Patrons of the Sacred Art

OPEN TO REGISTER: Click HERE if you want to join Alchemy Forums!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 27 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 12 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 261

Thread: Short Dry Path (Ars Brevis)

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    311
    I guess that you know then, that those people who hide themselves under the pseudonym of Fulcanelli (mainly Champagne and Canselliet), didnt have any success at their research for the Stone.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by Hellin Hermetist View Post
    I guess that you know then, that those people who hide themselves under the pseudonym of Fulcanelli (mainly Champagne and Canselliet), didnt have any success at their research for the Stone.
    Fulcanelli whoever he may be had succeded in making the stone, that much is clear if you read the treatises of him.

    Also, whether Fulcanelli had the stone is not the topic of this thread.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by Dwellings View Post
    Fulcanelli whoever he may be had succeded in making the stone, that much is clear if you read the treatises of him.

    Also, whether Fulcanelli had the stone is not the topic of this thread.
    Starkey's (Philalethes) treatises (especially Ripley Revived) is one hundres times more clera and descriptive that those of Fulcanelli, and as we now know from his diaries he didnt succeed in his research for the stone. Ι have studied the books of Fulcanelli and I havent found anything valuable in them about alchemy. Maybe they are good if you are interested in decoration of old buildings.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Hellin Hermetist View Post
    Starkey's (Philalethes) treatises (especially Ripley Revived) is one hundres times more clera and descriptive that those of Fulcanelli, and as we now know from his diaries he didnt succeed in his research for the stone. Ι have studied the books of Fulcanelli and I havent found anything valuable in them about alchemy. Maybe they are good if you are interested in decoration of old buildings.
    Where did you find the diaries of "Fulcanelli"? I don't think I have ever heard of these having been discovered. Are you sure you are not confusing the two writers (Fulcanelli & Starkey/Philalethes)? We do have some surviving diaries of Starkey/Philalethes (they were transcribed and published by Newman and Principe some years ago), and from them we can conclude that he did not succeed in making the Stone with his theory that antimonial amalgams were supposedly the big key to success.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Where did you find the diaries of "Fulcanelli"? I don't think I have ever heard of these having been discovered. Are you sure you are not confusing the two writers (Fulcanelli & Starkey/Philalethes)? We do have some surviving diaries of Starkey/Philalethes (they were transcribed and published by Newman and Principe some years ago), and from them we can conclude that he did not succeed in making the Stone with his theory that antimonial amalgams were supposedly the big key to success.
    I am reffering to Starkey's diaries not Fulcanelli. Maybe my expression wasnt clear.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Hellin Hermetist View Post
    I am reffering to Starkey's diaries not Fulcanelli. Maybe my expression wasnt clear.
    OK, thanks for clarifying that. Since you were criticizing Fulcanelli and saying that he did not find the Stone I thought that your comments about the diaries had to be about him.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    311
    The proof that Fulcanelli never had the Stone is the later work of Canselliet. Although Fulcanelli rejects most emphatically the antimony path at his second book, Canseliet, who knew who the real Fulcanelli was, prefered to follow Philalethes/Starkey instead of Fulcanelli and try his luck with the path of antimony. This shows clearly that Canseliet didnt trust Fulcanelli and didnt think of him as an accomplished alchemist.

    Of course we can find many more inaccuracies in his book. Lets take a look, for example, at the passege which posted Dwellings: "A similar warning is rarely encountered in the books, and quite succinct as to what concerns the Ars Brevis, but which the Adept of Dampierre knew as perfectly as Ripley, Basil Valentine, Philalethes, Albertus Magnus, Huginus a Barma, Cyliani, or Naxagoras. " Now, we can clearly see that none of the above authors make any mention to some mysterious dry path that can be accomplished in a very short time, maybe with the expection of Cylliani. The brass founder, mentioned in Helvetius, is the one who has made such a claim, and not Philalethes, B.V., Albertus, or the other authors mentioned by Fulcanelli. And we can encounter this type of inaccuracies almost in any chapter of his books.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    319
    Hello everyone Hellin Hermetist and JDP

    diaries of the dry process results galena etc experiments unfortunately always always always zero results

    still exist between the Canseliet cards diaries the full text chrysopea that's all transactions in dry process of dujol magophon of galena and original text chrisopea with commentary is not censored like the one published by the gilbert and Dervy and always among the canselit of cards exists (and Home at the turning Canseliet know it very well they look to talk
    and copies were also sold by French antiquarian bookshop intersigne)
    nb exists the laboratory diary of Dr. Emerit know 1939 1944 direct disciple of henry cotton Alvare which is known to all was a disciple of pierre dujol magophon well and I could read through them and unfortunately many experiments in the dry on galena many beautiful experiments and lots of beautiful theory as beautiful but is also too bad it's only theory he not experienced that OPERATIONS only theoretical's Dwellings here in Forun in everything chrysope laboratory diaries dr Emerit indications of 'friend Dwellings here always on the concrete etc forum results unfortunately zero

    my best regard Alfr

    .................................................. ...................

    salve a tutti Hellin Hermetist JDP

    diari su risultati di via secca galena etc esperimenti purtroppo sempre sempre sempre risultati zero

    comunque esistono fra le carte di canseliet i diari il testo completo chrysopea che è tutto sull'operatività in via secca di dujol magophon su galena e il testo testo originale chrisopea con commentario non è censurato come quello pubblicato da gilbert dalle ed dervy e sempre tra le carte di canselit esiste (e gli interni al di giro di canseliet lo sanno ma ben se ne guardano di parlarne e nb copia fu anche venduta dalla libreria francese antiquaria intersigne )

    il diario di laboratorio del dr emerit sa 1939 a 1944 discepolo diretto di henry coton alvare che come è noto a tutti era discepolo di pierre dujol magophon e li ho potuti ben leggere a fondo e purtroppo tanti esperimenti in via secca sulla galena tanti bei esperimenti e tanta bella teoria come bella è anche ma purtropo è solo teoria da lui non sperimentata quella dell'operativita solo teorica dell'amico Dwellings qui nel forum in tutto cio chrysope diari di laboratorio dr emerit indicazioni dell'amico Dwellings qui sul forum etc sempre concreti risultati purtroppo zero

    my best regard alfr

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Hellin Hermetist View Post
    The proof that Fulcanelli never had the Stone is the later work of Canselliet. Although Fulcanelli rejects most emphatically the antimony path at his second book, Canseliet, who knew who the real Fulcanelli was, prefered to follow Philalethes/Starkey instead of Fulcanelli and try his luck with the path of antimony. This shows clearly that Canseliet didnt trust Fulcanelli and didnt think of him as an accomplished alchemist.

    Of course we can find many more inaccuracies in his book. Lets take a look, for example, at the passege which posted Dwellings: "A similar warning is rarely encountered in the books, and quite succinct as to what concerns the Ars Brevis, but which the Adept of Dampierre knew as perfectly as Ripley, Basil Valentine, Philalethes, Albertus Magnus, Huginus a Barma, Cyliani, or Naxagoras. " Now, we can clearly see that none of the above authors make any mention to some mysterious dry path that can be accomplished in a very short time, maybe with the expection of Cylliani. The brass founder, mentioned in Helvetius, is the one who has made such a claim, and not Philalethes, B.V., Albertus, or the other authors mentioned by Fulcanelli. And we can encounter this type of inaccuracies almost in any chapter of his books.
    Regarding the first point: or maybe it was because Fulcanelli did not teach his pupils the entire secret. By reading Canseliet one does not get the impression that he lost respect for whoever Fulcanelli was, he always refers to him positively. Plus according to Canseliet, he used a sample of Fulcanelli's Stone to transmute lead into gold, the artist Julien Champagne and the chemist Gaston Sauvage serving as witnesses in the demonstration. Whether this claim is true or not, it shows that Canseliet did not question Fulcanelli's status as an "adept".

    Regarding the second point: you are quite correct, most of those authors did not make any claims about any "dry way/path", at least certainly not in the sense that Fulcanelli understands that claim, which is in the same vein as the claims made by the brass-founder of Helvetius' account. But I would be careful with a couple of the mentioned writers (like Basil Valentine and Naxagoras), since not all their works (whether real or attributed) have been available in languages other than German. There is no telling if Fulcanelli actually read some of them (I suspect that Fulcanelli understood German since he cites and was influenced by some German works for which I have not seen any translation into another language; either that or he had access to rare unpublished translations of some German works) that we have not read, and where he found evidence that these writers mention some sort of "dry" method. Of course, it is also perfectly possible, considering Fulcanelli's other inaccuracies/mistakes, that he misunderstood what some of these writers say and thought it referred to the "dry" method.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by alfr View Post
    Hello everyone Hellin Hermetist and JDP

    diaries of the dry process results galena etc experiments unfortunately always always always zero results

    still exist between the Canseliet cards diaries the full text chrysopea that's all transactions in dry process of dujol magophon of galena and original text chrisopea with commentary is not censored like the one published by the gilbert and Dervy and always among the canselit of cards exists (and Home at the turning Canseliet know it very well they look to talk
    and copies were also sold by French antiquarian bookshop intersigne)
    nb exists the laboratory diary of Dr. Emerit know 1939 1944 direct disciple of henry cotton Alvare which is known to all was a disciple of pierre dujol magophon well and I could read through them and unfortunately many experiments in the dry on galena many beautiful experiments and lots of beautiful theory as beautiful but is also too bad it's only theory he not experienced that OPERATIONS only theoretical's Dwellings here in Forun in everything chrysope laboratory diaries dr Emerit indications of 'friend Dwellings here always on the concrete etc forum results unfortunately zero

    my best regard Alfr

    .................................................. ...................

    salve a tutti Hellin Hermetist JDP

    diari su risultati di via secca galena etc esperimenti purtroppo sempre sempre sempre risultati zero

    comunque esistono fra le carte di canseliet i diari il testo completo chrysopea che è tutto sull'operatività in via secca di dujol magophon su galena e il testo testo originale chrisopea con commentario non è censurato come quello pubblicato da gilbert dalle ed dervy e sempre tra le carte di canselit esiste (e gli interni al di giro di canseliet lo sanno ma ben se ne guardano di parlarne e nb copia fu anche venduta dalla libreria francese antiquaria intersigne )

    il diario di laboratorio del dr emerit sa 1939 a 1944 discepolo diretto di henry coton alvare che come è noto a tutti era discepolo di pierre dujol magophon e li ho potuti ben leggere a fondo e purtroppo tanti esperimenti in via secca sulla galena tanti bei esperimenti e tanta bella teoria come bella è anche ma purtropo è solo teoria da lui non sperimentata quella dell'operativita solo teorica dell'amico Dwellings qui nel forum in tutto cio chrysope diari di laboratorio dr emerit indicazioni dell'amico Dwellings qui sul forum etc sempre concreti risultati purtroppo zero

    my best regard alfr
    If I understood your posts correctly, it seems that you have concluded that Fulcanelli worked with the mineral galena, but that all such claims are erroneous and always result in nothing ("sempre risultati zero") Correct?

    But how can you be sure that Fulcanelli did work with galena, though? His works are always evasive when it comes to clearly identifying what is the mineral substance that he claims the secret solvent of alchemy is made from. All he does is give some rather vague descriptions that can be applied to quite more than just one mineral substance.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts