Abstract

The fifteenth‐century Augustinian canon and alchemist George Ripley is one of the most important figures in early English alchemy. As the chief popularizer of the alchemical principles of the pseudo‐Lull, he initiated an influential school of English alchemy that remained resilient to the end of the seventeenth century. John Dee, George Starkey, Robert Boyle, and Isaac Newton all read Ripley carefully, and Michael Maier is said to have learned English just so that he could read Ripley in the original tongue.But Ripley has encountered the fate of many alchemical writers: reliable biographical data about him is scarce and nearly overwhelmed by the accumulation of rumors and legends, and his corpus is a farrago of genuine, adulterated, and spurious works springing from several periods and places. Naturally, this messy situation renders solid historical inquiry difficult, and so one of the first tasks must be to produce more reliable biographical and bibliographical foundations for studies of Ripley and his influence.The current volume, although published by Ashgate, greatly resembles a further installment in the Garland English Renaissance Hermeticism Series, of which Stanton Linden was the general editor. The bulk of the book is a reprint of the 1591 London edition of Ripley's Compound of Alchymy—his longest and most influential work—a versification in rhyme royal on the making of the philosophers' stone. The reprinted text is preceded by an introduction and followed by explanatory notes, many of them making use of Eirenaeus Philalethes' Ripley Reviv'd, a lengthy commentary on the Compound published in 1678, and of Elias Ashmole's Theatrum chemicum britannicum, in which the Compound was published with annotations in 1652.The historian of science might well question why the 1591 printed edition was chosen as the primary text when there are at least nine fifteenth‐century manuscripts of the Compound in existence. Linden expresses his belief in the superiority of Rabbard's 1591 edition over Ashmole's 1652 edition—though he bases this preference, somewhat curiously, on the modernity of the former's spelling and punctuation—but he does not note explicitly why Rabbard's text should be preferable to manuscripts written during Ripley's lifetime. This decision is presumably due, however, to the apparent connection of this book to the English Renaissance Hermeticism Series, and Linden's greater interest in the late sixteenth‐century scene is clear in the detailed account he provides of the production of the 1591 edition. This treatment contrasts with the relatively less critical interest shown toward details on Ripley himself, for the biographical section simply lists items about Ripley's life as summarized around 1900 and includes some points that must be incorrect . Given Linden's fine researches published previously, this comes as a bit of a disappointment, although it must be recalled that even Ashmole had trouble getting details on Ripley three hundred years ago.Students of alchemy should welcome the appearance of a reprint of a primary source. Those who are interested in Renaissance publications of alchemical works and who approach Ripley primarily as an English poet and literary figure will benefit from the book. Questions of course remain, and it is to be hoped that this volume will attract more attention to further aspects of the famous Canon of Bridlington and his work