Again, many thanks for this shared knowledge. Alan Thorogood also put me onto Mr. Principe's work, and I happen to Have Wouter Hanegraaff's edition covering esoteric sexuality, which includes a contribution from Mr. Principe. That piece really changed my thinking by explaining stuff that, as a humanities scholar, I was not knowledgeable about (as Anitra discusses much more lucidly below). I'm getting a better feel for alchemy as a scientific endeavor rather than esoteric sexuality. I think what messed me up was that I started with Jacob Boehm's "Mysterium Magnum," which I assumed was alchemical, but maybe it's not. It reads like porn. I mean, there's just no getting around it. It that just Boehm? I guess I should also admit that the reason I am dragging my late nineteenth and early twentieth-century scholarly mind down this dark road is that I am on sabbatical studying William Blake. Blake read Boehm, so I figured I would too. Any thoughts?
Susan
-----Original Message-----
From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Snow Crocus
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2016 12:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] 18th c. gematria an alchemy
Dear Susan,
Lawrence Principe's _Secrets of Alchemy_ is a very nice historical overview of alchemy:
http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo12335123.html
As a chemist, Principe is able to discuss alchemical recipes and how they can be understood in terms of modern chemistry (including some of his own discoveries, re-created in his lab). And as a historian, he brings contextual sensitivity to the work that the alchemists were doing, including an understanding of their research program, and how different it was from modern chemistry or even science generally.
By the 18th century, chemistry and alchemy had already parted ways, and as most of the talented experimentalists were attracted to chemistry, alchemy was left rather impoverished, without consistent reference to experimental results. It can be difficult to understand what the alchemists of that day were trying to do without understanding the tradition that they were working from.
What Principe shows is that alchemical researches in their heyday were aimed at producing a wide variety of active materials, including dyes and pharmaceuticals, wholly aside from the search for the philosopher's stone.
Since these were trade secrets, and since the philosopher's stone would have tremendous economic power if it were produced, the alchemists had a very real incentive to secrecy, and for this reason, they developed the tradition of codes and allegories for which they became known. Some of the famous (and sexually provocative) images are in fact descriptions of experimental observations. How far they are cryptographic and how far they are metaphorical depends on the imagination of the alchemist, his theoretical frame, and his skill as an experimentalist. But they were invariably both; the alchemical output just doesn't fit neatly into any modern category, not science and not magic -- or, rather, science and magic both.
This comes out clearly in Principe's book. And, as he does put a little more weight on the experimental side of alchemy, it can give you an idea of what were the material inspirations of the esoteric aspects of alchemy, as well as what went missing in 18th-19th century alchemy that made it different from previous generations. Plus a bibliography.
anitra
On Thu, 18 Feb 2016, Amy Hale wrote:
> Hi Susan!
> Haven't had much coffee here, but I would agree that there was
> certainly a component of alchemy which addressed what we might think
> of as sex in a spiritual or magical context. Absolutely. I mean, the
> art was remarkably explicit. I wonder how they got away with it
> sometimes. I don't think that was all, though, people were doing work
> with metals and plants as well, it wasn't entirely a spiritual or sexual metaphor.
>
> Amy
>
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Susan Graf <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> I have another question. It may be an ignorant question, so I
> apologize ahead of time. Again, I am not an 18th century
> scholar—well I kind of am trying to be one right now, but I am
> not really trained—and now I am having to consider alchemy. In
> reading Jacob Boehme, it seems to patently obvious to me that
> the true subject is esoteric sexuality. Did the more erudite
> alchemists—the real alchemists—just keep it under wraps so
> beautifully? I’m thinking that until Jung, no one really said,
> “Ok Folks: here’s what’s really going on here.” Did no one at
> the time actually admit it? Or were they really trying to make
> gold out of their own semen. I mean, come on. . . .
>
> Susan
>
>
>
> From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Susan
> Graf
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 9:56 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] 18th c. gematria
>
>
>
> Thanks Dan!
>
>
>
> From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Daniel Harms
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 3:28 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] 18th c. gematria
>
>
>
> Susan,
>
>
>
> There’s not much printed in England on magic for much of that period.
> You might start with J. F.’s translation of Agrippa’s Three Books of
> Occult Philosophy, which features gematria in Book 2, Chapter 20.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Dan Harms
>
> Reference and Instruction Librarian
>
> SUNY Cortland Memorial Library
> P. O. Box 2000
>
> Cortland, NY 13045
>
> (607) 753-4042
>
>
>
> From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ed Lyon
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 5:17 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] 18th c. gematria
>
>
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> Just a punt: but I imagine that Francis Barrett’s The Magus (online at
> http://toth.su/pdf/Ceremonial/The%20Magus%20by%20Francis%20Barrett.pdf
> ) would be indicative of eighteenth century practices.
>
>
>
> All the best
>
>
>
> Ed Lyon
>
> Library Assistant (Document Delivery)
>
>
>
> Library
>
> Birkbeck, University of London
>
> Malet Street
>
> London WC1E 7HX
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Susan Graf
> Sent: 17 February 2016 05:26
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] 18th c. gematria
>
>
>
> Sabina,
>
> Thanks for the input. I was thinking along those lines, but I am a
> novice—just getting my sea legs—in terms of pre-nineteenth-century
> occultism, so I’m checking with the panel of experts J.
>
> Susan
>
>
>
> From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Magliocco,
> Sabina
> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 9:23 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] 18th c. gematria
>
>
>
> Susan et al.,
>
>
>
> This is a hunch, but I suspect 18th century occultists would have
> based letter-number correspondences on Gematria, to which they had
> access through the Kabbalah. I'm guessing here, so if anyone has
> actual data on this, please go ahead and chime in to correct me, if
> necessary.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Sabina
>
>
>
> Sabina Magliocco
> Professor
>
> Department of Anthropology
> California State University - Northridge [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ____
>
>
> From: Society for The Academic Study of Magic
> <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Susan Graf
> <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 5:16 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] 18th c. gematria
>
>
>
> Colleagues,
>
> I am wondering if anybody has an idea about what scheme—letter/number
> correspondences—would have been most commonly in use in English
> occultism od the 18th century. Thanks in advance for any help or
> sources you might be able to offer.
>
> With all good wishes,
>
> Susan Johnston Graf
>
>
>
>
|
