Part 8

"His present place in which he doth abide I know not, for the world he walks about, Of which he is a citizen; this tide He is to visit artists and seek out Antiquities a voyage gone and will Return when he of travel hath his fill.

"By nation an Englishman, of note His family is in the place where he Was born, his fortune's good, and eke his coat Of arms is of a great antiquity; His learning rare, his years scarce thirty-three; Fuller description get you not from me."

Starkey gives the age of Eirenaeus Philalethes as 33 in 1654. This precisely confirms the writer's own statement in the earlier editions of the Introitus Apertus that he was 23 in 1645, and fixes the birth-date as 1621 or 1622. Now this agrees remarkably with the birth-date ascertained from other sources of Thomas Vaughan. But Thomas died in 1666, and it is usually asserted that Eirenaeus Philalethes lived until at least 1678. Miss Vaughan states that he must have been alive in that year, because he then published the Ripley Revived, and the Enarratio Trium Gebri Medicinarum. She declares that the author of the Enarratio mentions the pains taken about that edition (p. 240). I do not find any prefatory matter in this book at all. There is a preface to the Ripley Revived, but this was written long before 1678, for it mentions the Introitus Apertus, published in 1667, as still in manuscript. Neither Jean Lange, the editor of the Introitus Apertus of 1667, writing 9th December, 1666, nor William Cooper, the editor of the English translation of 1669, writing 15th September, 1668, know whether the author is still alive. In fact he cannot be shown to have outlived Thomas Vaughan, for there is no proof that the adept who showed the philosopher's stone to Helvetius on December 27th, 1666, was the same as he who showed it to George Starkey many years before. I will briefly enumerate a few other links which connect Eirenaeus Philalethes with Thomas Vaughan. A German translation of the Introitus Apertus, published at Hamburg under the title of Abyssus Alchemiae (1704), is said on the title-page to be "von T. de Vagan." Miss Vaughan states that a similar translation of the first of the Tres Tractatus, published at Hamburg in 1705, also bears this name (p. 237), and this is borne out by Lenglet-Dufresnoy (iii. 261-6), who speaks of a French MS. of the Tres Tractatus inscribed "par Thomas de Vagan, dit Philalèthe ou Martin Birrhius." Birrhius, however, was only the editor. These ascriptions are probably made on the authority of G. W. Wedelius, who in his preface, dated 2nd Sept., 1698, to an edition of the Introitus Apertus, published at Jena in 1699, says of the author:--"Ex Anglia tamen vulgo habetur oriundus ... et Thomas De Vagan appellatus." The English Three Tracts (1694) are stated on the title-page to have been written in Latin by Eirenaeus Philalethes; but there is a note in the British Museum Catalogue to the effect that the Latin original has the name Eugenius Philalethes. Unfortunately this Latin Tres Tractatus, published in 1668 by Martin Birrhius at Amsterdam, is not in the Library, and I cannot verify the statement. Finally, I may note that the Ripley Revived (1678) has an engraved title-page by Robert Vaughan, who also did the title-page to Olor Iscanus, and that Starkey's Marrow of Alchemy contains, at the end of the preface to Part ii., some lines by William Sampson, which mention

"Harry Mastix Moor Who judged of Nature when he did not know her";

clearly an allusion to More's controversy with Thomas Vaughan.

It will be seen that there is some primâ facie evidence for identifying Eirenaeus Philalethes with Thomas Vaughan, whereas he was probably not George Starkey (Eirenaeus Philoponos Philalethes), and cannot be shown to have been anyone else. But I am not satisfied. We do not know that Thomas Vaughan was ever in America, and there is the strong evidence of Anthony à Wood, who distinguishes between Eirenaeus and Eugenius, and who appears to have had information from Henry Vaughan himself. Mr. A. E. Waite argues against the identification on the ground that Eirenaeus Philalethes was a "physical alchemist," whereas Thomas Vaughan's alchemy was spiritual and mystical. But we have Vaughan's authority for saying that he had pursued the physical alchemy also. And he was clearly doing so when he wrote Sloane MS. 1741. A more pertinent objection is perhaps that Eirenaeus Philalethes appears to have been in possession of the grand secret when he wrote the Introitus Apertus in 1645, whereas Thomas Vaughan was still seeking it in 1658. To pursue the matter further would require a wide knowledge of the alchemical writings of the seventeenth century, which unfortunately I do not possess.

My gratitude is due for help received in compiling the biographical and other notes in these volumes to Dr. Grosart, Mr. C. H. Firth, Mr. W. C. Hazlitt, Mr. A. E. Waite, and the Rev. Llewellyn Thomas; notably to Miss G. E. F. Morgan of Brecon, whose knowledge of local genealogy and antiquities has been invaluable.

July, 1896. E. K. Chambers.

FOOTNOTES:

Dr. Grosart, however, says (ii. 298), "In all the pedigrees that have been submitted to me, Thomas is placed as the first of the twins." But, as Henry inherited Newton, and Thomas took orders, Anthony à Wood is probably right.

The tombstone says 73. G. T. Clark repeats Jones' error.

The tombstone is actually in the north aisle of the church itself.

Obviously Mr. Clark has confused Lucy Jones with her daughter, Denise Jones.

This was noted by Mr W. B. Rye in The Genealogist, iii. 33, from the Entry Book of the Registry at Hereford. Since then Mr. Clark of Hereford has kindly sent me, through Miss Morgan, a copy of the bond entered into by the administratrix, Elizabetha Vaughan de Llansanfread, and her son-in-law and surety, Roger Prosser de Villa Brecon. The bond, or the copy, is dated in error "30 May, 1694, et 7th Wm. iii." Administration was granted on May 29, 1695. The inventory of the personal property amounted to £49 4s. 0d. The witnesses are Walter Prosser and David Thomas.

An old alphabetical catalogue of wills in the Hereford Registry, between 1660-1677, has the following entries:--

Thomas Vaughan, Lansamfread, 11 Dec., 1660. Franca Vaughan, Lansamfread, 16 Nov., 1677.

The wills cannot, in the present state of the Registry, be found (Genealogist, iii., 33). These dates are much too early for the poet's son and daughter-in-law; but whose are the wills?

The Turberville and Jones lines are taken from Theophilus Jones' History of Brecknockshire (ii. 444), and from Harl. MS. 2289, f. 70, respectively. Miss Morgan has kindly traced the Prossers from the Registers of St. John's and St. Mary's Churches, Brecon.

Miss Morgan tells me that David Morgan David Howel's father, Morgan ap Howel, is described in a pedigree as "of Trenewydd in Penkelley"; and I find from Harl. MS. 2289, ff. 84 (b), 85, that the Powells "of Newton Penkelley" were related to the Powells of Cantreff. (See vol. ii., p. 57, note.)

The will of this Charles Vaughan has been abstracted by Mr. W. B. Rye (Genealogist, iii. 33) from the Hereford Will Office. It was made 9th April, 1707, and proved 29th May, 1707. The testator is described as of Skellrog, Llansanffread, and mention is made of his wife Margaret Powell, and of a son William. This William, therefore, and not a grandson of Henry Vaughan, may be the William Vaughan of Llansantffread, who married Mary Games of Tregaer (p. xxi). Skellrog appears to have passed to another and probably elder son, Charles.

S. W. Williams, Llansaintffread Church in Archaeologia Cambrensis (1887.)

W. B. Rye in Genealogist, iii. 36, from Entry Book in Hereford Will Office.

An account of the part played by Beeston Castle during the Civil War will be found in Ormerod's History of Cheshire (ed. Helsby), ii. 272 sqq.

Gardiner, The Great Civil War, ch. xxxvi.; J. R. Phillips, The Civil War in Wales and the Marches, i. 329; ii. 270.

Ormerod, i. 243.

Phillips, i. 314.

Phillips, ii. 272.

Both Wood and Foster give the father's name as Thomas, but it appears to be Henry in all the pedigrees.