Is this quote from his book "The rise of alchemy in Fourteenth century england":

”That which is above is that which is below.”

A quote from the Emerald tablet, right?
WRONG!

No sensible translation of the Emerald Tablet, a probably Arabic composition found in a variety of MS and very popular in medieval Europe, contains such a meaning, in English. The one I rather like goes:

That which is above is from that which is below, and that which is below is from that which is above, working the miracles of one.

Other versions include this one from Latin:
What is above is like what is below, and what is below is like that which is above. To make the miracle of the one thing.

Different versions can be found here:
http://www.alchemywebsite.com/emerald.html

Anyway, it should be clear to any literate person that there is a difference between the word 'like' and the word 'is'. In context, 'is' can be taken to mean that the above and below are identical. Which is not what 'like' means at all. This obviously loses the whole point of the correspondences between above and below; in medieval cosmology and alchemy, the heavens were unchanging, whereas the earth was the place of change, so claiming that they are the same is really really stupid.
Therefore, Hughes has used an odd translation...

What was his source? The internet suggests several, but a likely one is an 1893 english translation of a probably 17th century printed text called "The glory of the world", a compendium of bits of texts about alchemy. As you all know, alchemy in the 17th century was identical to that of the 14th and before, so obviously quoting from such a work is okay.
Not.

It really isn't hard to find useful transltions of the Emerald Tablet, they are in a number of well known books on alchemy, but noooo, Hughes had to either copy the quote out wrong/ use a dodgy publisher, or steal it from some fourth rate obscure book which no historian of alchemy gives the time of day, except when studying the specifics of 17th century alchemy.

Which makes Hughes a poor historian indeed. What sort of historian doesn't do a proper survey of the topic before writing? What sort of historian uses a quote which is manifestly warped and wrong? What sort of historian can't even find the venerable works by Holmyard or Taylor which have the more accurate version, or search the internet and find Maclean's website which has had those quotes up for years and years?

Searching in google books, he mentions this phrase 3 times, once as from the Emerald tablet, once as a general alchemical dictum and once as coming from the Secreta Secretorum, the text which Bacon was obsessed by in the 13th century.
But then which version of the Secreta is he using? Who knows?

In case you think I'm being unfair, I now turn to my EETS book with 3 versions of the Secreta Secretorum within it. On page 88 it has a section on the emerald tablet in a 15th century English work, and, transcribing as well as I can,
".. that it is no doubt that thinges by-negh answeres to thinges abown. And thinges abown to thinges byneth."
Which to me looks very like the proper versions, not his mangled quote.

http://twitter.yfrog.com/5vt0iuoqrlnbegipvtyxkjzoz?sa=0

Apparently this guy was at Hampton court palace, although blowing up some sort of gunpowder mixture isn't particularly alchemical.

Is of course a mixture of their degradation products, and the atmosphere they have been stored in. I have several which still smell of smoke, having presumably spent 50 years sitting near a fireplace. At least one of the chemistry textbooks smells a bit odd too, I can't guess why...

So I went looking for studies on the smell of books, and found this:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ac9016049

Material Degradomics: On the Smell of Old Books
Anal. Chem., 2009, 81 (20), pp 8617–8622
DOI: 10.1021/ac9016049

We successfully transferred and applied -omics concepts to the study of material degradation, in particular historic paper. The main volatile degradation products of paper, constituting the particular “smell of old books”, were determined using headspace analysis after a 24 h predegradation procedure. Using supervised and unsupervised methods of multivariate data analysis, we were able to quantitatively correlate volatile degradation products with properties important for the preservation of historic paper: rosin, lignin and carbonyl group content, degree of polymerization of cellulose, and paper acidity. On the basis of volatile degradic footprinting, we identified degradation markers for rosin and lignin in paper and investigated their effect on degradation. Apart from the known volatile paper degradation products acetic acid and furfural, we also put forward a number of other compounds of potential interest, most notably lipid peroxidation products. The nondestructive approach can be used for rapid identification of degraded historic objects on the basis of the volatile degradation products emitted by degrading paper.

This one is a doozy, to use an americanism.
He writes:
“The appearance of the Malificius Malificarum (The hammer of the witches) in 1481 encouraged the notion that engagement in occult activities implied entering into a diabolic pact with the forces of darkness.”

THe only mention on google of such a text as the Malificius malificarum is his own book. No such book exists.
What he actually means is Malleus Maleficarum, which is the most famous, indeed infamous, book on medieval magic. The 2nd word could be a printing error, but the first is too different from the real word to be anything other than a weird error. What sources is he using for this?
The date given is wrong too, being 1487 not 1481.

Oh, I almost forgot, the notion that those engaging in occult activities were involved with demons existed LOOOOONNNNGGG before the 1480's. Various critics of alchemy in the 14th century made comments, one along the lines of "Alchemists, astrologers, necromancers etc all fail and turn to demons to succeed." There's a whole literature of discussion about the use of demons for magic or not long before the 14th century, distinguishing between natural magic and demonic magic. The former being the use of hidden properties of plants and the like, rather than demons.

There's another bald statement by him that I don't know whether is accurate or not:
“The fundamental principle of the philosophy of the Grail legends and the myths of Arthur and his tutor Merlin was the wisdom and sanctity of nature.”

Is that in any way correct?

the previous post re. Clanranald dressing up as extras from 'Brave' were photos from a publicity shoot for it, so that's okay then, they'll just be dressed like that on the Bruce tour...
eeerrrmmmm...
Maybe they're a bunch of cheapskates? Or their market doesn't care? Because it's a bit silly using publicity photos from an ahistorical piece of entertainment in a web page about a new tour you are operating about Robert Bruce, given how Bruce was real history and 'Brave' isn't.

This guy:
http://www.periodglasses.com/images/photos/pic15.JPG

Is often seen at an event or two in England. He's not a re-enactor with a group, more a mop who dresses up.
See the oddly shaped spectacle frames, which aren't really good for the late medieval period.
See the waistcoat style pourpoint with no fastenings, which was all the rage 20 years ago.
See the posh hat without a posh gown to go with it, indicating a confusion of levels of poshness.
See the belt across the shoulder, who knows what it is carrying, but they didn't carry much that way in the medieval period.
Note that his hose seem to be self supporting, which is very wrong.

It adds up to medieval-ish, adding up to an impression of old times, because of the fact the clothes are different to modern ones, in cut and cloth. But in reality it's horrendously wrong and does not give a true picture at all.

The meaning of the word medieval-ish should be quite obvious, especially if you read Terry PRatchett books.
A modern example of medieval-ish is of course Clanranald and their idea of the right clothes to wear. For instance, we have here "Bruce's Scotland tour", which is some sort of Bruce themed tour of Scotland:
http://www.clanranald.org/cln1/duncarron/bruces-scotland-tour

The photos were taken at the clan's early medieval highland clan leaders motte and bailey iron aged hill fort, apparently the typical sort of residence for a clan chieftain in the early parts of the last millenium.
Anyway, lets get onto the medieval-ish parts of it.
THe very first photograph on that page fits the description nicely, since it shows a bearded fellow (you'd never have guessed that they actually kept themselves clean shaven throughout most of the late medieval period), wearing wool, linen or calico, a maille shirt and metal gauntlets. What makes it medieval-ish is the point that the gauntlets are a bit later than Bruce, the maille shirt is one of those really old types that comes down to the elbow, which by 1314 they certainly didn't, they continued all the way down to the wrist so as not to leave any gaps. And despite being an armoured knightly type with a shield he's wearing an odd baggy sort of shirt thing under his maille shirt and his helmet isn't any kind that a knight would be seen dead in.

The next photo makes you wonder if Disney or whoever knows that clanranald have nicked their "Brave" pictures, or if clanranald think that the animation "Brave" is a documentary.
Most people seem to be wearing baggy brown or undyed sheeps wool clothing. Which actually isn't so far wrong, although the profusion of leg wraps make me wonder.

Bellow that, we have them sitting down and eating, this is where medieval-ish is obvious. The eating and drinking vessels aren't enamel mugs, but neither are they particularly accurate for 1314, which is part of the definition of medieval-ish, that it be made of medieval materials and not look like a modern item.
The middle picture shows some more clothing and such which isn't so horribly wrong, as good as re-enactment in the 1990's or so. The third photo is of the "Brave" dressed woman with bow, and two men with swords. Someone's done a good job on the shield one carries, although I'm fairly sure that such heraldic-ish birds were not used at the time of Bruce. Indeed, the combination of leather and wool and odd shaped belt pouches makes it clear that this is medieval-ish again.

Another definiting part of medieval-ish is that the items should be viewed as good for several centuries, never mind whether or not they actually are or not, and never mind the social status of the person with them. E.g. sword and shield, you're telling me that the knightly person who can afford such things will be dressed in ragged clothing (Dagging and the like is different okay) or with a sword ring on their belt (hint- they're an anachronism).
Anyway, this is the sort of thing we're up against in the re-enactment world.

It came up in a recent entry that some general sources of information, e.g. Encyclopaedia Britannica, don't have up to date or entirely accurate information. I've come across this problem before. It is partly down to the difficulties of condensing thousands of words of information and discussion into a paragraph. It also occurs because either the author couldn't find the newer information, i.e. their search capabilities were inferior or search engine was inferior, or else they never looked.

It took me 3 years to get somewhat at home with alchemical stuff, and another year at least of research to be fully versed in the sources and academic journals, and even now on occaision something will pop up that I hadn't noticed before. So there's a clear problem that someone writing an entry in an encyclopaedia will have difficulty locating good information or sifting through it for what is accurate.
And of course what is most recently published isn't always accurate, as we have seen with Jonathan Hughes books.

The only real solutions I can think of are:
1) more general sources such as Lawrence Principe's book, should be published more often (The last general history of alchemy written by a real historical researcher in the area was in the 1950's in Britain and 1960's America, that I have seen anyway)
2) Searching methods need to be better, and I suppose they are if you use google scholar.
3) Ideally some sort of quality control mark could be created? Or noted experts in their field maintain lists of good sources? Otherwise how is the neophyte or encylcopaedia writer supposed to know who to trust?

Anyone got any more ideas?

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/police-seize-1000-weapons-raid-1862046

AROUND 1000 weapons including samurai swords, broadswords and daggers have been seized in a police raid on a city centre business.

The weapons were found by officers during a morning raid on a premises in Edinburgh.

All of the items, which have a potential retail value of around £100,000, will be destroyed, police said.

A woman has been charged with alleged licensing offences in connection with the operation.

You've needed a licence to sell sword and daggers for upwards of 6 years now I think. Of course what they are selling us most likely tat that is no use for fighting, but could hurt someone badly one before they break. Anyway, the sale of ahistorical tat is annoying, and here's one person that won't be selling anymore. I've seen 'replica' wallace swords for sale at a price such that you could get a real craftsman to make one for you, only they look like someone bodged it together in their shed using mild steel, an angle grinder and a welder.

For instance, in his "The rise of alchemy in fourteenth century England" he states that:

“The name alchemy is derived by prefixing the Arabic definite article al to chemia (the preparation of silver and gold) which may be derived from Khem, an ancient name for Egypt.”

No reference is given. He appears to have cribbed this entirely from Wikipedia, and is a very old definition. Modern scholars (meaning the latter half of the 20th century) have a different idea - it may well have gotten to the Arab term chemia, from the greek word 'chuma' meaning to melt or fuse, then to chumeia or chemaia, an art of melting metals. This is from Principe, whose source in turn is Halleux, published in 1979. It also features in the Oxford dictionary, so is hardly an outre idea.

So once again Hughes goes for the simple, populistic answer that fits his ideas.

We have an outright error or falsehood in a comment about the 14/15th centuries:
“During this period the corrosive acid salt petre, derived from camel dung, was imported from egypt.”
This is an insanely wrong sentence. Firstly saltpetre is not an acid. You make nitric acid from it by distillation, but by itself it is a salt not an acid. Secondly all the alchemical books I've ever read state that sal ammoniac was derived from camel dung. E.g. Multhauf's paper on sal ammoniac. Yes, saltpetre beds use dung and urine to produce salt petre, but that isn't what he is talking about. They probably did import saltpetre from Alexandria in the 12/13th centuries, but by the late 14th were producing it in Europe. Partington notes a huge fall in price as they worked out how to make it properly and gunpowder weapons spread across Europe.
So once again Hughes is horrendously confused.

He later mentions:
“The earliest surviving descriptions of Greco-Egyptian alchemical craft recipes for artificial pearls, gold and silver and dyeing date from papyri around 300BC found in a cemetery in Upper Egypt and they are based on older models”

These would be the Leyden and Stockholm Papyri. Oddly enough real historians of science and alchemy are united in viewing them as worshop notes and observations of real Egyptian craftsmen, not alchemists. They may have been written by a non-craftsman observing the processes, but they are definitely not alchemical craft recipes. The alchemists stole things like mercury guilding and the making of alloys from the craftsmen, who came up with the recipes much earlier, due perhaps to the demand for gold-ish and silver-ish stuff from poorer folk.

Then there's:
“... but the advancement of metallurgical techniques, the use of corrosive acids and the refinement of the theory that all metals and indeed life itself merged from sulphur and mercury developed in cities in the heart of the Islamic empire in the seventh and eighth centuries in Baghdad and Damascus. It was in this environment that distillation techniques were employed in such inventions as the alembic to produce such essences as rosewater and where chemical retorts and cucurbits were first used to melt metals with the use of nitric and sulphuric acids.”

Life did not emerge from mercury and sulphur. That is a metaphor, but as is his practise, Hughes takes metaphors as being statements of how people thought the world worked. Anyone who knew about alchemy can see that statements such as that do not fit with the comments about the different kinds of substances and how you can't make the mineral stone from organic substances because they are different kinds. And thus you can't make humans from sulphur and mercury. What he actually means is the probably 9th century Jabirian idea that metals are made from sulphur and mercury, probably not the substances themselves but their principles.
AND, alembics are pre-islamic. And writing as a chemist, Hughes is an insulting fuckwit to write that acids melt metals. They dissolve them. This is frankly insane writing. Anyone who makes that kind of mistake is simply not a historian of any worth.
It gets better, no really!

No actual real historian of science puts the invention of mineral acids earlier than the 12/13th century, with many arguing that they were first made in Christian spain in the later 13th century, others suggesting Moorish/ Arabic Spain in the 12/early 13th centuries. Either way no 'melting' of metals by nitric and sulphuric acids occured in Baghdad or Damascus.
For this section he provides a reference, only google books doesn't let me see the references section. It will be amusing to see what he has referred to here, but I'm not expecting anything good.