Byzantine Alchemy or The Era of Systemat

Byzantine Alchemy, or the Era of Systematization
Oxford Handbooks Online

Cristina Viano
Oxford Handbook of Science and Medicine in the Classical World
Edited by Paul T. Keyser and John Scarborough
Print Publication Date: Aug 2018 Subject: Classical Studies, Ancient Science and Medicine
Online Publication Date: Jul 2018 DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199734146.013.46
Abstract and Keywords
The chapter shows how the texts of early Byzantine alchemy transformed the alchemical
tradition. This period is characterized by a generation of “commentators” tied to the
Neoplatonic milieu. Their writings, designed primarily to clarify the ideas of the previous
generations, represent the most advanced stage of ancient alchemical theory. In the fifth
century, authors external to alchemy explicitly speak of alchemy as a contemporary
practice to produce gold from other metals. Around the seventh century, the corpus of
alchemical texts began to be assembled as an anthology of extracts. The object of the
research was agents of transformations of matter. The cause of the transformation is an
active principle that acts by dissolution: “divine water” (or sulfur water), mercury,
“chrysocolla” (gold solder), or raw sulfur. Mercury is at once the dyeing agent and the
prime metallic matter, understood as the common substrate of the transformations and
the principle of liquidity.
Keywords: Aristotle, Heliodorus, mercury, Olympiodorus, Stephanus, Synesius, transmutation, Zosimus
1. Introduction: Byzantine Egypt and the

Period of the Commentators
THE Byzantine period of Egypt begins at the death of emperor Theodosius I in 395 CE,
when the province of Aegyptus came under the Eastern Roman Empire. It ends under the
reign of Heraclius, with the Arab conquest in 640 CE. Byzantine Egypt experienced a
period of peace, which extends from the 5th to the beginning of the 7th century, during
which Alexandria is at the center of intense intellectual and spiritual activity.
Philosophical and scientific debates continue to flourish, and lively doctrinal disputes
Page 1 of 26
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights
Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in
Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

arise around the tenets of Christianity, which intersect with the doctrines of Gnosticism
and Hermetism.
In this bustling atmosphere, Greek alchemy experiences a crucial moment in its

development, because at that period doctrines and operations and the conceptual tools
for thinking are developed and defined that will be the basis for all subsequent periods.
This period is characterized indeed by a generation of “commentators” tied to the

Neoplatonic milieu, like Synesius (4th century CE), Olympiodorus (6th century CE) and
Stephanus (7th century CE). The writings of these commentators, designed primarily to
clarify the thinking of the great figures of previous generations, including Democritus and
Zosimos, represent the most advanced stage of ancient alchemical theory.
We are witnessing a genuine process of defining and systematizing alchemical doctrine

through the intellectual tools of philosophy available to these authors. This process,
already begun by previous authors, now finds its full realization. From this perspective,
through the systematic search for causes, historia of the recipes is integrated (p. 944)
through theōria. Indeed, these authors, seeking to develop the links between theory and
practice, between nature and technē (art), between the doctrine of transmutation,
philosophical theories of matter on one hand, and technical processes on the other, laid
the basis for a reflection on the possibility and on the nature of alchemy as an
autonomous knowledge.
It was also at that period, around the 7th century, that the corpus of alchemical texts
began to be assembled under its very particular form of an anthology, essentially of
extracts, as found in a large number of manuscripts, among which these three are the
most important: (1) the oldest and most beautiful, the Marcianus Graecus 299 (M) (10th–
11th century), brought back from Byzantium by Cardinal Bessarion in the 15th century
and currently kept at the Library of St. Mark in Venice; (2) the Parisinus Graecus 2325
(B), of the 13th century; and (3) the Parisinus Graecus 2327 (A), copied in 1478.
Finally, it is in the 5th century that authors external to alchemy explicitly speak of
alchemy as a contemporary practice to produce gold starting from other metals. Proclus
(5th century CE) compares astronomers who make astronomical tables to “those who
claim to produce gold by the mixture of certain species (of metals)” (On Plato’s ‘Republic’
2.234.14–25 Kroll). Aeneas of Gaza (5th–6th centuries CE), Christian philosopher and
orator, pupil of the Neoplatonist Hierocles, talks about the possibility of improving the
material of bodies by changing their form, and offers the example of those who produce
gold by melting together and dyeing silver and tin (Theophrastus, 71 Barth).
Here it is proposed to develop a picture of the most characteristic aspects of the alchemy
of that period starting from the specific contributions of its most representative
protagonists. This presentation seeks to answer two closely related questions, which are
essential for identifying and understanding this complex and paradoxical knowledge,
which will not even receive a proper name until a relatively late period. Indeed, the Greek
Page 2 of 26

term chēmeia is found in Stephanus in the 7th century, and the Latin term alchimia, an
Arabic derivation, appears only in the Western world in the 12th century.
The first question is essentially internal to the texts: How did the alchemical authors view
their knowledge? We seek to understand, through the methodological reflections of the
authors, how they defined, and what epistemological status they attributed to, their field.
The second question is external and concerns our epistemological approach to this
knowledge: How should we study the alchemical texts? Can one sketch the rules of a
proper approach that can take account at once of the multiple facets and also of the
unique specificity of this cultural phenomenon we call Greco-Alexandrian alchemy?
2. The Protagonists and the Question of

Pseudepigraphy
Page 3 of 26

To locate the generation of the commentators and show their position in the core of Greek
alchemy, we must draw a brief sketch of its historical development. Greek alchemical
literature is usually divided into three parts.
The first part is located between the 1st and 3rd centuries CE. It includes the
(p. 945)
chemical recipes of the Physika and mystika attributed to “Democritus” (1st–2nd

centuries CE) and the anonymous papyri of Leiden and Stockholm (3rd century CE).
These recipes focus on imitation of gold, silver, precious stones, and purple. One finds
there the idea of the fundamental unity of matter and that of the relations of sympathy
between substances, expressed by the famous “small” formula revealed by mage Ostanes,
which can be considered as the zero degree of alchemical theorizing, in the essentially
technical context of the recipes: “Nature is delighted with nature, nature conquers
nature, nature dominates nature” (Hē phusis tē phusei terpetai, kai hē phusis tēn phusin
nika, kai hē phusis tēn phusin kratei). In these recipes the model of production of gold
seems to be that of an imitation (mimesis) through coloring that acts on the external
properties of bodies. This notion of imitation is the crux of the old conception of the art,
and contains, as we shall see, in embryo the idea of transmutation. At this stage we also
see reported a series of short quotes or treatises of the mythical “old authors” such as
Hermes, Agathodaimon, Isis, Cleopatra, Mary the Jewess, Ostanes, Pammenes, and
Pibechius (between the 1st and 3rd century CE).
The second period is that of authors properly so-called: Zosimos of Panopolis, Pelagios,
and Iamblichus (3rd–4th century). Zosimos appears as the greatest figure of the Greco-
Egyptian alchemy. Coming from Panopolis of Egypt, he perhaps lived in Alexandria
around 300 CE. From his work, we have fragments gathered in four groups in the
manuscripts: the Authentic Memoirs, the Chapters to Eusebia, the Chapters to Theodore,
and the Final Account with two excerpts from the Book of Sophē. One of the major
problems is to identify the “28 books kata stoicheion” (in alphabetical order) mentioned
by the Byzantine lexicon Suda, which seem to comprehend the entirety of the work of
Zosimos and to relate them to the titles transmitted by direct and indirect traditions.
Among the most famous pieces should be mentioned: On the Letter Omega and the three
Visions, which are part of the Authentic Memoirs; the Visions describe dreams that
unveiled to Zosimos the properties of metals. Metal-processing operations are
accompanied by a ritualization of the symbols of death and of resurrection, and of
purifying the mind of matter. Indeed, the concept of metals is often paralleled in Zosimos
with the concept, inspired by Gnostic and hermetic thought, of the double nature of
humans, composed of body and spirit, of soma and pneuma.
Finally, the third and final period is precisely the one that interests us: that of the
commentators. The most important are Synesius (4th century), Olympiodorus (6th
century), and Stephanus (7th century). Close to Stephanus are four poems transmitted
under the names of Heliodorus, Theophrastus, Hierotheus, and Archelaus (7th century).
Later, perhaps between the 6th and 8th centuries, two anonymous commentators,
commonly called the Christian Philosopher and the Anonymous Philosopher, lead directly
to the period of the most extensive compilation of the main manuscript of the collection,
Page 4 of 26

