Practical Alchemy - An Introduction

[elixirmixer]

The one matter only saga, can arrise for multiple reasons. None of the Sages said that this one matter is some type of homogeneous substance did they?

If you consider that what they could be refering to as one matter, is in fact.... say.... 'light'... and that 'light' condenses into all matter.... you can see where im going with this.

'Spirit' is another example. ..

Lets have a look at 'The Golden Chain of Homer'. It talks about the impregnation of waters with 'fire' and that this fire through putrifaction becomes embodied and becomes nitre and salt, and then it speculates that nitre and salt reflux in the earth and becomes specified and become sulfur and arsenic respectively.

So, along this way of thinking, i could put sulfur and arsenic in a crucible, and some spiritually minded hypies could speculate that i was working with "One Matter" since their philosophies could revolve around the notion that these two substances actually come from One Matter aka 'Fire' or 'Spirit' or 'Light'.....

...... and because of this reason (that the philosophies of the time could speculate that all things are derived from the One Thing) this debate will truly and undoubtedly never find a finishing point. Because it is not necessarily that they were trying to trick us (even though some may have been) but that these philosophers actually believed they were working with ONE THING, as the Emerald Tablet suggests.

So whether you believe you can, or you believe you can't; ElixirMixer is right - Mr. Churchill

 

[theFool]

Do you have an alternative proposition as to the origin of the Mercury of the Philosophers? I'd like to hear it.

Here is some guessing (which of course can change in future): According to literature, the Mercury exists in almost every mineral and plant. Liberating it and capturing it pure is the riddle. Simply trying to distill it out from one matter will not do the trick. As JDP has mentioned, this process has already been tried on almost every known single matter by chemists. So, probably something must be mixed with the matter or other process performed. It would not be surprising to find it already premixed somewhere in nature but in general it is not found. Soot could be a good candidate. It is not natural but manmade.

 

[Florius Frammel]

Soot resembles the look of pulverized antimony ore (or Antimony(III) Sulfide - Sb2S3) a lot.

 

[JDP]

Here is some guessing (which of course can change in future): According to literature, the Mercury exists in almost every mineral and plant. Liberating it and capturing it pure is the riddle. Simply trying to distill it out from one matter will not do the trick. As JDP has mentioned, this process has already been tried on almost every known single matter by chemists. So, probably something must be mixed with the matter or other process performed. It would not be surprising to find it already premixed somewhere in nature but in general it is not found. Soot could be a good candidate. It is not natural but manmade.

Though soot is interesting, and technically an artificial substance (though it appeared to be made from "one matter" to people of older times, since they did not fully understand the role that our atmosphere plays in combustion; this was fully clarified by Lavoisier and his followers in the late 18th century), it has been well investigated by the 16th-18th century "chymists" and then later by the chemists. The first clear description of the "analysis by fire" of soot seems to be the one by the French chymist Blaise de Vigenere in his Discourse on Fire and Salt (late 16th century.) Here is a very brief description by John French of what is obtained from soot:

HOW TO MAKE AN OIL AND WATER OUT OF SOOT

This may be distilled per descensum or by retort as thus, viz., take of the best soot (which shines like jet) and fill with it a glass retort coated or earthen retort to the neck. Distill it with a strong fire by degrees into a large receiver, and there will come forth a yellowish spirit with a black oil which you may separate and digest.

So two basic products are obtained: a "yellowish spirit" (i.e. a "watery" liquid) and a "black oil". Now compare that to the descriptions of the distillation of the alchemists' "matter", like the ones found in Ripley's works, for example. Does it sound to you that they are a perfect match? It certainly does not! The "matter" of the alchemists when submitted to the same modus operandi gives several products/byproducts (it depends on the substances and manner of preparation used to make this "matter"):

1- A white water, spirit or oil
2- A red water, spirit or oil
3- A solid sublimate (usually described as being white in color)
4- A burning "spirit" (often compared to common spirit of wine, i.e. our alcohol)
5- A sediment/feces/caput-mortuum left behind in the distillation flask (most often described as being "black" or "dark".)

PS: the older alchemists often used methods by which the "waters/spirits/oils" were not separated and instead an apparently single "water" was obtained, which was then further operated upon to imbue it with the "sulphur/tincture/soul" of the "body", which would be the "hidden redness" inside the "white/silvery/milky water" (the texts of alchemists like Ibn Umail and al-Iraqi are full of interesting comments and information regarding these older methods.)

 

[elixirmixer]

Putrifaction.

Putrifaction is "The Gate".

Putrifaction is your "Introduction to Alchemy".

Putrifaction IS the way that the.... (?)spirit (?) ... lets say... becomes available to the Alchemist.

Done.

Moving on........

 

[Florius Frammel]

Though soot is interesting, and technically an artificial substance (though it appeared to be made from "one matter" to people of older times, since they did not fully understand the role that our atmosphere plays in combustion; this was fully clarified by Lavoisier and his followers in the late 18th century), it has been well investigated by the 16th-18th century "chymists" and then later by the chemists. The first clear description of the "analysis by fire" of soot seems to be the one by the French chymist Blaise de Vigenere in his Discourse on Fire and Salt (late 16th century.) Here is a very brief description by John French of what is obtained from soot:

HOW TO MAKE AN OIL AND WATER OUT OF SOOT

This may be distilled per descensum or by retort as thus, viz., take of the best soot (which shines like jet) and fill with it a glass retort coated or earthen retort to the neck. Distill it with a strong fire by degrees into a large receiver, and there will come forth a yellowish spirit with a black oil which you may separate and digest.

So two basic products are obtained: a "yellowish spirit" (i.e. a "watery" liquid) and a "black oil". Now compare that to the descriptions of the distillation of the alchemists' "matter", like the ones found in Ripley's works, for example. Does it sound to you that they are a perfect match? It certainly does not! The "matter" of the alchemists when submitted to the same modus operandi gives several products/byproducts (it depends on the substances and manner of preparation used to make this "matter"):

1- A white water, spirit or oil
2- A red water, spirit or oil
3- A solid sublimate (usually described as being white in color)
4- A burning "spirit" (often compared to common spirit of wine, i.e. our alcohol)
5- A sediment/feces/caput-mortuum left behind in the distillation flask (most often described as being "black" or "dark".)

PS: the older alchemists often used methods by which the "waters/spirits/oils" were not separated and instead an apparently single "water" was obtained, which was then further operated upon to imbue it with the "sulphur/tincture/soul" of the "body", which would be the "hidden redness" inside the "white/silvery/milky water" (the texts of alchemists like Ibn Umail and al-Iraqi are full of interesting comments and information regarding these older methods.)

Especially the older alchemists seemed to have dealt a lot with common mercury. The solid sublimate, white in color (your #3) therefore is most likely Mercury Chloride then.
Following this theory we already might have two components of the initial mixture: Common Mercury and common salt.

John of Rupescissa adds Roman Vitriol (Iron Sulfate) and Saltpeter in addition to those two matters above. Have you ever tried these?

 

[JDP]

Especially the older alchemists seemed to have dealt a lot with common mercury. The solid sublimate, white in color (your #3) therefore is most likely Mercury Chloride then.
Following this theory we already might have two components of the initial mixture: Common Mercury and common salt.

John of Rupescissa adds Roman Vitriol (Iron Sulfate) and Saltpeter in addition to those two matters above. Have you ever tried these?

Such mixtures would give nitric and hydrochloric acids, plus whatever parts of mercury get combined with these and then sublimed.

 

[Florius Frammel]

Such mixtures would give nitric and hydrochloric acids, plus whatever parts of mercury get combined with these and then sublimed.

With the obvious potential to dissolve gold with this aqua regia..

 

[z0 K]

Though soot is interesting, and technically an artificial substance (though it appeared to be made from "one matter" to people of older times, since they did not fully understand the role that our atmosphere plays in combustion; this was fully clarified by Lavoisier and his followers in the late 18th century), it has been well investigated by the 16th-18th century "chymists" and then later by the chemists. The first clear description of the "analysis by fire" of soot seems to be the one by the French chymist Blaise de Vigenere in his Discourse on Fire and Salt (late 16th century.) Here is a very brief description by John French of what is obtained from soot:

HOW TO MAKE AN OIL AND WATER OUT OF SOOT

This may be distilled per descensum or by retort as thus, viz., take of the best soot (which shines like jet) and fill with it a glass retort coated or earthen retort to the neck. Distill it with a strong fire by degrees into a large receiver, and there will come forth a yellowish spirit with a black oil which you may separate and digest.

So two basic products are obtained: a "yellowish spirit" (i.e. a "watery" liquid) and a "black oil". Now compare that to the descriptions of the distillation of the alchemists' "matter", like the ones found in Ripley's works, for example. Does it sound to you that they are a perfect match? It certainly does not! The "matter" of the alchemists when submitted to the same modus operandi gives several products/byproducts (it depends on the substances and manner of preparation used to make this "matter"):

1- A white water, spirit or oil
2- A red water, spirit or oil
3- A solid sublimate (usually described as being white in color)
4- A burning "spirit" (often compared to common spirit of wine, i.e. our alcohol)
5- A sediment/feces/caput-mortuum left behind in the distillation flask (most often described as being "black" or "dark".)

PS: the older alchemists often used methods by which the "waters/spirits/oils" were not separated and instead an apparently single "water" was obtained, which was then further operated upon to imbue it with the "sulphur/tincture/soul" of the "body", which would be the "hidden redness" inside the "white/silvery/milky water" (the texts of alchemists like Ibn Umail and al-Iraqi are full of interesting comments and information regarding these older methods.)

Seems to me your general premise that all natural things of vegetable, animal and mineral origin have been investigated by the chymysts and chemists and they say nothing about finding Mercury of the Philosophers and such is merely your personal conclusion based upon your scholarly book reading assumptions. Case in point your example of John French and that terse description of soot distillation.

Seems like you prefer to believe French's description of what you get from soot over what I have reported and documented in photo and video. That's your choice for sure. However looks to me like he was describing a sloppy operation where the soot was heated too fast. That's just my opinion based upon what I have received from soot distillation using modern electric control of heating. I use a modified kiln controlled with Variac transformer. I can adjust the heat by single degrees and hold it there for days if necessary.

I love it when you use Ripley for an example. And no, Ripley's description of the Elements received does not look like a match with French's. Yet when distilled properly soot gives:

1. A white oily water (if you like that description instead of clear), pH 12, reeking of Armoniac. That oily water turns yellow, then a beautiful transparent red oil appears when the Fire in it is separated out and concentrated.

2. A solid sublimate white in color, Ripley's rime, Sal Armoniac

3. The "white" water is a powerful "burning spirit" for sure. It is the Spirit of Philosophical Wine that I work with whether I get if from soot or some other vegetable matter including a compost of garbage piled up in a corner as many used to have in their kitchens.

4. A black caput-mortuum that delivers a beautiful citrine fixed salt.

My opinion about many of those old chymists is not the same as yours. It is obvious to me that many of them were alchemists. I say this for one because as I said Bolnest lays out all the details to make the Secret Solvent in pieces some in the vegetable section, some in the animal section and some in the mineral section.

We've argued this before. You seem to think for some reason that an alchemist could not or would not work publically as a chymyst so as not to be associated with the plethora of puffers and frauds that were giving the Royal Art a bad name. Of course an alchemist working as a chymyst would be able to describe the products of various laboratory processes in detail yet never say anything about the alchemical Elements derived from them. That would be giving the Secret away to the common to the profane.

 

[JDP]

Seems to me your general premise that all natural things of vegetable, animal and mineral origin have been investigated by the chymysts and chemists and they say nothing about finding Mercury of the Philosophers and such is merely your personal conclusion based upon your scholarly book reading assumptions. Case in point your example of John French and that terse description of soot distillation.

Seems like you prefer to believe French's description of what you get from soot over what I have reported and documented in photo and video. That's your choice for sure. However looks to me like he was describing a sloppy operation where the soot was heated too fast. That's just my opinion based upon what I have received from soot distillation using modern electric control of heating. I use a modified kiln controlled with Variac transformer. I can adjust the heat by single degrees and hold it there for days if necessary.

I love it when you use Ripley for an example. And no, Ripley's description of the Elements received does not look like a match with French's. Yet when distilled properly soot gives:

1. A white oily water (if you like that description instead of clear), pH 12, reeking of Armoniac. That oily water turns yellow, then a beautiful transparent red oil appears when the Fire in it is separated out and concentrated.

