Patrons of the Sacred Art

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Rare Manuscripts in BnF

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Weidenfeld View Post
    Obviously there is meant the lesser known alchemist Sebald Schwärtzer (or Schwertzer) and not Sehiventzer which seem to be the mutilated version of Schwärtzer. About his alchemy, above all his particulars, was written the „Chrysopeia Schwaertzeriana“, however more than one hundred years later as a kind of compilation of Mss. supposedly originating from Schwärtzer‘s hand.
    Indeed, the author was likely drawing that information from Kunckel, who was one of the last people to still have access to those "Saxon manuscripts". Kunckel and the author of "Alchymia Denudata" in fact derived a lot of their "particular" processes from those manuscripts of Schwärtzer and the Elector of Saxony.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    Indeed, the author was likely drawing that information from Kunckel, who was one of the last people to still have access to those "Saxon manuscripts". Kunckel and the author of "Alchymia Denudata" in fact derived a lot of their "particular" processes from those manuscripts of Schwärtzer and the Elector of Saxony.
    Indeed. His source was Kunckel and the author doesnt hide it.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    311
    Ok. Here comes the summary of the second part. Objections of the experimenters and author's answers to them. As you can easily understand, thats one is the most interesting part of the book. This time the summary shall be a big one so be ready. I am sure that many will find it much interesting.

    Objection I: We have made many experiments with every substance of the vegetable kingdom, but we werent able to find the least trace of the Stone. Same goes for the animal kingdom.

    Author's Answer: Εvery step which Nature takes at the vegetable and animal kingdom, not only reveals to the careful observer the possibility of the existence of the Stone, but it offers him a perfect idea of our Stone and a certainty of its existence. A spore fell in the earth, rots, sprouts, and produces a plant thousand times bigger and absolutely dissimilar from the spore which gave birth to it. This plant gives rise to ten new spores and every one of them to a new plant. Same goes for the animal kingdom. But in order for the spore to be able to sprout and produce a plant, nature has to make it rot and destroy its premier form. This is a simple and well known experience, capable to reveal the traces of the Stone to every sane man.

    All those who research our science, must admire the work of that gardener, who was able to keep in its full vigour, under the most severe winter, those plants and trees which under normal conditions wither at the end of autumn. We have seen him grow and preserve orange trees and other plants from the hotter countries in the cold climate of the Northern countries. We have also seen him grow plants and trees in the 1/10 of the time which Nature should have required to grow them in the same size without his help. Now that was a man who knew how to work in accordance with nature and to amend nature by nature, in opposition to all those chemists, who spend their times distilling and subliming every substance who fell at their hands. If he could push his experience and knowledge one step further, he should be able to make grow in a time of only few hours, plants which Nature, when have received the biggest possible help from the husbandman, cannot grow at a time shorter than three whole months.

    Objection II: From the beginning of our research, we hadnt high expectations from the plant and animal kingdom. The kingdoms of Nature do not transmute one into the other. In accordance to that, man begets a man and a lion begets a lion. We search for an agent capable to transmute baser metals into gold and silver, so it must be of mineral or metallic origin. (Νote by me: Quite interestingly thats an argument made mainly by those who defend the existence of the Stone, but the author seems to reject it).

    Authors Answer: The authors goes into an in depth analysis of the process of human digestion. He describes many experiments and observations he made at the cadavres of freshly dead people, using microscopes and other apparatus, when he worked as an assistant at a lab of anatomy. Those chapters make a really interesting reading. After that he makes some references to agriculture and mentions that we can use as fertilizers human or animal manure, mineral salts or the whole carcasses of dead animals and people. Through this analysis, he is trying to prove that the substance of one kingdom is really transmuted to the substance of the other, as we see that animals preserve their existence and grow by transmuting the substance of plants and plants in their order the substance of minerals. Αt last the author affirms that the Stone doesnt only transmute base metals into gold, but is an agent able to repair any disorder in all three kingdoms of Nature, so we arent allowed to conclude that its origin has to be mineral or metallic.

    Objection III: All our experiments with the mineral and metallic substances doesnt reveal to us the least trace of the Stone.

    Authors answer: Nature works in the mineral kingdom in the slowest, softest and least comprehensible manner, so no one but a fool would look for the Stone, which is the most active agent in all Nature, in that kingdom. Thats an answer to those who make experiments in the mineral kingdom and wholeheartedly reject the existence of the Stone. For those who believe in the existence of the Stone and make experiments with mineral substances in order to find it, we shall give a more ample answer and put them in the right track in some other point. (Note by me: Μention to the 4th book which is not contained in that manuscript and I havent able to find it anywhere else. Its of the highest interest, if someone can inform us, if the author finished his promised 3rd and 4th book and if we can find them in any European library).
    In spite of the above, we dont deny that some of the most capable chemists of our era are able to make tinctures from metallic or mineral substances, which tinctures are able to amend and perfect the nature of the base metals. But they dont have to conclude from that fact that they will be able to produce the Stone by working on those mineral substances.

    Objection ΙV: What the hermetic authors have mentioned about the generation of the metals has been proved that its not true. Example the treatise of Cosmopolite.

    Authors Answer: Cosmopolite was an adept and possessor of the Stone. Same goes for Morienus Romanus. The Paracelsians are chemists and not Hermetic philosophers. The Rosicrucians were impostors for the most part. Cosmopolite hadnt travelled to the center of the earth to give his description of the genetation of the metals, but through the Philosophical work he performed with his own hands, he was able to recognize the ways and the methods which Nature follows, as he was able to produce in very short time thats which Nature need many years to produce without his help. So Cosmopolite, and all the other adepts as well, were able to see through their Work the method which Nature follow in order to give birth to the metals. That means that the chapters in which Cosmopolite describes the generation of the metals must not be rejected, as it is there where he reveals our whole Practice and even the nature of the matter which is essential for our Work.
    The scientists of our era arent able to understand the nature of our Archeus, as they are unable to understand the nature of a central fire. If they had observed more carefully their experiments with electricity, which they perform mostly to amuse themselves, they me now be able to understand better the doctrines of Cosmpolite.

    Some additional points: Αt the end of that second book, author affirms that of all those author who believed in the existence of the Stone and tried to defend it without being adepts, only one was able to do that thing with success, and this one was none other than Johann Joachim Becher. With the exception of my brothers adepts, the author says, you will find not a man which I respect as much as I respect Becher. He is the only man I know, who without being initiated, was able to understand a large part of our philosophy and present it to the world in a right manner. After that, the author advises the sages of all European scientific academies, to devote six months of their lives to learn the Latin language, if not for any other reason, to be able to study the works of Becher. Its there that you will find a sane philosophy. Its there that you will recognise your current ignorance. He writes for sages of his era.

    A last interesting point is a reference to the author to two particular experiments. In the first one, the author says that if we expose an amount of common sand to the air, having firstly treated that sand in a particular manner, after some time pass we shall be able to extract a big quantity of silver and gold from that sand. That quantity shall be bigger than the one we can extract from the richest ore of gold and the expenses are only 1/10 in comparison with the expenses which require the extraction from the ore. If now, after you have extracted the precious metals, you expose again the same sand to the air, under the same circumstances, you shall be able to extract a new quantity of precious metal, and this can be continued ad infinitum. (Note by me: Ιf I understand it right the author says that this particular has been described at the works of Becher with greater details. It reminds of some particulars of Glauber, Tungel and other authors. Any more infos shall be quite welcome).

    The second particular is again from Becher, and concerns a way to extract gold from river sand, in a quantity bigger than from the best ore of gold. The author says that Becher negotiated with the country of Holland to carry out this procedure in a larger scale, but the negotiations didnt go well at the end. Any more infos about this incident shall be welcome too.

    That is a summary of the most important parts of the second book. Any infos about the promised third and fourth book of the same author are of the highest interest.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Hellin Hermetist View Post
    Ok. Here comes the summary of the second part. Objections of the experimenters and author's answers to them. As you can easily understand, thats one is the most interesting part of the book. This time the summary shall be a big one so be ready. I am sure that many will find it much interesting.

    Objection I: We have made many experiments with every substance of the vegetable kingdom, but we werent able to find the least trace of the Stone. Same goes for the animal kingdom.

    Author's Answer: Εvery step which Nature takes at the vegetable and animal kingdom, not only reveals to the careful observer the possibility of the existence of the Stone, but it offers him a perfect idea of our Stone and a certainty of its existence. A spore fell in the earth, rots, sprouts, and produces a plant thousand times bigger and absolutely dissimilar from the spore which gave birth to it. This plant gives rise to ten new spores and every one of them to a new plant. Same goes for the animal kingdom. But in order for the spore to be able to sprout and produce a plant, nature has to make it rot and destroy its premier form. This is a simple and well known experience, capable to reveal the traces of the Stone to every sane man.

    All those who research our science, must admire the work of that gardener, who was able to keep in its full vigour, under the most severe winter, those plants and trees which under normal conditions wither at the end of autumn. We have seen him grow and preserve orange trees and other plants from the hotter countries in the cold climate of the Northern countries. We have also seen him grow plants and trees in the 1/10 of the time which Nature should have required to grow them in the same size without his help. Now that was a man who knew how to work in accordance with nature and to amend nature by nature, in opposition to all those chemists, who spend their times distilling and subliming every substance who fell at their hands. If he could push his experience and knowledge one step further, he should be able to make grow in a time of only few hours, plants which Nature, when have received the biggest possible help from the husbandman, cannot grow at a time shorter than three whole months.

    Objection II: From the beginning of our research, we hadnt high expectations from the plant and animal kingdom. The kingdoms of Nature do not transmute one into the other. In accordance to that, man begets a man and a lion begets a lion. We search for an agent capable to transmute baser metals into gold and silver, so it must be of mineral or metallic origin. (Νote by me: Quite interestingly thats an argument made mainly by those who defend the existence of the Stone, but the author seems to reject it).

    Authors Answer: The authors goes into an in depth analysis of the process of human digestion. He describes many experiments and observations he made at the cadavres of freshly dead people, using microscopes and other apparatus, when he worked as an assistant at a lab of anatomy. Those chapters make a really interesting reading. After that he makes some references to agriculture and mentions that we can use as fertilizers human or animal manure, mineral salts or the whole carcasses of dead animals and people. Through this analysis, he is trying to prove that the substance of one kingdom is really transmuted to the substance of the other, as we see that animals preserve their existence and grow by transmuting the substance of plants and plants in their order the substance of minerals. Αt last the author affirms that the Stone doesnt only transmute base metals into gold, but is an agent able to repair any disorder in all three kingdoms of Nature, so we arent allowed to conclude that its origin has to be mineral or metallic.

    Objection III: All our experiments with the mineral and metallic substances doesnt reveal to us the least trace of the Stone.

    Authors answer: Nature works in the mineral kingdom in the slowest, softest and least comprehensible manner, so no one but a fool would look for the Stone, which is the most active agent in all Nature, in that kingdom. Thats an answer to those who make experiments in the mineral kingdom and wholeheartedly reject the existence of the Stone. For those who believe in the existence of the Stone and make experiments with mineral substances in order to find it, we shall give a more ample answer and put them in the right track in some other point. (Note by me: Μention to the 4th book which is not contained in that manuscript and I havent able to find it anywhere else. Its of the highest interest, if someone can inform us, if the author finished his promised 3rd and 4th book and if we can find them in any European library).
    In spite of the above, we dont deny that some of the most capable chemists of our era are able to make tinctures from metallic or mineral substances, which tinctures are able to amend and perfect the nature of the base metals. But they dont have to conclude from that fact that they will be able to produce the Stone by working on those mineral substances.

    Objection ΙV: What the hermetic authors have mentioned about the generation of the metals has been proved that its not true. Example the treatise of Cosmopolite.

    Authors Answer: Cosmopolite was an adept and possessor of the Stone. Same goes for Morienus Romanus. The Paracelsians are chemists and not Hermetic philosophers. The Rosicrucians were impostors for the most part. Cosmopolite hadnt travelled to the center of the earth to give his description of the genetation of the metals, but through the Philosophical work he performed with his own hands, he was able to recognize the ways and the methods which Nature follows, as he was able to produce in very short time thats which Nature need many years to produce without his help. So Cosmopolite, and all the other adepts as well, were able to see through their Work the method which Nature follow in order to give birth to the metals. That means that the chapters in which Cosmopolite describes the generation of the metals must not be rejected, as it is there where he reveals our whole Practice and even the nature of the matter which is essential for our Work.
    The scientists of our era arent able to understand the nature of our Archeus, as they are unable to understand the nature of a central fire. If they had observed more carefully their experiments with electricity, which they perform mostly to amuse themselves, they me now be able to understand better the doctrines of Cosmpolite.

    Some additional points: Αt the end of that second book, author affirms that of all those author who believed in the existence of the Stone and tried to defend it without being adepts, only one was able to do that thing with success, and this one was none other than Johann Joachim Becher. With the exception of my brothers adepts, the author says, you will find not a man which I respect as much as I respect Becher. He is the only man I know, who without being initiated, was able to understand a large part of our philosophy and present it to the world in a right manner. After that, the author advises the sages of all European scientific academies, to devote six months of their lives to learn the Latin language, if not for any other reason, to be able to study the works of Becher. Its there that you will find a sane philosophy. Its there that you will recognise your current ignorance. He writes for sages of his era.

    A last interesting point is a reference to the author to two particular experiments. In the first one, the author says that if we expose an amount of common sand to the air, having firstly treated that sand in a particular manner, after some time pass we shall be able to extract a big quantity of silver and gold from that sand. That quantity shall be bigger than the one we can extract from the richest ore of gold and the expenses are only 1/10 in comparison with the expenses which require the extraction from the ore. If now, after you have extracted the precious metals, you expose again the same sand to the air, under the same circumstances, you shall be able to extract a new quantity of precious metal, and this can be continued ad infinitum. (Note by me: Ιf I understand it right the author says that this particular has been described at the works of Becher with greater details. It reminds of some particulars of Glauber, Tungel and other authors. Any more infos shall be quite welcome).

    The second particular is again from Becher, and concerns a way to extract gold from river sand, in a quantity bigger than from the best ore of gold. The author says that Becher negotiated with the country of Holland to carry out this procedure in a larger scale, but the negotiations didnt go well at the end. Any more infos about this incident shall be welcome too.

    That is a summary of the most important parts of the second book. Any infos about the promised third and fourth book of the same author are of the highest interest.
    In at least one case, the author is obviously referring to Becher's "Minera Arenaria" process (which, as Becher's pupil Stahl explains, he got the basics of from some works of Glauber.)

    His ideas regarding alchemy and the Stone, properly, sound pretty mistaken, though. The comparisons with things like agriculture, animal digestion and such are old, not original, not very "revealing" either, rather naive and on top of that based on false analogies.

    As for his recommendation of Becher: I can only condone it for some "chymical" processes and methods, certainly not for alchemy. Becher, as the author himself seems to be aware, was NOT an alchemist or an "adept". He never said he knew how to make the Stone and his works are not wholly devoted to that subject either. But he was indeed successful in some gold/silver-making "particulars".

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    In at least one case, the author is obviously referring to Becher's "Minera Arenaria" process (which, as Becher's pupil Stahl explains, he got the basics of from some works of Glauber.)
    Its most probably a reference to the process of "Minera Arenaria" which uses lead or lead glass to extract gold from sand. Have you ever tried it?

    Quote Originally Posted by JDP View Post
    As for his recommendation of Becher: I can only condone it for some "chymical" processes and methods, certainly not for alchemy. Becher, as the author himself seems to be aware, was NOT an alchemist or an "adept". He never said he knew how to make the Stone and his works are not wholly devoted to that subject either. But he was indeed successful in some gold/silver-making "particulars".
    As for Becher, the author says that he wasnt an adept and didnt have the Stone, but his analysis of physical phenomena and its arguments about transmutation and the existence of the Stone are the rightest of any other chemist/chymist. He even says that if someone study some of the things which clearly teaches Becher and combine them with the obsure language of Cosmopolite, he may find a secret key. I cant understand Latin so I have never studied Becher's works. Have you found any value in them?

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,002
    Quote Originally Posted by Hellin Hermetist View Post
    Its most probably a reference to the process of "Minera Arenaria" which uses lead or lead glass to extract gold from sand. Have you ever tried it?
    Yes, but it is not an "extraction" (which implies "preexistence" of the gold in either the sand or any other of the substances involved in the process.) Becher was very well aware that some sands can contain gold, and he knew very well how to assay for gold & silver content in raw materials. "Gradatory glass" processes work whether the sand does or does not contain gold. Silver treated by such "gradatory glasses" always yields a "dark calx" when assayed. It has nothing to do with gold impurities supposedly preexisting in the sand or in any of the other substances involved in such processes.

    As for Becher, the author says that he wasnt an adept and didnt have the Stone, but his analysis of physical phenomena and its arguments about transmutation and the existence of the Stone are the rightest of any other chemist/chymist. He even says that if someone study some of the things which clearly teaches Becher and combine them with the obsure language of Cosmopolite, he may find a secret key. I cant understand Latin so I have never studied Becher's works. Have you found any value in them?
    I am familiar with several of Becher's books: Physica Subterranea, the Second Supplement to that work, the Minera Arenaria Perpetua, the Chymischer Glücks-Hafen ("Chymical Luck-Pot" or "Chymical Lottery"; it is a massive collection of chymical processes, mostly regarding transmutation, which Becher assembled from all manner of manuscripts and printed books that fell into his hands), the Rosetum Chymicum (basically another large collection of processes) and the Mineralisches ABC. As for value: yes, but purely "chymical", not alchemical. Becher did not know how to make the Stone, so he obviously cannot teach much regarding this subject (beyond what he learnt and copied from other authors), even if he had been willing to do so. For example, Becher seriously entertained the possibility of "animated mercuries" as a means of making the Stone, and he actually took seriously the "mercurialist" absurdities proposed by authors like Gaston "Claveus" DuClo (this 16th century French lawyer was well aware of the reality of transmutation through some "particulars", but when it comes to making the Stone all of what he proposes are mercury-amalgams sheer nonsense. So his books are interesting from a "chymical" point of view, but from an alchemical one they are worthless.) When Becher talks about the Stone he is just speculating. He didn't know how it was made. Some of the "particular" processes found in Becher's books do work, though; but as I have pointed out in other threads, Becher followed the same strategy used by most other transmutational chymists (like Glauber) and filled his books with loads of nonsense and false processes as well, which makes it very hard to sift through and get to the ones that are really interesting.
    Last edited by JDP; 01-19-2018 at 06:56 AM.

+ 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