Biographical and Historical Context

When eighteen-year-old Hans Egede in 1704 left his home in Harstad in northern Norway to study theology in Copenhagen, he is likely to have encountered ideas that would shape his future as missionary and alchemist.

Not least important among these was the current of Pietism, a motivating force behind the missionary movement in the early eighteenth century (Gulløv Reference Gulløv1978, 27). The young Egede will have heard about great mission projects that were being planned. He may also have heard talk of plans to re-colonize Greenland. Greenland had first been colonized by Eirik Raude (Eric the Red) around year 970 (Gulløv and Kapel Reference Gulløv and Kapel1979, 11), and during the Middle Ages there was a thriving community with churches, cloisters, and about 300 farms. After about 1540, communications with the Norsemen in Greenland ended (Bobé Reference Bobé1925, 316, 319).Footnote ⁴ In Egede’s time, foreign traders, particularly Dutch, had established trade with Greenland, and the Danish king increasingly felt the need to assert Denmark-Norway’s rights to the colony and its resources. The belief that there were valuable minerals to be found in Greenland contributed to the interest in re-colonization (Bobé Reference Bobé1925, 13–14). Medieval sources, such as the thirteenth-century text Konungs skuggsjá [King’s mirror], mentioned “red, blue, and green speckled marble” in Greenland (Brøgger 1947, 58), and this was repeated by Peder Claussøn Friis in his widely read Norriges Oc Omliggende Øers sandfærdige Beskriffvelse [Truthful Description of Norway And Surrounding Islands] in 1632 (Friis Reference Friis1632, 175). It was also believed that gold had been found there more recently (Bobé Reference Bobé1925, 322). Just before Egede arrived in Copenhagen, Arngrímur Jónsson Vidalin had presented plans for Greenland’s re-colonisation (ibid., 26).

Possibly Egede also encountered alchemical and Paracelsian theories during his student years. The renowned professor Ole Borch (Olaus Borrichius, 1626–1690), the first to hold a chair in chemistry at the university of Copenhagen (Fink-Jensen Reference Fink-Jensen and Riis Larsen2006, 13), had promoted Paracelsian alchemical ideas in his works De ortu et progressu chemiæ [On the Origin and Development of Chemistry], 1668, and Hermetis, Ægyptiorum et Chemicorum sapientia [The Wisdom of Hermes, the Egyptians, and the Chemists], 1674. He was internationally respected within the field of chemistry – immediately after his appointment to professor in 1660 he had left Denmark for an almost six years’ journey in Europe, not least with the purpose of learning chemistry (Fink-Jensen Reference Fink-Jensen2000, 50), and had become acquainted with several famous European alchemists. One of these, Edmund Dickinson, later published the theory that all sciences were founded by Moses, who had learned them in Egypt. Dickinson’s theories may have inspired Borch’s Hermetis. Borch also met Robert Boyle (1627–1691) in London in 1663, and according to the latter’s “Dialogue on the Transmutation and Melioration of Metals,” he (“the learned Oleus Borrichus”) told Boyle that he had witnessed the transmutation of silver to gold (Principe 1998a, 259–260; Danneskiold-Samsøe Reference Danneskiold-Samsøe and Riis Larsen2006, 45–46).Footnote ⁵ After returning to Denmark, Borch became a prominent chemist (Fink-Jensen Reference Fink-Jensen2000, 51). He was employed by king Frederik III as physician (Fink-Jensen Reference Fink-Jensen and Riis Larsen2006, 13) and was instrumental in bringing the Italian alchemist Francesco Guiseppe Borri (1625–95), whom he had met in Amsterdam, to Copenhagen to fill the role of royal alchemist (ibid., 2000, 46). In addition, he was appointed high court judge in 1686 and received the honorary title of Counsellor in 1689 (ibid., 64; Fink-Jensen Reference Fink-Jensen and Riis Larsen2006, 13). His Conspectus Scriptorum Chemicorum Illustrorum, an overview of alchemical texts which came to play an important part in Egede’s life as an alchemist, was published posthumously only eight years before Egede’s arrival in Denmark. Egede may have heard of Borch’s work and may have had contact with people who were interested in alchemy during his student years, though he does not mention having read any alchemical texts at this time.

After less than two years’ studies, Egede was ordained a priest and in 1707 received the living of Vågan, the neighboring island to his birthplace.He married Gertrud Rasch (1673–1735) the same year. While in Vågan, Egede became convinced that he was called by God to go to Greenland as a missionary, and in 1718 he left for Bergen to gather support and investors. In 1720 the Bergen Company (Det Bergenske Kompagni) was founded for the purpose of investing in the trade opportunities created by Egede’s mission project (Gulløv and Kapel Reference Gulløv and Kapel1971, 10) and he also secured the king’s support.

During the years in Bergen, Egede dedicated considerable time to alchemical studies (Bobé Reference Bobé1925, 18) and tried some experiments. After these proved unsuccessful, he asked for help from an apothecary who taught him some alchemical procedures. In his 1727 report he stated that his purpose with these experiments was to try to create the Philosophers’ Stone and use it to transmute base metals into gold, in order to finance the Greenland mission (ibid., 194).

Egede and his wife and four children arrived in Greenland in July 1721. For the next fifteen years he taught and baptised Inuits, studied their customs and language, explored and described Greenland’s geography, rocks, minerals, plants, and animals – and studied and practiced alchemy. After leaving Greenland in 1736, he moved to Denmark, where he founded the Seminarium Groenlandicum to train new missionaries for Greenland. He was given the honorary title of Bishop of Greenland in 1740.

The last years of his life Egede lived in his daughter Kerstine’s house in the Danish town of Stubbekøbing, until he died in a plague in 1758 (Harr Reference Harr2008, 148–149). The observation by his biographer Jacob Johan Lund of “a peculiar Oven and other Apparatus for chemical exercises” in the house shortly after Egede’s death, suggests that Egede continued to practice alchemy even towards the very end of his life (Lund Reference Lund1778, 70).

An Alchemical Experiment in the Colony of Hope

The annual reports that the Royal Mission College in Copenhagen received from Egede in Greenland mostly concerned mission work and hunting and fishing to sustain the colony. One account, sent in the summer of 1727, forms a remarkable contrast. On March 12th, Egede writes, he had aborted an alchemical experiment in the belief that it had failed. The “Chymical Substance” had been in digestion over a temperate heat for fifty days, when at one point the fire had accidently become too hot. The substance had turned black, and the process seemed to have stopped. Assuming that the matter was ruined Egede aborted the experiment by opening the sealed vial. The effects were fatal. Two puppies that Egede’s children had taken inside to play with, immediately puffed up, writhed on the floor in pain, and died within a quarter of an hour. Egede could not see or smell any poisonous gas, but soon everybody in the room – his children, his wife, two Inuit girls and Egede himself – experienced a headache, felt weak and had difficulties breathing. Egede administered the antidote Theriac, and all affected soon felt better, apart from one of the Inuit girls who remained ill and died some time later (Bobé Reference Bobé1925, 193).

Consulting his alchemical books, Egede realized that the black substance in the flask was not the sign of a failed experiment but was characteristic of the nigredo stage of the transmutation process. This was a stage of corruption where according to theory the form of the substance was broken down, making it possible for the matter to adopt a new form and thereby be transmuted. Rather than failure, the blackness had been an indication that he was close to the goal of producing the Philosophers’ Stone:

The result that Egede had observed corresponded with the characteristics of nigredo described by alchemical authors. The alchemical process had started, putrefaction had happened, and it could, according to theory, have continued to the rebirth of the matter in the form of the Philosophers’ Stone, had Egede not interrupted it.

Egede chided himself for having ignored “the Experience and Warning of the Philosophers” (i.e. alchemists). This suggests that he already had theoretical knowledge about the danger posed by the abortion of the alchemical process during this stage, before the concoction had transformed the poison into perfection.

When he gave up his experiment, it was however with good reason. Many alchemical texts stated that the stage of digestion should take six weeks (see for instance Roth-Scholtz 1718, 32–33) and Egede’s substance had been in digestion for fifty days. It was also often advised that too strong heat would ruin the work (see for instance Newman Reference Newman1991, 688). Knowing that the matter had been exposed to too strong heat and seeing no result despite the prescribed time having passed, Egede thus concluded that it was ruined.

Alchemists depended on qualitative information, such as color, smell, intensity of heat, and texture in order to assess the progress of the processes. This was tacit knowledge that could not easily be conveyed in text. Four centuries earlier, Pseudo-Geber had in the influential alchemical work Summa Perfectionis warned that practical alchemy should be learned through experience; to learn only from books would be slow and difficult (Newman Reference Newman1991, 785). The traditional way to learn alchemy was through hands-on training in laboratories under the guidance of an alchemical “father.” Egede had however learned alchemy almost exclusively from books, since he did not want his alchemical interest publicly known. Only after several failed experiments and broken glasses did he seek out an apothecary in Bergen to receive instruction in chemical techniques. Possibly Egede’s lack of guided laboratory training may have contributed to the premature interruption of his experiment, as he may to a greater degree than those who had first-hand experience with the colors and textures of the processes, have followed the books and their prescribed six weeks allotted for digestion.

Despite his disappointment, Egede felt encouraged at discovering that the gold he had used in the experiment could not be recovered from the resulting substance, described as “a lead-like Matter almost like Antimony” (Bobé Reference Bobé1925, 195). He saw this as proof that transmutation had happened, and wrote: “Here I will let a wise person judge, whether fine and pure gold, which it was in the beginning, except through a Philosophical [i.e. alchemical] Operation could be changed into a lead-like matter, so that it could not be reduced back to its previous corpus?” (Bobé Reference Bobé1925, 195).

Egede is not the only alchemist to have written about this phenomenon, known as the “deterioration of gold,” as proof of transmutation. Robert Boyle described in Anti-Elixir in 1678 an experiment where gold was transformed into a brittle “lump of Metal of a dirty color” with less specific gravity than gold, by means of an “Anti-Elixir” (Principe 1998a, 68, 116, 284), adding that in fact the resulting substance looked “more like a Mineral, or Marchasite, then like any Imperfect Mettal” (ibid., 289). Anti-Elixir is composed as a dialogue taking place in a group identified by Lawrence Principe as either the Royal Society or a fictitious analogy to it (ibid., 69), to reflect the contemporary debate about the existence of transmutation, where a main counter-argument was that metals were too “stubborn” of nature for transmutation to happen (ibid., 66). Just like Egede, Boyle saw the transformation as proof of the possibility of transmutation, and states, through the voice of “Pyrophilus”:

In Origine of Formes and Qualities (1666) Boyle similarly described an experiment where gold deteriorated into silver through a process that involved butter of antimony (antimony trichloride) and concluded that “there may be a real Transmutation of one Metal into another” (ibid., 80). The phenomenon had been observed also by other alchemists – it was described in Valentinian and Lullian texts (ibid., 83, 289), and Boyle mentions that the sixteenth century alchemist Gaston DuClo had performed a similar experiment (ibid., 83–84). It is worthy of notice that both Boyle and DuClo were corpuscularians who denied the existence of the Aristotelian forms; seeing the deterioration of gold as proof that the transmutation of metals was possible did not depend on any one specific model of matter and material change. That Boyle thought the observation had potentially great theoretical consequence is clear from his conclusion in Anti-Elixir that “the effects of this Anti-Philosophers Stone, as I think it may not unfitly be call’d … may prove very Instructive to Speculative Wits” (ibid., 289). Even though the Anti-Elixir was not published, it is not impossible that Egede had read about the deterioration of gold elsewhere, but he may also have independently come to the conclusion that the phenomenon was evidence of the possibility of transmutation.

What really happened on the 12th of March in the Colony of Hope? Thanks to Kjell Furuset’s analysis of Egede’s account, we know which substances and processes were involved in Egede’s experiment. The gas that emitted from the vial was invisible, odorless, had higher density than air, and was acutely poisonous. This and the symptoms of headache, a feeling of weakness, and breathing difficulties indicate that the gas was stibine, or antimony trihydride (SbH₃), which develops when antimony comes into contact with acid (Furuset Reference Furuset2006, 319). Furuset concluded that the process that had taken place was the reduction of stibnite, i.e. antimonytrisulphite (Sb₂S₃), to antimony. Egede’s report also included an allegorical account of the experiment, composed as a dream about a virgin who has to be purified in order to be able to marry a prince. This purification is achieved by means of a hot bath, and the fortifying powers of Mars and Venus, which indicates that iron and copper were used to purify the stibnite, as these metals were traditionally associated with the planets Mars and Venus respectively (ibid., 317). We also know that the experiment involved the use of gold, as Egede reported having tried to retrieve his gold from the resulting matter. In the allegory, the gold was represented by the prince, who was the most noble among his relatives, like gold was the noblest of metals.

The procedure that Egede had performed, was thus to remove the sulphur from stibnite to produce pure antimony, which – as opposed to stibnite – has the ability to conjugate with gold. Alchemists used the term “antimony” about both antimony and stibnite, in which form antimony is usually found in nature (Principe Reference Principe2013, 240 n. 4). Afterwards, Egede added a small amount of gold and left it to “digest” over temperate heat for a long time. Digestion was slow heating which according to alchemical theory would balance the primary qualities of the substance (Becher Reference Becher1716, 191, 207). After this, a process of putrefaction would lead to the dissolution of its “form,” leaving prime matter which could take on the essential nature of the gold (ibid., 181–182). The final product would be the powerful Philosophers’ Stone, a red powder which contained the perfect qualities of the gold and had the ability to transform large amounts of base metal to gold.

As it happened, Egede’s experiment never got that far, but he was encouraged by the partial success of having transformed his gold into a lesser substance. As Principe explains in his discussion of Boyle’s “anti-elixir,” a very small amount of antimony – one part to 1920 parts gold is enough – will cause gold to become brittle and white (Principe 1998a, 284–285). This fact must be seen as further confirmation that it was indeed antimony that Egede used in his experiment. According to the report, Egede later made two more attempts at producing the Philosopher’s Stone, but neither progressed as far as to effect this change (Bobé Reference Bobé1925, 195–196).

Alchemical Literature in the Colony of Hope

Whereas alchemy was previously thought of as one tradition, scholars have become increasingly aware that alchemical theory and practice changed over time, and we now acknowledge the existence of a variety of alchemical “schools” characterized by different theories, methods, and materials (Principe 1998b). Which literature, materials, and methods Egede used can help us determine his place in European alchemy.

Of the texts that Egede studied, he emphasized two as his main sources to alchemical knowledge: Ole Borch’s Conspectus Scriptorum Chemicorum Illustrorum [Overview of Famous Chemical Texts], 1696, and the German natural philosopher Johann Joachim Becher’s Oedipus Chymicus (1664). Borch was one of three famous Danish alchemists – the other two were Peder Sørensen (Petrus Severinus, 1540/2–1602) and Tyge (Tycho) Brahe (1546–1601) (Kragh Reference Kragh, Høiris and Vellev2006, 12). All three were influenced by Paracelsian ideas. Peder Sørensen’s work Idea medicina philosophicæ (1571), the first systematic presentation of Paracelsus’ ideas, had played a key part in the development and transmission of Paracelsian ideas in Denmark in the seventeenth century (Fink-Jensen Reference Fink-Jensen, Appel, Henningsen, Hybel and Wittendorff2002, 102; Shackelford Reference Shackelford2004, 468). Sørensen praised Paracelsus as representing the culmination of a historical development of alchemy beginning with Hermes Trismegistus, thereby providing Paracelsianism with the legitimacy that followed from its being derived from a trusted source (Shackelford Reference Shackelford2004, 75). He also removed the obstacle against Paracelsianism’s wider acceptance posed by the belief that the analogical correspondences and connections in nature, which according to Paracelsian doctrine existed particularly between microcosm and macrocosm, were of a magical nature. Sørensen insisted that these correspondences and connections were entirely natural and that using them to obtain for instance medical effects did not entail any involvement in magic (Fink-Jensen Reference Fink-Jensen2000, 63). On the contrary, the practice of alchemy was the most instructive way to learn about nature; Sørensen therefore admonished the Christian natural philosopher to “purchase coals, build furnaces, be vigilant and tend to your preparations without weariness. For thus will you come to an understanding of bodies and their properties, and not otherwise” (Shackelford Reference Shackelford2004, 264).

Ole Borch followed Sørensen in his Paracelsianism and also in his historical perspective on alchemy, writing that it was founded in Egypt by Hermes Trismegistus and Tubalchain, the father of the Biblical patriarch Noah (Borch Reference Borch1696, 1; Fink-Jensen Reference Fink-Jensen and Riis Larsen2006, 17; Fink-Jensen Reference Fink-Jensen2000, 54; see also Trevisanus Reference Trevisanus and Zetzner1659, 684; Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718c, 1; Becher Reference Becher1716, 160), and further developed by Paracelsus. Like Sørensen he denied that there were any magical elements in the Paracelsian doctrine of signatures (Fink-Jensen Reference Fink-Jensen2000, 61: Shackelford Reference Shackelford2004, 344–345). Avoiding an association of Paracelsianism with magic had become more urgent after Sørensen’s time, since the Danish regulations against magic of 1617 defined all magic as demonic (Fink-Jensen Reference Fink-Jensen2000, 63). Borch’s assertion that Paracelsianism was devoid of magic may have been important for Egede, who despite being an orthodox Lutheran priest who worried that peers might condemn his alchemical studies did not mention involvement in magic among the reasons for this potential criticism.

Borch’s Conspectus Scriptorum Chemicorum Illustrorum is a bibliography with descriptions of more than eighty alchemical works, dating from Antiquity to Borch’s own time. Egede explained in his report that while in Greenland he relied on Borch’s recommendations in Conspectus to choose which alchemical works to acquire and read. His alchemical library in the Colony of Hope comprised more than sixty authors, and it has been suggested that it was the largest in Norway (Hiortdahl Reference Hiortdahl1905, 340), Greenland being a Norwegian colony and fiscally part of Norway since the Middle Ages. Egede certainly had many more alchemical books than were in any of the Norwegian clerics’ libraries inventoried by Gina Dahl (Dahl Reference Dahl2010).

In addition to Conspectus and the previously mentioned Oedipus Chymicus by Johann Joachim Becher, which Egede states having read in the Colony of Hope, he names three authors which he had read during his two years in Bergen.

First, he read “the so-called Saxon manuscripts” and Johann Joachim Becher’s Chymischer Rosen-Garten [The Chymical Rose Garden], a collection of alchemical recipes which inspired his first experiments in Bergen.Footnote ⁷ Becher was a respected natural philosopher and is famous in the history of science for having formulated the theory of phlogiston to explain the combustibility of substances. The Chymischer Rosen-Garten was newly edited and republished in 1717, which can serve as an indication that Becher’s alchemical work was still considered relevant.

Becher states that the recipes, purportedly describing 100 chymical processes, were gathered during his many travels and conversations with alchemists and are supplied with philosophical explanations where necessary (Roth-Scholtz Reference Roth-Scholtz1717, 52–53). The book is divided into two parts, corresponding to two types of processes – “Subtiliation of gold” and “Mercurial oils and waters,” which both contain descriptions of several different methods of producing Stones and tinctures for transmuting metals into gold. The procedures are described in a technical language with exact quantities and with substances and processes represented by symbols. Becher announces that this book contains “no riddles nor ornaments, but true stories and experiments” (ibid., 53). These recipes, Egede wrote, initially gave him hope that making gold would not be too difficult (Bobé Reference Bobé1925, 194).

However, after having achieved “nothing but trouble and dirty hands, and the loss of some money” (ibid.), he returned to studying alchemical works, whereof two authors are named. One of these was the Polish alchemist Michael Sendivogius’ (Mikal Sędziwój, 1566–1636) (ibid.). Egede does not specify which works by Sendivogius he read, but as we will see, textual evidence shows that he read at least two of the three works included in Chymische Schriften: derinnen gar deutlich von dem Ursprung, Bereit- und Vollendung des gebenedeiten Steins der Weisen gehandelt wird [Chemical Writings, wherein is very clearly treated the origin, preparation, and completion of the blessed Philosophers’ Stone]. This is a collection of Sendivogius’ texts written in the early seventeenth century and, like Becher’s Chymischer Rosen-Garten, very recently published by Friederich Roth-Scholtz, in 1718, the same year as Egede arrived in Bergen. Its recent publication is indicative that Sendivogius was considered relevant in the period, and, as the many subsequent publications of his famous work Novum Lumen Chymicum [New Chemical Light], 1604, suggest, also later. That Chymische Schriften is likely to be Egede’s source to Sendivogius’ works, may be indicated by his choice of the word “Skrifter” in referring to the books that he read: “Imidlertid var mig endeel andre Chymiste Authores komme til Hænde, saasom Sendivogii og Com. Bernhardi og fleres Skrifter” (ibid.).

The other author named by Egede is Com. Bernhardi, i.e. the Italian Count Bernardus Trevisanus (Bernhard of Tregos, circa 1406–1490). Again, Egede does not name a specific text. It is however probable that he read De Chemico miraculo, quod lapidem philosophiae appellant [Of the Chemical Wonder, which they call the Philosophers’ Stone], the most famous of the texts attributed to Trevisanus. It was printed in a work edited by the Paracelsian alchemist Gerhard Dorn in 1583 and was the only text by Trevisanus included in volume one of the publisher Lazarus Zetzner’s Theatrum Chemicum (1602), an anthology which aimed to present all important alchemical works. Its inclusion among these certifies that De Chemico miraculo was considered a central alchemical text. A further indication that De Chemico miraculo was the work by Trevisanus that Egede read is that it contains a parable repeatedly referred to by Sendivogius, whose esteem of this work is likely to have contributed to Egede’s perception of Trevisanus as significant enough to be among the very few authors named in his report.

Both Sendivogius and Trevisanus were recommended in Borch’s Conspectus (Borch Reference Borch1696, 29, 31). Sendivogius was particularly praised by Borch, as one of the foremost authors on the alchemical art and “a frank author (as much as the scruples of the alchemists allow)” who shared alchemical knowledge “without elaboration of the processes, without inversions, and deceits, his words openly reveal his opinion, free from parables, and very close to the truth” (ibid., 31). This must have sounded promising to Egede, who wanted to learn alchemy from books. The high regard held by Borch for Sendivogius is further demonstrated by his honoring him with a quotation from Novum Lumen Chymicum on the very last pages of Conspectus. Here Sendivogius praised the progress of the chemical arts by declaring that if Hermes, Geber, and Lull could be revived today, chemists would consider them students, rather than masters, because of all the new distillations, circulations, calcinations, and innumerable other works of art that had now been invented, thanks to their writings. Only the knowledge of creating the Philosophers’ Stone, or the Tincture of natural philosophy, was lacking, Sendivogius claimed, among modern chemists (ibid., 47–48; Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius1628, 11–12; Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718c, 3). Egede will have read this statement both in Conspectus and in Sendivogius’ own text, which was included in Chymische Schriften as Zwölff Tractatlein von dem Stein der Weisen.Footnote ⁸

Sendivogius based his theory about the development of metals on the idea of a seed or semen, a “central salt” or “sal nitrum” that carried each metal’s individual nature. The various metals were formed when this salt was combined with philosophical sulphur inside the earth (Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718c, 23–24; Newman Reference Newman2003, 87). Surplus steam would rise up to the surface, where it turned into moisture and provided nourishment for plants and everything else (Newman Reference Newman2003, 88). With Sendivogius originated the school of alchemists who searched for the prime matter of alchemy in a salt (ibid., 211–213), and his idea of a life force in air has been credited as a contribution to the discovery of oxygen. He does however not divulge from which material the “central salt” or “sal nitrum” should be extracted. Chymischer Schrifften includes a dialogue between the spirit of mercury and a monk-philosopher, prefaced by the words “Est in Mercurio quicquid quaerunt Sapientes” [In mercury is what the wise seek], and a short poem beginning with the same words in German: “In mir Mercur ist all’s verborgen / Warum die Alchymisten sorgen”; it is however clear from the last line of the poem, “Wann du es findst / Heimlich behalts” [When you find it, you have the Secret], that what is meant is not just ordinary mercury (Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718b, 177).

Roth-Scholtz’ foreword to Chymischer Schrifften includes instructions on how to produce the “universal salt” and the universal tincture, i.e. Philosophers’ Stone (Roth-Scholtz Reference Roth-Scholtz and Roth-Scholtz1718b, 25–44), stating that the method was taken from Chymischer Glücks-Hafen, another, larger, recipe collection by Johann Joachim Becher. Sendivogius’ works in Chymische Schrifften (for instance Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718a, 86) and also Roth-Scholtz’ foreword (ibid., 39) also contain several references to Trevisanus and particularly the “fountain parable” from De Chemico miraculo.

Trevisanus’ work opens with a short history of alchemy, beginning with Hermes Trismegistus’ restoration of the art after it had been lost in the Deluge (Trevisanus Reference Trevisanus and Zetzner1659, 684). He explains that his little book is meant to be a guide back to the right path (ibid., 685). That Trevisanus’ realization of the urgency of such help was dearly bought is then demonstrated through his alchemical autobiography, a pitiful account of years and money wasted on attempts at making the Philosophers’ Stone (ibid., 685–690). The gist is that after having tried all kinds of ingredients, including human excrement, blood, urine, seeds from plants and animals, eggs (he recounts how he bought 2000 eggs and distilled them for two years [ibid., 687]), as well as various chemicals, and mercury in combination with gold and silver (ibid., 686–689), and spent many years reading alchemical texts (ibid., 690), he finally understood that the Stone must be made from mercury and nothing else. Mercury was the proximate matter of all metals (ibid., 691–692, 695), containing its own sulphur which when heated would cause it to develop into perfection (ibid., 701). Trevisanus is thus a representative of the “mercury only” school of alchemy, which originated around the start of the 14th century with the influential work Summa Perfectionis by pseudo-Geber (Newman Reference Newman1991, ii, 208). Trevisanus also refers to pseudo-Geber in his argument against mixing mercury with inferior substances (Trevisanus Reference Trevisanus and Zetzner1659, 688). To be able to transmute, mercury must be reduced to prime matter (ibid., 692) through purification and balancing its constituent parts, the principles sulphur and mercury, which were in their turn composed of the elements fire, air, water, and earth (ibid.). Finally, Trevisanus hints at how to make the Philosophers’ Stone in the fountain parable (ibid., 705–709).

Despite the supposed clarity of Sendivogius and the technical, straight-forward explanations of the Chymischer Rosen-Garten, Egede describes these early alchemical studies as “tormenting” himself with alchemical “speculations.” He “understood no more of their Hieroglyphic and flowery Modes of Speech than if [he] had read a strange Language” and could not see any agreement between the authors. In these as in other alchemical texts, metals, chemicals, and processes are represented by symbols, metaphors, and, allegories, many of them probably incomprehensible to Egede. The difficulty posed by the lack of agreement between the authors was just as serious. As alchemy was believed to be one single tradition which originated in the time before the Deluge, it was assumed that the many different names, methods, metaphors and individual substances of the various texts expressed one fundamental truth. To be able to glean the universal truth behind the various wordings and images from the texts was to understand their real meaning (see for instance ibid., 690).

One important example is the lack of agreement between Sendivogius and Trevisanus regarding which substance the prime matter of the process is or should be derived from. Although it is often called “mercury,” and Trevisanus states that gold should be made from only mercury, they emphasize that something entirely different from ordinary mercury is meant (Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718c, 24, 36,37; Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718b, 143). It is called by a variety of names, such as “philosophical mercury” (Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718c, 24; Roth-Scholtz Reference Roth-Scholtz1717, 64), “our mercury” (Trevisanus Reference Trevisanus and Zetzner1659, 701; Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718b, 143), “universal menstruum” (Roth-Scholtz Reference Roth-Scholtz and Roth-Scholtz1718b, 42), and “water” (Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718c, 43). Its identity is spoken of as a great mystery and is hinted at in allegories only (Trevisanus Reference Trevisanus and Zetzner1659, 705–709; Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718c, 60–68).

As Egede did not want it known that he was interested in gold-making, he did not dare to seek out help to understand the texts (Bobé Reference Bobé1925, 164). After arriving in Greenland Egede however read Johann Joachim Becher’s Oedipus Chymicus (1664), which provides an overview of Becher’s alchemical theories. When in the 1717 edition of the Chymischer Rosen-Garten, Oedipus Chymicus is advertised as a Räthsel-Deuter [riddle-solver] in which occult chymical vocabulary is explained, and secrets revealed (Roth-Scholtz Reference Roth-Scholtz1717, 39), this will undoubtedly have attracted Egede’s attention. The work features a list of symbols and metaphors commonly used in alchemical texts, along with their meanings (Becher Reference Becher1716, 194–195). Both this and Becher’s clear exposition of alchemical theories must have been very helpful to Egede. He recounts how Oedipus Chymicus “gave [him] not a little Light,” so that he felt that he understood enough to “lead … Theoriam to Praxin” (Bobé Reference Bobé1925, 194–195).

The Philosophical Dream

Allegories had been common in alchemical texts since Antiquity but became a regular part of European alchemical literature particularly from the fourteenth century when a Christian alchemical tradition developed in Europe (Joly Reference Joly2013, 82). In including an alchemical allegory of his own in his report to the Royal Mission College, Egede clearly connected his alchemy with the literature of the European tradition. That this was a consciously written allegorical description of Egede’s experiment, was long not understood. The biographers Louis Bobé and Niels Fenger both interpreted it as a reaction of Egede’s subconscious to his experiment’s failure. Bobé wrote in 1944 that “[t]he event caused Egede to experience a “vision,” “in which that Experience has re-arisen in his Subconscious in dramatised Form” (Bobé Reference Bobé1944, 124). Fenger in Reference Fenger1971 called it a “satanic relation” through which Egede processed the self-reproach and regrets that he suffered after his failed experiment and adds that “one thinks in horror what a pretty story today’s dream interpreters could have derived from the erotic hallucinations that seasons this philosophical dream” (Fenger Reference Fenger1971, 108–109). Erik Gant in Reference Gant1994 called it “embarrassing,” and with his comment that only “the devil and his great-grandmother” were lacking from its list of characters (Gant Reference Gant1994, 227) insinuates that he, like Fenger, sees something demonic in it. Even though all these biographers understood that the content of the parable was alchemical, they failed to see it as what it is – an emulation of the allegories of the European alchemical literary tradition.

The “Philosophical Dream” begins as Egede, after having tormented himself with “Philosophical Thoughts and Speculations” for a long time, falls asleep. He dreams about a beautiful prince, who was the foremost of his kin, well able to procreate, however there was no female suitable for him to marry, apart from a maiden who had a congenital impurity and was not fit to marry and conceive children. Being a priest, Egede wanted to marry them to see their glorious offspring. After having “consulted with experienced Medicos [i.e. alchemists]” to find a medicine with which the virgin could be “cured and prepared for fertility” (Bobé Reference Bobé1925, 196–197), Egede treated her with seven baths in a “Saturnine water well” heated by Vulcan, while she was waited on by her relatives, the children of Saturn, and aided and fortified by Luna, Mars, and Venus. She rose from the bath as a beautiful Diana and was united with the prince in a crystalline bridal chamber, the door of which Egede locked with help from Vulcan. The couple fell into a deep sleep. Soon they turned black, and after waiting for a long time for them to awaken, Egede aborted the process: “Sorely horrified I took the key back from Vulcan and thoughtlessly opened the chamber, at which was emitted a gruesome, penetrant, yet odourless stench, which almost cost all us who were present, our lives” (ibid., 197).

As previously mentioned, Kjell Furuset’s interpretation of the parable, where the “impure maiden” represents antimony and the “prince” is gold, supports his conclusion that the material that Egede was working with, was antimony. Iron and copper, of which “Mars” and “Venus” are synonyms in alchemical literature, were also used in the process (Furuset Reference Furuset2006, 317). Antimony crystallizes as silvery bright needles, thence the image of the “very beautiful Diana” arising from the bath; Diana being the Roman moon goddess and the moon associated with silver in the alchemical tradition (ibid.).

The metaphors of purification, marriage, corruption, death and finally resurrection are common to many alchemical texts. Egede’s Philosophical Dream has similarities with a parable that follows Becher’s “dictionary” of alchemical metaphors in Oedipus Chymicus. In Becher’s allegory, the gold is first purified, here represented by a battle between a red lion [gold] and a wolf [antimony]. The “glorious victor” [purified gold] is locked inside a transparent prison [glass vial], with ten or twelve eagles [mercury]. The key to the prison is given to Vulcan [the glass is sealed by melting]. A crow [nigredo] appears, then a peacock tail of multiple colours, and in the end the phoenix [the Philosopher’s Stone] is reborn, incorruptible and immortal, “the result with which everything under the moon is remade” (Becher Reference Becher1716, 195–197).

