Alchemical Patronage and The Making of An Adept Letters of Michael Sendivogius To Emperor Rudolf II and His Chamberlain Hans Popp

Ambix
ISSN: 0002-6980 (Print) 1745-8234 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yamb20
Alchemical Patronage and the Making of an Adept:

Letters of Michael Sendivogius to Emperor Rudolf
II and His Chamberlain Hans Popp
Rafał T. Prinke & Mike A. Zuber
To cite this article: Rafał T. Prinke & Mike A. Zuber (2018): Alchemical Patronage and the Making
of an Adept: Letters of Michael Sendivogius to Emperor Rudolf II and His Chamberlain Hans Popp,
Ambix, DOI: 10.1080/00026980.2018.1512776
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00026980.2018.1512776
Published online: 11 Sep 2018.
Submit your article to this journal
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yamb20
ambix, 2018, 1–32
Alchemical Patronage
and the Making of an Adept:
Letters of Michael Sendivogius
to Emperor Rudolf II and
His Chamberlain Hans Popp
Rafal T. Prinke1 and Mike A. Zuber
=
=
2
1
Eugeniusz Piasecki University, Poznań, Poland
2
Wolfson College, University of Oxford, UK
Based on four extant letters the famous Polish alchemist Michael Sendivogius
wrote to Emperor Rudolf II and his first chamberlain Hans Popp between 1597
and 1602, this paper adds to a growing body of revisionist scholarship on
alchemy in Rudolfine Prague. Unlike most of his many rivals – including lumin-
aries such as John Dee and Michael Maier – who hoped for the Emperor’s
patronage in vain, Sendivogius officially became a courtier at the imperial
court in 1594. As such he was in the privileged position of having access to
the Emperor and his close advisors. The surviving correspondence shows
how the Pole successfully balanced his alchemical promises against
Rudolf’s expectations for a number of years. The fact that even Sendivogius
found it difficult to translate imperial patronage into ready money suggests
that Emperor Rudolf II was considerably more circumspect and less gullible
than the widespread cliché suggests. Fully contextualised by all available
sources on Sendivogius’ early career, the four letters emerge as important
documents regarding the Polish adept and alchemical patronage in Rudolfine
Prague. They also shed new light on the circumstances which led to the writing
and publication of Sendivogius’ famous treatise De lapide philosophorum
(Novum lumen chymicum).
Accounts of the “alchemical court” of Emperor Rudolf II (1552–1612) have a

long history, from contemporaneous rumours down to today’s popular
© Society for the History of Alchemy and Chemistry 2018 DOI 10.1080/00026980.2018.1512776
2 RAFAL T. PRINKE AND MIKE A. ZUBER
=
=
narratives.1 The memorable image of Golden Lane, “lined with small insignificant
houses, which were occupied largely by the alchemists and occultists who were
attracted from near and far by the predilections and liberality of the marvel-loving
Emperor,” has long epitomised the reputation of Rudolfine Prague for alchemy.2
Even modern scholarship, beginning with the publication of R. J. W. Evans’s trailblaz-
ing study Rudolf II and His World (1973), has not been entirely exempt from being
carried away by the vision of extensive imperial laboratories and an endless string of
famous adepts who frequented them.3 However, there have also been critical studies,
beginning with those of the Czech chemist Otakar Zachar (1870–1921).4 His research
showed that there was no evidence for any extensive contacts Rudolf cultivated with the
alchemists who flocked to Prague. Recent research has confirmed Zachar’s conclusions
that the Emperor, while interested in alchemy and running a private laboratory in the
Prague Castle,5 did not actually employ or extend his patronage to the vast majority
of the Paracelsian physicians, Hermetic adepts, and alchemical projectors commonly
associated with his court.6 Although many of them travelled to Prague with high
hopes of securing Rudolf’s favour and patronage, most never even succeeded in
gaining an audience with him.
Two famous examples will have to suffice to make this point here. Although he
had great expectations, the English adept John Dee (1527–1608/9) merely achieved
a single audience on Monday, 3 September 1584. At its conclusion, Rudolf said “he
would henceforward, take me [Dee] to his recommendation and care, and some such
words (of favour promised),” which the Englishman “heard not well,” as the
Emperor “spoke so low.”7 Despite Dee’s perseverance, all attempts to meet the
Emperor again proved futile. Much has been made of the alleged ties that bound
Michael Maier (1569–1622) to Rudolf.8 Yet the various distinctions – the titles of
imperial physician,9 servant, and count palatine, alongside exemptio fori (rendering
1
Peter Marshall, The Mercurial Emperor: The Magic Circle of Rudolf II in Renaissance Prague (London: Pimlico,
2007); Jacqueline Dauxois, L’Empereur des alchimistes: Rodolphe II de Habsbourg (Paris: Éditions J.C. Lattès,
1996).
2
Henry Carrington Bolton, The Follies of Science at the Court of Rudolph II. 1576–1612 (Milwaukee: Pharma-
ceutical Review Publishing Co., 1904), 19. It was not home to alchemists but to soldiers of the guard, wearing
yellow uniforms. Comp. Otakar Zachar, “Rudolf II. a alchymisté,” Č asopis Musea království Č eského 86–87
(1912–1913): 417–24, 148–55, 243–57, on 246, n. 2.
3
R. J. W. Evans, Rudolf II and His World: A Study in Intellectual History 1576–1612, 2nd, corrected ed. (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1984). For the current state of research, see Ivo Purš and Vladimír Karpenko, eds., Alchemy and
Rudolf II: Exploring the Secrets of Nature in Central Europe in the 16th and 17th Centuries (Prague: Artefactum/
Institute of Art History of the Czech Academy of Sciences, 2016).
4
Zachar, “Rudolf II. a alchymisté.”
5
Ivo Purš, “Rudolf II’s Patronage of Alchemy and the Natural Sciences,” in Purš and Karpenko, Alchemy and Rudolf
II, 139–204, on 181, 184.
6
Wilhelm Kühlmann and Joachim Telle, eds., Corpus Paracelsisticum. Der Frühparacelsismus: Dritter Teil/1 (Berlin:
de Gruyter, 2013), 940–63.
7
Stephen Skinner, ed., Dr. John Dee’s Spiritual Diaries (1583–1608) (Singapore: Golden Hoard Press, 2011), 416–17,
on 417.
8
The unfounded but oft-repeated claim that Maier was also Rudolf’s “private secretary” is exemplary of this and goes
back to Bolton, The Follies of Science, 98, 182. For a more recent restatement, see e.g. Marshall, The Mercurial
Emperor, 132. The same tendency also occurs without this particular claim; comp. Hereward Tilton, The Quest
for the Phoenix: Spiritual Alchemy and Rosicrucianism in the Work of Count Michael Maier (1569–1622)
(Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003), 35, 69–71, 80–81, 245.
ALCHEMICAL PATRONAGE AND THE MAKING OF AN ADEPT 3
him subject only to the Emperor’s jurisdiction), a knighthood with a coat of arms10 –
he obtained at Prague in 1609 were purely honorific and did not indicate that he had
actually become employed at the court.11 By advertising most of these distinctions in
a printed booklet, Triga Palatina (1610), the alchemist quickly sought to translate
the symbolic capital afforded by these titles into real patronage opportunities.
Rather than being rewarded for his impressive skills in alchemy and medicine, it
is much more likely that Maier had to bribe court officials to obtain his various dis-
tinctions. He mentioned “great expenses” in this connection but never recorded a
meeting with the Emperor himself.12
Like Maier, many other alchemists obtained imperial privileges and honorifics.
These include Johann Müller (c. 1578/79–1606), ennobled as Von Mühlenfels in
1603 and later hanged by Friedrich I of Württemberg (1557–1608);13 the physician
Tadeáš Hájek (1525–1600), sometimes erroneously presented as the head of the
Emperor’s laboratory but actually dismissed in 1576, around the beginning of
Rudolf’s reign;14 and Edward Kelley, who had his supposed Irish nobility confirmed,
was made a golden knight (a purely titular dignity), and received Bohemian citizen-
ship.15 In all of these cases, the ties of these alchemists to Rudolf’s court were loose
or purely administrative.
Perhaps the single exception to these rules was the Polish alchemist Michael Sen-
divogius (1566–1636). Followed by Edward Kelley (1555–1597), who was not a
court member and whose writings had little influence, as the next candidate,16 Sen-
divogius could be seen as the foremost Rudolfine alchemist. Already a legend during
his lifetime, contemporaries regarded him as a true adept and possessor of the
9
Erik Leibenguth, Hermetische Poesie des Frühbarock: Die “Cantilenae intellectuales” Michael Maiers (Tübingen:
Max Niemeyer, 2002), 466: “Aulae suae medicum.” Granted to doctors of some repute, this honorific entailed
the right to treat the emperor (in case he should require treatment while visiting the towns in which they resided).
Like Maier, both Martin Ruland the Elder and the Younger held the title but were in no way members of the imperial
court. Comp. Vladimír Karpenko, “Martin Rulands Lexicon Alchemiae im Kontext der chemischen Sprache und
Systematik,” Studia Rudolphina 11 (2011): 102–26, on 102–3.
10
Michael Maier, Triga Palatina, Das ist/ Drey besondere Privilegia (Prague, 1610), fols. A2v, C2r, C3v, D2r/v. Pre-
viously unnoticed by Maier scholars, the sole surviving copy of this booklet is Praha, Královská kanonie premon-
strátů na Strahově: AM VIII 65/26.
11
The same has already been argued by Leibenguth, Hermetische Poesie, 42; Thomas Hofmeier, ed., Michael Maiers
Chymisches Cabinet: Atalanta fugiens deutsch nach der Ausgabe von 1708 (Berlin: Leonhard Thurneysser Verlag,
2007), 11–17; Kühlmann and Telle, Corpus Paracelsisticum III/1, 956–57.
12
Maier’s letter to Beyer, 28 October 1617 (Old Style), in Leibenguth, Hermetische Poesie, 466: “magnas expensas.”
Despite the lack of evidence, it has been argued that Maier had at least one audience with Rudolf; comp. Ivo Purš and
Jaroslava Hausenblasová, “Michael Maier and His Prague Activities,” in Purš and Karpenko, Alchemy and Rudolf
II, 335–66, on 339–40.
13
Claus Priesner and Karin Figala, eds., Alchemie: Lexikon einer hermetischen Wissenschaft (München: Beck, 1998),
s.v. “Müller v. Mühlenfels”; Alexander Bauer, Die Adelsdocumente österreichischer Alchemisten und die Abbildun-
gen einiger Medaillen alchemistischen Ursprunges (Wien: Alfred Hölder, 1893), 47–51.
14
Ivo Purš, “Tadeáš Hájek of Hájek and His Alchemical Circle,” in Purš and Karpenko, Alchemy and Rudolf II, 423–
57; Bauer, Adelsdocumente, 45–47.
15
Rafał T. Prinke, “Beyond Patronage: Michael Sendivogius and the Meanings of Success in Alchemy,” in Chymia: Science
and Nature in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, ed. Miguel López Pérez, Didier Kahn, and Mar Rey Bueno (New-
castle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010), 175–231, on 182–83; Bauer, Adelsdocumente, 44.
16
On his impact through translations of George Ripley’s works, see Jennifer M. Rampling, “John Dee and the Alche-
mists: Practising and Promoting English Alchemy in the Holy Roman Empire,” Studies in History and Philosophy of
Science 43 (2012): 498–508.
=
=
philosophers’ stone. None other than Maier first presented Sendivogius as the great-
est adept of the age and the last of the twelve most important alchemical philoso-
phers in history.17 His writings met with unprecedented success and remained
widely read among scholars, natural philosophers, and alchemists for two centuries.
Unlike any other of the actual or supposed members of Rudolf’s “alchemical court,”
Sendivogius remained formally employed as an imperial courtier for eighteen years.
Yet despite his long tenure at the court, relatively little is known about the details of
his relation to the Emperor. Unfortunately, only two letters Sendivogius wrote to
Rudolf survive. They are complemented by another two letters addressed to Hans
Popp (d. 1599), Rudolf’s long-serving first chamberlain. Taken together, they shed
much light on the complex relationship between the Emperor and his alchemist,
which is why they are edited and translated here. Additionally, the letters fill in
some lacunae in the biography of Michael Sendivogius. Two of the letters are
dated at Prague on 10 February 1597, with one each addressing Rudolf and
Popp. These have long been known to scholarship.18 Alongside a third, undated
letter, Manfred Staudinger has made available transcriptions of these documents
online.19 The last of the four letters, dated at Cracow on 18 June 1602, was only
recently discovered and briefly discussed.20
By contextualising and presenting the limited extant correspondence between
Sendivogius, Emperor Rudolf, and Hans Popp, this paper provides further evi-
dence for the emerging revisionist view of the place of alchemy at the court of
Prague. Sendivogius’ letters document how he had to resort to daring gambits
to gain Rudolf’s ear and the practical support he had been promised. Indeed,
the most surprising aspect is the tone of the letters. Formally polite and submiss-
ive, their content is actually bold and demanding. In both letters Sendivogius
directly addressed to Rudolf, he presented the Emperor with ultimatums and
conditions according to which he would be willing to share the secrets of
alchemy. The impression we gain from reading them is the same as that which
Oswald Croll (1560–1609) had after interviewing Edward Kelley in June
1596: “I am afraid he is leading the Emperor by the nose.”21 However, as the
Pole succeeded in playing the game for at least ten years, he may have learned
from Kelley’s miserable example. Even though Sendivogius occasionally faced
serious problems, the Emperor never withdrew his favour. When legal suits
involving debts and doubts regarding Sendivogius’ truthfulness arose in 1598
17
Michael Maier, Symbola aureae mensae duodecim nationum (Frankfurt a.M., 1617), 553–60.
18
Evans, Rudolf II and His World, 211; Rolf Gelius, “Der ‘Processus universalis’ nach Michael Sendivogius: Zur
Entstehungsgeschichte einer neuzeitlichen Variante des alchimischen Grossen Werkes,” Gesnerus 53 (1996): 183–
93, on 186–87; R. Werner Soukup, “Michael Sendivogius: An Alchemist and Austrian-Polish Double Agent of the
Beginning 17th Century,” in The Global and the Local: The History of Science and the Cultural Integration of
Europe. Proceedings of the 2nd ICESHS (Cracow, Poland, September 6–9, 2006), ed. Michał Kokowski
(Kraków: Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Umiejętności, 2007), 425–28, on 426.
19
Manfred Staudinger, “Documenta Rudolphina,” http://documenta.rudolphina.org/.
20
Kühlmann and Telle, Corpus Paracelsisticum III/1, 954.
21
Wilhelm Kühlmann and Joachim Telle, eds., Oswaldus Crollius: Alchemomedizinische Briefe 1585 bis 1597 (Stutt-
gart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1998), 93: “vereor ne Imperatorem naso suspendat.”
and again in 1599, he could repeatedly rely on the support of both Rudolf II and
King Sigismund III Vasa of Poland (1566–1632) to bail him out. It appears that, par-
ticularly from 1600 onwards, Sendivogius’ usefulness for the Emperor chiefly lay in
his excellent ties to the Polish court, which allowed him to act as a diplomatic envoy
between Prague and Cracow. However, alchemy remained a topic of special interest
in 1602 and 1604, when Sendivogius’ famous De lapide philosophorum (better
known as Novum lumen chymicum) was first published. In the following, the
factual information contained in these letters is contextualised with what is otherwise
known of Sendivogius’ formative decade prior to the publication of his treatise in
1604. This allows the letters to reveal their full potential as sources on Sendivogius’
life and Rudolfine alchemy. Throughout these years, the upstart Pole successfully
used courtly connections and alchemical promise to establish himself as a nobleman
who temporarily owned an estate.
Sendivogius among Rudolf’s court officials

At the age of twenty-eight, Sendivogius formally became a member of Rudolf’s court on
1 May 1594, listed as serving “with three horses,” that is, receiving a salary to sustain
himself and two men with horses.22 For this reason he soon styled himself “court
servant of His Roman Imperial Majesty.”23 His origins remain obscure, yet upon enter-
ing Rudolf’s service he was recorded not only as a nobleman but even as a baron – a title
to which he certainly had no right: “Lord Michael Sed ̨ zimir, Baron of Storsko [sic],
Ligota, and Łukowica.”24 This newly extravagant self-fashioning marked a striking
departure from the affluent commoner documented through the earliest definite
records on Sendivogius’ life, his matriculation entries as a mature student at the univer-
sities of Leipzig and Vienna in 1590 and on 13 October 1591, respectively.25 The heigh-
tened pretension to nobility from 1594 onwards may have been connected to
Sendivogius’ recent marriage, which had taken place in late 1592 or early 1593. His
wife’s name was Veronika Stiebar von Buttenheim (d. 1599), a relatively wealthy
widow of a family of knights in Franconia.26
Although he did not stay in Prague after May 1594 and soon continued his
studies at various universities, this appointment made Sendivogius one among
only a handful of people actually employed at the imperial court who were
22
Jaroslava Hausenblasová, ed., Der Hof Kaiser Rudolfs II.: Eine Edition der Hofstaatsverzeichnisse 1576–1612
(Prag: Artefactum, 2002), 276: “hofdiener auf 3 pfärdt etc.”
23
Matriculation record, March 1595; Elias von Steinmeyer, Die Matrikel der Universität Altdorf, 2 vols. (Würzburg:
Universitätsdruckerei H. Stürtz, 1912), vol. 1, 53: “Rom. Kay. Mt. Hoffdiener.”
24
Hausenblasová, Der Hof Kaiser Rudolfs II., 277: “Herr Michael Sedzimir freyherr von Storsko, Ligoto und Luko-
wiza dient mit dreyen pferden.”
25
Prinke, “Beyond Patronage,” 198. Throughout the early-modern period, students commonly enrolled at university
around the age of fourteen, which means that Sendivogius would have been about a decade older than most of his
peers.
26
Rafał T. Prinke, “Veronika Stiebarin, the Wife of Michael Sendivogius,” in Sršatý Prajz: Erich Šefčík (1945–2004).
Sborník k nedožitým 65. narozeninám historika a archiváře, ed. Jiří Hanzal and Ondřej Šefčík (Praha: Lidové noviny,
2010), 151–62; Rafał T. Prinke, “Michał Sędziwój – pocza ̨tki kariery,” Kwartalnik Historii Nauki i Techniki 58
(2012): 89–129, on 112–17; Prinke, “Beyond Patronage,” 199–201, 214–15.
=
=
involved in Rudolf’s alchemical interests. Three names are relevant in this

context, although they only occur much later. In 1603 the adventurer Nicolaus
von Vicken (also Fik, Fictius; fl. 1572–1625) briefly entered the Emperor’s
service as a steward (Truchsess), a low rank held by about a dozen members
of the imperial court. Although astrology was Von Vicken’s chief interest, his
album amicorum documents his acquaintance with a number of alchemists
and Rosicrucians.27 However, it remains unclear whether his employment at
Rudolf’s court was connected to alchemy at all. In any case, Von Vicken was
soon expelled from Bohemia, as the Polish King (with Sendivogius’ involvement)
demanded his extradition for treason he had committed in Poland.28 Equally in
1603, according to his printed obituary, Benedict Hinckelmann (1588–1659)
had been “promoted to the famous chymical laboratory of Emperor Rudolf
II” at the age of fifteen, remaining there “until after the death of … His Imperial
Majesty.”29 However, despite Hinckelmann’s later career as a “secret chymist”
at various courts and his role in introducing Jacob Böhme (1575–1624) to the
secrets of alchemy,30 Prague records indicate that he had merely been a young
distiller at the time.31 As such, he would have been far removed from any
actual contact with Rudolf. The situation would have been considerably better
for Jakub Horčický (Sinapius) of Tepenec (1575–1622), who was employed by
the Emperor on 1 June 1608.32 Although his main interests were the medical
properties of herbs and the distillation of “healing waters” (known as aquae
Sinapianae) with which he successfully cured Rudolf, Sinapius has erroneously
been described as performing “experiments in the imperial alchemical labora-
tories.”33 While it is possible that he advised the monarch on chymical pro-
cedures, there is currently no known evidence for this.34
27
Christiane Schwarz, Studien zur Stammbuchpraxis der Frühen Neuzeit: Gestaltung und Nutzung des Album ami-
corum am Beispiel eines Hofbeamten und Dichters, eines Politikers und eines Goldschmieds (etwa 1550 bis 1650)
(Frankfurt a.M.: Peter Lang, 2002), 77–128.
28
Hausenblasová, Der Hof Kaiser Rudolfs II., 257; Nils Lenke and Nicolas Roudet, “‘Nicolaus Ficke … der sich mit
Physiognomie, Astrologie etc. abgab, übrigens ein schlechter Mann war’: Biographische Notizen zum Kepler-
Briefpartner Nicolaus von Vicken,” Sudhoffs Archiv 96 (2012): 197–238; Rafał T. Prinke, “Tajna misja alchemika
Sędziwoja: Epizod z pogranicza dziejów nauki, polityki i wojskowości,” in Historia na źródłach oparta: Studia ofiar-
owane Profesorowi Tadeuszowi Srogoszowi w 65. rocznicę urodzin, ed. Andrzej Stroynowski (Częstochowa: Wy-
dawnictwo im. Stanisława Podobińskiego Akademii im. Jana Długosza w Częstochowie, 2017), 531–50.
29
Daniel Schneider, Gläubiger Christen Hertzens-Freude … Bey ansehnlicher Leichbestattung Des weiland Edlen/
Wol-Ehrenvesten und Hochgeachten Herrn Benedicti Hinckelmanns/ Churfürstl. Durchl. in Sachsen etc. Geheimden
Chymici (Dresden, 1662), fol. E3r/v: “Jm Funffzehenden Jahre seines Alters hat Er sich nacher Prage begeben/ und ist
alda in das berühmte Laboratorium Chymicum, Käysers Rudolphi Secundi … befördert worden/ alda Er sich viel
Jahr/ biß nach höchst-gedachter Käyserlicher Majestät Absterben auffgehalten.”
30
Schneider, Gläubiger Christen Hertzens-Freude, fols. E2v, E3v, E4r: “geheimder Chymicus.” Comp. section 3 in
Mike A. Zuber, “Jacob Böhme and Alchemy: A Transmutation in Three Stages,” in Jacob Böhme and His World,
ed. Bo Andersson, et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2019).
31
R. Werner Soukup, “‘Transforming the Whole Corpus Solis into Liquor Irreducibilis’: Laboratory Alchemy at the
Court of Emperor Rudolf II,” in Purš and Karpenko, Alchemy and Rudolf II, 205–28, on 218.
32
Hausenblasová, Der Hof Kaiser Rudolfs II., 267.
33
Václav Bů žek, “Alchemy in the Everyday Life of First Chamber Servants of Rudolf II,” in Purš and Karpenko,
Alchemy and Rudolf II, 647–54, on 654.
34
René Zandbergen and Rafał T. Prinke, “The Voynich MS in Rudolfine Prague,” in Purš and Karpenko, Alchemy and
Rudolf II, 297–314, on 303–7.
Much closer to the Emperor were his personal advisors and chamberlains. They
included privy councilors Johann Barvitius (c. 1555–1620) and Rudolf von
Coraduz (d. 1618), who was also imperial vice-chancellor from 1601. Both of
them were actively interested in alchemy and patronised artists as well as scientists.35
By virtue of their constant access to the Emperor, chamberlains (Kammerdiener),
and particularly their head, were in a position to exert even greater influence.
Although usually of low birth, the peculiarities of their office made them equal to
the most powerful officials: they frequently decided who would be allowed to
have an audience with Rudolf or whose letters would actually reach his very own
hands, rather than being dealt with by the chancellery.
The head chamberlain from the beginning of Rudolf’s rule until 1599 was Hans
Popp, whom Sendivogius addressed in this capacity. Popp started his career
already in the service of Rudolf’s father Emperor Maximilian II and was responsible
for preparing lodgings for the imperial family visiting Prague in 1575.36 The follow-
ing year Rudolf II entrusted to him the arrangements for his father’s burial and the
castrum doloris (the elaborate decorations surrounding the coffin).37 He remained
the chief favourite of the Emperor, “the ‘apple’ of Rudolf’s ‘eye.’”38 Rudolf
valued his service so much that he granted Popp land estates in Bohemia (most
notably the castle of Eger/Cheb in 1596) and ennobled him in 1588.39 Many
people approached him with requests for help in various matters, including
Edward Kelley’s widow and daughter after his death.40 He even decided on the
prices to be paid for art objects purchased by the Emperor.41
Even before coming to Bohemia, Sendivogius was affiliated with the court of King
Sigismund in Cracow. This may have been an important factor for his employment
in Prague.42 It is unclear whether he was already an experienced alchemist at this
point and whether this was the reason for which the Emperor chose to employ
him. A much later biographical account by Friedrich Roth-Scholtz (1687–1736),
a collector and publisher of alchemical literature, claims that during Sendivogius’
studies in Leipzig around 1590, “he lived in close conversation especially with the
35
Michal Šroněk, “Johann Barvitius als Mäzen im rudolfinischen Prag,” Studia Rudolphina 8 (2008): 49–57; Purš,
“Rudolf’s Patronage,” 199.
36
Jiří Svoboda, Inventář Fondu Archivu Pražského Hradu č. 5. Archivní pomů cka č. 5/1: (Č eská) Dvorská komora z let
1529–1621 sg. D K (Praha: Archiv Pražského hradu, s.a.), nr. 472; http://www.prazskyhradarchiv.cz/archivPH/
upload/dk.pdf.
37
Svoboda, Inventář Fondu, nr. 505; Evans, Rudolf II and His World, 61.
38
Anton Schindling and Walter Ziegler, Die Kaiser der Neuzeit, 1519–1918: Heiliges Römisches Reich, Österreich,
Deutschland (München: C.H. Beck, 1990), 101. “‘Augapfel’ Rudolfs.”
39
Vinzenz Prökl, Eger und das Egerland historisch, statistisch und topografisch dargestellt, 2nd, revised, expanded,
and improved ed., 2 vols. (Falkenau: Müller & Weiser, 1877), vol. 1, 475; Karl Siegl, “Die Geschichte der Egerer
Burgpflege,” Mittheilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen 50 (1912): 546–94, on 585–86;
Adalbert Král von Dobrá Voda, Der Adel von Böhmen, Mähren und Schlesien (Prag: I. Taussig, 1904), 198.
40
Josef Svátek, Obrazy z kulturních dějin českých, 2 vols. (Praha: J. Otto, 1891), 154; Staudinger, “Documenta Rudol-
phina,” s.v. “Popp.”
41
Petr Uličný, “Hans and Paul Vredeman de Vries in Rudolf II’s Prague Castle,” Studia Rudolphina 15 (2015): 48–187,
on 63.
42
Prinke, “Michał Sędziwój – pocza ̨tki kariery,” 105.
=
=
famous Dr Joachim Tanckius, as well as with Johann Thölde, a man highly experi-
enced in the chymical art.”43 At the time, Tanckius (also Tancke; 1557–1609) was a
professor of poetry and student of medicine at the university there.44 This makes it
likely that Sendivogius knew him. Later on, Tancke prepared an early edition of Sen-
divogius’ treatise. Other early sources on Sendivogius’ life published in 1598 and
1599 do not mention alchemy, although by that time this reflected his desire for
secrecy rather than a lack of interest in the subject.45 Whether or not the Pole was
already a consummate alchemist in 1594, he certainly became one throughout the
coming years.
Alchemical fundraising for real estate

Alchemy figured prominently in the two earliest letters presented here, both written
on 10 February 1597 (nrs. 1 and 2). As can be inferred from the first letter to
Rudolf and the accompanying letter to Popp, Sendivogius returned to Prague some-
time in late 1596 and thus concluded his peregrinatio academica.46 Both letters
expressed the Pole’s irritation that the Emperor had kept him waiting for two
months after he had declared his willingness to reveal his alchemical process in
exchange for 5600 thalers. In addition, Sendivogius also demanded a promise
that, in case he died and the process were to be found useful and true, his wife
and children would be granted the land estate of “Lübochowitz” (Libochovice),
with its magnificent castle, in Northern Bohemia. Along with its seventeen adjoin-
ing villages, Libochovice belonged to Jiří Popel of Lobkovic (c. 1551–1607 or
1613), one of the most powerful people in Bohemia. Popel was also the leader
of the Catholic opposition to Rudolf II, for which reason he was imprisoned in
1594 and all his estates were confiscated. Thus, the Emperor could grant Libocho-
vice to anyone, as Sendivogius must have known. Eventually it was given to Sigis-
mund Báthory (1573–1613) in 1606, as a compensation for his loss of the
principality of Transylvania. This request sounds much more presumptuous than
that for a comparatively modest sum of money or the threat of abandoning the
Emperor’s service.
The Pole had thus been in Prague at least since early December 1596, yet the letters
also indicate that he had previously given Rudolf a special oil and that the Emperor
insisted on learning the process for producing it. Interestingly, the well-informed
43
Michael Sendivogius, Chymische Schrifften, ed. Friedrich Roth-Scholtz (Nürnberg, 1718), 12: “lebete er sonderlich
mit dem berühmten Dr. Joachim Tanckio; ingleichen mit dem in der Chymischen Kunst hocherfahrnen Manne/
Johann Thölden, in guter Verständniß.”
44
Udo Benzenhöfer, “Joachim Tancke (1557–1609): Leben und Werk eines Leipziger Paracelsisten,” in Paracelsus und
Paracelsisten: Vorträge 1984/85, ed. Sepp Domandl (Wien: Verband der wissenschaflichen Gesellschaften Öster-
reichs, 1987), 9–81, on 11.
45
Jiří Carolides z Karlsperka, Praecepta … ad illustrissimi et Magnanimi herois Domini Michaelis Sendivogii de
Skorsko et Lukovicze lib. Baronis filium primogenitum Christophorum Michaelem Sendivogium (Prague: 1598);
Bartoloměj Paprocký z Hlohol a Paprocké Vů le, Giná cžástka: Nowé kratochwile s kterauž Bohyně Wenus na
swět wyssla: Pět set žertů w y giných kratochwilných přikladů w (Prague, 1598), fols. C2r–C4r; Bartosz Paprocki,
Ogrod krolewsky (Prague, 1599), fols. CXXXIXr–CXLVIIIv.
46
For more on Sendivogius’ academic pilgrimage, see Prinke, “Beyond Patronage,” 198–99.
Bohemian physician and alchemist Matthias Erbinäus von Brandau, who in the
1630s collected much information about alchemists active in Czech lands,
recorded that both Kelley and Sendivogius had had a metallic tincture in the
form of oil.47 It must be assumed that the alchemist presented his transmuting
oil first and then made his proposal, either to Rudolf personally or through
Hans Popp.
There are further reasons to believe that Sendivogius’ sojourn in Prague predated
his 1597 letters considerably. In the late nineteenth century, the Czech novelist and
popular historian Josef Svátek claimed that Sendivogius had already met Edward
Kelley in Germany, during the time of his studies. Subsequently, Kelley came to
Bohemia and leased out one of his houses in Jílové near Prague to the Pole.48 By Sep-
tember 1596, Kelley owned twelve houses, along with the brewery and the mill, in
Jílové.49 Appended to one of these houses was a small farm called Fumberk, which
Edward Kelley had purchased around 1590 for 4300 Schock Meißnisch, formally
from his wife’s dowry.50 Because Sendivogius later purchased the same house
from Joan Kelley, it is likely that he and his family had already stayed there in
1596, perhaps even as early as late 1595.
A precise chronology of events shows that both alchemists were indeed living in
Jílové at the same time. Kelley was released from his first imprisonment in October
1593 and nonetheless continued to enjoy “great credit with the Emperor.”51
When Sendivogius became a courtier on 1 May 1594, he very likely heard of
Kelley and may even have met him. In 1599, when Sendivogius was sued, a
number of witnesses testified at the municipal court of justice in the Old Town of
Prague. One among them was the town physician Mikuláš Lev of Levenštejn, who
stated the following:
What I know is that when Mr Michael Sendzymir was in Jílové, I visited him there only
once … ; then when he came to Prague, to [the inn at] The Three Feathers, he became ill
and summoned me, and seeing that he had poor measures in that inn, I accepted him into
my home.52
47
Soukup, “Transforming the Whole Corpus Solis,” 207, 213. On von Brandau, see Vladimír Karpenko, “Matthias
Erbinäus von Brandau (von Brandow): Alchemy between Reality and Phantasy,” in Purš and Karpenko, Alchemy
and Rudolf II, 393–422.
48
Josef Svátek, Kulturhistorische Bilder aus Böhmen (Wien: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1879), 78; Svátek, Obrazy z kultur-
ních dějin českých, vol. 1, 146; vol. 2, 52–53. The latter book is not just a translation of the former: the topics covered
only partly overlap and factual details are much expanded and corrected in the Czech version. Svátek’s information
was based on sound research in primary sources, but unfortunately he did not include references to them.
49
Prinke, “Beyond Patronage,” 183–84.
50
Svátek, Obrazy z kulturních dějin českých, vol. 1, 145; Václav Č ihák, Leopolda Č iháka Paměti královského horního
města Jílového a jeho zlatých dolů (Jílové: Okresní museum v Jílovém, 1948), 155; Petra Chourová, Alchymisté nebo
šarlatáni – John Dee a Edward Kelley (Praha: Libri, 2010), 84; Vladimír Karpenko and Ivo Purš, “Edward Kelly: A
Star of the Rudolfine Era,” in Purš and Karpenko, Alchemy and Rudolf II, 489–534, on 507.
51
Michael Wilding, “A Biography of Edward Kelly, the English Alchemist and Associate of Dr. John Dee,” in Mystical
Metal of Gold: Essays on Alchemy and Renaissance Culture, ed. Stanton J. Linden (New York: AMS Press, 2007),
35–89, on 73.
52
Praha, Archiv hlavního města Prahy (AHMP): Sbírka rukopisů , Kniha svědomí bílá 1599–1601, MS 1062, fol. 53:
“Mikuláš Lev z Levenštejna svědčil takto: Toho sem povědom, že co jest v Jílovým byl p. Michal Sendzymír, jednou
toliko sem u něho byl … potom pak dostavši se on do Prahy ku třem pírum, poslavši pro mne, jsouc nemocen, vida já,
že špatný opatření v týž hospodě měl, k sobě sem ho přijal k sobě do domu.” See also Josef Teige, ed., Základy
=
=
Although Lev did not state when these events had taken place, he further said that
Sendivogius came with his wife, son, and servants, yet he did not mention his daugh-
ter.53 As she was born in 1596, this means that Lev’s statement must refer to a time
before her birth.
When “the Englishman” (Engellender), as Kelley was usually called in Bohemian
sources, was arrested again on 1 November 1596 and imprisoned at Most a week
later, the situation became complicated. The main charge against Kelley was that
he had incurred enormous debts. To alleviate the situation, he probably wanted to
sell part of his real estate, while Sendivogius and his family would have appreciated
being able to stay at Fumberk if the remainder of Kelley’s possessions were to be con-
fiscated. In this context, the 1597 letters suggest that Sendivogius planned to settle
down in Jílové for good. In fact, the main purpose of the 5600 thalers he hoped
to obtain for his secret process was to buy Fumberk from Joan Kelley. Thus, soon
after the Engellender’s arrest, Sendivogius likely first approached the Emperor
with the proposal to teach him the process for preparing the oil he had given him
in return for the money to purchase the house and farm. However, in exchange
for the oil Rudolf did not give him money; instead, he gave the alchemist “hand-
stones” or valuable pieces of mineral ore with artfully executed scenes (often
related to mining) set into them.54 Such handstones (lapides manuales) were pro-
duced by goldsmiths from St. Joachimsthal (Jáchymov). They were certainly pre-
cious, yet even so the value of Rudolf’s handstones would probably have been
much lower than the sum Sendivogius needed to purchase Kelley’s house and
farm. Even more troublingly, the letters suggest that the handstones had only been
promised, as opposed to actually presented, to the alchemist. Furthermore, even if
Sendivogius had received them and a potential buyer could have been found at
short notice, selling a gift received from the Emperor for financial gain would not
have been appropriate behaviour for a courtier. Throughout this whole episode, it
is striking how problematic Sendivogius’ attempt to quickly translate Rudolf’s
patronage into ready money was.
As the Polish alchemist failed to obtain the much-needed money from Rudolf, he
used the same tactics on Ludvík Korálek of Těšín (d. 1599), a wealthy burgher to
whose alchemical circle he had been introduced by Lev of Levenštejn. Its members
were physicians (Oswald Croll, Václav Lavín), alchemical enthusiasts (Jan Kapr
of Kaprštejn, a close associate of Kelley and John Dee), and poets (Jiří Carolides,
52
Continued
starého místopisu pražského (1437–1620). Oddíl I.: Staré město pražské. Díl I (Praha: Obec královského hlavního
města Prahy, 1910), 816.
53
Josef Zukal, “Alchymista Michal Sendivoj pánem na Kravařích a Koutech (Hlavně podle akt zemského archivu
Opavského),” Věstník Matice opavské 17 (1909): 1–8, on 7.
54
Peter Huber, “‘Die schönsten Stuffe’: Handsteine aus fünf Jahrhunderten,” Mineralien-Magazin Lapis (Extra-Lapis)
8 (1995): 58–67; Henrike Haug, “Artificial Interventions in the Natural Form of Things: Shared Metallogenetical
Concepts of Goldsmiths and Alchemists,” in Laboratories of Art: Alchemy and Art Technology from Antiquity to
the 18th Century, ed. Sven Dupré (Cham: Springer, 2014), 79–103, on 91–100. Handstones resembled the well-
known alchemical woodcut “Mons Philosophorum” (first printed in the Alchymia vera of 1604); comp. Soukup,
“Transforming the Whole Corpus Solis,” 208.
Elizabeth Jane Weston – the step-daughter of Kelley). Some of them testified during
legal proceedings in 1599 and related how the Polish alchemist had performed trans-
mutations in Korálek’s presence and promised to prolong his life. He used some oil –
presumably the same he had given to Rudolf – with which he smeared iron nails and
screws. Upon heating them, they changed into solid silver. This time Sendivogius was
successful: convinced by the transmutation he had witnessed, Korálek agreed to lend
him 5695 Schock Meißnisch. As he did not have ready money, Korálek in turn bor-
rowed it from Markus (Mordechai) Meyzl (1528–1601), known as “Rudolf’s
banker,” the richest man in Prague and the head of the Jewish community.55 At
the time, sixty Meißner Groschen (that is, one Schock of them) were equivalent to
one thaler.56 This means that the sum corresponded to that which Sendivogius
had sought to obtain for buying Fumberk. Korálek handed Sendivogius the
money on 16 October 1597.57 Most likely he immediately purchased the Fum-
berk estate in Jílové from Joan Kelley, and he still owned it in late 1599.
Soon after the sale, Edward Kelley attempted to escape from the prison in the
castle of Most, aided by his wife, step-daughter, and brother Thomas. However,
Kelley broke his leg and died soon afterwards. This took place either on 1 November
1597 or “at Christmas time,” according to the accounts of, respectively, Baltazar
Stecher of Sebnitze, the Most castle administrator, and Simon Thadeas Budek
(d. after 1608), Rudolf’s seeker of precious stones.58 It is highly probable that Sen-
divogius had also been involved in Kelley’s failed attempt to escape from prison. Two
accounts published half a century later claimed that Sendivogius had rescued an
adept alchemist from prison, whom the authors could only identify as “an English-
man.”59 There can be little doubt that the reason why they could not learn Kelley’s
name was that he had indeed been known as the Engellender. Even later, probably in
alchemical circles in Paris, the adept was identified as Alexander Seton, which gave
rise to the well-known legend that Sendivogius had merely published Seton’s
secrets.60 Furthermore, one of the two accounts claimed that Sendivogius married
the Engellender’s widow, and the other suggested that they lived together out of
wedlock. The former version seems doubtful, as the poet Westonia never mentioned
that her mother had married again. The latter is not impossible, considering that
55
Teige, Základy starého místopisu pražského, 809–15. On Meyzl, see Giuseppe Veltri, “‘Ohne Recht und Gerechtig-
keit’: Rudolf II. und sein Bankier Markus Meyzl,” in An der Schwelle zur Moderne: Juden in der Renaissance, ed.
Giuseppe Veltri and Annette Winkelmann (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 233–55.
56
Siegfried Becher, Das österreichische Münzwesen vom Jahre 1524 bis 1838 in historischer, statistischer und legisla-
tiver Hinsicht. Erster Band. Erste Abteilung: Historischer, statistischer Theil (Wien: Mösle’s Witwe und Braumüller,
1838), 145.
57
Praha, AHMP: Sbírka rukopisů , Manuály rozhodnutí rady a výpovědí v soudních kauzách 1599–1616, MS 1168,
fol. 208v.
58
Svátek, Obrazy z kulturních dějin českých, 155; Karpenko and Purš, “Edward Kelly,” 521–22. On Budek and his
manuscript, see Jaroslava Hausenblasová and Ivo Purš, “Simon Thadeas Budek and His Contacts at the Court of
Rudolf II,” in Purš and Karpenko, Alchemy and Rudolf II, 607–24.
59
For more on Pierre Des Noyers’s letter dated 12 June 1651 and Girolamo Pinocci’s letter dated 20 March 1661, see
Prinke, “Beyond Patronage,” 188–89.
60
Rafał T. Prinke, “New Light on the Alchemical Writings of Michael Sendivogius (1566–1636),” Ambix 63 (2016):
217–43, on 226–30.
=
=
Sendivogius’ wife Veronica died on 23 October 1599.61 However, it is more likely

that popular memories grew more sensational over time: the fact that Sendivogius
lived in the house that had formerly belonged to Lady Engellender was transformed
into the notion that they had cohabited there.
At odds with the law

Sendivogius’ next letter (nr. 3) was addressed to Hans Popp, with a request for the
Emperor, yet it seems that there was no accompanying letter to Rudolf himself on
this occasion. Manfred Staudinger has estimated its date as “circa” 1599,62 yet it
appears to refer to earlier events. Towards the end of the letter, Sendivogius asked
Popp to send venison for the baptism feast of his child. This is important evidence
for the close relationship he had with the powerful head of the Emperor’s chamber-
lains, but it also helps in dating the letter. As far as we know, Sendivogius had three
chilren: Krzysztof Michał, born in 1594; Weronika Maria, born c. 1596; and Krys-
tian Henryk, born and baptised on 1 November 1598.63 The baptism for which Sen-
divogius was preparing must have been that of the last named, especially as it was
also celebrated by poets, such as Jiří Carolides of Karlsberg (1569–1612). Carolides
was a humanist and important Rudolfine poet, later a friend of Kelley’s step-daugh-
ter, Elizabeth Jane Weston (also Elisabetha Joanna Westonia; 1582–1612), who was
a poetess in her own right.64 In 1598 Carolides published a small volume of advice
to Sendivogius’ four-year-old son, Krzysztof. The poet dated his preface on
1 November 1598 and included a short poem dedicated to “Krystian Henryk
Sendivogius, son of Michael, born and baptised on the first day of November in
the year 98.”65 As part of his collection of poems, the Polish political exile and
genealogist Bartosz Paprocki (also Bartoloměj Paprocký; 1543–1614) published a
poem on Krystian Henryk’s day of birth and another one “On Good Thoughts
after Baptism.”66
Since Sendivogius did not specify the sex of the child in the letter to Popp, it must
have been written before the birth when he did not know it yet. As Krystian Henryk
was baptised on the same day as he was born, there would have been no time for
Popp to contribute venison to the feast, particularly since he was in another town.
Sadly, Krystian Henryk did not survive his first year: he died in October 1599,
61
Jan Chorinnus, Illustris Foeminae D. Dn. Veronicae Stiberiae é Nobiliss. familia apud Francos oriunde,
illustris. D. D. Michaelis Christophori Sendivogii de Skorsko et Lukovicze L. B. Serenis. Regis Poloniae Secretarii
conjugis desideratissimae, quae obiit 23. Octobris, anno 1599 (Prague: Daniel Sedesanus, 1604); Prinke, “Beyond
Patronage,” 203–4.
62
Staudinger, “Documenta Rudolphina,” http://documenta.rudolphina.org/Regesten/A1599-00-00-01512.xml.
63
Carolides z Karlsperka, Praecepta, fol. D1v; Paprocký, Giná cžáſtka, fols. C2v–C3r.
64
Elizabeth Jane Weston, Collected Writings, ed. and trans. Donald Cheney and Brenda M. Hosington (Toronto: Uni-
versity of Toronto Press, 2000).
65
Carolides z Karlsperka, Praecepta, fol. D1v. “Christiani Henrici Sendivogii, Michaelis filii, natalis et Baptismus
Calend. Novembris Anno 98.” The dating at the end of the preface is on fol. B3r.
66
Paprocký, Giná cžáſtka, fols. C2v–C4v: “Na den Narozenij Synáčkowi G. M. Pánu, Pánu Krystianowi Hendry-
chowi” and three other Sendivogius-related poems. The preface is dated 8 December 1598.
just like his mother.67 They fell victim to the bubonic plague which ravaged all of
Bohemia in the years 1597–1599.68 In view of this, it does not lack a sad irony
that, at the end of the letter, Sendivogius reassures Popp that he had a sure precau-
tion against the plague and that his messenger was immune to it. The name men-
tioned most probably refers to Johann Theodor Kotzer, a lawyer of Vienna who
had studied at Padua in 1594 and at Siena in 1595.69 Sendivogius wrote the letter
from Prague, while Rudolf and his indispensable Kammerdiener had left the
capital as the plague spread, first retiring to Poděbrady and afterwards to the
Emperor’s summer residence in Brandýs nad Labem.70 Thus, Sendivogius’
undated letter to Popp must have been written in October 1598, when the child’s
birth was imminent.
Venison aside, the main purpose of the letter concerned Sendivogius’ legal trou-
bles. He asked Popp to intervene on behalf of his “just causes” by asking the
Emperor to send a message to “Dr Eham” or the Aulic Council (Reichshofrat), or,
alternatively, for Popp to send a note himself. Michael Eham (d. 1608) was a
renowned lawyer, professor at the University of Vienna, and a prominent member
of the Aulic Council from 1594 onwards.71 The Polish alchemist could have
known him since 1591, as Eham had served as the university’s rector when Sendivo-
gius was studying there.72 The lawyer was favourably inclined towards Sendivogius
and informed him regarding “ill-wishers” who were actively opposing his efforts.
However, Eham hesitated to intervene decisively. Sendivogius hoped that a letter
from either Rudolf or Popp would convince him and the Aulic Council to do so.
Unfortunately, the nature of the case cannot be conjectured from Sendivogius’
letter. We can, however, guess what it could have been on the basis of a letter
King Sigismund III Vasa of Poland wrote to Emperor Rudolf.73 Although the surviv-
ing copy is undated, the cataloguers of the Kórnik Library manuscripts date it to
1598,74 most likely earlier than the letter to Popp. The Polish king demanded the
67
Chorinnus, Illustris Foeminae D. Dn. Veronicae Stiberiae, fol. A2r. Chorinnus mistakenly stated that an unnamed
daughter likewise died, yet Weronika Maria, Sendivogius’ only known daughter, survived her father and inherited
his estate in 1636.
68
Eduard Maur, “Obyvatelstvo českých zemí v raném novověku, Třicetiletá válka,” in Dějiny obyvatelstva českých
zemí, ed. Ludmila Fialová (Praha: Mladá Fronta, 1998), 75–131, on 88–90.
69
Arnold Luschin von Ebengreuth, Oesterreicher an italienischen Universitäten zur Zeit der Reception des römischen
Rechts: Rechts- und culturgeschichtliche Studien, vol. 2/3 (Wien: Selbstverlag des Verfassers, 1886), 21.
70
Jaroslav Č echura, Č eské země v letech 1526–1583: První Habsburkové na českém trů ně, vol. 1 (Praha: Libri, 2008),
58.
71
Oswald v. Gschließer, Der Reichshofrat: Bedeutung und Verfassung, Schicksal und Besetzung einer obersten Reichs-
behörde von 1559 bis 1806 (Wien: Adolf Holzhausen, 1942), 151–52; Filippo Ranieri, ed., Biographisches Reper-
torium der Juristen im Alten Reich, 16.–18. Jahrhundert, vol. 1 (Frankfurt a.M.: V. Klostermann, 1987), 140–41;
Hausenblasová, Der Hof Kaiser Rudolfs II., 212, 215.
72
Franz Gall and Hermine Paulhart, eds., Die Matrikel der Universität Wien, vol. IV: 1579/II–1658/59 (Wien: Verlag
Hermann Böhlaus Nachf., 1961), 33.
73
Kórnik, Biblioteka Kórnicka PAN (BKPAN): Akta do panowania królów polskich: Zygmunta I Starego, Zygmunta II
Augusta, Henryka III Walezego, Stefana Batorego, Zygmunta III Wazy, MS 245, fol. 276r/v; Rafał T. Prinke and
Anna Pawlaczyk, “Dwa listy Zygmunta III Wazy do cesarza Rudolfa II w sprawie alchemika Michała Sędziwoja,”
Pamiętnik Biblioteki Kórnickiej 27 (2005): 127–34.
74
Ryszard Marciniak et al., eds., Katalog rękopisów staropolskich Biblioteki Kórnickiej XVI–XVIII w., vol. 2 (Wroc-
ław: Ossolineum, 1985), 333.
=
=
release of Michael Sendivogius from prison in Prague, claiming him as his subject
and arguing that he had not committed any crime. Additionally, he stated that he
required Sendivogius’ services in Poland, for which reason the Emperor should
allow him to leave Bohemia. This intervention proved successful, as the alchemist
indeed travelled to Poland. On 7 October he appeared in front of the court of
justice in Sa ̨cz, alongside several members of the Sędzimir clan who swore that he
was their relative and the legitimate son of noble parents, although they also had
him modify his surname from Sed ̨ zimir to Sed
̨ ziwój (a typical procedure when
someone was accepted into a Polish noble family).75 Perhaps his imprisonment in
Prague had been the result of accusations that he was an impostor and not a noble-
man. Such gossip also circulated in later years and may well have been founded on
truth: proving nobility in court through witnesses frequently made it possible to join
the ranks of the higher class in Poland. This strategy was rather typical for those who
did not have the privileged social status to which they aspired.76 Considering his
early and impressive career at the courts of both the King of Poland and the Holy
Roman Emperor in contrast to the comparatively humble rank of the Sed ̨ zimir
gentry, it cannot be ruled out that Michael was the illegitimate son of a wealthy,
powerful, and well-connected person.
Despite some legal woes, the support of Sigismund and Rudolf, through the
mediation of Hans Popp, show that Sendivogius retained excellent connections at
both courts. Moreover, soon afterwards the Emperor granted him the title of imper-
ial councillor, and Paprocki addressed him as such in one of his poems published in
1598.77 Although Sendivogius failed to receive the money he had demanded in
1597, he evidently did not quit the Emperor’s service and enjoyed his favour. The
question remains whether he ultimately revealed his process as Rudolf had
requested. A short sentence in the 1598 letter to Popp suggests that there was a
glass vessel in which a long-term alchemical operation matured. Since it was high
time to inspect it but Popp was not present in Prague, Sendivogius informed him
that the process would be wasted. This allowed the Polish alchemist to gain more
time and explained why he could not complete the presentation of his secret
process to the Emperor or his first chamberlain. However, Sendivogius promised
Popp to return the favour to be shown through the requested intervention and to
do “better than previously.” This probably indicated that the Pole hoped to
repeat the alchemical operation with more success. Accordingly, it would seem
that he continued to artfully manage Rudolf’s expectations.
75
Kraków, Archiwum Narodowe (AN): Acta Castrensia Sandecensia, vol. 108, 387; Władysław Semkowicz,
“Wywody szlachectwa w Polsce XIV–XVII. w.,” Rocznik Towarzystwa Heraldycznego we Lwowie 3 (1911–
1912): 1–355, on 123–24.
76
Prinke, “Beyond Patronage,” 192–98, 211–13; Prinke, “Michał Sędziwój – pocza ̨tki kariery,” 96–109.
77
Paprocký, Giná cžáſtka, fol. C2r: “K’Urozenému Pánu/Panu Michalowi Sendywogowi z Skorska na Lukowicy a
Lhoté G. M. C. Raddé.”
On the philosophers’ stone

On 18 June 1602 Sendivogius wrote the last letter (nr. 4) presented here to the
Emperor from Cracow. It appears that he had been in Prague a short time before,
among other things to discuss alchemy and perform a transmutation in the presence
of Hans Popp. The Emperor did not witness it himself but received a sample of
tinged metal. Again he insisted that Sendivogius should teach him the whole
process. The alchemist agreed but took his leave to return to Cracow. The letter indi-
cates that his promised return to Prague proved futile. On 23 May he arrived at the
town of Vysočany, about seven kilometres from Prague, with the goal of teaching his
secret art to none but Rudolf himself. However, Sendivogius’ plenipotentiary who
kept his tincture failed to meet with him. Moreover, the Polish alchemist learned
that the Emperor would not see him personally; instead, he would send a represen-
tative to whom the alchemist was to explain the art. Like Dee and Maier, even Sen-
divogius struggled to gain access to Rudolf. Unnamed friends advised the Pole that
he should make sure to bring along the tincture and demonstrate it before Rudolf.
The alchemist decided to return to Cracow to fetch the elixir. However, when he
inspected the glass vessels there, it turned out that the tincture was not ready
because he had not augmented it sufficiently. He needed another seven months to
do so or to start over and thus asked the Emperor whether he would be willing to
wait for such a long time. Perhaps, he suggested, the sample tinctured in Popp’s
presence was sufficient, so that he could just teach the Emperor the whole art, in
which case he would soon be able to produce great quantities of transmuted
metal. Sendivogius mentioned two people through whom Rudolf might relay the
message to him: Johann Franck von Franckenhausen, an imperial chamber
servant and producer of artificial precious stones, known to have assisted Rudolf
in his laboratory, or Johann Barvitius, the imperial private secretary and one of
the Emperor’s closest advisors.78 Even after Popp’s death, Sendivogius’ connections
reached those who had Rudolf’s ear.
Sendivogius’ elaborate story sounds suspect. Had he really travelled to Vysočany
or merely invented the unsuccessful journey as an excuse for not delivering on his
promises? In addition to Rudolf’s expectations, Sendivogius’ unnamed detractors
would have been another reason for avoiding Prague. The alchemist asked for the
Emperor’s protection against them, although he only expected this after his art
and intentions would have proven themselves to be true. Who exactly these detrac-
tors were remains unclear, yet it is obvious that unresolved legal matters in Prague
troubled the Pole. These most likely revolved around the debts Sendivogius had
incurred to purchase Fumberk back in 1597. When his creditor Ludvík Korálek
78
Evans, Rudolf II and His World, 72, 74; Julian Paulus, “Alchemie und Paracelsismus um 1600: Siebzig Porträts,” in
Analecta Paracelsica: Studien zum Nachleben Theophrast von Hohenheims im deutschen Kulturgebiet der frühen
Neuzeit, ed. Joachim Telle (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1994), 335–406, on 371; Soukup, “Transforming the
Whole Corpus Solis,” 216.
=
=
died on 12 June 1599, his family sued the alchemist, who had treated Korálek
together with Oswald Croll. They claimed that Sendivogius had caused his patient’s
death in order to retain the money he had borrowed. On the night of 24/25 June
1599, the alchemist was arrested by the municipal authorities of Prague on his
estate in Jílové. The King of Poland intervened again, and Sendivogius was released.
A trial at the court of justice of Prague’s Old Town followed. Eventually, the alche-
mist promised to return the rest of the money (2000 Schock Meißnisch) within two
months, and Korálek’s family withdrew all other charges.79
Since he did not have the money, Sendivogius asked the Czech magnate Jan
Zbyněk Zajíc of Hazmburk (c. 1570–1616) for a loan. Zajíc was greatly interested
in alchemy, had a large library, and hosted numerous scholars and practitioners
(including Tycho Brahe) in his castle in Budyně nad Ohří. He was also a patron
of Paprocki, who later wrote a short testimony of what had happened.80 The
magnate apparently requested a guarantee from the alchemist that he would get
his money back. Sendivogius’ guarantor was none other than King Sigismund,
whose emissary Jan Kazanowski was the brother of his most trusted courtier,
Zygmunt Kazanowski.81 Acting on behalf of the king, Kazanowski received
10,000 thalers from Zajíc, paid all of Sendivogius’ debts, and took him back to
Poland. What led to this enormous sum remains a mystery if the debt only amounted
to 2000 thalers. In Poland the King augmented Sendivogius’ coat of arms, which was
approved by Parliament in Warsaw on 8 March 1600.82 Just like the earlier proof of
his nobility at the court of Sa ̨cz, this suggests that Sendivogius needed such legal
devices to improve, rather than confirm, his social status. He stayed in Poland
until mid-1600, when King Sigismund sent him back to Prague with a diplomatic
mission to discuss current political problems with Emperor Rudolf.83
Subsequently, Sendivogius once more returned to Poland and probably stayed
there for an extended period of time. In 1602 this prolonged absence caused his
creditor Jan Zbyněk Zajíc of Hazmburk to address King Sigismund “regarding
79
Praha, AHMP: Sbírka rukopisů , Manuály rozhodnutí rady a výpovědí v soudních kauzách 1599–1616, MS 1168,
fols. 204–210; Teige, Základy starého místopisu pražského, 813.
80
Bartoloměj Paprocký z Hlohol a Paprocké Vů le, Diadochos id est Successio: Ginák Poslaupnost Knjižat a Králů w
Cžeských, Biskupů w y Arcybiskupů w Pražských, a wssech třech Stawů w Slawného Králowstwj Cžeského, to gest
Panského, Rytjřského a Městského, vol. 2 (Praha, 1602), 403.
81
Krzysztof Zemeła, “Kariera rodu Kazanowskich, herbu Grzymała, w XVI–XVII wieku,” Z Dziejów Regionu i
Miasta: Rocznik Oddziału Polskiego Towarzystwa Historycznego w Skarżysku-Kamiennej 2 (2011): 27–77.
82
Warszawa, Archiwum Główne Akt Dawnych (AGAD): Metryka Koronna 145, fols. 48v–50v (draft); 146, 41–50
(clean copy). For an edition, see Jerzy Michta, “Przywilej herbowy Michała Sędziwoja z 1600 roku,” in Rycerze,
wędrowcy, kacerze: Studia z historii średniowiecznej i wczesnonowożytnej Europy Środkowej, ed. Beata Wojcie-
chowska and Waldemar Kowalski (Kielce: Uniwersytet Jana Kochanowskiego, 2013), 133–48. See also Anna
Wajs, Materiały genealogiczne, nobilitacje, indygenaty w zbiorach Archiwum Głównego Akt Dawnych w Warszawie
(Warszawa: Archiwum Główne Akt Dawnych, 1995), 108; Józef Szymański, Herbarz rycerstwa polskiego z XVI
wieku (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DiG, 2001), 206–7; Barbara Trelińska, Album armorum nobilium Regni Poloniae
XV–XVIII saec. Herby nobilitacji i indygenatów XV–XVIII w. (Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-
Skłodowskiej, 2001), 269–70, nr. 652.
83
Sigismund’s letter to Rudolf, dated 13 June 1600, is now lost but known in part through a translated quotation found
in Ambroży Grabowski, Skarbniczka naszej archeologii (Leipzig: Ksiegarnia Zagraniczna, 1854), 198. For an
English translation, see Prinke, “Beyond Patronage,” 203.
the money given to Michael Sendivogius in loan.”84 Most likely the aristocrat had
not received his money and appealed to the King of Poland as Sendivogius’ guaran-
tor. Similarly, Rudolf wrote to Sigismund and requested Sendivogius’ return to
Bohemia. Although only the reply of the Polish king is known, it shows that the
two rulers must have corresponded about this matter for some time.85 Initially, Sigis-
mund probably asked Rudolf to support his secretary’s cause, to which the Emperor
agreed on condition that Sendivogius would personally appear in front of the court
of justice at Prague. In his undated reply, probably written in late 1602 or early
1603, Sigismund thanked Rudolf for his promise but asked him to defer the legal
process because Sendivogius could not travel to Prague at that time. The most impor-
tant reason was the plague, which had seized many towns through which the alche-
mist would have had to pass. Indeed, the bubonic plague, accompanied by famine,
was raging throughout Central Europe in 1601–1602,86 which made travelling
dangerous. The King assured the Emperor that Sendivogius would submit to the
legal authorities in due course.
With the plague, legal proceedings, and unsuccessful processes all conspiring
towards keeping Rudolf away from the alchemical secrets he desired of Sendi-
vogius, the alchemist nonetheless presented the Emperor with a glimmer of
hope. Towards the end of the letter, he included a possible allusion to his De
lapide philosophorum. Sendivogius wrote that “it may be that my writing is
not well composed for Your Imperial Majesty, yet the heart is nonetheless faith-
ful.” While this may refer to the letter itself, it is unlikely that Sendivogius
would have expressed worries about the aptitude of its composition. Earlier
on, the alchemist asserted that he had “written for Your Imperial Majesty,
and it is still my intention to teach the art to Your Imperial Majesty out of a
faithful heart.” This clearly refers to a description or explanation of his art com-
posed for the Emperor. The repeated insistence on the faithful heart indicates
that Sendivogius alluded to the same work both times, which would most
likely be the original version of De lapide philosophorum. Although the place
of publication and the printer were not stated, we now know that the book
was printed by the press of Jan Šuman’s heirs in Prague. This took place
prior to 20 September 1604, by which date the printed sheets had already
been transported to the imperial castle library in Č eský Krumlov to be
bound.87 Unfortunately, there is no conclusive evidence that the composition
84
Grabowski, Skarbniczka naszej archeologii, 198: “de pecunia Michaeli Sendivogio muto data.”
85
Kórnik, BKPAN: Akta do panowania królów polskich: Zygmunta I Starego, Zygmunta II Augusta, Henryka III
Walezego, Stefana Batorego, Zygmunta III Wazy, MS 245, fols. 364r–65v; Prinke and Pawlaczyk, “Dwa listy Zyg-
munta III Wazy,” 133–34.
86
Hoszowski, “Klęski elementarne w Polsce w latach 1587–1648,” in Prace z dziejów Polski feudalnej ofiarowane
Romanowi Grodeckiemu w 70. rocznicę urodzin, ed. Zofia Budkowa (Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo
Naukowe, 1960), 453–65; Andrzej Karpiński, W walce z niewidzialnym wrogiem: Epidemie chorób zakaźnych w
Rzeczypospolitej w XVI–XVII wieku i ich następstwa demograficzne (Warszawa: Instytut Historii PAN, Neriton,
2000), 70, 314 (table).
87
Prinke, “New Light on the Alchemical Writings,” 232–33; Rafał T. Prinke, “New Light on Michael Sendivogius’
Writings: The Treatises Written in Prague and Maybe in Olomouc,” in Latin Alchemical Literature of Czech
=
=
mentioned in the 1602 letter was the same as that published two years later.
There are clues that the text was circulated in manuscript among Sendivogius’
friends before 1604.88 These copies may have provided the basis for some of
the early editions, especially the lost one printed by Johann Ludwig Bitsch
(fl. 1601–1605) in 1604 or that edited by Martin Ruland the Younger (1569–
1611) in 1606.89
Even if Sendivogius may have written a draft of his treatise in Cracow by 1602, he
most likely revised and finalised it during 1603. Early that year, the Polish alchemist
had returned to Prague, as attested by records in the context of another case at the
municipal court of the Old Town. On 27 September 1604, these noted that “Michal
Zinzyvoy, councillor, servant, and steward” of the Emperor, had been living in the
house of Johann Barvitius for more than a year “by order of His Imperial
Majesty.”90 On 30 July 1603 Rudolf had issued a document guaranteeing his secur-
ity for eight months because Sendivogius had previously reported suffering injuries
at the hands of some Prague citizens.91 In so doing, the Emperor accomplished the
double objective of preventing the Polish alchemist from leaving Prague while ensur-
ing his safety. The duration of eight months was likely tailored to the alchemical
process that would require at least seven months. Rudolf wanted to make sure
that nothing interfered so that Sendivogius would finally deliver on his oft-
delayed promises.
Whether Rudolf ultimately learned the process or not, the alchemist succeeded
in remaining in the Emperor’s favour. An incident in the summer of 1604 shows
that Rudolf continued to trust Sendivogius’ alchemical expertise. The Emperor
extended an alchemically motivated invitation (executed by force) to the Straß-
burg goldsmith Philipp Jacob Güstenhofer, who claimed to possess a certain
quantity of the philosophers’ stone and performed public transmutations. Upon
his arrival in Prague, however, Güstenhofer was found to be a fraud and impri-
soned at the Emperor’s command a few days before 4 July 1604. Yet he was soon
released at the intervention of the agents of King Henry IV of France
(1553–1610).92 In the meantime Güstenhofer had been interrogated by Sendivo-
gius, whom the Fugger agent in Prague confused with the long-dead Engellender
(Kelley) on this occasion.93 Later in 1604, Sendivogius attempted to arrange the
extradition of the traitor Nicolaus von Vicken to Poland. However, his efforts
87
Continued
Provenance, ed. Tomáš Nejeschleba and Jiří Michalík (Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci (Centre for
Renaissance Texts), 2015), 131–47, on 140–41.
88
Rafał T. Prinke, “The stemma editionum of Michael Sendivogius’s Novum lumen chymicum” (forthcoming).
89
Prinke, “New Light on the Alchemical Writings,” 233–34.
90
Praha, AHMP: Sbírka rukopisů , Manuál radní věcí nesporných 1604–1605, MS 1288, fol. 121r: “na rozkaz J. M. C.
pan Michal již přes rok zde [u pana Barviciusa] zů stávaje.” On the exact location of that house, see Prinke, “New
Light on Michael Sendivogius’ Writings,” 138–39.
91
Praha, Národní archiv: Salbuchy, Vídeň 1530–1832, fond 21, register 168, fol. 420r/v.
92
Rafał T. Prinke, “Nolite de me inquirere [Do Not Seek to Ask about Me]: Michael Sendivogius,” in Purš and Kar-
penko, Alchemy and Rudolf II, 317–34, on 328.
93
Victor Klarwill, ed., Fugger-Zeitungen: Ungedruckte Briefe an das Haus Fugger aus den Jahren 1568–1605 (Wien:
Rikola Verlag, 1923), 237, 277.
failed, as Marcin Gołogórski, another royal secretary of Sigismund III and his
resident at Rudolf’s court, reported to the Polish king and Bishop Piotr Tylicki
(1543–1616), vice-chancellor of the Kingdom of Poland, in letters dated 20
December. Sendivogius was to discuss the details in person, as he intended to
return to Poland soon.94 This was the last confirmed date of Sendivogius’
sojourn in Prague.
Sometime in 1604 or early 1605, the Polish alchemist decided to turn his back
on Prague. This was a dramatic reversal, as there are indications that he had been
planning to settle down there, despite long periods in Poland. He continually
enjoyed the Emperor’s favour and reportedly performed a transmutation for
him in 1604, commemorated by a marble plaque in the castle chamber where
it had taken place.95 Additionally, he even got engaged to a noble widow,
Anna of Štampach, in 1604 or slightly earlier.96 However, she broke off the
engagement and refused to marry him even when he sued her at the court of
justice in 1604. The following year, when proceedings dragged on, she argued
that Sendivogius had left Bohemia and thus she could not marry him.97 His out-
standing debts may have played a role in this, and they also forced him to sell the
Fumberk farm in Jílové back to Edward Kelley’s step-daughter, the poetess Wes-
tonia. Her husband, Jan Lev of Eisenach, owned it after her death in 1612 and
sold it in 1619.98 With the estate gone and the day on which he would have
to deliver on his alchemical promises to the Emperor fast approaching, Sendivo-
gius must have increasingly resented his confinement at Barvitius’ house. He
probably left Prague early in 1605 – shortly before the planned completion of
his alchemical operation of seven months that had begun in July 1604 – and
most likely never returned during Rudolf’s lifetime. He was definitely in
Cracow on 20 September 1605, where he stayed at a house on Wiślna Street
(platea Istulana). It belonged to the widow of Nicolaus Hussman (or
Grosman), a physician regularly called “alchemist” in the municipal records.99
Though the exact date is unknown, Sendivogius probably also rented the late
Hussman’s laboratory with twenty-six pieces of alchemical glassware from his
widow a little earlier.100 This marked a new phase of the career of the foremost
94
Warszawa, AGAD: Archiwum Koronne Warszawskie, MS 34a/l, item 19 and 20, fols. 165–71; both letters are edited
in Prinke, “Tajna misja alchemika Sędziwoja,” 545–47.
95
Pierre Des Noyer, “De Varsonie le 12. Iuin 1651,” in Trésor de recherches et antiquitez gauloises et françoises, ed.
Pierre Borel (Paris: Chez Augustin Courbé, 1655), 479–86, on 482. The date of the performance is not mentioned
by Des Noyer but was assumed by later authors such as Nicolas Lenglet Du Fresnoy, Histoire de la philosophie her-
métique, 3 vols. (Paris, 1742), vol. I, 330.
96
Prinke, “Beyond Patronage,” 204, 216; Prinke, “Do Not Seek to Ask about Me,” 324, 327.
97
Zikmund Winter, Ž ivot Církevní v Č echách: Kulturně-historický obraz z xv. a xvi. století (Praha: Č eska akademie
císaře Františka Josefa pro vědy slovesnost a uměni, 1895), 333; Zikmund Winter, “Kámen filosofský IV,” Květy
15 (1893): 189–200, on 199–200.
98
Antonín Vlastimil Holejšovský, “Ž ila Vestonie v Jílovém?” Heraldika 8 (1975): 37–49, on 46.
99
Stuttgart, Hauptstaatsarchiv: A47 Bü 8 (extract from court records of Cracow, 6 September 1606), unpaginated.
100
Włodzimierz Hubicki, Z dziejów chemii i alchemii (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowo-Techniczne, 1991), 115,
188.
=
=
Rudolfine adept, who retired from Prague after he had successfully led the
Emperor by the nose for a whole decade.
Conclusion
In a revisionist understanding of Emperor Rudolf II and his “alchemical court,”
pride of place belongs to Michael Sendivogius. He was, strictly speaking, the only
alchemist of European stature who was actually employed as Rudolf’s courtier
from 1594 onwards. Fully contextualised, the four letters Sendivogius wrote to
the Emperor and his first chamberlain Hans Popp between 1597 and 1602
emerge as important sources. The alchemist demonstrated his transmuting oil to
Rudolf in 1596 at the latest. For many years to come, Sendivogius sought to nego-
tiate rewards for a complete revelation of his secret but never quite succeeded. His
difficulties in obtaining financial benefits from the Emperor indicate that Rudolf
was considerably less credulous and much more circumspect when dealing with
alchemists than we have been led to believe. This is an important corrective to the
standard view of an easily duped Emperor. Yet even if Sendivogius failed to
obtain tangible rewards, he succeeded in leading Rudolf by the nose and always
stopped short of delivering on his promises. Consequently, little can be said about
the alchemical operation itself. All we can infer based on the letters is that it
lasted seven months and required augmentation; the product may have been Sendi-
vogius’ oil. The most striking feature of the letters is the boldness with which the
alchemist demanded a large sum of money, a magnificent land estate, or the Emper-
or’s assistance in various legal matters. Sendivogius equally had close ties to some of
the individuals who enjoyed the most privileged access to Rudolf: first Hans Popp,
then Johann Barvitius and Rudolf von Coraduz. The final result of ten years’ service
at the court in Prague was the publication of Sendivogius’ De lapide philosophorum
in 1604, the most frequently reprinted early-modern alchemical text, enormously
influential and highly celebrated throughout the following two centuries. The last
of the letters published here seems to refer to an early version of that treatise in
1602 and provides important details on the circumstances of its writing. Through
his cunning management of the imperial and royal patronage he enjoyed, Sendivo-
gius became a nobleman, built a diplomatic career for himself, and temporarily
owned an estate near Prague. In contrast to the tragic fate of Edward Kelley, the
Pole succeeded in transmuting the promise of alchemical success into a lasting
reputation.
ORCID
Mike A. Zuber http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5864-5261
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank two peer-reviewers (whose hidden identities were betrayed
by their remarkable expertise) for their thorough reading and insightful suggestions.
Funding
Mike A. Zuber’s contribution to this paper was supported by an Early Postdoc.Mo-
bility Fellowship (2017/2018) of the Swiss National Science Foundation.
Notes on contributors
Rafał T. Prinke holds a PhD in history (2000) from Adam Mickiewicz University in
Poznań and the doctor habilitatus degree from the Institute of the History of Science,
Polish Academy of Sciences (2015). He is the chair of the Department of Tourism
Economics and Informatics at the Faculty of Tourism at Eugeniusz Piasecki Univer-
sity in Poznań. His most recent major work is a 900-page book on alchemical
writings until 1800 (2014). Address: Wydział Turystyki i Rekreacji, Akademia Wy-
chowania Fizycznego im. Eugeniusza Piaseckiego, ul. Królowej Jadwigi 27/39, 61-
871 Poznań, Poland. Email: rafalp@amu.edu.pl; prinke@awf.poznan.pl.
Mike A. Zuber is a post-doctoral researcher at Wolfson College and the Centre for
the History of Science, Medicine, and Technology, University of Oxford. Funded by
the Swiss National Science Foundation, his most recent project explored the secret
lives of alchemical manuscripts through research on historic collections. Working
mostly on unprinted sources, he specialises in early-modern alchemy and religious
dissent throughout the Holy Roman Empire and the United Provinces. Address:
Wolfson College, University of Oxford, Linton Road, Oxford, OX2 6UD, UK.
Email: mike.zuber@history.ox.ac.uk.
=
=
Appendix: Sendivogius’ Letters

Michael Sendivogius’ original autographs transcribed and translated here are preserved at the
Austrian State Archives (Österreichisches Staatsarchiv) in Vienna:
Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, Habsburgisch-Lothringische Hausarchive, Hausarchiv
— Familienkorrespondenz A, Karton 4, fols. 271r–74v (nrs. 1 and 2).
— Lang-Akten, Karton 8, fol. 58 (nr. 3).
— Hofakten des Ministeriums des Innern, Karton 12, Fasz. I E 4, fol. 180r–81v (nr. 4).
The transcriptions were specifically prepared for this paper and collated with Manfred Stau-
dinger’s transcripts of nrs. 1–3.
A number of later hands added remarks, dates, shelf-marks, or numbers to the documents,
yet only Sendivogius’ autograph material (and the addresses of nrs. 1 and 2 likely written by
an amanuensis) are included. Page breaks are indicated by | followed by the folio indication in
superscript.
The following basic conventions have been employed:
• u/v and i/j are reproduced as encountered in the sources.
• Redundant distinction marks on u or y are not reproduced.
• As it can be difficult to tell whether compounded words are written as one word or several,
the conventional spelling is used in cases of doubt.
• As opposed to German script, Latin script is presented in italics.
• Recognisable capital letters are reproduced.
• Proper nouns and toponyms are capitalised.
• Erratic or redundant punctuation marks are omitted; in abbreviations, periods and colons
are standardised as periods.
• All standard abbreviations (flourishes, nasal lines, etc.) are silently expanded.
• Uncommon initialisms or words shortened through the omission of letters are expanded
through extrapolations in square brackets.
Sendivogius’ use of early-modern German merits a word of explanation. Considering that the
Polish alchemist was not a native speaker of the language, he wielded it competently and, for
the most part, correctly. Thus, the language of the letters largely corresponds to conventional
early-modern German. However, some of Sendivogius’ more idiosyncratic spellings suggest
that he struggled to correctly pronounce a number of German (rounded) vowels and vowel
glides and, therefore, failed to reproduce them in writing. Since this tendency can make it dif-
ficult to grasp Sendivogius’ meaning, endnotes repeatedly referenced through superscript
letters indicate the intended equivalents or clarify other obscure aspects.
The aim of the translation is to present Sendivogius’ letters in legible, idiomatic English. To
achieve this, the alchemist’s flowing text, for the most part only punctuated with commas, has
been divided up into paragraphs and manageable sentences. Additions required to form gram-
matically correct sentences are placed in square brackets. Endnotes marked through super-
script symbols provide alternative translations and explanatory remarks.
̨ zimir to Emperor Rudolf II, 10 February 1597

