PDA

View Full Version : Dialogue with a Lion, guest starring Fulcanelli



Phoenix
01-03-2009, 10:15 PM
This is a Phoenix-thread (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?t=7) from the old site (http://alchemy-forums.forumotion.com/forum.htm) created by carabric.

This post is a continuation from this discussion (http://alchemy-forums.forumotion.com/the-sacred-art-f14/reply-to-***-t302.htm#2351) with the Green Lion

Since you had alot of questions I will answer them individually.

But as long as work was not finished, how to be sure that we are on the good way ? Which are the signs which make you believe to be in the good step ? It is possible that other signs which you regard as less important are in fact very important.Mais tant qu’on n’a pas terminé l’œuvre, comment être sûr qu’on est sur le bon chemin ? Quels sont les signes qui vous font croire être dans la bonne démarche ? The first sign, and true reason I feel correct in my theory, came from my insight of what philosophic sulphur is. And the realization of the proper alchemic meaning of sublimation. While in some writings, the alchemist(s) can be misleading, I never think anything is unimportant. The only obstacles that prevent me from completion at this moment, have more to do with timing, fortitude, and personal circumstance. I wish every day that I could begin, but for now I suppose I wait.

Personally I don't feel ORME's are alchemical either, however they are interesting.

In fact I see the alchemical texts like double texts. A practical part and a spiritual part. The spiritual part is that given by the metaphors, the allegories. Some allegories can be understood by the means of the practice. But are we sure on our interpretation ? Is not this step a subjective vision of the comprehension of these allegories by the filter of our own vision of alchemy ?
I can only say that if you are able to understand the allegories, metaphor, and the arcane interpretations of the more noteworthy historic alchemists- and verify them across the full scope of many workings. You will see that they are all connected. Modern (and old) alchemists have taken the approach of understanding particular parts. They see a gray wolf in an alchemical image and think antimony(stibnite), I see it and ask...why is it leaping? They see a flaming salamander battling a knight and think sulfur...and I ask, why are they battling? There are many and varied ways to describe love, everyone places their own take on it. Love has been described with metaphors, allegories, similes, antithesis, hyperbole, cryptic speech, succinct and direct speech, and many many various ways. Yet they all describe love, these are the same devices used by all true alchemists to describe the path of the art. Figuring out which device is being used, if any at all, is problematic for most. But from my observations(and what I've verified in reading); where they speak clearly, suspect metaphor- but I can truly say where many read metaphor, it is plainly spoken.

They also say that the texts are in the disorder, that the first work was never described.
I will not disagree with you, it is a daunting maze. They will describe things out of order- omitting the beginning, middle, or end. But it is there if you look, approach them from a fresh perspective, and only read true writings. You mentioned sun and moon, the remora battling the salamander, and white & red flowers which are not the same-(flowers do not battle). If we look closely at the salamander, which is an amphibian existing on both land and water we may gain insight from it's nature. Most salamanders life cycle begin in water, and so to does our alchemical salamander. In the beginning it's existence is minute within the water it grows in. It develops from an egg, to larvae, and finally as it matures it begins a dual life on land and water. For the most part the similarities end there with regard to our biological comparison. It should be noted that salamander is derived from the Persian sām, "fire", and andarūn, "within" and by Aristotle's account it is a creature able to thrive in fire. Alchemically it is vaporous in nature at the beginning, only gaining form as the process progresses.
The remora is obviously a fish, and is generally found in temperate ocean waters. They are usually found attached to larger fish and use these fish as a means of transportation. The word remora comes from the Latin mora: delay or morari: to delay and re: again. So the word essentially means to delay again, or to hold back again. Now the question becomes, why do they battle? Is it for space, because they are natural enemies, or maybe for food? I believe it is for territory and to gain an upper hand...however if the process is done right, by that I mean, making them equal in strength and endurance- they will both die from the exhausting battle. This is why the Argonauts had to sail the narrow canal between Charybdis and Scylla and had to avoid sailing to close to either, though Odysseus is told by Circe to sail closer to Scylla to avoid loosing his whole ship. The idea is to avoid being drowned by Charybdis, or devoured by Scylla.


The history of Fulcanelli is much more complex than one can believe it. It should be known that Canseliet started from notes of Fulcanelli and that it is Canseliet which very formatted.

I try not to concern myself with who Fulcanelli was, but I have occasionally been curious. I'm able to understand that whoever he was is not the point, he did not want to be known and wanted his work in the front. The work itself speaks volumes, especially Dwellings of the Philosophers. I can't say for certain if it was Violle, Flamant, or Chardonnet. There is research from an American team that can be found
here (http://www.alchemylab.com/Alchemy%20Journal%20PDFs/AJ%20Vol.7%20No.2.pdf) and here (http://www.alchemylab.com/Alchemy%20Journal%20PDFs/AJ%20Vol.7%20No.3.pdf) that suggests it was Chardonnet. The photo below is Comte Louis Marie Hilaire Bernigaud Chardonnet de Grange (inventor of the fabric rayon and other artificial silks, worked under Pasteur) and in the belief of the American researchers, he fits the description.
http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll195/carabric/Chardonnet-Fulcanelli.jpg
Again I feel it's all irrelevant; I know based on Canseliets preface of the two books that Canseliet did not have a true understanding of the workings which Fulcanelli followed. In answer to your question, I do not follow the antimony path of Canseliet-Rivière. Common metals are dead- be it gold, antimony, or mercury. However I do think there is a way to revive them, but I honestly feel only someone who is a master adept (someone who has completed the Great Work) is capable of this by occult means of the art. But I could be wrong. I am not surprised you did not find anyone who succeeded regarding Canseliet's path, but how do you measure your successes? I can see where you feel Fulcanelli took alot from Viollet Le Duc, and you may be right in your assumption. At the time Mystery of the Cathedrals was written, Fulcanelli had not completed the work...but regardless he did know it's inner workings. Maybe Viollet Le Duc understood them as well, or maybe if you go back and scrutinize the differences you will see something unique to Fulcanelli's writings. Le Duc's might be similar to Fulcanelli's, but perhaps there are differences you overlooked, or maybe not. Either way the same cannot be said about Dwellings of the Philosopher's, which to me is an amazing book, and I feel it is often neglected in comparison to Mystery of the Cathedrals. I don't really find it strange Canseliet was lost regarding the workings of alchemy after Fulcanelli left, but to be honest he was probably lost while Fulcanelli was still around. How many times can you attempt to lead a person and they are unable to follow? It's doubtful Fulcanelli ever said anything to Canseliet in common words, and this is a large reason why I believe he stalled forever with antimony. Antimony (and here I am not speaking of the ore) is considered by many to be the beginning of the work. It's Latin name stibium, means mark, and is often described grayish in appearance...the gray color can be seen as a beginning, or mark, of it's putrefication. I'm sure in some distant conversation between the two; Fulcanelli most likely told Canselliet the beginning of the work is to be found in the antimony phase and he took it to mean the ore. Needless to say, I would not try to find the matter mentioned openly in the Triumphal Chariot of Antimony by Basil Valentine. But it does describe the process and things to be expected rather well, but omits much.

The star martial antimony regulus, you said that you had obtained it.
Regarding the known concept of the star regulus of antimony; if I could undo the time spent working on it I would- it is futile and a dead end. After realizing the error of my thoughts, I now understand it was a waste of time...and was in no way Philosophical. There is a star to be had regarding the work, but it is closer to one that fell from heaven- to use the allegory from the old book.

But noticed that in the kind of practice that I have just quoted, none gives a fulgurating combat between the salamander and the remora ? Why is this step also dangerous only Fulcanelli implies it ?
The real danger comes from many things...a lack of understanding or theory when beginning the practical work is one, and a certain aspect of discipline combined with various mitigating factors is another. I can only say, that one should be sound (or complete) in all manners before starting. If not the danger may be real, and potentially life threatening.

Phoenix
01-03-2009, 10:22 PM
Wiki: Fulcanelli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulcanelli)

I will not disagree with you, it is a daunting maze. They will describe things out of order- omitting the beginning, middle, or end. But it is there if you look, approach them from a fresh perspective, and only read true writings. You mentioned sun and moon, the remora battling the salamander, and white & red flowers which are not the same-(flowers do not battle). If we look closely at the salamander, which is an amphibian existing on both land and water we may gain insight from it's nature. Most salamanders life cycle begin in water, and so to does our alchemical salamander. In the beginning it's existence is minute within the water it grows in. It develops from an egg, to larvae, and finally as it matures it begins a dual life on land and water. For the most part the similarities end there with regard to our biological comparison. It should be noted that salamander is derived from the Persian sām, "fire", and andarūn, "within" and by Aristotle's account it is a creature able to thrive in fire. Alchemically it is vaporous in nature at the beginning, only gaining form as the process progresses.
The remora is obviously a fish, and is generally found in temperate ocean waters. They are usually found attached to larger fish and use these fish as a means of transportation. The word remora comes from the Latin mora: delay or morari: to delay and re: again. So the word essentially means to delay again, or to hold back again. Now the question becomes, why do they battle? Is it for space, because they are natural enemies, or maybe for food? I believe it is for territory and to gain an upper hand...however if the process is done right, by that I mean, making them equal in strength and endurance- they will both die from the exhausting battle. This is why the Argonauts had to sail the narrow canal between Charybdis and Scylla and had to avoid sailing to close to either, though Odysseus is told by Circe to sail closer to Scylla to avoid loosing his whole ship. The idea is to avoid being drowned by Charybdis, or devoured by Scylla.

