From the book
A Chymical Dictionary
Gerhard Dorn and John French · Diotimos Editions · 2026
Browse this book’s lexicon →Orientation
At a Glance
- The wordA polemical account of a secret inspired wisdom and its alleged corruption.
- In the bookThe entry then draws a boundary between true Magic and Necromancy or Nigromancy.
- A place to readThe historical definition below, 1650 dictionary, unnumbered definition page 12; facsimile PDF page 340.
Historical definition
Cabela, or Cabalia, is a most secret science, said to have been delivered by divine inspiration together with the law of Moses, as the Hebrew rabbis assert. The Persians diligently sought and practised this art, as appears from their name for their wise people. They call their priests wise and skilled in all secrets, as were the three who came from the East to worship Christ, rather than kings, as the ignorant common people believe. It was not written down but handed on by word of mouth. Later, superstitious people, like apes, began to defile it with their pens, until it degenerated into monstrous superstition. By this means Magic, the true wisdom received by divine inspiration, is now regarded as Necromancy and Nigromancy, so that it is an offence to be wise and anyone openly professing it puts himself in danger. Yet publicly teaching the foolishness of unbelievers is commended as a singular gift of wisdom, and none is judged wise except the greatest fool.
Meaning
This long entry offers a historical narrative and a defence, not a neutral one-line definition. It claims an inspired origin, oral transmission, diligent Persian study and later corruption through writing. It then argues that the resulting confusion has discredited true magic. The sequence is essential to understanding the author’s complaint. Without it, the closing attack on supposed wisdom would seem detached from its subject.
The opening appeal to the Hebrew rabbis attributes an origin claim. This edition retains that attribution rather than presenting the account as an established history of the many traditions subsequently associated with cabala or kabbalah. Likewise, the connection between Persian wise people and the visitors who worshipped Christ belongs to the dictionary’s argument. It is evidence for the author’s framing, not a critical reconstruction of all those communities.
The oral-versus-written contrast does important work. The author does not merely say that a secret was made public; he alleges that imitators damaged it through their writing. The animal comparison and the language of monstrous superstition make the allegation unmistakably polemical. A modernised definition should keep that force while making clear whose judgement it is.
Use in the book
The entry then draws a boundary between true Magic and Necromancy or Nigromancy. The desired wisdom is described as divinely inspired; the rejected identification exposes its practitioners to danger. Read this as a contest over names and authority within the historical text. It does not establish that all contemporary writers agreed about what counted as legitimate magic.
Compare Augurista, Berillus and Austromantia, where the dictionary itself condemns particular practices as superstitious. The book can defend one form of hidden wisdom while rejecting other practices that later readers might group beside it. Preserving those internal distinctions is more informative than summarizing every term under a single broad heading such as occultism.
Caballi appears immediately nearby but has its own ghost-related definition. The similarity of spelling should not pull that entry into the historical narrative here. This is another instance in which recognition of a familiar-looking word must be checked against the dictionary’s actual gloss.
Places to read
- CabelaRead the complete historical definition and its commentary.
- MagiaMagic divided into lawful natural wisdom and forbidden knowledge through evil spirits.
- NecromancyA condemned art defined by the appearance and interrogation of the dead.
- NigromancyApparent command of spirits, condemned as harmful to those who exercise it.
In this edition
The final sentences reverse public judgements: openly professed wisdom is said to be dangerous, while the foolishness of unbelievers is praised. The reversal is the culmination of the author’s complaint about corrupted names and values. It is rhetorical criticism, not a dispassionate social survey. The edition makes that role explicit so readers can distinguish description, attribution and invective.
For use in a passage, ask whether the word denotes a claimed science, a mode of transmission, an inspired authority or a disputed label. The historical definition moves through all four. An external account of a particular Jewish, Christian or other tradition would require its own sources. This entry’s value is to explain the particular conceptual and polemical position represented by the dictionary.
The most helpful annotation will identify the speaker’s claim before discussing its plausibility: who is said to transmit the science, who is accused of corrupting it, and which name has become discredited? Those distinctions preserve the argument’s structure without requiring the editor to endorse its historical narrative.
Source note
Historical source. 1650 dictionary, unnumbered definition page 12; facsimile PDF page 340 — Facsimile