The words "charitable" and "jealous" do not take on their literal meetings when Alchemists use them to refer to each other. This is because the words do not refer to attributes of the personality, but to the nature of their written work.
For example: Alberto the Great in his book Compounds of Compounds and Raymond Lull in the Clavicle had been extremely charitable because in these books they described the practical side of the work in plain language. It is very rare to find texts like this.
Basil Valentine was one of the great classic alchemists and the author of several books. In his book Twelve Keys of Philosophy, he was extremely jealous because great skill of interpretation is necessary to be able to interpret The Twelve Keys, and we doubt that anyone has properly carried out his work as defined by the Keys. It is our opinion that even Canseliet with all his erudition, did not complete Basil’s instructions.
This quality of his work did not last forever. In The Last Will and Testament, the Master was very charitable because he explains in practically plain language some Keys of the book The Twelve Keys of Philosophy concerns the way of Vitriol. Without the reading of The Last Will and Testament, it is practically impossible to understand The Twelve Keys.
Philalethes, in the Open Entrance to the Closed Palace of the King, is a little more "jealous" in the description of his Work, but the diverse regimes they are described in almost vernacular terms. In The Marrow of the Alchemy and in the Speculum Veritatis he is sufficiently "charitable ".
Those who already have some knowledge of the Art can say that in The Breviary Nicholas Flamel is sufficiently "charitable". The ways of this great Master and of Philalethes are complemented.
Of the contemporary alchemists, Fulcanelli was an extremely erudite alchemist who rarely appears. However, in the books The Mystery of the Cathedrals and The Dwellings of the Philosophers, we see him as "jealous", because in explaining his work he mixes so many ideas (for obvious reasons) understanding it in terms of practical alchemy is very difficult.
He often gives us the impression that he is describing the wet way, when in truth the method he describes in his books is predominantly the dry way.
Canseliet, his disciple and also a scholar of our Art, in his book Alchemy Explained: on the Classic Texts, was sufficiently charitable in the spreading of the matters and the modus operandi of the dry way. Little of this path would be known if not for his well-known work.
Also Kamala Jnana (whom some say was Roger Caro), in his book Dictionary of Alchemical Philosophy as well as others, was sufficiently "charitable" in the description of the matters of his Work, and also in the modus operandi.
Of modern authors we have authors like Atorčne. In his book The Alchemical Laboratory, he describes the dry way with enough charity. Solazaref is also a modern alchemist, but his work is not that clear-cut. In his several books we cannot say that he is "jealous" at all because he approaches certain subjects with sufficient clarity, but very important ones have been left in the shade.
In our modest opinion, a modern artist, like the classical masters, could be "charitable" without divulging in plain language the matters of his work or the modus operandi, by writing small tracts very skillfully, artistically and even ironically. This would insure that those who already have some knowledge can be guided. It would also keep the door closed for those have not attained the requisite knowledge, experience and responsibility to understand them.
To be "charitable" does not mean that we reveal everything without knowing to whom it is being revealed. But it a true alchemist knows that by tradition when a seeker without perfect knowledge of terminology or the modus operandi of our art deserves help when he requests it. In fact, it is the responsibility of the true Alchemist to develop the skill to determine to whom, how and when knowledge should be imparted.
Nowadays, the artist has to be very careful in the evaluation of those who ask for help. One must be very cautious with "charity" until they are able to competently veil their words or reliably ascertain the integrity of the seeker of alchemical knowledge, and whether or not they deserve to have it.
Because of the openness of modern communication, specifically the Internet, people will frequently contact us requesting help in their researches in alchemy.
About "charitable" help, some years ago, we ask a brother to describe the first steps of his "said work". Doing this, we referred to some matters and modus operandi, and so he was sure about our alchemy knowledge even if we had and extensive exchange of correspondence.
The reply came as follows:
"When you tell me to have charity... For charity we give food to the hungry, to medical causes for the sick and infirmed, we give alms to the poor... but a Science such as Alchemy, cannot be given as charity..."
This artist would have (and he had certainly) his reasons to be "jealous". He was well within his rights, but nevertheless, he breached the tradition. In my humble opinion, the tradition of alchemy teaches us to give knowledge to whoever deserves it - without asking anything in exchange.
All the printed works become public and therefore it is possible for anyone to write commentaries on them. Anyone can transcribe small excerpts without the authors or publishers express permission as long as the laws are followed regarding proper acknowledgement of the source.
Therefore, any commentary based on those texts never could be taken as either offence or personal attack to their authors but as critique of the interpretative and operative methods that could be contested.
One cannot say that an author wrote a book such as Cyliani’s Hermes Unveiled or several other commentaries with the intent to plagiarize other authors, or insinuate that they plagiarize others. Everyone has his own style to write and will do it as well as possible.
Understand therefore, that there is a difference between style of interpretation and personal attack.
There have been some "heated" discussions that we have had on an Internet alchemy list concerning critiques based on our point of view. These critiques were of the work of a very well known artist, but often due to the lack of better arguments to contest our points, certain people always took it for a personal attack.
Unhappily, this behavior still continues in some of alchemy lists.
In summary, we want to say that constructive criticism of any method or written work, never should be interpreted as an offence or personal attack on the author; in fact, these criticisms originate constructive discussions in the lists which can be advantageous to the subscribers with less understanding in our Art.
Rubellus Petrinus