. Golden Chain Of Homer - Third Part English

[Illen A. Cluf]

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.

 

[Andro]

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.

This reminds me of Pontanus:

It has several superfluities which I assure you by the living God, transform themselves into one unique Essence, if only there be our fire. And whoever - believing such to be necessary - would subtract anything from the subject, knows of a certainty nothing of Philosophy. For the superfluous, unclean, foul, scurvy, miry and, in general, entire substance of the subject, is perfected into one fixed spiritual body, by means of our fire. Which has never been revealed by the Wise, thus making it that but few succeed in this Art; imagining that some foul and unworthy thing must be separated out.

Now must one make appear, and draw out the properties of our fire; if it agree with our material in the way of which I have spoken, that is to say, if it be transmuted with the material. This fire burns the material not at all, nor separates anything from it, nor divides nor puts apart the parts pure and impure, as is told by all Philosophers, but converts the whole subject into purity. It does not sublime as Geber or Arnold and all others who have spoken of sublimation and distillation sublime. And it makes and perfects itself in little time.

 

[Illen A. Cluf]

This reminds me of Pontanus:

Good find - I guess that the author of the Golden Chain was not entirely alone in his findings at all.

 

[Andro]

Also interesting that the first part was (allegedly) first printed in 1723, but there have been revisions and additions up to 1881. This would explain why the latest revision mentions "Compass of the Wise", which only was published in 1779. Who made all the revisions and why?

Even more interesting is that the 3rd Part was allegedly first written in 1654 (and published in 1757, more than a century later), which would place it on the timeline before the first printing of the first part... unless the first part was also written many years before its first printed release (1732).

 

[Illen A. Cluf]

Also interesting that the first part was (allegedly) first printed in 1723, but there have been revisions and additions up to 1881. This would explain why the latest revision mentions "Compass of the Wise", which only was published in 1779. Who made all the revisions and why?

Even more interesting is that the 3rd Part was allegedly first written in 1654 (and published in 1757, more than a century later), which would place it on the timeline before the first printing of the first part... unless the first part was also written many years before its first printed release (1732).

There has been some discussion of the Rosicrucians having made changes to the document. The first two parts were likely initially written during the mid-1600's as it doesn't mention some of the notable alchmemists that came later. The third part seems entirely bogus. It was supposedly written in 1654, but mentions an even that took place in 1666! Either the publisher mistook the "5" for an "8" (i.e. it was actually written in 1684) or the author wasn't aware that the even took place in 1666. In any event, the third part is totally unlike the first two parts, in terms of the philosophy, writing style, and other nuances. In my opinion, it was not written by the initial author. Thus the actual third part is either still hidden today, or was never written.Since the Rosicrucians seemed to have a hand in the later development, it is possible that they prevented the third part from reaching the general public because of what it contained.

Apparently, there were two other versions of the third part published, but those were considered to be fakes.

 

[Andro]

The third part seems entirely bogus. [...] Since the Rosicrucians seemed to have a hand in the later development, it is possible that they prevented the third part from reaching the general public because of what it contained.

All of which might be somewhat casting some shadows on the whole "marcasite process" thing, including the "13 Secret Letters", and also appearing in Glauber's writings... Hmm...

Just publish some semi-alchemical/semi-spagyrical processes and give the audience some crumbs, while the actual underlying Schematics and Philosophy remain obscured from the public.

It's great to have the first part(s) available.

In the end, it all comes down to a "Universal" (but subtly embodied) Agent and its equally "Universal" Patient Counterpart, and their evolutionary interplay towards the multiplied Stone. No chemicals or retorts/alembics required.

Simple & elegant. But it can take decades if not lifetimes to arrive at the simplicity of it all.

Anything beyond that, although probably legit to various extents, only leads to completely unnecessary complications. IMO.

 

[Triune One]

Dear Friends, and especially Andro and Illen A. Cluf who have been sharing a lot on this thread of late,

I am a little surprised at the discussion of the first and second part of the Golden Chain of Homer.
I only ever knew of The Golden Chain of Homer.... period. But I do see there is a part 1 and a part 2... in the same book. Was this ever published in two separate books and has now been consolidated?

I have this book - https://www.amazon.com/Golden-Chain-Homer-Catena-Homeri/dp/1469797267/

It does indicate Part 1 and Part 2 in the text... but the way you've been speaking of Part 1 and Part 2, it made me doubt whether I might be missing something.
Is that book that I have the Part 1 and Part 2 you've been referring to in relation to the third part?

 

[Illen A. Cluf]

Dear Friends, and especially Andro and Illen A. Cluf who have been sharing a lot on this thread of late,

I am a little surprised at the discussion of the first and second part of the Golden Chain of Homer.
I only ever knew of The Golden Chain of Homer.... period. But I do see there is a part 1 and a part 2... in the same book. Was this ever published in two separate books and has now been consolidated?

I have this book - https://www.amazon.com/Golden-Chain-Homer-Catena-Homeri/dp/1469797267/

It does indicate Part 1 and Part 2 in the text... but the way you've been speaking of Part 1 and Part 2, it made me doubt whether I might be missing something.
Is that book that I have the Part 1 and Part 2 you've been referring to in relation to the third part?

