From the book
Candida Phoenix Philosophica
Anonymous · Diotimos Editions · 2026
Browse this book’s lexicon →Orientation
At a Glance
- The wordA definition states what is meant; a demonstration seeks to establish a conclusion through reasons and premises.
- In the CandidaThe extended definition of rainwater supplies propositions that the Second Part develops into a causal argument.
- TranslationThe lexicon distinguishes the author’s stated proof from a result independently demonstrated to the present reader.
- A place to readI.017.2–I.021.1, pp. 17–22, and II.126.1, p. 126.
Meaning
The rainwater definition is an organized programme for the treatise. It describes an artfully made, thin, subtle, transparent, sweet, pleasant, spiritual and simple thing. It then adds more consequential claims: rainwater is an element and throne without a particular divine blessing or command, contains the powers and seeds of visible nature and resides in the air beneath the firmament. These clauses invite different forms of explanation.
Some clauses appeal to visible properties, such as transparency. Others require scriptural reasoning, an account of particularization or an interpretation of latent powers. Calling the whole passage a definition does not make all its clauses equally observational. The author must argue for the relations that allow the sensory, theological and alchemical claims to stand together.
Use in the book
The First Part proceeds through the definition clause by clause. At I.020.1, the claim concerning blessing and command is tied to the account of terrestrial waters and plants in Genesis and to the statement that rain had not yet fallen. The absence of a particular blessing is central. It supports universality and should never be reversed into a claim that rainwater received the same particular command as the waters or earth.114
At I.021.1, the claim to contain all colours is illustrated by reported appearances after distillation and drying. The relation between the observed colours and universal capacity is an inference. The entry on experience explains why a local appearance and a general conclusion require separate attention.
The later syllogism makes the argumentative structure explicit (II.126.1). Whatever contains animal, vegetable and mineral nature is a perfect subject; rainwater contains these natures; therefore rainwater is a perfect subject. The author identifies the major and minor premises and says the preceding deduction has proved them. From the conclusion he infers the possibility of a metallic tincture and universal medicine.
The passage is valuable because it lets the reader ask precise questions. Whether the inference follows is distinct from whether the premises have been established. Whether rainwater is a perfect subject in this argument is also distinct from whether a particular practical preparation has been disclosed. Definition, demonstration and recipe occupy related but separate positions in the book.
Places to read
- Part I · I.017.2; I.019.1; I.020.1; I.021.1234The definition and several different ways its clauses are explained.
- Part II · II.059.1Nature defined in the particular sense intended by the author.
- Part II · II.126.1The explicitly marked major premise, minor premise and conclusion.
Translation
Definition is retained where the source uses that term. Major and Minor are explained as the major and minor premises of the syllogism. Proved describes what the author says he has established; where necessary, the English attribution makes clear that the edition is reporting his argument.
Cautions
A formally arranged syllogism can display the structure of a claim without settling the truth of its premises. The lexicon reconstructs that structure without manufacturing additional experimental evidence.
definition
definition — definition. I.020.1.
Major
Major — major premise. II.126.1.
Minor
Minor — minor premise. II.126.1.
Source note
The rain clause discussed at I.020.1 is printed with a reference to Genesis 2:2, although the wording concerning the absence of rain belongs to Genesis 2:5. The reading edition records this source misreference rather than silently rewriting the historical citation.