Although only reminiscences remain, we cannot but notice the similarities between the Palingenesis – and perhaps even Metempsychosis – of humans and that of metals. Obviously, as long as it is a metal…
In fact, the practice, as long as it’s about metals, one can bear to be highly “disrespectful”: they are killed. It is clear that palingenesis and metempsychosis of biological beings could not be so crude. said that, alchemists note at least three similarities: the belief that the mineral salts of human bones contain the residual spark needed to “rebuild” the individual; the final intervention of the world of sound; and the idea that an intact metal experiences the death of its soul, just as when reduced to its Prima Materia (or death of the metal), its soul experiences the end of its corporeal integrity. This has many similarities to Heraclitus’s idea that we experience the death of souls as souls experience our deaths.
What then are we to make of the ancients’ further refinement in diluting the block of the “animist field” into multiple densities and ramifications?
This ancient idea goes beyond the modern granite belief in the separation between consciousness and objects. In fact, alchemists speak of connecting “mediums”. For them, the secret of everything lies in the “connections” and the substances that compose these “mediums”.
The Mysteries of Demeter say: “No one can enter the labyrinth with the body, but only in the form of wind.” I could go on and on about the composition of Ariadne’s thread with which Theseus, the initiate, can enter and exit the labyrinth. Assuming that we can decipher the symbol of Ariadne’s thread as something that is in our memory and must never be forgotten, can we speak of something similar in the world of metals?
Alchemists speak of the “Prima Materia, first matter, of metals”. Also called the “seed”. A word that is often found in Baroque alchemical treatises and which takes on different meanings depending on the phase of the work in which it is used. In the first phase, there is a “seed” that allows the alchemist to proceed with his work. In the second phase, a “seed” that leads to the projection powder for transmutation into gold. In the third phase, a “seed” that opens a channel that should also concern the alchemist. The seed/spark must be somehow amplified into a ray.
Is it true that alchemists often identified gold as the Prima Materia of metals?
Many alchemists did not identify gold with the Prima Materia of metals, but with the seed of metals. In fact, for them, the transmutation of common metals into gold was equivalent to a sowing. It is clear that this alchemical “sowing” is a combination of different factors, capable of transmitting a “message”. Like all seeds, their job is to build an embryo.
Let me guess, is this Prima Materia or Prima Materia?
Are you asking me or the Alchemy Treatises? Because if you’ve turned to the latter, know that alchemists don’t belong to a single school of thought. Especially in the treatises of the Baroque era, you may find extreme confusion and confusion between these two terms. Certainly, the concept of Prima Materia is different from that of Materia Prima, but a textbook definition cannot be given “a priori,” that is, before knowing even the slightest alchemical operation. The difference will arise intuitively.
Anyway, it is quite clear that, to resurrect a corpse from the grave, even metallic, at least an embryo will be needed. But for an embryo to form, a mass of molecules isn’t enough; it requires “movement”, also called life. If alchemists speak of the resurrection of metals, I imagine some such input is at least required.
The alchemical input par excellence doesn’t fall from the sky or form spontaneously. It is the result of the alchemist’s work, which extracts it from raw material and is called Mercurius, also known as the Spirit of Life.
In this sense, what is the task of this Mercurius?
Its primary function is to be the “whole” of alchemical activity. It is movement, a magnet that attracts the Mercury of the stars as well as that of the abyssal depths. It is the alchemical tool par excellence because it can cook, grow, and transmute. The embryo is built on a “folding” of this marvelous substance that can take a thousand forms.
Does that strange ritual called “libation”, or pouring of liquids to resurrect a body—this time, a biological one—have anything to do with the alchemists’ Mercurius?
Hehe, you’re naively asking me the question of questions. Indeed, the most forbidden of questions. The most sought-after of answers. I’ll tell you just one thing: the alchemists of the first era would have assured you that the libation was from the alchemical Mercurius. But it was an era when lying was considered part of the narrative.
What could “nature” provide that the alchemists did not know?
Nature could provide the exact proportions between sky and earth. Which the alchemist called “proportions” between fixed and volatile.
Alchemists often use the word “nature“…
We can only say that alchemists see “nature” as something not fleeting, but flowing. And this makes a world of difference. Note that I wrote “nature” in quotation marks. If I had meant generic nature, I wouldn’t have done so.
We talked about seeds but not about wind…
The alchemical wind is that “nature” mentioned above. And it is something physical, which can only be expressed most fully in air. It is called “wind” for this reason.
Previous: Alchemical Matter as an Incorporeal Substance
Next: