Tell me about the transmutations, “those that take place before the alchemist’s eyes”. I assume they aren’t symbolic.
They are transmutations in the sense that they are irreversible. In alchemical processes, nothing can be undone. At most, the process can fail. And, as you might imagine, Paracelsus’s little alchemist is deeply involved in these processes.
In the previous section, we discussed vehicles and carriers. Now I am interested in their “materiality”. Tell me about the container and its interactions.
In alchemical practice, the three salts—Mercurius, Sulfur, and Salt—can certainly be regarded as containers. Symbolically, these same three “names” serve as symbols to define “that which is contained within the material vessel”. But also as symbols of the first principles, not merely of the surrounding pneumas.
Entities that we might venture to identify with the three types of pneuma described by Proclus.
Well, no. First of all, alchemists do not operate upon the hypercosmic Pneuma; in fact, they can only hope that something draws it in during the final and supreme stage of their work; Secondly, alchemists cannot work on the first principles, but only on the surrounding pneuma—hoping that it is sufficiently “thick and substantial”. Bear in mind that Proclus’s list consists of pneumata, not first principles. Indeed, everything that exists possesses a pneuma surrounding it, and it is upon this that the alchemist works.
Except for the immaterial and immutable, hypercosmic element—that is, the first vehicle of souls, what Proclus defines as the augoeides ochêma. A pneuma is required to bridge the gap between the celestial augoeides ochêma and the terrestrial ostreoides ochêma, or vehicle of souls for the terrestrial body.
We can roughly define the matter in this way.
Thus, the pneumatic vehicle—the pneumatikon ochêma—finally comes into play; it comprises what the soul carries with it on its journey from the immaterial to the material. Indeed, the alchemist is permitted only to take a small step toward the “sky” and to grasp the intermediary between the immaterial and the material.
The task of this intermediary will be to attract and be attracted. This “magnet” is called Mercurius. But beneath this nomenclature, the alchemists concealed a multitude of functions and appearances. Nevertheless, like a helmsman in a storm, we must keep the helm steady and consider it “solely” through what the alchemist sees unfolding before his eyes: namely, the white “cooking” Mercurius that emerges from the darkness of the black putrefaction, and which in turn will extract the red Sulfur that ultimately imparts a “vital” impulse to the supreme Salt—or embryo; not just any body, but the ultimate earth containing all things, which will serve as a “magnet-bait” for the unattainable celestial pneuma. Ultimately, they are called salts because they are tangible.
As I understand it, ultimately it always comes down to Mercurius, which is then transmuted into Sulfur and subsequently into Salt/body…
No, it is not as you present it. The Mercurius will be doubled, tripled; it will transmute itself. But at that point, it will be difficult to continue calling it simply Mercurius, because its appearance will differ from the initial Mercurius extracted from the first black putrefaction.
In any case, they are called “three salts” because they have three different uses.
What’s more, they are called the “three salts” because at a certain point—in the second work—they must “marry”, and the ceremony will be “officiated” by an addition.
Addition of what type?
This is a secret of the art, but it depends on the paths chosen.
And yet, it is said that there must be only one kind of matter…
Aside from the initial raw material—crushed, putrefied, magnetized, sublimated, distilled, etc.—the true material upon which the alchemist works is the Mercurius, or Spirit, extracted from that raw material. In this sense, the alchemist must work with a single substance. This represents the theory of a perfect process, though in practice such perfection can be rarely performed; indeed, little amounts of foreign substances usually need to be added to chemically facilitate the reactions. Alchemists remain silent regarding these laboratory additions. However, there is one additional substance they do not keep quiet about: metallic gold—a topic we shall explore in the relevant sections.
What can you tell me about the famous alchemical axiom: “From one to two, from two to three, from three to two, and from two to one”? Does it refer to the three salts?
Yes, the three salts are mentioned here with a very cryptic summary of the work to be done on them: the Mercurius must be doubled, then paired with the help of a third; the pair will then remain, and finally, it will become a single embryo.
And yet, they are three different names for three different salts. I still don’t understand the differences.
As I said, the differences are essentially operational. The point is that unless you see the entire process unfolding before your eyes—with all the transmutations and interactions—it is difficult to convey the reason for the three different names through theory alone. Laboratory procedures are poorly explained in alchemical treatises: they tend to be either overly focused on practical chemistry or excessively philosophical. The “chemical” aspect will be covered in the sections dedicated to that topic; for now, I can offer some guidance that is philosophical in nature without straying too far from the actual operations. For example, there is the apt metaphor of the spider and the web.
So tell me about the spider and its web, even if it involves two and not three.
The spider makes—but above all constructs—the web. It gives form; it is the formed form. The web is the material to be woven. It is the spider that gives form to Mercurius. It is the soul that confers definiteness. The spider is Sulfur. This is the difference between Mercurius and Sulfur. We now understand that heat and cold are movement and the absence of movement. The ancients said that it is fire that gives form. Therefore, Sulfur is fire.
You speak in riddles.
You were the one who asked me to speak in an “alchemical” way, or do you perhaps think that in classical Alchemy treatises you will find more “compassionate” language?
So if Sulfur is fire, then does Sulfur cook?
Contrary to what you think, Sulfur is cooked by Mercurius. In Alchemy, fire is cooked by water.
We are talking about fire and water as alchemical elements, I hope.
Previous: Paracelsus, the Tiny Alchemist
Next: Sun-Moon-Earth, from the Spark to the Body
Main Index: 6. The Enigma of the Three Salts: Ladders, Chains, Archetypes, Canons and Processions