereins für Schwaben 90 (1997), pp. 125–157, on p. 127.

24 Joachim Telle: Benedictus Figulus. Zu Leben und Werk eines deutschen Paracelsisten. In: Medizinhistorisches Journal 22 (1987), pp. 303–326; Julian Paulus: Alchemie und Paracelsismus um 1600 (fn. 23), pp. 352–354; Carlos Gilly: Adam Haslmayr. Der erste Verkünder der Manifeste der Rosenkreuzer. Amsterdam 1994, pp. 93–105; Amadeo Murase: Paracelsismus und Chibliasmus im deutschsprachigen Raum um 1600. PhD, Heidelberg University, Philosophische Fakultät 2013, pp. 186–202.

25 Kahn: La Messe alchimique (fn. 2), pp. 95–112.

26 For more details see Didier Kahn: Benedictus Figulus and the Alchemical Mass (forthcoming).

DOI: 10.13173/9783447121453.125

This is an open access file distributed under the terms of the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

© by the author
understood that the philosophers' stone may be ascribed, as it were, a nativity, a life, a sublimation or passion through the fire, and from there, a death in a black and dark colour; and finally, a resurrection and a life in a red, most perfect colour. Hence, he drew a comparison between the stone and the work of the salvation of mankind, that is, Christ's nativity, life, passion, death, and resurrection: all of which are commemorated in the mass. Nothing is indeed more similar in the earthly world to this divine great work – if it is permissible to somehow compare the things from here below with those from above, and the perishable with the eternal – than the preparation of the tincture, which is deemed the greatest and most precious of all human things, as the great work of man's salvation is in all things divine.
We know, however, that some people did misuse that comparison – however permitted it is otherwise. Driven as they were by an entirely diabolical inspiration, they related all the articles of the Christian faith to the earthly chrysopœian stone, of which they were utterly ignorant, thereby covering the mystery of our salvation with darkness. Aware of this misuse as we are, we shall leave out the form of the mass and its allegory adaptable to the stone. We shall instead liken the generation of the tincture, not without reason, to the human nativity, actions, life, death and resurrection, not mentioning Christ whatsoever. This indeed can and may be done by anyone without offense. Thus, the stone is conceived, like human beings, from the mixture of two seeds, male and female. It is turned into an embryo through impregnation, born in the light, nourished with milk. It grows, reaches full strength, pairs through marriage (although from another point of view), procreates from its partner, suffers from the tribulation of the crucible, or heat, and then dies, is buried, stays a while in its grave, resurrects and enjoys a new incorruptible life, and cannot die any longer: all of which we shall demonstrate in chronological order.<fnref n="27" />

Thus, Maier exposed violations once committed by overzealous alchemists who compared the great work with the articles of Christian faith. Such a comparison was of course permitted, Maier insists, but these alchemists crossed the line, apparently implying that the ultimate meaning of the articles of faith was to explain the making of the stone, a mere secular, 'earthly' task. Furthermore, these would-be alchemists knew nothing of the true preparation of the stone, which led them to explain the Christian faith with erroneous reasonings. Their action was reprehensible, thus, in two different ways: they both desacrated the articles of Christian faith, and incorrectly obfuscated them.

<footnote n="27">²⁷ Maier: Symbola (fn. 1), p. 510 (my translation). I have consulted Hans van Kasteel's French translation for some passages (Michaël Maier: La Table d'or. Trans. Hans van Kasteel. Grez-Doiceau [Belgium] 2015).</footnote>
In Maier’s view, the alchemical mass is, thus, inherently dangerous inasmuch as it may incite some readers to indulge themselves in similar excesses. He refuses to even reproduce its text, replacing it with a similarly structured comparison between the making of the stone and the generation, growth, death and resurrection of man, not Christ.

Who were the false alchemists exposed by Maier? He probably implicitly referred, among others, to the same authors already blamed in the Rosicrucian manifestos for crossing similar lines, namely Heinrich Khunrath or Benedictus Figulus, that is, overzealous Paracelsians who were not afraid to draw a close comparison, almost amounting to equivalence, between alchemy and the Holy Trinity or the Holy Scriptures. This sort of alchemical interpretation was soon to be condemned not only by either side of the religious churches, but even by other alchemists such as Johann Valentin Andreae, Maier himself, or Pierre Jean Fabre, who all wanted to preserve a sharp distinction between the natural and the divine, “the things from here below and those from above, the perishable and the eternal.”<fnref n="28" />

Maier’s support of Rosicrucianism, as we know, had nothing to do with Paracelsianism. Maier did not even include Paracelsus among the representatives of the twelve nations in his *Symbola Aureæ Mensæ*. The representative of Germany was Albertus Magnus. Maier never was a Paracelsian. In his *Cælidonia* – as early as 1609 – he went as far as calling the three principles of Paracelsus “non Entia imaginaria Paracelsicorum”.<fnref n="29" /> Eleven years later, in his *Septimana Philosophica* (1620), he still plainly denied the relevance of salt as an actual principle of metals.<fnref n="30" />

It seems difficult to decide at first glance whether Maier was sincerely convinced by his own line of argument. Was he fulfilling his duty toward the readers as a responsible author who did not want to induce them into reprehensible excesses, or did he just deem it preferable not to quote the mass so as to avoid possible criticism? Actually, Maier’s stance against an alchemical, natural philosophical reading of salvation history seems quite consistent throughout his works. In the *Septimana Philosophica*, he took care to expressly state that his book was written in “imitation, or rather in recollection” of the six days of Creation: “ad exemplum, aut potius in rememorationem illius”,<fnref n="31" /> not as an alchemical interpretation of Creation. All the same, in the chapter of *Symbola Aureæ Mensæ* devoted to Morienus, he called the “philosophical tincture” an “earthly mirror” allowing the alchemist to see the “image” of celestial things, namely “the divine Trinity, the resurrection

<footnote n="28">28 On this well-known aspect of both Catholic and Protestant Counter-Reformation, one of the best discussions, focused on Mersenne and alchemy, is that of Sylvain Matton: Introduction. In: Jean-Albert Belin: Les Aventures du philosophe inconnu (1646). Paris 1976, pp. 30–41.</footnote>

<footnote n="29">29 Quoted by Erik Leibenguth: Hermetische Poesie des Frühbarock. Die *Cantilenæ intellectuales* Michael Maiers. Tübingen 2002, p. 68 n. 216.</footnote>

<footnote n="30">30 Michael Maier: Septimana Philosophica. Frankfurt 1620, pp. 74–76; Michaël Maier: La Seine maine philosophique. Trans. Hans van Kasteel. Grez-Doiceau (Belgium) 2018, pp. 130 f.</footnote>

<footnote n="31">31 Maier: Septimana (fn. 30), Praefatio, sig. **v**.</footnote>
of our bodies, and the return of the souls into them”.<fnref n="32" /> In other words, as long as there was likeness, not identity, between the great work and salvation history, the comparison stayed on safe grounds. The same words are found in the *Can-
tilenæ intellectuales*: “This queen of sciences grants victory. [...] It is the *image* of both creation and redemption, unveiling the extant mystery.”<fnref n="33" /> Correctly understood, correctly used, this image could enable us to better understand the mystery of salvation – not the other way around.

The same reasoning may apply to the liturgical melody used for the Apple's *cantus firmus* in Maier's *Atalanta fugiens*. As Tara Nummedal pointed out in the discussion following the present paper, "For the Apple's *cantus firmus* that is present in all fifty fugues, Maier used a liturgical melody, the Kyrie *Cunctipotens genitor Deus* (All-powerful Creator), a Gregorian chant setting for the Mass ordinary. [...] But Maier had a more specific source for using the Kyrie in this way, overlaid with a two-voice canon. [...] Maier took forty of the fifty fugues in *Atalanta fugiens* from a collection of short, three-part vocal pieces, or ,waies', published by the English composer John Farmer in 1591."<fnref n="34" /> Thus, the actual melodies sung by the three voices "point to liturgical music and suggest a Christian rather than classical context for Maier's book." Accordingly, still in Nummedal's words, "Maier's choice of melodies underscores the notion of chymical arcana as a way to approach the divine", which still corresponds to his general approach of alchemical interpretations of the Bible and Christian mysteries as we just described it.

