Y.

T z v i L a n g e r m a n n

An Alchemical Treatise Attributed to Joseph Solomon Delmedigo

1. The Manuscript
The treatise is found in New York JTS, MS 2320, fols. 17b-20b. I am planning to publish the entire text, having been granted permission to do so by the library of the Jewish Theological Seminary; I am grateful for their cooperation. I first identified the treatise while cataloguing scientific manuscripts for the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts in Jerusalem; as far as I know, I was the first to notice it. Note that the other items bound together with this treatise have nothing in common with it; MS 2320 is not a true codex, that is, a collection of works copied by the same scribe, and/or dealing with related topics, but a very diverse collection of texts that were bound together purely for the sake of preservation and convenience. The alchemical tract, written in a late Italian hand, is ascribed to Joseph Solomon Delmedigo. It certainly is not Delmedigos autograph, as Delmedigos name is followed by a traditional Hebrew R.I.P. I shall discuss the very problematic ascription to Delmedigo in the final section of this paper. According to the table of contents at the beginning, the treatise has ten chapters; however, only five are to be found in the unique copy. The incipit and table of contents are as follows:

Al e p h 13 . 1 (2 0 1 3 ) p p . 7 7 - 9 4

77

Y. T z v i L a n g e r m a n n

This book comprises ten parts. It was written by the comprehensive scholar, the honorable rabbi Joseph Solomon Delmedigo, R.I.P., and in it are ten parts. Chapter One: On knowing the quiddity of the stone from which the elixir of the philosophers is generated. Chapter Two: On the oneness of the stone and its distinction from other units [monads?]. Chapter Three: On the quality of the stone and what is unique to it as far as the species of quality are concerned. Chapter Four: On the weights of the stone that is sought after, [with regard to?] that which is called weight in the words of the philosophers. Chapter Five: On the fire of the stone, its species and the individuals belonging to its species. Chapter Six: On the root of the stone, and by means of what thing its parts are made smaller. Chapter Seven: On liquefying the stone and molding it. Chapter Eight: On raising the dry part of the stone and separating its thin from its thick. Chapter Nine: On purifying the parts of the stone, until it is cleansed from the filth of its impurity. Chapter Ten: On compounding the elixir and the beginning of its generation and perfection. The tract exhibits clear traces of the authors knowledge of Arabic; in fact, it seems that he not only read Arabic, but thought in Arabic. Here is the evidence. The name of the semi-legendary alchemist Jabir bin Hayyan is transcribed accurately () , including each one of the long vowelsa rare phenomenon, indeed. Elsewhere, wishing to adut. use the term for unification, he writes in Hebrew , itah adut; but it seems that the The correct Hebrew form is of course hitah
78

author was thinking in Arabic, of the mas dar in the eighth conjugation, a d, which he then Hebraized as . Many Arabic names for ittih material substances are recorded in the tract: al-u d, al-anbar, al-misk, zafra n, us fur, al-lakh, and so on. Of special interest is the etymology that our author suggests for the critical technical term elixir (Arabic: al-iksr)though we must also point out that he writes it in Hebrew with a qu f rather than a ka f. According to him, the elixir derives its name from its property of breaking up the deficient forms and restoring them to their perfection (fol. 18a). In Arabic this makes sense, since the verb kasara means to break, to break up. Scholars now believe that the term elixir derives from the Greek , meaning medicinal powder.1 However, exactly the same etymology that our author proposes is found in later Arabic alchemists, most notably in the work of their most important representative, the Egyptian Izz al-Dn Aydamar bin Al al-Jildak (d. ca. 1342). As we shall see, there are other strong links between the treatise under examination here and the system of al-Jildak.2

Signposts for Locating MS JTS 2320 within the History of Alchemy

In my view, the first task to be undertaken in the study of this text is identification of the distinctive characteristics that may serve to

1 2

William J. Wilson, An Alchemical Manuscript by Arnaldus of Bruxella, Osiris 2 (1936): 220405, on p. 291. On al-Jildak, see Manfred Ullmann, Die Natur- und Geheimwissenschaften in Islam (Leiden: Brill, 1972), pp. 237242 and the literature cited there, as well as the following notes in this paper. Ullmann cites this same etymology from one of the works of al-Jildak (p. 258 n. 9).

