d 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 _prima 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 a 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.[41]
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.[42]

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:

[1] 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 a Wood
is probably right.

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

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

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

[5] This was noted by Mr W. B. Rye in _The Genealogist_, iii. 33, from
the Entry Book of the Registry at Hereford. Since