2. A solid sublimate white in color, Ripley's rime, Sal Armoniac

3. The "white" water is a powerful "burning spirit" for sure. It is the Spirit of Philosophical Wine that I work with whether I get if from soot or some other vegetable matter including a compost of garbage piled up in a corner as many used to have in their kitchens.

4. A black caput-mortuum that delivers a beautiful citrine fixed salt.

My opinion about many of those old chymists is not the same as yours. It is obvious to me that many of them were alchemists. I say this for one because as I said Bolnest lays out all the details to make the Secret Solvent in pieces some in the vegetable section, some in the animal section and some in the mineral section.

We've argued this before. You seem to think for some reason that an alchemist could not or would not work publically as a chymyst so as not to be associated with the plethora of puffers and frauds that were giving the Royal Art a bad name. Of course an alchemist working as a chymyst would be able to describe the products of various laboratory processes in detail yet never say anything about the alchemical Elements derived from them. That would be giving the Secret away to the common to the profane.

There are more detailed descriptions than those of French. Here is the referred to first clear description of the distillation of soot, by Blaise de Vigenere:

Take then the Soote of Chimney, but of that which shall mount highest in a very long Chimney pipe, and in the very top, where it must bee most subtill, thereof fill a great Cornue, or an Alembic two parts of three, then apply thereunto a great recipient, which you wrap about with linnen wet with fresh water. Give fire by small quantities, the water and the oil will distill together, although the water ought in order to issue out first. After that, all these two liquors shall passe through the Recipient, and when nothing else shall arise, increase your fire with faggot stickes well dryed, or other like, continuing it for 8 or 10 houres, so long that the earths which shall rest in the bottome bee well calcined: but for that they are in small quantity put to more Soote, and continue it as aforesaid, untill you have earth enough which you shall take out of the Alembic, which you shall put into a little earthen pot, of Parris, not smoothed, or in a little hollow pot. The water and oile, which you shall have distilled may be easily separated by a glasse fonnell, where the water will swimme above the oile: This done you shall rectify your water by Balneum Mariæ, by redistilling of it two or three times; for oile doth not mount by this degree of fire but by Sand; keepe them asunder upon the earths, that shall be calcined within the said pot or cruset, put their water thereon a little warme stirring it with a spit, so long till the Salt which shall therein bee revealed by the fires action, do totally dissolve it selfe into this Water; withdraw it by distillation, and the Salt shall bee left you in the bottome, of the nature of Salarmoniac, so that by pressing it, it will elevate it selfe. But of this more plainely hereafter in its owne place, when we shall speake of Salt. Of Earthes wee need not take much care, for wee must seeke for the best in the Ashes, as also fixed Salt. So by the meanes of Water, extracted out of ashes (we will here a little passe from Soote, a little better to declare the subject of Earthes.)

It is very similar to John French's more concise description, and it certainly does not match very well with the descriptions of the alchemists. I have never seen any such "analysis by fire" descriptions, and not just for soot but also for any single naturally occurring substance, that can be called a completely satisfactory match with the distillation of the "matter" of the alchemists.

 

[theFool]

Seems like you prefer to believe French's description of what you get from soot over what I have reported and documented in photo and video. That's your choice for sure. However looks to me like he was describing a sloppy operation where the soot was heated too fast.

I would like to add that John French's book resembles to me like a collection of anecdotal recipes of the time which probably he haven't tried them all to see with his own eyes. It is possible that the process of soot distilation is described oversimplified because the original recipe reached French's ear a bit "diluted". If he knew that soot is the prime matter, he would not devote only two lines to it.

 

[z0 K]

There are more detailed descriptions than those of French. Here is the referred to first clear description of the distillation of soot, by Blaise de Vigenere:

Take then the Soote of Chimney, but of that which shall mount highest in a very long Chimney pipe, and in the very top, where it must bee most subtill, thereof fill a great Cornue, or an Alembic two parts of three, then apply thereunto a great recipient, which you wrap about with linnen wet with fresh water. Give fire by small quantities, the water and the oil will distill together, although the water ought in order to issue out first. After that, all these two liquors shall passe through the Recipient, and when nothing else shall arise, increase your fire with faggot stickes well dryed, or other like, continuing it for 8 or 10 houres, so long that the earths which shall rest in the bottome bee well calcined: but for that they are in small quantity put to more Soote, and continue it as aforesaid, untill you have earth enough which you shall take out of the Alembic, which you shall put into a little earthen pot, of Parris, not smoothed, or in a little hollow pot. The water and oile, which you shall have distilled may be easily separated by a glasse fonnell, where the water will swimme above the oile: This done you shall rectify your water by Balneum Mariæ, by redistilling of it two or three times; for oile doth not mount by this degree of fire but by Sand; keepe them asunder upon the earths, that shall be calcined within the said pot or cruset, put their water thereon a little warme stirring it with a spit, so long till the Salt which shall therein bee revealed by the fires action, do totally dissolve it selfe into this Water; withdraw it by distillation, and the Salt shall bee left you in the bottome, of the nature of Salarmoniac, so that by pressing it, it will elevate it selfe. But of this more plainely hereafter in its owne place, when we shall speake of Salt. Of Earthes wee need not take much care, for wee must seeke for the best in the Ashes, as also fixed Salt. So by the meanes of Water, extracted out of ashes (we will here a little passe from Soote, a little better to declare the subject of Earthes.)

It is very similar to John French's more concise description, and it certainly does not match very well with the descriptions of the alchemists. I have never seen any such "analysis by fire" descriptions, and not just for soot but also for any single naturally occurring substance, that can be called a completely satisfactory match with the distillation of the "matter" of the alchemists.

Yes I'm well aware of Blaise de Vigenere's work with Soote and JG Toeltius, Coelum Reseratum Chymicum as well.

The excerpt you provided from Vigenere certainly indicates that he was collecting the alchemical Elements from the destructive distillation of chimney soot. And what did he get:

1. a Water
2. an oil
3. Salarmoniac, Ripley's rime, Sal Armoniac
4. an Earth

First he separated the Water from the oil by funnel and then purified the water by BM distillation just as Hollandus teaches for the Vegetable work. Then he extracts the black Earth with the Water which Hollandus teaches in the Work of the Vine. Then he extracts the Salarmoniac as he calls it which is mixed in with the water soluble fixed salts. He then sublimes the Sal Armoniac from the fixed salts. Hollandus teaches the same operation. Sure looks to me like Blaise de Vigenerer was more alchemist than chymyst.

 

[JDP]

Yes I'm well aware of Blaise de Vigenere's work with Soote and JG Toeltius, Coelum Reseratum Chymicum as well.

The excerpt you provided from Vigenere certainly indicates that he was collecting the alchemical Elements from the destructive distillation of chimney soot. And what did he get:

1. a Water
2. an oil
3. Salarmoniac, Ripley's rime, Sal Armoniac
4. an Earth

First he separated the Water from the oil by funnel and then purified the water by BM distillation just as Hollandus teaches for the Vegetable work. Then he extracts the black Earth with the Water which Hollandus teaches in the Work of the Vine. Then he extracts the Salarmoniac as he calls it which is mixed in with the water soluble fixed salts. He then sublimes the Sal Armoniac from the fixed salts. Hollandus teaches the same operation. Sure looks to me like Blaise de Vigenerer was more alchemist than chymyst.

I don't know about Hollandus and the dubious claims about the "Vegetable Stone" (if it doesn't transmute, then it is NOT any kind of alchemical "Stone" or "tincture"; maybe it was some sort of spagyric medicine), but I do know that it does not match the descriptions in a bunch of alchemy books, like those of Ripley, where the products/byproducts enumerated in my earlier post are all obtained IN THE SAME DISTILLATION OPERATION, not by further manipulations. Some of them can afterwards be separated by further operations, but the products/byproducts are all produced in the same operation, which if you do not change the receiver while they are being produced, obviously will end up mingling or gathering together (except the less volatile ones that might remain attached to other parts of the distilling apparatus.)

Also, the "oil" obtained by the distillation of the alchemical "Adrop", "Green Lion", "Sericon", "Azoquean Vitriol", etc. is red, not black.

Furthermore, the products/byproducts of soot also do not seem to have the exact same properties of the products/byproducts of the distillation of the alchemists' "matter".

Vigenere was a chymist, he did not know how to make the Stone. Like many of his "tribe", he also had a tendency of letting his imagination and enthusiasm run a bit wild. He makes many dubious claims and sees "great secrets" pretty much everywhere, even in very mundane and common operations, like such simple distillations of single substances.

