PDA

View Full Version : Be Careful with Fulcanelli!



pierre
05-28-2016, 12:30 PM
Hi people...
A quote from Fulcanelli says the Antomony is not the subject of the work. That whatever be the method by which it worked, never will be the philosophical subject.
We know that Fulcanelli worked the dry way. And He has reason! This is not the antimony such matter. Fulcanelli uses almost an entire chapter of his book to rule out such sulfur, because their material is Iron.
What prevents say about antimony, it is that while it is not the philosophical matter, without it in the dry way, it is impossible to bring it to an end.
Fulcanelli is a master in telling half truths. Under his apparent generosity, there is a thin network that he uses permanently to hide and mislead the reader.
But not all is so dark with Fulcanelli... right?
Regards to all of you.

Illen A. Cluf
05-28-2016, 01:56 PM
Hi people...
A quote from Fulcanelli says the Antomony is not the subject of the work. That whatever be the method by which it worked, never will be the philosophical subject.
We know that Fulcanelli worked the dry way. And He has reason! This is not the antimony such matter. Fulcanelli uses almost an entire chapter of his book to rule out such sulfur, because their material is Iron.
What prevents say about antimony, it is that while it is not the philosophical matter, without it in the dry way, it is impossible to bring it to an end.
Fulcanelli is a master in telling half truths. Under his apparent generosity, there is a thin network that he uses permanently to hide and mislead the reader.
But not all is so dark with Fulcanelli... right?
Regards to all of you.

Fulcanelli very clearly spends about three pages (pages 233-236) saying that Antimony/Stibnite does not form any part of the Stone:

"These considerations, based upon an exact correspondence of words have not escaped the old masters or modern philosophers, who, backing them up with their authority, have contributed to this spread of unfortunate error, that common antimony was the mysterious subject of the art. Unfortunate misunderstanding, invincible obstacle against which hundreds of seekers have run."

"We could certainly agree if we did not know that not the slightest molecule of stibnite is a part of the platyopthalmon of the Greeks (sublimed mercury sulfide), the Kohl of the Arabs and the Cohol or Cohel of the Turks."

"As for mineral stibnite, it possesses none of the required qualities, and whatever the manner in which we want to treat it, neither the secret solvent nor the philosophical mercury will ever be obtained from it."

pierre
05-28-2016, 02:56 PM
Fulcanelli very clearly spends about three pages (pages 233-236) saying that Antimony/Stibnite does not form any part of the Stone:

"These considerations, based upon an exact correspondence of words have not escaped the old masters or modern philosophers, who, backing them up with their authority, have contributed to this spread of unfortunate error, that common antimony was the mysterious subject of the art. Unfortunate misunderstanding, invincible obstacle against which hundreds of seekers have run."

"We could certainly agree if we did not know that not the slightest molecule of stibnite is a part of the platyopthalmon of the Greeks (sublimed mercury sulfide), the Kohl of the Arabs and the Cohol or Cohel of the Turks."


"As for mineral stibnite, it possesses none of the required qualities, and whatever the manner in which we want to treat it, neither the secret solvent nor the philosophical mercury will ever be obtained from it."


Hi, Illen.

1) Not From it... with it.

2) Yes, Stibnite does not form part of the stone... at the end.

Be careful with Fulcanelli!

Illen A. Cluf
05-28-2016, 03:34 PM
Hi, Illen.

1) Not From it... with it.

2) Yes, Stibnite does not form part of the stone... at the end.

Be careful with Fulcanelli!
Hello Pierre,

So.... you are suggesting that, although stibnite/antimony does not form any part of the Stone, you believe that it is indeed used to make either the secret solvent or the philosophical mercury?

Remember, that antimony has likely been used more in alchemical experiments than almost any other substance, and that nobody seems to have succeeded beyond making the regulus.

Andro
05-28-2016, 04:08 PM
{...] their material is Iron. What prevents say about antimony, it is that while it is not the philosophical matter, without it in the dry way, it is impossible to bring it to an end.

Hi,

Four years ago you made it very strongly clear that for you, the 'real secret of the art' is dissolving metallic Gold in mineral Mercury.


No more games. I got tired of so many lies and deceptions.
I will tell you openly what has been hidden all the time and was discovered long ago: the real work.
I know no one will share my opinion and you all will reject it because thousands of teachers say that such matter is not correct, (the teachers lie to hide the art) and a thousand other teachers say: everything is expensive does not fit into our work. (But they hide it by saying it is very valuable for those who know ...)
But all art is, briefly stated, in dissolving the metallic gold in mineral Mercury, my friends.
Believe, check it or live duped forever...

Also...


antimony, [...] while it is not the philosophical matter

In my view, no such or such 'matter' is THE "philosophical matter', since all available 'matter' is code/illusion. But maybe I'm just picking on semantics :)

But since you mention Iron (Mars), it has a unique 'rebellious' code/signature and is the least likely to take no for an answer :)

On a side note, in one interesting experiment I've done, pure Antimony, without adding anything to it, gave a ferromagnetic substance (possibly an Iron Oxide, which it is not likely to have contained before) in the form of a powder that I could scratch from the surface.

pierre
05-28-2016, 04:26 PM
Hi,

Four years ago you made it very strongly clear that for you, the 'real secret of the art' is dissolving metallic Gold in mineral Mercury.



Also...



In my view, no such or such 'matter' is THE "philosophical matter', since all available 'matter' is code/illusion. But maybe I'm just picking on semantics :)

But since you mention Iron (Mars), it has a unique 'rebellious' code/signature and is the least likely to take no for an answer :)

On a side note, in one interesting experiment I've done, pure Antimony, without adding anything to it, gave a ferromagnetic substance (possibly an Iron Oxide, which it is not likely to have contained before) in the form of a powder that I could scratch from the surface.

Hi, Andro... with time, i realize that many roads leads to rome... isn't it? ;)
Regards...

pierre
05-28-2016, 04:26 PM
Hello Pierre,

So.... you are suggesting that, although stibnite/antimony does not form any part of the Stone, you believe that it is indeed used to make either the secret solvent or the philosophical mercury?

Remember, that antimony has likely been used more in alchemical experiments than almost any other substance, and that nobody seems to have succeeded beyond making the regulus.


1) Well... in fact, from caput mortuum of regulus we can get very interesting sustances... One of them is very important to clean and purify that little king... But few people likes wet feets in the waters, isn' t it? even Eugene Canseliet... Big mistake!
The magician kings were 3 people... right? And one of them was blonde.

2) Maybe they have not used the correct substance, at all... Could it be?

Illen A. Cluf
05-28-2016, 04:46 PM
1) Well... in fact, from caput mortuum of regulus we can get very interesting sustances... One of them is very important to clean and purify that little king...


We do know that antimony cleanses common gold of its impurities.

Dwellings
05-28-2016, 04:55 PM
@pierre

Vulgar antimony or stibnite may or may not be used depending upon your need for certain fishes.
As for Fulcanelli he is one of the most charitable author and within 1 to 2 para into the explanation of a motif you can get the idea for what path it pertains to. I have not find him fooling readers or keeping it extremely tight like many adepts do

@Andro

This you can make the stone from anything BS has and will torment many seekers and that included me too. It would be nice if we stopped writing such things or at least added a caution when we are writing such statements at least for the future readers

pierre
05-28-2016, 04:59 PM
We do know that antimony cleanses common gold of its impurities.

Yes... of course all you know that, Illen... but i do not mean that. I'am talking here about the sublimation of the regulus.

pierre
05-28-2016, 05:04 PM
Hi, Dwellings... yes, it may be used. We must start from somewhere...

pierre
05-28-2016, 05:12 PM
Andro... Your code/illusion idea reminds me this image... I dont know why!!!

http://www.islandbreath.org/2011Year/12/111223gnostic.jpg

Andro
05-28-2016, 05:18 PM
@Andro

This you can make the stone from anything BS has and will torment many seekers and that included me too. It would be nice if we stopped writing such things or at least added a caution when we are writing such statements at least for the future readers

I never said it can be made from anything, although I will add that it is theoretically possible, but not worth the bother. What I said, was that all available matter is code/illusion.

Read carefully before resorting to terms such as BS.

Actually, as per my perception, the matter of the stone is One Thing, and this One Thing (the only 'real' matter) is not mineral, metallic, vegetable, animal, etc... But it is trapped/imprisoned in all 'fake matter' or 'code' in this False Creation, which ironically needs the one real matter to propel/maintain itself.

Such and such 'matters' can be used in their various 'carrier' and/or 'magnetic' capacities.

As for 'caution', everything should be read with caution. And with attention, too.

Andro
05-28-2016, 05:20 PM
Andro... Your code/illusion idea reminds me this image... I don't know why!!!

http://www.islandbreath.org/2011Year/12/111223gnostic.jpg

I know why :)

Thanks! The flat plane inside the 'dome' is Code-Land. The Alchemist/Occultist/Astrologer is the one who manages to take a peak beyond the Code.