Hi Triune One - there is a third part, which is what we were discussing. There were actualy threee different versions of the third part, two of which are said to be bogus.

In my opinion, the third version of Part 3 was also not written by the original author, but likely someone from the Roscicrucian group. Both the style content and philosophy expressed in this third part is differen tthan the first two parts.

 

[Triune One]

Hi Triune One - there is a third part, which is what we were discussing. There were actualy threee different versions of the third part, two of which are said to be bogus.

In my opinion, the third version of Part 3 was also not written by the original author, but likely someone from the Roscicrucian group. Both the style content and philosophy expressed in this third part is differen tthan the first two parts.

Hi Illen. Thank you for your reply, but you misunderstood me.
My question was in regards to Part 1 and Part 2.
Have they not always been part of just one publication? So the book that we know of as the original Golden Chain of Homer,
has always been Part 1 and Part 2? OR did they consolidate that at some point from two books (Part 1 and Part 2 stand alones)
into one book?

 

[Illen A. Cluf]

Hi Illen. Thank you for your reply, but you misunderstood me.
My question was in regards to Part 1 and Part 2.
Have they not always been part of just one publication? So the book that we know of as the original Golden Chain of Homer,
has always been Part 1 and Part 2? OR did they consolidate that at some point from two books (Part 1 and Part 2 stand alones)
into one book?

Hi Triune One, sorry for not understanding you correctly. The book was first published in 1723, and in this edition, both the first part AND the second part was included. I'm not sure if they later became separated, but I can't see any reason why that would have been so when they were consolidated from the beginning.

 

[Michael Sternbach]

To my knowledge too, the first two volumes were always published together, with the third one being added later, and quite possibly by a different author.

By the way, there's also an alternative version of the original part called Annulus Platonis, which shows significant deviations from the 'standard' text. Not sure if it was ever translated from German, though.

 

[Triune One]

To my knowledge too, the first two volumes were always published together, with the third one being added later, and quite possibly by a different author.

By the way, there's also an alternative version of the original part called Annulus Platonis, which shows significant deviations from the 'standard' text. Not sure if it was ever translated from German, though.

thank you.
Is there anything significant in that alternative version of Annulus Platonis Michael?

And thank you for clarifying Illen. And no worries at all for the misunderstanding. My original question invited multiple interpretations.

 

[Dendritic Xylem]

I'm not sure if they later became separated

To my knowledge too, the first two volumes were always published together

The fancy leather bound edition from 1983 only contains the first part (Bacstrom)
It's overpriced, incomplete, and a poor translation...don't make the same mistake I did

 

[Philosophical]

I was always under the impression that the 3rd part must have been published much later than the first 2, which I have only ever seen published together. Digging on archive.org however there is a german version which with my very poor german I believe contains the 3rd part?

https://archive.org/details/aureacatenahome00forcgoog/page/n6/mode/2up

I agree it seems to have been written by a different person, very different in flavour to the other two.

The fancy leather bound edition from 1983 only contains the first part (Bacstrom)
It's overpriced, incomplete, and a poor translation...don't make the same mistake I did

At least, by the sounds of it, it looks the part

 

[Illen A. Cluf]

I was always under the impression that the 3rd part must have been published much later than the first 2, which I have only ever seen published together. Digging on archive.org however there is a german version which with my very poor german I believe contains the 3rd part?

https://archive.org/details/aureacatenahome00forcgoog/page/n6/mode/2up

I agree it seems to have been written by a different person, very different in flavour to the other two.

Yes, that version seems to contain all three parts. The third part is likely NOT by the same author as the first two parts. There are just too many differences in style, philosophy, understanding, terminology and content for it to be from the same author. I strongly believe therefore, that someone from the Rosicrucian order wrote the third part, maybe to deliberately confuse those that learned too much from the first two parts. The original author did mention that he would be writing a third part, but either he died before he could do so, or someone, or some group (Rosicrucians?). deliberately took it out of circulation.

This has been done before with several treatises. For example, "Suggestive Inquiry Into the Hermetic Mystery with a Dissertation on the More Celebrated of the Alchemical Philosophers Being an Attempt Towards the Recovery of the Ancient Experiment of Nature" by Mary Anne Atwood. However, in this case, the attempt to take all the books out of circulation failed.

 

[Philosophical]

I strongly believe therefore, that someone from the Rosicrucian order wrote the third part, maybe to deliberately confuse those that learned too much from the first two parts.

What an interesting idea, I hadn't thought of that but the first two parts are some of the best alchemical literature I have seen even if they are more spagyrical on the surface whereas the 3rd part does seem to confuse the lot.

 

[Michael Sternbach]

thank you.
Is there anything significant in that alternative version of Annulus Platonis Michael?

That's an interesting question! Alas, I haven't gotten to making a comparative analysis of the two texts so far.

 

[Blacksmith]

I remember one time that a paper flew off with the wind from a Rosicrucian temple, I remember many people, strangely dressed looking for the page all over the city, until today I wonder what was there