PDA

View Full Version : Stella Complexionis



Jerry
05-18-2013, 09:42 PM
Where is the release of the Stella Complexionis treatise so it can be published?

The Stella Complexionis Treatise was a very important opportunity for change.
More than one person worked on that project.
That would have put an end to all the silly white precipitates, tinctures and other nonsense.
The treatise, in no simple terms, explains how to turn water into wine.

[To Illen A. Cluf] You have a copy. There are a lot of copies floating around. I sent you one.

z0 K
05-19-2013, 08:39 PM
I would like to know more about the fate of the Stella Complexionis treatise. I have seen some of it. I think it could be some stuff that may be significant... Could help those that really want to get out of the alchemical lab rut of doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. That's madness.
Illen:
Do you have the finished copy? How about sharing it with us:-)

z0 K

Andro
05-19-2013, 11:40 PM
Is this the treatise in discussion?

DisplayTitle: v0061070000 Stella complexionis is the father of truth and doctrine showing the clear light and the right way. (17c)

Incipit: Stella complexionis is the father of truth and doctrine showing the clear light and the right way

Language: Middle English

Text Incipit: Man is made by ingresses

Location: City: Philadelphia

Library: University of Pennsylvania Codex 111

Folios/Pages: f. 84

Note/BibInfo: Philadelphia UPenn Codex 111 formerly Smith 4e

VK Number: 4619.00Date(17c)

Record ID: v0061070000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LINK (http://indexcat.nlm.nih.gov/logicrouter/servlet/LogicRouter?PAGE=object&OUTPUTXSL=object_enc36ui.xslt&pm_RC=REPOEVK&pm_GT=Y&pm_IAC=Y&pm_OI=6233&api_1=GET_OBJECT_XML&num_relate=6233)

Jerry
05-20-2013, 01:05 AM
It's this one:

Stella Complextionis
Joh. Gubelen, 1384

Introduction

The Stella Complextionis is mentioned in the Collectanea chymica (1684), in a treatise by an anonymous author, called "Practice of Lights, or an Excellent and Ancient Treatise of the Philosopher's Stone", 1683. It mentions the Stella complexionis twice, in very complementary ways. Here's one of the quotes:

"But of all special Books, that ever I could read or see, Stella
complexionis is the Father of Truth and Doctrine, shewing the clear light
and the right way of the Preparation of the precious Treasure, and he
expandeth all the Figures of the Philosopher's openly, where I doubt not but
God hath his Soul in everlasting Bliss".

He went by the name of "Johannis Bubelli". Sometimes his last name is spelled "Bumbulem", "Bumbele", “Bunbelam” or "Gübelem".

Three sources:

1, Adam McLean, Bodleian Library, Oxford

Oxford, Bodleian Library MS. Ashmole 1450.
66 + 31 + 86 + 95 folios + 86 pages. Paper. Quarto. 15th and 16th Centuries.

4. f49-71v Johannis Bubelli, or Bumbulem, "Stella Complextionis perfecti magisterii vel investigationis lapidis"


http://www.levity.com/alchemy/almss5.html


2. Adam McClean, Bodleian Library, Oxford

Oxford, Bodleian Library MS. Ashmole 1459.
28 folios +481 pages. 16th and 17th Centuries.

7. p62-97 Stella Complexionis.

http://www.levity.com/alchemy/almss5.html


3. Adam McClean, Bodleian Library, Oxford

Oxford, Bodleian Library MS. Ashmole 1493.
148 folios. Paper. Folio. 17th Century.

4. f52-60v The Starr of Complexion of ye perfect maistrie of ye art chimicall, of John Bunbelam of England. Written in anno 1384 [Translation.]

http://www.levity.com/alchemy/almss5.html

4. Adam McClean: Mellon Collection, Yale University Library

Mellon Collection, Yale University Library MS. 49.
145 folios. Paper. 195x152mm. 17th Century [c. 1620.]

4. Johannes Bumbele [s?] de Anglia. Stella complectionis.

http://www.levity.com/alchemy/almss17.html

5. Adam McLean: the King’s Library, Copenhagen:

MS. 240.
Folio. Gubelem
1. Isaac Holland. Opus Mineralium [in English, subtitled "The Book of the Condytions or qualytyes of the physycall stone". With other philosophical sayings and alchemical excerpts, by B. Penoti a Portu Aquitani.]
2. Raymund Lully. Apertorium [in English, with subtitle "a prescious water of this arte of Alkemy".]
3. Raymund Lully. Ars intellective cum praxis [in English by 'Th. Newton 1567'.]
4. Rosarius [in two parts.]
5. The Great Rosary.
6. Stella complextionis perfecti magisterii vel investigationis lapidis per Joh. Gübelem 1384.
7. Water of Everlasting Lyffe.
8. The questions and demandes of the archiebischop of Raeinaes, with the Answers of Guyllam de Cenes [with date '1216' at the end.]
9. [Unidentified alchemical treatise.]
[This MS. is inscribed in various places 'Liber Christophori Thaylour' (Taylor)].

http://www.levity.com/alchemy/copenhgn.html

Andro
05-20-2013, 02:18 AM
Thanks!

Well, let's have it then :) (if possible)

Of all the copies said to be floating around, does anyone here have one and is also willing to share with the forum?

What language(s) is it available in?

Is it of a similar composition/lineage as the classical authors?

(By which I mean the traditional lineage, starting with the Obtainment and subsequent Philosophical Union of 'Heaven & Earth', a.k.a. 'Above & Below', 'Steel & Magnet', 'Niter & Salt', etc... which no author revealed plainly...)

If indeed this treatise sheds even more light on those Universal Principles, it would surely be a most welcome addition...

Lunsola
05-20-2013, 05:42 AM
I love rare alchemy texts and would love to read this one. I have a lot of luck running into ones I need at the right time. Salazius(thank you!) was kind enough to point me towards a most beloved text on a work I have been playing with for a while. It's amazing how any help at all on some things really makes the difference.

Does this just outline a process of turning water into wine? Or is there more to it? Either way I would love to see it.

Salazius
05-20-2013, 08:15 AM
My pleasure ! :)

And anytime.

JDP
05-20-2013, 11:41 AM
It's this one:

Stella Complextionis
Joh. Gubelen, 1384

Introduction

The Stella Complextionis is mentioned in the Collectanea chymica (1684), in a treatise by an anonymous author, called "Practice of Lights, or an Excellent and Ancient Treatise of the Philosopher's Stone", 1683. It mentions the Stella complexionis twice, in very complementary ways. Here's one of the quotes:

"But of all special Books, that ever I could read or see, Stella
complexionis is the Father of Truth and Doctrine, shewing the clear light
and the right way of the Preparation of the precious Treasure, and he
expandeth all the Figures of the Philosopher's openly, where I doubt not but
God hath his Soul in everlasting Bliss".

He went by the name of "Johannis Bubelli". Sometimes his last name is spelled "Bumbulem", "Bumbele", “Bunbelam” or "Gübelem".

Three sources:

1, Adam McLean, Bodleian Library, Oxford

Oxford, Bodleian Library MS. Ashmole 1450.
66 + 31 + 86 + 95 folios + 86 pages. Paper. Quarto. 15th and 16th Centuries.

4. f49-71v Johannis Bubelli, or Bumbulem, "Stella Complextionis perfecti magisterii vel investigationis lapidis"


http://www.levity.com/alchemy/almss5.html


2. Adam McClean, Bodleian Library, Oxford

Oxford, Bodleian Library MS. Ashmole 1459.
28 folios +481 pages. 16th and 17th Centuries.

7. p62-97 Stella Complexionis.

http://www.levity.com/alchemy/almss5.html


3. Adam McClean, Bodleian Library, Oxford

Oxford, Bodleian Library MS. Ashmole 1493.
148 folios. Paper. Folio. 17th Century.

4. f52-60v The Starr of Complexion of ye perfect maistrie of ye art chimicall, of John Bunbelam of England. Written in anno 1384 [Translation.]

http://www.levity.com/alchemy/almss5.html

4. Adam McClean: Mellon Collection, Yale University Library

Mellon Collection, Yale University Library MS. 49.
145 folios. Paper. 195x152mm. 17th Century [c. 1620.]

4. Johannes Bumbele [s?] de Anglia. Stella complectionis.

http://www.levity.com/alchemy/almss17.html

5. Adam McLean: the King’s Library, Copenhagen:

MS. 240.
Folio. Gubelem
1. Isaac Holland. Opus Mineralium [in English, subtitled "The Book of the Condytions or qualytyes of the physycall stone". With other philosophical sayings and alchemical excerpts, by B. Penoti a Portu Aquitani.]
2. Raymund Lully. Apertorium [in English, with subtitle "a prescious water of this arte of Alkemy".]
3. Raymund Lully. Ars intellective cum praxis [in English by 'Th. Newton 1567'.]
4. Rosarius [in two parts.]
5. The Great Rosary.
6. Stella complextionis perfecti magisterii vel investigationis lapidis per Joh. Gübelem 1384.
7. Water of Everlasting Lyffe.
8. The questions and demandes of the archiebischop of Raeinaes, with the Answers of Guyllam de Cenes [with date '1216' at the end.]
9. [Unidentified alchemical treatise.]
[This MS. is inscribed in various places 'Liber Christophori Thaylour' (Taylor)].

http://www.levity.com/alchemy/copenhgn.html

I was one of the people involved in the project of transcribing the text from one of these manuscripts (in fact, I was the one who initially brought attention to what the author of "Practice of Lights" said about this treatise, which sparked the project to have it transcribed some years ago), but we agreed that the transcription would only circulate among a number of private individuals who contributed to the project.

If it is any consolation for those who have not read it: the author of "Practice of Lights" was exaggerating a bit. It is an interesting text but certainly not so exceedingly clear that it will dispel all the doubts, confusions, enigmas, riddles, etc. regarding the manufacture of the Stone.

teofrast40
05-20-2013, 05:06 PM
You can read it in English here
http://dla.library.upenn.edu/dla/medren/pageturn.html?id=MEDREN_1580457&rotation=0&size=0&currentpage=171

(Well, at least if you can decipher the terrible handwriting of the copyist ...)

Cheers
t

Andro
05-20-2013, 05:17 PM
Thanks Teo, you're a real treasure!

Jerry
05-20-2013, 08:08 PM
I was one of the people involved in the project of transcribing the text from one of these manuscripts (in fact, I was the one who initially brought attention to what the author of "Practice of Lights" said about this treatise, which sparked the project to have it transcribed some years ago), but we agreed that the transcription would only circulate among a number of private individuals who contributed to the project.

Thank you for this valuable information.

I was on a forum (which isstill active) in 2003 where several individuals agreed to transcribe and publish (for free) some difficult to find treatises and manuscripts. An individual called mastertootpickrepairman (MTPR) had some interest in the Stella Complexionis treatise.

Since MTPR thought our group had the best technical capabilities, MTPR went out and purchased Ms. 240 with his own funds. The question then became, How to convert the images from the microfilm into some digital format and how? An individual came forward and claimed that he could get the microfilm converted into paper copy and transcribe the treatise so that it could be published. He also offered to transcribe the other treatises on the microfilm for publication. The group decision was to have the microfilm sent from Denmark to Canada so the individual could start the transcription process.

On 09 October 2003 the individual stated: “I got a little carried away and decided to try to transcribe the first two pages of Stella Complexionis. I’m still missing a lot of words, but at least it is a start. I bet this has never been published anywhere before, so we are likely seeing it transcribed for the first time. The individual transcribing the document is aware that the treatise will be published.

Another issue came up because the Stella Complexionis treatise contained special symbols and characters. Since these characters were used more than once in the treatise, the decision was to make a font set to solve this problem. The transcriber sent me the images and I made the font set called STELLA.ttf. Problem solved. Install the font set and read the document. The font set was completed on 07 April 2004.

The Stella Complexionis treatise was ready for publication 12 April 2004.

In 2009 a very avid alchemical research joined a group and requested a copy of the Stella Complexionis treatise from the transcriber and was told by the transcriber: ‘I am currently working on another version of Stella Complexionis with another transcriber, and between us we will have the best possible transcription’. In other words: GFY.

So Mr. JDP, are you saying that the Introduction to the Stella Complexionis treatise completed in 2004 is your work product and not that of the transcriber?

z0 K
05-20-2013, 08:32 PM
JDP: “I was one of the people involved in the project of transcribing the text from one of these manuscripts (in fact, I was the one who initially brought attention to what the author of "Practice of Lights" said about this treatise, which sparked the project to have it transcribed some years ago),”

I know what you mean. That project kind of turned out like “Treasure of the Sierra Madre” bringing out the worst in some and the best in others involved. Feathers burned and vitriol blistered:)

JDP: “but we agreed that the transcription would only circulate among a number of private individuals who contributed to the project.”

So do you have a copy of the transcription of that “terrible handwriting of the copyist?”
I asked Illen yesterday if he had a copy he was willing to share and he has yet to reply.

JDP: “If it is any consolation for those who have not read it: the author of ‘Practice of Lights’ was exaggerating a bit. It is an interesting text but certainly not so exceedingly clear that it will dispel all the doubts, confusions, enigmas, riddles, etc. regarding the manufacture of the Stone.”

How do you know he exaggerated a bit in “Practice of Lights?” I can see some truth in what he says, especially about the “calcinations” at the beginning. Looks like he is describing the Dry Way. Have you done any lab work with it? Perhaps we can discuss this and how it pertains to Stella Complexionis. If only someone would donate a copy of the transcription to the cause of understanding this very old treatise. But then, perhaps there is not much interest on this forum for a discussion of these arcane texts. Maybe not enough interest to be worth the bother to make it available.

Illen A. Cluf
05-20-2013, 09:44 PM
Illen:
Do you have the finished copy? How about sharing it with us:-)

z0 K

Sorry, I'm through sharing my work with others (often after hundreds of hours of tedious, unthankful work), unless I'm convinced of their integrity and worth. Jerry ruined my initial open trust for other alchemists by publicly releasing, without my permission, private treatises that I transcribed, and against agreements, so you can blame him for that. I have little difficulty in reading old English handwriting and have transcribed quite a few fascinating old documents in the past.

There's a long history behind this particular treatise which I'm unwilling to elaborate upon as I want no part of the flame wars that Jerry is trying to initiate. You are only hearing one side of the story, and believe me it is not at all factual.

I think Jerry (and someone else) mentioned in one or two of the messages that he took credit for transcribing part of the Stella Complexionis treatise, so you might ask him and the other claimant for a copy of their work. I'm sure they will be most obliging.

Illen

JDP
05-20-2013, 10:10 PM
Thank you for this valuable information.

I was on a forum (which isstill active) in 2003 where several individuals agreed to transcribe and publish (for free) some difficult to find treatises and manuscripts. An individual called mastertootpickrepairman (MTPR) had some interest in the Stella Complexionis treatise.

Since MTPR thought our group had the best technical capabilities, MTPR went out and purchased Ms. 240 with his own funds. The question then became, How to convert the images from the microfilm into some digital format and how? An individual came forward and claimed that he could get the microfilm converted into paper copy and transcribe the treatise so that it could be published. He also offered to transcribe the other treatises on the microfilm for publication. The group decision was to have the microfilm sent from Denmark to Canada so the individual could start the transcription process.

On 09 October 2003 the individual stated: “I got a little carried away and decided to try to transcribe the first two pages of Stella Complexionis. I’m still missing a lot of words, but at least it is a start. I bet this has never been published anywhere before, so we are likely seeing it transcribed for the first time. The individual transcribing the document is aware that the treatise will be published.

Another issue came up because the Stella Complexionis treatise contained special symbols and characters. Since these characters were used more than once in the treatise, the decision was to make a font set to solve this problem. The transcriber sent me the images and I made the font set called STELLA.ttf. Problem solved. Install the font set and read the document. The font set was completed on 07 April 2004.

The Stella Complexionis treatise was ready for publication 12 April 2004.

In 2009 a very avid alchemical research joined a group and requested a copy of the Stella Complexionis treatise from the transcriber and was told by the transcriber: ‘I am currently working on another version of Stella Complexionis with another transcriber, and between us we will have the best possible transcription’. In other words: GFY.

So Mr. JDP, are you saying that the Introduction to the Stella Complexionis treatise completed in 2004 is your work product and not that of the transcriber?

As far as I can remember, the idea for this project started at the now defunct forum "Alkaest", when I pointed out what the author of the "Practice of Lights" claimed. I supplied the scans (directly from a microfilm copy of a manuscript either at the British Library or Oxford, I can't remember right now, it was many years ago), to the forum member who had the most expertise in transcribing difficult to read handwriting. He made most of the transcription and I reviewed it and corrected it.

I don't know about some of the things you are telling me, but I do remember that the "intro" quoted in your second post in this thread was written by the person mentioned above who made most of the transcription, and therefore you very likely are talking about our transcription (the only one in existence, that I am aware of.)

JDP
05-20-2013, 10:22 PM
So do you have a copy of the transcription of that “terrible handwriting of the copyist?”
I asked Illen yesterday if he had a copy he was willing to share and he has yet to reply.

Yes, I still have it, and the Oxford or British Library (can't remember right now which one is it we worked on) manuscript scans. The handwriting was quite better than that other manuscript that someone posted a link to. But we agreed this project would only circulate among a few private individuals, we did not release the transcription to public domain.


How do you know he exaggerated a bit in “Practice of Lights?” I can see some truth in what he says, especially about the “calcinations” at the beginning. Looks like he is describing the Dry Way. Have you done any lab work with it? Perhaps we can discuss this and how it pertains to Stella Complexionis. If only someone would donate a copy of the transcription to the cause of understanding this very old treatise. But then, perhaps there is not much interest on this forum for a discussion of these arcane texts. Maybe not enough interest to be worth the bother to make it available.

The author of "Practice of Lights" makes it look as if that text is something extraordinary and that you will need no other guide and so forth. His enthusiasm is quite exaggerated. It's just another of many alchemical treatises, and the author does not clarify everything; in some parts he is in fact rather obscure, general and vague. Even though we enjoyed working on it and reading it, it was a bit of a let-down, after all the hype coming from the author of "Practice of Lights", which had us expecting something full of extremely clear and lucid explanations as to require no further inquiry from any other authors.

Jerry
05-21-2013, 02:32 PM
I don't know about some of the things you are telling me, but I do remember that the "intro" quoted in your second post in this thread was written by the person mentioned above who made most of the transcription, and therefore you very likely are talking about our transcription (the only one in existence, that I am aware of.)

It is very possible that our transcription is the same as your “our transcription” which was done during the same time period, from two different copies of the same microfilm, or somebody offered to obtain the scans for you which means it came from our microfilm.

Our final copy of the treatise contained a font set to overcome the problem of symbols and characters used in the treatise which were in the form of images. Your copy may have bracketed notations such as: [symbol mercury], [copper?] and no images. I created the font set from a Word document titled Alchemical Symbols used in Stella Complextionis sent to me by the transcriber (dated 29 March 2004) which contained the images from the scans of our microfilm. The images are important because they provide a little clarity to the treatise. The transcribed treatise is 37 pages in length.

Our group had no caveat of do not share and everyone was aware of the fact this treatise and others will be published because that was the objective of the group.

First we have to determine if we are dealing with the exact same transcription. I’ll post page 1 and redact the name of the transcriber. You can compare our transcription with your “our transcription” and tell us if we are dealing with the exact same transcription. We don’t want to have another case of verdict first and evidence later.

z0 K
05-21-2013, 03:01 PM
Quoting Illen A. Cluf

Sorry, I'm through sharing my work with others (often after hundreds of hours of tedious, unthankful work), unless I'm convinced of their integrity and worth. Jerry ruined my initial open trust for other alchemists by publicly releasing, without my permission, private treatises that I transcribed, and against agreements, so you can blame him for that. I have little difficulty in reading old English handwriting and have transcribed quite a few fascinating old documents in the past.

Strange attitude. How do you expect to accomplish any of the work in the treatise if you are not willing to share it for discussion of the lab work contained in it?

I appreciated your transcription talents. I believe I thanked you on several occasions. And I for one tried to help you with understanding the ramifications of the lab work within the docs. What good are the volumes of alchemy treatises you hold if you don't understand the nature of the lab procedures described therein?

O' I have done quite a bit of transcribing olde texts as well and I've made them available to alchemists interested in studying them.


There's a long history behind this particular treatise which I'm unwilling to elaborate upon as I want no part of the flame wars that Jerry is trying to initiate. You are only hearing one side of the story, and believe me it is not at all factual.

That saga is very old and quite stale.


I think Jerry (and someone else) mentioned in one or two of the messages that he took credit for transcribing part of the Stella Complexionis treatise, so you might ask him and the other claimant for a copy of their work. I'm sure they will be most obliging.

Well, I did ask. Not surprisingly you and JDP declined to share the docs.

z0 K
05-21-2013, 03:39 PM
Quoting JDP

Yes, I still have it, and the Oxford or British Library (can't remember right now which one is it we worked on) manuscript scans. The handwriting was quite better than that other manuscript that someone posted a link to. But we agreed this project would only circulate among a few private individuals, we did not release the transcription to public domain.

So I guess your copy is still circulating around in a small circle of friends. And by your choice will not be made available for other alchemists to study.


The author of "Practice of Lights" makes it look as if that text is something extraordinary and that you will need no other guide and so forth. His enthusiasm is quite exaggerated. It's just another of many alchemical treatises, and the author does not clarify everything; in some parts he is in fact rather obscure, general and vague. Even though we enjoyed working on it and reading it, it was a bit of a let-down, after all the hype coming from the author of "Practice of Lights", which had us expecting something full of extremely clear and lucid explanations as to require no further inquiry from any other authors.

I have a copy of "Practice of Lights" and the author's mention of "Stella Complexionis" is a reference of comparison to a particular procedure he was discussing.

I can appreciate your opinion on this subject. However I am not motivated to accept it merely based on your say so alone without reference quotes from the doc for support of your position.

Since you did not address my inquiry about the operations detailed in "Practice of Lights" as compared to "Stella Complexionis" I can only assume that you have not attempted any of in your lab having judged it to be a let down.

I know you are an adept skeptical alchemist and I respect you for that. With all the alchemical docs you have accumulated over the years surely you must by now have found something that has advanced your enthusiasm for this art.

Otherwise what keeps you going down this path. Rhetorical: no need to respond.:)

Jerry
05-21-2013, 04:11 PM
Stella Complextionis
(Starre of Complection of Alchimie)
John Gubelem of England, 1384
Transcribed by ***** ********, 2004

Page 1

1 Stella complextionis perfecti Ma-
2 gistery vell investigationis Lapidis
(Margin: Liber [ ] Christopher Taylour)
3 The liberall arte or delightfull documentes of all the philosophers
4 that is to say, the conclusion of the perfect maistrie shoulde be
5 [pourchased] By the lovers thereof, with the fynalle endinge and
6 openynge of the hiddyn thinges of all the philosophers, without wan-
7 deringe from the pathe of trueth, Therefore (God-
8 willinge, he lyghtenynge my [sonnes] with his grace,) I will
9 open fully in this my little booke (by the commandement
10 of my most [sovregne] Lorde) the secreats of Secreates of
11 the philosophers (in which all the philosophers have discourse with
12 their most darke tearmes, to hide this most secreat science
13 and knowledge of this honorable or reverent philosophie [ ]
14 from others not understandinge) and that will I doe,
15 by takinge away of all errors, in the [f] creacion of the
16 first or originall Stone; and also by the perfectinge of
17 his whole worke./ By the description of [my] booke,
18 the truethe and perfection of the whole worke of
19 Alchymie are opened or revealed.
20 This booke I doe divide into [xii] chapiters, and this for
21 bycause that the same nomber is a full and perfecte nomber
22 as appearethe in the Actes of the Appostelles. Therefore have
23 I named this booke, the Starre of complexion of the
24 perfecte Maistrie of the secreate Arte of Alchymie, God [beinge]
25 witness & the bookes of the philosophers, that thence is nothinge
26 put in it hidden or lessened, but that there is openlye
27 declared, what sowever apperteyneth to the accomplishment
28 of the

JDP
05-21-2013, 11:18 PM
It is very possible that our transcription is the same as your “our transcription” which was done during the same time period, from two different copies of the same microfilm, or somebody offered to obtain the scans for you which means it came from our microfilm.

Quite impossible, since I bought the microfilm copy of the manuscript we worked on myself directly from the library.


Our final copy of the treatise contained a font set to overcome the problem of symbols and characters used in the treatise which were in the form of images. Your copy may have bracketed notations such as: [symbol mercury], [copper?] and no images. I created the font set from a Word document titled Alchemical Symbols used in Stella Complextionis sent to me by the transcriber (dated 29 March 2004) which contained the images from the scans of our microfilm. The images are important because they provide a little clarity to the treatise. The transcribed treatise is 37 pages in length.

Our group had no caveat of do not share and everyone was aware of the fact this treatise and others will be published because that was the objective of the group.

First we have to determine if we are dealing with the exact same transcription. I’ll post page 1 and redact the name of the transcriber. You can compare our transcription with your “our transcription” and tell us if we are dealing with the exact same transcription. We don’t want to have another case of verdict first and evidence later.

Taking a look at the extract from your transcription I can see it is somewhat differently spelled than the one we made. However, the structure (numeration of lines, brackets with "symbol" for some substance or question marks regarding dubious words, etc.) look like the typical style of how we used to make transcriptions of these manuscript texts (we worked on a good number of them.) So I am assuming here that either one or more of the people who worked on transcriptions in our group was also involved in transcribing this other copy of "Stella Complexionis" that you have.

JDP
05-21-2013, 11:40 PM
Quoting JDP


So I guess your copy is still circulating around in a small circle of friends. And by your choice will not be made available for other alchemists to study.

It wasn't "my choice", but "our choice". Everyone involved in the transcription agreed to this.


I have a copy of "Practice of Lights" and the author's mention of "Stella Complexionis" is a reference of comparison to a particular procedure he was discussing.

I can appreciate your opinion on this subject. However I am not motivated to accept it merely based on your say so alone without reference quotes from the doc for support of your position.


Just read the quote from it posted in this very thread, namely:

"But of all special Books, that ever I could read or see, Stella
complexionis is the Father of Truth and Doctrine, shewing the clear light
and the right way of the Preparation of the precious Treasure, and he
expandeth all the Figures of the Philosopher's openly, where I doubt not but
God hath his Soul in everlasting Bliss".

And you will see he is not just talking about some particular operation but about the secrets to manufacture the Stone in general. This is not "my opinion" but what he plainly says himself. Of course, this is also plainly an exaggeration, as the treatise in question does not explain everything in such a "clear" manner as he implies.


Since you did not address my inquiry about the operations detailed in "Practice of Lights" as compared to "Stella Complexionis" I can only assume that you have not attempted any of in your lab having judged it to be a let down.

I know you are an adept skeptical alchemist and I respect you for that. With all the alchemical docs you have accumulated over the years surely you must by now have found something that has advanced your enthusiasm for this art.

Otherwise what keeps you going down this path. Rhetorical: no need to respond.:)

As the old adage says: "The Proof is in the Pudding". Show me someone who by reading "Stella Complexionis" alone, by itself, or even compared to "Practice of Lights", has been able to manufacture the Stone, and then tell me all these assurances again. Fact: both texts are written in pretty much the same generally ambiguous, obscure and vague manner as countless of other alchemical texts, always subject to interpretation by each reader, and they do not easily translate into a clear experimental protocol that can be readily put to the test. Boasting about "clarity" in alchemical literature is very common: one author claims he has been clearer than all others, only to be contradicted by another one who comes forth and claims that he is the one who has spoken "clearest" of all, and this goes on and on. However, authors who really put their money where their mouths are and truly give clearer explanations are much scarcer.

Andro
05-22-2013, 03:31 AM
I’ll post page 1 and redact the name of the transcriber.

Stella Complextionis
(Starre of Complection of Alchimie)
John Gubelem of England, 1384
Transcribed by ***** ********, 2004

Was there an explicit permission obtained from the transcriber(s), to publicly post their work, which was apparently agreed to be kept private among the individuals involved with the transcription?

It is not this Forum's concern whether the rightful copyright owners decide to keep their materials private and out of the public domain, or whether this is or isn't the 'right' thing to do.

However, it may become this Forum's concern IF there are legal issues involved, including either plagiarism, breach of contract/copyright, or both (i.e. publishing materials without explicit permission from the rightful copyright owners).

In this case, if no explicit permission is provided by the proven owner(s) of the transcription rights, the material may be deemed legally questionable and subsequently removed, as may any further uncredited and/or unauthorized materials.

If the posted/quoted materials are ALREADY in the public domain (have already been published prior to posting), their source must be cited, as well as the author, when possible.


Alchemy Forums is an informational and community resource which does not advocate breaking any laws.

All this being said, please read the entire Disclaimer (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?3017-Disclaimer).

z0 K
05-22-2013, 03:13 PM
Was there an explicit permission obtained from the transcriber(s), to publicly post their work, which was apparently agreed to be kept private among the individuals involved with the transcription?

It is not this Forum's concern whether the rightful copyright owners decide to keep their materials private and out of the public domain, or whether this is or isn't the 'right' thing to do.

However, it may become this Forum's concern IF there are legal issues involved, including either plagiarism, breach of contract/copyright, or both (i.e. publishing materials without explicit permission from the rightful copyright owners).

In this case, if no explicit permission is provided by the proven owner(s) of the transcription rights, the material may be deemed legally questionable and subsequently removed, as may any further uncredited and/or unauthorized materials.

If the posted/quoted materials are ALREADY in the public domain (have already been published prior to posting), their source must be cited, as well as the author, when possible.



All this being said, please read the entire Disclaimer (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?3017-Disclaimer).

No need to worry about breaking any copyright laws. Stella Complexionis is over 600 years old and the author and family are long gone. That puts it in the public domain. Transcribers cannot copyright what they transcribe. Transcribing is not the same as authoring an original document. If it is public domain there are no copyright issues involved here. Nor is plagiarism involved. Stella Complexionis was not written by any of those claiming to be transcribers of it. Both JDP and Illen know this.

As Jerry stated “our” Stella Complexionis project was intended to be shared with all in the alchemy community for the furthering of our understanding. He used the word “publish” to describe making it available. Anyone can publish documents in public domain. That doesn’t mean the publisher of that public domain document then holds the copyright to the original document.

This is a very strange approach. Transcribers hold no rights of control over public domain docs.

This is a non sequeter. We were “discussing” Stella Complexionis for educational purposes only; no one even suggested that it be “published” here.

Andro
05-22-2013, 04:03 PM
Stella Complexionis is over 600 years old and the author and family are long gone. That puts it in the public domain.

Indeed. Everyone is free to work with what is in the public domain, i.e. the link to the difficult to decipher manuscript posted earlier by teofrast40.


Transcribers cannot copyright what they transcribe.

There are copyrights for translations. No inquiry has yet been made into transcription/deciphering rights, whether by legal contract or by gentleman's agreements.

I am not a lawyer and would rather be safe as far as this Forum is concerned.


Transcribing is not the same as authoring an original document. If it is public domain there are no copyright issues involved here.

Indeed, unless otherwise stated, there are no copyright issues over what already IS in the public domain. The deciphered transcription is NOT in the public domain, to the best of my knowledge. If it is, please provide proof.


Stella Complexionis was not written by any of those claiming to be transcribers of it. Both JDP and Illen know this.

Not written (the manuscript is indeed in the public domain), but deciphered and transcribed. This is work. Copyrightable work.


As Jerry stated “our” Stella Complexionis project was intended to be shared with all in the alchemy community for the furthering of our understanding.

This is one side of the story, and more than one version have been brought to my attention. As of now, I can verify neither.


He used the word “publish” to describe making it available. Anyone can publish documents in public domain.

The original document already is in the public domain ('published'). The deciphered transcription isn't.


That doesn’t mean the publisher of that public domain document then holds the copyright to the original document.

I'm talking about the rights to the deciphered transcription, not to the original manuscript.


This is a very strange approach. Transcribers hold no rights of control over public domain docs.

No, but they may have rights over their deciphering/transcription work.

By all means, please feel free to post and discuss what is already published in the public domain (i.e. the 'hard to decipher' manuscript).


We were “discussing” Stella Complexionis for educational purposes only; no one even suggested that it be “published” here.

Nevertheless, part of the TRANSCRIPTION has already been posted here, and in my understanding it is not yet clear whether it was done with the transcriber's permission or not.

I think it would be in everyone's best interest to settle the rights to the transcription and its posting (even if only partial) in private (PM, email, etc...), and post the conclusion/resolution here.

Once/if this is settled, we will know if the TRANSCRIPION can or can not be posted publicly.

Meanwhile, what we have is the UN-transcribed/UN-deciphered public document, which we can freely discuss if anyone can understand what it's saying.

For now, I've received a few contradictory statements (different versions) regarding the rights/agreements over the transcription, so it's still a gray area as far as I'm concerned.

Before this escalates into another 'Who's Right' battlefield, I would prefer if the matter is first solved privately between the parties involved.

In addition to all this, and since past legal issues have been brought to my attention:


Disclaimer of Liability: With respect to documents and posts by members of this website, neither Alchemy Forums nor its managers assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, copyrights, completeness, or usefulness of any information, document, link, product, or post disclosed within this website. While the managers will attempt to remove or edit any generally objectionable or false material as quickly as possible, it is impossible to review every message. Therefore, you acknowledge that all data submitted to this website expresses the views and opinions of the author and not necessarily Alchemy Forums or its managers.

In other words, it's everyone personal (legal as well as ethical) responsibility regarding what to post on Alchemy Forums.

Jerry
05-22-2013, 04:18 PM
Quite impossible, since I bought the microfilm copy of the manuscript we worked on myself directly from the library.



Taking a look at the extract from your transcription I can see it is somewhat differently spelled than the one we made. However, the structure (numeration of lines, brackets with "symbol" for some substance or question marks regarding dubious words, etc.) look like the typical style of how we used to make transcriptions of these manuscript texts (we worked on a good number of them.) So I am assuming here that either one or more of the people who worked on transcriptions in our group was also involved in transcribing this other copy of "Stella Complexionis" that you have.

The extract of the treatise in question does not violate any copyright rules as it was for the purposes of comparison (not only by you but others of your group that may be here) and because it was doubtful you would provide any information. It was left intact to establish the title of the treatise, the transcriber, and formatting so no further accusations would be made. The transcriber’s name was redacted so to protect his identity. The entire transcription is 37 pages and what was povided was a quote not the entire transcript.

I understand the bracketed notations and this was a problem our group addressed by the creation of a font set which I created. Marginal Note: It is very important to frequently use the word “I” and “Me” to convince yourself of your importance to the world.

The only individual that I know of that was common to both your group and our group was the transcriber. It does appear that there were two different microfilms containing the exact same treatise, the microfilm that you purchased and the microfilm purchased by MTPR and was sent to the transcriber. It does look like the problem was the transcriber found himself in another one of those “conflict of interest scenarios” trying to impose the rules of your group onto our group. We had no knowledge that any other group was transcribing the exact same treatise at the same time, hence the confusion. The problem would have not occurred if the transcriber would have simply excused himself from transcribing the treatise for one of the groups when he had knowledge of another copy being transcribed.

The scan of the first page of the treatise I received from the transcriber on was on
22 August 2003. No title appears on the scan so this appears to be an addition by the transcriber.

In the email message (salamander_manor @yahoo) of 09 October 2003 the transcriber
stated: “What’s really amazing is the date! This could be one of the earliest original English (untranslated) alchemical documents dealing with the stone, written by someone who was familiar with Lully and Isaac Hollandus!” He then went on to provide a rough transcription of the first two pages.

The transcriber does express surprise and excitement in his message implying this is the first time he is seeing this document and never gives nor ever gave any indication of another copy or transcription in progress.

It seems this whole problem was caused by the transcriber who found himself holding a candle that was lit on both ends and poof…Aw shit!, another case of spontaneous human combustion.

JDP
05-22-2013, 07:39 PM
The extract of the treatise in question does not violate any copyright rules as it was for the purposes of comparison (not only by you but others of your group that may be here) and because it was doubtful you would provide any information. It was left intact to establish the title of the treatise, the transcriber, and formatting so no further accusations would be made. The transcriber’s name was redacted so to protect his identity. The entire transcription is 37 pages and what was povided was a quote not the entire transcript.

I understand the bracketed notations and this was a problem our group addressed by the creation of a font set which I created. Marginal Note: It is very important to frequently use the word “I” and “Me” to convince yourself of your importance to the world.

The only individual that I know of that was common to both your group and our group was the transcriber. It does appear that there were two different microfilms containing the exact same treatise, the microfilm that you purchased and the microfilm purchased by MTPR and was sent to the transcriber. It does look like the problem was the transcriber found himself in another one of those “conflict of interest scenarios” trying to impose the rules of your group onto our group. We had no knowledge that any other group was transcribing the exact same treatise at the same time, hence the confusion. The problem would have not occurred if the transcriber would have simply excused himself from transcribing the treatise for one of the groups when he had knowledge of another copy being transcribed.

The scan of the first page of the treatise I received from the transcriber on was on
22 August 2003. No title appears on the scan so this appears to be an addition by the transcriber.

In the email message (salamander_manor @yahoo) of 09 October 2003 the transcriber
stated: “What’s really amazing is the date! This could be one of the earliest original English (untranslated) alchemical documents dealing with the stone, written by someone who was familiar with Lully and Isaac Hollandus!” He then went on to provide a rough transcription of the first two pages.

The transcriber does express surprise and excitement in his message implying this is the first time he is seeing this document and never gives nor ever gave any indication of another copy or transcription in progress.

It seems this whole problem was caused by the transcriber who found himself holding a candle that was lit on both ends and poof…Aw shit!, another case of spontaneous human combustion.

Thanks for these explanations, they certainly clarify many of the strange "coincidences". As far as I can remember, the transcriber never made it clear to us that he was simultaneously working on another manuscript copy besides the one I provided him with.

z0 K
05-23-2013, 02:26 PM
Thanks for these explanations, they certainly clarify many of the strange "coincidences". As far as I can remember, the transcriber never made it clear to us that he was simultaneously working on another manuscript copy besides the one I provided him with.
Well, now that we have that cleared up all we need is for the duplicitous “transcriber” to come forward and own up to his claims, if any. Then perhaps we can get on with the alchemical discussion on this ancient and revealing treatise despite JDP’s pessimism about its usefulness in pursuit of the Grand Arcanum.

So, if there is a protestant “transcriber,” let him come forward and explain the ownership “rights” he claims. If not, then let us get on with the discussion.