79

Y. T z v i L a n g e r m a n n

place the text in its proper historical setting. In this enterprise I sense strongly the lack of any comprehensive history of alchemy, one that singles out the salient features of the alchemies practiced or studied in different cultural settings and in different epochs. The best that I can do now is to provide a list of opinions, statements, and the like that I have extracted from the text. These stand out in being different from the usual run of ideas I have seen in the alchemical texts that I have studied, and thus seem promising for the task that I have set for myself. Their presentation as bullet-points is meant only to highlight the preliminary nature of my report; I hope that these items will serve as signposts towards the eventual contextualization of the tract. The definition of the subject (nose ) of the art, which is to look into the accidents that prevent metals from attaining the ultimate degree, which is the status of gold. From this it follows that gold is a subject for alchemy only accidentally, since gold has already attained the ultimate degree and there is no need to inquire as to what prevents it from getting there. Moreover, gold is not an elixir, since an elixir acts upon substances in order to restore them to gold; but gold has no capacity to transform other materials into gold. It is like dyeing clothand this is an ancient analogy, tracing back to the beginnings of the art: a dyed cloth cannot dye another piece of cloth. Only an active dye can do this. The elixir dyes as well; when other metals are transformed into gold, their color changes, too. Nevertheless, there is an important distinction between the action of the elixir and the action of a dye. The elixir dyes by means of form, not by means of matter, as does, for example, the dye saffron. Therefore, there is no connection between the power of the elixir and its volume. In this very distinctive claim as well, the theory of our text agrees with that of al-Jildak.3 Interestingly, it is in the course of discussing these points that our author (again, Delmedigo, supposedly) launches a severe attack on those who think otherwise:
80

For this reason they said that color and perfection are the same. It is not in the color of saffron or al-us fa, as the stupid, blind, incenseofferers(? meqat t erim) think. Their intellect is like that of beasts. Indeed, beasts are better than they are, for the Blessed Creator determined that it be so [for beasts], but He gave to them intellect and understanding, in order that they intellectualize and represent well the truth to their intellects. But they corrupted themselves, and transformed themselves from human to beastly. Wisdoms quest to restore the deficient metals to the silvery and golden form means the same thing as the saying of Galen (whose name is given in the standard Arabic form, Jalnu s), that the soul always follows upon and is subsequent to the temperament of the body.4 Here is one indication among many that the author regards alchemy as one of the natural sciences, and for that reason Galens dictum applies. Interestingly enough, Jabir rejects this very same maxim.5 Another indication: I say that its art is one and its works are natural. It cannot be the case that the stone possesses many different arts from all of which the desired request is attained. For the natural action in one thing can only be one. ad (one) is used ambiguously, [being Know that the noun eh
3 See the invaluable thesis by M. Taslimi, An Examination of the Nihayat al-Talab and the Determination of its Place and Value in the History of Islamic Chemistry, Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, 1953, p. 549. 4 In fact, Galen wrote a whole book on this doctrine: See Hans Hinrich Biesterfeldt, Galens Traktat Dass die Krfte der Seele den Mischungen des Krpers folgen in arabischer bersetzung, Abhandlungen fr die Kunde des Morgenlandes 40(4) (1973). 5 Paul Kraus, Ja bir Ibn H ayya n. Contribution lhistoire des ides scientifiques dans lIslam. Ja bir et la science grecque (= Mmoires prsents lInstitut dEgypte, vol.

45) (Cairo, 1945 [repr. Paris: Belles Lettres, 1986; Hildesheim: Olms, 1989]), p. 330.

81

Y. T z v i L a n g e r m a n n

employed] for separate things, as when you say Reuben and Simon; and one speaks of a generic one, as when you say man; or a relative, relational (?) one, [i.e.?] an animal; or an artificial one, like the theriac; or a natural one, like the limbs of an animal; or a congregational one, as when you speak of a camp; and other sorts of one. However, the oneness of the stone is nothing if not generic. Discussions of the different meanings of one are found in medieval philosophical literature;6 however, a discussion of this sort, and, most remarkably, the decision that the one applied to the philosophers stone is the generic one, is found in the work of al-Jildak. 7 This is an additional and significant point of contact between our tract and the alchemy of al-Jildak. Another term possessing a variety of meanings is miqal, weight. In fact, this is one of the most important technical terms in the treatise, and the fourth chapter is devoted to its exposition. According to the author, the general public thinks that the term refers only to the stones, coins, and other things used to weigh out materials in other arts, but they are wrong. In the art of alchemy, the term has other meanings. Sometimes the philosophers do use weight when speaking of quantities, but it is also (and presumably, more significantly) used to denote equality or balance; the same word may also be used to refer to an active form. Another very important but highly idiosyncratic term is zawit, angle. The term is mentioned in the French version of the Turba Philosophorum and in Epistola Rasis, an alchemical work attributed to Abu Bakr al-Ra z that circulated with the Turba.8 However, it seems that the term, and the concept behind it, play a much more significant role in our text. Here are some of the ways in which it is used. In addition to the four (Empedoclean) elements that are found in all composite bodies, the philosophers stone has three additional components, or forces, which are called angles: It possesses three additional forces. One is from the soul, its special property is the color,
82

and it is the matter and angle of the elixireal form. After it, the second angle, which is the spirit that bears the soul, and is its hiding place; it reaches to the ends of the minerals. After it, the third angle, which is body (geem) and matter. In fact, the philosophers stone has seven angles, since the four elements are also called angles. Making the elixir is similar to the manufacture of soap. In both processes, an inert and inanimate material undergoes a chemical change that transforms it into an active agent. Our author summarizes, For this reason they said that whoever does not know the art should go and learn the art of soap [production]. The elixir is not a panacea: It is not possible that the elixir heals every deficient thing in the world, as the fools think. They erred in ayya n and others. Indeed, [understanding] the words of Ja bir bin H many have thought that Ja bir regarded the elixir as a panacea, and stories circulated about his curing every illness with it.9

See Y. Tzvi Langermann, A Different Hue to Medieval Jewish Philosophy: Four Investigations into an Unstudied Philosophical Text, in Studies in the History of Culture and Science, a Tribute to Gad Freudenthal, ed. Resianne Fontaine, Ruth Glasner, Reimund Leicht, and Giuseppe Veltri (Leiden: Brill, 2011), pp. 7189, on. 7677, and the additional references in n. 11.

7 8

See Taslimi, An Examination of the Nihayat al-Talab, pp. 253256. Didier Kahn, The Turba Philosophorum and its French Version (15th c.), in Chymia, Science and Nature in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, ed. Miguel Lpez Prez, Didier Kahn, and Mar Rey Bueno (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2010), pp. 70114, on 103104. I am very grateful to one of the referees of this paper for this reference.

Paul Kraus, Studien zu Ja bir ibn H ayya n, repr. in idem, Alchemie, Ketzerei, Apokryphen im frhen Islam: Gesammelte Aufstze, ed. Rmi Brague (Hildesheim: Olms, 1994), pp. 6163. The Arabic text has been edited by Ursula Weisser, Sirr al-khal qa wa-s anat al-t ab a (Aleppo, 1979).

83

Y. T z v i L a n g e r m a n n

We have already taken notice of two authorities acknowledged in our treatise, Jabir and Galen. A third one is mentioned as well, Aristotle. However, our author ascribes to Aristotle a book called The Secret of Creation (Sod ha-yes irah). This seems to be none other than the book known in Arabic as Sirr al-khal qa, which is always attributed to Apollonius of Tyana, or Balnas as his name appears in Arabic. This Apollonius is one of the godfathers of alchemy, and Paul Kraus devoted a whole chapter of his landmark study to him.10 But in our treatise, this work is attributed to Aristotle: The discourse on this was completed by the scholar Aristotle in his book which is called The Secret of Creation. One ought to add that Sirr al-khal qa offers a comprehensive series of explanations of natural phenomena, on the basis of the elements and natural forces that are at play within them. As Kraus points out, there is a partial overlap between the theories of Apollonius and Aristotle.11 Like so many other alchemists, our author often calls the art a secret (so d). However, he specifies just what sort of secret he has in mind, and the additional details are noteworthy. According to him, the secret language of the alchemists is like the codes used by other artisans when communicating with members of the same profession, or (by implication the same sort of thing), the secret language used by lovers between themselves. Here are his words: Look and see oeqim [how codes are used] for something else, for example, lovers (h oeqot) have strange and odd hints, and messages that they send we-h to one another. From these strange words they understand their meaning and what is in their hearts, for example, al-u d, al-anbar, al-misk, apples, salt, and coal. The lover must know the meaning of each thing. How many arts are there whose items and tools (?) have hidden and closed names for those who employ them, such that only those practicing the same art can understand them. Others will not understand their words.12
84

In Search of the Proper Context

Before we even attempt to suggest a proper context or contexts, it seems necessary to address as briefly as possible the extremely difficult question of the proper approach to the history of alchemy. I will skip over the question whether or not the historian of science ought to pay attention to the so-called pseudo-sciences. That issue has been dealt with adequately, especially in connection to the history of astrology, and a clear consensus has emerged that no body of knowledge should be excluded from the historians gaze simply because today that body of knowledge is considered by most to be frivolous nonsense.13 Nor shall I take up the problem (at least some scholars viewed it as problematical) of squaring Delmedigos (should he prove to be the author) enthusiasm for alchemy with his involvement in the new science of his period, including the theories of Copernicus, Galileo, and others. In the same vein, one may question his interest in kabbalah, Karaism, and other bodies of knowledge. Questions of this sort did trouble Isaac Barzilay, but David Ruderman has responded to them adequately.14 I have
10 Kraus, Ja bir, pp. 270303 11 Ibid, p. 276. 12 (!) (!) 13 By way of example, I refer to the short, strong, and no-nonsense statement on the part of the greatest historian of ancient astronomy and astrology, Otto Neugebauer, The Study of Wretched Subjects, Isis 42 (1951): 11. 14 David B. Ruderman, Jewish Thought and Scientific Discovery in Early Modern Europe (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1995), chapter four. Looking at the issue from the other direction, I see no intrinsic or strong historical connection between kabbalah and alchemy; so Delmedigos interest in kabbalah does not in any way argue for his authorship of the tract under study here.

85

Y. T z v i L a n g e r m a n n

never seen there to be a real issue here; I have never had any reason to think that Delmedigo (or other thinkers of an earlier epoch and different culture) necessarily classified bodies of knowledge, and drew boundaries between them, the way many people do today. However, the problems with the history of alchemy do not end with the recognition of its legitimacy as a field of study. Alchemy took on many different and diverse forms in the ancient world, Byzantium, medieval Islam, India, China, and medieval and early modern Europe, over the ages. The opinion of scholars concerning its characterization is no less diverse. Some see it as proto-chemistry, that is, a science whose task is to develop techniques for the transformation of materials. Others see it as a branch of philosophy or religious thought; the transformation of metals is a metaphor for the transformation of the persons inner self.15 Suffice it to recall the important contributions to the history of alchemy by two leading intellectuals of the twentieth century, neither of whom was a historian of science: the psychologist Carl Gustav Jung and the historian of religion, Mircea Eliade. Jung came to alchemy almost by accident, when he noticed a similarity between the structures of dreams that he heard from his patients, on the one hand, and the alchemical literature, on the other. This motivated him to carry on his own investigations into the history of alchemy, especially ChristianLatin alchemy; he went on to study unpublished manuscripts, and his work in this field is still not without value. Eliade for his part approached the field as an anthropologist studying the sacralization of techniques that gave to humankind power over natural substances. In the introduction to the second edition of his widely read monograph on alchemy, Eliade voices his satisfaction that his work was wellreceived by historians of science, even though his approach is very different from theirs.16 Scholars are not always forthcoming in their praise for the contribution of nonspecialists; the warm acceptance given to Eliades book is, so I think, one way of acknowledging the
86

inherent difficulties of the history of alchemy and the need for some new perspectives.17 More recently, William R. Newman has been working hard to get the history of alchemy (or chymistry as he sometimes prefers to call it) onto an entirely new footing. Newman views alchemy as an experimental science founded on an atomistic, or corpuscular, theory of matter. These two featuresexperimentalism and atomismdistinguish alchemy from Aristotelianism and award it a place of honor on the Scientific Revolution. Newman scoffs at the view that alchemy is spiritual.18 These are some of the great issues that must be grappled with by anyone wishing to construct a new narrative for the history of alchemy and to find for it a new and hopefully more suitable place within the collective human cultural achievement. My research has never set itself such lofty targets; my much more modest project has been to study each alchemical treatise separately, aiming to flesh out

15 The present discussion is based largely on the very fine survey by George-Florin Cal ian, Alkimia Operativa and Alkimia Speculativa: Some Modern Controversies on the Historiography of Alchemy, Annual of Medieval Studies at CEU (Central European University, Budapest, Department of Medieval Studies) 16 (2010): 166190. 16 Mircea Eliade, The Forge and the Crucible: The Origins and Structures of Alchemy, 2nd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978). 17 In retrospect, I think that for the same reason scholarsmyself includedmight have been more receptive to the book by Raphael Patai, The Jewish Alchemists: A History and Source Book (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994) which, for all of its shortcomings, is still a useful compendium. 18 William R. Newman, Atoms and Alchemy: Chymistry and the Experimental Origins of the Scientific Revolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006). In a forthcoming study I examine Delmedigos engagement with atomism; as far as I can see, that chapter in his thought is of no help in determining whether he is the author of the tract under discussion.

87

Y. T z v i L a n g e r m a n n

its distinguishing characteristics. I have in fact seen alchemical tracts that contain nothing more than chemical or metallurgical techniques, and others that unmistakably convey a metaphor for human spiritual transformation. So how to characterize the alchemical text under examination here, ascribed to Delmedigo? I have already called attention to the authors insistence that the art is an inseparable part of natural philosophy. The tract emphasizes the regularity of (what we would call) chemical transformation, or its submission to laws of natural processes. Pressing this line of inquiry, we may say that the view that gold is the highest realization for a metal is not out of harmony with the Aristotelian view that material objects will seek to actualize their potential; external factors may (most usually do) prevent them from reaching the maximum of their entelechy. The purpose of the stone is to remove those factors preventing the metal from realizing itself as gold. When necessary, the stone will dissolve an unsuccessful compound, allowing the elements to recombine into a more fortuitous grouping. All of this is natural and orderly. In brief, our treatise does not propose an atomistic theory of matter, nor does its author wish to break with Aristotle, certainly not in any radical fashion. We should also notice that there is not a single technical description of a chemical or metallurgical procedure in the entire treatiseor at least in the first five chapters, which is all that survives. There are no instructions to mix, dilate, melt, or roast, nor are any of the famous alchemical instruments mentioned. The treatise, then, is a theoretical work on the transformation of metals, seen as an integral part of natural philosophy.

unknown, or nearly so.19 In keeping with the limited goals of this note, I shall first quickly review Delmedigos biography and oeuvre, paying attention to those points that are of particular importance for the identity of the author of the alchemical treatise. Delmedigo was born in Candia, on the island of Crete, in 1591. Between 1606 and 1613 he studied at Padua. The most famous of his teachers there was without doubt the great Galileo Galilei; but Delmedigo studied much more than physics, widening his horizons and expanding his knowledge. In 1613 he returned to Candia, but after three years in his hometown he began a series of travels that took him to Egypt, Constantinople, eastern Europe, Hamburg, and the Low Countries, and finally Prague, where he died in 1655. For the question of Delmedigos purported authorship of the alchemical treatise, we need devote our attention to two issues of his biography: his attitude towards alchemy and his knowledge of Arabic. Isaac Barzilay already noted Delmedigos enthusiasm for alchemy, providing numerous references to the relevant portions of Delmedigos published writings.20 By way of example, let us look at one such passage, from which we learn that Delmedigo also taught alchemy. In

19 The only comprehensive study is still Isaac Barzilay, Joseph Solomon Delmedigo (Yashar of Candia): his Life, Works and Times (Leiden: Brill, 1974). The collected reports of the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts (Mi-ginzei ha-makon, ed. Abraham David [Jerusalem: The Jewish National and University Library, 1996]) include short descriptions in Hebrew of newly discovered treatises by Delmedigo on medicine (described by Benjamin Richler on pp. 2324) and astronomy (described

