The Sceptical Chymist: or Chymico-Physical Doubts & Paradoxes, Touching the Spagyrist's Principles Commonly call'd Hypostatical; As they are wont to be Propos'd and Defended by the Generality of Alchymists. Whereunto is præmis'd Part of another Discourse relating to the same Subject.Boyle, Robert
Philosophy
The Sceptical Chymist: or Chymico-Physical Doubts & Paradoxes, Touching the Spagyrist's Principles Commonly call'd Hypostatical; As they are wont to be Propos'd and Defended by the Generality of Alchymists. Whereunto is præmis'd Part of another Discourse relating to the same Subject.
Boyle, Robert
Chemistry -- Early works to 1800
But whatever (sayes _Carneades_) these Men may promise themselves from
a Canting way of delivering the Principles of Nature, they will find
the Major part of Knowing Men so vain, as when they understand not
what they read, to conclude, that it is rather the Writers fault then
their own. And those that are so ambitious to be admir'd by the
Vulgar, that rather then go without the Admiration of the Ignorant
they will expose themselves to the contempt of the Learned, those
shall, by my consent, freely enjoy their Option. As for the Mystical
Writers scrupling to Communicate their Knowledge, they might less to
their own Disparagement, and to the trouble of their Readers, have
conceal'd it by writing no Books, then by Writing bad ones. If
_Themistius_ were here, he would not stick to say, that Chymists write
thus darkly, not because they think their Notions too precious to be
explain'd, but because they fear that if they were explain'd, men
would discern, that they are farr from being precious. And indeed, I
fear that the chief Reason why Chymists have written so obscurely of
their three Principles, may be, That not having Clear and Distinct
Notions of them themselves, they cannot write otherwise then
Confusedly of what they but Confusedly Apprehend: Not to say that
divers of them, being Conscious to the Invalidity of their Doctrine,
might well enough discerne that they could scarce keep themselves from
being confuted, but by keeping themselves from being clearly
understood. But though much may be said to Excuse the Chymists when
they write Darkly, and AEnigmatically, about the Preparation of their
_Elixir_, and Some few other grand _Arcana_, the divulging of which
they may upon Grounds Plausible enough esteem unfit; yet when they
pretend to teach the General Principles of Natural Philosophers, this
Equivocall Way of Writing is not to be endur'd. For in such
Speculative Enquiries, where the naked Knowledge of the Truth is the
thing Principally aim'd at, what does he teach me worth thanks that
does not, if he can, make his Notion intelligible to me, but by
Mystical Termes, and Ambiguous Phrases darkens what he should clear
up; and makes me add the Trouble of guessing at the sence of what he
Equivocally expresses, to that of examining the Truth of what he seems
to deliver. And if the matter of the Philosophers Stone, and the
manner of preparing it, be such Mysteries as they would have the World
believe them, they may Write Intelligibly and Clearly of the
Principles of mixt Bodies in General, without Discovering what they
call the Great Work. But for my part (Continues _Carneades_) what my
Indignation at this Un-philosophical way of teaching Principles has
now extorted from me, is meant chiefly to excuse my self, if I shall
hereafter oppose any Particular Opinion or assertion, that some
Follower of _Paracelsus_ or any Eminent Artist may pretend not to be
his Masters. For, as I told you long since, I am not Oblig'd to
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account