While Becher’s parable is likely to have contributed to inspiring Egede’s Philosophical Dream, Sendivogius’ and Trevisanus’ works also contain allegorical stories about a couple who go through a process of rebirth after being immersed in water. In an allegory in Sendivogius’ Tractatus de sulphure altero naturae principio (1616), included in Chymische Schrifften as Vom Schwefel, a prince sees the beautiful maiden Diana bathing in a river. They fall in love whereupon both drown in the river. Their souls tell the alchemist that they will be resurrected in their purified bodies (Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718b, 165–166). In Trevisanus’ fountain allegory the king is instead locked up in a hidden fountain with a simple servant who keeps his bath warm. The king goes through several color changes, and in the end his flesh appears a rich red color, representing the Philosophers’ Stone. The fountain is said to be as the king’s mother, who also kills and resuscitates him (Trevisanus Reference Trevisanus and Zetzner1659, 705–709).

Other alchemical allegories contain similar symbolism. Particularly interesting is Der Triumph-Wagen Antimonii [The Triumphal Chariot of Antimony], 1604, which is considered the most important of alchemical texts about the use of antimony (Principe Reference Principe2013, 140). It was attributed to Basil Valentinus, a pseudonym for several authors. He was highly recommended in both Borch’s Conspectus and Becher’s Oedipus Chymicus, Becher mentioning him as one of the most important alchemical authors in his chapter on alchemical texts (Borch Reference Borch1696, 30; Becher Reference Becher1716, 217). Images and expressions in Der Triumph-Wagen Antimonii are strikingly similar to those used by Egede, such as the bride being purged in a “fiery Bath full of Love, by which the Spouse … may legitimately lie down with her Bridegroom in the Marriage Bed,” helped by Vulcan (Valentinus Reference Valentinus1624, 109), and there can be no doubt that Egede knew it. Another Valentinian text, Ein kurtz summarischer Tractat, von dem grossen Stein der Uralten [Of the great stone of the ancients], 1599, also describes a process similar to the one described in Becher’s parable and contains metaphors used by Egede. Here Valentinus explains that a “chaste bride” [i.e. purified antimony] must be married to the “king” [gold] after the king’s body has been eaten by a wolf [antimony] who is a “child of old Saturn” (Principe Reference Principe2013, 144–145). As in Becher’s allegory, antimony, represented by a wolf, is being used to purify the gold. The “bride” is called Diana, and antimony is referred to as a relative of Saturn (ibid., 146), as in Egede’s Philosophical Dream.

Egede’s framing of his allegory as a dream likewise has deep roots in the alchemical tradition. Allegorical descriptions of alchemical processes framed as dreams appeared in alchemical literature since Zosimos of Panopolis in the third or fourth century AD (ibid., 18–20). A state of tiredness or sleep introduces Trevisanus’ and Sendivogius’ allegories. In the fountain parable Trevisanus, tired from studies and philosophical disputes, goes for a walk and sits down to contemplate the fountain. After being told by an old man the story about the king’s transformation in the fountain, Trevisanus falls asleep and accidently drops a golden book that he has been awarded for his adeptship, in the fountain (Trevisanus Reference Trevisanus and Zetzner1659, 705–709). Sendivogius’ falling asleep, tired from his work, likewise starts an allegory in the twelfth treatise on the Philosophers’ Stone (Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718c, 60).

Another example of an alchemical text that contains both the dream motive and alchemical symbolism similar to that of his “Philosophical Dream” is Dastin’s Dream, a poem attributed to the English alchemist John Dastin (c.1293-c.1386). Borch gave this poem a particular recommendation in Conspectus (Borch Reference Borch1696, 27). In the dream, Dastin sees “a Marriage … Betweene twaine Borne of the Imperiall blood” (Ashmole 1652, 258), a couple consisting of a king (gold) and his mother (mercury). In addition to the dream theme, the goddesses Diana and Venus and the motive of purification (Ashmole 1652, 259) are metaphorical elements that Dastin’s Dream has in common with Egede’s. After purification, gold and mercury are locked up in a “Closset round … Cleere as Cristall of Glasse a litle shrine,” i.e. a glass vessel like Egede’s “crystalline bridal chamber.” Subsequently the substance turns “Blacker then Jett or Bugle” Footnote ⁹ (Ashmole 1652, 267), before the “cherishing might” of the temperate fire causes it to turn white, then go through several color changes, before finally the couple’s child appears, “fresher then any flowre, / With a mantle of everlasting whitnes” [sic] (ibid., 268), just as Egede could have expected that his substance would become, had he not aborted the process prematurely.

Why did Egede write his parable? As he had already divulged his activities earlier in the report, Egede’s motive in including the “Philosophical Dream” in his report was clearly not to conceal his alchemical interest. The purpose of allegories in alchemical texts is often said to be the protection of alchemical secrets from the “unworthy” (Principe Reference Principe2013, 18). Egede’s plain text account left out some information that would be essential, should anybody want to repeat the experiment: which matter and procedure he used. As we have seen, Sendivogius’ and Trevisanus’ both hide information about the matter of the Philosophers’ Stone in dream allegories. And in Becher’s Oedipus Chymicus, Egede will have read that presenting knowledge through riddles, parables, and hieroglyphic figures comprises the third and final part of the philosophical method of chymistry, the two first being the knowledge of the principles of matter and explaining the changes and combinations of the elements (Becher Reference Becher1716, 224).

The dream allegory accordingly served two purposes in Egede’s account of his alchemy. Firstly, it lets Egede divulge his method and matter to readers already familiar with alchemical literature, and not to others. He thus adheres to the rule of secrecy traditionally imposed on alchemists. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, by means of conventional decknamen and allegories, Egede writes himself and his experience into the alchemical textual tradition, “more Philosophico parabolic-wise” (i.e. “parabolically in the manner of alchemy”) (Bobé Reference Bobé1925, 196), declaring himself to be one of the chosen who knew the secrets of alchemy.

His use of conventional symbols shows that he did not strive for originality, but emulated well-known alchemical allegories, in this way making himself one with the tradition. It is also easy to imagine that composing the allegory may have provided a pleasant pastime for Egede a dark evening in the Colony of Hope.

Theory, Method, and Influences

What Egede did in his recorded experiment was to purify antimony to provide the prime matter of the process and add a little gold. The gold was thought to contain the seed, which would cause the “menstruum” to “conceive” as it was permeated by the nature or essence of the gold. After this union, the mixture was to “digest” during which process its qualities would become balanced, and after this the matter would begin to putrefy. The putrefaction was thought of as the destruction of the form of the matter, which was necessary for the new form to arise. After a period of inertia, during which the substance was black and “dead” – at this stage Egede’s experiment was aborted – the matter would “resurrect,” go through a series of transformations visible as color changes, and finally the wonderful Philosophers’ Stone would appear.

The matter theory behind this is the ancient doctrine, laid out by Aristotle, that the various metals are produced by combinations of the natural principles sulphur and mercury, made from the four elements fire, air, water, and earth. This also forms the foundation of the methods explained by Trevisanus, Sendivogius, and Becher. All three open their expositions of the principles of matter with an account of this theory (Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718c, 23–24; Trevisanus Reference Trevisanus and Zetzner1659, 692, 701; Becher Reference Becher1716, 31; see also Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718c, 11–13). Salt, the principle which together with mercury and sulphur forms the Paracelsian tria prima, is included in Becher’s matter theory (Becher Reference Becher1716, 51–54), and is also central to Sendivogius’ theories, but played no practical part in the procedure that Egede performed. Neither had Sendivogius’ theory of a vital part of air that enters the pores of metals, which would later earn him credit as a contribution to the discovery of oxygen, any significance for Egede’s alchemical practice.

Both Sendivogius and Becher speak of a seed or semen as necessary for the development of metals (Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718c, 23; Becher Reference Becher1716, 22), and both speak of a male and a female principle roughly corresponding to the principles of sulphur and mercury. In Oedipus Chymicus Egede thus read that the “sulphur” in metals provided the “matrix” or “semen” of the metal (Becher Reference Becher1716, 55), while the “water” or “philosophical quicksilver” served as its nourishment (ibid., 53–55, 155–156, 159–160). Sendivogius described metals as generated from a sulphuric “radical moisture” and a mercurial steam inside the earth (Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718c, 23–24). The chymists’ work was according to both to copy nature.

