Mercury

[z0 K]

“But by the green lyon we mean & denote green multiplyable & spermatick gold, which is as yet unfinished by nature, having power to reduce bodies to their first matter, & making them fix, spiritual, & fugitive, & is therefore deservedly called a lyon. For even as every brute beast subjects itself to the lyon, so every metallick body is overcome by the power of that our living mercury.” — George Ripley, Key to the Golden Gate.

“and it is necessarily expedient that a medicine be fusil, living, tinging, remaining or permanent,” — Ripley, Key to the Golden Gate.

“And with all that they may be infinitely multiply in themselves & may free the bodies of men from the worst & deadly deseases. The which properties verely, are not to be found in common gold & silver without a great deal of labour & that but in part neither; because that the vegetative virtue & mother of all increase is for the great part long ago extinct in them.” — Ripley, Key to the Golden Gate.

“For it is evident that nothing in this world, whether animal vegetable or mineral can be generated without a natural heat & specifick appetite or lust;”

“Thou seest now, that the radical moisture, vize the vegetative virtue is the chiefe cause of the multiplication of every thing in its own kind.”

“Whence ariseth this inference, that the water & mineral earth agent & passiv is the matter of the philosophers stone; hence that community for the poor as well as the rich is evident, sithence the stone can be made of one thing without visible gold & silver; but here I do admonish thee, & inform thee, that this is the difference between the stone & the elixir, that the stone delights in unity & simplicity, but the elixir in plurality. The stone therefore is one only thing, our mercury, our sol & our lune, our tincture white & red, the which being seperate is excellently well conjoyned with its own proper body or with any earth of the little mountains, & is most easily to be gotten by all. But the elixir is the same vegetable mercury, but yet by reason of its fixation it is said to be not common; but consisting of more things, not of unity, the which is absolutely fixed in the earth of the common gold & silver, & is therefore always made of two viz vegetable mercury & a strange earth; the which is not so common unto nor so fit for the poor.” — Ripley, Key to the Golden Gate.

[Manfrid]

Hello.
A good answer need’s a good question!
So, I’ll improve my question.
We can read in Fulcanelli:
“Of the preceding, it is especially important to remember that metals, liquefied and dissociated by mercury, recover the vegetative power they possessed at the time of their appearance on the physical plane. The dissolving agent plays for them the part of a genuine Fountain of Youth. It separates the heterogeneous impurities brought in from the mineral deposits, takes away from them the infirmities contracted throughout the centuries; it reanimates them, gives them new vigor and rejuvenates them. It is the way common metals are reincrudated; that is, put back in a state close to their original state, and from then on they are known as living or philosophical metals. Since they reassume, upon contact with their mother, their original faculties, we can assert that they became close to what she is and have taken a nature similar to hers. On the other hand, as a result of this conformity of complexion, they are obviously incapable of engendering new bodies with their mother, the latter having only a renewing rather than a generating power. Hence we must conclude that the mercury of which we speak and which has for symbol the Eve of the Mosaic Eden, is not the one to which the sages have assigned the role of matrix, of receptacle, the vase, suitable for the reincrudated metal, called sulphur, sun of the philosophers, metallic seed and father of the stone.
Do not be mistaken; there lies the Gordian Knot of the Work, the one that beginners must try to untie if they do not want to be stopped short at the beginning of practice. Hence another mother exists, daughter of the first, whom the masters with an intention easy to guess, have also called mercury. And the differentiation of these two mercuries, one the agent of renewal, the other of procreation, constitutes the most difficult study that the science has reserved for the neophyte … The two mothers or mercuries … our analysis contains the revelation of what it is customary to call the secret of the two mercuries.
The anonymous author of The Ancient War of the Knights (5) , in a discourse told by the metal reduced to the state of sulphur under the action of first mercury, teaches us that this first sulphur needs a second mercury with which it must be joined so as to multiply its kind.” (pg 78,79,80 – Fulcanelli / Dwellings Of The Philosophers).

The first Mercury (Dissolvent) is clear for all of us. There is no problem. With this Mercury we obtain or isolate Sulphur. This is not a very hidden operation. What I didn’t know, until recently, was the chemical nature of the “body” called Sulphur of the metals. I didn’t know what was that physical product that I had in front of me.
Very grateful for everyone’s help.
Manfrid

[Manfrid]

A little more quotes in order to better specify my problem.

“Because the mystery veiling our second operation is the greatest of all; it alludes to the elaboration of the philosophical mercury which has never been taught openly … the researchers, before incurring further expenses, learn that which differentiates the first mercury from the philosophical mercury. Once one knows exactly what one is looking for, it becomes easier to orient one’s steps. May they know that their solvent or common mercury is the result of Nature’s work while the mercury of the sages remains a product of art … If the technique requires a certain amount of time and demands some labor, it is on the other hand extremely simple. Any layman who knows to feed a fire, will perform it as well as an expert alchemist. It neither requires any special trick nor professional skill but only the knowledge of an unusual artifice, which is the secret of secrets that has not been revealed and probably never will be … Before going further let us say of this unknown artifice — which from the chemical viewpoint should be called preposterous, absurd, or paradoxical because its inexplicable action defies all scientific rules — that it marks the intersection where alchemical science strays from chemical science. Applied to other bodies, it provides, in the same conditions, just so many unpredicted results and so many substances endowed with surprising qualities. This unique and powerful means thus allows a development of an unsuspected scope by the multiple, new, simple elements and compounds derived from the same elements, but whose genesis remains an enigma for the chemical rationale. This evidently should not be taught. If we have entered this reserved domain of hermetics, if, bolder than our predecessors, we have mentioned it … “ (Fulcanelli – Les Demeures Philosophales / Louis d’Estissac).
Manfrid

[Illen A. Cluf]

"What I didn’t know, until recently, was the chemical nature of the “body” called Sulphur of the metals."

What is your understanding of the chemical nature of the "body" called Sulphur of the metals"?

[Manfrid]

Illen Cluf,

curious question.
Alchemy operates on chemicals substances, “over” chemical compounds.
Sulphur is a chemical substance that can be chemically named.
We can understand that the energies manipulated by Alchemy, called Fires (because there are many) , when incorporated in a metallic material base, is our Sulphur.
So, Sulphur is a substance that carries a certain energy (Fire), as well as the Secret Fire is a salt that carries (incorporates) a specific energy. Are physical/chemical supports for a specific type of energy.
“Il nous rappelle ainsi que le feu de la matière, dont Fulcanelli signale qu’il se spécifie en soufre-principe dans les métaux, est constitué par de l’Eprit emprisonné dans la matière. » (Pasquier, pg. 69)
«…à ce que les opérations d’Alchimie respectent nécessairement la plausibilité chimique, même si elles ne présentent parfois aucun intérêt du point de vue chimique. » (Pasquier, pg. 49)
If we don’t know the chemical identity of the actors in the Great Work, how we can look for them?
More or less answered your question?
Manfrid

[Illen A. Cluf]

More or less answered your question?
Manfrid

Yes, partially. You mentioned that you recently realized the chemical nature of "Sulphur", so I was curious to see what you discovered.

However, I really don't think that 'our sulphur' is chemically known to Chemists.

[z0 K]

Yes, partially. You mentioned that you recently realized the chemical nature of "Sulphur", so I was curious to see what you discovered.

However, I really don't think that 'our sulphur' is chemically known to Chemists.

Our Sulfur, alchemical Sulfur in its undetermined state is Anima Mundi or World Soul. As such it is in everything on a Philosophical level. On a practical level our Sulfur is commonly extracted from biomass. It is well known to the science of chemistry in its crude state and has been characterized in detail in many chemistry books from the 1700s and 1800s. Industry has been using fractions of fossilized biomass and tars, our crude sulfur, as fuel, petroleum oils and distillates to power Earth spewing that toxic matter into the atmosphere since the industrial age got started.

Industrial science tech discards our alchemical Sulfur within the crude tar because it is of no value to profit commercial progress. It is not combustible. When separated from the crude Sulfur tar and purified through many rotations it is then our Fire Element in the work to the Red Stone.

[Manfrid]

I think our point of view about Alchemy is not the same.
You talked about biomass … and I talk about metals, minerals, salts … I study Fulcanelli, Pasquier, Canselit, Dujols, Flamel, Ciliani, Cosmopolita, Filaleto, etc., etc. ... there is no place to vegetables in order to make the Philosophical Stone. Our Stone is a mineral compound!
Maybe there is a mismatch here.
It is evident that our Sulphur is a form of energy, and that this energy may be diffused or spread throughout the Universe, but this energy has a physical or molecular support inside the metals.
That energy is in all things, animals, vegetables, minerals … but I don’t know how to operate with this energy over the three kingdoms except from the Philosophical Stone, and this Stone is a mineral compound. This is my way. There are certainly others but I don’t know … sorry.

When separated from the crude Sulfur tar and purified through many rotations it is then our Fire Element in the work to the Red Stone.

As a form of radiant energy our Sulphur is manifested in oil, gasoline, alcohol, etc., but in this type of supports I don’t know how to use it to make our Stone. I don’t know this type of work or Via.
Manfrid

[Kiorionis]

I think our point of view about Alchemy is not the same.
You talked about biomass … and I talk about metals, minerals, salts … I study Fulcanelli, Pasquier, Canselit, Dujols, Flamel, Ciliani, Cosmopolita, Filaleto, etc., etc. ... there is no place to vegetables in order to make the Philosophical Stone. Our Stone is a mineral compound!

As soon as you burn a plant in a fire, you’re only left with the minerals?

All things are in a way “biologically active”, even minerals?

[nav2010]

Hi Manfred

I would like to think that Mercury is one of the favorite topics of every aspiring Alchemist.

The Understanding of Mercury is paramount to any progress in Alchemy.

In my opinion Mercury is the Corner Stone of The Great Work.

I would have to disagree with that. Elemental mercury is a red herring designed to trap fools into playing with dangerous and often poisonous materials. Beware of the many pitfalls of alchemy, beware of organic materials that have had there names substituted with elements such as antimony and mercury, no good will ever come of it.