Essay 138 – Ripley’s Bosome Book – An introduction

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I discussed earlier, this next set of essays is going to cover the subject of
understanding how to read alchemical texts (on the acetate path). As an example I am
going to use Ripley’s ‘Bosome Book’, because it has the simplest language, is almost
complete in its description, and is a good example of a classic description of the work.

The point in this series of essays is twofold: (1) to demonstrate what traditional alchemy
was really about and how traditional alchemists thought about the subject, and (2) to
show how a very basic traditional alchemical text is ‘decoded’. In other words how to
understand the language and the ideas these texts use.

So before I start discussing the chosen text I need to explain a few things about my
approach to this subject and about the text I will be using, itself. Just so that you can
place my comments in their proper context. This is necessary because as some of you
know my approach is often unorthodox (in the modern popular sense), so it is important
to be aware that I am not providing a conventional commentary here. I am not simply
repeating what everyone else believes. That would be pointless and unnecessarily
repetitive.

Firstly, my approach to the subject. It is necessary to understand that I view the subject
of alchemy, overall, in a way that is mostly not discussed in modern alchemical circles. I
am of the opinion that the so-called acetate path is probably the oldest, original path to
the Philosopher’s Stone. In saying that I do not believe it is the only path, just that it is
the oldest original path. I also believe that in the early pre-historic era of alchemy
(before 300 AD) that the acetate path was probably either he only path taught and
followed, or it was certainly the primary path taught and followed.

Because of this my main interest is in studying, teaching and commenting mainly on this
acetate path alone. Therefore, in reading the commentary which follows in my essays
you should read them with the understanding that the ideas I present are primarily
applicable to the acetate path alone. Having said that, though, it is also important to
recognise that I also mention concepts which I believe, or sometimes insist, are
universal to all of accurate Hermetic alchemical philosophy.

At the same time, hopefully obviously, I am not going to be discussing the Eastern
alchemical tradition. My interest is only in the Western Hermetic tradition, which is very
distinct in its own right.

It is also helpful to note that I make a sharp distinction between the strictly Hermetic
world view of Hermetic alchemy, and other paths which often seem to be Hermetic, but
which are not. So when I refer to *Hermetic* <whatever> I’m not just being casual. I
mean by my use of that term that I am referring to a view based on Hermetic concepts
… or one which is devoid of such concepts.
The text I am going to use here as the basis of these essays is Sir George Ripley’s
‘Bosome Book’.

The Bosome Book of Sir George Ripley was first published (as far as we know) in
London in 1683, as part of a larger book titled ‘Collectanea Chymica’.
( https://archive.org/details/collectaneachymi00phil )

Although it seems that Samuel Norton may have had access to an earlier version.

A.E.Waite republished this book (1893) but he removed some of the original texts.
( https://archive.org/details/39002086305399.med.yale.edu )

The Bosome Book was in both versions. (I have not yet checked to see if both versions
are identical but from a cursory look it seems they are). The version we’ll be using
below is from Waite’s edition.

So why Ripley and why his Bosome Book?

The subject of alchemy was first introduced to Western Culture through the book “De
Compositione Alchemiae”, which was translated from the Arabic into Latin by Robert of
Chester in 1144. This book and the ones that followed it caused an initial boom in
interest in the Western study of alchemy, but later that boom died down significantly. It
wasn’t until about 1400 AD that people in the West started to get very interested in
alchemy again, and the Englishman Sir George Ripley was one of the main figures that
contributed to that surge of interest. So Ripley was an important figure in the history of
Western alchemy generally, because many of the ideas that he taught became stable
concepts in the centuries of Western alchemical study which followed him.

Ripley eventually left Britain and travelled to the continent, eventually ending up in Italy,
of which he later wrote that he was taught the secret of the Philosopher’s Stone there,
and learned the art of transmutation. A significant part of that education must have
involved the study of the teachings of the pseudo-Ramon Llull (circa 1200 AD), because
one of the main things Ripley is famous for is of making Llull’s teachings fashionable
among alchemists and of making them intelligible.

For this reason I refer to the tradition which extends down from Ripley’s writings “The
Llullian Tradition” (or stream). And I refer to the Llullian stream specifically as the school
of pyrolytic alchemy, because the methods of the Llullian tradition are based on the
pyrolytic distillation of (mainly organic) substances. I teach that the most important and
most interesting books we have available to us today, in alchemy, and the largest
quantity of alchemical books, belong to this category.

It is helpful to understand that it is not common at all today to make a clear distinction of
a particular school of alchemy. Most modern students of alchemy simply recognise the
idea of different paths, but generally see them all as belonging to the same broad
stream of teaching. I am the only person I know of today to teach this concept of a
specific stream or school of alchemy, and I do so because I insist that understanding
this distinction is the start to being able to grasp the meaning of alchemy generally, and
to decipher important alchemical documents in particular.

When we look closely at Llull’s ideas, what Ripley and the acetate path alchemists who
followed him had to say about these ideas, an enormous amount of once confusing
information suddenly becomes very clear. This all arises from a thorough study of the
history of alchemy, something that most students of alchemy cannot be bothered with.

With this being said, in the essays which follow this one (and there will be several), you
will often see me refer to concepts that are related to the ideas I have discussed above.
Which is why I mention all of this information here.

When any of you are reading through the coming essays, and wish to ask questions or
comment, I strongly advise you to study and learn the proper use of technical language
here. One of the main problems with trying to figure out what alchemy is about, and to
uncover its secrets, is because of the very bad and improper use of technical language.
So if you are going to post regularly on the subject of these essays I am going to get
frustrated very quickly if you keep using the wrong terminology or to use the right
terminology in the wrong way. It makes effective discussion much more laborious and
confusing if the proper usage is ignored.

In explaining this text of Ripley’s I will be covering five layers of information:

(1) The philosophic foundation of lab concepts.

So it is important to be aware that these texts encompass a mixture of all five of these
understandings, and need to be addressed accordingly.

It is also important to recognise that when I discuss the ideas presented in this text (and
other similar texts) that I draw a stark distinction between …

What is actual fact about the claims of alchemy

And

What the old alchemists believed, but which can today be demonstrated to be
inaccurate.

In order for us to grasp clearly the world view of alchemy, we first have to look at the
traditional teachings and see them for what they are, not for what we want to twist them
in to being. Then, once we know exactly what the old Adepts were saying, we can then
be in a position to discuss whether their views were accurate or not. One of the biggest
mistakes modern students of alchemy make is that they look at classic alchemy through
modern eyes. They never grasp the old alchemical paradigm. Therefore, whatever they
come to believe about alchemy is most often a distortion of their own opinions, not the
knowledge of the old Adepts.

So the first task is to understand what the old Adepts believed … not what we today
think they were saying, or whether or not what they were saying is true (accurate).

Lastly, alchemical study was originally designed for two purposes. First, as a way of
discovering the nature of esoteric physics and hyper-physics. In other words, as a way
of discovering the esoteric truth about the nature of reality. Secondly, to be able to teach
and prove findings about the esoteric view of the nature of reality. In this way ancient
alchemy had the same goal as modern physics, but with the addition that alchemy
extended its view beyond physical reality in to the invisible or spiritual levels of reality,
too.

rubaphilos