Patrons of the Sacred Art

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 27 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 14 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 261

Thread: Short Dry Path (Ars Brevis)

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Hellin Hermetist View Post
    A man in his forties has all the possibilities to be well versed in life, and can quite easily be the author of the two books ascribed in Fulcanelli, especially if he has shown that he possess a good grasping of the alchemical literature as early as the age of 33. I wouldnt say that any of the two books are revelatroy. The concept of the destruction of two bodies (a mineral and a metal) to extract a mercury is taken from the Hermetic Triumph of St Didier. The mondus operandi, as described in many different chapters, is taken from the Lullian corpus. The particulars are taken from Naxagoras and some other authors, and some of them, that is promised that can lead to transmutation (eg: tinge gold by melt it several times with copper and tinge silver with the red gold) are erroneous. The theoretical conceptions about phlogiston theory are also taken from older authors, who have written whole treatises about that theory. The only prototype theory in the books is that of ancient Greek cabal hidden inside the alchemical corpus, which is also erroneous. There was an ancient Greek cabal but not under the form which Fulcanelli presents. So, at the end of the day, I dont think that the books have the value that have been ascribed to them.
    Fulcanelli also blatanly "borrowed" (usually without giving credit) from other sources. For example, the idea that some buildings had alchemical imagery on public display is already found centuries before "Fulcanelli", most notably in the curious 17th century work of Esprit Gobineau de Montluisant.

    Regarding the "tinged gold" for transmutation: you are quite correct about the claim with copper-gold alloy and nitric acid that Fulcanelli quite uncritically accepted as if it was a proven fact, which he obviously "borrowed" (without giving his source any credit) from "Alchymia Denudata" (a text which sometimes says and describes very interesting things, but in this case totally fails to deliver anything but a lie) and did not bother to test whether it was true or not. But there seems to be "something" to this claim of "exalting gold" (and then using it to partly transmute silver into gold) by means of the supposed "sulphur" or "tincture" of some other metals/minerals, but by USING CERTAIN OTHER METHODS, not something as vulgar and ineffective as a simple separation in common nitric acid. This is a subject currently under investigation, so for the moment being I will not say more about it. Preliminary tests for producing "exalted gold" have not even begun yet, but I do already have a good deal of experience with similar methods that use no gold, but yet I can confirm that "dark calxes" which seem to be gold (they survive even the cupellation of the silver that contains them!) are indeed obtainable from silver so treated. So maybe the inclusion of "exalted gold" with the silver does increase the gold yield of such methods, as some chymists assure. Some sources that deal with these "exalted gold" claims are still undergoing examination (when a given source happens to be in a language I can understand) or translation (in the case of those written in languages I don't know much about.)

    More regarding nitric acid and Fulcanelli: he was also fooled into thinking (yet again!) that a simple dissolution in common nitric acid was enough to alter a small part of a given silver mass into a metal that resembles gold, and which can become actual gold after certain special treatments which he says the old "puffers" and chymists called "confirmation". Once again, Fulcanelli was caught in several self-concocted confusions and mistaken assumptions from his reading of old chymical treatises. I have identified several of the sources that Fulcanelli was drawing from (which he again gives no credit whatsoever) and I can tell you that:

    1- He assumed that the chymists who made this claim (like Becher) were working with the exact same pure nitric acid he was working with (which they usually were not; in the 17th -and even through a good part of the 18th- century nitric acid was still usually prepared through methods quite different than those of the ordinary chemistry that came later)

    2- The mysterious "confirmation" operation was actually carried out on the "embryonic", "volatile" or "immature" gold contained or "impregnated" in silver by means of a series of quite longer and more complex operations, not something as simple as dissolving silver in any acid (not even in the special "gradatory" types of aqua fortis, which almost always are said to directly produce some gold out of silver, no "confirmation" operation being necessary, just a simple melting with borax or direct cupellation with lead reduces the dark calxes obtained by such means into a solid gold bead/button)

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    1,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Hellin Hermetist View Post
    A man in his forties has all the possibilities to be well versed in life, and can quite easily be the author of the two books ascribed in Fulcanelli, especially if he has shown that he possess a good grasping of the alchemical literature as early as the age of 33.
    I still maintain that there's a huge difference in how a man in his 40's expresses himself and how a man in his 80's expresses himself. But then again, this is an interesting subject for a different thread - I don't really want to hijack this one since it has its own merits.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    1,203
    Quote Originally Posted by alfr View Post
    JDP and prejudice at all

    galena and dujol demonstration in the original historical documents

    YES
    Dear alfr - thank you for your comments and for the fascinating documents. Thank you also for verifying Canseliet's experimentation with Galena until 1945 at which time he changed to Antimony.

    I don't quite understand exactly what you were trying to say in the rest of your message, but you always seem to have some important information that I truly wish could be better clarified.

    > report here very little known about the trials and galena dujol henri cotton Alvart and his disciple doctor Emerit
    from web search of champagne here is a post

    I read a translation of that link, but unfortunately was unable to find any reference in it to Dujol's and the other's trials using galena.
    Last edited by Illen A. Cluf; 08-22-2016 at 03:07 AM.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    1,203
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Regarding galena and Fulcanelli: if you read the descriptions that he makes of the mineral that he claims the secret solvent of alchemy is made from, such as in the quote I provided above in post #26, you will see that it does not quite fit with galena.
    Part of being a messenger of information often results in people thinking that the messenger holds the same belief as the message he provides. This was not the case at all. I specifically mentioned that I personally didn't think that Fulcanelli used Galena (or Antimony, for that matter). I only suggested that this is what Canseliet allegedly seemed to believe at first. Regarding Antimony, Fulcanelli spent 2 or 3 pages denying that Antimony was used at all in the process. (Since Canseliet ended up believing that Antimony was the subject matter, it is hard to believe that he was the author of Fulcanelli's books, or even one of a group of authors). Rather, Fulcanelli seemed to closely follow the path that Philalethes described. Some people think that Philalethes also used Antimony. Others disagree. I also disagree.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    1,203
    Quote Originally Posted by alfr View Post
    I put pdf of the censored version published by Dervy editions http://www.labirintoermetico.com/01A..._Chrysopee.pdf
    Hello, alf,

    This still seems to be the uncensored version (which leaves blank spaces/lines for the identification of the matters discussed, etc.)

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    319
    hi Illen A. Cluf

    sure i have tell this as i have just say i have read and study the original of chrysopea dujol and diary of emerit 1939 until 1934 by one person and in version original there are the name GALENA ETC

    but in french ambient circle there are more many post etc about it i try to found more post etc

    hi jdp you ask :

    are you suggesting that Dujols was "Fulcanelli" or just that he had an influence on him?

    now for MIHO dujols is one BIG head of fulcanelli group/lodge and and he dujol had and very BIG influence on it fulcanelli group/lodge and henri coton alvart and dr emerit are direct disciple of the same lignage of dujol and in this lignage of dry way they use galena as have also use it galena canseliet until 1945

    my best regard alfr
    Last edited by alfr; 08-22-2016 at 08:17 AM.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1,968
    Quote Originally Posted by Illen A. Cluf View Post
    Part of being a messenger of information often results in people thinking that the messenger holds the same belief as the message he provides. This was not the case at all. I specifically mentioned that I personally didn't think that Fulcanelli used Galena (or Antimony, for that matter). I only suggested that this is what Canseliet allegedly seemed to believe at first. Regarding Antimony, Fulcanelli spent 2 or 3 pages denying that Antimony was used at all in the process. (Since Canseliet ended up believing that Antimony was the subject matter, it is hard to believe that he was the author of Fulcanelli's books, or even one of a group of authors). Rather, Fulcanelli seemed to closely follow the path that Philalethes described. Some people think that Philalethes also used Antimony. Others disagree. I also disagree.
    I know, I had already read your post. This time the comments about galena and Fulcanelli were directed at alfr, since he keeps bringing up the alleged connection between the two. But, as I pointed out several times, the general descriptions of the mineral that Fulcanelli hints at do not quite fit with galena.

    Regarding "Philalethes": if Newman & Principe's identification of "Philalethes" with Starkey is correct (and it certainly seems so from the evidence that they have gathered so far), then it is unquestionable that he was working with antimony.
    Last edited by JDP; 08-22-2016 at 12:47 PM.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    1,203
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    I know, I had already read your post. This time the comments about galena and Fulcanelli were directed at alfr, since he keeps bringing up the alleged connection between the two. But, as I pointed out several times, the general descriptions of the mineral that Fulcanelli hints at do not quite fit with galena.
    I totally agree. I also think that the word "galena" as used by Dujols and others, even in the censored version of Chrysopee, was also a cover name for something different. Most past alchemists agree that the lesser metals/minerals can never be used to make the Stone. Rather, something between a metal and a mineral is allegedly used.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,652
    I always considered metals to be mineral, are you talking of a salt of a metal?

    Ghislain

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North America
    Posts
    1,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Ghislain View Post
    I always considered metals to be mineral, are you talking of a salt of a metal?

    Ghislain
    They usually distinguish between the metal (regulus) and the the mineral matter (sulfide, etc.) in which the metal is found. Thus (for example purposes) there is a distinction made between Antimony and Stibnite (Antimony Sulfide); between Galena (Lead(II) Sulfide) and Lead; between Copper Sulfide and Copper, etc.

+ 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