From the book
The Sophic Hydrolith, Water Stone of the Wise
Anonymous and companion authors · Diotimos Editions · 2026
Browse this book’s lexicon →Orientation
At a Glance
- The wordThe main conclusion pairs ‘natural’ with ‘rightly magical’, opposing both to ‘unnatural and necromantic’.
- In the Sophic HydrolithThe author is astonished that anyone would investigate and undertake the art while still uncertain which kind it is.
- In this editionThe English ‘rightly magical’ preserves the positive possibility of magical knowledge, while ‘necromantic’ belongs to the questioned alternative.
- A place to readThe main conclusion distinguishes legitimate natural or magical art from the suspected use of forbidden spirits and means.
Meaning
The main conclusion pairs ‘natural’ with ‘rightly magical’, opposing both to ‘unnatural and necromantic’. Magic is therefore not automatically a term of condemnation in this work. The condemned alternative is defined locally through spirits and forbidden means, not through a supplied taxonomy of all occult practices.
The form nigremantische is the historical spelling behind the English ‘necromantic’. The paragraph supplies no ritual of communication with the dead and no detailed definition beyond its contrast with the godly art. The safest lexical explanation follows that contrast rather than importing practices that the unit never names.
Use in the book
The author is astonished that anyone would investigate and undertake the art while still uncertain which kind it is. His answer places the art in God’s hand: the Devil and the godless cannot undertake even its least part without divine permission, much less control it at will. The qualification ‘without God’s permission’ is essential. The statement concerns the limit of their independent power, not an assertion that every worldly possession proves a person pious.
The necessary spirit is then characterized as plain, truthful, steadfast and godly, in opposition to pleasure-seeking people and infernal spirits. Here ‘spirit’ shades into the disposition required of the practitioner. The restless world is said not to know such a character and therefore to mistake the mystery for foolishness whenever it conflicts with preconceived ideas.
The later objection tests this defence against reported dissolute possessors of a tincture. The author declines to argue about where they obtained it, but refuses to concede that they themselves prepared the true tincture described in his treatise. That distinction prevents the magical/necromantic contrast from being simplified into ‘no impious person could ever possess a tincture’. It also prevents a reported possession from becoming proof that forbidden methods work.
Places to read
- Conclusion · unit 3The main conclusion distinguishes legitimate natural or magical art from the suspected use of forbidden spirits and means.
- Conclusion · unit 5The subsequent objection distinguishes possession of tincture from personal preparation.
Translation
The English ‘rightly magical’ preserves the positive possibility of magical knowledge, while ‘necromantic’ belongs to the questioned alternative. It also retains the conditional limitation on demonic and impious power. In the later objection, ‘they themselves made and prepared’ is the precise point denied. These checked distinctions matter more than attaching a modern blanket label of occultism to every use of ‘magic’ in the volume.
Attested forms
natürliche oder recht magische; vnnatürliche vnd nigremantische; verbotten mittel