Illen A. Cluf
05-28-2016, 05:38 PM
Yes... of course all you know that, Illen... but i do not mean that. I'am talking here about the sublimation of the regulus.

You mean antimony oxides produced with sal ammoniac?

pierre
05-28-2016, 05:54 PM
You mean antimony oxides produced with sal ammoniac?

I mean the sulphur/azufre of antimony.

Illen A. Cluf
05-28-2016, 06:07 PM
I mean the sulphur/azufre of antimony.

Oh! You mean the green slag or scoria left over when the regulus is produced.

pierre
05-28-2016, 06:17 PM
Oh! You mean the green slag or scoria left over when the regulus is produced.

Exactly!

Illen A. Cluf
05-28-2016, 11:56 PM
Exactly!

Now we're talking!

True Initiate
05-29-2016, 07:59 AM
It is always amusing to learn about other people interpretations about our matter. Here is another amusing one:

http://cista.net/Oak/

http://cista.net/praxis/

Illen A. Cluf
05-29-2016, 03:42 PM
It is always amusing to learn about other people interpretations about our matter. Here is another amusing one:

http://cista.net/Oak/

http://cista.net/praxis/
Because of the huge realm of symbolism used, it's incredibly easy to make a very convincing argument about just about any substance as the foundation for the Stone. The ancients thought they were being clever with their vague symbolic clues and denials of substances, but instead they created more confusion and discouragement than ever.

Dwellings
05-29-2016, 05:09 PM
@Andro

I am sorry for what I have written, I can't take my words back but at least I can offer a sorry from the bottom of my heart.

I was reminded of your one matter one vessel one furnace thread where you were putrefying various matters before Aleiliius asked you about it. It and the words of a member whose name I don't remember said some matters are easier to work with while others are hard. All of this came together when I was reading your post and I lost myself there. I am extremely sorry what has transpired since your post.

As for the obscurity part which you edited out, I will make a conscious effort to write in a more easy manner, thanks for pointing that out.

I hope it is and it will remain Hale and hearty between us

Andro
05-29-2016, 05:33 PM
Thank you. All is well :)


@Andro

I am sorry for what I have written, I can't take my words back but at least I can offer a sorry from the bottom of my heart.

I was reminded of your one matter one vessel one furnace thread where you were putrefying various matters before Aleiliius asked you about it. It and the words of a member whose name I don't remember said some matters are easier to work with while others are hard. All of this came together when I was reading your post and I lost myself there. I am extremely sorry what has transpired since your post.

As for the obscurity part which you edited out, I will make a conscious effort to write in a more easy manner, thanks for pointing that out.

I hope it is and it will remain Hale and hearty between us.

True Initiate
06-04-2016, 08:20 PM
Fulcanelli's writings do not match the praxis of the dry way as practised by Canseliet and others. This is the best way i can put it. He talks a lot about Alkahest but in the praxis everybody make use of Nitre+Tartar!

Where is the logic?

pierre
06-04-2016, 08:41 PM
Fulcanelli's writings do not match the praxis of the dry way as practised by Canseliet and others. This is the best way i can put it. He talks a lot about Alkahest but in the praxis everybody make use of Nitre+Tartar!

Where is the logic?

I agree. There are differences between the Fulcanelli path and canseliet.

True Initiate
06-04-2016, 09:42 PM
I received a good chunk of the book on the Dry way and i am looking at it and wonder because it doesn't make sense to me that this is Fulcanelli Path. Here are few snippets to show you what i mean:

http://s33.postimg.org/5nx45let7/c_Dry_Path_update_April_2014.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/5nx45let7/)

http://s33.postimg.org/gdkg8pmbf/b_Dry_Path_update_April_2014.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/gdkg8pmbf/)

http://s33.postimg.org/trsh7mmnv/d_Dry_Path_update_April_2014.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/trsh7mmnv/)

http://s33.postimg.org/4j7ndyhq3/e_Dry_Path_update_April_2014.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/4j7ndyhq3/)

http://s33.postimg.org/uq8u9wzzv/f_Dry_Path_update_April_2014.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/uq8u9wzzv/)

Michael Sternbach
06-05-2016, 01:03 AM
In his commentary on the first plate of the Mute Book, Canseliet says that stibnite is indeed being used, but that there is an initial operation that turns common antimony into philosophical antimony, which is indeed quite distinct from the former, and it's this substance which Fulcanelli refers to. :cool:

As to a question that has been raised earlier on this thread, my still rather patchy understanding of certain alchemists suggests that some reknowned ones were in fact solving gold in mercury at an early stage of the opus magnum (Arnald, Lull, Geber).

Possibly this is a typical approach of the wet way, whereas using antimony seems to be a feature of the dry way.

pierre
06-05-2016, 01:37 AM
I received a good chunk of the book on the Dry way and i am looking at it and wonder because it doesn't make sense to me that this is Fulcanelli Path. Here are few snippets to show you what i mean:

http://s33.postimg.org/5nx45let7/c_Dry_Path_update_April_2014.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/5nx45let7/)

http://s33.postimg.org/gdkg8pmbf/b_Dry_Path_update_April_2014.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/gdkg8pmbf/)

http://s33.postimg.org/trsh7mmnv/d_Dry_Path_update_April_2014.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/trsh7mmnv/)

http://s33.postimg.org/4j7ndyhq3/e_Dry_Path_update_April_2014.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/4j7ndyhq3/)

http://s33.postimg.org/uq8u9wzzv/f_Dry_Path_update_April_2014.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/uq8u9wzzv/)


Hi, True Initiate...

I quickly read the excerpts from the book, and I agree with the author that it is not necessary to purify the regulus to clear star, unless you want to follow the wet path.
And I think Canseliet, do not use the second marriage of the virgin mother with young lover. That operation is absent in the way of E.C , unlike Fulcanelli.
I will read these pages with more time. I find it very interesting. Who is the author?

True Initiate
06-05-2016, 02:49 AM
The Authors are:
http://s33.postimg.org/6qfkuqenv/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/6qfkuqenv/)

This book was planned to be published by Salamander and Sons 2 years ago and it was already sold out but the english version is now cancelled. The people who did pre-order it will not get any refunds!

The book will be released in spanish only:
http://s33.postimg.org/z24e6xlmj/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/z24e6xlmj/)http://s33.postimg.org/4saudb6wr/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/4saudb6wr/)

I would love to own it but i am not sure will it ever come out?

Michael Sternbach
06-05-2016, 02:53 AM
Funnily enough, Canseliet has little good to say about the wet path (almost calling it non-functional at times), while some of the ancient authors maintain that its result are much more worthwhile than what can be gained by following the dry path.

Personally, I feel that both approaches should be perfectly viable. Surely, there are reknown representatives of both.

Comments on this, anybody?

True Initiate
06-05-2016, 02:58 AM
Not a single Alchemist knew the whole truth!

Dwellings
06-05-2016, 04:51 AM
Does Canseliet anywhere mentions of the dangers that he faced in the first purifications, if not then he was not using the right ingredients, did they attain the star of St.James. The photo in the previous page atleast to me does not look like a perfect star.

Quotes by Green Lion:

Which are then the successes which you had ? The star martial antimony regulus, you said that you had obtained it. But the green vitriol which one does have to see after three or four purifications ? Then, for the eagles of the second work, did you use caput mortuum, the antimony regulus and green vitriol in the form stratum/super stratum ? If so, did you obtained the remora in the shape of a cube (isotope of iron) ? And from there, which secret fire did you use with this remora for the coction ? The salt extracted from the caput mortuum or a niter enriched by the dew ? Did you observed a phosphorescence of the matter at one time of work ? Have you considered a sphere of light in the balloon at the time of the final coction ? Did you heard the range of the seven notes ? I think that when you speak about signs assure you that you are on the good way, you speak about this kind of observations. 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 ?
At one time of work as suggested by Pierre Dujols, there is this explosive and violent demonstration well. Then which has reason, Canseliet and Patrick Rivière or Dujols ? Or nobody perhaps…


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.


Sources:
http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?157-Dialogue-with-a-Lion-guest-starring-Fulcanelli
http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?366-Fulcanelli-Path

JDP
06-05-2016, 08:26 AM
Funnily enough, Canseliet has little good to say about the wet path (almost calling it non-functional at times), while some of the ancient authors maintain that its result are much more worthwhile than what can be gained by following the dry path.

Personally, I feel that both approaches should be perfectly viable. Surely, there are reknown representatives of both.

Comments on this, anybody?

I have never seen any pre-17th century author speaking of a "dry" method to make the Stone. It is true that even as far back as Arabic alchemical sources we sometimes find mention of shorter methods of making the Stone, but none of these older writers make a claim that these shorter methods are exclusively carried out in crucibles and strong fires. The shorter methods mentioned by the older writers still depend on special manipulations with the secret solvent or "water", which is invariably described as a liquid substance, the product of distillations/cohobations/digestions. It seems, then, that this whole "dry" method claim is a 17th century invention, at least until someone can prove otherwise by showing writers from before the 17th century making such a claim.

Michael Sternbach
06-05-2016, 09:29 AM
Thank you for your interesting reply, JDP. I am a practitioner of spagyrics with some knowledge of alchemical theory, but no laboratory experience so far. I have spent quite some time exploring both secondary and primary sources in search of a coherent view of the Great Work according to different authors. I appreciate being able to talk with you and others on this forum who are knowledgeable in that regard.


I have never seen any pre-17th century author speaking of a "dry" method to make the Stone. It is true that even as far back as Arabic alchemical sources we sometimes find mention of shorter methods of making the Stone, but none of these older writers make a claim that these shorter methods are exclusively carried out in crucibles and strong fires.

Do you happen to have any references for this?


The shorter methods mentioned by the older writers still depend on special manipulations with the secret solvent or "water", which is invariably described as a liquid substance, the product of distillations/cohobations/digestions. It seems, then, that this whole "dry" method claim is a 17th century invention, at least until someone can prove otherwise by showing writers from before the 17th century making such a claim.

If I'm not mistaken, this path was originally ascribed to Flamel and, amongst others, followed by Philalethes, Starckey, and Newton.

Valentine also works with Antimony, of course, but following a "wet path"?

pierre
06-05-2016, 12:53 PM
The Authors are:
http://s33.postimg.org/6qfkuqenv/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/6qfkuqenv/)

This book was planned to be published by Salamander and Sons 2 years ago and it was already sold out but the english version is now cancelled. The people who did pre-order it will not get any refunds!

The book will be released in spanish only:
http://s33.postimg.org/z24e6xlmj/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/z24e6xlmj/)http://s33.postimg.org/4saudb6wr/image.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/4saudb6wr/)

I would love to own it but i am not sure will it ever come out?

Oh, yes... I was in contact with "Mr. Baulo" few years ago.
This work is not come to a good end.
I guess that in Rubellus forum, few days ago someone offered the book again. Just for pre-orders ... but I dont remember well...

pierre
06-05-2016, 02:23 PM
Not a single Alchemist knew the whole truth!

And if so many difrentes and apparently independent ways, are only part of a larger path?
That different teachers have talked about the same route but in an incompletely piecemeal?
If there is an alchemical way that meets the operations of many others, at different times... ? it uses vitriol , acetates , mercury , gold , nitro , antimony, iron, ...
I don't know... I'm just thinking "out of the box", or not! ;)

pierre
06-05-2016, 02:36 PM
In his commentary on the first plate of the Mute Book, Canseliet says that stibnite is indeed being used, but that there is an initial operation that turns common antimony into philosophical antimony, which is indeed quite distinct from the former, and it's this substance which Fulcanelli refers to. :cool:

As to a question that has been raised earlier on this thread, my still rather patchy understanding of certain alchemists suggests that some reknowned ones were in fact solving gold in mercury at an early stage of the opus magnum (Arnald, Lull, Geber).

Possibly this is a typical approach of the wet way, whereas using antimony seems to be a feature of the dry way.

Hello, Michael...
Well, remember that Flamel comes back from his journey by the sea... although he goes by land.
Both paths with antimony, dry and humid, starts the same way, until a certain point.

Dwellings
06-05-2016, 03:22 PM
Hello, Michael...
Well, remember that Flamel comes back from his journey by the sea... although he goes by land.
Both paths with antimony, dry and humid, starts the same way, until a certain point.

But in the dry way would the Green Lion will be able to stand the test of fire with high temps, it is not yet ready and has not become sulphur, so I consider it to be a practical impossibility(I am open to an interpretation that proves otherwise). as for Flamel covering the sea path may mean that using only mercury and not using common gold for obtaining the sulphur.

Kiorionis
06-05-2016, 03:40 PM
Why should the dry path maintain high temperatures throughout the whole process?


But in the dry way would the Green Lion will be able to stand the test of fire with high temps, it is not yet ready and has not become sulphur, so I consider it to be a practical impossibility

pierre
06-05-2016, 03:41 PM
But in the dry way would the Green Lion will be able to stand the test of fire with high temps, it is not yet ready and has not become sulphur, so I consider it to be a practical impossibility(I am open to an interpretation that proves otherwise). as for Flamel covering the sea path may mean that using only mercury and not using common gold for obtaining the sulphur.

Well... I like your second point. It make sense to me. But you're suggesting that flamel choose the sulphur of mercury instead gold?

Dwellings
06-05-2016, 04:03 PM
Why should the dry path maintain high temperatures throughout the whole process?

I have associated dry path with high temps. So wherever I read dry path, I think of huge temps.


Well... I like your second point. It make sense to me. But you're suggesting that flamel choose the sulphur of mercury instead gold?

If you know how Sulphur and Argent Vive are engendered in the bowels of earth, at some point after sublimations (more than the number specified by the adepts probably) Argent vive must itself be capable of becoming sulphur by adopting the right regimen of Fire.
Based on this I made the statement as above.

True Initiate
06-05-2016, 04:06 PM
And if so many difrentes and apparently independent ways, are only part of a larger path?
That different teachers have talked about the same route but in an incompletely piecemeal?

I think that Alchemy got grossly distorted during Renaissance period and onward's. When you read books like the Golden Chain of Homer it becomes very evident that people at that time didn't had any concept of nature forces. The famous example is when they coagulate the Spiritus Mundi in the form of Nitre which implies that their SM was Nitrogen.

Certain magicians like Eliphas Levy believed the Spiritus Mundi to be magnetic field of the Earth which is a force and not a chemical like Nitrogen gas.

If we extend this on the practice of the Dry Path we have a detonation phase which is usually performed with Nitre+Tartar and this operation should mimic thunder and lightning but Nitre+Tartar do not give us electric discharges only explosion kinda like gun powder. The salt that could give us true thunder and lightning in our crucible in form of electric discharges is Rochelle salt which is actually made from Tartar. If we now follow the rabbit down the hole we will notice that Iron will become magnetic through Rochelle salt discharges and truly animate our crystal mercury which serves as a solid fluid condenser as Franz Bardon called it and so on...

Michael Sternbach
06-05-2016, 04:25 PM
And if so many difrentes and apparently independent ways, are only part of a larger path?
That different teachers have talked about the same route but in an incompletely piecemeal?
If there is an alchemical way that meets the operations of many others, at different times... ? it uses vitriol , acetates , mercury , gold , nitro , antimony, iron, ...
I don't know... I'm just thinking "out of the box", or not! ;)

Hi Pierre,

This rings true, somehow. I like your thinking, anyways.

Michael Sternbach
06-05-2016, 04:28 PM
Hello, Michael...
Well, remember that Flamel comes back from his journey by the sea... although he goes by land.
Both paths with antimony, dry and humid, starts the same way, until a certain point.

Am I right that Valentine's way with antimony is a wet one?

What about Arthephius?

Anybody?

Michael Sternbach
06-05-2016, 04:35 PM
But in the dry way would the Green Lion will be able to stand the test of fire with high temps, it is not yet ready and has not become sulphur, so I consider it to be a practical impossibility(I am open to an interpretation that proves otherwise). as for Flamel covering the sea path may mean that using only mercury and not using common gold for obtaining the sulphur.

This would be a version of the "mercury only" approach ascribed to Geber (even though I find him ambiguous in this regard).

Dwellings
06-05-2016, 04:39 PM
This would be a version of the "mercury only" approach ascribed to Geber (even though I find him ambiguous in this regard).

It feels like we are together going to open a great secret.

Can you quote the passage where he describes it, please?

Michael Sternbach
06-05-2016, 05:05 PM
I think that Alchemy got grossly distorted during Renaissance period and onward's. When you read books like the Golden Chain of Homer it becomes very evident that people at that time didn't had any concept of nature forces. The famous example is when they coagulate the Spiritus Mundi in the form of Nitre which implies that their SM was Nitrogen.

Are you sure that Kirchweger meant common nitre? Maybe "nitre" refers to both the SM and a substance that is particularly saturated with it? Perhaps common nitre is in fact one of the substances of the Great Work, but it needs to be prepared and made "philosophical"? I'm just thinking aloud...

Surely, some believe that already Sendivogius was referring to nitre as a chemical substance. But then, besides potassium nitrate, this could also mean sodium nitrate, or ammonium nitrate, or, quite possibly, all of these.


Certain magicians like Eliphas Levy believed the Spiritus Mundi to be magnetic field of the Earth which is a force and not a chemical like Nitrogen gas.

I do think that nitrogen plays a special role in alchemy though, especially since some of it is produced by thunderstorms, and it's so essential for life as a constituent of natural plant fertilizers.