Trevisanus’ theory differs in that he believed the metal mercury to be sufficient as the sole matter of the Philosophers’ Stone, as mercury already contained the sulphur that would make possible its development towards perfection (Trevisanus Reference Trevisanus and Zetzner1659, 701). “Mature” mercury contained the element of fire and was considered masculine semen, while crude mercury was feminine semen or aqua vita (ibid., 697). In the fountain parable’s metaphorical account of alchemical practice, however, Trevisanus’ story of a king in a fountain could still be interpreted as advocating the addition of gold (ibid., 705–709).

When Egede used gold as a seed in his alchemical experiment it was thus based on Sendivogius’, Becher’s, and possibly Trevisanus’ theories of transmutation, which provided a framework where development happened as the result of the conception of the seed of gold in prime matter, and the practice described by Becher in Oedipus Chymicus.

According to Egede’s sources, the key to the Philosophers’ Stone was thus to produce philosophical mercury or mercurial water, which, as was repeatedly emphasized, was not identical to ordinary mercury (Becher Reference Becher1716, 203, 206; Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718c, 24). The original matter must be reduced to its elements to create a “new unity” and let the matter receive a new form (Trevisanus Reference Trevisanus and Zetzner1659, 692, 696; Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718c, 20; Becher 1717, 36–37, 39–43). The new form would appear through the development of the male principle or form (“sulphur”) in the “menstruum” or female principle (“mercury”) (Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718c, 25–26). The “sulphuric seed” of gold was to be united with the “menstruum” or “philosophical mercury,” after preparing both through heating and purification (Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718b, 148; Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718b, 35–36; Becher Reference Becher1716, 206, Roth-Scholtz Reference Roth-Scholtz1717, 75–76; see also Roth-Sholtz 1718, 40). The mixture was to be left to “digest” and eventually “putrify” over moderate heat in a closed glass vessel (Becher Reference Becher1716, 195–197, 207–208; Roth-Scholtz 1718, 32). Over a period of usually several weeks or months the matter would go through a series of color changes, which all the three authors describe in allegories. The first of these was the blackness of nigredo, as Egede observed in his recorded experiment. Finally, a strong red color would appear as the transmutation into the Philosophers’ Stone was complete (Becher Reference Becher1716, 210; Roth-Scholtz Reference Roth-Scholtz1717, 94; Roth-Sholtz 1718, 32–34, 40–41; Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718c, 38; Trevisanus Reference Trevisanus and Zetzner1659, 701).

The preliminary purification of the gold by means of antimony, described by Becher as a wolf attacking a king, was not included in the procedure that Egede performed in the recorded experiment. Possibly he used a gold coin and considered it already sufficiently pure. He will have encountered the use of a gold coin in an alchemical process in Chymischer Rosen-Garten (Roth-Scholtz Reference Roth-Scholtz1717, 87).

That Egede thought of the gold used in his experiment as functioning as a “male” principle providing the “semen” in the process, is reflected in his allegorical description of gold as a “grand and beautiful Lord, fully capable of procreation” (Bobé Reference Bobé1925, 196). The representation of the union of the two principles as a wedding reflects the matter theory underlying the method.

From this analysis of Egede’s method and allegorical account in connection with the sources that he has named in his report, it is clear that the theoretical basis and practical instruction for his alchemical practice in the Colony of Hope was found in these texts: Becher’s Oedipus Chymicus and at least two of the texts included in Sendivogius’ Chymischer Schrifften – De Lapide Philosophorum Tractatus duodecim (Novum Lumen Chymicum or Zwölff Tractatlein von dem Stein der Weisen) and Tractatus de sulphure (Vom Schwefel) – were his main sources of information, with Trevisanus and Becher’s Chymischer Rosen-Garten playing supportive roles.

The Matter of the Art

Sendivogius and Trevisanus insist that knowing the identity of prime matter of the Philosophers’ Stone is crucial, but never divulge what it is. Emphasizing that it is not common mercury, they speak of it only through metaphors and Decknamen. Indeed, when asked about the identity of the “water” that perfects the “fruit of the Solar tree,” Saturn shouts so loudly in anger that Sendivogius wakes up from his dream (Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718c, 60). A hint is however given in an allegory in Sendivogius’ treatise on sulphur, where the alchemist dreams of an old man who tells him that he is the true authority of conception and that his name is Saturn (Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718b, 155). Saturn further says that when you know the “mother,” in which the sulphur [i.e. male semen] is released, you will have the Stone (ibid., 163–164).

Becher believed that all metals were based on the same substance, and his allegory in Oedipus Chymicus describes the use of mercury as the material basis of the Philosophers’ Stone (Becher 1717, 31–32). According to Trevisanus, mercury is the proximate matter of all metals (Trevisanus Reference Trevisanus and Zetzner1659, 695), but he distinguishes “mature mercury” from ordinary mercury (ibid., 697). Sendivogius’ texts give no clear indication of the identity of the substance from which the prime matter should be manufactured, except for its association with Saturn.

When Egede used antimony as the prime matter of the Philosophers’ Stone this was in accordance with advice read in Borch’s Conspectus. Borch himself and many of the alchemical authorities that he recommended used antimony in gold-making. As Borch praised the frank speech of other authors, he also named the substance in plain words and explained that the Decknamen “Saturn” commonly meant antimony (Borch Reference Borch1696, 35).

Alchemists recommended in Conspectus used antimony both for purifying gold and as the prime matter of the Philosophers’ Stone. Borch cited Johann Grasshoff (Chortolasseus, d. 1623) (Priesner Reference Priesner, Figala and Priesner1998, 165–166) as having described the production of the Philosophers’s Stone from “the common mineral of Saturn, or antimony” (Borch Reference Borch1696, 35) and remarked: “Grasshoff’s matter of the Work is nothing other than the mineral of Saturn from Meissen” (ibid., 35–36). By removing the sulphurous earth from one pound of “minera Saturni,” Grasshoff had produced more than eight ounces of pure matter (ibid., 24). Another German seventeenth-century text cited by Borch, Clangor Buccinæ,Footnote ¹⁰ likewise described the process of purifying “minera Saturni” or antimony (i.e. stibnite) by removing the “sulphurous earth” (ibid.). This was part of the process that Egede performed in the Colony of Hope and described in the Philosophical Dream. The German alchemist Johannes de Monte-Snyder (circa 1625–1670) is cited as having recommended the use of butter of antimony (antimony trichloride) to “resurrect” imperfect metals (ibid., 43).

Among the alchemical texts that Borch recommended, the Valentinian allegories is another likely source for Egede. Der Triumph-Wagen Antimonii describes the removal of sulphur from stibnite to produce antimony that can conjugate with gold, using allegorical expressions resembling the ones used by Egede. Another Valentinian text, Ein kurtz summarischer Tractat, von dem grossen Stein der Uralten, describes a process where gold is purified by antimony before gold and antimony are left to digest (Principe Reference Principe2013, 144–145); this is the same process as in Becher’s allegory in Oedipus Chymicus.

Sendivogius’ further speaks of the matter of the Philosophers’ Stone as a “Chalybs,” which is a special type of steel [sonsten Stahel]. When mixed with the Chalybs, gold will release its semen and become weak, almost bitten to death [my emphasis]. The Chalybs will then conceive and give birth to a son who is as strong as his father. If the son [i.e. the Philosophers’ Stone] is thereafter placed back inside his mother’s womb [i.e. the Chalybs] he will cause her to bear fruit a thousand times (Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718c, 33). Given the statement that the gold was “bitten to death” by the Chalybs, and the common use of the metaphor of a wolf attacking a king to represent the purification of gold by means of antimony, it would be reasonable to believe that the Chalybs was antimony.Footnote ¹¹ Sendivogius stated that there was also a Chalybs made by nature that was “the beginning of our work” and able to absorb “the rays of the sun” [i.e. the qualities or nature of gold] (Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718c, 34). Newton interpreted this to be antimony which he used in his own alchemical experiments (Fanning Reference Fanning2009, 158).