the Marcianus Graecus 299. Indeed, it is assumed that this anthology was compiled in
Byzantium in the 7th century, at the period of Heraclius, by a certain Theodore, who
wrote the verse preface, which is found at the beginning of this manuscript (folio 5v), and
who was probably a pupil of Stephanus. Thereafter, the alchemical tradition in Byzantium
continues with Michael (p. 946) Psellus (11th century), Nikephoros Blemmydes (13th
century), and Cosmas (15th century).
The issue of identification of the commentators Olympiodorus and Stephanus with their
namesakes the Neoplatonic commentators was raised very early by historians of alchemy
and until now has made much ink flow. Indeed, in the alchemical literature,
pseudepigraphy is a frequent phenomenon. In the corpus, we can find Plato, Aristotle,
Democritus, and Theophrastus mentioned among the alchemical authors. From a
chronological point of view, however, Olympiodorus and Stephanus constitute the
borderline between these obviously false attributions and authentic attributions to known
characters, such as Psellus.
In the corpus of Greek alchemists these two authors are defined as “the masters famous
everywhere and worldwide, the new exegetes of Plato and Aristotle” (Berthelot and
Ruelle, Collection des anciens alchimistes grecs vol. 2, 425.4; hereafter CAAG). And there
is good reason to attribute the writings of Olympiodorus and Stephanus, at least in their
original versions, to their Neoplatonist namesakes. Indeed, the latest studies are turning
more and more toward the hypothesis of identity, but for Olympiodorus, because of the
especially composite and discontinuous form of his work, the question of attribution is
more complex and delicate than in the case of Stephanus, who offers on the contrary a
more homogeneous collection of treatises. As we shall see, the commentary of
Olympiodorus the alchemist is an exemplary product of the alchemical literature.
2.1 Synesius
Synesius is the author of a commentary on the Physika kai mystika of pseudo-Democritus

in the form of a dialogue entitled Synesius to Dioscorus, Commentary on the Book of
Democritus (CAAG vol. 2, 56.20–69.11). Synesius is unknown to Zosimos but cited by
Olympiodorus, who inserts long sections of Synesius in his commentary On the
Kat’energeian of Zosimus. Dioscorus had been, as indicated by Synesius himself, a priest
of Serapis in Alexandria. Synesius has been identified with the homonymous Christian
bishop of Cyrene, Neoplatonic and student of Hypatia, but the dedication to Dioscorus,
pagan priest, makes this argument difficult to sustain. In addition, this dedication shows
that the work of Synesius is prior to the destruction of the Alexandrian Serapeion (391
CE).
The conclusion of the dialog Synesius to Dioscoros reads (CAAG 2.69.5 and 11): “it
suffices to say this briefly,” and a few lines later: “With the help of God, I will begin my
Page 5 of 26

review (hupomnēma).” This makes one think that it is at once a summary (or extract) and
a preamble to a more extensive work.
However, the text that has reached us presents an orderly and systematic development.
The exegetical intent is explicit from the beginning: it is necessary to investigate the
writings of Democritus, to learn his thought and the order of succession of his teachings
(CAAG vol. 2, p. 57.17).
Democritus’ oath to reveal nothing clearly to anyone is explained in the sense

(p. 947)
that we should not reveal teachings to outsiders but reserve them solely for initiates and
practiced minds (CAAG vol. 2, p. 58.12). The multiplicity of names that Democritus has
given to substances thus has the goal of exercising and testing the intelligence of adepts
(CAAG vol. 2, p. 59.5).
The exegesis of Synesius bears at once on practical explanations (e.g., “the dissolution of
metallic bodies” means bringing metals to the liquid state, CAAG vol. 2, p. 58.22), and on
general principles (for example, the enunciation of the principle that liquids derive from
solids, relative to coloring principles provided by dissolution, called “flowers,” CAAG vol.
2, p. 59.17).
As in most of the texts of that period, the object of the research is identified with agents
of transformations of matter (CAAG vol. 2, p. 59.25). The cause of the transformation is
an active principle, called “divine water”, mercury, “chrysocolla,” or raw sulfur, and acts
by dissolution. Mercury is at once the dyeing agent and the prime metallic matter,
understood as the common substrate of the transformations and the principle of liquidity
(CAAG vol. 2, p. 61.1).
One can detect in the explanations of the general principles of the transformation of
metals the strong influence of Aristotelian terminology. First, the object of the research is
identified as an efficient cause. Then, the fabrication of metals is conceived as a mixture
(mixis), especially among liquids (which according to Aristotle is the optimal condition, cf.
Generation and Corruption 1.10, 328b 1); the preliminary condition is that of dissolution,
which in Aristotle represents the culmination of the separation of compounds, thus of
mixtures (see Meteorology 4.1, 379a4–11). The transformation is conceived as a change
of specific quality, generally through color. Mercury is compared to the material worked
by the artisan (CAAG vol. 2, p. 62.23) who can change only the form. The distinction
between potential and activity is applied to the coloring activity of mercury: “in activity it
remains white, in potential it becomes yellow” (CAAG vol. 2, p. 63.6).
As we will see in other authors, Synesius presents a natural conception of alchemy: it is

always nature that, ultimately, is the true principle agent of the operations. The task of
the artisan is to create the conditions so that the active properties, buried in the
substances, become operative and act on the substances themselves in virtue of their
affinity.
Page 6 of 26

2.2 Olympiodorus
Olympiodorus is one of the most interesting authors of the alchemical corpus. The
question of attributing the Commentary On the “Kat’energeian” of Zosimos to his
namesake the Neoplatonic commentator touches on two issues vital to the understanding
of Greco-Alexandrian alchemy: the constitution of treatises in the corpus, and the interest
of Neoplatonist exegesis on Aristotle in alchemy. For this reason, it is worthwhile to
devote to him a more detailed analysis.
Let’s start with the Neoplatonic philosopher. Olympiodorus, pupil of Ammonius,

(p. 948)
taught the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle in Alexandria in the second half of the 6th
century. Pagan and defender of Hellenism, he will have Christian successors, such as
David (aka Elias) and Stephanus. We still have his three Platonic commentaries: on the
Alcibiades I, on the Gorgias, and on the Phaedo, and two Aristotelian commentaries, one
on the Categories (which contains the usual Prolegomena to the philosophy of Aristotle),
and the other on the Meteorology, as well as fragments on the On Interpretation. Among
his works, the only one that can be dated with certainty is the commentary to the
Meteorologica, where Olympiodorus mentions (CAAG vol. 2, p. 52.31) a comet that made
its appearance in 565 CE.
The work of Olympiodorus is a rich source of information on cultural conditions and

educational methods of Alexandria in the 6th century. A very typical form characterizes
his comments: they are composed of a certain number of lessons (praxeis), each with the
general explanation (theōria) and a particular explanation, of a section of text from
Aristotle (generally designated as lexis). Following the tradition of the school of
Alexandria, Olympiodorus was interested in Aristotle’s logic and natural philosophy. In
particular, his commentary on the Meteorologica is an extremely interesting work for the
history of science. Olympiodorus completes and fixes the Aristotelian classification of
meteorological and chemical phenomena, thus performing a tremendous job of
systematizing notions sometimes barely sketched by Aristotle, like that of “chemical
analysis” (diagnosis) of homogeneous bodies in book 4 (On Aristotle’s ‘Meteorology’, p.
274.25–29). He takes part in the debates of the commentators on difficult and
problematic issues of the Aristotelian text, such as the theory of vision, on how the rays of
the sun warm the air, or on the origin of the saltiness of the sea. Finally, it transmits much
information about the state of science and technology of its period, such as mathematics,
optics, astronomy, medicine, agriculture, and metallurgy. As for the commentary on book
4 of the Meteorologica, the first “chemical” treatise of antiquity, the systematic influence
of Olympiodorus is fundamental: he contributes significantly toward defining a new field
of investigation on the properties, states, and transformations of sublunary matter. His
commentary is the most widely used not only by Arabic and Renaissance authors but also
by Greek and medieval alchemists.
Page 7 of 26

It is therefore not surprising that there has survived under the name of Olympiodorus one
of the most “philosophical” writings of the corpus of Greek alchemists, which presents
itself as the commentary on a (lost) treatise of Zosimus and on the sayings of other
ancient alchemists (CAAG vol. 2, p. 69.12—104.7). In the principal manuscript of the
corpus, the Marcianus Graecus 299 (M), the treatise has the title: “Olympiodorus,
philosopher of Alexandria, On the book About the Action of Zosimos <and> everything
that was said by Hermes and the philosophers” (eis to Olympiodorou philosophou
alexandreōs Kat’energeian Zosimou <kai> osa apo Hermou tōn philosophōn ēsan
eirēmena). In the other manuscripts one finds: “The Philosopher Olympiodorus to
Petasius, king of Armenia, About the divine and sacred art of the stone of the
philosophers,” where Petasius is probably a fictitious name and “philosophers’ stone” is a
late term, added later by scribes to define the content of the commentary.
The author explicitly presents his commentary as a work at once exegetical and
(p. 949)
doxographical. He explicitly claims that Greek philosophy, including pre-Socratic

philosophy, is the epistemological basis of transmutation. Indeed, near the middle of
commentary (CAAG vol. 2, pp. 79.11–85.5; par. 18–27), Olympiodorus sets out the
opinions of nine pre-Socratic philosophers (Melissus, Parmenides, Thales, Diogenes,
Heraclitus, Hippasus, Xenophanes, Anaximenes, and Anaximander) on the sole principle
of things, and then sketches a comparison between these theses and those of the
principal masters of the alchemical art (Zosimos, Chymes, Agathodaimōn, and Hermes)
on the efficient principle of transmutation, designated as “divine water” (theion hudōr).
Like most texts of the corpus of Greek alchemists, the commentary of Olympiodorus
presents a composite and seemingly unstructured nature. It has neither preface nor
conclusion: it begins and ends abruptly.
One can divide the text into two sections. Only the first (CAAG vol. 2, pp. 69.12–77.14;
par. 1–14) presents a coherent structure: the author begins by commenting on a saying of
Zosimos about the operation to extract gold flakes from ore, through
“maceration” (taricheia) and “washing” (plusis). Par. 1–7 follow the typical schema of
Olympiodorus the commentator: first the lemma, the phrase of Zosimos to explicate, and
then a general explanation (theōria), and after that the detailed exegesis of terms (lexis).
The general explanation also introduces the theme of the obscurity of the “ancients,”
extended to Plato and Aristotle, which has a dual purpose, to hide the doctrine from the
uninitiated and to stimulate adepts to research. Then he introduces gold
“soldering” (chrysocolla: par. 8–11), which consists of collecting the gold particles
obtained into a homogeneous body. These two specific operations, separation and
reunion, are here interpreted as allegories of the transmutation of metals. The three
types of dyeing of the ancient alchemists come next (par. 11–14): one that dissipates, one
that dissipates slowly, and one that does not dissipate. The third attributes to metals an
indelible nature. This means, in operative terms, to fix the color of a metal in a persistent
manner.
Page 8 of 26

The second section—the most extended part of the text (CAAG vol. 2, pp. 77.15–104.7;
par. 15–55)—consists of a suite of unstructured excerpta and digressions, accompanied by
notes on the main alchemical operations.
Par. 16 is focused on fire, because according to Zosimos, moderate fire has a fundamental
function in the practice of the art of transmutation since it is the principle agent. The
reflection on fire leads to the function of the four elements and theories of the pre-
Socratics on principles. In par. 18 a doxographic presentation starts on pre-Socratic
doctrines about the single principle, which extends from par. 19 to par. 25. The author
then compares (par. 25–27) those principles with the principles of the ancient alchemists.
The second half of the treatise (par. 28–55) reproduces the arguments of the first part,
plus the description of the stages of transmutation and theorizing of the prime metallic
material. Par. 28 considers the status that the elements had for ancient alchemists: they
constitute the dry, warm, cold, and wet bodies. Par. 32 returns to the distinction between
a stable body and an unstable body sketched in par. 15. Olympiodorus now distinguishes
substances and incorporeal substances, that is to say, between the fusible metallic
substances and ores that have not been subjected to fire. The fragment of (p. 950)
Zosimos’ Final Account about the role of alchemy among the kings of Egypt (par. 35) is
connected to the discourse on minerals. From par. 36, Olympiodorus fixes attention on
the prime metallic material, and he reports the dialogue between Synesius and Dioscorus
on mercury. After reflections on the separative function of white, and the
“comprehensive” function of black, in coloration (par. 38), Olympiodorus identifies, as
Zosimos did, the prime metallic material with black lead. In par. 43, the divine water is
cited as responsible for transmutation. In par. 44, Zosimos defines lead by the symbol of
the philosophical egg formed of the four elements. The following paragraphs discuss the
“powers” of lead and stages of transmutation, assimilated to colors (black, white, yellow,
and red). In par. 54 we find a reflection on the art of transmutation, which is called eidikē
(special) and not koinē (common). The conclusion (par. 55) recapitulates some key
concepts of the work: substances like molybdochalc (lead-copper) and etesian stone, the
fusion and production of gold, the causal action of fire.
Beyond this appearance of disorder, one can grasp a rational and coherent design as the
treatise unfolds, revealed by two threads. The first is the red thread of the logic that links
the alchemical operations, the principles, and the fundamental substances, which shows a
progression in the presentation of the components of alchemy, ranging from basic
operations (levigating, fusing, dyeing) to its active and material principles, to finish with
epistemological considerations on this discipline as technē.
The second red thread consists of expressions that one can define as “joining and
accompanying,” where the author speaks in the first person and signals the transition
between the different parts, as well as the purpose, method, and internal organization of
his effort. His work proves to be an epitome and a summary with a protreptic goal,
offering a selection of testimonies, with commentaries, extracted from the writings of the
ancient alchemists, but also from philosophers properly so-called, on the foundations of
Page 9 of 26

the art (the operations, the ingredients, and also the history). It seems addressed to
someone young and high ranking, with the aim of offering him a “comprehensive view of
the complete art” (par. 38).
This suggests that at the origin of the text we have, there must have been a now-lost work
of Olympiodorus, composed in a more structured form. The text that we have would
consist of at least two layers: the commentary of Olympiodorus on the Kat’energeian of
Zosimos, and the arrangement by a compiler. This person could have copied
Olympiodorus up to a point and then added a series of notes on the main alchemical
operations, accompanied by excerpta of Zosimos and other alchemical authors, organizing
everything according to the double criterion mentioned. Presumably, the original piece
and a good part of the doxography on pre-Socratics come directly from the commentary
on the Kat’energeian by Olympiodorus the Neoplatonist. It is also entirely plausible that
the Kat’energeian of Zosimus was already a doxographic work that concerned the
opinions of alchemists, and that Olympiodorus in his commentary added a doxography on
the pre-Socratics, which is structured according to the typical pattern of Neoplatonic
doxographies. The parts that derive directly from the commentary of Olympiodorus are
characterized precisely by striking similarities that are formal (like the typical schema of
Neoplatonic commentary in the beginning of the treatise and the (p. 951) arrangement of
the doxography), terminological, and conceptual, with the commentary on the
Meteorologica, and other works of Olympiodorus the Neoplatonic.
Now if this is true, we can explain how later, this text was attributed in its entirety to
Olympiodorus of Alexandria, by a sort of “attraction” of the initial part. The compiler
could not have intended to allocate the patchwork to the name of Olympiodorus. The title
only reflects precisely what this book is: the commentary of Olympiodorus on Zosimos
and a collection of excerpta. As for the compiler, one could probably think of Theodore,
who had assembled the entire collection of alchemical texts.
Thus, the whole debate on the authenticity must be set in a new perspective, because the
situation of this text is not that of a pseudepigraphy in the usual sense, but that of a
typical product of this sui generis scientific literature that is Greco-Alexandrian alchemy.
The issue of pseudepigraphy among Greek alchemists thus rejoins that of the place of
alchemy with respect to the official philosophical knowledge of its period. We will return
to why Olympiodorus the commentator might have been interested in alchemy.
2.3 Stephanus
Stephanus is the author of nine praxeis (lessons) on the divine and sacred art and a letter
to Theodore (Ideler [1841] 1963, 2.199–253). Lesson 9 is addressed to the Emperor
Heraclius and therefore can be dated in the years of his rule (610–641 CE). Some
astronomical data in his work would moreover enable us to date it to exactly 617 CE.
Page 10 of 26

We saw that in the corpus of Greek alchemists, Stephanus is mentioned with

Olympiodorus among “the masters famous everywhere and worldwide, new exegetes of
Plato and Aristotle.” Indeed, the Emperor Heraclius appointed him “worldwide
professor,” that is, professor of the imperial school of Constantinople. The current
scholarly trend is to consider this Stephanus of Alexandria identical to the Neoplatonic
commentator on Plato and Aristotle, author of a commentary on the On Interpretation and
one on the third book of the On the Soul, and to Stephanus of Athens, commentator on
Hippocrates. He would also commented on the Handy Tables of Theon of Alexandria and
written an Apotelesmatical Treatise addressed to his pupil Timotheos.
In his alchemical work, Stephanus comments in a very rhetorical style on the ancient
alchemists, and he connects alchemy to medicine, astrology, mathematics, and music. He
declares alchemy compatible with Christianity and defines it as “mystical” knowledge,
woven into a cosmology based on the principles of unity and universal sympathy.
Alchemical transformations are considered natural and enter a close relation of analogies
and correspondences between the microcosm and the macrocosm, the human body and
the four elements, the heavenly bodies and earthly bodies.
Berthelot characterized the commentaries of Synesius and Olympiodorus as “mystical

commentaries” and attributed to them an undeniable philosophical value. He considered,
however, successive commentators, such as Stephanus, the Christian Philosopher, and
Anonymous, as “Byzantine glossators” who have expressed, in (p. 952) an exalted tone,
scholastic subtleties devoid of any scientific interest (CAAG vol. 3, p. 377).
But on the contrary, the Praxeis of Stephanus are very interesting philosophically, from
the point of view of both method and contents. Indeed, on the one hand, Stephanus plans
to build a new system through the critical comparison of theories and admission of their
difference. This form of “status quaestionis” of existing theories is one of the most
“scientific” aspects, in the modern sense, of the work of Stephanus. On the other hand, he
creates a synthesis of Aristotelian, Platonic, and Neoplatonic doctrines to build his
alchemical doctrine.
In particular, he presents a model of matter and the transformations of metals that is one
of the most original in the corpus of Greek alchemists, since it appears to be based both
on the theory of surfaces in Plato’s Timaeus, and on the theory of exhalations in
Aristotle’s Meteorology. Indeed, to explain the constitutions of metals, Stephanus
introduces “bodies indivisible and without parts,” the “very special figures” that are
fundamentally “solids of every kind extended in three dimensions, and composed of
length, width, and depth” (praxis 6, p. 223.22 Ideler). These are “planar
surfaces” (epipeda) that correspond to the ethereal particles resulting from the
decomposition of the metal body (praxis 3, p. 209.4 Ideler), a decomposition necessary so
that the dyeing spirit can slip into a body and achieve the transmutation. The vaporous
exhalation (“dyeing spirit,” pneuma, “cloud”), responsible for composing and coloring
metals, is thus likened to the planar surface. An abstract geometric principle is thus
Page 11 of 26

identified with something physical and elemental (pneuma, humid exhalation, made of
water and air), but subtle and rarefied, at the limit of body.
The work of Stephanus was well-known by the Arabs. According to the Arab-Latin
tradition transmitted by the Morienus (Stavenhagen 1974), it will be precisely one of his
students, the monk Morienus (or Marianos), who will broadcast alchemy in the Arab
world between 675 and 700 CE, by initiating the Ummayad prince Khalid ibn Yazid
(Bacchi and Martelli 2009).
2.4 The Christian Philosopher, the Anonymous Philosopher, and the

Four Alchemical Poems
We thus arrive—with Stephanus and two anonymous commentators commonly called the
“Christian Philosopher” (CAAG vol. 2, pp. 395.1–421.5) and the “Anepigraphos” (or
Anonymous) (CAAG vol. 2, pp. 421.8–441.25)—at the period when the first collection of
Greek alchemists was constituted.
As in other “commentators,” these two anonymous works present themselves as

compilations, with commentaries, based on ancient writers (Hermes, Zosimos,
Democritus), about specific topics or questions. For example, the Christian wrote a work
Objection That Divine Water Is One According to Species (CAAG vol. 2, p. 405.6), and the
Anonymous wrote a work On the Divine Water Eater of Whitening (CAAG vol. (p. 953) 2, p.
421.6). As Berthelot remarked, these compilations, especially that of the Christian, follow
the general system adopted by Byzantines of the 8th and 10th centuries, which was to
draw from ancient authors excerpts and summaries, such as those by Photius and
Constantine Porphyrogenitus, a method that has preserved fragments but also
contributed to the dismemberment of the texts.
Berthelot records a dozen fragments of the Christian Philosopher, which concern

essentially the notion of divine water and the method and operations of the science. As
with Synesius and other commentators, the obscurity of the language of the ancient
alchemists is explained as having the dual purpose of deceiving the jealous and of
exercising the minds of adepts.
As for the divine water, the active principle of transmutation, the Christian insists upon
the apparent disagreement among the ancient alchemists as to its designations, and
especially the meaning of its unity (CAAG vol. 2, pp. 400.9‒401.16). As Zosimos would
already have done, the Christian wants to show the basic agreement among the authors
about the specific unity of this principle (CAAG vol. 2, p. 40.5). In particular, he shows
that Democritus speaks of the unique species in general, and that Zosimos speaks of its
multiple material species (CAAG vol. 2, p. 407.6), and he concludes that ultimately all
multiplicity is reduced to unity.
Page 12 of 26

Some considerations bear on the method. The distinctions of materials and treatments
show the influence of the descriptions of states of physical bodies (liquids, solids,
composite nature) and transformative processes (cooking, melting, decomposition by fire
or liquid) in book 4 of Aristotle’s Meteorology. The treatments are compared to planar
geometric figures (CAAG vol. 2, p. 414.13‒415.9), a comparison that recalls the concept
of metals by Stephanus and Plato’s Timaeus. Finally, the Christian applies the dialectical
method of Plato, which divides and unites by species and genera, to the explanation of the
operations, with the aim of clarity (CAAG vol. 2, p. 418.4).
Far from being without scientific interest, the compilations of the Christian show a direct
application of the conceptual tools of philosophy, especially of Aristotle and of Plato, to
alchemical exegesis. One notes also some features of classical exegesis by the
commentators, such as the search for agreement among opinions and the effort to derive
the multiplicity of principles from a single one.
The “Anonymous” presents a doxography on the “prime ministers” of aurifaction. He

mentions Hermes, John the Archpriest, Democritus, Zosimos, and then “the famous
worldwide philosophers, commentators of Plato and of Aristotle, who used dialectical
principles, Olympiodorus and Stephanus”: they deepened aurifaction, they composed vast
commentaries, and they bound by oath the composition of the mystery (CAAG vol. 2, p.
425.4).
In particular, the Anonymous examines the mixture of substances by liquid means,

without the assistance of the fire of which Olympiodorus also speaks (CAAG vol. 2, p.
426.7). There is still, as we saw with Synesius, influence from the Aristotelian theory of
mixture, the basic composition of all natural bodies (CAAG vol. 2, p. 439.21). As for
methodology, the Anonymous makes a curious analogy between the general and (p. 954)
specific instruments of music and the general and specific parts of the alchemical science
(CAAG vol. 2, p. 433.11–441.25).
Finally, close to Stephanus are four iambic poems on the divine art, placed under the
names of Heliodorus, Theophrastus, Archelaus, and Hierotheus (7th–8th centuries CE).
These poems, highly mystical in inspiration, contain litanies about gold and show
parallels with Stephanus in style and in content. Some scholars think the names probably
refer to a single character, namely Heliodorus, who said he sent his poems to the emperor
Theodosius, probably Theodosius III (716–717 CE).
3. The Alchemists and Their Knowledge
3.1 Transmutation and Its Principles
Page 13 of 26

Although these authors have their individual characteristics, from their writings we can
reconstruct the lines of a fairly homogeneous theory of transmutation.
The idea of the transmutation is based on the concept that all metals are constituted of
the same material. We must first remove the qualities that particularize a metal, reverting
it to the indeterminate prime metallic material, and then assign to it the properties of
gold. Thus, the production of gold results from a synthesis out of a common and receptive
prime metallic material, onto which are incorporated the “qualities,” that is, substances
which are responsible for the coloration or transmutation into gold, according to the
principles of sympathy.
Among these substances, “divine water” (theion hudōr) or “sulfur water” (hudōr tou
theiou) plays a fundamental role. It is frequently indicated as the goal of research and the
principal agent of transmutation. It is an active principle derived from the metallic
material itself, endowed with a double power, generative and destructive, which one then
causes to act on the material itself. The common metallic material is not a substrate
inseparable from the form, unknowable and indeterminate in itself, but is a concrete body
having an independent existence and on which one can operate. It can be black lead or
mercury.
Similarly, the active principle is identified with dyeing agents, which in practice are
volatile substances, such as mercury vapor. The distinction that the alchemists made,
starting with Zosimos, between two components in metals, the one nonvolatile (sōma) and
the other volatile (pneuma), was surely inspired by observing the coloring action of some
vapors on solid metals, such as mercury and arsenic vapors that give a silvery color to
copper.
Often, transformation into gold is described as a deep dyeing. From this perspective, the
coloring agent and the colored body become a single thing through transmutation.
(p. 955) 3.2 The Discipline and Its Method
We now turn to some reflections of the alchemists on the nature and method of their
knowledge.
Let us start with Olympiodorus. We saw that he presented his writing both as a
commentary and protreptic book, addressed to someone who wants to learn the
principles of alchemy. It defines both the object of research and the method.
Consequently, it is, in the intention of the author (or his compiler), a philosophical work,
not just a technical treatise. Indeed, in his treatise, he designates the discipline
sometimes as technē, sometimes as philosophy. The inextricable link between the two is
expressed early in his doxographic statement where he says that the ancient (alchemists)
were properly philosophers and addressed themselves to philosophers, that they
Page 14 of 26

introduced philosophy to technē, and that their writings were doctrines and not works
(CAAG vol. 2, p. 79.16–20).
Stephanus, too, speaks of “philosophy,” which he identified with the imitation of god: “So
there is a great relationship among the principles, especially between God and the
philosophical soul. For what is that philosophy, if not assimilation to God, as far as it is
possible for a human?” The philosopher, bringing the multiplicity of compositions to unity,
will succeed in “theoretical and diagnostic accuracy” (praxis 6, p. 224.25 Ideler). The
most important features of the method described above are, firstly, the profound study
and critical comparison of all philosophical theories on the subject, and secondly, the
construction, from these, of a philosophical system of nature.
Stephanus also designates this discipline as chēmeia and distinguishes it as

“mythical” (muthikē, fabulous) and “mystical” (mustikē, symbolic, allegorical, but also for
insiders). The mythical is reduced to a mass of empty statements, whereas: “The mystical
chemistry methodically deals with the creation of the world by the Word, so that the man
inspired by God and born of him is instructed by a proper effort (eutheias ergasias) and
by divine and mystical statements” (Letter to Theodore, p. 208.29 Ideler).
These passages show that, for the alchemist, to know and to make, or better, to remake,
are the two inseparable moments of a single act: it is through analysis, the reconstruction
of the unity and accuracy of the process, that the work of the craftsman reproduces the
organization of the world. Note that the analysis is not just about the distinction of the
components but also about the “theories” that concern the compositions.
The Christian, in a writing entitled What Is the Purpose of This Treatise, characterizes the
knowledge in question as both “divine science” (theia epistēmē) and as “valuable and
excellent philosophy” (entimos kai aristē philosophia) (CAAG vol. 2, p. 415.10). We saw
that he applies to the operations the dialectical method that divides and unites by species
and genera.
The Anonymous, for his part, compares alchemy to music to show the affinity of the
structure of these two disciplines, characterized by the development of multiple practical
applications rigorously regulated by a single principle (CAAG vol. 2, p. 437.13).
Note that these authors agree on two fundamental points: the need to proceed by
(p. 956)
a rigorous method, and also their own philosophical identity. Indeed, with the exception
of Stephanus, who first employs (only once) the proper term chēmeia, all alchemists,
including Stephanus, refer to themselves and their predecessors as “philosophers” and
conceive their knowledge as a philosophy, an art (technē) or science (epistēmē), often
accompanied with attributes such as “divine,” “excellent,” and “universal.”
The epistemological status of this discipline is that of a reflection at once on the theory
and practice, on the natural world, and on the rational method of the technē. Theory and
practice are always dialectically and indissolubly linked. Stephanus speaks of “theoretical
practice” (theōrētikē praxis) and “practical theory” (praktikē theōria) (praxis 1, p.
Page 15 of 26

201.27–33 Ideler). Medicine often appears as the most appropriate term of comparison
for this form of knowledge. This is in fact a dual theoretical education, concerning on the
one hand the principles of nature, and on the other of the principles of medicine. Aristotle
also said that the “expert” (empeiroi) physicians are those who complete their education
through manuals (Nicomachean Ethics 10.10, 1181b2–5). These manuals classify
particular cases according to general principles.
As for the relationship between technē and nature, we have seen in the Greek alchemical
texts the emergence of a view by which the technitē, just like the doctor, does not replace
nature but creates conditions for nature to act, so that natural processes can happen.
In Olympiodorus’ commentary, one finds this idea repeated in several places, shared with
Zosimos. The correct method is to proceed according to nature, without violence or
opposition to it. Ultimately, it is nature that acts because man cannot replace it. This
method demands, therefore, a profound knowledge of the specific properties of bodies to
make them react naturally.
We can now summarize some characteristics of the alchemical literature of the

commentators.
First, we found that most of these treatises are excerpts and summaries of other lost
works, but they nevertheless have an order and purpose. The exegetical intention is often
declared and focuses especially on the deliberate obscurity of the authors. This obscurity
has a double explanation: first, it is a strategy for defending the doctrine against those
who do not deserve it; second, it has the pedagogical and protreptic function to exercise
the intelligence of adepts and push their minds toward the ultimate principles. These are
the same reasons that the Neoplatonic commentators give for the obscurity (asapheia) of
Aristotle’s writings. For example, Simplicius attributes obscurity to the precise and
concise language of Aristotle, who often expresses in a few syllables what another would
have said in numerous clauses.
Next, the exegesis of the Alexandrian alchemical commentators touches on both the
practice of operations and the theoretical and methodological principles, frequently
expressed through well-known concepts of Aristotelian natural philosophy (e.g., notions
of mixing, of change of species, of potential/actuality, of matter/form), or of Platonic
natural philosophy (such as elementary surfaces which form bodies).
Finally, all the Greek alchemical commentators, having identified the basic
(p. 957)
purpose of research with the principle responsible for transmutation, generally identified
with the divine water (the “philosopher’s stone” of the Middle Ages), that which
represents, in Aristotelian terms, a form of efficient and effective causality. Alchemists
consider this goal, like the art and method concerned with it, unique. On this point, one
can observe, especially in doxographies, research on the agreement among opinions, both
of alchemical authors as well as of philosophers, such as the pre-Socratics, Plato, and
Page 16 of 26

Aristotle. However, the agreement among the doctrines of Aristotle and Plato on a single
object of research is also a common topos of Neoplatonic exegesis.
3.3 Philosophy and Alchemy: The Case of Olympiodorus
Although one can spot among Greek alchemists the influence of the philosophy of their
period, testimonies about alchemy are rare in the writings of contemporary philosophers.
Thus, even if one can perceive many similarities in the alchemical commentary of
Olympiodorus with the commentary on the Meteorology, as well as with other texts of
Olympiodorus the Neoplatonist, in contrast, in the commentary on the Meteorology, there
is no explicit connection with the art of transmutation.
One may thus wonder what interest a Platonist philosopher like Olympiodorus could have
in alchemy.
One can overcome this impasse by noting that what we now mean by “alchemy” would
not be perceived in the same way in the period of Olympiodorus and Stephanus. When we
talk about alchemy, we immediately think of transmutation, of knowledge defined and
characterized by a precisely determined goal, the transformation of lead into gold, and so
forth. Indeed, while this may be true for alchemy during the Middle Ages, Western and
Arabic, the boundaries of this knowledge would have seemed much more fluid in the
Greco-Alexandrian world.
First, the proper name of this knowledge, “al-chemia,” is an Arabic term consisting of the
article “al” and a Greek word of uncertain etymology, “chēmeia, chumeia.” This is also a
late term, used by the Byzantines. We saw that on one occasion Stephanus employed it.
The Byzantine lexicon Suda (10th century) defines “chēmeia” as the art of making money
and gold (Χ–280). As we have seen, the authors speak instead of the “divine art,” of the
“great science,” of “philosophy.” Its scope is not only the production of gold and of
precious metals, or the path of self-transformation, but the primary recipes also concern
the coloring of stones and fabrics, that is, the production of pigments. Hence the use of a
repertory of organic and inorganic substances and processes that affect matter and
matter’s transformations. The revolutionary concept—revolutionary in the Greek world—
of transmutation is absent from the first “technical” treatises, but it appears in the more
philosophical authors such as Zosimos (4th century), and then in the commentators.
And even among those authors who speak of transmutation, there are also concrete
substances and clearly identifiable procedures, which are in no way mysterious or
(p. 958) metaphysical. This is the case with the descriptions of the distillation devices of
Zosimus, whose ambix (a term that will, via Arabic “al-anbīq,” give us the well-known
“alembic”), or as we shall see later, the recipe for making “black bronze” found in
fragments of Zosimos in Syriac, or Olympiodorus’ description of “maceration” and the
phases of extraction and washing of gold ore.
Page 17 of 26

It is therefore understandable that Olympiodorus, the commentator on the Meteorologica,

could be interested in these texts we group in the category of Greek alchemy, to fill out
his commentary and update the Aristotelian data, especially those of book 4 about craft
skills. For example, Olympiodorus mentions glass artisans (On Aristotle’s ‘Meteorology’,
p. 331.1 Stüve), while Aristotle never mentions artisanal glass. Olympiodorus describes
techniques of purifying and refining metal, effecting a separation of metal from its
impurities, primarily of an earthy nature, or of one metal from another, as in the case of
silver and gold. In particular, he explains the metaphorical “boiling” of gold in
Meteorology 4.3 (380b29), in terms of a technique that has been identified with
“cupellation” (which involved separating the metals by an oxidation, during which the
impurities were absorbed in part by the cup into which the mixture had been poured; p.
292 Stüve). It is interesting to note that for Olympiodorus, each metal is a different
species. Separation of silver and gold by heat is cited as an example of the fact that heat
unites things of the same species (homoioeidē) but separates things of different species
(anomoioeidē) (pp. 274.38‒275.1 Stüve).
So, it is not absurd to suppose that Olympiodorus the commentator on Aristotle might
have wanted to go further and choose to comment on a work by one of the most
prominent authors of this science under construction, namely the Kat’energeian of
Zosimos of Panopolis, which probably was already itself a doxographic and protreptic
work on the foundations of alchemy.
That’s why Olympiodorus represents an emblematic case of Alexandrian alchemy and

constitutes a fundamental step in the epistemological identification of this fluid
knowledge and the transition from the chemistry of the Meteorology to alchemy. This
transition will in turn be theorized and formalized in the Middle Ages by authors such as
Albert the Great, Avicenna, and Averroes.
4. Conclusions: Methodological Questions;

Toward a Multidisciplinary Approach
Now we come to the second question posed: How should we study Byzantine alchemy?
What is the approach most consistent with its specific nature?
This question is crucial for all periods of the history of alchemy. But the period of the
commentators is privileged because it contains an explicit epistemological reflection on
an already established tradition. From this, one can envisage an interdisciplinary (p. 959)
approach, which can account, in a fruitful way, for the composite nature of the writings
and for the wealth of content that this tradition conveys.
4.1 A Fluid Manuscript Tradition
Page 18 of 26

The relationships among the three main manuscripts containing the alchemical corpus—
M, B, and A—have long been discussed. They indeed display important textual differences
in the number and in the organization of the texts they contain. The structure of M would
seem dictated by a theoretical choice, B would be more practical, and A would have both
features at once.
The tradition of Greek alchemical texts is “fluid,” meaning open to additions, alterations,
clarifications, rewrites, and updates. Like other practical scientific texts, these writings
were considered texts for use, as instruments to adapt to the latest discoveries and to the
experiments performed by their authors. Furthermore, various anthologies of alchemical
texts circulating in the Byzantine period were the sources of the chief manuscripts and
were the explanation for their composite nature, as well as differences in presentation
and elaboration of the same material. However, this situation calls for a revision and
adaptation of the usual criteria of philology, because one is dealing with a literature sui
generis whose contents evolve over time. Indeed it has to do not with reconstituting a
unitary text in its original form out of the manuscript transmission, as could be done for a
treatise of Aristotle or a dialogue of Plato, but with understanding the reasons for the
choices, presentations, and taxonomies adopted in different witnesses, which precisely
reflects the ongoing constitution of alchemical knowledge. Therefore, the choice to
provide a “broad” critical apparatus, as recent editors of Greek alchemical texts have
chosen to do, based on the principal manuscripts, on the indirect tradition of testimonia,
and on parallel passages in the alchemical corpus, as well as on the Syriac versions, is
fundamental. Now, these two characteristics of the manuscript tradition of alchemical
texts, fluidity and anthological character, paradoxically seem to reduce the importance of
the question of relationships and mutual dependence of manuscripts, since each witness
has its own scientific value and history just as much as do each treatise or group of
treatises.
4.2. Composite Knowledge, Varied Competences
We have already noted that the nature of the Greco-Alexandrian alchemical knowledge
appears undeniably twofold: theoretical and practical. It comprises texts and recipes that
concern at once mystical, physical, and cosmological ideas, and the production of
concrete and historically identifiable objects, such as working and coloring of metals,
fabrics, and precious stones. So, it concerns not just the ideal goal, dreamed of and never
attained, of aurifaction, that is to say the production of gold out of other metals. The
earliest texts are probably artisan’s notebooks, published in the milieu of the goldsmiths
(p. 960) of the Egyptian pharaohs. That is why we can consider Greek alchemy as a
domain shared between the history of philosophy and of religion, between philology and
the history of science and technology, a composite subject that therefore demands
sharing of many competences, not only theoretical and historical but also practical and
technical, in direct contact with matter, such as archeology, metallurgy, and chemistry
that studies the materials and their transformations by artistic processes.
Page 19 of 26

On this point, I would like to cite two recent and emblematic examples of the fertility of
an interdisciplinary collaboration among philologists, historians, archaeologists, and
chemists around a common object of study.
The first consists of the recipe for making “black bronze” found in fragments of Zosimos
in Syriac (Cambridge Manuscript Mm.6.29). This is the only ancient recipe that we have
for this famous and mysterious “black bronze” of Corinth, prized by the Romans and
mentioned by Pliny (34.8), which is a real head-scratcher for archaeologists and chemists
who have long wondered about the link between the allusions of the classical authors and
some objects in museums that have an amazing black patina. Modern laboratory analyses
reconstructed the history of this technique, which involved enriching a copper alloy with
a small amount of gold and/or silver, which then enabled, via a chemical surface
treatment, the formation of an artificial black patina that was particularly shiny and
served to emphasize the beauty of the metallic decorations. The Syriac recipes of Zosimos
are the only ancient recipes for this technique that have survived, and their reproduction
could provide the key to this process, on the condition of a very close cooperation with
philologists to decipher the texts.
The second example concerns the first lines of commentary of Olympiodorus on the
Kat’energeian of Zosimos, speaking about “maceration” (taricheia), the paradigmatic
operation of processing gold ore, involving several stages. Here Olympiodorus
commented on the passage of Zosimos regarding the operation of extracting flakes of
gold ore, through “maceration” (taricheia) and “washing” (plusis) (1–7), followed by the
description of “soldering” (chrysocolla) the gold (8–11), which is collecting the gold
particles obtained into a homogeneous body. These two specific operations, separation
and reunion, are here interpreted as allegories of the transmutation of metals but, in fact,
the exegesis of Olympiodorus, beyond a number of obscurities, seems essentially
technical and refers to real processes concerning the steps, the times, the tools, and the
phases of the operation of levigating gold ore.
Now among nonalchemical testimonies, these technical stages of ore extraction and its
processing up to its transformation into gold are described in detail by the geographer
Agatharchides, tutor to Ptolemy III (2nd century BCE), who left a vivid account of the
activities of the gold mines in the Eastern Desert (Diodorus 3.12.1–14.5; Strabo 16.4.5–
20, and Photius, Library, 250). This testimony is not entirely outside the corpus since we
find an abstract in the alchemical manuscript Marcianus 229 (folii 138–141).
The precise descriptions of Agatharchides on the four fundamental technical operations

of ore processing—crushing, grinding, washing, (or levigating), and refining—allow
confirmation that the passage from Olympiodorus referred to real procedures, long-
established and which would form the fundamental technical basis against which (p. 961)
alchemists developed their theoretical reflection, both in theorizing methodological
principles and in the allegories of transmutation.
Page 20 of 26

But there is also another very recent and concrete testimony on the procedure for
extracting and washing the gold ore, which represents another element of crucial
importance for reconstructing the operations of the Greek alchemists. These are the
results of excavations in Egypt in 2013 at the gold-mining sites of the Ptolemaic period
(late 4th to mid-3rd century BCE) at Samut, by the French mission in the Eastern Desert
(Brun et al. 2013).
The great clarity of the surface remains revealed facilities illustrating different stages of
the work: first the mechanical phase of the sorting; crushing blocks of gold-bearing
quartz; transformation into “flour” (powdered ore) by mills; then the washing phase, in
washing basins, for separating the metal particles to melt; and finally the metallurgical
phase of refining on site, shown by the presence of an oven.
The testimony of Agatharchides was essential in interpreting the remains of these

facilities. Indeed, the four basic technical operations of transforming ore after its exit
from the mine that he described, crushing, grinding, washing, and refining, have been
located on the site.
By putting together the pieces of this puzzle, we can advance a hypothetical

reconstruction of what Olympiodorus tells us in his commentary, and we can show that
Olympiodorus, or Zosimos, refer to concrete and real operations.
These two examples illustrate well the fecundity and the necessity of applying a
multidisciplinary approach to the Greek alchemical texts.
Indeed, on one hand, the appeal to other disciplines and evidence, whether literary,
archaeological, or chemical, allows us to interpret the alchemical texts. On the other,
alchemical texts shed light on the historical and archaeological investigations.
In the current state of research in this area, it appears essential to continue research on a
multidisciplinary front and enhance the systematic and positive side of alchemy, which is
legitimate because the ancient authors often opposed natural and rational research as a
deceptive practice subject to the laws of chance and the will of demons.
Bibliography
Texts
Albini, Francesca, ed., Michele Psello, La Crisopea: ovvero come fabbricare l’oro. Genova:
Edizioni culturali internazionali, 1988.
Bidez, Joseph, Franz Cumont, J. L. Heiberg, and Otto Lagercrantz, ed. Catalogue des
manuscrits alchimiques grecs. 8 vols. Bruxelles: Lamertin, 1924–1932.
Page 21 of 26

Berthelot, Marcellin, and C.-É. Ruelle. [CAAG]. Collection des anciens alchimistes grecs. 3
vol. Paris: Steinheil, 1888–1889. Reprint Osnabrück: Otto Zeller Verlag, 1967. Vol. 1,
Introduction, by Berthelot; vol. 2, Greek texts; and vol. 3, French translations.
Colinet, Andrée, ed. Alchimistes grecs. Vol. 10: Anonyme de Zuretti. Paris: Les Belles
Lettres, 2000.
———, Alchimistes grecs. Vol. 11: Recettes alchimiques (Par. Gr. 2419; Holkhamicus 109)
—Cosmas le Hiéromoine—Chrysopée. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2010.
Goldschmidt, Günther. Heliodori carmina quattuor ad fidem codicis Cassellani.

(p. 962)
Giessen: Töpelmann, 1923.
Halleux, Robert. Alchimistes grecs. Vol. 1: Papyrus de Leyde, Papyrus de Stockholm,

Recettes. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1981.
Holmyard, Eric John, and Desmond C. Mandeville, ed. Avicennae De congelatione et

conglutinatione lapidum. Paris: Guethner, 1927. [See esp. 53–54.]
Irby-Massie, Georgia L., and Paul T. Keyser, eds. Greek Science of the Hellenistic Era: A
Sourcebook. New York: Routledge, 2002. [See pages 226–254.]
Ideler, J. L. Physici et medici graeci minores. 2 vols. Berlin: Reimer, 1841. Reprint
Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1963.
Jackson, Howard M. Zosimos of Panopolis: On the Letter Omega. Missoula, MT: Scholars’
Press, 1978.
Martelli, Matteo. Pseudo-Democrito, Scritti alchemici con il commentario di Sinesio.

Milano: Archè, and Paris: Société d’étude de l’histoire de l’alchimie, 2011.
———. The Four Books of pseudo-Democritus. Society for the History of Alchemy and
Chemistry. Wakefield: Maney, 2013.
Mertens, Michèle. Alchimistes grecs. Vol. 4: Zosime de Panopolis, Mémoires authentiques.

Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1995.
Papathanassiou, Maria K. Stephanos von Alexandreia und sein Alchemistisches Werk: Die
kritische Edition des griechischen Textes eingeschlossen. Athens: Cosmosware, 2017.
Taylor, F. Sherwood. “The Alchemical Works of Stephanus of Alexandria.” Ambix 1 (1937):

116–139, and 2 (1938): 39–49.
Page 22 of 26

Scholarly Literature
Entries in EANS: Agatharkhidēs, 40–41 (Burstein); Agathodaimōn, 43 (Hallum); Aineias of

Gaza, 48 (Karamanolis); Anonymous Alchemist Christianus, 87–88 (Viano); Anonymous
Alchemist Philosopher, 88 (Viano); Eugenios (Alch.); 316 (Viano); Hēliodōros (pseudo?) et
alii, 364 (Viano); Hērakleios Imp., 371 (Viano); Isis, 446 (Hallum); Kleopatra, 482 (de
Nardis); Maria, 531 (Hallum); Olumpiodōros of Alexandria (alch.), 589–590 (Viano);
Ostanēs, 599–600 (Panaino); Pammenēs, 605–606 (Hallum); Pēbikhios or Pibēkhios, 632
(Hallum); Pelagios, 633 (Viano); Stephanus of Alexandria (Alch.); 760–761 (Viano);
Sunesios, 769 (Viano); Zosimos of Panopolis, 852–853 (Hallum).
Bacchi, E., and Matteo Martelli, “Il principe Halid bin Yazid e le origini dell’alchimia
araba.” In Conflitti e dissensi nell’Islâm, ed. Daniele Cevenini and Svevo D’Onofrio, 85–
120. Bologna: Il Ponte, 2009.
Bain, David. “Melanitis gê. An Unnoticed Greek Name for Egypt: New Evidence for the
Origins and Etymology of Alchemy.” In The World of Ancient Magic, ed. David R. Jordan,
Hugo Montgomery, and Einar Thomassen, 221–222. Bergen: Norwegian Institute at
Athens, 1999.
Berthelot, Marcellin. Les origines de l’alchimie. Paris: Steinheil, 1885.
———. Introduction à l’étude de la chimie des anciens et du moyen âge. Paris: Steinheil,
1889.
Brun, Jean-Pierre, Jean-Paul Deroin, Thomas Faucher, Bérangère Redon, and Florian
Téreygeol. “Les mines d’or ptolémaïques: résultats des prospections dans le district
minier de Samut (désert Oriental).” Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale
113 (2013): 111–142.
Descamps-Lequime, Sophie, with Marc Aucouturier and François Mathis. “L’encrier de

Vaison-la-Romaine et la patine volontaire des bronzes antiques.” Monuments et Mémoires
de la Fondation Eugène Piot 84 (2005): 5–30.
Festugière, A.-J. La Révélation d’Hermès Trismégiste. Vol. 1: L’astrologie et les

(p. 963)
sciences occultes. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1944; 3rd ed. Paris: Lecoffre, 1950; nouvelle
édition Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2014.
Giumlia-Mair, Alessandra, ed. I bronzi antichi: produzione e tecnologia (Atti del XV

Congresso internazionale sui bronzi antichi, Grado-Aquileia 2001) = Monographies
Instrumentum 21. Montagnac: Editions Monique Mergoil, 2002.
———. “Zosimos the Alchemist—Manuscript 6.29, Cambridge, Metallurgical

interpretation.” In Giumlia-Mair 2002, 317–323.
Page 23 of 26

Halleux, Robert. “L’affinage de l’or, de Crésus aux premiers alchimistes.” Janus 62 (1975):
79–102.
———. Les textes alchimiques. Turnhout: Brepols, 1979.
———. “Méthode d’essai et d’affinage des alliages aurifères dans l’Antiquité et au Moyen-
âge.” In L’or monnayé I: Purification et altérations de Rome à Byzance, ed. Cécile
Morrisson et alii = Cahiers Ernest Babelon 2, 39–77. Paris: CNRS, 1985.
Hershbell, J. P. “Democritus and the Beginnings of Greek Alchemy.” Ambix 34 (1987): 5–

20.
Holmyard, Eric John. Alchemy: The Story of the Fascination of Gold and the Attempts of
Chemists. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1957. Reprint New York: Dover, 1990.
Hopkins, Arthur J. “Transmutation by Color. A Study of Earliest Alchemy.” In Studien zur

Geschichte der Chemie: Festgabe E. O. von Lippmann, ed. Julius Ruska, 9–14. Berlin:
Springer, 1927.
———. Alchemy, Child of Greek Philosophy. New York: Columbia University Press, 1934.
Hunter, E. C. D. “Beautiful Black Bronzes: Zosimos’ Treatises in Cam. Mm.6.29.” In

Giumlia-Mair 2002, 655–660.
Jung, Carl Gustav. “Einige Bemerkungen zu den Visionen des Zosimos.” Eranos Jahrbuch
5 (1937): 15–54.
Kahn, Didier, and Sylvain Matton, eds. Alchimie: Art, histoire et mythes. Paris: Société
d’étude de l’histoire de l’alchimie, and Milano: Archè, 1995 = Textes et travaux de
Chrysopœia 1.
Lindsay, Jack. The Origins of Alchemy in Graeco-Roman Egypt. London: Muller, 1970.
Magdalino, Paul, and Maria Mavroudi, eds. The Occult Sciences in Byzantium. Genève: La
Pomme d’or, 2006.
Martelli, Matteo. “‘Divine Water’ in the Alchemical Writings of Pseudo-Democritus.”

Ambix 56 (2009): 5–22.
Mertens, Michèle. “Graeco-Egyptian Alchemy in Byzantium.” In Magdalino and Mavroudi

2006, 205–230.
———. “Zosimos of Panopolis.” In New Dictionary of Scientific Biography, ed. Noretta

Koertge, vol. 7, 405–408. Detroit: Scribner’s and Thomson-Gale, 2008.
Needham, Joseph. Science and Civilisation in China. Vol. 5.2. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1974.
Page 24 of 26

Newman, William R., and Lawrence M. Principe. “Some Problems with the Historiography
of Alchemy.” In Secrets of Nature: Astrology and Alchemy in Early Modern Europe, ed.
William R. Newman and Anthony Grafton, 385–432. Cambridge, MA, London: MIT Press,
2006.
Papathanassiou, Maria K. “L’œuvre alchimique de Stéphanos d’Alexandrie: structures et

transformations de la matière, unité et pluralité.” In Viano 2005, 113–133.
———. “Stephanos of Alexandria: A Famous Byzantine Scholar, Alchemist and Astrologer.”

In Magdalino and Mavroudi 2006, 163–204.
Principe, Lawrence M. The Secret of Alchemy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

2013.
Saffrey, H.-D. “Historique et description du Marcianus 299.” In Kahn and Matton 1995, 1–
10.
Viano, Cristina. “Olympiodore, l’alchimistes et les Présocratiques: une

(p. 964)
doxographie de l’unité (De arte sacra, sec. 18‒27).” In Kahn and Matton 1995, 95–150.
———, ed. L’alchimie et ses racines philosophiques. La tradition grecque et la tradition

arabe. Paris: Vrin, 2005.
———. La matière des choses. Le livre IV des Météorologiques d’Aristote, et son

interprétation par Olympiodore, avec le texte grec révisé et une traduction inédite de son
Commentaire au Livre IV. Paris: Vrin, 2006.
———. “Les alchimistes gréco-alexandrins et leur savoir: la transmutation entre théorie,

pratique et ‘expérience.’” In Expertus sum: L’expérience par les sens dans la philosophie
naturelle médiévale = Micrologus’ Library 40, ed. Thomas Bénatouïl and Isabelle
Draelants, 223–238. Firenze: SISMEL Edizioni del Galluzzo, 2011.
———. “Une substance, deux natures: les alchimistes grecs et le principe de la

transmutation.” Dualismes: Doctrines religieuses et traditions philosophiques, ed. F.
Jourdan et A. Vasiliu. Chôra, Hors-série (2015): 309–325.
Vickers, B. “The Discrepancy Between res and verba in Greek Alchemy.” In Alchemy
Revisited. Proceedings of the International Conference on the History of Alchemy at the
University of Groningen, 17‒19 April 1989, ed. Z. R. W. M. von Martels, 21–33. Leiden:
Brill, 1990.
Wellmann, Max. Die Physika des Bolos Demokritos und der Magier Anaxilaos aus Larissa.
In Abhandlungen der Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Phil. Hist. Klasse),
1928, #7.
Wilson, C. Anne. “Philosophers, Iôsis and Water of Life.” Proceedings of the Leeds
Philosophical and Literary Society (Lit. and Hist. Sect.) 19 (1984): 101–219.
Page 25 of 26

Cristina Viano
Cristina Viano, Centre Léon Robin, CNRS, Université de Paris IV - Sorbonne, Paris,
France
Page 26 of 26

Byzantine Alchemy or The Era of Systemat

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Byzantine Alchemy or The Era of Systemat

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Byzantine Alchemy or The Era of Systemat

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Byzantine Alchemy, or the Era of Systematization

Oxford Handbooks Online

Abstract and Keywords

Keywords: Aristotle, Heliodorus, mercury, Olympiodorus, Stephanus, Synesius, transmutation, Zosimus

1. Introduction: Byzantine Egypt and the

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

In this bustling atmosphere, Greek alchemy experiences a crucial moment in its

This period is characterized indeed by a generation of “commentators” tied to the

We are witnessing a genuine process of defining and systematizing alchemical doctrine

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

2. The Protagonists and the Question of

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

chemical recipes of the Physika and mystika attributed to “Democritus” (1st–2nd

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

Synesius is the author of a commentary on the Physika kai mystika of pseudo-Democritus

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

Democritus’ oath to reveal nothing clearly to anyone is explained in the sense

As we will see in other authors, Synesius presents a natural conception of alchemy: it is

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

Let’s start with the Neoplatonic philosopher. Olympiodorus, pupil of Ammonius,

The work of Olympiodorus is a rich source of information on cultural conditions and

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

doxographical. He explicitly claims that Greek philosophy, including pre-Socratic

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

We saw that in the corpus of Greek alchemists, Stephanus is mentioned with

Berthelot characterized the commentaries of Synesius and Olympiodorus as “mystical

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

2.4 The Christian Philosopher, the Anonymous Philosopher, and the

As in other “commentators,” these two anonymous works present themselves as

Berthelot records a dozen fragments of the Christian Philosopher, which concern

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

The “Anonymous” presents a doxography on the “prime ministers” of aurifaction. He

In particular, the Anonymous examines the mixture of substances by liquid means,

3. The Alchemists and Their Knowledge

3.1 Transmutation and Its Principles

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

(p. 955) 3.2 The Discipline and Its Method

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

Stephanus also designates this discipline as chēmeia and distinguishes it as

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

We can now summarize some characteristics of the alchemical literature of the

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

3.3 Philosophy and Alchemy: The Case of Olympiodorus

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

It is therefore understandable that Olympiodorus, the commentator on the Meteorologica,

That’s why Olympiodorus represents an emblematic case of Alexandrian alchemy and

4. Conclusions: Methodological Questions;

4.1 A Fluid Manuscript Tradition

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

4.2. Composite Knowledge, Varied Competences

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

The precise descriptions of Agatharchides on the four fundamental technical operations

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018

The testimony of Agatharchides was essential in interpreting the remains of these

By putting together the pieces of this puzzle, we can advance a hypothetical

Subscriber: OUP-Reference Gratis Access; date: 01 October 2018