Ye Olde Book Club: Mary Anne Atwood's Hermetic Philosophy and Alchemy

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Ye Olde Book Club: Mary Anne Atwood's Hermetic Philosophy and Alchemy

I think you're right on there - it's partly the style, but she's using the style to hide things. Did you ever read Benito Cereno, by Herman Melville? He used a similar trick in that novelette - he intentionally wrote it to be so incredibly boring that the reader couldn't possibly maintain his/her concentration. That way he was able to slip in a lot of nasty stuff.

Atwood is doing it by writing a sentence which requires the reader to pause and decypher it. If the reader is willing to do that, he/she is rewarded with the "secret." If the reader doesn't, he/she isn't worthy of having the "secret."

So I have to look closely at that phrase (Atwood knows the texts pretty well. This is, actually, the Alchemist's trick for "hiding" things from the unworthy ).

I think she is formulating a Gnostic idea. I'd paraphrase it as:

We live in a sea of "truth," and every time we gain knowledge (gnosis of that truth) we take part in it's creation.

Or something like that...

I believe she may be a Theosophist...


I'd read about the book burning - and I think it's thing the kind of thing that daddy didn't like. But if this is her trick,we now know what to look for.

[B. de Corbin]

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Ye Olde Book Club: Mary Anne Atwood's Hermetic Philosophy and Alchemy

I'm pretty sure now that Atwood is working from a Theosophical background - take a look at this quick Wikki article and see if she seems to fit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy

The time period would be about right...

Theosophy was, for a while, the overarching mystical world view which spawned the 19th century spiritual movements, like spiritualism. I don't know a whole lot about it, though. Maybe somebody else has some info to add in here?

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Ye Olde Book Club: Mary Anne Atwood's Hermetic Philosophy and Alchemy

One of the texts she mentions, attributed to Hermes, is The Divine Poimander ( or Pymander) is available widely on the Internet. I've never actually read this work, but, taking a quick look, it is VERY interesting. It seems to be a non-Christian Gnostic or Neo Platonist text.

However, it does appear that it dates to around the 2nd or 3rd century (at least, that seems to be the general opinion) - so I very much doubt if it was the work of a pre dynastic pharaoh.

The Golden Treatise (also called The Golden Testament) of Hermes Trismegistus (which she also attributes to the mythological king Hermes) is also of much later date. This is one of the texts which I have worked with extensively, and I'm glad to see that she is going to deal with it extensively in a later chapter. Anyway, The Golden Treatise, according to what I remember, can be dated with certainty only to around 1500.

All these authors used to traditional backdating and attributing of writing to earlier authorities. It doesn't invalidate the writing, but it does throw Atwood's history off quite a bit.

But, as a Theosophist, I think Atwood wanted to create a historic "line of decent" from very ancient times... But I don't think that the history is that clear. One of the biggest problems with tracing Alchemy way back is that, while it does have connections to different strains of thought, Alchemy as a thing in itself did not really exist until the Middle Eastern Alchemists put the philosophy together with experimental chemistry.

That isn't a problem for me, but Atwood, as a Theosophist, would want to believe that the wisdom came down in a complete form from some early "master" or "masters."

This should give you some clues as to Atwood's character. She's highly educated, a dedicated scholar, tries very hard to convey what she believes is the truth, yet she jumps at the chance to make her pet subject fit into a theoretical history that supports her spiritual belief system (Theosophy).

This kind of thing is pretty typical of 19th century science isn't it (you know more about that than I do)? They didn't seem to have the same ideas about objectivity as we do now..

---------- Post added at 06:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 AM ----------

LOL - I think I'm dominating the conversation...

[thalassa]

Re: Ye Olde Book Club: Mary Anne Atwood's Hermetic Philosophy and Alchemy

This kind of thing is pretty typical of 19th century science isn't it (you know more about that than I do)? They didn't seem to have the same ideas about objectivity as we do now..

---------- Post added at 06:37 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:36 AM ----------

LOL - I think I'm dominating the conversation...

Lol, I think this makes more sense to you than it does to me!! She has too many references to things where I'm like "WTF is that?" and by the time I look it up, I forgot what I was reading!!

As far as science goes...absolutely. The thing to remember is that not only is there a big difference in *what* is scientific, but in *how* science is conducted...and even what information is considered "fact". Also, there is a difference in what is considered historical fact, and hence, history is far less objective as well. During the time when she is writing, there is alot more *unknown* out there, and a lot less questioning of things that are considered a matter of fact.

Just to illustrate the differences, at the time when she is writing, biology isn't even considered a science. You can't have science if there are no "laws" to govern what is going on, and no theories to be made. Darwin hasn't yet published Origin, and theories of natural history are extremely taboo to even bring up (one of the reasons it took Darwin so long to publish)...the last guy to try to come up with a (major) theory before him basically got laughed at and vilified in the field... Wm Swainson, proponent of the Quinarian theory (as well as the actual creator of the quinarian theory, Wm MacLeay), both ended their careers in Australia (and New Zealand). Natural history is (at this time) still Natural Theology and is considered a matter of classification--finding and cataloging the creation of Nature's God. Even though "evolution" in a general sense is an idea that was floating around, its not accepted because there is no mechanism for it...and to some degree, ideas in (all) the sciences are still attributed to mysterious (and often divine) forces.

This is also the age of spiritualism, mesmerism, etc...and where sometimes they are considered just as "scientific" as chemistry or physics.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Ye Olde Book Club: Mary Anne Atwood's Hermetic Philosophy and Alchemy

That's what I expected, based on the smattering of period reading I've done.

Actually, this puts her much closer to the way the Alchemists thought than we can really get today. The Alchemists were convinced that there was a complete system for understanding the world, that it came down from very ancient times, and that that knowledge was encoded in the myths they studied - we're not talking about abstract touchy-feely knowledge like what Joseph Campbell describes. They believed that very concrete technical data was hidden in there which, if they could uncover it, would tell them how to manipulate matter into any form they choose.

Their reason for believing this was the reverence they had for the (hypothetical) ancients, and the great civilizations of the past. I would guess that they imagined a golden age somewhere in the backwaters of history, and the knowledge hidden in the myths was what those advanced people left us.

The term "philosopher" as they used it is not the same as the way we use the term today. For them, a philosopher was one who understood the underlying rules of nature - it's pretty close to what you've called "natural theology" (since - as everybody knew - Plato had already proven the existence of the soul, they began with a belief in the soul, and went on from there. The same is true for other subjects which had been dealt with by the great minds of the past).

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Ye Olde Book Club: Mary Anne Atwood's Hermetic Philosophy and Alchemy

Lol, I think this makes more sense to you than it does to me!! She has too many references to things where I'm like "WTF is that?" and by the time I look it up, I forgot what I was reading!!

When Atwood refers to things like "universal truth," "divine wisdom," "universal love," etc., translate it into a Gnostic/pantheistic model of reality.

In this version, the panthestic thingy (hard to regard it as a diety) is everywhere all at once, and permeates everything - rocks, trees, turnips, you, me, your favorite quasar, everything. Everything is a part of it, but not everything is aware of being part.

Those things which are not aware of being a part (which lack gnosis) are kind of like "out of tune" with the pantheistic thingy, and, being out of tune means that they... Uh.. Screw up the pattern (I guess. It's kind of hard to express... it's like being out of tune with the Tao. Same kind of idea...)

But because humans are immersed in this thingy (universal truth, universal law, universal wisdom - she seems to use an assortment of terms interchangeably) all they have to do to gain gnosis is to open themselves to it, and, there ya go, ya get gnosis.

At least, this is what I'm getting (I've read ahead), and it seems to fit in with what I've found in a quick look at Theosophy.

If you keep this model of reality in mind, I think Atwood's cryptic statements will make more sense.

So she's interpreting Alchemy as a form of Gnosticism - which, incidentally is a valid interpretation. European Alchemy is usually (there are different forms, but in the main current) a form of Gnosticism - or, at least, heavily influenced by it.

This is why the Alchemists repeat over and over again that you can succeed ONLY with the " inspiration" (assistance/guidance/direction) of "The Living God."

Ouspensky, the only Theosophist thinker I have more than a nodding acquaintance with, tells me (in Tertium Organum http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/to/index.htm) that if we could observe the universe from a higher, fourth dimension, we'd see the connections, and know that everything is a part this vast pantheistic thingy.

[B. de Corbin]

Christianity was yet

despising the minor religion of their own country

They (Greek philosophers) are mentioned here in their series, because we hope to make it probable, as the nature of the subject comes to be developed, that the most famous schools of Theosophy have in all ages been based on a similar experimental ground and profound science of truth in their leaders.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Ye Olde Book Club: Mary Anne Atwood's Hermetic Philosophy and Alchemy

The paragraphs on Rome (21-22) interest me for two reasons - first, after telling us that Rome is barely worth mentioning due to the Roman's interest in"luxury" and "arms," she goes on to tell us that the Roman's had a line on the elder science (I think I stole this term from Lovecraft).

I guess the idea here is that where pleasure and temporal power exist, spiritual wisdom can't flourish, except sometimes, when it does. Kind of a mixed message here...

But she had to do it because she really, really wants to tells the story of the magic lamps:

But the most remarkable (lamps) were those found in Tulia's ( Cicero's daughter) tomb, - and that one near Alestes in the year 1500, by a rustic who, digging deeper than usual, discovered an earthen vessel or urn containing another urn, in which last was a lamp placed between two cylindrical vessels, one of gold the other of silver, and each one of which was full of a very pure liquor, by whose virtue it is probable these lamps continued to burn for upwards of fifteen hundred years...

Did this really happen?

It's hard to believe, and I'm a bit skeptical of reports of ancient wonders coming out of the 16 th century. To me, this looks more like a symbolic story indicating that the perpetual light of wisdom can be found in the ruins of Rome. She, however, needs to produce some sort of physical evidence that this "ancient wisdom" regarding the physical siences in order to prove that they actually existed.

My main reason for doubting the actual existence of these physical lamps is this:

If the ancient Romans had the advanced technology to produce - by scientific methods - an oil lamp that could burn continuously for 1500 years without burning any oil, why would they make an oil lamp?

The advanced technology that Atwood is putting forth to support her thesis that there actually was advanced technology produced in ancient Rome is actually something which would have been advanced technology in Atwood's time when oil lamps were standard technology, but not something that an actual science capable of manipulating matter at a fundamental level would produce. Why not LED's and a pocket sized cold fusion generator?

Now that would impress me. But cumbersome oil lamps which burn forever without consuming any fuel seems like going about it the hard way...

[thalassa]

Re: Ye Olde Book Club: Mary Anne Atwood's Hermetic Philosophy and Alchemy

Corbin, I'm not purposely trying to skip out...I'm trying to be sure I'm ready to take the GRE next week!

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Ye Olde Book Club: Mary Anne Atwood's Hermetic Philosophy and Alchemy

LOL - no problem! I can talk for days...

I can even do it if I have nothing to say.

Besides, it'll get more interesting after the first chapter. It's interesting, though, the way she uses the history to set up a particular thesis, and what she is using as evidence to support her thesis.

---------- Post added at 10:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 AM ----------

P.S. Good luck on the GRE!

I predict that you will do well. And you can print that prediction in National Inquirer. I stand behind it.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Ye Olde Book Club: Mary Anne Atwood's Hermetic Philosophy and Alchemy

Hey, Thalassa, I'll be back here shortly, but I got caught up in this crazy book - it's called "Hidden Symbolism of Alchemy and the Occult Arts." It's from 1917, and analyzes a Rosicrusian allegory using Freudian dream theory.

The book is worth reading just for the allegory, which is... I'd have to say ... wild. But the Freudian bit is just peculiar. It's actually kind of funny. It's hard to believe that people took this Freud stuff so seriously.

Here's a link - it's free -

http://www.manybooks.net/titles/silb...5527755-8.html