That Sendivogius was a source to Egede’s ideas about the matter of the Philosophers’ Stone and one of the “Philosophers” that he consulted after the aborted experiment is also shown by textual evidence. Realizing that interrupting the process had caused the poisoning of his family, the two Inuit girls, and the puppies, Egede wrote “Before the appropriate Concoction it is the highest Poison, but after perfect Concoction, the highest Medicine” (Bobé Reference Bobé1925, 195). This sentence is taken verbatim (though translated to Danish by Egede) from Sendivogius’ De Lapide Philosophorum Tractatus duodecim, included in the Chymischer Schrifften (“vor geburlicher Kochung ist es das hochste Gifft, aber nach bequemer Kochung ist es die hochste Medicin”) (Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718c, 65).

Egede’s use of antimony as the basic matter of the Philosophers’ Stone is typical of the period. Many natural philosophers were interested in antimony as it seemed to have promising properties. It was a frequently used ingredient of Paracelsian alchemy, and in Paracelsian medicine, which was characterized by chemically manufactured medicaments. Robert Boyle experimented for forty years trying to make the Philosophers’ Stone from philosophical mercury made from purified antimony (Principe Reference Principe2013, 16), and Ole Borch had demonstrated the spontaneous melting of antimony in front of several well-known scientists in Paris and believed the ability of the substance to generate heat to be indicative of its possibilities (Nielsen and Pedersen Reference Nielsen, Pedersen and Riis Larsen2006, 67–69).Footnote ¹² Neither did antimony lose its relevance in the years that Egede performed his experiment. For example, Herman Boerhaave experimented with antimony purified by means of iron a few years later, in 1734, trying to produce the Philosophers’ Stone (Powers Reference Powers2012, 178–179).

Egede’s Alchemical Sources and the Natural History of Greenland

Although Egede’s biographers have so far presented an image of his alchemy as an irrational episode, separate from and in opposition to his lauded work as the pioneering natural historian of Greenland, this is far from the truth. On the contrary, his Perlustration not only reflects a view of nature that includes ideas central to alchemical theory but also contains passages that reveal the direct influence on his natural history by the alchemical works that he read. When Egede travelled through the Greenlandic landscape to map its natural properties and teach the nomadic Inuits about the mysteries of salvation, what he saw was a landscape formed by mercury and sulphur (Bobé Reference Bobé1925, 331), where the sun, moon, and stars caused the growth of plants, minerals, and metals, and the health, illnesses, and habits of the people. His use of the term “Spagyric Art” in the Perlustration (ibid., 329) about a metallurgical operation of retrieving particles of gold (“Particulae Solis”) from a red crystal found in Greenland, testifies to his reading of Paracelsian alchemical literature. The term “spagyric” was coined by Paracelsus as a term referring to distillation (Principe Reference Principe2013, 129).Footnote ¹³ According to Becher the spagyric art was the purification, perfection, and alteration of bodies (“spagyrica est corpora purificare, perficere & alterare”) (Becher 1717, 152–153).

A fundamental assumption in premodern natural philosophy which also underlay alchemical theory, was the existence of regularities in nature in the form of correspondences between natural phenomena. In the Perlustration, Egede pointed to the correspondence between the phases of the moon, the movements of the ocean, and hidden springs to exemplify this. There was in nature, Egede wrote, a

The same example of the heavenly bodies’ influence on the movement of water is found in Sendivogius’ Tractatus de sulphure, included in the Chymische Schrifften: “Nun ist offenbar, das alle Ströme des Wassers … das alle Flüss und Quellen, so [i]hren Lauf in das Meer haben, von dem Ge[s]tirn entspringen” (Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718b, 109), where it is immediately followed by an account of the creation of the world as an alchemical process, and distillation processes in nature as influenced by astrological emanations (ibid., 110–111).

Another example is Egede’s use of the concept of complexion to account for the characteristics of the Inuits. The doctrine of correspondences was connected with ancient ideas about the qualitative character or complexion of each individual geographical area, which had been current in premodern natural philosophy since Antiquity. Hippocrates’ Airs Waters Places (circa 400 BC) and Ptolemy’s Tetrabiblos (second century AD) had explained how the complexion of a place arose from its geography and climate and the astrological influence that it was exposed to, and how it affected the health and moral character of its inhabitants. According to these theories, differences between inhabitants of different geographical regions originated from the varying elemental composition of each region. Theories about complexion and the underlying doctrine of elements, laid out by Aristotle, formed part of the basis for ideas about transmutation, as according to alchemical theory the composition of the elements and primary qualities determined the type of metal, and the unique mixture of emanations from the stars at any individual time and place was an effective cause of the development of the various metals.

In Egede’s time, such ideas were still used to explain a wide spectrum of natural, medical, and cultural phenomena. In the Perlustration, Egede thus uses ideas of complexion to account for the weather, health, and diseases, and characteristics of the Inuit people and their culture. The humoural characteristics of the Inuits were, he explained, caused by the cold and moist complexion of Greenland: “the Main Temperament of this People is phlegmatic, wherefore they are also completely stupid, dumb, and cold-minded by Nature, and rarely show any kind of Affect and Passion, but are in almost all their Behaviour of an emotion-less mind” (Bobé Reference Bobé1925, 367). This description of the Inuits is virtually identical to the characteristics of the phlegmatic temperament given in Becher’s Oedipus Chymicus: stupid, weak, lazy, of a dull and timid nature, with dull desires (Becher 1717, 70 n.l),Footnote ¹⁴ and the similarities of wording indicates that Becher’s alchemical text has influenced Egede’s description of the Inuits’ character traits. Like Becher (ibid.), Egede also ascribes illnesses to complexion, explaining scurvy and “weakness of the chest,” i.e. diseases affecting the lungs, such as bronchitis and pneumonia, as caused by the cold and moist complexion of Greenland (Bobé Reference Bobé1925, 18, 331).

As according to ancient natural philosophy, including theories of complexion, emanations from the heavenly bodies were an effective cause of the generation of the various metals (Roth-Scholtz 1718, 25; Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718c, 11; Becher 1717, 158), they were believed to influence alchemical processes. Egede accepted the claim, promoted by the apologist of Paracelsianism Peder Sørensen, and also accepted by Ole Borch, that the effects of the correspondences in nature involved no magical forces. Like them he thus thought of astrological effects as natural and he took astrological theory into consideration in his alchemical practice. There is evidence in Egede’s report that he took care to choose an astrologically auspicious time for his alchemical experiment. Since he aborted his alchemical experiment on March 12th after a digestion period of fifty days, we know that this phase was initiated on January 22nd. As Furuset has pointed out, this was the first new moon of the year, and the astrological influence of the growing moon would, according to alchemical theory, be helpful for the process (Furuset Reference Furuset2006, 314). There was however another significant astrological reason to choose this date. On January 22nd the sun had just left the Zodiac sign of Capricorn and entered the sign of Aquarius, both associated with Saturn. As antimony was also associated with Saturn, indeed termed “the mineral of Saturn” by alchemical authors, an alchemical process involving antimony would be augmented by sympathetic planetary influence if initiated at this time. The positive effect of these Zodiac signs on antimony was explained by the French natural philosopher Jean d’Espagnet (1564-c.1637) (Forshaw Reference Forshaw, Greene and Campion2013, 163–164). d’Espagnet was recommended by Borch in Conspectus (Borch Reference Borch1696, 36–37) and he is thus a likely source for Egede. Sendivogius states that the alchemist should consider the positions of the planets in order to ease the development of the seed and conception; this will also have been significant to Egede (Sendivogius Reference Sendivogius and Roth-Scholtz1718c, 32).

Neither was Egede the only alchemist among his contemporaries to believe that astrological effects were significant for alchemical processes. Indeed, Egede was not the only one to choose January 22nd to initiate the digestion of the alchemical matter: Herman Boerhaave, who also experimented with antimony, chose the same day in 1734 to begin digesting purified quicksilver and gold in an attempt to produce the Philosopher’s Stone. This is not a coincidence but must be seen as evidence of the maintained belief in astrology’s significance for natural processes as part of chymical theory even in this relatively late period. Like Egede, Boerhaave also noted that the matter turned black after fifty days (Powers Reference Powers2012, 178–179).