I am not entirely agree with your interpretation of the salamander and the remore.
If indeed you've read the Demeures Philosophales of Fulcanelli, the latter makes good reference book Cyrano de Bergerac " histoire comique des états et empires du soleil." In this book, the struggle of the remore and the salamander is based primarily on two concepts: fire for the salamander, ice for remore. I believe that an analysis of these two animals from the today point of view is doomed to failure. We must remain in an analysis mythological. The salamander (sal amandra, salt admirable) lives in the fire, eats fire, sublimates by fire. This is the lantern. The remore is a mythical fish that stopped boats in the middle of the race. It is therefore able to determine. According to Cyrano de Bergerac, this fish is actually a fish of ice. I will quote here parts of the text in question, but in french, in order to maintain the value of the text.


« Au monde de la terre d'où vous êtes, et d'où je suis, la bête à feu s'appelle salamandre, et l'animal glaçon y est connu par celui de remore. Or vous saurez que les remores habitent vers l'extrémité du pôle, au plus profond de la mer glaciale; et c'est la froideur évaporée de ces poissons à travers leurs écailles, qui fait geler en ces quartiers-là l'eau de la mer, quoique salée.
« La plupart des pilotes, qui ont voyagé pour la découverte du Groenland, ont enfin expérimenté qu'en certaine saison les glaces qui d'autres fois les avaient arrêtés, ne se rencontraient plus; mais encore que cette mer fût libre dans le temps où l'hiver y est le plus âpre, ils n'ont pas laissé d'en attribuer la cause à quelque chaleur secrète qui les avait fondues; mais il est bien plus vraisemblable que les remores qui ne se nourrissent que de glace, les avaient pour lors absorbées. Or vous devez savoir que, quelques mois après qu'elles se sont repues, cette effroyable digestion leur rend l'estomac si morfondu, que la seule haleine qu'elles expirent reglace derechef toute la mer du pôle. Quand elles sortent sur la terre, car elles vivent dedans l'un et dans l'autre élément, elles ne se rassasient que de ciguë d'aconit, d'opium et de mandragore.
« On s'étonne en notre monde d'où procèdent ces frileux vents du nord qui traînent toujours la gelée; mais si nos compatriotes savaient, comme nous, que les remores habitent en ce climat, ils connaîtraient, comme nous, qu'ils proviennent du souffle avec lequel elles essayent de repousser la chaleur du soleil qui les approche.
« Cette eau stigiade de laquelle on empoisonna le grand Alexandre et dont la froideur pétrifia les entrailles, était du pissat d'un de ces animaux. Enfin la remore contient si éminemment tous les principes de froidure, que, passant par-dessus un vaisseau, le vaisseau se trouve saisi du froid en sorte qu'il en demeure tout engourdi jusqu'à ne pouvoir démarrer de sa place. C'est pour cela que la moitié de ceux qui ont cinglé vers le nord à la découverte du pôle, n'en sont point revenus, parce que c'est un miracle si les remores, dont le nombre est si grand dans cette mer, n'arrêtent leurs vaisseaux. Voilà pour ce qui est des animaux glaçons.
« Mais quant aux bêtes à feu, elles logent dans la terre, sous des montagnes de bitume allumé, comme l'Etna, le Vésuve et le cap Rouge. Ces boutons que vous voyez à la gorge de celui-ci, qui procèdent de l'inflammation de son foie, ce sont... »

Thus the battle between the fire/heat or fire/cold, fire to the ice, the ignited movement to the fixation, the sea salt to the fire salt. The North Pole also has an important allegorical role.
You will understand, I will not go further in my explanation, for everyone to understand the texts…

Another extract, showing that the remore who must win the battle:


Quand la remore connut que le combat tirait aux abois, par l'affaiblissement du choc dont elle se sentait à peine ébranlée, elle se dressa sur un angle de son cube et se laissa tomber de toute sa pesanteur sur l'estomac de la salamandre, avec un tel succès, que le coeur de la pauvre salamandre, où tout le reste de son ardeur s'était concentré, en se crevant, fit un éclat si épouvantable que je ne sais rien dans la nature pour le comparer.
Ainsi mourut la bête de feu sous la paresseuse résistance de l'animal de glaçon.


I try not to concern myself with who Fulcanelli was, but I have occasionally been curious. I'm able to understand that whoever he was is not the point, he did not want to be known and wanted his work in the front. The work itself speaks volumes, especially Dwellings of the Philosophers. I can't say for certain if it was Violle, Flamant, or Chardonnet. There is research from an American team that can be found
here and here that suggests it was Chardonnet. The photo below is Comte Louis Marie Hilaire Bernigaud Chardonnet de Grange (inventor of the fabric rayon and other artificial silks, worked under Pasteur) and in the belief of the American researchers, he fits the description.

Fulgrosse demonstrates why it can not be De Chardonnet :
http://fulgrosse.over-blog.com/article-2895447.html


Again I feel it's all irrelevant; I know based on Canseliets preface of the two books that Canseliet did not have a true understanding of the workings which Fulcanelli followed. In answer to your question, I do not follow the antimony path of Canseliet-Rivière. Common metals are dead- be it gold, antimony, or mercury. However I do think there is a way to revive them, but I honestly feel only someone who is a master adept (someone who has completed the Great Work) is capable of this by occult means of the art. But I could be wrong. I am not surprised you did not find anyone who succeeded regarding Canseliet's path, but how do you measure your successes? I can see where you feel Fulcanelli took alot from Viollet Le Duc, and you may be right in your assumption. At the time Mystery of the Cathedrals was written, Fulcanelli had not completed the work...but regardless he did know it's inner workings. Maybe Viollet Le Duc understood them as well, or maybe if you go back and scrutinize the differences you will see something unique to Fulcanelli's writings. Le Duc's might be similar to Fulcanelli's, but perhaps there are differences you overlooked, or maybe not. Either way the same cannot be said about Dwellings of the Philosopher's, which to me is an amazing book, and I feel it is often neglected in comparison to Mystery of the Cathedrals.

The Viollet Le Duc’s dictionary also includes philosophical mansions…
Let me be clear, I do not absolutely demeans works Fulcanelli. I say simply that everything is not from him and that his history and the people who knew provide some interesting insights on his work. It realizes that the books of Pierre Dujols, Viollet le Duc and others provide additional information on the vision of alchemy that could have Fulcanelli.


I don't really find it strange Canseliet was lost regarding the workings of alchemy after Fulcanelli left, but to be honest he was probably lost while Fulcanelli was still around. How many times can you attempt to lead a person and they are unable to follow? It's doubtful Fulcanelli ever said anything to Canseliet in common words, and this is a large reason why I believe he stalled forever with antimony. Antimony (and here I am not speaking of the ore) is considered by many to be the beginning of the work. It's Latin name stibium, means mark, and is often described grayish in appearance...the gray color can be seen as a beginning, or mark, of it's putrefication. I'm sure in some distant conversation between the two; Fulcanelli most likely told Canselliet the beginning of the work is to be found in the antimony phase and he took it to mean the ore. Needless to say, I would not try to find the matter mentioned openly in the Triumphal Chariot of Antimony by Basil Valentine. But it does describe the process and things to be expected rather well, but omits much.

Saying that the substance is gray at the beginning or the first color showed is gray to his disciple seems to be very envious. But this is your point of view, and I respect it.


Regarding the known concept of the star regulus of antimony; if I could undo the time spent working on it I would- it is futile and a dead end. After realizing the error of my thoughts, I now understand it was a waste of time...and was in no way Philosophical. There is a star to be had regarding the work, but it is closer to one that fell from heaven- to use the allegory from the old book.

Your last sentence is very interesting. I looked into this way of approaching things basing me on the authors saying that the field of labour is not in the nature and must be produced artificially by the alchemist. Then I thought about a particular kind of capacitor to obtain a kind of dew, a kind of manna. This requires using a magnet, Ariès. And this mirror seems to me to be the one who fixed the remore, so the animal ice cube, the cube fixing, the one who can stop sailing in full speed (concept of wind, the air that the door within it)…


The real danger comes from many things...a lack of understanding or theory when beginning the practical work is one, and a certain aspect of discipline combined with various mitigating factors is another. I can only say, that one should be sound (or complete) in all manners before starting. If not the danger may be real, and potentially life threatening.

No, the danger is real because we work on an energy, a fire which is close to the heavenly fire, the lightning.
Here is an excerpt from the free Cyrano de Bergerac on the struggle of the salamander and the remore:


La salamandre attaquait avec beaucoup d'ardeur; mais la remore soutenait impénétrablement. Chaque heurt qu'elles se donnaient, engendrait un coup de tonnerre, comme il arrive dans les mondes d'ici autour, où la rencontre d'une nue chaude avec une froide excite le même bruit.

One astonishes oneself in our world from which proceed these frileux winds of the north that always lead frozen it; but if our compatriots knew, as us, that the remores live in this climate, they would know, as us, that they originate breath with which they try to push back the sun heat that the approach.On s'étonne en notre monde d'où procèdent ces frileux vents du nord qui traînent toujours la gelée; mais si nos compatriotes savaient, comme nous, que les remores habitent en ce climat, ils connaîtraient, comme nous, qu'ils proviennent du souffle avec lequel elles essayent de repousser la chaleur du soleil qui les approche.

Fleischer:
Who is desirous to attain to the treasure of the red lion, that one must be able to draw the Sun out of the mountains, quench the same with its heat with the lion’s blood, thus will the hidden spirit increase in strength; who will now attract to himself the little fish, Echeneis or Remora Echeneis, remora ‘sucking fish’ of Pliny, as Philosophisch Vaterherz says, that one will find, that it turns in a natural manner into a water, and this into earth, which, if properly prepared through the artful secret of the sages, has the strength to dissolve all fixed bodies; to make the fixed volatile, and to purify all diseased bodies
I believe both these quotes fit with my description of the remora. However the second quote details its progress from a water and then into an earth, thus changing its nature and by metaphor can be read as its death. I did not say which one dies first in my last post, and only expressed that they both die, for anyone who would like to know, it is the salamander, but yes the remora is victorious. This death, called putrefaction by the alchemist is followed by waters(remora) that congeal and finally are no more. Philalethes describes it like this:Let me advise you, moreover, not to neglect your fire, or move or open the vessel, or slacken the process of decoction, until you find that the quantity of the liquid begins to diminish; if this happens after thirty days, rejoice, and know that you are on the right road. Then be doubly careful, and you will, at the end of another fortnight, find that the earth has become quite dry and of a deep black. This is the death of the compound; the winds have ceased, and there is a great calm. Yes I am aware of Cyrano's description and my ideas comply with those as well, I don't think you should see it as fire and ice in the direct sense of his writing. But more to the point you should see it as humid/dry/heat/ - cold/moist/humid, this complies with the bulk of alchemical writings more so then the sense of your ice idea. "Mercury is cold and humid, and of it, or with it, God has created all metals. It is aerial, etc." Avicenna. and regarding Sulphur:Nature moves not by the theory of men but by their practice, and surely wit and reason can perform no miracles unless the hands supply them. Be sure then to know this fire in the first place, and accordingly be sure to make use of it. But for thy better security I will describe it to thee once more. It is a dry, vaporous, humid fire; it goes round about the glass and is both equal and continual. It is restless, and some have called it the white philosophical coal. It is in itself natural, but the preparation of it is artificial. It is a heat of the dead, wherefore some call it their unnatural, necromantic fire.-Thomas Vaughn. It would be wise to understand where the two are similar and homogeneous, which is in their humidity/vapor- the parts that battle til all is turned to earth is the hot/dry and cold/moist natures which are heterogeneous. Death is the symbol of it's union, this is called Rebis or- two thing, when the work of Saturn begins.
Regarding your reference to the north pole, I assume you mean it's magnetic nature. Yes- to me Cyrano is essentially stating that the remora(mercury) is the magnetic quality drawing the salamander(sulphur) near. This also complies with the bulk of source material. If this is not what you meant then I would like to hear your idea if you can share. If not I understand.

Phoenix
01-03-2009, 10:22 PM
Link: Salamander (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?t=52)

One astonishes oneself in our world from which proceed these frileux winds of the north that always lead frozen it; but if our compatriots knew, as us, that the remores live in this climate, they would know, as us, that they originate breath with which they try to push back the sun heat that the approach.On s'étonne en notre monde d'où procèdent ces frileux vents du nord qui traînent toujours la gelée; mais si nos compatriotes savaient, comme nous, que les remores habitent en ce climat, ils connaîtraient, comme nous, qu'ils proviennent du souffle avec lequel elles essayent de repousser la chaleur du soleil qui les approche.
Fleischer:
Who is desirous to attain to the treasure of the red lion, that one must be able to draw the Sun out of the mountains, quench the same with its heat with the lion’s blood, thus will the hidden spirit increase in strength; who will now attract to himself the little fish, Echeneis or Remora Echeneis, remora ‘sucking fish’ of Pliny, as Philosophisch Vaterherz says, that one will find, that it turns in a natural manner into a water, and this into earth, which, if properly prepared through the artful secret of the sages, has the strength to dissolve all fixed bodies; to make the fixed volatile, and to purify all diseased bodies


I believe both these quotes fit with my description of the remora. However the second quote details its progress from a water and then into an earth, thus changing its nature and by metaphor can be read as its death. I did not say which one dies first in my last post, and only expressed that they both die, for anyone who would like to know, it is the salamander, but yes the remora is victorious.

It is precisely this kind of subtleties which make that I think that each person can have his own interpretation of the texts. While being of all good faith, we can not realize inconsistencies of our design of alchemy. In the book of Cyrano de Bergerac, never the remore does not die :


Quelque temps après que la remore se fut retirée, nous nous approchâmes du champ de bataille

It withdraws battle field, it does not die. I do not doubt your explanation as what the two protagonists die at the end of the combat. It is what we find most of the time in the texts concerning the combat of the two dragons. But here, why doesn't Cyrano make die the remore ? Does it really speak about the same thing, same stage of work ?


This death, called putrefaction by the alchemist is followed by waters(remora) that congeal and finally are no more.

There still, it is a personal interpretation. Water appears before the death of the salamander in the text of Cyrano. This water is the sweat of the remore which is attacked by the fire of the salamander. By the coldness of the remore, this sweat is fixed. Moreover, where the concept of putrefaction is ? Even when the salamander died, its remainders are luminous (perpetual lamps, lantern). Cyrano does not speak about black or putrefaction.


Philalethes describes it like this : Let me advise you, moreover, not to neglect your fire, or move or open the vessel, or slacken the process of decoction, until you find that the quantity of the liquid begins to diminish; if this happens after thirty days, rejoice, and know that you are on the right road. Then be doubly careful, and you will, at the end of another fortnight, find that the earth has become quite dry and of a deep black. This is the death of the compound; the winds have ceased, and there is a great calm.

Philalèthe indicates well here that the compound blackens during solidification. It also states that the winds cease at this time. One can thus establish a link with a combat between two protagonists which generates winds. But are we sure that relates to the same phase as that described by Cyrano ?


Yes I am aware of Cyrano's description and my ideas comply with those as well, I don't think you should see it as fire and ice in the direct sense of his writing. But more to the point you should see it as humid/dry/heat/ - cold/moist/humid, this complies with the bulk of alchemical writings more so then the sense of your ice idea.

I seek just like you to find a coherent explanation to the whole of the old texts. But for that I seek as well the common points as the differences. Perhaps, by these differences, interesting information can appear. I thus will not sweep of a reverse of hand the concept of ice by what that consolidates me in my vision of the whole of the texts. So really does Cyrano wanted to support on the concept of moisture with respect to that of dryness, why insist as much on the cold, the ice ? Why make come remores from the cold ?


"Mercury is cold and humid, and of it, or with it, God has created all metals. It is aerial, etc." Avicenna. and regarding Sulphur : Nature moves not by the theory of men but by their practice, and surely wit and reason can perform no miracles unless the hands supply them. Be sure then to know this fire in the first place, and accordingly be sure to make use of it. But for thy better security I will describe it to thee once more. It is a dry, vaporous, humid fire; it goes round about the glass and is both equal and continual. It is restless, and some have called it the white philosophical coal. It is in itself natural, but the preparation of it is artificial. It is a heat of the dead, wherefore some call it their unnatural, necromantic fire.-Thomas Vaughn. It would be wise to understand where the two are similar and homogeneous, which is in their humidity/vapor- the parts that battle til all is turned to earth is the hot/dry and cold/moist natures which are heterogeneous. Death is the symbol of it's union, this is called Rebis or- two thing, when the work of Saturn begins.

I do not agree completely there either. In fact, I see the combat of the salamander and the remore as what allows the manufacture of the universal solvent.
This one is then worked at the time of the second work (churning, creaming) to obtain philosophical mercury. Philosophical mercury is then added to philosophical gold and put in coction and it is there that the black described by Philalèthe appears.
For that, we can quote Fulcanelli:


C’est ici, en effet, que les auteurs, déjà fort énigmatiques dans la préparation du dissolvant, se taisent obstinément. Couvrant d’un silence profond le processus de la seconde opération, ils passent directement aux descriptions concernant la troisième, c’est-à-dire aux phases et aux régimes de la coction ; puis, reprenant la terminologie usitée pour la première, ils laissent croire au débutant que le mercure commun équivaut au Rebis ou compost et, comme tel, se doit cuire tout uniment en vase clos. Philalèthe, bien qu’écrivant sous la même discipline, prétend combler le vide laissé par ses prédécesseurs. A lire son Introitus, on ne distingue aucune coupure ; seulement, de fausses manipulations suppléent au défaut des vraies. Elles comblent les lacunes de telle sorte que les unes et les autres s’enchaînent et se soudent sans laisser trace d’artifice.

The coction giving the black then white etc, thus relates to plain philosophical mercury with philosophical gold, the rebis.
The combat of the salamander and the remore is for me what allows obtaining common mercury, but does not pass inevitably by a simple coction or the black. Even if Fulcanelli specifies that there can be several blacks:


Qu’il nous soit permis de nous arrêter un instant sur l’hiéroglyphe du Corbeau, parce qu’il cache un point important de notre science. Il exprime, en effet, dans la cuisson du Rebis philosophal, la couleur noire, première apparence de la décomposition consécutive à la mixtion parfaite des matières de l’Œuf. C’est, au dire des Philosophes, la marque certaine du succès futur, le signe évident de l’exacte préparation du compost. Le Corbeau est, en quelque sorte, le sceau canonique de l'Œuvre, comme l’étoile est la signature du sujet initial.
Mais, cette noirceur que l’artiste espère, qu’il attend avec anxiété, dont l’apparition vient combler ses vœux et le remplir de joie, ne se manifeste pas seulement au cours de la coction. L’oiseau noir paraît à diverses reprises, et cette fréquence permet aux auteurs de jeter la confusion dans l’ordre des opérations.

We can still read this:
Fulcanelli:


Ouvrez un dictionnaire hermétique, feuilletez n’importe quel ouvrage d’alchimie et vous trouverez que le mot REBIS, fréquemment employé par les Philosophes, caractérise leur compost, ou composé prêt à subir les métamorphoses successives sous l’influence du feu. Résumons. RE, une matière sèche, or philosophique ; RE, une matière humide, mercure philosophique ; RERE ou REBIS, une matière double, à la fois humide et sèche, amalgame d’or et de mercure philosophiques, combinaison qui a reçu de la nature et de l’art une double propriété occulte exactement équilibrée.

Fulcanelli always :


Deux égides réniformes en occupent les angles et ont leur bord concave étiré en forme de coquille. Leur champ offre l’image d’une tête de méduse, avec sa chevelure de serpents, d’où jaillissent deux foudres. Ce sont là les emblèmes des matières initiales, l’une ardente, ignée, figurée par le masque de Gorgone et ses foudres ; l’autre
aqueuse et froide, substance passive représentée sous l’aspect d’une coquille marine, que les philosophes nomment Mérelle, […], mère de la lumière. La réaction mutuelle de ces éléments premiers, eau et feu, fournit le mercure commun, de qualité mixte, lequel est cette eau ignée ou ce feu aqueux qui nous sert de dissolvant pour la préparation du mercure philosophique.


Regarding your reference to the north pole, I assume you mean it's magnetic nature. Yes- to me Cyrano is essentially stating that the remora(mercury) is the magnetic quality drawing the salamander(sulphur) near. This also complies with the bulk of source material. If this is not what you meant then I would like to hear your idea if you can share. If not I understand.

There are several levels of interpretation of the North Pole in my opinion. One is indeed magnetic nature. We can also use the phonetic cabal and find the bond magnetic/magnesia. Why not seek a side of the directions of the North term ? Or in the field of the cold ?

Finally, here what I conceive for the moment of the work suggested by Fulcanelli, in a simplified way :
- To find the first two protagonists of work : the salamander and the remore.
- By the establishment of contact between these two protagonists, there is a violent reaction (the lightning of Gorgone, the lightning of Cyrano de Bergerac).
- At the end of this violent reaction, we obtain the water fountain running, ignited water, the fixed sweat of the remore. It is the alkaest, the universal solvent, common mercury.
- We use this common mercury with another matter in order to extract philosophical mercury by creaming (stage of the work never described in the texts, the second Work).
- We mix philosophical mercury with philosophical gold in order to obtain Rebis (concept of RE, RER, RERE, REBIS, very difficult to interpret).
- We put Rebis in coction in order to obtain the Philosopher's stone.

It is precisely this kind of subtleties which make that I think that each person can have his own interpretation of the texts. While being of all good faith, we can not realize inconsistencies of our design of alchemy. In the book of Cyrano de Bergerac, never the remore does not die :
True in Cyrano's it does not, but I agree it all relates to your interpretation...but beyond that you must verify with practice. If you believe as I do, you take all similarities and use them to compile a working theory which complies with the bulk of the true writings of alchemy. An analogy would be a puzzle whose pieces are scattered over all the writings- and unfortunately some pieces are purposefully deceiving.

To withdraw from the battlefield is, to me, the same as saying the waters withdraw...or more succinctly they coagulate and recede- thereby thickening and eventually becoming earth. But as you said this is just my interpretation, which complies with Philalethes as well.

There still, it is a personal interpretation. Water appears before the death of the salamander in the text of Cyrano. This water is the sweat of the remore which is attacked by the fire of the salamander. By the coldness of the remore, this sweat is fixed. Moreover, where the concept of putrefaction is ? Even when the salamander died, its remainders are luminous (perpetual lamps, lantern). Cyrano does not speak about black or putrefaction.

The salamander dies...I really don't know how it can be explained any easier. Death is putrefaction, if you want I will fill the page with many notable names that say so. I suppose it is a personal interpretation in a sense that if someone asked me what color the sky is on a clear day I would say, "it's blue". I feel that we may be at a standstill, my interpretation is different from yours and until I bring something which verifies if it is correct or incorrect- we would just continue to fill the page with dialogue to convince one another. Hopefully in the coming months I will be able to do that, if not, it is great to meet another who is as knowledgeable as you are, and I look forward to our future dialogues. Now I will do as the remora and withdraw from this battlefield.

True in Cyrano's it does not, but I agree it all relates to your interpretation...but beyond that you must verify with practice. If you believe as I do, you take all similarities and use them to compile a working theory which complies with the bulk of the true writings of alchemy. An analogy would be a puzzle whose pieces are scattered over all the writings- and unfortunately some pieces are purposefully deceiving.

To withdraw from the battlefield is, to me, the same as saying the waters withdraw...or more succinctly they coagulate and recede- thereby thickening and eventually becoming earth. But as you said this is just my interpretation, which complies with Philalethes as well.

The remore does not die either at Fulcanelli, which Cyrano paraphrase by saying this:

« L’échénéis, c’est le pilote de l’onde vive, notre mercure, l’ami fidèle de l’alchimiste, celui qui doit absorber le feu secret, l’énergie ignée de la salamandre, et, enfin, demeurer stable, permanent, toujours victorieux sous la sauvegarde et avec la protection de son maître. Ces deux principes, de nature et de tendances contraires, de complexion opposée, manifestent l’un pour l’autre une antipathie, une aversion irréductibles. Mis en présence, ils s’attaquent furieusement, se défendent avec âpreté, et le combat sans trêve ni merci, ne cesse que par la mort d’un des antagonistes. »
The combat finishes by the death of the salamander. The remore absorbs all secret fire, the energy of the salamander. That occurs during the combat. But once all the secret fire of the salamander is exhausted, the latter dies. The remore can then be stabilized and become permanent.



The salamander dies...I really don't know how it can be explained any easier. Death is putrefaction, if you want I will fill the page with many notable names that say so. I suppose it is a personal interpretation in a sense that if someone asked me what color the sky is on a clear day I would say, "it's blue". I feel that we may be at a standstill, my interpretation is different from yours and until I bring something which verifies if it is correct or incorrect- we would just continue to fill the page with dialogue to convince one another. Hopefully in the coming months I will be able to do that, if not, it is great to meet another who is as knowledgeable as you are, and I look forward to our future dialogues. Now I will do as the remora and withdraw from this battlefield.

I agree with you on the fact that the salamander dies. No doubt there above bus Fulcanelli and Cyrano of Bergerac indicate it both. What seems important to me to note, it is that the remore does not die. Why ? Which indication that gives us on the practice ? I think that enables us to see that the authors tend to mix two phases of work, which makes more difficult their comprehension. There is a fight between an agent and a patient in whom the patient survives by providing his blood which coagulates in solid form, saltworks. It is common mercury, the universal solvent. Then, with this common mercury and philosophical gold, we obtain a dissolution, a putrefaction (the first) which gives the black. But what is most important in this phase, it is the cream which appears on this solution and which should be recovered. It is the allegory of butter, of churning. This cream is philosophical mercury.

Fulcanelli :

« Or, Basile Valentin enseigne que la « pierre philosophale se fait de la même façon que les villageois font le beurre », par battage ou agitation de la crème, qui représente, dans cette similitude, notre mercure philosophique. Aussi, toute l’attention de l’artiste doit-elle se concentrer sur l’extraction du mercure, lequel se recueille, à la surface du composé dissous, en écrémant l’onctuosité visqueuse et métallique, au fur et à mesure de sa production. »


« Ce dissolvant fournit un esprit urineux d’une nature singulière, qui paroît en quelques points différer entièrement des esprits urineux ordinaires ; il fournit encore une espèce de beurre qui a la consistance et la blancheur du beurre d’antimoine ; il est extrêmement amer et d’une moyenne volatilité, ces deux produits sont très propres, l’un et l’autre, à extraire les métaux. »


« L’eau vive, « plus céleste que terrestre », agissant sur la matière grave, rompt sa cohésion, l’amollit, la solubilise peu à peu, s’attache aux seules parties pures de la masse désagrégée, abandonne les autres et monte à la surface, entraînant ce qu’elle a pu saisir de conforme à sa nature ardente et spirituelle. Ce caractère important de l’ascension du subtil par la séparation de l’épais valut à l’opération du mercure des sages d’être appelée sublimation. »

In a Fulcanelli’s note :

« On voit que l’Adepte parle de la préparation du Mercure philosophique comme étant la première de toutes. Il omet à dessein celle qui procure le dissolvant universel, qu’il suppose connue et achevée. En réalité, il s’agit de la première opération du second oeuvre. C’est là un artifice philosophique courant, dont nous tenons à prévenir les disciples d’Hermès. »

Philalèthe :

« Il faut prendre de notre dragon igné, qui cache dans son ventre l’acier magique, quatre parties ; de notre aimant, neuf parties. Mêle-les ensemble par un feu brûlant en forme d’eau minérale, au-dessus de laquelle il surnagera une écume à mettre à part. »

This extract of Philalèthe causes confusion. Because it is believed that the extraction of philosophical mercury is done at the time of the first combat. However it mixes the first combat giving common mercury and the second phase which must give philosophical mercury, scum. Fulcanelli warns to us besides:


« Philalèthe, bien qu’écrivant sous la même discipline, prétend combler le vide laissé par ses prédécesseurs. A lire son Introitus, on ne distingue aucune coupure ; seulement, de fausses manipulations suppléent au défaut des vraies. Elles comblent les lacunes de telle sorte que les unes et les autres s’enchaînent et se soudent sans laisser trace d’artifice. Une telle souplesse rend impossible au profane la tâche de séparer l’ivraie du froment, le mauvais du bon, l’erreur de la vérité. Nous avons à peine besoin d’affirmer combien nous réprouvons de semblables abus, qui ne sont, en dépit de la règle, qu’autant de mystifications déguisées. »

All that to say to you that each one can interpret the texts as he wants.
You say that must be checked by the practice. I agree entirely with you. But the interpretation which we make of the texts is then influenced by our practice, by the matter which we choose like subject of work. And it is what you also reproach *** which sees the practice at the laboratory like only proof of all our assumptions in alchemy. And in that, I agree with him.
We will base ourselves on some extracts and we will occult those which we do not like. A little like our subject discussion with respect to the life or died of the remore at the end of the fight.
It is here that I return on what I said in my first posts. Several matters can be used as bases work, but must match with two things. 1) Their qualities and their evolution must stick to the texts. 2) Our assumptions resulting from our interpretation of the texts must to be checked by the practice. The only one parking success being the transmutation.

I try not to concern myself with who Fulcanelli was, but I have occasionally been curious.So have I...

See this thread: Who was Fulcanelli? (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?t=12)