Die Alchemie. Das ist die Lehre von den grossen Geheim-Mitteln der Alchemisten und den Speculationen, welche man an sie knüpfte

Page 67

The first day: Sun, Moon, and Stars.
The second day: the Sky.
The third day: Orbis terrarum fixus et fluidus The fixed and fluid sphere of the earth, or land and sea.
The fourth day: the plant world.
The fifth day: the animal world.
The sixth day: humanity.
On the seventh day, the Sabbath, God rests.

---

Cosmogenesis of the First Book of Moses in General

The cosmogenesis account of the origin of the universe found at the beginning of the First Book of Moses the Book of Genesis deviates significantly from what we learned in the previous section. The reason for this deviation is that the author of this creation story cannot accept the idea that the sun, moon, and stars could exist without a sky. He argues that on the first day, no sky exists yet, therefore the sun, moon, and stars cannot be created on the first day. Returning to the first period of creation is meant to give the matter a logical foundation, but it fails to do so. We must, says the author, look the question strictly in the face: Are the sun, moon, and stars conceivable without a sky, or are they not? The answer is no. Sun, moon, and stars are not conceivable without a sky! The simple consequence: the first day, on which the sky is not yet present, cannot bring the sun, moon, and stars, and that settles the matter!

Through such an interpretation of things, the author has created a very peculiar situation for himself. A creation story that is supposed to proceed by days must first of all bring about the day itself. The first day must bring itself into being. But how can this happen if the first day does not bring the sun, moon, and stars? If, on the first day, there is nothing present to define the day?

Here the author helps himself by assuming a special light the primordial light of Genesis 1:3 exists apart from the sun, moon, and stars. He assumes he is dealing with a dual nature: sun, moon, and stars on one hand, and light on the other. He reserves this light for the first day and thus has something to which he can temporarily assign the role of the sun, moon, and stars. The first day brings the light, and with the light, it brings itself. Now there is no longer any rush for the sun, moon, and stars; these do not appear until the fourth day.

This light of the first day without sun, moon, and stars remains quite mysterious. Where does the author obtain it? The matter is explained as follows.

The author of the first creation story in Genesis did not work out his version from beginning to end by himself. Rather, he had the six-day creation story as formulated by actual Jewish alchemy lying written before him, and he kept from it whatever he could use. He only modified what he could not use. This latter document began exactly like the creation story in the first chapter of Genesis compare the following section:

In the beginning, God created heaven and earth. And the earth was a confusion, and darkness was upon the surface of the abyss, and the Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water. And God said: Let there be light.

So far, the two documents are identical: the creation story in the first chapter of Genesis and the document that its author had before him.

But now a difference occurs. The document that the author had before him continued after the words: "And God said: Let there be light":

And there were sun, moon, and stars. Accordingly, the document that the author had before him read as follows:

In the beginning, God created heaven and earth. And the earth was a confusion, and darkness was upon the surface of the abyss, and the Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the water. And God said: Let there be light. And there were sun, moon, and stars.

In this way, the document that the author

Page 68

had before him names "light" on one hand, while on the other hand it names the sun, moon, and stars. This is because it uses the collective term light to designate the sun, moon, and stars as objects which are to be understood from the perspective of light or shining; that is, as luminous celestial bodies.

The author of the creation story in the first chapter of Genesis now says: if it says, on the one hand, "Let there be light," and on the other hand, "There were sun, moon, and stars," then these are two different points of view. Two things are being accounted for, two different things: light on one hand, and the sun, moon, and stars on the other. From this, says the author, I gain the right to separate the two. And he separates them, and thus obtains the mysterious light without sun, moon, and stars for the first day.

It is probable that after the author of the Genesis creation story calculated this mysterious light for himself in this way, he then gave it a practical foundation, so to speak. It would be explained as follows:

He imagines he is holding an egg in his hand, modeled after the World Egg the alchemical vessel of the universe. He cannot see through this egg. Therefore, he says, it is dark inside the egg, inside the Sky Egg. Now, suppose it becomes bright inside the egg; he still cannot see through it. He perceives a shimmer, but he cannot distinguish what produces the shimmer because the solid wall of the egg prevents it. Thus, he says, referring to the World Egg, if the sun, moon, and stars are placed on the upper half of the eggshell, as is supposed to happen according to the actual Jewish alchemical view, they still cannot shine. That is to say, they cannot shine according to the view of the author, who cannot look through the walls of his egg. He perceives a shimmer but not the actual shining, such as that which specifically belongs to the sun. By comparing his egg to the World Egg, he cannot see the sun, moon, and stars and therefore denies them their radiance. On the other hand, he continues: if, according to actual Jewish alchemy, the Sky Egg is broken open on the second day, then the sun, moon, and stars begin to shine. In this, he is thinking of the egg he holds in his hand. If he breaks it, he can see inside, and thus the darkness within it has ceased. So he thinks that with the breaking open of the World Egg, the state of darkness also ceases, because in a metaphorical way, he can see the sun, moon, and stars after the breaking.

In this way, the author calculates for himself, practically speaking, two types of light-related things: sun, moon, and stars, and the light which must first reach them from the outside so that they may shine. Without this light, he assumes, the sun, moon, and stars cannot shine, hence its great importance relative to the latter.

It hardly needs to be pointed out that actual Jewish alchemy does not even dream of these two kinds of light. It does not imagine itself outside the egg, as the author of the Genesis creation story does, but rather inside the egg, and that is the correct standpoint. The first precipitation from the world-water forms a vessel that is concentric with the lower half of the eggshell. More and more sediment follows until the lower shell, or at least the space it once enclosed, is approximately filled. This is the earth that we inhabit. If we, as humans, place ourselves in relation to the World Egg, we are not outside of it, but in it; naturally, this is presumptive, for at the time the World Egg exists, humanity does not yet exist. For actual Jewish alchemy, there is no motive why the sun, moon, and stars created on the first day should not shine; they do not require light added from the outside for the shining to occur.

The practical foundation discussed here, which the author

Page 69

of the creation story in the first chapter of Genesis probably gives to his mysterious light, is full of holes. However, what has been exposed does not actually provide him with his light; it merely leans upon it after he already has it, and this gives him a certain amount of cover. But there is no doubt that this author notoriously possesses that light by drawing on the actual Jewish creation story lying before him.

As we shall see in the following section, this author transforms the passage: "And God said: Let there be light. And there were sun, moon, and stars," into:

"And God said: Let there be light. And there was light."

No person in the world, he says, will be able to deny me that if God says, for example: Let there be a sky; then the sky becomes. If God says: Let there be the earth; then the earth becomes, and so forth. Therefore, he says, no person in the world will be able to deny me that if God says: Let there be light; then the light becomes. And that is certainly correct. The matter only falters because, when God speaks in the actual Jewish creation story, "Let there be light," this light is nothing other than a collective expression for the sun, moon, and stars. Our author turns his back on this fact. According to the words, to which he clings, he is right; according to the meaning, he is not.

So the author of the creation story in the first chapter of Genesis has light on the first day. In having it, it replaces the sun, moon, and stars for him in relation to the day and to time, until these have their turn, which happens on the fourth day. He finds no reason, at least in general, to depart from the arrangement regarding the second and third days. And so he has: first day: light; second day: sky; third day: Orbis terrarum fixus et fluidus the fixed and fluid earth; fourth day: sun, moon, and stars.

With this, the author has four days for the inorganic world. If he adds to this the three days for the organic world, he arrives at seven days of creation in total.

We want first to look the cosmogenetic days in the face.

When dealing with a cosmogenesis that proceeds by days, it is based on the idea that one splits the world into a certain number of parts. However many parts result from this, that many days are to be assumed. If one calculates 6 parts, then 6 days are assumed; if 8 parts, then 8 days; if 10 parts, then 10 days, and so on. Naturally, every day must receive its individual part of the world that belongs specifically to it above all others. The whole matter revolves around this. If this fails, the cosmogenesis by days collapses. If one calculates 8 parts of the world, for example, and then wants to assume 5 days, that is a perversity. If one calculates 8 parts of the world, one must also assume 8 days, and not 5. For what is the purpose of a division by days if the number of days and the parts of the world do not correspond? When the person who came up with the idea to model the 6 days of the week after the Sabbath and utilize them for a cosmogenesis conceived this idea, he had to consider whether the world could be split into 6 parts. If he could perform this splitting without force, he could set about realizing his idea. If he could not do it without force, the idea dissolved, and the plan to link a cosmogenesis to 6 days of creation reached its end. He was able to realize his idea; he could split the world into 6 parts without force, and thus the cosmogenesis modeled on 6 days was given. According to the actual Jewish cosmogenesis, it is the case that exactly 6 parts of the world result, and thus a unique characteristic can be assigned to each day. The first part of the world is: sun, moon, and stars. These are not to be understood as 3 things, but as one thing,

Page 70

namely as the single concept of luminous celestial bodies. The second part of the world is the sky. The third part of the world is the sum of the Orbis terrarum fixus et fluidus the fixed and fluid spheres of the world. Here, it seems to falter with the "one part," for in the fixed and fluid spheres one has two parts, not one. However, one should consider that if one splits the world into a certain number of parts, one must proceed according to principles. The first principle by which actual Jewish alchemy splits is: division of the world into inorganic and organic parts. The second principle for the inorganic world is to take the water-transformation experiment as a reference point. The third principle for the organic world is: the broadest possible grasp of organic groups with strict separation of one from another in the common popular view. The second principle can be accounted for in no other way than through a synchronous progression of the Orbis terrarum fixus et fluidus. If this is to take place, then the fixed and fluid spheres must fall on one day. But since they fall on one day according to the principle that underlies the splitting of the inorganic world, there can no longer be anything perverse about the fixed and fluid spheres being understood from a single perspective. It is not a matter of the question raised in the abstract: are the fixed and fluid spheres 2 things or 1 thing? It is rather a matter of the question: is it compatible with the principle underlying the splitting of the inorganic world that the fixed and fluid spheres be understood from a single point of view? And there we must say: Yes, it is compatible with this principle. Well then, if it is compatible, nothing stands in the way of the fixed and fluid spheres being understood as one. The fourth part of the world is the plant world. The fifth part of the world is the animal world. The sixth part of the world is humanity. Accordingly, exactly six parts of the world result, and nothing stands in the way of linking these six parts to six days.

But for the author of the first creation story in Genesis, as we have seen, 6 parts do not result, but rather 7, because he establishes four days for the inorganic world, namely: 1) Light, 2) Sky, 3) Orbis terrarum fixus et fluidus, 4) Sun, moon, and stars, 5) the plant world, 6) the animal world, 7) humanity. He would now have to distribute these over 7 days and would thus find that God created the world not in 6, but in 7 days. But he does not want that; like Jewish alchemy in general, he wants to assume a six-day creation. He calculates 7 parts of the world and wants to link them to six days! Naturally, that does not work, but since it refuses to work, it must be made to work. The author says: where is it written that if one assumes a creation of the world by days, exactly one part of the world must fall on each day? No, such a thing does not need to happen at all, and even actual Jewish alchemy argues for the fact that it does not need to happen. It claims not one world part, but two world parts for the third day, the Orbis terrarum fixus et fluidus; it claims not one part for the first day, but three: sun, moon, and stars. I therefore need to do no more and no less than common Jewish alchemy by fitting my 7 world parts into six days. Only, what they allow themselves doubly for one day, I allow myself triply for the days... They say, if one has the Orbis terrarum fixus fixed sphere of the earth on the 3rd day, one has the Orbis terrarum fluidus fluid sphere of the earth implicitly. I say, if one has the fixed sphere on the 3rd day, one has not only the fluid sphere implicitly, but also the plant world, for if one has the earth, one also has the planting site for the plant world, and so the plant world results directly from the fixed sphere. This latter calculation, by the way, is not correct, for if the plants were to follow the fixed earth eo ipso by that very fact, then the land animals would also have to follow it eo ipso.