Hans Egede and the Alchemical Tradition

Although only one of Egede’s experiments has been described in any detail, the available evidence suggests that he was interested in alchemy for several decades. In addition to the experiment of the winter 1727 he mentions “many glasses” broken in “some” experiments performed in Bergen during the years 1718 to 1721.Footnote ¹⁵ He studied, and may also have experimented with, alchemy in the Colony of Hope in the period 1721–27, before the recorded experiment, and mentions having performed two more experiments after March 1727. Further, the observation by Jacob Johan Lund of alchemical equipment in Egede’s daughter’s house in Stubbekøbing, where Egede lived from 1753 to his death in 1758, suggests that he practiced alchemy during these years. Lund, who was married to Egede’s granddaughter and got information directly from the family, provides evidence of continuity in Egede’s alchemical interest also before the years in Stubbekøbing, with the statement “It cannot be denied that H. Egede always had a particular Love for the Study of Chymistry” (Lund Reference Lund1778, 70). The available evidence thus points towards a relatively consistent interest in the theory and practice of alchemy for forty years.

Egede’s belief in transmutational alchemy did not make him a rare exception in his time. Even though transmutation and gold-making had largely lost credibility in scientific circles, there was still no theoretical basis for a claim that transmutation could not happen. Hjalmar Fors has in his study of the Swedish Mining Bureau shown how alchemy’s loss of status at the start of the eighteenth century did not happen primarily because of scientific proof against transmutation, but that alchemy was pushed aside as a consequence of economical and structural developments fuelled by Enlightenment ideals of utility and economical rationality (Fors Reference Fors2015). Chemistry rejected transmutational chymistry during the first decades of the eighteenth century primarily because of its lack of useful results (ibid., 4, 11).

During this period metals and minerals became a commodity and a means of economic gain for the Swedish state, hence discovering new metals and minerals proved more economically profitable than researching the inner composition of matter (ibid., 119). This development enlisted natural philosophy in the service of the state and favored a conception of metals and minerals as the smallest unit of nature, as elements or species (ibid., 45, 118–19). This was how transmutation was eventually relegated to the realm of the strange and fantastical as an opposite to the rational and useful (ibid., 122).

During the first few decades of the eighteenth century there were thus still a number of persons in good standing in the scientific community who believed in and practiced transmutational alchemy. Among them were men holding central positions in the Swedish Mining Bureau, such as Urban Hiärne (d. 1724) (ibid., 60, 62–63), and the noblemen Thomas Blixenstierna (d.1753) and Gustav Bonde (d. 1764) (ibid., 133–134). Another example is the previously mentioned Hermann Boerhaave (d. 1738), professor of chymistry at the prestigious Leiden University. In Copenhagen, Rosenborg castle had a large and well-equipped laboratory, built by king Christian IV (r.1588–1648) (Kragh Reference Kragh, Høiris and Vellev2006, 35–36), and several alchemists still practiced at Frederik IV’s court in the early 1720s (Kragh Reference Kragh2002, 32–33; Kragh Reference Kragh, Høiris and Vellev2006, 42). In Norway, a few apothecaries of the period have been identified as practicing alchemists. One of them was the Danish-born Arnoldus von Westen, who was an apothecary in Trondheim from 1680, another Andreas Thue (1703–1751) in Fredrikstad, who was interested in gold-making (Dahl Reference Dahl, Bogdan and Hammer2016, 26). When Egede sought instruction in laboratory techniques in Bergen after his first failed experiments, it was to an unnamed apothecary that he turned. Reports by reliable persons who had witnessed successful transmutation contributed to its continued plausibility. Among them was Ole Borch himself, who had seen silver transmuted to gold (Kragh Reference Kragh, Høiris and Vellev2006, 37).

Egede’s studies of alchemical texts were extensive, as was his collection of alchemical books. In his report from 1727 his alchemical library is said to comprise more than sixty authors (Bobé Reference Bobé1925, 195). He further reported that these alchemical works had been chosen based on the recommendations in Borch’s bibliographical work Conspectus Scriptorum Chemicorum Illustrorum. As Borch’s bibliography comprises about eighty works, Egede’s collection of more than sixty will have covered the majority, and we may therefore assume that the contents of Conspectus give a relatively good idea of the contents of Egede’s alchemical library.

In addition to functioning as Egede’s guide to alchemical literature, Ole Borch was a main influence behind his use of antimony as the prime matter of his alchemical experiment. The procedure performed in Egede’s recorded experiment was based mainly on theoretical elements found in Sendivogius’ Chymischer Schrifften and Becher’s Oedipus Chymicus. Further, his alchemical method, as well as his allegorical account of it, had strong similarities with the account in the Valentinian allegory Der Triumph-Wagen Antimonii, the most famous of the alchemical texts proposing the use of antimony, which Egede has most likely read.

The influence of Sendivogius’ theory of matter as consisting of a male and a female principle is reflected by the use of the wedding metaphor, also used in the Valentinian Triumph-Wagen Antimonii, in Egede’s Philosophical Dream. The dream motive adopted by Egede is present also in the allegories of Sendivogius and Trevisanus. Apart from Borch and Becher, Sendivogius and Trevisanus are the only two authors out of Egede’s alchemical reading mentioned by name; this most likely reflects their perceived importance for Egede.

The available evidence suggests that Egede did not doubt the truth of transmutation or the possibility of producing the Philosophers’ Stone. He was convinced by the authority of Ole Borch and the alchemical texts recommended by him, as well as his own observations that conformed to alchemical theory. The method he used conforms to the descriptions he had read in these texts both as regards operation and materials; his experiments have not had as their purpose to discover new alchemical truths, but rather to reproduce results and verify truths handed down by tradition.

Egede’s reading of Sendivogius and Becher also contributed to his natural historical studies. Whereas previous historiography has considered his alchemical studies as completely separate from, and in contradiction to, Egede’s role as pioneer natural historian of Greenland, this article has revealed how his natural historical and alchemical studies were closely interwoven. Although theories of correspondences, complexion, and astrology were not specifically alchemical, but form part of premodern natural philosophy, textual evidence points to direct influence on the Perlustration from the alchemical works that were also the most important sources to Egede’s alchemical knowledge.

The boundaries between alchemy and pursuits now considered scientifically valid, such as metallurgy and the manufacture of drugs, were in Egede’s time still blurry. There is evidence in Egede’s writings that he mastered and practiced metallurgical techniques and had knowledge about the distillation of medicines (Bobé Reference Bobé1925, 230, 326, 329), both skills that were needed in his daily work as head of the colony. The link between his metallurgical work and his reading of Paracelsian alchemical literature is visible in his use of the term “spagyric” when referring to the extraction of gold from a crystal (Bobé Reference Bobé1925, 329; Becher 1717, 152–153). Further, the overlap between commonly accepted natural philosophy and alchemical theory contributed to the continued plausibility of transmutation. Central premises on which alchemical theory rested still held explanatory power in generally accepted natural philosophy. As shown above, Egede’s pioneer study of the nature of Greenland and the customs of the Inuits, published in 1741 as Det Gamle Grønlands Nye Perlustration, thus contains descriptions of natural phenomena using natural philosophical theories and concepts that also formed the basis for theories of transmutational alchemy. Important among these were the aforementioned theories of complexion and correspondences, and Egede’s text regarding these topics was strongly influenced by the alchemical literature that also guided his attempts to make the Philosophers’ Stone. The Perlustration was widely read, and its translation into German (1742), English (1744, 1760/1818), Dutch (1746), and French (1763) (Gulløv and Kapel Reference Gulløv and Kapel1979, 16) suggests that Egede’s view of nature did not deviate to any significant degree from theories that were deemed acceptable at the time.

In the following century alchemy would lose the support of natural philosophy and come to represent the opposite of science and rationality. The famous Norwegian sociologist Eilert Sundt (1817–1875) in 1860 expressed surprise that the normally so rational Hans Egede believed in the Philosophers’ Stone: “It was certainly strange, that such a sensible and clear-thinking Man as Egede could ever be seduced into the Promises of the Art of Gold-Making.” Sundt continued by expressing the vain hope that Egede had, by the time that he lived in Stubbekøbing, turned away from alchemy and towards the more useful science of chemistry: “it is not said that it was the Art of Gold-Making that he had practiced in his old Age; it might very well have been the Science of Chemistry itself, that appealed to his pensive and active Spirit, and the Study of which afforded him a useful Pastime” (Sundt Reference Sundt1860, 169 note 28). Sundt’s remark reflects that transmutational alchemy had in the mid-nineteenth century been completely expelled from the concept of chemistry.