Alchemy Academy archive

Alchemy Academy archive
December 2004

Back to alchemy academy archives.

Subject: ACADEMY: Sendivogius' 'Harmonia'
From: Gleb Butuzov
Date: 30 Nov 2004

Dear members of the Academy,

I am preparing to translate works of Michael Sendivogius into Russian,
and in this relation I have some questions. These are rather questions to
Rafal, but I will highly appreciate other people's input as well.

In the article "Michael Sendivogius and Christian Rosenkreutz" the
author mentioned some work called "Harmonia", that was never
published under Sendivogius' name and prof. Bugaj believes it
to be published by Jacques Nuysement. Does it mean it had
become a basis for his "Traitez du vray sel"
(I assume "Harmonia" should somehow deal with Salt besides its political
implications, having in mind the other two works were dedicated to
Mercury and Suphur)? Or I'm totally wrong?

Besides, as far as I understand, Rafal believes all works known as
those of "Cosmopolite" are to be attributed to Michal Sedziwoj.
What is his and other people's opinion about traditional idea of
different authorship of "Novum Lumen Chymicum" and "De Sulphure"?

The final question is rather technical: are there any known
discrepancies between original edition of "Novum Lumen Chuymicum"
and that of Philip Muller (I have a copy made from the 1616 edition
of the latter)?

Thanks everybody in advance.

Gleb Butuzov.

Subject: ACADEMY: Sendivogius' 'Harmonia'
From: Rafal T. Prinke
Date: 30 Nov 2004

Dear Gleb,

> I am preparing to translate works of Michael Sendivogius into Russian,

Great!

> In the article "Michael Sendivogius and Christian Rosenkreutz" the
> author mentioned some work called "Harmonia", that was never
> published under Sendivogius' name and prof. Bugaj believes it
> to be published by Jacques Nuysement. Does it mean it had
> become a basis for his "Traitez du vray sel"
> (I assume "Harmonia" should somehow deal with Salt besides its political
> implications, having in mind the other two works were dedicated to
> Mercury and Suphur)? Or I'm totally wrong?

The whole matter is a bit confusing. Bugaj identified
Nuysement's work (which is indeed the same as "Traitez du vray sel",
which was in some editions given a title "Traittez de l'Harmonie
et Constitution Generalle du Vray Sel etc.") and wrote an article
(in Polish) about it. Later Zbigniew Szydlo in his book
on Sendivogius adapted this view and added some other
works to the corpus.
I do not believe any of them could be seriously defended
as authored by Sendivogius.

> Besides, as far as I understand, Rafal believes all works known as
> those of "Cosmopolite" are to be attributed to Michal Sedziwoj.

My opinion at present is that only the three original works
(De lapide + Parabola, Dialogus and De Sulphure) are genuine. The only
additional items to be considered might be the "diary"
which I have on my webpages and the Processus published
by Becher. The attribution of the former is based solely
on the only known copy made by Girolamo Pinocci in
the latter of of the 17th c., who states it is by Sendivogius
"ut opinor". The Processus does not state it was written
by Sendivogius but that it is a description of "his process".

> What is his and other people's opinion about traditional idea of
> different authorship of "Novum Lumen Chymicum" and "De Sulphure"?

No way :-)

> The final question is rather technical: are there any known
> discrepancies between original edition of "Novum Lumen Chuymicum"
> and that of Philip Muller (I have a copy made from the 1616 edition
> of the latter)?

I have not seen that edition - but there is practically no
difference between the text of the first 1604 edition and
that of the Hermetic Museum 1749 edition.

Best regards,
Rafal

Subject: ACADEMY: Sendivogius' 'Harmonia'
From: Gleb Butuzov
Date: 1 Dec 2004

Dear Rafal,

Thanks for an unbelievably prompt answer!

> The whole matter is a bit confusing. Bugaj identified
> Nuysement's work (which is indeed the same as "Traitez du vray sel",
> which was in some editions given a title "Traittez de l'Harmonie
> et Constitution Generalle du Vray Sel etc.") and wrote an article
> (in Polish) about it. Later Zbigniew Szydlo in his book
> on Sendivogius adapted this view and added some other
> works to the corpus.
> I do not believe any of them could be seriously defended
> as authored by Sendivogius.

Actually, that's what I thought, because I know well Nuyesement's work and
it seems to differ from Sendivogius' approach.

> My opinion at present is that only the three original works
> (De lapide + Parabola, Dialogus and De Sulphure) are genuine. The only
> additional items to be considered might be the "diary"
> which I have on my webpages and the Processus published
> by Becher. The attribution of the former is based solely
> on the only known copy made by Girolamo Pinocci in
> the latter of of the 17th c., who states it is by Sendivogius
> "ut opinor". The Processus does not state it was written
> by Sendivogius but that it is a description of "his process".

Thank you, very clear.

> > What is his and other people's opinion about traditional idea of
> > different authorship of "Novum Lumen Chymicum" and "De Sulphure"?
>
> No way :-)

Again I share your opinion, but some of my French acquaintances do
not agree :-(

Best wishes

Gleb.

Subject: ACADEMY: Sendivogius' 'De Sulphure'
From: Gleb Butuzov
Date: 1 Dec 2004

Dear members of the Academy,

If anybody has by chance "De Sulphure" in scanned or transcribed
form (I mean the original Latin), and consider it appropriate to share
it with me, I will be extremely grateful for such a help.

My e-mail address: butuzov@sympatico.ca (the work is small,
so there should be no problem with the attachment size).

Thank you and best regards.

Gleb.

Subject: ACADEMY: Carlos Gilly's 'Bibliographia Rosicruciana'
From: Leigh Penman
Date: 5 Dec 2004

Dear Members,

I have just noticed that the first volume of Dr. Gilly's long awaited Rosicrucian
bibliography has been added to the schedule of Frommann-Holzboog Verlag,
to be published by the BPH publishing house 'In de Pelikaan.' The printing
program of the six-volume work is as follows:

1. Gilly, Carlos: Bibliographia Rosicruciana. Band 1
ber Entstehung, Autorschaft und Zweck der Manifeste der Rosenkreuzer.
Eine historische Einführung. Erschienen im Verlag In de Pelikaan, Amsterdam.
Ca. 210 S. Ln.
Ca. EUR 30,- / sFr 54,-
ISBN 3-7728-2361-0
Frühjahr 2005

2.Gilly, Carlos: Bibliographia Rosicruciana. Band 2
Handschriften und Drucke von 1610 bis 1618. Ln.
ISBN 3-7728-2362-9
In Vorbereitung

3.Gilly, Carlos: Bibliographia Rosicruciana. Band 3
Handschriften und Drucke von 1619 bis 1632. Ln.
ISBN 3-7728-2363-7
In Vorbereitung

4. Gilly, Carlos: Bibliographia Rosicruciana. Band 4
Handschriften und Drucke von 1633 bis 1709. Ln.
ISBN 3-7728-2364-5
In Vorbereitung

5.Gilly, Carlos: Bibliographia Rosicruciana. Band 5
Handschriften und Drucke von 1710 bis 1800. Ln.
ISBN 3-7728-2365-3
In Vorbereitung

6. Gilly, Carlos: Bibliographia Rosicruciana. Band 6
Die Bibliotheken der ersten Rosenkreuzer: Edition der erhaltenen
Bücherverzeichnisse aus dem Besitz von Tobias Hess, Christoph Besold
und Karl Widemann. Ln.
ISBN 3-7728-2366-1
In Vorbereitung

While only the first volume so far has a release date, does anyone
know with what frequency the following volumes will be released?
I would suspect annually.

All the best,
Leigh