PDA

View Full Version : Fermentative distillation



theFool
08-05-2016, 12:54 PM
This excerpt comes from a transation of the works of Zosimos of Panopolis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zosimos_of_Panopolis), one of the oldest alchemical texts we can find. He talks about the divine water (θεῖον ὕδωρ) and how to isolate it from eggs.

http://i35.servimg.com/u/f35/13/27/64/97/zos210.jpg

In brief, he proposes to put egg yolks in an alembic and to enclose very well the junctions with the receiver in a way that not even the smell can escape. Then, he puts the alembic in a digestive heat (bearable by the human hand) for 14 to 21 days until all of the "divine water" has been distilled. In the text following that, he explains the rest of the work.

If the "divine water" is very volatile, one way it could be captured by ancient artists would be by an enclosed distillation setup. In the "Book of Quintessence (http://wolf.mind.net/library/western/alchemy/quin_trans/quin_translation.txt)" the so called "quintessence" can be captured by "digestive circulation" of wine alcohol in a completely closed vessel where it will float on top after many days. Presumably, at the end of the fermentation, the "water" is no longer so volatile. In my mind comes also the fixation of alchemists with the special vessel called "pelican". Probabaly it was used for this job; to isolate the "quintessence" of live materials by "digestive circulation".

The process of obtaining this "water" could be more important than the starting material. As long as it can putrefact let it be eggs, wine or urine. In this modern way (http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/tw/urine.htm), "it" is caught by a very low temperature distillation due to its high volatility.

I remeber arabic alchemists talking about fermenting eggs a lot, although I can't locate some relative text right now in order to compare processes. This "fermentative distillation" concept can be an interesting subject for research in the alchemical literature.

Illen A. Cluf
08-05-2016, 02:06 PM
Interesting thought. In addition, it would also be interesting to meditate on what there is in common between wine, urine and egg yokes. Or are these just decnamen used to represent something else? Remember that Alchemists were NEVER permitted to state the first matter openly. Thus, the egg yoke (or wine or urine) cannot possibly really be the first matter since it is so openly named.

For example, the author specifically says not to use the shell of the egg. The egg itself looks like a stone. Thus the egg could represent a stone/mineral, and the advice not to use the shell could mean to use what the mineral contains (perhaps a metal?), rather than the entire mineral.

theFool
08-05-2016, 03:08 PM
Or are these just decnamen used to represent something else?
...
For example, the author specifically says not to use the shell of the egg. The egg itself looks like a stone. Thus the egg could represent a stone/mineral, and the advice not to use the shell could mean to use what the mineral contains (perhaps a metal?), rather than the entire mineral. Actually, in the footnotes of this translation, the translator notes that this advice not to use the shell of the egg could be symbolical; so, you have a point.

But on the other hand, the "mercury" is suppossed to be found everywhere.

Dwellings
08-05-2016, 03:22 PM
The entire thing posted by Fool is an allegory not to be taken literally.

IMO, Illen gets it right to an extent, but still misses it.

JDP
08-05-2016, 04:47 PM
Zosimos was an author who adopted the two general manners of exposition in alchemy in his literary productions:

1- A veiled or semi-veiled account where the actual substances being employed are disguised by names of other substances/things that do not really enter into the operations (like "eggs" in this case) or by fanciful made-up code-words of strange things that do not actually exist ("decknamen" like "Green Lion", to cite a well-known example)

2- "Recipes" pretending to give more precise instructions

The problem with the second method in Zosimos' texts is that when you try to follow the instructions as given, things do not match the claims made therein, so you can very safely suspect foul play, the only possible conclusions being: either the author was credulous and never bothered to actually test the process being described and he just had blind faith that it would work, or he actually maliciously lied, fully knowing that the process as prescribed would never work since false matters that do not actually enter the operations are being inserted for the real ones. For centuries many seekers after the Stone took such instructions in a totally literal manner (in this case distilling actual eggs) and they got nowhere fast. Alchemists like Ibn Umail actually scoff the "fools" or sophists who take such "recipes" that direct to work with such things as eggs, blood, feces or hair literally and points out that they always fail to produce the Stone.

theFool
08-06-2016, 10:11 AM
I was more interested in the process than the starting matter of Zosimos, but since there is some interest about it, I 'll share my guess.

The yellow egg resembles native sulfur ore. Sulfur of volcanic origin is easy to obtain:

http://www.photovolcanica.com/VolcanoInfo/Milos/Milos2012_1218cs.jpg

Smell of eggs is similar to sulfur and Zosimos mentions it.
Also, the word "θεῖον ὕδωρ" does not only mean "divine water" but also "water of sulfur" because somehow the word for the divine and the word for sulfur is the same in the greek language.

Illen A. Cluf
08-06-2016, 01:03 PM
The entire thing posted by Fool is an allegory not to be taken literally.

IMO, Illen gets it right to an extent, but still misses it.

OK. I was using that only as an example. To be more precise (and open), the egg always represented the two principles - Mercury and Sulfur. The yellow yoke represents the Sulfur principle, and the clear shiny liquid part represents the Mercury principle. The shell is the feces (or sometimes alembic). Again, Sulfur and Mercury are not to be taken literally, but represent yet another layer of understanding. It is commonly thought that Sulfur represents purely refined, "living Gold" (actual Gold) as a "ferment", while Mercury represents something that is made by Nature with the help of the Alchemist.

Dwellings
08-06-2016, 04:42 PM
I was more interested in the process than the starting matter of Zosimos, but since there is some interest about it, I 'll share my guess.

The yellow egg resembles native sulfur ore. Sulfur of volcanic origin is easy to obtain:

http://www.photovolcanica.com/VolcanoInfo/Milos/Milos2012_1218cs.jpg

Smell of eggs is similar to sulfur and Zosimos mentions it.
Also, the word "θεῖον ὕδωρ" does not only mean "divine water" but also "water of sulfur" because somehow the word for the divine and the word for sulfur is the same in the greek language.

It might also sulphurous ore like Galena,Stibinite etc


OK. I was using that only as an example. To be more precise (and open), the egg always represented the two principles - Mercury and Sulfur. The yellow yoke represents the Sulfur principle, and the clear shiny liquid part represents the Mercury principle. The shell is the feces (or sometimes alembic). Again, Sulfur and Mercury are not to be taken literally, but represent yet another layer of understanding. It is commonly thought that Sulfur represents purely refined, "living Gold" (actual Gold) as a "ferment", while Mercury represents something that is made by Nature with the help of the Alchemist.

Well, besides the commonly held opinions of Sulfur & Mercury, you do know; there are two sulfurs proper to our work and their differences.

Also, I would recommend you to read your last post with your previous post in conjunction, you will realise why I wrote so.

Loki Morningstar
08-06-2016, 09:00 PM
I can't remember where I heard this. But wasn't the Delphic oracles visions something to do with sulphur of volcanic origin?

Illen A. Cluf
08-06-2016, 11:02 PM
Well, besides the commonly held opinions of Sulfur & Mercury, you do know; there are two sulfurs proper to our work and their differences.

Also, I would recommend you to read your last post with your previous post in conjunction, you will realise why I wrote so.
I've read that there are two Mercuries (Mercury Duplex) but the two sulfurs are new to me (although it goes through several stages). What is your source for the two separate sulfurs?

Dwellings
08-07-2016, 05:53 PM
I've read that there are two Mercuries (Mercury Duplex) but the two sulfurs are new to me (although it goes through several stages). What is your source for the two separate sulfurs?

From the Book of Lambspring

The Sages will tell you
That two fishes are in our sea
Without any flesh or bones.
Let them be cooked in their own water;
Then they also will become a vast sea,
The vastness of which no man can describe.
Moreover, the Sages say
That the two fishes are only one, not two;
They are two, and nevertheless they are one,
Body, Spirit, and Soul.
Now, I tell you most truly,
Cook these three together,
That there may be a very large sea.
Cook the sulphur well with the sulphur,
And hold your tongue about it:
Conceal your knowledge to your own advantage,
And you shall be free from poverty.
Only let your discovery remain a close secret.

Illen A. Cluf
08-07-2016, 06:48 PM
From the Book of Lambspring

The Sages will tell you
That two fishes are in our sea
Without any flesh or bones.
Let them be cooked in their own water;
Then they also will become a vast sea,
The vastness of which no man can describe.
Moreover, the Sages say
That the two fishes are only one, not two;
They are two, and nevertheless they are one,
Body, Spirit, and Soul.
Now, I tell you most truly,
Cook these three together,
That there may be a very large sea.
Cook the sulphur well with the sulphur,
And hold your tongue about it:
Conceal your knowledge to your own advantage,
And you shall be free from poverty.
Only let your discovery remain a close secret.

It's possible that here, he's talking about the two fires (the inner and outer fire) rather than about the "Sulphur principle").

Andro
08-07-2016, 07:07 PM
It's the 2 Central Fires, Sol and Luna, enclosed in one single matter (like, for example, the "androgynous matter" of Cyliani or the "clay" from which the androgynous "Adam" was made). They need to be 'awakened' & reborn via the agency of the Spirit ("cooked in their own water").

The 2 Central Fires need not be put together by the alchemist.

It's always the same general process/principles in most canonical literature.

Loki Morningstar
08-07-2016, 10:55 PM
Could this be talking of the conscious and subconscious mind?

Two conscious beings within one fluid like unthinking body?

Cook them in their own water (body), perhaps introspection?

Then they will become a great sea, the seeminly infinite nature of the space between our ears?

Cook the sulphur (subconscious) with the sulphur (conscious)?

I like the idea of using the fire of the conscious to make the subconscious bubble and boil, heating the subconcious, or energising it, until you can distill some great ideas.

Just my view of it. Interested to hear others. :)

Illen A. Cluf
08-08-2016, 02:17 AM
Could this be talking of the conscious and subconscious mind?

Two conscious beings within one fluid like unthinking body?

Cook them in their own water (body), perhaps introspection?

Then they will become a great sea, the seeminly infinite nature of the space between our ears?

Cook the sulphur (subconscious) with the sulphur (conscious)?

I like the idea of using the fire of the conscious to make the subconscious bubble and boil, heating the subconcious, or energising it, until you can distill some great ideas.

Just my view of it. Interested to hear others. :)

Absolutely. But I think that its only half of the solution. I believe that there is a totally physical reality (actual physical alchemical transmutation) that completely parallels spiritual transmutation. When the two concepts are totally realized, I think that there is an epiphany that takes place that makes one realize the absolute Reality of spirit and matter as One.

Andro
08-08-2016, 06:47 AM
This is a thread in a section dealing with practical laboratory alchemy.

Although everything is ultimately interconnected, topics dealing with psychological speculations or interpretations about alchemical literature are generally better posted in other sections than the laboratory-related ones, such as in 'Spiritual Alchemy (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/forumdisplay.php?10-Spiritual-Alchemy)', etc... This is for the purpose of making searching and orientation easier for other readers.

You can always start a spin-off thread in a different section by linking to the original thread and quoting the relevant bits from it, as well as naming the new thread accordingly (e.g. "Psychological Interpretations of the Two Sulfurs").

Hellin Hermetist
08-08-2016, 01:11 PM
The first sulfur is the sufur made from the three principles of the first matter or the stone accomplished. The phlegmatic humidity of the first matter is the sea, the volatile and the fixed salt of the same matter are the two fishes. The second sulfur is the sulfur made from the water of the first matter and a noble metal and is the ferment of the accomplished stone. The mixing of the two sulfurs or the cooking of them together, is a reference to the fermentation of the accomplished stone or sulfur of nature with the sulfur of a perfect metal to create the elixir.

Loki Morningstar
08-12-2016, 09:30 AM
This is a thread in a section dealing with practical laboratory alchemy.

Although everything is ultimately interconnected, topics dealing with psychological speculations or interpretations about alchemical literature are generally better posted in other sections than the laboratory-related ones, such as in 'Spiritual Alchemy (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/forumdisplay.php?10-Spiritual-Alchemy)', etc... This is for the purpose of making searching and orientation easier for other readers.

You can always start a spin-off thread in a different section by linking to the original thread and quoting the relevant bits from it, as well as naming the new thread accordingly (e.g. "Psychological Interpretations of the Two Sulfurs").

Apologies Andro. I completely see your point. I am new and didn't realise where I was writing. I will be more careful in future.

Thank you for the heads up. :)

Loki Morningstar
08-12-2016, 08:23 PM
I am not sure if it is relevant but I wrote a post about selenium. Thinking about it now, it seems to match up to all the things you are saying the water needs to be. As selenic acid, it would be a water that burns, I not sure about making the hands wet, although most acids don't right? It is in most organic materials and also the earth. You can get it from urine, eggs, and grain, so it makes sense that you could get it from wine. Plus it fluoresces, due to retaining radiation (perhaps radiation is the prima material?) which I am sure would have looked pretty magical. Gold will melt in it, and it is supposed to have similar properties to sulphur, beings it is so close on the periodic table.

As a completely random point, also due to the book being called quintessence, it made me think of quinine. Another florescent material. Probably all just coincidence, but just wanted to run it past people.

Seems like selenium is a bit of a wonder drug as well as far as elements go. Even reputable sources state many benefits to taking it. And it seems we often do not get enough due to over farming.

Also this:


Like sulfuric acid, selenic acid is a strong acid that is hygroscopic and extremely soluble in water. Concentrated solutions are viscous. Crystalline mono- and di-hydrates are known.[5] The monohydrate melts at 26C, and the dihydrate melts at −51.7C.[3]

Which would make sense as to why you cannot heat it much above 26 degrees celsius in an open vessel without it evaportating.

And this:


Selenic acid reacts with barium salts to precipitate BaSeO
4, analogous to the sulfate. In general, selenate salts resemble sulfate salts, but are more soluble. Many selenate salts have the same crystal structure as the corresponding sulfate salts.[3]

I just find it funny that is called BaSeO. Like it actually has the word 'base' in it. Probably just coincidence though.

Then this:



Barium compounds are added to fireworks to impart a green color.

Alchemists in the early Middle Ages knew about some barium minerals. Smooth pebble-like stones of mineral barite found in Bologna, Italy, were known as "Bologna stones." Alchemists were attracted to them because after exposure to light they would glow for years.[11] The phosphorescent properties of barite heated with organics were described by V. Casciorolus in 1602.[4]:5

And this:


Barium sulfate has a low toxicity and relatively high density of ca. 4.5 gcm−3 (and thus opacity to X-rays). For this reason it is used as a radiocontrast agent in X-ray imaging of the digestive system ("barium meals" and "barium enemas").[5]:4–5

Perhaps the metallic seed?

I wonder what would happen if you dissolved some gold into the selenic acid and then added barium?

I am starting to think I could actually get into physical alchemy.

Loki Morningstar
08-12-2016, 09:39 PM
Bury it in the womb of a horse

Love this! XD Who knew that alchemical texts could be so fun to read lol!

Loki Morningstar
08-12-2016, 11:01 PM
Really enjoyed that text theFool. It was the first practical alchemical text that I have ever read, other than quotes from post/threads, etc. And a great place to start it seems, due to it being relatively explanatory. I have heard that some texts can be very difficult to read. Thanks for sharing. :)

Loki Morningstar
08-15-2016, 10:20 AM
Selenium trioxide SeO3, can be made by the action of sulphur trioxide on potassium selenate. (Cook the sulphur well with the sulphur?)

It is a white, crystalline, hydroscopic compound which dissolves in water to form selenic acid.

Loki Morningstar
08-15-2016, 10:36 AM
Hey Andro,

Sorry again for posting in the wrong place earlier. I will be sure to pay more attention in future. I hope that my new additions to the thread has now redeemed me. :)

Just out of interest, was this already common knowledge to most people on here?

This is all quite new to me.

Andro
08-15-2016, 11:37 AM
The Alchemical Sulfur Principle is not the same thing as the element sulfur (from the periodic table).

Maybe it's a good idea to get some background in Classical Alchemical literature first, before making such speculations. The R.A.M.S. collection can be a very good start.

Also take the time to read carefully (and entirely) some of the most revealing threads in the Practical Alchemy section. Most of them are 'sticky' threads, so they are easy to locate.

Examples of such threads: The Philosopher's Matter (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?1382-The-Philosopher-s-Matter), The Celestial Agriculture (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2451-The-Celestial-Agriculture), Spiritus Mundi (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?2071-Spiritus-Mundi), etc...

Just my suggestions. Also, passing curiosity is not enough. There is a certain vision of the world you will need to develop in order to make sense of it all.

This can often take many years of study, contemplation AND practical work. Dropping certain 'scientific' axioms/models may also prove valuable.

Loki Morningstar
08-15-2016, 12:06 PM
Thanks Andro. That is really helpful. Apologies again, I think I may have been a bit over exited with all the new info. I shall hold off posting too much more until I read those threads. Appreciate your input. :)

What is the R.A.M.S. collection?

theFool
08-15-2016, 01:32 PM
Really enjoyed that text theFool. It was the first practical alchemical text that I have ever read, other than quotes from post/threads, etc. And a great place to start it seems, due to it being relatively explanatory. I have heard that some texts can be very difficult to read. Thanks for sharing. :) Hello Loki, yes, it can be fun reading practical texts.
Your post reminded me of a situation described in a Paulo Coelho's book, The Alchemist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Alchemist_(novel)). In brief, there was a guy called "the Englishman" who was studying alchemical literature for many years. He went on a journey to meet an accomplished Alchemist in order to ask for advice. When he met him, the advice was to simply start doing practical experiments. No special advice on which process was to be used, what is correct or not. Just that.


Love this! XD Who knew that alchemical texts could be so fun to read lol! If you liked that, we have also an old thread with some experiments on wine:
http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?379-Oil-of-Wine&highlight=wine

Loki Morningstar
08-15-2016, 02:38 PM
That is a very wise parable. I think I would do well to heed it.

I look forward to reading through the wine post. I have a feeling selenium may be able to be isolated from it. Especially if the wine is made from wheat. I will continue to research down this avenue.

I am currently reading the philosophers matter on recommendation of Andro, and have come to an I tersting part that has inspired me some.


Philosophical mercury is said to dissolve metals and coagulate vulgar mercury at room temperature. did you, or someone else here, attain this?

I think I may have to find out what happens if selenic acid is mixed with vulgar Mercury. Perhaps a bit dangerous though, I think I may be better off doing something a little less dangerous first. :)

Chasm
09-03-2016, 02:52 AM
Interesting thought. In addition, it would also be interesting to meditate on what there is in common between wine, urine and egg yokes. Or are these just decnamen used to represent something else? Remember that Alchemists were NEVER permitted to state the first matter openly. Thus, the egg yoke (or wine or urine) cannot possibly really be the first matter since it is so openly named.

For example, the author specifically says not to use the shell of the egg. The egg itself looks like a stone. Thus the egg could represent a stone/mineral, and the advice not to use the shell could mean to use what the mineral contains (perhaps a metal?), rather than the entire mineral.
Hello folks,
Just thought I'd jump into this discussion as well. It ties in with a discussion Andro started with the 1/1/1 method.

I believe there is a veritable commonality with wine, urine and eggs (yolks included). They behave similarly once animated.

I would guess that the whole egg is the matter and we should use what is within the egg, ie the yolk and the white. But surely this egg is a metaphor for another matter as you say, from which we must look inside to find our " two fish".

We should also note that egg is "seed". We are, I assume, looking for the metallic seed within our matter. Perhaps the positive seed exists within one fish whilst the negative seed exists within the other fish.
These two fish may be our two sulphurs, one being fixed and the other volatile.

Illen A. Cluf
09-03-2016, 03:15 AM
Hello folks,
Just thought I'd jump into this discussion as well. It ties in with a discussion Andro started with the 1/1/1 method.

I believe there is a veritable commonality with wine, urine and eggs (yolks included). They behave similarly once animated.

I would guess that the whole egg is the matter and we should use what is within the egg, ie the yolk and the white. But surely this egg is a metaphor for another matter as you say, from which we must look inside to find our " two fish".

We should also note that egg is "seed". We are, I assume, looking for the metallic seed within our matter. Perhaps the positive seed exists within one fish whilst the negative seed exists within the other fish.
These two fish may be our two sulphurs, one being fixed and the other volatile.

Based on traditional thinking, the egg clearly represents the Sulphur and the Mercury principles. The Mercury, as the alkahest, is used to dissolve the Sulphur to create the philosophic gold. It is then cocted to result in the medicine. Then gold is added to result in a transmuting Stone, if that is the goal. The metallic "seed" is what makes the Stone of metallic origin (although there is no metal contained in the Stone).

Chasm
09-03-2016, 05:16 PM
Based on traditional thinking, the egg clearly represents the Sulphur and the Mercury principles. The Mercury, as the alkahest, is used to dissolve the Sulphur to create the philosophic gold. It is then cocted to result in the medicine. Then gold is added to result in a transmuting Stone, if that is the goal. The metallic "seed" is what makes the Stone of metallic origin (although there is no metal contained in the Stone).
But there are two sulphurs yes? And this Mercury, from whence does it originate? Is it released as an effect of the separation of the two sulphurs, the two fish? If so, what causes the separation? Is it the genero-fermentative process?

Illen A. Cluf
09-03-2016, 06:20 PM
But there are two sulphurs yes?

There's a sulphur in the metal and a sulphur born from the conjunction of the (first) Sulphur and Mercury. This latter sulphur is the little "fish" (ramora).


And this Mercury, from whence does it originate? Is it released as an effect of the separation of the two sulphurs, the two fish? If so, what causes the separation? Is it the genero-fermentative process?

My understanding is that the Mercury (secret fire) derives from the first matter and involves the initial preparation. It's a special process that has never been described in any alchemical text. It's THE greatest secret. Most texts start with the second step (conjunction) as though it's the first.

Chasm
09-03-2016, 10:18 PM
There's a sulphur in the metal and a sulphur born from the conjunction of the (first) Sulphur and Mercury. This latter sulphur is the little "fish" (ramora).
When you say there's a sulphur in the metal, which metal are you speaking of? I thought we were speaking of a process to acquire by fermentive distillation, the stone. Are you saying that we need vulgar gold to make the Stone or is the vulgar gold necessary to provide the seed to a projecting elixir ,the seed of vulgar gold being accessed by our alkahest?


My understanding is that the Mercury (secret fire) derives from the first matter and involves the initial preparation. It's a special process that has never been described in any alchemical text. It's THE greatest secret. Most texts start with the second step (conjunction) as though it's the first.
This I understand. I'm more keen to hear about the fermentive distillation. I believe it has been described but vaguely. Some authors liken the work to baking bread or making wine. Others call this preparation the "toad". Because of this I'm curious about the fermentative distillation process.

Illen A. Cluf
09-04-2016, 12:02 AM
When you say there's a sulphur in the metal, which metal are you speaking of? I thought we were speaking of a process to acquire by fermentive distillation, the stone. Are you saying that we need vulgar gold to make the Stone or is the vulgar gold necessary to provide the seed to a projecting elixir ,the seed of vulgar gold being accessed by our alkahest?

My understanding is that vulgar gold is used on the Elixir only if one intends to transmute gold. Otherwise it is used for Medical purposes or for making an everlasting light.


This I understand. I'm more keen to hear about the fermentive distillation. I believe it has been described but vaguely. Some authors liken the work to baking bread or making wine. Others call this preparation the "toad". Because of this I'm curious about the fermentative distillation process.

As already mentioned, the universal medicine, despite its metallic origin, is not uniquely made from 'metallic' metal. If it were, fermentation would not be required. Thus the medicine needs to be fermented with very pure gold or silver, through direct fusion, in order to obtain the powder of Projection.

Chasm
09-04-2016, 03:08 AM
As already mentioned, the universal medicine, despite its metallic origin, is not uniquely made from 'metallic' metal. If it were, fermentation would not be required. Thus the medicine needs to be fermented with very pure gold or silver, through direct fusion, in order to obtain the powder of Projection.
This too, I understand. What I wish to clarify is whether we use fermentive distillation to acquire our alkahest. I'm interested in the preparation more than the projection. That part reads easily enough. To be more direct, what do you consider fermentation of the first matter entails?

Illen A. Cluf
09-04-2016, 02:24 PM
This too, I understand. What I wish to clarify is whether we use fermentive distillation to acquire our alkahest. I'm interested in the preparation more than the projection. That part reads easily enough. To be more direct, what do you consider fermentation of the first matter entails?

I guess there was some confusion about terminology and the use of common gold. "Fermentation" is almost always used with respect to the process of making the powder of projection. Common gold (or silver) is often suggested as the "ferment" for this process.

Regarding the preparation of the first matter, I'm not at all convinced that a fermentative distillation process is used. If anything, it could be used for a later process when they spoke of a special vessel. The Philosophers rarely spoke of the first preparation, but when they did, they seemed to suggest that it was done in a crucible on an open flame (very high temperature). They also say that there are two ways of preparing the first matter - a long, humid way, and a short dry way.

Chasm
09-04-2016, 03:13 PM
I guess there was some confusion about terminology and the use of common gold. "Fermentation" is almost always used with respect to the process of making the powder of projection. Common gold (or silver) is often suggested as the "ferment" for this process.

Regarding the preparation of the first matter, I'm not at all convinced that a fermentative distillation process is used. If anything, it could be used for a later process when they spoke of a special vessel. The Philosophers rarely spoke of the first preparation, but when they did, they seemed to suggest that it was done in a crucible on an open flame (very high temperature). They also say that there are two ways of preparing the first matter - a long, humid way, and a short dry way.
Excellent response Illen, exactly what I was looking for.
I'm especially curious of this part:

"Fermentation" is almost always used with respect to the process of making the powder of projection. Common gold (or silver) is often suggested as the "ferment" for this process.
"Almost always", is quite true! I think we must look closer at this and ask ourselves why!
As for this part:

but when they did, they seemed to suggest that it was done in a crucible on an open flame (very high temperature)
We should again look at this as well. It just doesn't seem to feel right. Wouldn't this damage the tender bud?

Illen A. Cluf
09-04-2016, 03:53 PM
As for this part:

We should again look at this as well. It just doesn't seem to feel right. Wouldn't this damage the tender bud?

Not at all. It is my understanding that the first preparation only involves preparing the mercury. Once the mercury has been prepared, it is then used to dissolve the matter containing the sulphur, or perhaps better expressed as to "open up its pores". The sulphur is deeply locked within this second substance, and the mercury (alkahest) is used to pry it out. Apparently, there is no other substance/process which can accomplish this. The sulphur coagulates into a tiny "lump", which the Philosophers, according to Fulcanelli, called "fish", "ramora", "echineus", "bather", "little King", "sea urchin", "little bear", etc. This is your "tender bud". The subsequent process is intended to "fix" and enhance this tender sulphur and make it fireproof.

