Patron of the Arts
- Jan 1, 2009
Perhaps this "3rd Part" is a not-so-uncommon Rosicrucian attempt at "damage control" (by complicating things under the guise of "plainly described processes"), given that the two first parts were so very revealing.
I agree. That thought crossed my mind as well. The first two parts reveal a very different and complete understanding, and point to different starting matters, which, based on my reading so far, is not even used in the third part. The third part seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what the author wrote in the first two parts, especially regarding the term "marcasite". The third part does not follow logically from the first part and seems inconsistent with the philosophy expressed there.
Another important difference between the first 2 parts and the third part is that in the first two parts, the author is probably unique in ALL of the alchemical texts in that he argues that NOTHING should be discarded in the process, especially the so-called fixed feces. Without a fixed part, how could the Stone ever be fixed? Also, God made everything on Earth and the Heavens perfect, so how could anything not be useful in some way? In the third part, the feces are discarded as useless, consistent with the approach of all other alchemists.
I think that the approach and understanding used by the author of the Golden Chain is unique in all of alchemy, at least since the 14th century alchemists, or even somewhat earlier. It seems that this author had a much different and deeper insight into the processes of Nature than all these other authors. It is also possible that this author was the very same Mennonite/farmer who approached Helvetius in December, 1666 in the Hague, and performed one of the best documented transmutations ever. Not many alchemists were peasant farmers (the great majority were well-to-do physicians, doctors of medicine, metallugists or chemists), and likely less than a handful were also Mennonites.