TREATISE OF AN UNKNOWN PHILOSOPHER ON THE HERMETIC WORK

Reviewed and elucidated by the Disciple Sophisée,
under the auspices of the Cohermeites, Philovites and Chrisophiles


All the Philosophers have written very obscurely; and although the Moderns must have written more clearly than the Ancients, since they only did or said the same things in other terms, which must make them better known, or explain what seemed to them more obscure in the Ancients, or finally say what the others had sealed; however, there are still so many obscurities to be found in the Books of these enigmatic Writers, that there is less cause for astonishment that no one has grasped their true meaning, than at what anyone has done. Nevertheless, truth and error have their distinguishing characteristics, and however confounded they may be, an attentive mind is able to disangle them.We do not see that, to do this, we can use a more convenient and more general means than the analytic way,

All those who have some knowledge of Analysis know the help that can be drawn from it for the discovery of these truths. The use of this method is extremely wide, and it leads to the knowledge of truths by different ways; but although we can be sure, without being mistaken, that the philosophers of the preceding centuries were unaware of it, some of them, like Arnaud, Le Trevisan and Zachaire, have nevertheless left us as essays of this research, which in some way imitate one of the ways of the analytic way. They assure us that the Philosophers must be explained by the work or process, and the process by the Philosophers; that it is necessary to make such a reconciliation of all the Passages, that not only one accords a Philosopher with himself, but also with all the others,that we no longer see anything obscure in their writings; may all their ambiguities be removed and their enigmas explained. But with this precaution, that the system which one will form on their Writings agrees with the ordinary operations of Nature.

When we have discovered this, we can probably assure that we have discovered their secret. Because, if we look at all these Authors as we do a ciphered letter, we could probably assure that an alphabet which we would have found would be the real one which we would have used to cipher this letter, if with this alphabet, we did not omit a word from this letter without reading it, and give a reasonable meaning to the whole letter; in the same way one can think that a system which one will have formed on some Passages of the Philosophers, will be the one of which they will have wanted to speak, if by this system one explains the Philosophers.But if with the alphabet of this ciphered letter, one could only read a few words, or if the letter did not make a reasonable sense, there would be great reason to think that this Alphabet would not be the real one, or as it is called would not be the key ; in the same way also we could well form a system, as many do every day, by which we will explain a number of Passages of some Philosophers, but that is not enough, we must explain them all, at least those which seem essential, and which are found in the true Philosophers.

It is only necessary to apply this rule to all the opinions that are proposed, to show their lack of solidity; but because in this research by the analytical way, it is allowed to make suppositions as true, although afterwards one can reject them or change them, then the continuation of the reasoning demonstrates either the falsity or the truth. We shall therefore suppose the procedure which you ask to be true in essence, and then we shall endeavor to prove every part of it by the authority of the Philosophers; and then, to descend to the detail of the same process, assuming that we find no contradiction in it in the examination that we will make of it. But as to conciliate only the Philosophers on this process, it would take more leisure than I have,just as to show how to do this research by the way I am using, I will content myself with simply explaining to you how I believe the thing is going, and confirming it with some authorities; here is one of the ways of making the Stone.

Take one part of Vulgar Gold, amalgamate it with three parts of Philosophical Mercury; put it in a matrass of which two thirds are empty, and put them in a bath of ashes with a moderate fire, and in about six months the whole will coagulate into a red-brown powder. First, the Gold will dissolve and volatilize, then, beginning to coagulate, the whole solution will turn black, and little by little it will whiten, and finally it will redden; then, the second Work is done, but we do not yet have the Stone; we have the Gold or the Sulfur of the Philosophers.

It is therefore necessary to take this Gold, mix it with philosophical Mercury, according to the proportion of nine to one, or ten to one, or seven to two, as one wishes, enclose it in the matrass, and put it on the ashes over a very gentle fire, and in ten months the whole will coagulate into an impalpable red powder, which is the Stone. First, the Philosophers' Gold will dissolve, and the whole composition will turn black after forty days or so, and perfectly white after five months; and always cooking it will redden like blood, and then the Stone is made, which can be fermented and multiplied in virtue and in quantity.

That is the whole mystery, or strictly speaking there is none, for the whole mystery is in the composition of the philosophical Mercury; it is therefore now necessary to prove by authority each part of this process.

But, beforehand, it should be noted that the Stone is not made immediately of philosophical Gold and Mercury. The first work, or the first operation, serves to make philosophical gold, which is still called philosophical sulphur; the second work, or the second operation serves to make the Stone with this philosophical Gold and the vulgar.

These two operations seem almost similar, however they are very different, because they are done with different degrees of fire; the three essential colors of the Stone appear in these two Works, which are black, white and red, nevertheless in the second Work these colors are perfect, that is to say a very black black, a very white white, and a very red red; whereas in the first Work it is only a started black, a dirty white, and an obscure red.

This is the way that the Philosophers teach to make their Stone, and although it is not a secret, they have nevertheless confused and mixed these two operations, and did not want to mark the regimes of one and the other distinctly.

But there is still another way, extremely secret, and of which the Philosophers have spoken only with great restraint, which can be done with the Mercury of the Philosophers alone, without adding vulgar Gold to it. There are in this one two operations as in the other; the first is to make the Sulfur or the Gold of the Philosophers, and the second to make their Stone; for as I said, the Stone is immediately made only of philosophical Gold and Mercury mixed together. The first operation, which is to make the philosophical Sulfur, is done with the philosophical Mercury alone, without adding anything to it, which is done in sixteen philosophical months;and the second operation, which is with this Gold or Sulphur, and the common Gold, to make the Stone, it is done in ten months or about, as we have said before.

This process with Mercury alone is the rarest, the most excellent and the shortest. The one with vulgar Gold is longer, more painful and less excellent; these two processes for time do not differ in the second Work, for the signs which are also seen there, but they are extremely different in the first Work. With regard to excellence, one can, by reiterating all his operation, make the Stone produced by vulgar Gold, as excellent as that produced by Mercury alone; which is done by taking the Stone and mixing it with three or four parts of philosophical Mercury, and cooking it slowly and slowly, and in three months or so it will be perfect, passing in the space of this time through all the colors, as in the first and second Work:

There is still the fermentation of the Stone, which is done before multiplying it, and which is also repeated if you want, it can be done in various ways, here is one. One takes four parts of common Gold, one part of the Stone; these two are melted into a friable mass, of which one must take one part and three parts of philosophical Mercury, and cook the whole for the necessary time, to coagulate the Stone into a red powder, then suitable for making a projection on all Metals; this coction will last only two months.

If you only want to make Silver, you must not make the Elixir redden by coction, but when you see its white matter, you must then draw it from the fire and ferment it with Silver.

All the Philosophers have spoken clearly enough of these operations, but they have marvelously enveloped in figures their Mercury, which is the key of the Work; and to begin to give the proofs of this little system, and to examine it by the very rule that I have prescribed for myself, I will say that the Philosophers have described their Mercury to us, so that we can judge that it is almost for its external form like the vulgar Mercury; thus, one must first reject all the transparent waters, the dews of May, the acid spirits etc.

Our water does not wet the hands, so says the Cosmopolitan, chap. X, Epilogue, parable etc.

It only wets and clings to what is of its nature, that only suits Mercury according to the same.

In the difference which the Cosmopolitan makes of the philosophical Mercury from the vulgar Mercury (in chapter VI of the Three Principles), he does not distinguish them by sensible and apparent qualities, such as gravity, diaphanity, whiteness and others, but he only stops to distinguish them by certain interior and insensible qualities, which assuredly he would not have done if the philosophical Mercury did not resemble the vulgar Mercury; although this proof is negative, it is still conclusive; one need only read the quoted passage from Philalethes Cosmopolitan, chapter II., the Mercury of the Philosophers resembles metal molten in fire; therefore it is similar to the vulgar Mercury.

