From the book
Candida Phoenix Philosophica
Anonymous · Diotimos Editions · 2026
Browse this book’s lexicon →Orientation
At a Glance
- The wordHypostasis is used for distinguishable principles in the alchemical account and for the constituted unity of an embodied human being.
- In the CandidaThe three hypostases of the principial account and the one human hypostasis belong to different local explanations.
- TranslationThe technical noun is retained and explained through the conjunction stated in the passage.
- A place to readII.086.1, p. 86, beside II.220.2, pp. 220–221.
Meaning
The earlier plural hypostases belongs to the account of philosophical principles. At II.086.1, Mercury is air, Sulphur fire and Salt water, earth and body. Through the body, the threefold spirit becomes visible and tangible and can be distinguished into three hypostases and principles for philosophical treatment. Here the word supports the account of principial differentiation within a material unity; it does not name three separately constituted human persons.25
The singular hypostasin occurs at a precise transition in the second Latin letter. The correspondent has defined substance as pure, simple being and explained lower bodies as substance mingled with accidental residues. He now applies the account to the human being. The earthly human is corruptible; the heavenly human or soul is immortal. The appropriate earthly substance and the soul constitute one hypostasis for as long as they remain joined.
The term therefore marks unity without erasing composition. The human being is not described as a loose collection whose parts have no common identity. Nor does the unity make every component substance in the correspondent's special sense. Residues remain accidental, and sin cannot be regarded as substance. Hypostasis belongs to an account that differentiates what constitutes the person from the corruption that affects the embodied creature.
Use in the book
At II.220.2, the temporal qualification is essential: one hypostasis exists while the components remain conjoined. It prevents an editor from silently turning the sentence into an unrestricted claim about an unchanged bodily state before and after death. The surrounding discussion will proceed to death, putrefaction and resurrection, where the condition of the body changes radically.26
The immediate argumentative target is the statement that whatever is in the human being is substance. The correspondent denies it because the earthly body contains residues as well as substance. The unity named by hypostasis does not rescue the rejected statement. One person can be constituted through conjunction without everything affecting that person becoming essential being.
This also clarifies the account of sin. Sin is denied the status of substance, yet the reply says it contaminates and perverts humanity so thoroughly that salvation requires Christ. The hypostasis sentence cannot be used to make corruption irrelevant or to divide off a wholly unaffected everyday person. Classification and extent of damage answer different questions in the reply.
The account of the original soul and its propagation elsewhere asks how human life comes to be. This passage asks how the embodied human is constituted and how sin should be classified. The shared vocabulary of soul and body does not make the questions identical. Likewise, spirit, soul and body in the alchemical three-principle scheme have to be understood through their own definitions, rather than imported without qualification into this anthropological sentence.
The contrast between these passages is valuable for translation. At p. 86, the question is how a threefold spirit becomes sensible and available for treatment through body. At pp. 220–221, the question is how earthly substance and soul remain one embodied human being while corruption is classified as accidental. A shared technical noun does not make the objects or explanatory tasks identical. The plural is paired with principles in the first passage; the singular is qualified by the duration of conjunction in the second. Each construction supplies its own limits.
Places to read
- Part II · II.086.1The threefold spirit made sensible through body and distinguished into three hypostases and principles.
- Part II · II.218.1; II.218.22The definition of substance and the distinction from accidental residues.
- Part II · II.220.2; II.222.1; II.222.223One hypostasis, the denial that sin is substance and the scope of corruption.
- Part II · II.223.1The ensuing account of bodily resurrection.
Translation
Hypostasin is retained as hypostasis in the English discussion, with the inflected form recorded here. In this sentence it denotes the one human being constituted during the conjunction of earthly substance and soul. The entry does not supply a Greek etymology or equate the term indiscriminately with substance, person or underlying matter wherever those words occur elsewhere.
Cautions
The definition belongs to the second correspondent. It is not a present anatomical or psychological model. The wording neither settles every theological use of hypostasis nor licenses an identification of the soul with an alchemical ingredient.
hypostases
hypostases — Plural term for the three distinguishable hypostases and principles. II.086.1.
hypostasin
hypostasin — hypostasis in an inflected Latin form. II.220.2.
Source note
II.086.1 explicitly pairs hypostases with principia. This pairing supplies the local alchemical sense. It should not be replaced automatically by a definition drawn from the later anthropological sentence or from a general theological dictionary.
II.220.2 expressly says tamdiu invicem conjunctæ sunt, for as long as they remain joined. That temporal limitation is part of the constitution of one hypostasis stated here; omitting it makes the claim broader than the source.