From the book
Sal Lumen and Spiritus Mundi Philosophici
Clovis Hesteau de Nuysement · Diotimos Editions · 2026
Browse this book’s lexicon →Orientation
At a Glance
- The wordThe opposition pour avoir, non pour sçavoir contrasts possessing with knowing.
- In Sal LumenThe preface rebukes those who pursue gain and treat feeding as life’s complete aim.
- In this editionThe English preserves “in comparison with” in the human-perfection claim and the difference between animal inward reason and human learned instruction.
- A place to readThe contrast between gain and truth orders food, life and reasoning.
Meaning
The opposition pour avoir, non pour sçavoir contrasts possessing with knowing. It is an ethical order of ends, not a blanket rejection of useful knowledge or material well-being. Ratiocination is the power of reasoning through which human life can seek truth. “Perfection” in the later human comparison is relative to earthly creatures, not an unqualified declaration that humans are divine or already omniscient.
Use in the book
The preface rebukes those who pursue gain and treat feeding as life’s complete aim. Food supports life, but life should be employed in inquiry into truth. The conditional inward return under a divine ray asks readers to recognize that hierarchy for themselves. It does not contradict the title’s promise that the work is profitable: usefulness becomes objectionable when it displaces what is honourable and the purpose of understanding.
III.3 explains why humans undertake the inquiry into prolonging life. Their excellence of spirit permits investigation by reasons and the acquisition and teaching of arts. The author nevertheless grants animals inward reason according to the vital soul and some exceptional dexterity, mostly natural rather than taught. Philon’s ensuing reply dramatizes the injustice of treating bodily misery as the whole human condition.
III.9 says the priceless intelligence needs a longer, healthier life to reach complete knowledge. Its abbreviated “animals without reason” must be read beside III.3’s finer distinction, not used to erase it. The attributed Paracelsian complaint makes human intellectual capacity, rather than wealth by itself, the rationale for seeking longer duration. III.10 then distinguishes genuine knowledge of Nature from the sciences that merely lead towards it. Possession becomes secure only when informed by that higher understanding, according to the author’s claim.
Places to read
- The Original Preface · Unit 1The contrast between gain and truth orders food, life and reasoning.
- Book Three · Unit 3Relative human excellence is qualified by animal inward reason and natural dexterity.
- Book Three · Unit 9Longer and healthier life is sought for the full use of intelligence.
- Book Three · Unit 10Only genuinely effective knowledge is credited with securing the other goods.
Translation
The English preserves “in comparison with” in the human-perfection claim and the difference between animal inward reason and human learned instruction. The supplied [plus] before parfait in III.3 is a bracketed modern reading supported by context and surviving letters, not an unqualified record of fully legible type. The preface’s avoir/sçavoir wordplay is rendered by the clear opposition “possess rather than know,” with its ethical direction intact.
Attested forms
pour avoir, non pour sçavoir; l'utile à l'honneste; inquisition de verité; ratiocination; Preface; plus excellent d'esprit; tres parfait au respect; perfection; special privilege; entiere cognoissance; parfaite cognoissance; avoir; sçavoir