Patrons of the Sacred Art

OPEN TO REGISTER: Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Philalethes Eirenaeus

  1. #1

    Philalethes Eirenaeus

    So as it turns out, Philalethes Eirenaeus / George Starkey alias was in fact the author of Isaac Newton's Clavis (https://history.duke.edu/sites/histo...per%202014.pdf)

    I've been through Ripley Reviv'd several times now and maybe Im just missing something - are there two separate vessels to create each of the philosophical mercury and the philosophical sulphur (I know these are not implied to be the vulgar variants thereof) or is this operation done in the same vessel?

    Also, does anyone actually believe that there is a real Philalethes lurking around out there apart from George Starkey that did in fact create the elixir as mentioned in Hermippus Redivivus - and then go on to chair the Illuminati?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by Coleridgean View Post
    I've been through Ripley Reviv'd several times now and maybe Im just missing something - are there two separate vessels to create each of the philosophical mercury and the philosophical sulphur (I know these are not implied to be the vulgar variants thereof) or is this operation done in the same vessel?
    "Ripley Reviv'd" is awesome--one of my favorite texts.

    "An Open Entrance To The Shut Palace Of The King" is phenomenally well done also.


    Both texts make is exceedingly clear that our two Polarities (Philosophical Mercury & Philosophical Sulphur) both stem from one single Root and can indeed be 'captured' inside of one vessel.
    Multiple vessels can be used successfully, but by no means are required. One vessel will suffice.

    Note: This is backed up by numerous authors as you already know.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Schmuldvich View Post
    "Ripley Reviv'd" is awesome--one of my favorite texts.

    "An Open Entrance To The Shut Palace Of The King" is phenomenally well done also.


    Both texts make is exceedingly clear that our two Polarities (Philosophical Mercury & Philosophical Sulphur) both stem from one single Root and can indeed be 'captured' inside of one vessel.
    Multiple vessels can be used successfully, but by no means are required. One vessel will suffice.

    Note: This is backed up by numerous authors as you already know.
    "One single root" does NOT equal "one single matter" in a quantitative sense, so keep on thinking that this corroborates your belief that they are really literally talking about "one single matter". The author makes it very clear that in fact the "water" of alchemy "IS COMPOUNDED OF MANY THINGS, but yet it is but one thing MADE OF DIVERSE SUBSTANCES of one essence." Funny how you keep falling for the same silly trap over and over, even in the case of authors who very clearly are pointing out the very trap itself to you: several substances are used to compose it, but since some alchemists arbitrarily out of their theoretical ruminations assign the same origin/root/essence to these substances, they maliciously count them as "one". It's like if I told you that lemonade is made from "one matter only" because out of my whim & fancy I decided that water, sugar and lemons are all from the same "root" or "essence", since they all can be found in the vegetable kingdom, or because all matter in the universe is really "one", or because these three substances will mix up and apparently become "one" thing (in other words: THEORETICAL/SPECULATIVE/PHILOSOPHICAL OPINIONS.) You might very well protest: "Shit, but that's actually three separate substances, NOT REALLY ONE! You are making me waste my time and money trying to make this drink out of one single substance, you misleading bastard!", and you would be 100% correct. Therein lies the trap. And you keep falling for it, LOL!

    As for the "one vessel only" trap: it is only valid once you have prepared everything necessary to make the "coction" of the Stone. Before this, several vessels are used. It is impossible to make all the necessary operations, from the very beginning to the very end, in a single vessel.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Coleridgean View Post
    So as it turns out, Philalethes Eirenaeus / George Starkey alias was in fact the author of Isaac Newton's Clavis (https://history.duke.edu/sites/histo...per%202014.pdf)

    I've been through Ripley Reviv'd several times now and maybe Im just missing something - are there two separate vessels to create each of the philosophical mercury and the philosophical sulphur (I know these are not implied to be the vulgar variants thereof) or is this operation done in the same vessel?

    Also, does anyone actually believe that there is a real Philalethes lurking around out there apart from George Starkey that did in fact create the elixir as mentioned in Hermippus Redivivus - and then go on to chair the Illuminati?
    The author of Hermippus Redivivus actually confused "Eugenius Philalethes" with "Eirenaeus Philalethes". The first one was a pseudonym of Thomas Vaughan, the second a pseudonym connected with the chymist George Starkey.

    As for the question whether Starkey was really behind the "Eirenaeus Philalethes" pseudonym and texts: the evidence uncovered by Newman and Principe seems pretty damning. These two historians have transcribed and translated the surviving laboratory notebooks of Starkey and they did not find any single reference to "Eirenaeus Philalethes" in them. Does it sound logical or realistic to you that if Starkey had really been in contact with an "adept" who gave him some samples, instructions and books, that he NEVER mentions this in his personal notes? His notebooks are full of his (unsuccessful) attempts at making the Stone, yet not one single reference to this "adept" he had met?? Really??? Until new evidence comes forth proving otherwise, this single bit of evidence by itself is extremely incriminating. If Starkey had really met this "adept" who gave him instructions (and even a sample of the white Stone!) we should naturally expect his private notebooks to be quite full of references to such a momentous event that left such a big impact in his life. Yet they all are incriminatingly silent about it.

  5. #5
    "Open Entrance" -- yes I really like Introitus as well. Starkey - er - Philalethes - repeats a lot of the same sort of thing from Ripley Revivd. But then he adds his story comparing himself to the Wandering Cain, and even Elias. They knew the gold or silver was fake when he tried to sell it because it was too perfect and therefore artificial

    JDP - that's kind of what I thought. Ripley Revivd does have some riddlesome stuff about the ratios of the preparation of the calxes. There's nothing specifically about Regulus of Antimony or Vulcan's Net etc that Newton was more explicit with - but I assume Reviv'd really does contain a sequence of instructions. The poetry is a lot of similitude that overlaps again and again - more about observations rather than sequential instructions.

    As for Thomas Vaughan, I defer to Henry More's Alozonomastix for the epic trolling of the mid 17th century

+ Reply to Thread

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts