PDA

View Full Version : The Vessels of Hermes an Alchemical Album



Awani
05-07-2015, 02:30 PM
The Vessels of Hermes (http://publicdomainreview.org/collections/the-vessels-of-hermes-an-alchemical-album-ca-1700/)

:cool:

Schmuldvich
10-17-2016, 12:20 AM
Neat book!

Much can be inferred through these images.


The whole Manly Palmer Hall Collection (https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Hall%2C+Manly+P.+%28 Manly+Palmer%29%2C+1901-1990%22) is splendid.

JDP
10-17-2016, 07:08 AM
Neat book!

Much can be inferred through these images.


The whole Manly Palmer Hall Collection (https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Hall%2C+Manly+P.+%28 Manly+Palmer%29%2C+1901-1990%22) is splendid.

Notice the Bacstrom papers. Though Bacstrom was not an "adept" (he was not able to prepare the Stone despite his efforts; though he implies that he succeeded in some "particular" processes to make silver yield some gold), he was widely read on the subject and translated a bunch of texts. Guess what? Based on his wide readings, he was convinced the Stone was made with 3 basic substances (which in reality two of them were the product of reactions involving 5 separate raw substances, while another one was just a metal and only required purification.) Not put together by nature on her own, but gathered by the alchemist and made to react in the appropriate proportions and the right manner. Bacstrom's mistake was not this general conclusion, but the identity of these substances. Unfortunately, he was too influenced by the several antimonial chymical "schools" of the 17th century and wasted too much time experimenting with "Martial regulus" of antimony (one of the substances he thought entered the composition of the Stone.)

Schmuldvich
10-18-2016, 06:46 AM
Notice the Bacstrom papers. Guess what?

Based on his wide readings, he was convinced the Stone was made with 3 basic substances (which in reality two of them were the product of reactions involving 5 separate raw substances, while another one was just a metal and only required purification.)

This statement shows a lack of understanding and is also completely unfounded.

Have you read Sigismond Bacstrom's works? Do you recall the part where he said "This is the subject of the Stone or Medicine of the Philosophers. The more you take this in its simple, universal, unspecified or unmarried state, the easier, simpler and greater is your work"? What about the part where Bacstrom said "The subject contains fire, air, water and earth, and requires no addition of any foreign matter, except when introduced into the metallic department"?






What was your favorite image from the album (https://archive.org/details/manlypalmerhabox14hall)Andro posted of "The Vessels of Hermes"?

I particularly like this image



http://i.imgur.com/xM0ecCb.jpg


Notice the order of operations. I can appreciate this order.

http://i.imgur.com/Z9VGOD3.jpg


SOLUTION - PUTREFACTION - SUBLIMATION - DIVISION - CONJUNCTION

JDP
10-18-2016, 09:24 AM
This statement shows a lack of understanding and is also completely unfounded.

Have you read Sigismond Bacstrom's works? Do you recall the part where he said "This is the subject of the Stone or Medicine of the Philosophers. The more you take this in its simple, universal, unspecified or unmarried state, the easier, simpler and greater is your work"? What about the part where Bacstrom said "The subject contains fire, air, water and earth, and requires no addition of any foreign matter, except when introduced into the metallic department"?

That's because Bacstrom is here actually translating/transcribing some obscure and vague "Rosicrucian Aphorisms". If you read his original works, like his "Essay on Alchemy" (a.k.a. "Bacstrom's Alchemical Anthology"), you will see what his actual conclusions are regarding the issue of how many substances compose the Stone, based on his extensive reading (in this "Essay" alone he cites a load of alchemical and chymical texts; this guy had obviously read a ton of alchemical and chymical works, as he was fluent in Latin, German, English and French.) Example:

http://www.labirintoermetico.com/01Alchimia/Bacstrom_Alchemical_Anthology.pdf

"Part I. The first principle, the ground work and foundation of the whole art is Gold --- common pure gold, without any
ambiguity or double meaning. This is “Our Sulphur”.

Part II. The second is Mercury, not common quicksilver, however, but that substance to which the Philosophers have
given the name of “Our Mercury”, “Our Diana”, “Our Moon”, “Our Luna”, “Unripe Gold”, and many other names.

Part III. The third is what they call their “Secret Fire”, “Our Mercurial Water”, “Dissolving Water”, “Fire against
Nature”, “Spirit of Life”, “The Moon”, “The Priest”, etc.

The first being well purified, and the second properly prepared, they are then joined together, and the compound
which is called Rebis is then reduced to powder and mixed with the third. Thus are all the three principles united in
proper proportion."

In other words, exactly what I explained in the previous post. Bacstrom's problem, however, is that he incorrectly identified the substances involved in making the Stone, or at least some of them, that's why in the end he did not succeed in this endeavor. I blame the nefarious influence of many chymical writers (specially Starkey/Philalethes) of the 17th and 18th century who were obsessed with antimony and its regulus and were convinced that this was one of the matters that composed the Stone. They evidently left an imprint on Bacstrom's mind.


What was your favorite image from the album (https://archive.org/details/manlypalmerhabox14hall)Andro posted of "The Vessels of Hermes"?

I particularly like this image



http://i.imgur.com/xM0ecCb.jpg


Notice the order of operations. I can appreciate this order.

http://i.imgur.com/Z9VGOD3.jpg


SOLUTION - PUTREFACTION - SUBLIMATION - DIVISION - CONJUNCTION

All of them are interesting, but exceedingly obscure and vague, like most pictorial treatments of the subject. They leave lots of room for interpretation.

Andro
10-18-2016, 10:25 AM
I blame the nefarious influence of many chymical writers (specially Starkey/Philalethes)

Although one can never be 100% certain, there is indeed a good case for Philaletes and Starkey being the same person. Starkey never completed the Great Work and I also had a read through his lab notes a few years ago. Things haven't changed much since then, regarding people writing adept-like books/'treatises' about the 'Great Work' without having actually completed it (while claiming/implying otherwise). It's complex enough to read and interpret the writings of genuine adepts, and dealing with pretend-adepts makes it even more difficult. It may take years to learn to discern who's genuine and who's not. I myself am down to a relatively short list (excluding the countless 'particulars').