If we extend this on the practice of the Dry Path we have a detonation phase which is usually performed with Nitre+Tartar and this operation should mimic thunder and lightning but Nitre+Tartar do not give us electric discharges only explosion kinda like gun powder. The salt that could give us true thunder and lightning in our crucible in form of electric discharges is Rochelle salt which is actually made from Tartar. If we now follow the rabbit down the hole we will notice that Iron will become magnetic through Rochelle salt discharges and truly animate our crystal mercury which serves as a solid fluid condenser as Franz Bardon called it and so on...

This brings to mind that the Mute Book was not only published in Rochelle originally, we actually see that town on the plates which show the gathering of the SM. A hint at Rochelle salt perhaps?

But just what do you mean by the "crystal mercury" that needs to be activated? Mineral mercury, that is, ordinary quicksilver?

pierre
06-05-2016, 05:13 PM
Am I right that Valentine's way with antimony is a wet one?

What about Arthephius?

Anybody?

Amalgama path, some people call it?

True Initiate
06-05-2016, 05:21 PM
By crystal mercury i mean crystalized antimony regulus.

In Fulcanelli Dwellings he writes:

The objection will be raised that fire, considered a mere catalyst, is not an integral part of the substance and therefore cannot be indicated in the expression of chemical formulas. The argument is more fallacious than true, since the experiment itself belies it. Here is a piece of sugar in whose equation there is no equivalent for fire; if we break it in darkness, we will see a blue spark shoot out from it. Where does it come from? Where would it be contained if not in the crystalline structure of the saccharose?

From Wikipedia:

This is property is called Piezoelectricity /piˌeɪzoʊˌilɛkˈtrɪsɪti/ is the electric charge that accumulates in certain solid materials (such as crystals, certain ceramics, and biological matter such as bone, DNA and various proteins) in response to applied mechanical stress. The word piezoelectricity means electricity resulting from pressure. It is derived from the Greek piezo (πιέζω) or piezein (πιέζειν), which means to squeeze or press, and electric or electron (ήλεκτρον), which means amber, an ancient source of electric charge. Piezoelectricity was discovered in 1880 by French physicists Jacques and Pierre Curie.

Crystal sugar, Quartz and Rochelle Salt are all piezoelectric! If you throw crystals of any of these in the crucible they will explode releasing strong electric discharge and you have a true thunder and lightning instead of alegorical musings.

How it is that Alchemists always state that they follow Nature in her Path but they never make use of forces of Nature in their praxis. This is quite a paradox!

Michael Sternbach
06-05-2016, 05:47 PM
It feels like we are together going to open a great secret.

Can you quote the passage where he describes it, please?


This is in chapter 60 of the Summa Perfectionis, "Discourse on the Principles Composing Venus According to Nature":


From this it is manifest that bodies containing more quicksilver are of greater perfection, and those which contain less are of less perfection. Let you therefore be eager in all your works of quicksilver to predominate in the commixture, and if you can perfect with quicksilver alone, you will be an investigator of the most precious perfection, and of that which overcomes the work of nature.

You find this on p. 731 of William R. Newman's edition. Newman demonstrates that Geber's "mercury alone" method was taken over into Arnald's Rosarium and henceforth found prominent adherents like John Dastin, Petrus Bonus, Nicolaus de Comitibus, and Bernardus Trevirensis.

Dwellings
06-05-2016, 06:25 PM
By crystal mercury i mean crystalized antimony regulus.

In Fulcanelli Dwellings he writes:

The objection will be raised that fire, considered a mere catalyst, is not an integral part of the substance and therefore cannot be indicated in the expression of chemical formulas. The argument is more fallacious than true, since the experiment itself belies it. Here is a piece of sugar in whose equation there is no equivalent for fire; if we break it in darkness, we will see a blue spark shoot out from it. Where does it come from? Where would it be contained if not in the crystalline structure of the saccharose?

From Wikipedia:

This is property is called Piezoelectricity /piˌeɪzoʊˌilɛkˈtrɪsɪti/ is the electric charge that accumulates in certain solid materials (such as crystals, certain ceramics, and biological matter such as bone, DNA and various proteins) in response to applied mechanical stress. The word piezoelectricity means electricity resulting from pressure. It is derived from the Greek piezo (πιέζω) or piezein (πιέζειν), which means to squeeze or press, and electric or electron (ήλεκτρον), which means amber, an ancient source of electric charge. Piezoelectricity was discovered in 1880 by French physicists Jacques and Pierre Curie.

Crystal sugar, Quartz and Rochelle Salt are all piezoelectric! If you throw crystals of any of these in the crucible they will explode releasing strong electric discharge and you have a true thunder and lightning instead of alegorical musings.

How it is that Alchemists always state that they follow Nature in her Path but they never make use of forces of Nature in their praxis. This is quite a paradox!

There is no paradox there, understand the agent hiding behind piezoelectricity.


This is in chapter 60 of the Summa Perfectionis, "Discourse on the Principles Composing Venus According to Nature":

You find this on p. 731 of William R. Newman's edition. Newman demonstrates that Geber's "mercury alone" method was taken over into Arnald's Rosarium and henceforth found prominent adherents like John Dastin, Petrus Bonus, Nicolaus de Comitibus, and Bernardus Trevirensis.

Thanks for the quote but it would be nice if you can quote the entire para with the preceding and suceeding para for greater context. I hope you do not have to type it all out, if that is the case then you do not bother doing so.

True Initiate
06-05-2016, 06:54 PM
There is no paradox there, understand the agent hiding behind piezoelectricity.

If you use Rochelle salt yes but everybody makes use of Nitre+Tartar. There is no piezoelectricity in Nitre+Tartar no matter how canonical are they prepared. This is my whole point!

pierre
06-05-2016, 07:17 PM
If you use Rochelle salt yes but everybody makes use of Nitre+Tartar. There is no piezoelectricity in Nitre+Tartar no matter how canonical are they prepared. This is my whole point!

Good point. Some authors mention an explotion and others not... perhaps ignorance or safeguarding of secrecy.

Dwellings
06-05-2016, 07:21 PM
If you use Rochelle salt yes but everybody makes use of Nitre+Tartar. There is no piezoelectricity in Nitre+Tartar no matter how canonical are they prepared. This is my whole point!

Nitre+Tartar or piezoelectricity is not what I was talking about.

When all said and done, everything happens due to one thing acting in infinite ways producing all these phenomena including the stone. You already have the pieces together; sort them, stop thinking about Nitre,piezoelectricity,forces or anything else, just think about this agent and you will able to solve the paradox on your own.

Also, niter itself is harmless but try mixing it with powdered charcoal and igniting the mix, it will be quite a spectacle, you will realize why I said so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ch9ikRqsJs , you must ask yourself where are you getting so much energy, it is not from coal itself since you must have seen coal burning.

True Initiate
06-05-2016, 07:41 PM
In my opinion the agent is force that's why it must be present.

Dwellings
06-05-2016, 07:50 PM
In my opinion the agent is force that's why it must be present.

A more appropriate answer is 'Field of Force'.

True Initiate
06-05-2016, 07:59 PM
I agree!

Andro
06-05-2016, 09:35 PM
This would be a version of the "mercury only" approach ascribed to Geber (even though I find him ambiguous in this regard).


It feels like we are together going to open a great secret.

What is the Secretum Artis, the secret of the Art? (https://www.labyrinthdesigners.org/faqs/what-is-the-secretun-artis-the-secret-of-the-art/)

True Initiate
06-06-2016, 12:06 AM
Nice website. I realy enjoyed this article:
https://www.labyrinthdesigners.org/alchemy-science-history/pierre-curie-point-and-the-alchemical-last-cooking/

Ghislain
06-06-2016, 05:40 AM
Nitre+Tartar or piezoelectricity is not what I was talking about.

Also, niter itself is harmless but try mixing it with powdered charcoal and igniting the mix, it will be quite a spectacle, you will realize why I said so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ch9ikRqsJs , you must ask yourself where are you getting so much energy, it is not from coal itself since you must have seen coal burning.

One substance supplies the combustible material and the other the oxygen for the combustion to take place. Is that not just common science?

Ghislain

Michael Sternbach
06-06-2016, 08:01 AM
Amalgama path, some people call it?

Not sure what you mean by that.

Michael Sternbach
06-06-2016, 08:09 AM
By crystal mercury i mean crystalized antimony regulus.

In Fulcanelli Dwellings he writes:

The objection will be raised that fire, considered a mere catalyst, is not an integral part of the substance and therefore cannot be indicated in the expression of chemical formulas. The argument is more fallacious than true, since the experiment itself belies it. Here is a piece of sugar in whose equation there is no equivalent for fire; if we break it in darkness, we will see a blue spark shoot out from it. Where does it come from? Where would it be contained if not in the crystalline structure of the saccharose?