 

[elixirmixer]

The Hollandus 'Vegetable' stone does claim to transmute base metals into gold. I highly doubt it is actually a 'vegetable' stone. I believe the term vegetable, refers the the philosophers stone in its 'vegetative' state, the "Regimen of Venus"

 

[Dragon's Tail]

He makes many dubious claims and sees "great secrets" pretty much everywhere, even in very mundane and common operations, like such simple distillations of single substances.

We should all be so lucky. A child peering into the sky for the first time sees far more than an adult trying to hide from a hot sun.

 

[Kiorionis]

We should all be so lucky. A child peering into the sky for the first time sees far more than an adult trying to hide from a hot sun.

Well said

 

[JDP]

We should all be so lucky. A child peering into the sky for the first time sees far more than an adult trying to hide from a hot sun.

Noble sentiments, but highly unrealistic. A child peering into the sky for the first time is mesmerized by the pretty scenery but doesn't have the faintest clue of what he is really looking at. An adult doesn't have that sense of wonder but actually knows what it is (unless he is an utter ignoramus.) One lives in a fantasy world, the other one lives in reality.

Which takes us back to the topic: many of the "wonders" some of these chymists were so fascinated with were really quite mundane and not any such "secrets". I find that in such cases the alchemists were more pragmatic and rejected such things as "sophistical & false", but at the same time they also had a tendency of denying just about everything regarding transmutation that did not have to do with alchemy and its methods. More than a few of the chymical transmutation processes that they labelled as "false" in fact actually work. It is the opposite side of the coin.

 

[z0 K]

I don't know about Hollandus and the dubious claims about the "Vegetable Stone" (if it doesn't transmute, then it is NOT any kind of alchemical "Stone" or "tincture"; maybe it was some sort of spagyric medicine), but I do know that it does not match the descriptions in a bunch of alchemy books, like those of Ripley, where the products/byproducts enumerated in my earlier post are all obtained IN THE SAME DISTILLATION OPERATION, not by further manipulations. Some of them can afterwards be separated by further operations, but the products/byproducts are all produced in the same operation, which if you do not change the receiver while they are being produced, obviously will end up mingling or gathering together (except the less volatile ones that might remain attached to other parts of the distilling apparatus.)

Also, the "oil" obtained by the distillation of the alchemical "Adrop", "Green Lion", "Sericon", "Azoquean Vitriol", etc. is red, not black.

Furthermore, the products/byproducts of soot also do not seem to have the exact same properties of the products/byproducts of the distillation of the alchemists' "matter".

Vigenere was a chymist, he did not know how to make the Stone. Like many of his "tribe", he also had a tendency of letting his imagination and enthusiasm run a bit wild. He makes many dubious claims and sees "great secrets" pretty much everywhere, even in very mundane and common operations, like such simple distillations of single substances.

Wow! You don't know about Hollandus. And because of that his claims are dubious. You've apparently never read his Work of the Wine and prefer to embarrass yourself with pontifications. Who elected you the Pope of Alchemy to decide what alchemists "claims" are dubious? Your "opinions" are not facts. Citing text is no substitute for working them in the lab.

And another popish judgment from you: "Vigenere was a chymists, he did not know how to make the Stone." Did he tell you that that last time you saw him?

Then you judge him to be a member of some tribe. By your popish declaration he is demoted from alchemist down to chymist and then even lover in status worthy of little respect he is now to be the maker of many dubious claims.

I do believe you are engaged in Necromancing the Stone. You will never make the Philosophers Stone by belittling alchemists that don't see it your way.

 

[JDP]

Wow! You don't know about Hollandus. And because of that his claims are dubious. You've apparently never read his Work of the Wine and prefer to embarrass yourself with pontifications. Who elected you the Pope of Alchemy to decide what alchemists "claims" are dubious? Your "opinions" are not facts. Citing text is no substitute for working them in the lab.

And another popish judgment from you: "Vigenere was a chymists, he did not know how to make the Stone." Did he tell you that that last time you saw him?

Then you judge him to be a member of some tribe. By your popish declaration he is demoted from alchemist down to chymist and then even lover in status worthy of little respect he is now to be the maker of many dubious claims.

I do believe you are engaged in Necromancing the Stone. You will never make the Philosophers Stone by belittling alchemists that don't see it your way.

