Alchemy discussion forum Home
 Search       Members   Calendar   Help   Home 
Search by username
Not logged in - Login | Register 

Angelical Stone
 Moderated by: alchemyd  
 New Topic   Reply   Print 
AuthorPost
adammclean
Member


Joined: Fri Sep 14th, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 602
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 04:27 pm
 Quote  Reply 
The Angelical Stone of Elias Ashmole
Matthew D. Rogers, Aries, Volume 5, Number 1, 2005 , pp. 61-90(30)



I have just been reading this article and must say I found it rather strange. The first part of this begins by drawing to our attention the idea of a “lapis angelicus” (a kind of sub-species of the Philosophers’ Stone) found in a 1660 alchemical manuscript in the circles around Samuel Hartlib. Rogers then goes on to explore the appearance of this idea in Ashmole’s writings and draws parallels with Edward Kelly and also echoes of this Robert Boyle’s works. He then looks at the manuscripts of Robert Plot and  the writings of John Pordage.

This article is rather interesting and follows the usual scholarly methodology, so it is with an enormous surprise to read the closing section of the article which suddenly goes off into what can best be described as a flight of fantasy. Here Rogers introduces the idea that this Angelical Stone may have been some sort of psychedelic substance. He gives no evidence and instead cites as sources such unlikely writers as Terrance McKenna and even the totally speculative book by Clark Heinrich Strange Fruit. The article is a weird hybrid of a scholarly opening section with an esoteric speculative coda. I must say I found this approach unsettling. It seems likely that unscholarly people, not being able to see the segue from scholarly to speculative will take this entirely as a work of scholarship. I hope this is not an approach that others will emulate.

Last edited on Sat Oct 25th, 2008 04:29 pm by adammclean

Tom Willard
Member


Joined: Mon May 5th, 2008
Location: Tucson, Arizona USA
Posts: 95
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Mon Oct 27th, 2008 08:11 am
 Quote  Reply 
I have not seen the article, but recall Ashmole's comments on the Angelical Stone, which take up a paragraph or two in the Prolegomena to his Theatrum Chemicum Britannicum (1652). Ashmole does say that the stone must be tasted and makes it possible to converse with angels by dreams and revelations, but that's as far as he goes.

The article Adam describes reminds me of John Allegro on magic mushrooms at the Qumran community. Allegro was a great scholar, but people started to talk.

Ashmole says he is following "S. Dunstans Worke De Occulta Philosophia (a Booke which E.G.A.I. made much use of)." Now since E.G.A.I. is Edwardus Generosus Anglicus Innominatus, in a manuscript dated twenty years before Edward Kelly said he found the manuscript of the tenth-century abbot of Glastonbury, it seems possible that Ashmole in 1651 is drawing from information or manuscript provided by the late Arthur Dee -- and that the angels in question may be somehow related to those of Dr. John Dee.

The Crowning of Nature, in the Opus Hermetic series, has brief a reference to the same information on the Angelical Stone. Meanwhile, Lauren Kassell discusses the Dunstan's book in her contribution to Books and the Sciences in History (Cambridge UP, 2000).


 Current time is 03:38 pm




Powered by WowBB 1.7 - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez