PDA

View Full Version : The Secret Book of Artephius: Commentary & Analysis



Ilos
07-07-2014, 10:09 AM
The Secret Book of Artephius
Has anyone tried to pursue the teachings of Artephius, does this book have the way to the philosopher's stone?

The Secret Book of Artephius (http://www.amazon.com/The-Secret-Book-Artephius/dp/1770831789/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=08B4S3AMQP6FNX2HT2G2)

3+O(
06-10-2015, 05:40 PM
The Secret Book of Artephius
Has anyone tried to pursue the teachings of Artephius, does this book have the way to the philosopher's stone?

The Secret Book of Artephius (http://www.amazon.com/The-Secret-Book-Artephius/dp/1770831789/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=08B4S3AMQP6FNX2HT2G2)

Pontanus states:


They err, have erred and will ever err, in that the Philosophers have placed their true agent in but one, single thing, which Artephius alone named, but speaking only for himself. Had I not read Artephius, nor penetrated and understood, never would I have arrived at the accomplishment of the Work.
http://www.jungcircle.com/mist/alchemy1.htm
In the quote at the top of this page, Fulcanelli cites them approvingly but somewhat confusedly lists Epistola de Igne Philosophorum as though it were by someone other than Pontanus.

Both Artephius and Pontanus are named-dropped in the Verse on the Threefold Sophic Fire:
http://www.levity.com/alchemy/sophfire.html

Andro
06-10-2015, 07:02 PM
Pontanus states:

They err, have erred and will ever err, in that the Philosophers have placed their true agent in but one, single thing, which Artephius alone named, but speaking only for himself. Had I not read Artephius, nor penetrated and understood, never would I have arrived at the accomplishment of the Work.

Atephius, indeed, names 'it' in plain language. Those interested, should read him carefully. I suspect it's not the 'true' Universal, but rather a highly potent particular spirit, in many ways similar to its chemical counterpart (which is the one mentioned by Artephius), but obtained/prepared through the interaction between the 'Astral Spirit' (NOT common dew or air humidity) and a mineral subject.

But that's just my view on it.

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

Illen A. Cluf
10-28-2016, 06:19 PM
Atephius, indeed, names 'it' in plain language. Those interested, should read him carefully. I suspect it's not the 'true' Universal, but rather a highly potent particular spirit, in many ways similar to its chemical counterpart (which is the one mentioned by Artephius), but obtained/prepared through the interaction between the 'Astral Spirit' (NOT common dew or air humidity) and a mineral subject.

But that's just my view on it.

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

The only two substances he clearly named in that treatise is "Antimony" and "Sal ammoniac". "Antimony" was often used by the sages only as a decknamen to indicate the subject matter.

Andro
10-28-2016, 06:30 PM
The only two substances he clearly named in that treatise is "Antimony" and "Sal ammoniac". "Antimony" was often used by the sages only as a decknamen to indicate the subject matter.

1. He plainly names 'Oil of Vitriol' (Sulfuric Acid) as involved in the preparation. It takes attentive reading to spot it. I didn't notice it the first 2-3 times I read it.

2. Agreed fully about 'Antimony'.

3. 'Sal Ammoniac' has a history of being used to indicate an opened/spiritualized/elevated salt.

4. 'Decknamen' is plural. Singular for 'cover name' is Deckname :)

Illen A. Cluf
10-28-2016, 07:03 PM
1. He plainly names 'Oil of Vitriol' (Sulfuric Acid) as involved in the preparation. It takes attentive reading to spot it. I didn't notice it the first 2-3 times I read it.

2. Agreed fully about 'Antimony'.

3. 'Sal Ammoniac' has a history of being used to indicate an opened/spiritualized/elevated salt.

4. 'Decknamen' is plural. Singular for 'cover name' is Deckname :)

1. I still cannot find any "clear" mention of "oil of vitriol" in the treatise. Can you point to the exact sentence?
4. Thank you. 'Deckname' it shall be henceforth.

Andro
10-28-2016, 07:05 PM
I still cannot find any "clear" mention of "oil of vitriol" in the treatise. Can you point to the exact sentence?

It's been a while and I would have to go through the entire book all over again. I'll post it here in case it pops up.

JDP
10-28-2016, 07:30 PM
The only two substances he clearly named in that treatise is "Antimony" and "Sal ammoniac". "Antimony" was often used by the sages only as a decknamen to indicate the subject matter.

He also mentions gold, silver and mercury.

JDP
10-28-2016, 07:44 PM
It's been a while and I would have to go through the entire book all over again. I'll post it here in case it pops up.

The only clear mention of a related word to the word "vitriol" seems to be the following passage:

"And in this our philosophical sublimation, not in the impure, corrupt, vulgar mercury, which has no qualities or properties like to those, with which our mercury, drawn from its vitriolic caverns is adorned. But let us return to our sublimation."

But this is not necessarily an allusion to "oil of vitriol", though. The quote occurs within the context of the "philosophical sublimation". He might have something else in mind involving actual "vitriols" (usually meaning metallic sulfates, specially of iron or copper) or perhaps some other saline substance (the word "vitriol" and its derivatives were often applied to several kinds of saline substances, not just to sulfates. For example, metallic nitrates were often called "vitriols" as well. It basically became a blanket term for the salts of what we today call heavy metals, i.e. lead, silver, mercury, zinc, copper, iron, cobalt, etc. )

Illen A. Cluf
10-28-2016, 07:53 PM
He also mentions gold, silver and mercury.

But most sages say that these three do not form part of the stone (although gold and silver are used for "ferments" later if one wishes to make a transformation powder.

Andro
10-28-2016, 07:55 PM
It's been a while and I would have to go through the entire book all over again. I'll post it here in case it pops up.

I've just had a quick re-read of Artephius and couldn't find it. Maybe my memory played some tricks on me when I read it 5 or 6 times over, years ago...

However, I clearly remember Sulfuric Acid (prepared in a certain way) being mentioned in some notes of Von Bernus. Sulfuric Acid also naturally occurs in the preparation of Marcasite. Also, when reading Artephius now, I noticed how he mentions that the first water (the catalyst for the sublimation) is of a 'sulfurous and viscous' acid nature... Perhaps this is what my mind registered as 'Oil of Vitriol' at the time...


This sublimation, is made by things acid, spiritual, volatile, and which are in their own nature sulphureous and viscous, which dissolves bodies and makes them to ascend, and be changed into air and spirit.Acid (or perhaps better worded, the 'Acid Principle') is one of several 'cheats' to elevate fixed matters, open and 'spiritualize' them, but IME not absolutely necessary.

Schmuldvich
10-28-2016, 07:58 PM
He plainly names 'Oil of Vitriol' (Sulfuric Acid) as involved in the preparation. It takes attentive reading to spot it. I didn't notice it the first 2-3 times I read it.

...It's been a while and I would have to go through the entire book all over again. I'll post it here in case it pops up.

You or I can read "The Secret Book of Artephius" over and over again, but neither of us will ever find any reference to this Oil of Vitriol you claim Artephius speaks of so plainly.

No amount of attentive reading will make something appear that simply is not there.


JDP pointed out the one and only time in "The Secret Book of Artephius" where any kind of vitriol or vitriolic substance is mentioned


The only clear mention of a related word to the word "vitriol" seems to be the following passage:

"And in this our philosophical sublimation, not in the impure, corrupt, vulgar mercury, which has no qualities or properties like to those, with which our mercury, drawn from its vitriolic caverns is adorned. But let us return to our sublimation."

And like he pointed out, Oil of Vitriol is not another term for sulfuric acid, Andro.

I would expect you, of all people, to be versed more on Alchemy than most of us here. Do you not realise (as you pointed out above with the "acid principle") that when the Sages refer to "Sulfuric acid" they are referring to something containing the principles of our Sulphur and not vulgar sulfuric acid?

Andro
10-28-2016, 08:11 PM
I have just admitted above that I was mistaken about this. No need to antagonize.

I am not using anything of the kind in my own current work, so I simply share some correlations as I see them.

What you don't seem to get is that a PRINCIPLE can be also used in its 'lower' expressions, as 'substitutes' - if the 'Supreme Vinegar of the Mountains' is not at hand.

Acid treatment is an experimentally proven means to volatilize/sublime/elevate fixed salts. This is not arguable on my part, since I have done it myself a few years back.

I strongly suspect that Cyliani and St. Didier (for example), when emphasizing the relevance of their knowledge of chemistry, were implying the use of a chemical to initially 'open the lock' of their matter.


I would expect you, of all people

"Expect Nothing - Receive Everything"


~ Anonymous

JDP
10-28-2016, 08:24 PM
But most sages say that these three do not form part of the stone (although gold and silver are used for "ferments" later if one wishes to make a transformation powder.

Artephius certainly seems to suggest that at least gold does.

Schmuldvich
10-28-2016, 08:34 PM
I have just admitted above that I was mistaken about this. No need to antagonize.

Apologies. You posted as I was typing so I did not see what you wrote until just now. Your post was not there when I hit "reply". My intent was not to antagonize though I do realize my post comes across that way.



I strongly suspect that Cyliani and St. Didier (for example), when emphasizing the relevance of their knowledge of chemistry, were implying the use of a chemical to initially 'open the lock' of their matter.

Certainly a great topic of discussion!

Illen A. Cluf
10-28-2016, 10:18 PM
Artephius certainly seems to suggest that at least gold does.

But again "gold" is also used as a deckname. The "gold" of the philosophers is not the precious metal.

JDP
10-29-2016, 11:56 AM
But again "gold" is also used as a deckname. The "gold" of the philosophers is not the precious metal.

But the amount of things that the author of that text says makes it very difficult not to conclude that he really means a "philosophical solution" of gold in the secret solvent. This guy does not just casually say "Sol", or "gold", or even the more conspicuous use of the word "our" before the word "Sol/gold"; no, he is very persistent in pointing out actual gold. Example:

"This saturnine antimony agrees with sol, and contains in itself argent vive, in which no metal is swallowed up, except gold, and gold is truly swallowed up by this antimonial argent vive. Without this argent vive no metal whatsoever can be whitened; it whitens laton, i.e. gold; reduceth a perfect body into its prima materia, or first matter, viz. into sulphur and argent vive, of a white color, and outshining a looking glass. It dissolves, I say the perfect body, which is so in its own nature; for this water is friendly and agreeable with the metals, whitening sol, because it contains in itself white or pure argent vive."

From this passage alone we learn that:

1- He works with metals and a secret solvent he usually calls "argent vive" (among other "decknamen")

2- That the metal he prefers to use is NOT "white", but has color (notice he says that it is "whitened" by the "argent vive"), and there are ONLY TWO metals that meet this criterion: gold and copper. All other metals are "white" (in reality they are different shades of silver-grey, but that is what was meant by "white metals".)

3- He refers to this metal as being "perfect" (only two metals were regarded as such: silver and gold)

A couple more examples:

"Take, saith he, crude leaf gold, or calcined with mercury,"

"That is, you must extract a living and incombustible water, and then congeal, or coagulate it with the perfect body of sol, i.e. fine gold, without alloy;"

Once again, he is obviously referring to a metal. He prefers to use it without alloying with other metals, it is beaten into thin "leaves" or reduced to powder by "calcining" a mercury-gold amalgam (both methods are for increasing the surface area of the metal) and then subjected to the action of the secret solvent.

What "Artephius" does hide under a difficult to penetrate veil is the preparation of the secret solvent, about which he keeps talking about and describing its action upon metallic bodies but is never very clear regarding how and out of what substances exactly is it made. But he does not make any secret whatsoever regarding the chosen metal he worked with. The references to purified metallic gold in a fine state of division or a flattened form (to increase the surface area of the metal to the action of the secret solvent) are pretty clear. This guy obviously preferred to work with gold. Some other alchemists actually preferred other metals (see, for example, the works of the German lawyer/alchemist Franz Clinge, who says that though gold can also work to prepare the "sulphur" for the Stone, it works much better with certain two other metals which are much cheaper. It is not a "coincidence" that Clinge also is much more cautious when he talks about the secret solvent and its preparation, for which purpose he also adopts a more "enigmatic" style, just like "Artephius". The whole secret of alchemy depends on the preparation of this special "water", "mercury", "solvent", or whatever you want to call it, and not so much on what metal is chosen to prepare the "sulphur" for the Stone, therefore many alchemists hardly made much of a secret regarding the topic of what metal was used to prepare the "sulphur/soul/tincture" of the Stone.)

Illen A. Cluf
10-29-2016, 03:50 PM
But the amount of things that the author of that text says makes it very difficult not to conclude that he really means a "philosophical solution" of gold in the secret solvent. This guy does not just casually say "Sol", or "gold", or even the more conspicuous use of the word "our" before the word "Sol/gold"; no, he is very persistent in pointing out actual gold. Example:

"This saturnine antimony agrees with sol, and contains in itself argent vive, in which no metal is swallowed up, except gold, and gold is truly swallowed up by this antimonial argent vive. Without this argent vive no metal whatsoever can be whitened; it whitens laton, i.e. gold; reduceth a perfect body into its prima materia, or first matter, viz. into sulphur and argent vive, of a white color, and outshining a looking glass. It dissolves, I say the perfect body, which is so in its own nature; for this water is friendly and agreeable with the metals, whitening sol, because it contains in itself white or pure argent vive."

But this passage only says that the solvent will dissolve gold, not that gold is actually part of the solvent, which later becomes the Stone. The sage is trying to say that the "saturnine antimony" is very compatible with gold, as other authors (e.g. Fulcanelli) have also indicated.


From this passage alone we learn that:

1- He works with metals and a secret solvent he usually calls "argent vive" (among other "decknamen")

I agree. The solvent is used to extract and combine with the sulphur of a particular common metal.


2- That the metal he prefers to use is NOT "white", but has color (notice he says that it is "whitened" by the "argent vive"), and there are ONLY TWO metals that meet this criterion: gold and copper. All other metals are "white" (in reality they are different shades of silver-grey, but that is what was meant by "white metals".)
I think he's only saying what would happen if you use this solvent with gold. This doesn't mean that he uses that metal to make the Medicine. It is used with gold only after the medicine is made in order to make the transmutation powder.


3- He refers to this metal as being "perfect" (only two metals were regarded as such: silver and gold) I agree that here he is referring to gold for the red powder (often called "red rose". Silver is used for the white powder (often called "white rose"). But again, this does not mean that gold is used to make the Medicine. Gold is only used afterwards as a ferment to make the transmutation powder. In other words, gold is used, but is not one of the two initial matters. The two initial matters are a mineral and a metal. This metal is not gold or silver or mercury or any of the metalloids (such as Antimony).

Illen A. Cluf
10-29-2016, 04:10 PM
A couple more examples:

"Take, saith he, crude leaf gold, or calcined with mercury,"

"That is, you must extract a living and incombustible water, and then congeal, or coagulate it with the perfect body of sol, i.e. fine gold, without alloy;"

Once again, he is obviously referring to a metal. He prefers to use it without alloying with other metals, it is beaten into thin "leaves" or reduced to powder by "calcining" a mercury-gold amalgam (both methods are for increasing the surface area of the metal) and then subjected to the action of the secret solvent.

What "Artephius" does hide under a difficult to penetrate veil is the preparation of the secret solvent, about which he keeps talking about and describing its action upon metallic bodies but is never very clear regarding how and out of what substances exactly is it made. But he does not make any secret whatsoever regarding the chosen metal he worked with. The references to purified metallic gold in a fine state of division or a flattened form (to increase the surface area of the metal to the action of the secret solvent) are pretty clear. This guy obviously preferred to work with gold. Some other alchemists actually preferred other metals (see, for example, the works of the German lawyer/alchemist Franz Clinge, who says that though gold can also work to prepare the "sulphur" for the Stone, it works much better with certain two other metals which are much cheaper. It is not a "coincidence" that Clinge also is much more cautious when he talks about the secret solvent and its preparation, for which purpose he also adopts a more "enigmatic" style, just like "Artephius". The whole secret of alchemy depends on the preparation of this special "water", "mercury", "solvent", or whatever you want to call it, and not so much on what metal is chosen to prepare the "sulphur" for the Stone, therefore many alchemists hardly made much of a secret regarding the topic of what metal was used to prepare the "sulphur/soul/tincture" of the Stone.)
The sages deliberately tried to confuse what they were writing, and sometimes talked about parts of the process without mentioning other parts. A large part of the confusion stems around an understanding of Geber's "three stones" or "medicines". These are obtained sequentially and are often called (amongst many other names):

1. Philosophical Sulphur;
2. Elixir or Potable Gold; and
3. Philosopher's Stone, Absolute or Universal Medicine.

The Philosophical Sulphur is the crude matter of the Stone, the Elixir is used for medicinal purposes, and the Universal Medicine is used only for the transmutation of metals. It can then no longer be used for medicinal purposes or for extending one's life.

To get from the second to the third medicine, requires a coction with either Silver or Gold. Silver for the White Stone and Gold for the Red Stone. This is the only step where either Silver or Gold is added. Before that, only a common metal (easy to determine) and a mineral (the identity of which is the greatest secret and never revealed) are joined. The "living" mineral produces the solvent while the "dead" metal contains the philosophical gold or sulphur. The solvent is used to extract the sulphur from the metal. They then join to become the first mercury, and from this is extracted the second mercury or philosophical mercury, which is also known as philosophical sulphur just to create even more confusion. This is also the "compound" or Rebis.

Fulcanelli (in "Dwellings", Page 326) specifically wrote:

"... we do not mean to say that gold and silver should absolutely be proscribed, or claim that these metals are excluded from the Work by the masters of the science. But we fraternally warn the disciple that neither gold nor silver, even modified, enter into the composition of mercury."

Thus, as I said, they are used in the Work, but are not at all used in any form to make the mercury, or solvent.

Fulcanelli then adds:

"And were we to discover, in some classical authors, a contrary assertion, we should believe that the Adept ... actually meant philosophical gold or silver, and not the precious metals with which they neither have nor show anything in common."

JDP
10-29-2016, 08:58 PM
But this passage only says that the solvent will dissolve gold, not that gold is actually part of the solvent, which later becomes the Stone. The sage is trying to say that the "saturnine antimony" is very compatible with gold, as other authors (e.g. Fulcanelli) have also indicated.



I agree. The solvent is used to extract and combine with the sulphur of a particular common metal.


I think he's only saying what would happen if you use this solvent with gold. This doesn't mean that he uses that metal to make the Medicine. It is used with gold only after the medicine is made in order to make the transmutation powder.

I agree that here he is referring to gold for the red powder (often called "red rose". Silver is used for the white powder (often called "white rose"). But again, this does not mean that gold is used to make the Medicine. Gold is only used afterwards as a ferment to make the transmutation powder. In other words, gold is used, but is not one of the two initial matters. The two initial matters are a mineral and a metal. This metal is not gold or silver or mercury or any of the metalloids (such as Antimony).

But "Artephius" was not "Fulcanelli". I know that "Fulcanelli" did not think that gold (or silver) enters the composition of the Stone until later, when the Stone is already made and gold (or silver) is used as a "ferment". But this is not what "Artephius" thinks. This guy was operating on gold to make the Stone itself, dissolving gold in the secret solvent and preparing the "sulphur" from it:

"That is, you must extract a living and incombustible water, and then congeal, or coagulate it with the perfect body of sol, i.e. fine gold, without alloy; which is done by dissolving it into a mature white substance of the consistency of cream, and made thoroughly white. But first this sol by putrefaction and resolution in this water, loseth all its light and brightness, and will grow dark and black; afterwards it will ascend above the water, and by little and little will swim upon it, in a substance of a white color. And this is the whitening of red laton to sublimate it philosophically, and to reduce it into its first matter; viz. into a white incombustible sulphur, and into a fixed argent vive."

He is not describing here the "fermentation" of the finished Stone with gold but the making of the Stone itself with gold by submitting gold to the "philosophical solution/sublimation" in the secret solvent. And he was not the only alchemist who was convinced this was the right way of operating, while other alchemists preferred other metals for this part of the operations.

Illen A. Cluf
10-29-2016, 09:10 PM
But "Artephius" was not "Fulcanelli". I know that "Fulcanelli" did not think that gold (or silver) enters the composition of the Stone until later, when the Stone is already made and gold (or silver) is used as a "ferment". But this is not what "Artephius" thinks. This guy was operating on gold to make the Stone itself, dissolving gold in the secret solvent and preparing the "sulphur" from it:

"That is, you must extract a living and incombustible water, and then congeal, or coagulate it with the perfect body of sol, i.e. fine gold, without alloy; which is done by dissolving it into a mature white substance of the consistency of cream, and made thoroughly white. But first this sol by putrefaction and resolution in this water, loseth all its light and brightness, and will grow dark and black; afterwards it will ascend above the water, and by little and little will swim upon it, in a substance of a white color. And this is the whitening of red laton to sublimate it philosophically, and to reduce it into its first matter; viz. into a white incombustible sulphur, and into a fixed argent vive."

He is not describing here the "fermentation" of the finished Stone with gold but the making of the Stone itself with gold by submitting gold to the "philosophical solution/sublimation" in the secret solvent. And he was not the only alchemist who was convinced this was the right way of operating, while other alchemists preferred other metals for this part of the operations.

But think of what you just said: "but the making of the Stone itself with gold by submitting gold to the "philosophical solution/sublimation" in the secret solvent".

You just admitted that the solvent was not made by using gold. The gold was used AFTER the solvent was made.

This is what I've been trying to say all along. I agree that gold (or silver) is used to make the transmutation stone, but NOT the Medicine or the "philosophical mercury"/sulphur. Two matters are used to make the First Medicine (a mineral and a metal), but THREE matters in total are used to make the Universal Medicine or Philosopher's Stone (the mineral - "Saturn", Saturn's offspring, etc., the metal (common), and Gold (or Silver).

JDP
10-29-2016, 09:58 PM
But think of what you just said: "but the making of the Stone itself with gold by submitting gold to the "philosophical solution/sublimation" in the secret solvent".

You just admitted that the solvent was not made by using gold. The gold was used AFTER the solvent was made.

This is what I've been trying to say all along. I agree that gold (or silver) is used to make the transmutation stone, but NOT the Medicine or the "philosophical mercury"/sulphur. Two matters are used to make the First Medicine (a mineral and a metal), but THREE matters in total are used to make the Universal Medicine or Philosopher's Stone (the mineral - "Saturn", Saturn's offspring, etc., the metal (common), and Gold (or Silver).

The secret solvent is not the Stone, it's part of it. Then you need what many writers call the "sulphur" (including Fulcanelli.) This and the secret solvent will form the Stone (after due union and "coction" in the right proportions.) Alchemists like Fulcanelli did not think that gold was appropriate for this purpose, and thus reject it. But other alchemists saw it as perfectly fine to use gold or silver for this purpose. "Artephius" (whoever he really was) evidently was one of them. The operations he describes to make the Stone itself are upon gold with the secret solvent. What he does not explain in a readily clear manner is the composition of the secret solvent (and for obvious reasons: the whole of alchemy depends on it), not the fact that he used gold in conjunction with it.

Dwellings
10-30-2016, 03:59 AM
@Andro

In Alchemy Proper, you never use sulfuric acid or any other acid anywhere. By acid the sages mean the ability of their water to volatize stuff. You already know this.

Yes, the only knowledge of chemistry is needed only in the begining. Rest even a 5 yr old can do.

@Illen and @JDP

Artephius keeps on deliberately babbling about the long path and its finer details but he prefers to perform the wet path which takes roughly half the time of long path.

Andro
10-30-2016, 07:06 AM
@Andro

In Alchemy Proper, you never use sulfuric acid or any other acid anywhere. By acid the sages mean the ability of their water to volatilize stuff. You already know this.

You definitely can use it as an expression of the Acid Principle and a 'lower-level substitute' for 'our water', but it is not an absolute necessity. Other means can be used.

Unless you work completely 'purist' and move through the density scale from there, there is a need to 'magnetize' your initial matter/body by 'opening' it so it can attract AND keep 'our water'. There are various ways to 'magnetize/open/spiritualize' matter. Some (but not all) of these ways may involve acids, such as in the long process with Marcasite (a sulfide), where sulfuric acid forms naturally.

Besides, you have already mentioned that you haven't performed the work yet, so IF this is still the case and all your info comes from reading and from a set of fixed ideas you have formed in your mind, you are in no position to preach what 'alchemy proper' is or isn't, or what 'auxiliary' means are at our disposal to kick-start the process.

Interesting to note what a combination of mild shit-storm as well as positive feedback my admitted memory-related mistake has caused here and in PM as well :)


Yes, the only knowledge of chemistry is needed only in the beginning.

What particular knowledge of chemistry would that be?


Rest even a 5 yr old can do.

If he/she doesn't get distracted, as 5 year olds often do :) ... Also, if you have a preference for a path using high temperatures, would you allow a 5 y/o child near it?
_____________________

Addendum: As 'proof of concept', in the past I have used more 'common' expressions of the 'acid principle' to 'open' various matters/bodies and 'elevate' them, such as changing 'states' (from 'closed' to 'open', from 'fixed' to 'volatile', from polar-soluble to non-polar soluble, etc...).

To further exemplify, various 'waters' such as dew, rainwater, even a body's own 'waters' are examples of (perhaps relatively week but nevertheless efficient) expressions of the 'Acid Principle'.

Another interesting example of using the 'Acid Principle' is found HERE (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4864-Deliquescent-Salt-changing-to-non-deliquescent).

What is often referred to as 'Our Water' (Secret Fire) can be (somewhat and quite loosely) compared with a 'dew on steroids'.

It is archetipally derived from 'Spiritus Mundi Acidus Corporeus' (Golden Chain). Aso in the Golden Chain, 'Our' Subject/Matter is similarly described as 'Spiritus Mundi Fixus Alcalicus Corporeus'.

IF we commence our work with common (corporeal) matter(s), we inevitably work with CHEMICALS ('Code'). Using 'Code against Code' is similar to the Hermetic Way of using 'Law against Law'. A variation of 'hacking', if you will...

Illen A. Cluf
10-30-2016, 03:05 PM
The secret solvent is not the Stone, it's part of it. Then you need what many writers call the "sulphur" (including Fulcanelli.) This and the secret solvent will form the Stone (after due union and "coction" in the right proportions.) Alchemists like Fulcanelli did not think that gold was appropriate for this purpose, and thus reject it. But other alchemists saw it as perfectly fine to use gold or silver for this purpose. "Artephius" (whoever he really was) evidently was one of them. The operations he describes to make the Stone itself are upon gold with the secret solvent. What he does not explain in a readily clear manner is the composition of the secret solvent (and for obvious reasons: the whole of alchemy depends on it), not the fact that he used gold in conjunction with it.

It's possible that Artephius used gold as the "metal" from which to extract the sulphur. But I still think that he is using the word "gold" as Fulcanelli suggested.

Dwellings
10-31-2016, 01:26 PM
You definitely can use it as an expression of the Acid Principle and a 'lower-level substitute' for 'our water', but it is not an absolute necessity. Other means can be used.

Unless you work completely 'purist' and move through the density scale from there, there is a need to 'magnetize' your initial matter/body by 'opening' it so it can attract AND keep 'our water'. There are various ways to 'magnetize/open/spiritualize' matter. Some (but not all) of these ways may involve acids, such as in the long process with Marcasite (a sulfide), where sulfuric acid forms naturally.

Besides, you have already mentioned that you haven't performed the work yet, so IF this is still the case and all your info comes from reading and from a set of fixed ideas you have formed in your mind, you are in no position to preach what 'alchemy proper' is or isn't, or what 'auxiliary' means are at our disposal to kick-start the process.

Interesting to note what a combination of mild shit-storm as well as positive feedback my admitted memory-related mistake has caused here and in PM as well :)



What particular knowledge of chemistry would that be?



If he/she doesn't get distracted, as 5 year olds often do :) ... Also, if you have a preference for a path using high temperatures, would you allow a 5 y/o child near it?
_____________________

Addendum: As 'proof of concept', in the past I have used more 'common' expressions of the 'acid principle' to 'open' various matters/bodies and 'elevate' them, such as changing 'states' (from 'closed' to 'open', from 'fixed' to 'volatile', from polar-soluble to non-polar soluble, etc...).

To further exemplify, various 'waters' such as dew, rainwater, even a body's own 'waters' are examples of (perhaps relatively week but nevertheless efficient) expressions of the 'Acid Principle'.

Another interesting example of using the 'Acid Principle' is found HERE (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4864-Deliquescent-Salt-changing-to-non-deliquescent).

What is often referred to as 'Our Water' (Secret Fire) can be (somewhat and quite loosely) compared with a 'dew on steroids'.

It is archetipally derived from 'Spiritus Mundi Acidus Corporeus' (Golden Chain). Aso in the Golden Chain, 'Our' Subject/Matter is similarly described as 'Spiritus Mundi Fixus Alcalicus Corporeus'.

IF we commence our work with common (corporeal) matter(s), we inevitably work with CHEMICALS ('Code'). Using 'Code against Code' is similar to the Hermetic Way of using 'Law against Law'. A variation of 'hacking', if you will...

It matters little whether I have performed experiments or not, the moment you add a substance foreign to it it is ruined. I am only talking about Alchemy Proper, not side stuff.

Instead of calling it shit storm, you must thank God that you have a bunch of well meaning friends. I am assuming they PM'ed you regarding acid part.

Regarding chemistry, the knowledge of certain salts and their behavior.

Regarding 5yr old, talking about the easiness.

Andro
10-31-2016, 08:30 PM
It matters little whether I have performed experiments or not

On the contrary, it makes all the difference.


the moment you add a substance foreign to it it is ruined.

Foreign usually means 'of UN-like nature'. This is not the case here, principle-wise.


I am only talking about Alchemy Proper, not side stuff.

Are you claiming to be a practiced expert on what 'Alchemy proper' is?

Side note: Even IF we use 'helpers' or 'catalysts', they are of 'similar' natures and they don't end up in the final 'product' anyway.


Instead of calling it shit storm, you must thank God that you have a bunch of well meaning friends.

I will ignore this last statement for now.

Dwellings
11-01-2016, 04:24 PM
On the contrary, it makes all the difference.

Foreign usually means 'of UN-like nature'. This is not the case here, principle-wise.

Are you claiming to be a practiced expert on what 'Alchemy proper' is?

Side note: Even IF we use 'helpers' or 'catalysts', they are of 'similar' natures and they don't end up in the final 'product' anyway.

I will ignore this last statement for now.

Acid is a corrosive, bringer of death, lookup acid attack photos and you are using it to volatize stuff and open it up. Assuming the substance opens up, the corrosive is only going to destroy the tender mercury. How can you attract SM under such a situation?

As for Alchemy Proper:


I find it appropriate to quote Paracelsus in the middle of such an intense thread:

To grasp the invisible elements, to attract them by their material correspondences, to control, purify and transform them by the living power of the spirit, this is true alchemy.

Like Attracts Like

Andro
11-01-2016, 06:41 PM
Acid is a corrosive, bringer of death, look up acid attack photos and you are using it to volatilize stuff and open it up. Assuming the substance opens up, the corrosive is only going to destroy the tender mercury. How can you attract SM under such a situation?

You're speaking theoretically without having the actual practice. In 'Hermes Old Nature Way', for example, the same things are said about the heat of common fire:


We can see then, that common fire does not serve toward maturation, but is a destroyer of the seed; it is the death of all things, because it consumes all the power within the seed of all bodies, and those are thereby no longer fit to generate more of themselves. I am not going to spend more time explaining the correspondences and expressions of the Acid/Nitre Principle. Suffice to say that they don't call its highest expression 'Our Vinegar' on a mere whim. 'Lower' expressions of the same principle also include rainwater, dew, etc. There's an innate Acid Principle involved in Urine Works as well. Also consider the role of Gastric Acid. Sometimes, in Alchemy, an auxiliary Acid 'helper' is referred to as 'Fire against Nature'.

My current research revolves around 'rendering' the Universal Central Salt, which is not physically readily manifest in nature. The Central Salt is the EARTHLY and FIXED Alchemical counterpart of the CELESTIAL and VOLATILE Universal Spirit ('Mercurius Sideribus').

In my current work there are no acids involved, but quite different procedures, so I won't dwell on 'salt volatilization & opening' anymore, even though it can be done with the help of the Acid Principle, without 'destroying' anything - which is something I have already proven to myself in practice. Also, the resulting salt(s) were not physically present in the matter before, so in a sense they are 'newly corporified matter', making the term 'volatilized salts' a bit of a misnomer IMO... and by being the Earthly counterparts of the Celestial Spirit, they are also its 'Magnets', as per the Paracelsus quote.

So, given that my current work doesn't involve 'opening' matters such as common salts/minerals/metals, I feel I have nothing to add to the 'Acid Principle' discussion at this point.

Good luck to everyone.

Andro
11-01-2016, 07:03 PM
All posts straying too much from the topic of 'The Secret Book of Artephius' but rather dealing more with wet/dry/long/short path notions have been moved to This Thread (http://forum.alchemyforums.com/showthread.php?4834-Short-Dry-Path-(Ars-Brevis)).