I find Hollandus' works quite "peppered" with nonsense claims, but then again so are many other alchemical works. My judgement here was more based on YOUR statements about what you say you have been able to replicate by allegedly following his instructions. So, it was YOU who said that the "vegetable stone" you prepared by following him doesn't transmute. That by itself IMMEDIATELY DISQUALIFIES whatever is it that you have concocted as the "Stone" of the alchemists. And I don't need to explain why, anyone well acquainted with alchemical literature knows why. From the oldest surviving alchemical texts transmutation and the Stone go hand-in-hand. Any supposed "tincture" that does not transmute = NOT alchemical.

Vigenere never claims he was an "adept" and his work doesn't give the slightest impression that he actually knew how to prepare the Stone either. His style, ideas and claims are typical of those of the "chymists". The alchemists generally rejected anything that does not have to do with the secret solvent or "water" and the transmuting "tinctures" made with it. Vigenere does not fit into this mold at all. He quite clearly approvingly refers to several transmutation processes that have ZERO to do with the secret solvent and the Stone.

 

[elixirmixer]

Hollandus' work is seriously encrypted. It would take some very thorough research imo to be able to crack the code of his works.

Do you, JDP, have some kind of deck-name decoding system for 'the five salts of the hand of philosophy'?

 

[JDP]

Hollandus' work is seriously encrypted. It would take some very thorough research imo to be able to crack the code of his works.

Do you, JDP, have some kind of deck-name decoding system for 'the five salts of the hand of philosophy'?

It is difficult to say in this type of texts that give so many "recipes". It could be any of the following cases:

1- The author is just a poser, charlatan or speculator pretending to be an "adept" and is just talking nonsense, all of the processes he gives are false and can't produce any alchemical "tincture"

2- The author is a genuine alchemist and has purposefully inserted false processes amidst some real clues/hints of the genuine substances and processes used in alchemy

3- The author is a genuine alchemist and is actually giving genuine processes, but has withheld or "camouflaged" the "key" to make them work, viz. the secret solvent (this is in fact the opinion of Weidenfeld, who takes the processes in Hollandus' books quite literally, EXCEPT some of the key ingredients in them, like "vinegar" or "spirit of wine", for example, which are code-words for the secret solvent; if you attempt to replicate the processes without using this key substance and instead used the common substances known under such names, you will obviously fail)

 

[Schmuldvich]

Putrifaction.

Putrifaction is "The Gate".

Putrifaction is your "Introduction to Alchemy".

Putrifaction IS the way that the.... (?)spirit (?) ... lets say... becomes available to the Alchemist.

Done.

Moving on........​

Well said, Elixirmixer!

Sadly this post is being ignored.

Philalethes recognizes this as well...

I believe the term vegetable, refers the the philosophers stone in its 'vegetative' state

Also this!



We should not ignore these gems Elixirmixer is giving us!

 

[Seraphim]

Thanks Elixirmixer and Schmuldvich. This quote by Morienus feels relevant.

When it has thus Putrefied and been cleansed, the whole operation is done, with the aid of Great God Most High.

 

[Florius Frammel]

John French: HOW TO MAKE AN OIL AND WATER OUT OF SOOT

This may be distilled per descensum

Anyone really tried this almost forgotton method? I would be very interested to learn how to do this with soot!

 

[z0 K]

Anyone really tried this almost forgotton method? I would be very interested to learn how to do this with soot!

That way is a lot of trouble with the mess of material (soot) clogging the barrel of the flask in the furnace building up pressure that will blow out the lute. That method will work best in a modified kiln with the reaction flask exit port being drilled into the bottom of the kiln. It is much better and less hassle to distill horizontally. The distillates exit the furnace out the barrel without any debris falling into the receiver. You cannot use descensum distillation with wet matter. I bought a second kiln with the idea to modify it for descensum distillation as well as for routine calcination.

When I started to work on retort designs for descensum there were a lot of technical problems I foresaw like how to keep the dry matter from falling down into the receiver. If the screen is fine enough to prevent material from falling through it will also clogg with soot and tar causing a smoky blowout.

I was able to get satisfactory results with soot distillation by inserting the mouth of 250mL flask into the mouth of a one gallon jug and heating the flask over a direct flame on a kitchen stove like this: Philosophers Spirit of Wine