Transitioning from Plants to Metals

[z0 K]

This is a spin-off thread from (non)Mineral, (non)Metal, (non)Magnet.


The only metals that plants contain in appreciable quantities are the alkaline metals potassium and sodium, but these are useless for obtaining the "sulphur" or "tincture" for the secret solvent to "coagulate" with and generate the Stone or any other true alchemical tincture. The alchemists themselves did not recognize substances so well known to them as potash or common salt to contain any metals (when in fact they do, as we know today.) They would not have recognized them in plants either. When they talk about metals they mean things like lead, gold, silver, tin, etc. In other words, what we call heavy metals today. Those were the metallic matters they used, not potassium or sodium, which were unknown to them.


That's because "Key of the Golden Gate" is really a reworking of one of the texts attributed to St. Dunstan, not Ripley's. Plus the author of that text maliciously peddles the "one matter" claim yet he himself contradicts it by casually admitting that this "one matter" is really a COMPOUND (i.e. a thing that is composed of two or more separate substances; a mixture), not some single substance found somewhere already made in nature (such as any mineral or plant would be considered):

https://archive.org/stream/fasciculuschemic00deea#page/8/mode/2up

"Of this very Body the matter of the Stone, three things are chiefly spoken, viz. The green Lion, Assa foetida, and the white Fume; but this is inferred by the Philosophers FROM THE COMPOUND, that they might answer the foolish according to their own folly, and deceive them by the divers multiplicity of names."

Notice that the person who re-edited this text to make it into the "Key of the Golden Gate" VERY MALICIOUSLY REMOVED THE REFERENCE TO THE COMPOUND to make even more sure that he would lead "undesirable" people astray with the "one matter only" ruse. At least the original author was kind enough to provide a means to alert readers to the trap in the manner of a contradiction ("one matter only" vs THE COMPOUND)

Regarding Ripley's actual texts: I don't remember him endorsing the "one matter only" claim anywhere.



In that text he talks about making several other "tinctures".



Yes, and Weidenfeld is yet another one who does not endorse the "one matter only" gimmick. All of the "tinctures" he talks about are made by mixtures of diverse matters, even some of vegetable origin, not just metallic/mineral ones, with the secret solvent. Nowhere does he claim that you can make the Stone from "only one matter". And as for the secret solvent itself, he does not say that it can be made from "one matter only" either. He talks about the "mortification & regeneration" of any member of certain "family" of substances in order to obtain the secret solvent, and in order to be able to do this you need reactions between at least two general types of opposing substances. It is just impossible to do it with "one matter only". The "adept" who called himself "Theodorus Mundanus" makes some very similar statements as Weidenfeld's in his letter to Edmund Dickinson. "Mundanus" used at least 3 substances to prepare the secret solvent. He calls these 3 substances "mercury", "sulphur" and "a distilled water" (notice that this "distilled water" might itself be the product of a reaction between two or more substances, that's why I said that he used "at least 3 substances", but might in fact have used more during these initial stages of the work. Notice also that he talks about the "purification" of the "mercury" by distillation or sublimation, and he also mentions vitriol and salt during these preparatory stages of the work.) From the complex interactions between these 3 substances and the byproducts they give, he prepares the secret solvent. So no "one matter only" nonsense claim can be found in the interesting (and originally intended to be private, but which eventually made its way to the printing press) letter of this "adept" either.

The idea was based on your statement that you would be able to assume that the secret solvent came one thing any plant. If you could assume that for the purpose of proving me to be wrong all you would have to do is take the plant matter of your choice and dry distill it collecting everything that goes over. But you choose to ignore that possibility and continue this useless argument that populates most of your posts.

I said “The metallic matter to start with comes from the plant’s own mineralized feces or earth.” That is for making the stone of the poor. It requires no addition of heavy metals. I never said it was part of the stone or elixir of metals.

OK good luck in finding the basic materials for the secret solvent.

[JDP]

The idea was based on your statement that you would be able to assume that the secret solvent came one thing any plant. If you could assume that for the purpose of proving me to be wrong all you would have to do is take the plant matter of your choice and dry distill it collecting everything that goes over. But you choose to ignore that possibility and continue this useless argument that populates most of your posts.

I said “The metallic matter to start with comes from the plant’s own mineralized feces or earth.” That is for making the stone of the poor. It requires no addition of heavy metals. I never said it was part of the stone or elixir of metals.

OK good luck in finding the basic materials for the secret solvent.

The reason why I have very strong doubts about that possibility is because you can pick up pretty much any "chymical" or spagyrical textbook from the 16th century onward and see that those guys had already submitted virtually all natural substances that fell into their hands to distillation. This included practically all plants that were known at the time. For a long time dry distillation was the favorite method of analysis for a great number of substances, particularly for organic substances. It was called "fire analysis":

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00033796700203246?journalCode=tasc20

But none of those guys discovered the secret solvent of alchemy by only carrying out such simplistic methods as distilling single substances by themselves. You can find descriptions of what they found when they distilled plants: two or more watery and oily byproducts in the receiver, sometimes (depending on the vegetable matter being heated) some sublimates, and always charred matter (mostly carbon) left behind in the retort. How is this a "secret", though? Such distillations are very clearly and openly described by many authors of those times, none of whom discovered the Stone. So I fail to see how distillations of ANY single matter can be so important for making the secret solvent or the Stone. Perhaps as a preliminary preparatory stage, to get some useful byproduct for later reactions with substances derived from some other matters, yes, possibly, but by itself with nothing else coming into play??? It just is not going to happen. One substance alone is not going to cut it.

[alfr]

hi every body
Weidenfeld etc and the secret solvent philosophical etc

I think that the answer to the know the composition of this indispensable secret solvent philosophical
extracted from vegetable and animal oils .... and after mortification with Appropriate acids
and subsequently Increased with appropriate philosophical metallizations

so you can find it in the still unpublished manuscripts of Weidenfeld or in some books of him very little known example: the must rare book 5 of the secretum adeptorum of the Weidenfeld's ..
Or in the philosophical menstrum of the tare manuscript of the phamous lullian alchimist (Not envious but exceptionally generous) cristoforo parigino:..manuscript: lucidarius violetta summetta and him secret alfabeto philosophical etc.. and its Similar derivate Extracted and similar Epigones...

nb And a good starting point
It would be to know and identify what was the true matter ? of the secret fire of the Pontano?

my best regard alfr

[Salazius]

Salazius, is it worth making the stone?

If you consider that wisdom, understanding, knowledge are a source of wealth and freedom, then yes.

"Precious" metals ,as a finallity, are worthless.

[z0 K]

The reason why I have very strong doubts about that possibility is because you can pick up pretty much any "chymical" or spagyrical textbook from the 16th century onward and see that those guys had already submitted virtually all natural substances that fell into their hands to distillation. This included practically all plants that were known at the time. For a long time dry distillation was the favorite method of analysis for a great number of substances, particularly for organic substances. It was called "fire analysis":



I agree with you the chymists wrote openly their results of the dry distillation of plant matter. They have left us with detailed descriptions of the materials obtained. One can compare their descriptions of what they saw in their vessels during dry distillation with very similar descriptions of what alchemists convey about the laboratory work.

Philosophers' Spirit of Wine (http://www.alchemylife.org/Pages/PhiloSpiritWine/PhiloSpiritWine.html)


But none of those guys discovered the secret solvent of alchemy by only carrying out such simplistic methods as distilling single substances by themselves. You can find descriptions of what they found when they distilled plants: two or more watery and oily byproducts in the receiver, sometimes (depending on the vegetable matter being heated) some sublimates, and always charred matter (mostly carbon) left behind in the retort. How is this a "secret", though? Such distillations are very clearly and openly described by many authors of those times, none of whom discovered the Stone. So I fail to see how distillations of ANY single matter can be so important for making the secret solvent or the Stone. Perhaps as a preliminary preparatory stage, to get some useful byproduct for later reactions with substances derived from some other matters, yes, possibly, but by itself with nothing else coming into play??? It just is not going to happen. One substance alone is not going to cut it.

I don’t believe that all of those chymists failed to construct the secret solvent from the elements of the dry distillation. They never wrote about the processes of joining those elements to make the solvent in their chymistry books. Some like Edwardo Bolnest do discuss the possibility of joining the elements of the pyrolysis to make the Philosopher’s Stone giving some hints only. Another chymist Yworth privately wrote about his preparation the alchemical secret solvent.

The “one matter only” paradigm works for making the basic vegetable stone using the properly prepared ashes of the plant matter. Without the basic secret solvent made from the products of the dry distillation the plant stone will not crystallize. There are just too many ways to compound those products obtained from the airless burn after they have been cleared of feces. I have only explored three ways so far and those ways are for making plant stones. You can make alchemical plant stone from any combination of plants or combinations of the essential ingredients obtained and purified from different plants.

I believe you are right about increasing the virtue of the solvent by adding other matters prepared from other things. But those other things have to be processed in certain ways as well. It is very complex once you move in that direction.

Currently I’m setting up the protocols to use following Ripley taken from several of his works. I am amassing the various products obtained from the dry burn of several different biomass sources. Each picked for producing an abundance of one element or another I believe to be necessary to carry out Ripley’s Elixir paradigm.