Letter 1: Michael Sed
|274v [Address in calligraphic blackletter script:] An die Röm. Khay. auch in Hungern vnd Behaimb
p.a König. May[est]et p.a meinem allergenedigisten Herrn: p.a zu aignen Handen
|271r Aller durchleuchtigster großmechtigster vnd vnüberwindlichster Röm. Kaj[ser], allerge-
nedigster her
Eierb Röm. Kay. Mt. sein meine aller vnterthenigste gehorschamste [sic] vnd getrawe willigste
dienst iedertzeit bevor allergnedigster Kaj. etc.
Eierb kaj Mt. haben sich allergnedigst zuentsinen, wasser gestalt ich mich vff E. K. Mt.
allergnedigstes begeren, wegen des proces, welchen E. K. M. an mich begertt, aller vnterthe-
nig[s]t resoluirt, etc. Ob ich wol allergnedigster Kaj. dessen von mir zu geben nachc zu lernen
nimals in wilens gewesen, so hab ich dach,d vff so vil anhalten, vnnd E. K. M. alle[r]gnedigst
Begeren, mich bewegen lassen, auf dz E. K. M. sehen sollen, dz ich mitt tray,e vnd guttem
hertzen, gegen E. K. Mt. gesinett bin, habe auch gar schlechte, vnd geringe mittel E. K. M.
fürgeschlagen
Nemlich E. K. M. gebetten, dz E. K. M. mir funffe tausenth sechshunderth daller, gegen
meiner obligation fürstreken vnd darlaien solten, darneben auch die handstein, die
E. K. M. allergnedigst, mir bewiliget, sambt den dinst, allergnedigst zu stellen, mich auch
mitt dero, allergnedigsten hülffe, zu allen meinenn gerechten sachen befedern, Wolte ich
alsdan darfür vnnd zu aller vnterthenigsten danksagung, E. K. M. den selben proces trawlich
vnd ohne allen Valsch, mitt theilen, auch mitt dem schlechtem anhang, so mich gott, in dieser
tzeitt von dieser welt, abfodern solte, vnd E. K. M. die kunst gerecht befinden (wie ich [recte:
mir] dan nicht zweifelt) meinem weib vnd kinder, die herschafft Lübochowitz, allergnedigst
geben solten, welches gar kein bedenkens von nötten hatt, hab ich daruff bis hero, von
E. K. M. keine antworth bekomen könen, warumbf ich dachd teglich angehaltenn, vnd mitt
grossen schaden vnd versaumnus diese tzeitt warten müssen. |271v
Weil aber allergnedigster Kay. ich verners nicht warten kan, vnd zu thun nicht vermag, etc.
hab ich E. K. M. mitt diesem meinem aller vnterthenigsten schreiben, zu ersuchen nicht
vmbgehen konen, vnd bitt E. K. M. vmb gottes willen, mich verners nicht auftzuhalten,
mitt dero allergnedigsten antworth, es sey in was mittel es ist,
Im Val aber E. K. M. solches nicht thun wolten, vnd ich dessen nicht erwarten konthe, wil ich
hiemitt, aller vnterthenigst gebetten haben, E. K. M. wollen mich allergnedigst für entschuldi-
gett halten, vnd kein vngnaden darum vff mich werffen, dan ich wais gott nicht lenger warten
kan, wie E. K. M. dessen gnugsamen Bericht haben, bin auch der zuversicht zu E. K. M. sie
werden mich, an meiner wolfarth verners nicht hindern, sondern dis mein entschuldigung,
vnd getrawes erinerung, für gnugsam erkenen, mir auch da es E. K. M. meine fürgeschlagene
mittel, nicht angenem weren, allergnedigsten abschid [crossed out: vnd] vergenen vnd mitt
theilen, vnd thue hiemitt E. K. M. gott dem almechtigen in sein schutz, vnd mich in dero
K. M. gnaden aller vnterthenigst bevelen, datum Prag den 10 Februarii Anno 97
E. R. K. Mt.
aller vntherthenigster Diener
Michael Sedzimir etc. M[anu] P[ropria]
=
=
Letter 1
To the very own hands of the Roman Imperial, also in Hungary and Bohemia etc. Royal,
Majesty, etc., my most merciful lord.
Most illustrious, highly powerful, and utterly invincible Roman Emperor, most merciful lord,
First of all, my most submissive, obedient, and faithful services are yours, Your Roman Imper-
ial Majesty, at all times, most merciful Emperor, etc.
Your Imperial Majesty ought to most mercifully consider in what manner I have most sub-
missively decided upon Your Imperial Majesty’s most merciful request regarding the process,
which Your Imperial Majesty desires of me, etc. Although, most merciful Emperor, I have
never been willing to give it away nor to teach it, I have nonetheless, upon so much insistence
and Your Imperial Majesty’s most merciful request, allowed myself to be moved so that Your
Imperial Majesty should see that my attitude towards Your Imperial Majesty is one of faith-
fulness and a good heart; I have also proposed very simple and humble means to Your Imper-
ial Majesty.
Namely, I asked Your Imperial Majesty that Your Imperial Majesty would pay an advance
and loan to me of 5600 thaler for my obligation, besides most mercifully providing the hand-
stones, which Your Imperial Majesty had most mercifully granted to me alongside employ-
ment,* and also to help me attain all my just causes with your most merciful help. In
exchange for this and as a most submissive expression of gratitude, I intended to communicate
the said process to Your Imperial Majesty, faithfully and without any falsehood, along with
the simple addendum that, if God should claim me from this world at such a time and
Your Imperial Majesty found the art to be just (as I do not doubt), [Your Imperial Majesty]
should most mercifully give the dominion of Libochovice to my wife and children, regarding
which there is no need for any concern. But until now I have not been able to receive any
response to this from Your Imperial Majesty, even though I have daily requested it and
have had to wait all this time at great expense and neglect.
But because, most merciful Emperor, I cannot wait any longer nor do anything more, etc., I
could not avoid entreating Your Imperial Majesty with this my most submissive letter and ask
Your Imperial Majesty, for God’s sake, not to keep me waiting any longer for your most mer-
ciful response, whichever form it may take.
But in case Your Imperial Majesty should not want to do this and I could not be able to
expect it, I herewith want to have most submissively asked that Your Imperial Majesty
would most mercifully consider me excused and not cast any disgrace upon me. For God
knows, I cannot wait any longer, as Your Imperial Majesty have sufficient account. I have con-
fidence in Your Imperial Majesty that you would not impede me in my welfare but recognise
this my apology and faithful reminder as sufficient, also grant me most merciful leave and
communicate if it [the agreement and] the means I proposed to Your Imperial Majesty
were not agreeable. And with this I place Your Imperial Majesty in the protection of God
Almighty and commend myself into the grace of the Imperial Majesty most submissively.
Dated at Prague, on the 10th February in the year 1597
Your Roman Imperial Majesty’s
most submissive servant
Michael Sędzimir, etc. with his own hand
̨ zimir to Hans Popp, 10 February 1597

|273v [Address in calligraphic cursive script:] Dem Edlen vnnd Eh[r]enuesten herrn, Hannsen
Poppen, des Röm. Kay. [unknown abbreviation(s):] abap. Obristen Kammerdiener, vnnd
Burggrauen zu Eger meinem gueten freundt p.a
|272r S[alutem] P[lurimam] D[icit].
Freindlicherg lieber her Popp, nach deme ich gestriges tages, aus des heren worten, durch
dessen diener vernomen, dz der her nachc nichtes von ir Mt. erfaren konen, daraus ich dan
sich dz ich von ir Mt. zu lang vffgehalten werde, darfür ich dan oft vnd vil gebetten, man
sol mich nicht vffhalten, dan da ir Mt. mein getrawes gemütt, nicht angenem were, vnd
mein geringes fürschlagen, welches ich genugsam für Erlich erkene, nicht angenem wer,
mich mitt einer schleiniger antworth abfertigen, welches ich nitt erlangen kan, nichtes desto
weniger, ich alhie müssig liegen, dz meinig volgents vertzeren sol, welchs mir mirersh vmb
die tzeit gehett, die ich so schentlich versaumen mus, dan vmb was anders
Dartzu wan ich gleich ir Mt. halben alles dz vertette, vnd versaumete werde ich dachd (wie
ich aus vorigen sich) wenig dankh verdienen, So bin ich auch schon, bey zwen monaten, so
vffgetzogen worden welches nicht allein ein monatt, sondern ein stundh mich gereitti dz ich
sie versaumen solt, ich hette mein sach so ausrichten könen, dz ich nichtes geseumett hette,
da ich nicht also von tag zu tag von stunth zu stunth vffgehalten wer worden, ir Mt.
[crossed out: haben] haben mir der handstein zugesagt, darfür ich dan ir Mt. wieder ein
ölle geben, eben messig auch den dinst, welches so ich drauf warten solt, müst nachc wol
welch tausent driberj vertzeren, welches vffschiben ir Mt. mücht so balt als mich gerawen,
dan ich fürwar gegen ir Mt. kein Valsch brauch, weil aber gott nitt allen menschen alles
geben wil, kan warheitt für Valsch einbilden, dem wil ich es zumessen, dan ich hab nu mer
gethon als sich gebirt hatt, wils gott nitt erkantnus geben, ist nicht mein schulth, etc.
Weil ich aber nu verners nitt warten kan, auch zu warten vermag, vnd mir kein antworth
werden wil, thu ich hiemitt mich, zum hochsten, für ir Mt. vnd bey dem heren, entschuldigen,
protestire auch hiemitt zum zirlichsten, dz ich alhie mein dinst vff geben wil, vnd vffgib, dz ich
verners in kein obligationn ir Mt. verpflicht sein wil, dardurch ich konftig, verhinderth mücht
werden, so ich mich in andere orthen, vnd dinsten begeben solte, wil dero wegen ich dz schreiben
für genugsame entschuldigung vnd abschid gethon haben, bin auch der zuversicht zum heren,
als meinem groß gnedigsten befederer, er werde mich |272v vor ir Mt. zum hochsten entschuldi-
gen, auch konftig so ich dessen bederftig tzeignus geben, was ich alhie geschriben, dz auch nu
mer nicht [crossed out: nicht] mein schult ist, dan ich mich lenger nicht kan auftzihen lassen,
so war ich ein mensch bin, das vileicht ir Mt. oder der her vermeinth, ich tette solches aus
Vorsatz, welches ich vor gott entschuldigett bin, dem ich auch zum zeigenk nem, dz ich aus
keinem Vorsatz, sondern, aus grosser nott thun muß, dan ich eben darauf warten wolt, als
sonsten, aber mein gelegenheitt wils nitt leiden, ich wasl dachd wol, wan man alle winkel ausge-
sucht hatt, so werd man dachd zu letzt zu mir vmb die warheitt komen wollen, vnd müssenn, do
northm nicht zu schpatt wer, dachd dis gett mich nicht an, mich tzwingt die nott dartzu, dz ich
mein sach, in bessere mittel fürnem vnd in mein sach nicht saume, etc. Solches hab ich dem
Heren zu zu schreiben, (vff dz mir nicht mücht nachgesagt werden, ich bin stiller weis darvon
komen, oder ir Mt. vil zugesagt vnd darvon ablassen ohne vrsach) nicht vmb gehen wollen,
Derneben ist auch an dem heren nachc Merers mein ser fleissig bitten der her wolle, diesen briw,n
von meintwegen, ir Mt. præsentirn vnd zu selbst eigen henden zu stellen derneben mein gnedigster
befederer sein, Solches wil ich vmb den heren zu vergleichen in kein vergessenheitt stellen
Datum den 10 febr. Anno 97.
Des h[ern] wilger
Michael Sedzimir
M[anu] P[ropria]
=
=
Letter 2
To the noble and most merciful Mr Hans Popp, first chamberlain of the Roman Emperor
[unknown abbreviation(s), untranslated] and burgrave at Eger, my dear friend, etc.
[The writer] sends many greetings.
Kind, dear Mr Popp,
After I learnt yesterday based on your words through your servant that you have still been
unable to learn anything from His Majesty, from which I see that I have been detained too
long by His Majesty, for which reason I asked frequently and insistently that one would
not detain me, for if my faithful disposition and my humble proposition were not agreeable
to His Majesty, to see me off with a speedy reply, which I could not attain. Nonetheless I
had to stay here idly and therefore consume my own means, which mostly irks me for the
time I had to waste so shamefully rather than for any other reason.
But even if I squandered and neglected everything, I would still earn little gratitude (as I per-
ceive from the foregoing). In this manner I have been wound up for two months already, when
I regret not only a month but even one hour that I should have wasted. I could have arranged
my affairs in such a manner that I would not have had to neglect anything, if I had not been
detained like this from day to day and hour to hour. His Majesty has granted me the hand-
stones, for which I again gave His Majesty an oil, as well as my service; if I were to wait
for them, I might well have to consume some one thousand† over it, which delay His Maj-
esty might regret as soon as I do, for I truly employed no falsehood against His Majesty.
But since God does not want to give everything to all people, truth can be imagined to be
falsehood – I shall attribute it to this, for I have now done more than was proper; if God
does not want to give insight, it is not my fault, etc.
Because I cannot wait any longer, nor am I able to, and no response is forthcoming, I do
herewith excuse myself to the utmost in front of His Majesty and yourself and also protest
most delicately that I intend to renounce my service here and do renounce it. Furthermore,
I do not want to remain committed to His Majesty in any obligation that might prevent me
from going to other places and [taking up] service [for others] in the future, since I have
written this letter as sufficient excuse and leave-taking for this reason. I also have confidence
in you, as my greatly most merciful patron, that you would excuse me to the utmost [extent] in
front of His Majesty, also give testimony in the future, should I be in need of it, regarding what
I have written here, that it is also no longer my fault, for I cannot be wound up any longer,
upon my humanity! Perhaps His Majesty or you might think that I did this with premedita-
tion, of which I am acquitted before God, whom I call to witness that I am not doing this pre-
meditatedly but out of great need, for I would have wanted to wait as before, but my situation
will not suffer it. But I know well that once every corner has been investigated, one will at last
want to, and have to, turn to me for the truth, if only it were not yet too late. But this is not my
concern; necessity forces me to tackle my affairs with better means and to not neglect my
business, etc. I did not want to shirk writing this to you (so that it could not be said of me
that I went off silently or had promised too much to His Majesty and desisted from it
without cause).
In addition, my very diligent entreaty to you is that you would present this letter to His
Majesty on my behalf and into his very own hands, as well as remain my most merciful
patron. I shall not let it be forgotten to make this up to you.
Dated on the 10th of February in the year 1597
Your willing
Michael Sędzimir
With his own hand
̨ ziwój to Hans Popp, October 1598

|58r Fr[eindlic]h[e]rg lieber her Popp, ich bitt der her wolle ir Mt. bitten, dz sich dachd ir Mt.
meiner in den gerechten sachen, annemen müchten, dz dachd meine feinde sich nicht vber mich
frawen; der her Doctor Eham der hatt mir sagen lassen, er sehe dz ich vil misgöner habe, vnd
er sehe [dz es] gerechte sachen sein, aber er alein darfs nicht thun, wan aber der her an ime
schribe, ein kleins zedel, dz dis ir kajse[r]lich Mt. bevohlen haben vnd ir Mt. wille ist, wolte
ers [sic] denicho dis thun vnd beferdern, So bitt ich der her wolle ir Mt. bitten das dachd ir
Mt. an ime, oder aber an dz hofrath schreiben lissen dz sie mir verhelffen, oder do ir Mt.
nicht thetten, es wer gnug wan ir Mt. northm dem heren bevehlen müchten, dz er dem
heren Doctor Eham schribe, welches ich lieber sehe, dan, des heren schreiben wol kraft
hette, vnd ich wasl auch wol, dz der her bej ir Mt. das gar wol verrichten kan wan ers thun
wil, warumbf ich dan bitte, ich wils wider dem heren zugefallen sein bei tag vnd nacht, p.a
Was auch glaß anlangett dz der her wol weis [crossed out: dahn] es ist wol hohe tzeitt dis
zu sehen, weil aber der her nicht hir ist, habe sorge werde es verterben, dan nun gar tzeitt
ist, Mein her Popp ich bitt der her wolle, dis schreiben, an dem heren Doctor Eham mitt
diesem Kotzer wider her schiken, was er thun sol, vnd wolle der her sich so vil bemühen
vnd mir auch ein zeil schreiben oder lassen schreiben, ob ich werde die hülffe erlangen oder
ob ir Mt. bevohlen haben oder nicht mir verhelffen, ich wils wider verdienen, so wol ir Mt.
als dem heren, vnd werde nun mer beser thun konen als vor, etc.
Des peste oder sterbens halben darf sich der her nicht fürchten meines bottens, ich weis er ist
darfür sicher, dan ich habe ietzt ein solche pręseruatiu darfür dz ich mich nicht darf fürchten,
ich darf wol ietzt nicht flihen wils auch an mir probirn das mein præseruatiu war ist, wan ich
aber solt schweren so weis ich von kein sterben, [crossed out: wil] des heren Diener alzeitt
Wil mir der her vff mein kindstaffp etwas wildspreth schiken, wil ich dem heren drum danken
ama[tissime],
Michael Sendziuoy M[anu] P[ropria]
|58v Wan der her diese supplication hatt vbersehen der her schike mir sie wider, dan dis ist die
Copaj, ich schike es dem hern darum dz ich nichtes vnrechts beger, vnd bitt der her wolle mir
zur antworth schreiben was ich thun soll.
Was auch dz glas anlangett der her wolle mich berichten wer es hatt vnd wie es mitt ist auch
wie es sicht
[Address:] F[reindlic]h[e]rg lieber her Popp ich bitt der her wolle ime so vil weile nemen vnd
diese meine sachen vnd schreiben verlesen,
=
=
Letter 3
Kind, dear Mr Popp, I beg that you would ask His Majesty that His Majesty would take care
of me in my just causes, so that my enemies would not gloat over me. Mr Dr Eham has com-
municated to me that he saw that I had many ill-wishers, and [that] he saw [that they were]
just causes, but he alone does not dare to do it; but if you wrote to him, a tiny note, that His
Majesty had commanded this and that it was His Majesty’s will, he would nonetheless do and
promote this. So I beg that you would ask His Majesty that His Majesty would let it be written
to him or, instead, to the Aulic Council that they should assist me. Alternatively, if His Majesty
would not do this, it would be sufficient if His Majesty would only command you to write to
Mr Doctor Eham, which I would prefer, for your letter would carry weight, and I know well
that you would be able to effect this with His Majesty, if you want to do so, for which I ask. I
shall make it up to you by day or night, etc. Concerning the glass‡ of which you are well
aware, it is truly high time to observe it, but since you are not here, I am worried that it
will go to waste, for it is time now. My Mr Popp, I beg that you would send back this
letter to Mr Dr Eham regarding what he should do with this Kotzer,§ and if you would
make so much effort and also write me a line, or have it written, whether I shall receive
this assistance or whether His Majesty commanded to help me or not; I shall make it up
again both towards His Majesty and yourself, and I shall be able to do more, better than pre-
viously, etc.
You must not fear my messenger because of the plague or death, I know that he is safe from
it, for I now have such a preservative against it that I do not have to fear it. I may not flee now,
also intend to try it upon myself that my preservative is true; even if I should swear, I know of
no death. Your servant always.
If you would like to send me some venison upon my child’s baptism, I would thank you
most lovingly.
Michael Sendivogius with his own hand
Once you have read through this supplication, return it to me, for this is the copy. I send it to
you so that I should not request anything wrong, and ask you to please write in reply what I
ought to do.
As far as the glass‡ is concerned, would you please report who has it and how it goes with it,
also how it looks?
[Address:] Kind, dear Mr Popp, I entreat you to spare the time to read through these my affairs
and letter.
̨ ziwój to Emperor Rudolf II, 18 June 1602

|181v [Address:] DEm Aller durchleuchtigsten Grosmechtigsten Römischen kayser, auch zu
Hungern, vnd [Behe]mb khönig, Meinemm [allerg]nedigsten hern hern, zu eigen henden,
|180r Aller durchleuchtigster Romischer kayser, auch zu Hungern vnd Behemb khönig, aller-
gnedigster herr, Eierb kay Mt.
seindt meine aller vnderthenigste wiligste dinst, hochstes vermügens, allergnedigster kayser –
Jch bin aller genedigster kayser, mitt grossen vnkosten komen den 23 Maj Anno 1602, bis
halbe meile von Prag in dorff Wysotzany, vnd bin mitt dem bestendigen gemütt nach Prag
zogen, das ich E. K. M. die kunst der tinctur zu machen, gantz warhafftig, so gutt als ich selb-
sten kan, lernen wolt, ich bin aber zu vnrechter tzeitt komen, dan ich mein plenipotentem
nicht angetroffen, also das ich in sein abwesen nicht gewust, wohin ich, vnd bei wem mich
angeben solte, dieweil er von allem wysen schafft hatt, vnd ohne ime ich nichtes gewust,
ich lis wol ein gutt freindtq zu mir auf Prag komen, aber der wust mich auch nichtes berichten,
derfter mich derowegen, bej E. K. M. nicht antzeigen lassen, dan ich vernomen EKM. werden
mich schwerlich für sich lassen, sondern die kunst vileicht, von mir durch andere abfordern
wollen (welches ich kein menschen, als EKM [inserted: in eigen person] zu lernen gesinett
bin) derowegen ich, bis mein plenipotent nach Prag kome, das anstehen mussen lassen, vnd
sonderlich weil mir gutt freinthq gesagt, dz beser were, wan ich die probe, der tinctur mitt
mir hette, vnd nachc ein mal E. K. M. tingirte, welches mir auch gutt dinkett,s vnd bin dero-
wegen zu rukh zogen, das ich es mitt mir brechte, habe auch meine gleser probirth, aber ietzt
nicht tingirn, vnd nicht tingirn werden, bis nach siben monaten, dan ich sie nicht lengst aug-
mentirt, derowegen ich nicht lassen konen wollen, E. K. M. allerunterthenigst zu schreiben,
vnd vrsach warum ich mich nicht anmelden lassen, EKM anzeigen, mitt der aller vnterthenig-
ster bitt, E. K. M. wollen allergnedigst mich vor entschuldigt halten, vnd mir durch dem hern
Frank, oder hern Baruiti allergnedigst zu wissen thun, ob E. K. M. der 7 monat erwarten
wollen, dormitt ich mitt proben vor E. K. M. komen konthe, vnd EKM. allergnedigst selbsten
tingirn könen, oder aber ob EKM |180v sich an der proben, so ich im bej sein Poppen EKM
tingirt, ietzt genügen wollen lassen, vnd die kunst von mir mitt gnaden annemen, vnd wan
sie es gemacht, konen E. K. M. wol centner weis selbsten proben machen, ich hab vor
E. K. M. geschriben, vnd ist mein sin nach,c also, das ich EKM. die kunst aus getrawem
hertzen lernen wil, nicht vmbs gelt nachc gutt, beger auch nicht das EKM. mir das geringste
wider meine widersacher verhelffen sollen, bis sie zu vor die kunst gemacht, vnd die nützlich
vnd warhafftig befunden, wan aber solches geschehen als dan bitt ich E. K. M. wolen damals
mei honoris rationem haben, vnd mir verhelffen, vff das die welt sehe, das mir zu vil gesche-
hen. Dan ich ein gutt name, lieber als vil gutt, mein nachkomen lassen beger, was dan hierin
EKM. allergnedigst gesinett sein, ob ich hin wider komen, oder EKM. iemanth zu mir, schiken
wolten, oder auch der 7 monat erwarten, was EKM. wille ist, also geschee, ich wolt EKM.
hetten schon, das ende der kunst gesehen, so hetten sie mir auch schon geholffen, dan ich
mant es gott weis EKM. trailich,u mag wol mein schrifft nicht wol gestelt sein zu E. K. M.
aber das hertz wol traj ist, vnd EKM. zu dienen geneigt. Wormitt ich mich in EKM. schutz
thu bevehlen
Datum 18 junij 1602 Crakovi
Eierb kaj Mt.
allerenterthenigster [sic]
Michael Sendziwoy von Skorsko
secretarius ir khö[niglichen] M[ajeste]t M[anu] P[ropria]
=
=
Letter 4
To be delivered into the very hands of the most illustrious, highly powerful Roman Emperor,
also King of Hungary and Bohemia, my most merciful lord.
Most illustrious Roman Emperor, also King of Hungary and Bohemia, most merciful Lord,
Your Imperial Majesty,
[Yours] is my most submissive and willing service, with my greatest ability, most merciful
Emperor. On the 23rd May in the year 1602, I came, most merciful Emperor, within half a
mile of Prague to the town Vysočany,** incurring great expenses. And I went to Prague
with my mind set on teaching Your Imperial Majesty the art of making the tincture in an
entirely truthful manner, to the best of my ability; yet I came at the wrong time, for I did
not encounter my plenipotentiary, so that I – in his absence – did not know where and to
whom to announce myself. While he has knowledge of all this, I did not know anything
without him. I had a good friend come to me in Prague, but he also could not tell me anything.
Therefore I dared not announce myself to Your Imperial Majesty, since I had heard that Your
Imperial Majesty would hardly let me come before yourself but instead might, perhaps, want
to send others to demand the art (which I am of a mind to teach to none but Your Imperial
Majesty in person) of me. For this reason, I had to wait with this until my plenipotentiary
would arrive in Prague, and especially since good friends told me that it would be better if
I had a sample of the tincture with me and tinged once more [in the presence of] Your Imperial
Majesty, which also seemed appropriate to me. And therefore I withdrew so that I could bring
it [the sample] along with me; I have also tested my vessels, but they do not and will not tinge
until after seven months, since I have not augmented them for the longest time.
Due to this I could not neglect to write to Your Imperial Majesty most submissively and to indi-
cate to Your Imperial Majesty the reason why I had not announced myself; along with the most
submissive plea that Your Imperial Majesty would most mercifully consider myself excused and
inform me most mercifully, through Mr Frank or Mr Barvitius, whether Your Imperial Majesty
would wait for seven months, so that I could come before Your Imperial Majesty with samples
and Your Imperial Majesty could most mercifully apply the tincture yourself or, alternatively,
whether Your Imperial Majesty would be satisfied for now with the sample I tinged in Popp’s
presence for Your Imperial Majesty and graciously accept the art from me. And once you
have performed it, Your Imperial Majesty will be able to make samples by the hundredweight.††
I have written for Your Imperial Majesty, and it is still my intention to teach the art to Your
Imperial Majesty out of a faithful heart, neither for money nor goods; I also do not desire that
Your Imperial Majesty would help me in the slightest against my detractors until you have first
performed the art and found it to be useful and truthful. But once this has come to pass, I ask
Your Imperial Majesty to consider my honour and to help me so that the world would see that
I had to suffer too much. For I desire to leave a good name, rather than many goods,‡‡ to my
descendants.
Whatever Your Imperial Majesty may prefer in this matter, whether I should return again or
Your Imperial Majesty would want to send somebody to me or wait until the seven months are
over – whatever Your Imperial Majesty’s will may be, so it shall be done. I wish that Your Imper-
ial Majesty had already seen the culmination of the art, for you would have helped me already,
since God knows I have faithful intentions. It may be that my writing is not well composed for
Your Imperial Majesty, yet the heart is nonetheless faithful and inclined to serve Your Imperial
Majesty. With which I do commend myself to Your Imperial Majesty’s protection.
Dated on the 18th of June 1602 at Cracow
Your Imperial Majesty’s
most submissive
Michael Sendivogius of Skorsko,
His Royal Majesty’s secretary with his own hand
Glosses
a
pergite – obsolete equivalent of “etc.”
b
Euer.
c
noch.
d
doch.
e
Treu.
f
worumb.
g
freundlicher.
h
mehrers.
i
gereut.
j
drüber.
k
Zeugen.
l
weis.
m
nur.
n
Brif.
o
dennoch.
p
Kindstauffe.
q
Freundt.
r
durfte.
s
dünket.
t
mein(e).
u
treulich.
=
=
Annotations
*
Alternatively, “service.”
†
The currency Sendivogius would have had in mind was the thaler. Alternatively, a Schock of sixty Meißner Groschen
was basically equivalent to one thaler.
‡
Alternatively, “vessel,” potentially alchemical.
§
Sendivogius’ messenger.
** The miles used in Bohemia, Silesia, Austria, and Poland varied from 6.7 to 8.33 km. Sendivogius most likely used the
term as a rough approximation.
††
The measuring unit Sendivogius probably meant corresponded to 100 pounds.
‡‡
Literally, “much wealth,” yet this does not convey Sendivogius’ pun.

Alchemical Patronage and The Making of An Adept Letters of Michael Sendivogius To Emperor Rudolf II and His Chamberlain Hans Popp

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alchemical Patronage and The Making of An Adept Letters of Michael Sendivogius To Emperor Rudolf II and His Chamberlain Hans Popp

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ambix

ISSN: 0002-6980 (Print) 1745-8234 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yamb20

Alchemical Patronage and the Making of an Adept:

Rafał T. Prinke & Mike A. Zuber

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00026980.2018.1512776

Published online: 11 Sep 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Accounts of the “alchemical court” of Emperor Rudolf II (1552–1612) have a

Sendivogius among Rudolf’s court officials

involved in Rudolf’s alchemical interests. Three names are relevant in this

Alchemical fundraising for real estate

Sendivogius’ wife Veronica died on 23 October 1599.61 However, it is more likely

At odds with the law

On the philosophers’ stone

Appendix: Sendivogius’ Letters

̨ zimir to Emperor Rudolf II, 10 February 1597

̨ zimir to Hans Popp, 10 February 1597

̨ ziwój to Hans Popp, October 1598

̨ ziwój to Emperor Rudolf II, 18 June 1602

You might also like