On the first editions of the chemical writings of Democritus and Synesius / by John Ferguson.

  • John Ferguson
Date:
[1884]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: On the first editions of the chemical writings of Democritus and Synesius / by John Ferguson. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.

    11/14 page 9
    After 1717 the Ijook passed into oblivion, so far as 1 know, until Dr. Ko])p reprinted it in his Beitrage in 1869, from the Padna edition of 1573. This reprint was confined to Democritus. 14. The list of editions to which this research has conducted me is rather larger tlian what Dr. Ivopp has been able to mustei. It is as follows;— Date. Place. Authority. 1570 (?), ... Pome (?), Conring. 1572, Cologne, ... ... Ferguson, 1572 (?), ... Padua (?), Ducange. 1573, Cologne (previously unknown). Ferguson. 1573, Padua, ... Beckmann, Kopp. 1574 (?), ... Cologne (?), Beinesius, Conring. 1717, Xiirnberg (in Latin), Ferguson. 1717(?), ... Nilrnberg (?) (in Cerman), ... Dufresnoy, Sclimiedei 1869. Braunschweig, Pveprint in Kopp’s Beitrage. 15. Everyone who has examined the dU’o-iKa nal Mvo-rtKa has been compelled to give up the interpretation of it. It is obscure in the hif^hest decree ; the only thing that seems tolerablv certain is that it deals with transmutation. How transmutation is to be. effected it does not tell ns, or if it does, it is in language which we cannot interpret. Indeed, we cannot form any idea of how tlie writer regarded the problem. This obscurity seems to have been felt at a very early date, for the next oldest extant chemical writing is the commentary by Synesius, professing to explain the Democritean philosophy. It need hardly be added that, like other works of the same kind, it is as obscure as the original. Regarding the author’s life, the age of the commentary, the absence of an edition of the Greek text, the editions of Pizimenti’s translation, everything that has been said about Democritus may be repeated. The older writers tried to identify Synesius with the Bishop of the same name, but that is undoubtedly wrong. The author of this commentary was subsequent to him by an interval, possibly by a wude interval, of time. Of the writing itself we know only through Pizimenti’s transla- tion, and as it accompanies Democritus’ tract in the actual editions of Cologne 1572 and 1573, Padua 1573, and Nilrnberg 1717, it is most probable that if any of the doubtful editions exist the tract of Synesius will be contained in them. Dr. Kopp has not reprinted this com men tar V.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3