From Wikipedia:

This is property is called Piezoelectricity /piˌeɪzoʊˌilɛkˈtrɪsɪti/ is the electric charge that accumulates in certain solid materials (such as crystals, certain ceramics, and biological matter such as bone, DNA and various proteins) in response to applied mechanical stress. The word piezoelectricity means electricity resulting from pressure. It is derived from the Greek piezo (πιέζω) or piezein (πιέζειν), which means to squeeze or press, and electric or electron (ήλεκτρον), which means amber, an ancient source of electric charge. Piezoelectricity was discovered in 1880 by French physicists Jacques and Pierre Curie.

Crystal sugar, Quartz and Rochelle Salt are all piezoelectric! If you throw crystals of any of these in the crucible they will explode releasing strong electric discharge and you have a true thunder and lightning instead of alegorical musings.

How it is that Alchemists always state that they follow Nature in her Path but they never make use of forces of Nature in their praxis. This is quite a paradox!

Interesting. Piezoelectric materials have something to do with electromagnetic scalar waves, according to Tom Bearden.

Michael Sternbach
06-06-2016, 08:46 AM
Thanks for the quote but it would be nice if you can quote the entire para with the preceding and suceeding para for greater context. I hope you do not have to type it all out, if that is the case then you do not bother doing so.

Sorry, I would have to type it all out. I wasn't able to find a free download of the book.

Anyway, my quote is from a chapter on metal generation in nature and doesn't make any suggestions as to how the practitioner should apply those principles, as far as I can see.

Michael Sternbach
06-06-2016, 08:54 AM
What is the Secretum Artis, the secret of the Art? (https://www.labyrinthdesigners.org/faqs/what-is-the-secretun-artis-the-secret-of-the-art/)

Quoting what you linked:

"The fixation of the volatile mercurius. In the less hidden way alchemists do use gold, or another salt, which they call sulphur as it fixes the volatile mercurius. But, this is not a very effective way. The best is to try to fix the volatile in a way other than dissolution."

How would you fix the volatile by dissolution anyway? Sounds like an oxymoron to me...

The rest of the quote also seems quite unitelligible.

Dwellings
06-06-2016, 10:03 AM
What is the Secretum Artis, the secret of the Art? (https://www.labyrinthdesigners.org/faqs/what-is-the-secretun-artis-the-secret-of-the-art/)
This thread is about fixing mercury with a magnet and the manipulations henceforth, not about merury fixing itself, I do not think my comments and thoughts were regarding the latter.

The question is, having Green Lion & Common Mercury in hand can one make the stone? Common gold will be used only at the time of test of transmutation.
The answer must be yes but I have not figured it out as of now.


One substance supplies the combustible material and the other the oxygen for the combustion to take place. Is that not just common science?
You are right, but you are looking at it superficially, not looking at the core. When you look at the core, you will realize something is freeing itself and it is showing up in the form of flames.

As for common science , to be more precise vulgar science as practised in unis and colleges the earlier one gets out of the mess, the earlier one will be able to understand alchemy.

JDP
06-06-2016, 10:25 AM
Thank you for your interesting reply, JDP. I am a practitioner of spagyrics with some knowledge of alchemical theory, but no laboratory experience so far. I have spent quite some time exploring both secondary and primary sources in search of a coherent view of the Great Work according to different authors. I appreciate being able to talk with you and others on this forum who are knowledgeable in that regard.



Do you happen to have any references for this?

I have read quite a bit of Arabic works on alchemy (ex: some of the texts in the Jabirian corpus), and all the ones so far examined that do mention the alleged existence of "shorter" methods to make the Elixir/Stone do not make any such claim that they are to be carried out exclusively in crucibles and stronger fires. So far I have only found this claim that the "shorter" ways to make the Stone are "dry" methods in the literature of the 17th century and onward.


If I'm not mistaken, this path was originally ascribed to Flamel and, amongst others, followed by Philalethes, Starckey, and Newton.

Valentine also works with Antimony, of course, but following a "wet path"?

The ascription of "dry" methods to Flamel dates from relatively recent times.

Starkey/Philalethes (the evidence pointing at "them" being the same person is very strong and incriminating, as Newman and Principe have shown) and all those who attempted to test his claims worked with amalgams made with the so-called animated mercury. Their supposedly "dry" methods were quite different than the ones of those who claimed that the Stone can be made exclusively in crucibles and strong fires (for a famous example of this type of claim, see the statements of the anonymous brassfounder to Helvetius in his "Golden Calf".) Starkey/Philalethes' claim is in fact heavily reliant on numerous distillations, cohobations and digestions, so retorts, flasks and sand-baths were used a-plenty, not just crucibles and strong fires.

As for Valentine, he worked with many substances (antimony was only one of them) since he was interested in many other things besides the Stone (his texts abound in references to "particulars", which were processes that did not make the Stone but other types of "tinctures" or even "direct" transmutations that did not rely on the previous preparation of any transmuting "tincture".) And as far as I can remember, he never made the claim that you can prepare the Stone by some strange "dry" method that uses only crucibles and strong fires.

JDP
06-06-2016, 10:53 AM
Why should the dry path maintain high temperatures throughout the whole process?

Because it is supposedly carried out in clay crucibles, which are vessels designed to work at higher temperatures than glass. I have always found this claim of a "dry" method very hard to believe. The secret solvent, "vinegar", "water", "mercury", etc. of alchemy is invariably described as being a volatile liquid substance, and warnings about careful regulation of the fire during the "coctions" to make the Stone abound in the literature, lest it should completely evaporate before it has had time to exert its action on the "fixed" part and be "radically" joined with it (which union gives birth to the Stone.) So this claim that the Stone can be made by using crucibles and strong fires seems counter-intuitive for a science that so heavily depends on a certain peculiar volatile solvent. Unless some alchemists discovered how to make the following two things, I find it very difficult to believe in the so-called dry method:

1- A solid form of the secret solvent/water (this is very plausible, I have found such a reference as far back as the 10th century AD: Ibn Umail mentions such a "congealed" form of the "water" in his "Book of the Silvery Water and the Starry Earth"; but then again Ibn Umail makes no such claim that it is possible to prepare the Stone exclusively in crucibles and strong fires in a few days either; once again, so far I have found no pre-17th century alchemical authority that makes such a claim)

2- A way of forcing it to stay in the stronger fires without completely evaporating (the brassfounder tells Helvetius about the "glassy/crystal seal of Hermes", which might perhaps be a vague hint at how to achieve this)

Dwellings
06-06-2016, 11:41 AM
I have read quite a bit of Arabic works on alchemy (ex: some of the texts in the Jabirian corpus), and all the ones so far examined that do mention the alleged existence of "shorter" methods to make the Elixir/Stone do not make any such claim that they are to be carried out exclusively in crucibles and stronger fires. So far I have only found this claim that the "shorter" ways to make the Stone are "dry" methods in the literature of the 17th century and onward.

The ascription of "dry" methods to Flamel dates from relatively recent times.



Basil Valentine talks about dry path in 7th key in his book 12 keys.


Because it is supposedly carried out in clay crucibles, which are vessels designed to work at higher temperatures than glass. I have always found this claim of a "dry" method very hard to believe. The secret solvent, "vinegar", "water", "mercury", etc. of alchemy is invariably described as being a volatile liquid substance, and warnings about careful regulation of the fire during the "coctions" to make the Stone abound in the literature, lest it should completely evaporate before it has had time to exert its action on the "fixed" part and be "radically" joined with it (which union gives birth to the Stone.) So this claim that the Stone can be made by using crucibles and strong fires seems counter-intuitive for a science that so heavily depends on a certain peculiar volatile solvent. Unless some alchemists discovered how to make the following two things, I find it very difficult to believe in the so-called dry method:

I concur especially in context of this thread.

Michael Sternbach
06-06-2016, 01:22 PM
This thread is about fixing mercury with a magnet and the manipulations henceforth, not about merury fixing itself, I do not think my comments and thoughts were regarding the latter.

The question is, having Green Lion & Common Mercury in hand can one make the stone? Common gold will be used only at the time of test of transmutation.
The answer must be yes but I have not figured it out as of now.


You are right, but you are looking at it superficially, not looking at the core. When you look at the core, you will realize something is freeing itself and it is showing up in the form of flames.

As for common science , to be more precise vulgar science as practised in unis and colleges the earlier one gets out of the mess, the earlier one will be able to understand alchemy.

I don't agree that "vulgar" science is just a mess and totally irrelevant for alchemy, but it seems like our art touches on things which are *not yet* part of it.

Kiorionis
06-06-2016, 01:46 PM
So this claim that the Stone can be made by using crucibles and strong fires seems counter-intuitive for a science that so heavily depends on a certain peculiar volatile solvent.

I agree as well. Valentine's work on antimony (triumphal chariot thereof) calls it inwardly and outwardly like fire. So perhaps there is a preparation to the preparation of the work, to make this solvent 'less' volatile to stand 'more' fire?



Unless some alchemists discovered how to make the following two things, I find it very difficult to believe in the so-called dry method:

2- A way of forcing it to stay in the stronger fires without completely evaporating (the brassfounder tells Helvetius about the "glassy/crystal seal of Hermes", which might perhaps be a vague hint at how to achieve this)

You've reminded me of Alchemy in Magical Grimoires (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4332-Alchemy-in-Magical-Grimoires&highlight=Grimoires).

Michael Sternbach
06-06-2016, 01:47 PM
I have read quite a bit of Arabic works on alchemy (ex: some of the texts in the Jabirian corpus), and all the ones so far examined that do mention the alleged existence of "shorter" methods to make the Elixir/Stone do not make any such claim that they are to be carried out exclusively in crucibles and stronger fires. So far I have only found this claim that the "shorter" ways to make the Stone are "dry" methods in the literature of the 17th century and onward.

"Some of the texts in the Jabirian corpus" is a little vague. Could you tell us which ones are talking about a shorter way to create the Philosopher's Stone, please?


The ascription of "dry" methods to Flamel dates from relatively recent times.

So it's nowhere in Flamel's own writings? Of course, when those were written is debatable anyway.


Starkey/Philalethes (the evidence pointing at "them" being the same person is very strong and incriminating, as Newman and Principe have shown) and all those who attempted to test his claims worked with amalgams made with the so-called animated mercury.

I referred to them as two different authors only in regard of their writings, I am aware that they were probably the same person. Canseliet had high respect for Philalethes and suggested that the Mute Book is mostly based on him. Canseliet was also a strong supporter of the dry way, but how he defined it remains to be seen. Surely, the Mute Book that he praised so much suggests plenty of "wet" methods, unless, of course, it's all just dark allegory...


Their supposedly "dry" methods were quite different than the ones of those who claimed that the Stone can be made exclusively in crucibles and strong fires (for a famous example of this type of claim, see the statements of the anonymous brassfounder to Helvetius in his "Golden Calf".) Starkey/Philalethes' claim is in fact heavily reliant on numerous distillations, cohobations and digestions, so retorts, flasks and sand-baths were used a-plenty, not just crucibles and strong fires.

So I wonder who first talked about using only the crucible for the whole Work. Helvetius was not even an alchemist himself, his book is a somewhat poor reference.


As for Valentine, he worked with many substances (antimony was only one of them) since he was interested in many other things besides the Stone (his texts abound in references to "particulars", which were processes that did not make the Stone but other types of "tinctures" or even "direct" transmutations that did not rely on the previous preparation of any transmuting "tincture".) And as far as I can remember, he never made the claim that you can prepare the Stone by some strange "dry" method that uses only crucibles and strong fires.

JDP
06-06-2016, 04:01 PM
Basil Valentine talks about dry path in 7th key in his book 12 keys.

Are you sure about that? Here is what he says there:

The same moderate course must be adopted in the fiery regimen of our Magistery. For it is all important that the liquid should not be dried up too quickly, and that the earth of the Sages should not be melted and dissolved too soon, otherwise your fishes would be changed into scorpions. If you would perform our task rightly, take the spiritual water, in which the spirit was from the beginning, and preserve it in a closely shut chamber.

This is just a very colorful way of saying what countless others have said in less flamboyant manners, namely: during the coction, regulate the heat carefully, keep the vessel closed so as to not allow the special liquid solvent or "water" to evaporate before it has had the time to make its effects upon the "fixed" part of the Stone. This hardly sounds like the claims of strong fires, crucibles and "dry" matters of the so-called brief way.

Dwellings
06-06-2016, 04:37 PM
I don't agree that "vulgar" science is just a mess and totally irrelevant for alchemy, but it seems like our art touches on things which are *not yet* part of it.
If you still want to believe vulgar science as taught in unis and colleges, then I beg you to totally avoid anything with the word relativity or quantum mechanics. This is for your own benefit. When you hear someone saying without a doubt assume that either he is a fraud or he is a sheep.



Are you sure about that? Here is what he says there:

The same moderate course must be adopted in the fiery regimen of our Magistery. For it is all important that the liquid should not be dried up too quickly, and that the earth of the Sages should not be melted and dissolved too soon, otherwise your fishes would be changed into scorpions. If you would perform our task rightly, take the spiritual water, in which the spirit was from the beginning, and preserve it in a closely shut chamber.

This is just a very colorful way of saying what countless others have said in less flamboyant manners, namely: during the coction, regulate the heat carefully, keep the vessel closed so as to not allow the special liquid solvent or "water" to evaporate before it has had the time to make its effects upon the "fixed" part of the Stone. This hardly sounds like the claims of strong fires, crucibles and "dry" matters of the so-called brief way.

He was using the word "fiery regimen". so I thought he might be speaking of dry path

JDP
06-06-2016, 05:27 PM
"Some of the texts in the Jabirian corpus" is a little vague. Could you tell us which ones are talking about a shorter way to create the Philosopher's Stone, please?

The "corpus" attributed to him is huge and rather heterogeneous (meaning that almost surely more than one hand was involved in its creation), and I obviously have not read all of it by any means, but see for example the text called "The Book of Royalty", where the author talks about the different times it takes to accomplish the Elixir (he says it can take as many as 70 years to just 15 days!) He even mysteriously refers to a "method of the balance" where the times are even shorter (he talks rather obscurely and vaguely about this "method of the balance" in this text.) However, nowhere does he unambiguously say that the shorter methods are accomplished exclusively by using crucibles and strong fires. It is true that he often uses the word "melt" in this text, and in one place he even makes the strange claim that in the "quick operation" no distillation, purification, solution or coagulation is used, but he contradicts himself in other parts by insinuating the opposite, like when he goes into more detailed statements about the operations and we can see that they involve "water" and "oil" and the Elixir produced melts more easily than wax. Hardly things you would expect from operations carried out exclusively in crucibles and strong fires, where such matters would not last long. And mind you, this book in the Jabirian corpus is the one and only Arabic alchemical treatise that I have seen so far where one could more or less try to argue for something resembling the "dry" way claim from the 17th century onward.


So it's nowhere in Flamel's own writings? Of course, when those were written is debatable anyway.

I have read most of the Flamel material, but I could never find a clear reference in it to the claim about making the Stone in either crucibles or by means of amalgams. These claims come from more recent commentators of these works, not from "Flamel" (whether he was or wasn't the author of any of the alchemical texts bearing his name.)


I referred to them as two different authors only in regard of their writings, I am aware that they were probably the same person. Canseliet had high respect for Philalethes and suggested that the Mute Book is mostly based on him. Canseliet was also a strong supporter of the dry way, but how he defined it remains to be seen. Surely, the Mute Book that he praised so much suggests plenty of "wet" methods, unless, of course, it's all just dark allegory...

Canseliet never achieved the Stone. That does not speak well for his speculations on the subject.


So I wonder who first talked about using only the crucible for the whole Work.

That is the million dollar question. So far all references to a "dry" method that supposedly only uses crucibles, solid materials and strong fires seem to start from the 17th century onward, I have not been able to find references to this claim before this.


Helvetius was not even an alchemist himself, his book is a somewhat poor reference.

Helvetius here is only reporting what the brassfounder told him, those are not his statements (Helvetius in fact was rather surprised by his explanations regarding this, since he points out that the brassfounder's statements are "contradicted by the sayings of the Sages.") The brassfounder was the guy who gave him a sample of the finished Stone and whom Helvetius takes for an "adept" who must know what he is talking about (this, of course, was an assumption on Helvetius' part; how can we know for sure if his anonymous visitor really manufactured the Stone himself instead of, say, having been lucky enough to find a sample of it already made by someone else?)

JDP
06-06-2016, 05:28 PM
He was using the word "fiery regimen". so I thought he might be speaking of dry path

Keep in mind that fire is also used in the "wet" way, only that it is more carefully controlled (by means of "baths".)

pierre
06-06-2016, 08:33 PM
Not sure what you mean by that.



Rubellus Petrinus words:

Via Mista or amalgams. Are most of the routes described as that of Philalethes, Flamel, Lull, Albert, Artephius, etc.

Why called mixed (or amalgam path)?

Because in the beginning you need to start by the dry process for the preparation of Martial Regulus as in the case of Flamel, Philalethes, Artephius ways, etc.

After this first operation by the dry path and obtaining martial regulus, it is not subject to the same "external" conditions of dry way proper, the first operations
will be done in small pots to make the philosophical amalgam and after this operation will be distilled in a retort of removable steel for the philosophical mercury and so the rest.

Amalgam

Except for the path of Alberto that in the beginning the Subject is sublimated to obtain the Azoth and afterwards to prepare the third and Fourth Water, passes to the amalgam just as in the way of Philalethes and Flamel.

The route of Artephius is a bit more complicated, but is also based on the Martial Regulus and sublimation of mercury to obtain the solvent. There are several variants of this pathway where the sulfur of the noble metal can be replaced by another, even by the dry process.

We do not know exactly the time duration of these methods but Philalethes describes in detail in the An Open Entrance to the Closed Palace of the King -

Michael Sternbach
06-06-2016, 09:08 PM
If you still want to believe vulgar science as taught in unis and colleges, then I beg you to totally avoid anything with the word relativity or quantum mechanics. This is for your own benefit. When you hear someone saying without a doubt assume that either he is a fraud or he is a sheep.

Thanks for your concern, but: Been there, done that. And I had to understand eventually that the prognoses of both relativity and quantum mechanics have been confirmed experimentally many times. This is not to say that they are ultimate truths; they may in fact turn out to be subsets of a yet higher truth. And it is certainly not to say that they would answer all questions or are providing a complete picture of the Universe. For instance, quantum mechanics touches on questions of consciousness, but doesn't answer them. Although I think it will form part of a theory that includes mind/spirit one day. However, relativity and quantum mechanics are the best solutions for certain problems in physics up to now. Unless you know better ones, of course...

Michael Sternbach
06-06-2016, 09:36 PM
The "corpus" attributed to him is huge and rather heterogeneous (meaning that almost surely more than one hand was involved in its creation), and I obviously have not read all of it by any means, but see for example the text called "The Book of Royalty", where the author talks about the different times it takes to accomplish the Elixir (he says it can take as many as 70 years to just 15 days!) He even mysteriously refers to a "method of the balance" where the times are even shorter (he talks rather obscurely and vaguely about this "method of the balance" in this text.) However, nowhere does he unambiguously say that the shorter methods are accomplished exclusively by using crucibles and strong fires. It is true that he often uses the word "melt" in this text, and in one place he even makes the strange claim that in the "quick operation" no distillation, purification, solution or coagulation is used, but he contradicts himself in other parts by insinuating the opposite, like when he goes into more detailed statements about the operations and we can see that they involve "water" and "oil" and the Elixir produced melts more easily than wax. Hardly things you would expect from operations carried out exclusively in crucibles and strong fires, where such matters would not last long. And mind you, this book in the Jabirian corpus is the one and only Arabic alchemical treatise that I have seen so far where one could more or less try to argue for something resembling the "dry" way claim from the 17th century onward.

Nevertheless, this might be where the idea of using only a crucible has its origin, even if Jabir was misread.


I have read most of the Flamel material, but I could never find a clear reference in it to the claim about making the Stone in either crucibles or by means of amalgams. These claims come from more recent commentators of these works, not from "Flamel" (whether he was or wasn't the author of any of the alchemical texts bearing his name.)

Do you see parallels between the methods of Flamel and Philalethes/Starckey?


Canseliet never achieved the Stone. That does not speak well for his speculations on the subject.

Unless he didn't care to tell us. ;) But okay, let's assume he didn't.


That is the million dollar question. So far all references to a "dry" method that supposedly only uses crucibles, solid materials and strong fires seem to start from the 17th century onward, I have not been able to find references to this claim before this.

Julius Evola believed that the Greek alchemist described methods both of the wet path (heating up metals with vinegar) and of the dry path (using prepared nitre). But of course, this, by itself, is not very conclusive.


Helvetius here is only reporting what the brassfounder told him, those are not his statements (Helvetius in fact was rather surprised by his explanations regarding this, since he points out that the brassfounder's statements are "contradicted by the sayings of the Sages.") The brassfounder was the guy who gave him a sample of the finished Stone and whom Helvetius takes for an "adept" who must know what he is talking about (this, of course, was an assumption on Helvetius' part; how can we know for sure if his anonymous visitor really manufactured the Stone himself instead of, say, having been lucky enough to find a sample of it already made by someone else?)

That's what I'm talking about.

Michael Sternbach
06-06-2016, 09:42 PM
He was using the word "fiery regimen". so I thought he might be speaking of dry path

The "Fiery regimen" or "regimen of Fire" is the carefully scheduled application of different degrees of heat.

Michael Sternbach
06-06-2016, 09:44 PM
Rubellus Petrinus words:

Via Mista or amalgams. Are most of the routes described as that of Philalethes, Flamel, Lull, Albert, Artephius, etc.

Why called mixed (or amalgam path)?

Because in the beginning you need to start by the dry process for the preparation of Martial Regulus as in the case of Flamel, Philalethes, Artephius ways, etc.

After this first operation by the dry path and obtaining martial regulus, it is not subject to the same "external" conditions of dry way proper, the first operations
will be done in small pots to make the philosophical amalgam and after this operation will be distilled in a retort of removable steel for the philosophical mercury and so the rest.

Amalgam

Except for the path of Alberto that in the beginning the Subject is sublimated to obtain the Azoth and afterwards to prepare the third and Fourth Water, passes to the amalgam just as in the way of Philalethes and Flamel.

The route of Artephius is a bit more complicated, but is also based on the Martial Regulus and sublimation of mercury to obtain the solvent. There are several variants of this pathway where the sulfur of the noble metal can be replaced by another, even by the dry process.

We do not know exactly the time duration of these methods but Philalethes describes in detail in the An Open Entrance to the Closed Palace of the King -

Time for me to look into Petrinus' book again. :)

Could you tell me which page the above quote is from, please?

pierre
06-06-2016, 10:41 PM
Time for me to look into Petrinus' book again. :)

Could you tell me which page the above quote is from, please?

This it is a translation of an article from the website of Rubellus.
It is in Spanish, but maybe you can use the online translator.

http://www.tpissarro.com/alquimia/filaleto-s.html

JDP
06-06-2016, 10:52 PM
Nevertheless, this might be where the idea of using only a crucible has its origin, even if Jabir was misread.

Maybe, but even if this was so, it makes you wonder why it took such a long time for the fully "mature" claim to come to the surface and catch on. We have an interim of hundreds and hundreds of years between the times in which the Jabir corpus was written and the 17th century, yet there apparently is no mention of similar "the Stone is made in crucibles and strong fires" claims during all this time.


Do you see parallels between the methods of Flamel and Philalethes/Starckey?

I can't say that I do, other than, keeping with a feature characteristic to most alchemical works, both often use language that can be open to interpretation.



Unless he didn't care to tell us. ;) But okay, let's assume he didn't.

Canseliet does not seem to have been a guy who would be shy of openly claiming success. He even tells us that he not only witnessed transmutation via the Stone of his "master" (the 1922 Sarcelles lead-to-gold transmutation, where he, Julien Champagne and the chemist Gaston Sauvage were allegedly witnesses) but that he even succeeded in making gold via some "particular" processes.


Julius Evola believed that the Greek alchemist described methods both of the wet path (heating up metals with vinegar) and of the dry path (using prepared nitre). But of course, this, by itself, is not very conclusive.

In the Alexandrian alchemical corpus there is also no unambiguous reference to the Stone supposedly being able to be made exclusively with operations in crucibles and strong fires. In fact, even this early literature is already teeming with references to the "Divine Water", "Sulfur Water", "Vinegar", "Mercury", etc.


That's what I'm talking about.

Nevertheless, the other side of this coin is: what if the brassfounder was an "adept", did make the Stone and was telling the truth to Helvetius? The point being: that unless you are an "adept" yourself who knows the actual secret, it seems impossible to know for sure. The brassfounder and his claims have both the benefit of the doubt and reason for suspicion at the same time.

Michael Sternbach
06-07-2016, 11:48 AM
This it is a translation of an article from the website of Rubellus.
It is in Spanish, but maybe you can use the online translator.

http://www.tpissarro.com/alquimia/filaleto-s.html

Thank you, but the translation is as much a gibberish as the original is to me.

Michael Sternbach
06-07-2016, 12:10 PM
Maybe, but even if this was so, it makes you wonder why it took such a long time for the fully "mature" claim to come to the surface and catch on. We have an interim of hundreds and hundreds of years between the times in which the Jabir corpus was written and the 17th century, yet there apparently is no mention of similar "the Stone is made in crucibles and strong fires" claims during all this time.

Nevertheless, I would like to read the Book of Royalty, if you could help me find it.


I can't say that I do, other than, keeping with a feature characteristic to most alchemical works, both often use language that can be open to interpretation.

After reading your post last night, I had a look at Rubellus's book which, coincidentally, contains a comparison of Flamel's and Philalethes's processes. I had no opportunity to study it yet though.


Canseliet does not seem to have been a guy who would be shy of openly claiming success. He even tells us that he not only witnessed transmutation via the Stone of his "master" (the 1922 Sarcelles lead-to-gold transmutation, where he, Julien Champagne and the chemist Gaston Sauvage were allegedly witnesses) but that he even succeeded in making gold via some "particular" processes.

I agree, he would have let us know.


In the Alexandrian alchemical corpus there is also no unambiguous reference to the Stone supposedly being able to be made exclusively with operations in crucibles and strong fires. In fact, even this early literature is already teeming with references to the "Divine Water", "Sulfur Water", "Vinegar", "Mercury", etc.

Yes, it's hard to be certain of anything there. "Hey, don't you know, it's alchemy."


Nevertheless, the other side of this coin is: what if the brassfounder was an "adept", did make the Stone and was telling the truth to Helvetius? The point being: that unless you are an "adept" yourself who knows the actual secret, it seems impossible to know for sure. The brassfounder and his claims have both the benefit of the doubt and reason for suspicion at the same time.

As I said, it's alchemy we're talking about...

Andro
06-07-2016, 01:02 PM
In the Alexandrian alchemical corpus there is also no unambiguous reference to the Stone supposedly being able to be made exclusively with operations in crucibles and strong fires.

The term "Strong Fires' may sometimes be used as an "occult blind".


In fact, even this early literature is already teeming with references to the "Divine Water", "Sulfur Water", "Vinegar", "Mercury", etc.

It doesn't necessary have to actually mean a "strong common fire" or "high temperatures".

JDP
06-07-2016, 01:08 PM
The term "Strong Fires' may sometimes be used as an "occult blind".



It doesn't necessary have to actually mean a "strong common fire" or "high temperatures".

What guys like the brassfounder meant by strong or open fires is quite plain, since they also claim that the process is carried out in crucibles. They mean exactly what they say.

JDP
06-07-2016, 01:18 PM
Nevertheless, I would like to read I the Book of Royalty, if you could help me find it.

If you understand French, you will find a translation of it in the third volume of Berthelot and Houdas' "La Chimie au Moyen Age":

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5448201n/f136.image.r=Berthelot+chimie+moyen.langEN

The translation of this text starts on page 126.


After reading your post last night, I had a look at Rubellus' book which, coincidentally, contains a comparison of Flamel's and Philalethes's processes. I had no opportunity to study it yet though.


"Rubellus" is not an "adept", and also doesn't know anyone who is one. I am pretty well acquainted with him, I have been a member of several of his forums for years. He admits that he has never made the Stone or accomplished any transmutation by any other means.

Andro
06-07-2016, 01:37 PM
Quoting what you linked:
The Secret of the Art (https://www.labyrinthdesigners.org/faqs/what-is-the-secretun-artis-the-secret-of-the-art/): "The fixation of the volatile mercurius. In the less hidden way alchemists do use gold, or another salt, which they call sulphur as it fixes the volatile mercurius. But, this is not a very effective way. The best is to try to fix the volatile in a way other than dissolution."

How would you fix the volatile by dissolution anyway? Sounds like an oxymoron to me...

The rest of the quote also seems quite unintelligible.

Traditionally, you fix the Volatile by using it to 'dissolve' (via cycles of imbibition - wetting & drying) the fixed earth containing the (more fixed) 2 Central Fires (or Sol & Luna).

So, no oxymoron and quite intelligible.

In the quote, she refers to a more 'secret way' to fix the Already-One-Thing but Not-Yet-Fixed Philosophical Mercury (or 'Alkahest', etc...), which is already a Stone (before fixation), without the use or support of more 'fixed' parts or principles. This would significantly simplify "The 3rd Rotation".

I hope this helps.

Michael Sternbach
06-07-2016, 01:58 PM
If you understand French, you will find a translation of it in the third volume of Berthelot and Houdas' "La Chimie au Moyen Age":

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5448201n/f136.image.r=Berthelot+chimie+moyen.langEN

The translation of this text starts on page 126.

Thanks!


"Rubellus" is not an "adept", and also doesn't know anyone who is one. I am pretty well acquainted with him, I have been a member of several of his forums for years. He admits that he has never made the Stone or accomplished any transmutation by any other means.

That doesn't mean that he could not be on to something, but I agree that what he says should be taken with a grain of salt.

Of course, even if he were an adept, that's what you should do anyway... :D

Michael Sternbach
06-07-2016, 02:08 PM
Traditionally, you fix the Volatile by using it to 'dissolve' (via cycles of imbibition - wetting & drying) the fixed earth containing the (more fixed) 2 Central Fires (or Sol & Luna).

So, no oxymoron and quite intelligible.

In the quote, she refers to a more 'secret way' to fix the Already-One-Thing but Not-Yet-Fixed Philosophical Mercury (or 'Alkahest', etc...), which is already a Stone (before fixation), without the use or support of more 'fixed' parts or principles. This would significantly simplify "The 3rd Rotation".

I hope this helps.

Would you kindly tell me what is meant by the two Central Fires? I have read this term long ago, but couldn't quite figure it out. Perhaps gold and silver that have been prepared somehow to yield the "fixed earth"?

Andro
06-07-2016, 02:23 PM
Would you kindly tell me what is meant by the two Central Fires? I have read this term long ago, but couldn't quite figure it out. Perhaps gold and silver that have been prepared somehow to yield the "fixed earth"?

The 2 Central Fires, both contained in the 'Philosophical Earth':

Sol & Luna, Soul & Body, Sun & Moon, Red Sulfur & White Sulfur (White Sulfur sometimes referred to as "Salt" (or "Volatile/Volatilized Salt" when volatile), Radical Heat & Radical Cold, etc...

The 2 Central Fires need to be both 'transmuted' into Spirit VIA Spirit/'Mercury', in order to all become One Thing, inseparable.

This is the best abbreviation of the principles I can offer.

black
06-07-2016, 03:15 PM
Thank you Andro for this very open abbreviation.


----------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Sternbach
06-08-2016, 12:44 AM
The 2 Central Fires, both contained in the 'Philosophical Earth':

Sol & Luna, Soul & Body, Sun & Moon, Red Sulfur & White Sulfur (White Sulfur sometimes referred to as "Salt" (or "Volatile/Volatilized Salt" when volatile), Radical Heat & Radical Cold, etc...

The 2 Central Fires need to be both 'transmuted' into Spirit VIA Spirit/'Mercury', in order to all become One Thing, inseparable.

This is the best abbreviation of the principles I can offer.

Okay, thank you.

Andro
06-08-2016, 07:19 AM
On the topic of this thread, I personally find 'Fulcanelli' way to 'cerebral' for my taste. Lots of (IMO) unnecessary linguistic mind-fuck (as an example), possibly a characteristic of some intellectual circles of the era and area.

There are some useful clues in those books, but, like z0 K mentioned on another thread, no outlined 'methodology'. For example, the lineage of ICH, Cyliani, Recreations, Urbigerus, etc, is way more charitable in this regard.

Fulcanelli (IMO) over-engages the 'mind', possibly even doing more harm than good sometimes, by 'inhibiting' the inner revelatory channels which are NOT mental/intellectual/analytical, but of a more direct initiatory nature.

On a side note, regarding the 'secret' of fixing the Ph. Mercury without Gold or another Earth or fixed Sulfur(s), Urbigerus openly mentions that his 'Circulatum Majus' can also be accomplished with the 'Dragon' alone (without the 'Serpent' and without metallic Gold), but he describes all three ways in an intertwined manner.

Michael Sternbach
06-19-2016, 06:42 AM
The 2 Central Fires, both contained in the 'Philosophical Earth':

Sol & Luna, Soul & Body, Sun & Moon, Red Sulfur & White Sulfur (White Sulfur sometimes referred to as "Salt" (or "Volatile/Volatilized Salt" when volatile), Radical Heat & Radical Cold, etc...

The 2 Central Fires need to be both 'transmuted' into Spirit VIA Spirit/'Mercury', in order to all become One Thing, inseparable.

This is the best abbreviation of the principles I can offer.

In my study, I came across a method according to Ripley in Compound of Alchymie, using Sun, Moon and Mercury. I wonder, is it the same like what you are describing here?

Andro
06-19-2016, 06:59 AM
In my study, I came across a method according to Ripley in Compound of Alchymie, using Sun, Moon and Mercury. I wonder, is it the same like what you are describing here?

What I described is not strictly a 'method'. It is an abbreviation of Underlying Principles in certain lineages. Various 'methods' may be employed to accomplish this.

Regardless of the 'method', the Spirit/Menstruum we use must be a 'carrier' of the SM 'passenger' (and obviously have a strong affinity for it), otherwise 'Sol' and 'Luna' will not be transmuted and returned to the state of 'One Thing', inseparable.

The Spirits/Menstruums we use will only be as potent as the 'amount' of 'passenger' SM energy they carry.

If you quote the relevant passages from Ripley, I may (or may not) be able to show some correlation.

Michael Sternbach
06-19-2016, 02:49 PM
I just found a reference to
aforesaid method according to Ripley, I haven't had the opportunity to trace it to its source yet. I may get back to you with this later, or maybe somebody who has the relevant passages handy wants to chime in?

Anyway, thanks for your reply, Andro.