Joseph Solomon Delmedigo and Alchemy

The name and fame of Joseph Solomon Delmedigo, a.k.a. Yashar of Candia, are well known, even though the contents of his literary legacy have yet to undergo close scrutiny; some of his writings remain entirely
88

by the present writer on p. 107). Recently we have been enriched with writings by Delmedigo in the sphere of halakhah (Jewish rabbinic law); see Jeremy I. Pfeffer, Authorship in a Hebrew Codex. [Oxford, Christ Church] MS 199: Tracing Two Lost Works by Delmedigo, Christ Church Library Newsletter 6(3) (2010): 16. 20 Barzilay, Joseph Solomon Delmedigo, pp. 139, 261262.

89

Y. T z v i L a n g e r m a n n

Sefer Elim (a book that also contains correspondence of Delmedigo and his students), Moses Metz, Delmedigos pupil, notes in one of his queries to Zerah ben Natan (a Karaite correspondent of Delmedigo) the secrets of nature and the alchemical processes (peullot) that I learned from my teacher.21 It seems to be the case that alchemy featured prominently in Delmedigos great composition, Yaar ha-levanon, which unfortunately is lost. Delmedigo describes that book as follows uz: Yaar ha-levanon, which is in in his autobiography, Mikhtav ah the form of questions and answers, revitalizing the soul, conversations in which I inserted and included every precious thing that I received from my teachers, and which I gathered from the works of the great philosophers. Many secrets and wonderful, natural special properties (segullot) are included there, especially concerning the nature of gold and the [other] metals, their alteration and transformation from one e fes meh uppas.22 These to another, a worthy chapter that I called H passages may serve to confirm Delmedigos positive attitude towards alchemy and thus argue in favor of his authorship of the treatise. I would like to call attention to two additional points. First, in the passage just cited Delmedigo refers to (what we would certainly call) alchemy as having wonderful, natural special properties; in the text of the manuscript under discussion here, the author insists that alchemy is one of the natural sciences. On the other hand, the alchemical text is not in the form of questions and answers, nor can I find any hint of the title H e fes meh uppas. Of course, this means only that the text of the unique manuscript is not a part of the lost Yaar ha-levanon; it may still well be an authentic work of Delmedigo. Delmedigos sojourn in Egypt, and the possibility that during this period he acquired a good knowledge of Arabic, are of cardinal importance for the present study. As we have seen, the alchemical manuscript that bears Delmedigos name draws upon Arabic sources.23 There are some Arabic words written out in Hebrew characters, and other signs that the author had a good command of the language. On
90

the other handand in sharp contradistinction to Delmedigos other writingsthere are no words at all taken from European (principally Romance) languages. Delmedigo has left us an autobiography, the short tract entitled uz that we have already cited. There he records the Mikhtav ah following: I told myself to first approach the Arabic language, but abandoned it [lit. erected tombstones for it] after I saw that every worthwhile thing in it is taken from the books of the Greeks, and they [the Arabic writers] change things by adding or detracting.24 Isaac Barzilay understood this passage to mean that Delmedigo thought at one time to learn Arabic, but gave up on the idea after he came to the conclusion that the Arabic writers did not correctly understand the Greek philosophers.25 I do not necessarily challenge his interpretation; still, it seems to me that Delmedigo must have made some progress in reading Arabic before terminating his studies. Indeed, in his Maayan atum, Delmedigo refers to a book on mathematics in Arabic that h he did not like: And so Yusuf the Ishmaelite sought to explain the proofs, and the definitions as well, of that treatise, but he was not able to produce anything worth paying attention to, as one may see in the

21 Sefer Elim (printed by Manasseh ben Israel; Amsterdam, 1629), p. 50. 22 Mikhtav ah uz is printed in A. Geiger, Melo h ofnayim (Berlin, 1840), p. 27; the Hebrew text reads: , . 23 However, on the basis of my experience in studying texts, I submit that the style and diction of the Hebrew argue strongly against this being a direct translation from an Arabic text. 24 Mikhtav ah uz, p. 24. 25 Barzilay, Joseph Solomon Delmedigo, p. 33. The title H e fes meh uppas comes from Psalms 64:7.

91

Y. T z v i L a n g e r m a n n

tract on ratio and proportionality (ha-yah as we-ha-hityah asut) that he composed in Arabic. In the book Basemat I will elaborate, God willing.26 Basemat is yet another major writing of Delmedigos that is not extant; but from the passage just cited we are able to learn that Delmedigo made use of Arabic sources for that book. As we shall soon see, alchemy had an important place in Basemat; it is thus not unreasonable to speculate that he may have consulted Arabic sources for the section on alchemy as well. In my opinion, the strongest evidence for Delmedigos command of Arabic is his relatively long stay in Egypt and, in particular, the public debate he held with a Muslim scholar whom he names as Al bin Rah madan; the name of Al s father is clearly not transmitted correctly, but the precise identification of this individual is not important for the present discussion.27 Here follows Delmedigos account of the debate; I maintain that a discussion of this sort could have taken place only in the Arabic language: Just as it happened with the Egyptian, Al bin Rah madan, who taught in the academies (yeshivot) in the great city of Cairo. That man was [held to be] great by the Ishmaelite officials and was highly esteemed. When I arrived there, he came to test me with riddles and questions that deal with mathematics (limmudim), but I ignored him. But we met one day, and each one of us posed to the other ten questions, and we fixed a period of four weeks. On the assigned day I found a large gathering of Ishmaelite officials, as well as Jews, Karaites, and Samaritans. 28 We are not concerned with the details of the contest; the passage just cited suffices, I submit, to establish that the encounter could not have taken place had Delmedigo been ignorant of Arabic. But there is more. For the solution of the first problem that Delmedigo posed, one had to consult Menelaos book on spherical geometry. He adds, Everyone in Egypt has the book in Hebrew and in Arabic. Al tried for hours unsuccessfully to solve Delmedigos problem, after which Delmedigo sent for a copy of Menelaos. But after he was finished speaking, carrying on for three hours, I opened the
92

book and asked him if he had ever read it. I showed the entire gathering that he had erred in the preliminaries and foundations [of geometry].29 Delmedigo must have shown Al a copy of Menelaos that was in Arabic; he himself testifies that such copies were readily available. So again, it is quite clear that this contest, of which Delmedigo was so proud, was held in the Arabic language. One final remark. The classification of alchemy as one of the natural sciences is important for our study, and not just for the question of the ascription of the alchemical treatise to Delmedigo. We must never forget that in the sciences, just as in philosophy, kabbalah, and other bodies of knowledge, a variety of different traditions maintained themselves, each with its own distinctive contents, authorities, geographical loci, terminology, and other characteristics; this is not to say that some books do not display characteristics of more than one tradition. Therefore, it is far from sufficient to decide whether Delmedigo was for or against alchemy; we would like to know which alchemical tradition Delmedigo belongs to, and to which tradition the treatise under study here can be connected. This issue is all the more acute when we are dealing with alchemy, given the serious differences of opinions between scholars concerning the definition of alchemy and the proper way of approaching its history, which I described briefly above.

26 Maayan h atum is printed together with Sefer Elim; the citation is from p. 6. I have not been able to identify Yusuf the Ishmaelite. His treatise would surely have been called in Arabic Risa lat al-nisba wa-l-tana sub, but I have not been able to locate a work bearing that title. 27 Just how long Delmedigo stayed in Egypt is not known; Barzilay (Joseph Solomon Delmedigo, p. 54) suggests that he was there for several months, perhaps even half a year. 28 Sefer Sod ha-yesod (printed together with Sefer Elim), p. 41. 29 Ibid.

93

For now, suffice it to sum up and say that Delmedigo was interested in alchemy, studying and teaching it. He is to be counted among those who saw alchemy as one of the natural sciences. The alchemical treatise first identified in the present paper, which exhibits his name as its author, draws on Arabic sources. There is powerful evidence that Delmedigo had a good command of that language. But was his command so good that he could carry on a scientific debate in Arabic with a native speaker? Even if he knew Arabic well enough to make use of Arabic sources, why would he avoid using any Romance terms? In short, is Delmedigo the author? At the moment I cannot take a definite stand; there is no reason why its attribution must be rejected, but neither can it be confirmed. More work needs to be done*.

This research was carried out with the generous support of the Minerva Center for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

94