Chasm
09-04-2016, 06:04 PM
Not at all. It is my understanding that the first preparation only involves preparing the mercury. Once the mercury has been prepared, it is then used to dissolve the matter containing the sulphur, or perhaps better expressed as to "open up its pores". The sulphur is deeply locked within this second substance, and the mercury (alkahest) is used to pry it out. Apparently, there is no other substance/process which can accomplish this. The sulphur coagulates into a tiny "lump", which the Philosophers, according to Fulcanelli, called "fish", "ramora", "echineus", "bather", "little King", "sea urchin", "little bear", etc. This is your "tender bud". The subsequent process is intended to "fix" and enhance this tender sulphur and make it fireproof.
Is all this to say that you approve of using a crucible in the preparation of the first matter as alluded to in the last post?

The Philosophers rarely spoke of the first preparation, but when they did, they seemed to suggest that it was done in a crucible on an open flame (very high temperature).
I'm just trying to acquire a feel for the process that you're using here. I'm wondering if in fact it is the same process that I use.:D

Illen A. Cluf
09-04-2016, 09:00 PM
Is all this to say that you approve of using a crucible in the preparation of the first matter as alluded to in the last post?

I don't approve or disapprove of using any equipment. I'm only trying to decipher what the Adepts said.


I'm just trying to acquire a feel for the process that you're using here. I'm wondering if in fact it is the same process that I use.:D

It's not "my" process but my interpretation of the process suggested by the Adepts.

Chasm
09-04-2016, 09:20 PM
I don't approve or disapprove of using any equipment. I'm only trying to decipher what the Adepts said.
Fair enough


It's not "my" process but my interpretation of the process suggested by the Adepts.
Of course!

Chasm
09-05-2016, 09:47 PM
Definition of fermentation: M/W
1
a : a chemical change with effervescence
b : an enzymatically controlled anaerobic breakdown of an energy-rich compound (as a carbohydrate to carbon dioxide and alcohol or to an organic acid); broadly : an enzymatically controlled transformation of an organic compound

Other definitions abound, however, I am unclear as to why it is that many would be Seekers would choose to add gold or silver to a coction and call it fermentation. Perhaps it is, perhaps not.
As the above definition states: a: "a chemical change with effervescence"
This definition is broad and very general. It really doesn't tell us much...or does it?

How about b: "an enzymatically controlled transformation of an organic compound"
These "transformations" sound as if we're talking about food or derivations of food products.
I can't for the life of me see where gold or silver could be used in the context of the definitions above. Common gold and silver are dead after all. How can we possibly expect reactions out of them, "with effervescence?"
When some Seeker put gold or silver into their coctions, are they fermenting or simply adding the metals to their coction? And what does the process of fermentation entail?

Andro
09-05-2016, 10:01 PM
I can't for the life of me see where gold or silver could be used in the context of the definitions above. Common gold and silver are dead after all.

Metallic Gold can be revived by a suitable Alkahest/Ph. Mercury. In some of the more charitable texts, it is presented as a sort of 'second best' option, if one cannot derive the Universal Sulfur from the Philosophical Earth.

Illen A. Cluf
09-05-2016, 10:26 PM
Definition of fermentation: M/W
1
a : a chemical change with effervescence
b : an enzymatically controlled anaerobic breakdown of an energy-rich compound (as a carbohydrate to carbon dioxide and alcohol or to an organic acid); broadly : an enzymatically controlled transformation of an organic compound

Other definitions abound, however, I am unclear as to why it is that many would be Seekers would choose to add gold or silver to a coction and call it fermentation. Perhaps it is, perhaps not.
As the above definition states: a: "a chemical change with effervescence"
This definition is broad and very general. It really doesn't tell us much...or does it?

How about b: "an enzymatically controlled transformation of an organic compound"
These "transformations" sound as if we're talking about food or derivations of food products.
I can't for the life of me see where gold or silver could be used in the context of the definitions above. Common gold and silver are dead after all. How can we possibly expect reactions out of them, "with effervescence?"
When some Seeker put gold or silver into their coctions, are they fermenting or simply adding the metals to their coction? And what does the process of fermentation entail?

You're using modern "chemical" definitions. The alchemists had their own language and used many chemical terms in a completely 'philosophical' sense only, just as they use the terms "Mercury" and Sulphur" to represent philosophical principles, rather than the actual common substances. Many treatises even explicitly state this.

Chasm
09-05-2016, 11:53 PM
@ Andro

Metallic Gold can be revived by a suitable Alkahest/Ph. Mercury. In some of the more charitable texts, it is presented as a sort of 'second best' option, if one cannot derive the Universal Sulfur from the Philosophical Earth.
Interesting, so you differentiate between Alkahest and Universal Sulphur then?
Regardless, is fermentation a revivication of something? Are its characteristics to preserve, or is it a key that opens the gate to the alchemical putrefaction? The Stone will open gold....is this what fermentation is...an opening?

I'm not satisfied with the common definitions of fermentation and especially WHY it occurs. The process of fermentation, with foodstuffs, appear to preserve through transformation. Fermentation appears to be the gateway to something. SM perhaps?

Can we consider fermentation an essential process in the opening of matter?
I think we must. We observe effects of fermentation is foodstuff, but the process isn't run to putrefaction. We interrupt the process to consume that stage of transformation

Things rot. Is putrefaction rot? I don't think so. Anyways, trying to address the purpose of fermentation is difficult. But it becomes clearer when , as you said, " Metallic gold can be revived by a suitable alkahest." In this case, the alkahest is the ferment and NOT gold, for the alkahest opens the gold through putrefaction.

@Illen

You're using modern "chemical" definitions. The alchemists had their own language and used many chemical terms in a completely 'philosophical' sense only, just as they use the terms "Mercury" and Sulphur" to represent philosophical principles, rather than the actual common substances. Many treatises even explicitly state this.

I'm challenging the modern meaning. I'm looking for real meaning. Perhaps the alchemical meaning is the real meaning. What did they mean? This I wish to deduce.
Nothing is fermented by dead gold or silver. I think that much is clear. Dead things are inanimate and can open nothing!

Illen A. Cluf
09-06-2016, 01:09 AM
@ Andro

@Illen


I'm challenging the modern meaning.

That has no relevance to alchemy at all. What is relevant is the meaning that the alchemists applied to the terms.



Nothing is fermented by dead gold or silver. I think that much is clear. Dead things are inanimate and can open nothing!

I respectfully disagree. I tried to be more than generous and explained it fairly openly earlier, but you have obviously either not read my words carefully enough, consider me very inexperienced in this subject, or have already made up your mind and cannot be persuaded otherwise. Not that I really care, but I was just trying to be helpful.

I encourage you to take the time (I mean many, many years) to read many of the key alchemical texts over and over again VERY closely and particularly take note of some of the axioms and philosophical principles. Also take numerous notes and make condordances between all the words used for any substance, principal, apparatus, process, chemical words, etc. You might then finally begin to understand some of their language and even realize that some key alchemical 'things' can never die (it is critical to understand this in order to understand the process itself). Once you realize that, other important secrets will rapidly open themselves to you.

I'm not saying that I have all the answers, but I have come a very long way towards the goal - primarily through reading and re-reading and deeply analyzing many dozens (or possibly even hundreds) of treatises and books, and also through this growing understanding of their 'Bird Language'.

Good luck!

Illen A. Cluf
09-06-2016, 01:27 AM
Metallic Gold can be revived by a suitable Alkahest/Ph. Mercury. In some of the more charitable texts, it is presented as a sort of 'second best' option, if one cannot derive the Universal Sulfur from the Philosophical Earth.

"Truly", writes Limojon de Saint-Didier, "some philosophers seemingly quite sincere, nevertheless throw the artists into error solemnly asserting that who does not know the gold of the philosophers will however be able to find it in common gold cooked with the Mercury of the Philosophers. Those are Philalethes’ sentiments. He affirms that Trevisan, Zachaire, and Flamel have followed this path. He also adds that this is not the true path of the Sages although it leads to the same end. But these affirmations, sincere as they appear, nevertheless cannot but mislead artists who, eager to follow the same Philalethes through the purification and the animation that he teaches of common mercury so as to turn it into the Mercury of the Philosophers (a glaring error behind which he has hidden the secret of the mercury of the Sages) and undertake, taking his word for it, a very arduous and definitely impossible work. Thus, after a time-consuming work filled with difficulties and dangers, they obtain a mercury only slightly more impure than before they started, instead of a mercury animated with the celestial quintessence. A deplorable error that has lost, broken, and will still ruin a great number of artists" [Fulcanelli, The Dwellings of the Philosophers", Pages 224-225]

Chasm
09-06-2016, 02:23 AM
That has no relevance to alchemy at all. What is relevant is the meaning that the alchemists applied to the terms.
Did I not imply the same thing? I did say that I'm at odds with the current meaning of the word fermentation.


I respectfully disagree. I tried to be more than generous and explained it fairly openly earlier, but you have obviously either not read my words carefully enough, consider me very inexperienced in this subject, or have already made up your mind and cannot be persuaded otherwise. Not that I really care, but I was just trying to be helpful.

I'm not looking for your generosity. I've noticed your words. I've been exploring your understanding of the words. How you feel about this is your prerogative, however, I feel that you take me for being at odds with you.
If you genuinely believe that common gold and silver can open anything, then I fear that the many many years that you've spent reading and finding the correlations have left you wanting a little correction. No texts make such claim. It's true that common gold and silver can both be revivified as Ando said, however, this requires a proper solvent which is of the same nature as the metals. This solvent transforms the metals into their alchemical counterparts.


I encourage you to take the time (I mean many, many years) to read many of the key alchemical texts over and over again VERY closely and particularly take note of some of the axioms and philosophical principles. Also take numerous notes and make condordances between all the words used for any substance, principal, apparatus, process, chemical words, etc. You might then finally begin to understand some of their language and even realize that some key alchemical 'things' can never die (it is critical to understand this in order to understand the process itself). Once you realize that, other important secrets will rapidly open themselves to you.
Common gold and silver are not alchemical. They're considered dead. Revivable, yet dead, unless reborn by pontific water.


I'm not saying that I have all the answers, but I have come a very long way towards the goal - primarily through reading and re-reading and deeply analyzing many dozens (or possibly even hundreds) of treatises and books, and also through this growing understanding of their 'Bird Language'.
Who has ALL the answers? Are we not to seek out brothers and lovers of the art?
Why do you assume that I must do these things; Have I said something false? Show me where!
I'm glad that you're beginning to understand the language...whatever you wish to call it.
The bird too is only a symbol. It can mean everything and nothing. Depends how close you are to the goal.;)

Good luck!
And the same to you!

Illen A. Cluf
09-06-2016, 03:07 AM
If you genuinely believe that common gold and silver can open anything, then I fear that the many many years that you've spent reading and finding the correlations have left you wanting a little correction.

Well, that clearly shows how little you try to understand my words. I never said anything like that. You said: "Nothing is fermented by dead gold or silver. I think that much is clear. Dead things are inanimate and can open nothing!"

What I said was: "some key alchemical 'things' can never die". I never said anything about dead things opening anything, but that some things that you consider dead are really quite alive, in terms of alchemical understanding.

Can you now see how MUCH interpretation (based on your own conceptions) that you have put into my words? You are trying to fit my understanding into your preconceived understanding. Since it doesn't fit, you have not tried to understand it from my perpsective at all, and thus you have had to twist my words completely and erroneously to fit your conception.


Who has ALL the answers? Are we not to seek out brothers and lovers of the art?

Do you mean to find others who strictly conform to your own foregone conclusions for conformation, and ignore or twist the rest, or to truly listen, understand a different perspective and share?


Why do you assume that I must do these things; Have I said something false? Show me where!

See above. Also, both Andro and myself already tried to correct a misunderstanding (in different ways), so I don't need to repeat it.



The bird too is only a symbol. It can mean everything and nothing. Depends how close you are to the goal.;)

Here I agree :-)

I don't think we're really getting anywhere, so I think I'll leave this discussion and go back to listen to the birds :-) Far more productive.

Chasm
09-06-2016, 04:45 AM
@ Andro

Interesting, so you differentiate between Alkahest and Universal Sulphur then?
Regardless, is fermentation a revivication of something? Are its characteristics to preserve, or is it a key that opens the gate to the alchemical putrefaction? The Stone will open gold....is this what fermentation is...an opening?

I'm not satisfied with the common definitions of fermentation and especially WHY it occurs. The process of fermentation, with foodstuffs, appear to preserve through transformation. Fermentation appears to be the gateway to something. SM perhaps?

Can we consider fermentation an essential process in the opening of matter?
I think we must. We observe effects of fermentation is foodstuff, but the process isn't run to putrefaction. We interrupt the process to consume that stage of transformation

Things rot. Is putrefaction rot? I don't think so. Anyways, trying to address the purpose of fermentation is difficult. But it becomes clearer when , as you said, " Metallic gold can be revived by a suitable alkahest." In this case, the alkahest is the ferment and NOT gold, for the alkahest opens the gold through putrefaction.

@Illen


I'm challenging the modern meaning. I'm looking for real meaning. Perhaps the alchemical meaning is the real meaning. What did they mean? This I wish to deduce.
Nothing is fermented by dead gold or silver. I think that much is clear. Dead things are inanimate and can open nothing!


Well, that clearly shows how little you try to understand my words. I never said anything like that. You said: "Nothing is fermented by dead gold or silver. I think that much is clear. Dead things are inanimate and can open nothing!"
And you respectfully disagreed to this! So we were speaking of common gold and silver. This is what I was responding to:

I respectfully disagree. I tried to be more than generous and explained it fairly openly earlier, but you have obviously either not read my words carefully enough, consider me very inexperienced in this subject, or have already made up your mind and cannot be persuaded otherwise. Not that I really care, but I was just trying to be helpful.


What I said was: "some key alchemical 'things' can never die". I never said anything about dead things opening anything, but that some things that you consider dead are really quite alive, in terms of alchemical understanding.
I didn't respond to this. Truth is, ALL things are composed of matter in motion. So I don't disagree. Why harp?
When you say "some things that you consider dead are really quite alive, in terms of alchemical understanding", are you speaking to me or in general?
In either case I agree with this. I never addressed "some key alchemical things never die." Again, why harp?


Can you now see how MUCH interpretation (based on your own conceptions) that you have put into my words? You are trying to fit my understanding into your preconceived understanding. Since it doesn't fit, you have not tried to understand it from my perpsective at all, and thus you have had to twist my words completely and erroneously to fit your conception.
What???:D. You're illin Illen. Attempting to understand you is exactly what I'm doing. I said as much here:

Chasm wrote:I'm not looking for your generosity. I've noticed your words. I've been exploring your understanding of the words.



Do you mean to find others who strictly conform to your own foregone conclusions for conformation, and ignore or twist the rest, or to truly listen, understand a different perspective and share?
What you're saying is asinine and uncalled for. Where did I twist of your words?
What do you respectfully disagree about?


See above. Also, both Andro and myself already tried to correct a misunderstanding (in different ways), so I don't need to repeat it.
Who asked you to? Good for you and Andro. What's it have to do with me? I don't have a clue what you're talking about.


Here I agree :-)

:confused: Great! The most aloof statement that I made.


I don't think we're really getting anywhere, so I think I'll leave this discussion and go back to listen to the birds :-) Far more productive.
Hey, I'm not gonna stoop and make the appropriate response to the way that you've engaged me, but flutter along back to that lofty perch that you're still struggling to reach. Try not to get too high, the lack of oxygen deprives one of his senses :o

Andro
09-10-2016, 04:51 PM
I'm locking this thread until things have cooled down.

Thread unlocked.

theFool
01-29-2017, 11:05 AM
In the "Book of Quintessence (http://wolf.mind.net/library/western/alchemy/quin_trans/quin_translation.txt)" the so called "quintessence" can be captured by "digestive circulation" of wine alcohol in a completely closed vessel where it will float on top after many days. Talk is cheap but why not try the experiment if it is cheaper. So, some triple distilled alcohol was left tightly sealed under the sun for three months. Nothing seemed to float on top of it as the recipe suggests. But after evaporating a small part of it a white oily "butter" appeared:

https://i37.servimg.com/u/f37/13/27/64/97/alchlb10.png

When completely dried, it has the creamy consistency of vaseline. Its concentration was impressively high in the alcohol. I wonder if the alcohol leached something from the lid or plastic containers during at storage. But anyways, just sharing, in case someone might have seen it too.

Similar white material has been observed in experiments from years ago:
http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?379-Oil-of-Wine&highlight=wine