It is enlightening to compare Maier's position toward the alchemical mass with that of another Lutheran alchemist: Andreas Libavius, who commented on the mass in 1613 in the second volume of his *Syntagma arcanorum chymicorum*.<fnref n="35" /> Unlike Maier, Libavius quoted excerpts of the mass, limiting them to the Introit, the Gradual, the Alleluia and Sequentia. Not unlike Maier, however, he removed every

<footnote n="32">32 Maier: Symbola (fn. 1), pp. 143–144: “Qui a Deo his sacris [i.e. the alchemical mysteries] initiatus est [...] Præsentaneam insuper imaginem in hoc terreno speculo, Tinctura philosophica, animadvertit cælestium, nempe Divinæ Trinitatis, Resurrectionis nostrorum corporum, animæque in ea reversionem, et multorum aliorum.” French trans. by H. van Kasteel in Maier: La Table d’or (fn. 27), p. 173; German trans. by Leibenguth: Hermetische Poesie (fn. 29), p. 384.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">33 My italics. See Leibenguth: Hermetische Poesie (fn. 29), pp. 166–168: “Hæc est creationis / Nec non redemptionis / Imago, quæ quod extat, / Mysterium revelat.” See also Leibenguth’s commentary, p. 385.</footnote>

<footnote n="34">34 Tara Nummedal: Sound and Vision. The Alchemical Epistemology of Michael Maier’s *Atalanta fugiens*. In: Furnace and Fugue. A Digital Edition of Michael Maier’s *Atalanta fugiens* (1618) with Scholarly Commentary. Ed. by Tara Nummedal and Donna Bilak, end of the section “Chymical Practice” before the “Conclusion”. URL: https://furnaceandfugue.org/essays/nummedal (12.12.2022).</footnote>

<footnote n="35">35 Andreas Libavius: Syntagmatis arcanorum chymicorum, ex optimis autoribus scriptis, impressis, experientiaque artifice collectorum, Tomus secundus. Frankfurt a.M. 1613, pp. 350–352. On Libavius, see Bruce T. Moran: Andreas Libavius and the Transformation of Alchemy. Separating Chemical Cultures with Polemical Fire. Sagamore Beach 2007.</footnote>
liturgical formula from them, abridging them so as to provide a strictly alchemical
text. Still, his reasoning was very different from that of Maier:

[The author] offered a description of his stone in the shape of a mass, using
the sacrosanct mysteries against the second Commandment [“Do not take
the name of God in vain”]. This is the way how the Paracelsians and the
monks usually mix the secular with the spiritual, how they blacken the
most sacred and adorable mysteries within their furnaces and sully them
with their black fumes. We, however, shall put this earthly wisdom back
into the words of nature and art according to its author without mentioning
the desecration of the Divine Office.<fnref n="36" />

To Libavius, the alchemical mass was a text profaning the Christian mysteries inasmuch as it used them to an earthly purpose. This is a major difference with Maier, who considered the mass as a text offering a perfectly legitimate comparison. Maier’s religious attitude appears more flexible than Libavius’s – which is honestly not surprising. Their common point, however, is that they only valued the alchemical meaning of the mass. Both of them felt compelled to take the mass into consideration, but seized this opportunity to eliminate its blasphemous potential by reducing it to a mere alchemical treatise. There is, however, a further difference between them: While Libavius buried the text in the far recesses of his enormous *Syntagma*, Maier chose to highlight this example of a possible misuse of the Christian mysteries by making its author the eleventh of his twelve adepts.

<footnote n="36">36 Libavius: Syntagmatis [...] Tomus secundus (fn. 35), p. 350: "Proposuit ille Nicolaus Lapidis sui descriptionem in forma Missae adhibitis contra II. praeceptum sacrosanctis mysteriis, quo modo Paracelsici et monachi solent miscere secularia spiritualibus, et sanctissima, adorandaque mysteria furnulis suis fuscare, et atro fumo inquinare. Nos omissis profanationibus divinorum officiorum, naturae, et artis vocabulis terrenam hanc sapientiam ex suo autore reponemus."</footnote>