Text.Duclo.1602-02.!2r/Translation
To the most illustrious and wise man, Mr. Johann Reichard Schefer, esteemed Counselor to the Archbishop and Elector of Mainz, and General Syndic of the Counties of Wetterau, my revered and honored lord and patron, greetings and many salutations.
I often wonder, most esteemed sir, whether it is nature's malice or the acquired impudence of people that causes nothing of good origin to escape the nitpicking and criticism of fools, nor any modest success to avoid the teeth of malice, as testified by Valerius Maximus.
This is particularly evident in many of the liberal arts, especially in the field of Chemistry and its subset, Alchemy. Physicians of the Galenic school attack the former, while Theologians condemn the latter as superstitious and deceptive. Both are unanimously declared not just to be expelled from academic circles but also to be eradicated from the city and the world.
What causes this judgment or prejudice? They say that the ancient boundaries are being recklessly moved; the authority of eminent doctors like Hippocrates and Galen is questioned; this insults God by falsely attributing to a vain art what belongs to nature; and it harms our neighbor, as people are often lured into fraud and stripped of their wealth and resources with impunity. Indeed, great crimes, worthy of Phalaris's bull if things truly are as they say.
But we should not cling so tightly to the past as to reject everything new, nor should we continue to eat acorns when we have grain. And why believe Hippocrates over Galen, or him over a doctor of our own time? Aristotle states that the science of medicine first flourished from the observation of what is healthy, and its entire foundation is experiential. As Marcus Manilius says in his first book,
"Through varied practice, experience made the art, A guiding example showing the way."
While I concede that the ancients excelled in this art, I will not hesitate to affirm that the alchemists of our time yield little or nothing to them. The Chemists themselves see this and are pained by it.
Yet, upon closer inspection, the Alchemists, even as they extol their art, do not detract from nature nor destroy it. Instead, they continually submit their art to nature, upon which it is based and which it imitates. They are not so naive as to fail to see that imitation, the hallmark of art, can never replicate nature so exactly that no difference is discernible without the force and aid of nature itself. But they consistently affirm that art, supported and aided by nature, can achieve more than nature alone. To deny this is, I ask, what else but to be blind even with open eyes, and to wish to be mad with reason?
They neither deny nor approve of the tricks and machinations of impostors. They admit that many today in the field of Alchemy behave like dogs in a manger, never turning their art into reality, their hopes into substance; instead, as long hoped-for appearances of gold have produced nothing, they have fallen from the noble art of gold-making to base craftsmanship, to the great dishonor of a most noble art. But they pay these no mind. Let them handle the art carelessly, act fraudulently; they do not defend these individuals: they fight for the art, not for the people. Critics should have remembered this, looking at the matter itself rather than getting distracted by circumstances. But everything here is done backwards. The truth of the matter is measured not on its own merits but from external factors; the efficacy of the art is diminished due to the perversity of the practitioner: and the use is foolishly abolished because of misuse. Such is their contempt for Chemistry; hence their more-than-Vatinian hatred for Chemists.
Therefore, these tiresome judgments and hatreds have long been lamented by true Chemists, who have also dedicated themselves to asserting the excellence of their art against the cavils of the malicious and vindicating it from all slanders to restore its former luster. And indeed, Gaston Duclo, or Cleves, the deputy of Nevers, performed a remarkable service in his Apology against Thomas Erastus, a professor from Heidelberg, in which he argues at length and refutes forcefully, so clearly proving the certainty of Alchemy through both arguments and most solid experiments that no sane person could doubt it henceforth.
This book first appeared in Geneva, from the press of Eustache Vignon, and, as is usual with marketable wine, easily found its buyer, so that after all the original copies were sold, it is now greatly missed by many. Therefore, men of great name have encouraged me to consider republishing it. I did so all the more willingly, believing that it would bring great benefit to the literary public.
And since I needed to find someone in the circle of refined literature, whose authority could suppress the audacity of those who unjustly criticize the art and gnaw at this kind of publication with the tooth of Theon, I chose you from many, most illustrious sir, knowing well both your willingness and ability to gratify in this regard. For why should I doubt your willingness when, in previous years, you offered me your favor and love unsolicited, gifts which, I swear, could not have been more delightful coming from so great and noble a man. Now, as the glory of your learning is placed in a high position among the most learned, you are perfectly capable, if anyone is, of defending my undertaking.
Therefore, accept this humble paper gift with kindness, and please continue to embrace me with your favor and goodwill and strengthen me with your authority for greater tasks. Farewell. From Oberursel, on the first day of January in the year 1602.