The philosophical Mercury guards and preserves all the proportions and forms of Mercury (Philalethes, chap. X.)

The material subject of the Stone is vulgar Gold and flowing Mercury (Philalethes, chaps. XIII and XVII). In Chapters XV and XVIII of Philalethes, we can see that this Mercury must be externally similar to the vulgar Mercury, since we can, like the vulgar Mercury, amalgamate it with Gold; that one can wash away this amalgam, that one can even sublimate and revivify this Mercury, like the vulgar. I imagine that is enough, without looking for proofs elsewhere, as I could; but, if this Mercury is similar to the vulgar externally, it is very different internally: we can see the differences in the Cosmopolite, Chap. VI, of the three principles, and in Artephius, who calls the vulgar Mercury iniquitous.

If I stopped to prove everything, I would need more time than I have resolved to use, it even bores me already to write so much and perhaps I stopped on things that do not deserve it. I will choose only a few places that I believe are the most difficult to hear, and if I have time left I will finish authorizing the others, which perhaps do not need them, such as Gold and Mercury being the principles of the Stone and the like.

I said that the Stone was made by two different paths, one with Mercury alone, which is the most excellent and the shortest path; and that it was still done with Gold and the philosophical Mercury and that this way is longer and less excellent; that the difference which is found in these two ways is in their first operation, that is to say in the production of the Sulfur or the philosophical Gold with which the Stone is immediately made by mixing it with the Mercury: here are the authorities on which I base myself, to show that the Stone, or the Sulfur or the philosophical Gold is produced from Mercury alone. Geber, book II, Chap. 9, Philalethes, ch.19, say: If you can do it with Mercury alone, you will make a beautiful discovery of the very great Work, and a work more admirable than that produced by Nature.

Geber, book II, Chap. 24, of Medicine, which coagulates Quicksilver, says speaking of this Medicine (which is this philosophical sulfur): it is drawn both from bodies and from Quicksilver itself, because they are found of the same nature, but it is more difficult to draw from bodies, and more easily from Quicksilver; of any kind of Medicine, both in the bodies and in the substance of Mercury itself, you will make a discovery.

Geber Book I, Chap. 52, says: The Medicine which coagulates Quicksilver can be drawn from metallic bodies, but it is more easily and soon drawn from Quicksilver alone. The same, chap. 54, says: The cerative humidity is found more easily, better and sooner in Mercury than in the others. The same Geber, book II, chap. XXIV, says: The Medicine which coagulates the Mercury is contained there, etc., it is the diet, etc.

Arisleus in the Peat, says that Gabertine or the Gold of the Philosophers is of the same substantial matter as Beia or Mercury.

Cosmopolite, in the Dialogue du Sulphur, says: the Sulfur of the Philosophers is very perfect in Gold and in Silver, but it is very easy in Quicksilver.

Cosmopolitan, in Chapter 5, of the Three Principles, says: Art is only a conjunction of the moist radical of Metals and fire, that is to say of a female and a male, which this female has engendered; for the philosophical Mercury has a sulphur; it is philosophical Gold, which is all the better, because Nature has digested it, and everything can be done with Mercury alone; it has a virtue so effective that it suffices and for you and for it, that is to say that you only need it alone without addition, you will be able to perfect all things of Mercury: Hermes says: In Mercury is all that the Sages seek.

In the Treaty of Salt, chap. 2, he says, the philosophical Mercury is a potential Gold, and can be digested into philosophical Gold or redness and thus coagulates; and if this Gold is again dissolved by a new menstruation, it will become the Stone, etc. There is no need, therefore, to reduce the perfect body, because we would only find the same sperm that Nature gives us, and to which she gave a form of metal, but left it raw and imperfect, but we can cook it and digest it and bring it to maturity.

Philalethes, c. 18, says: our Mercury gives Gold from itself, which is the principle of our secrets.

Philalethes, c. 18 and 19 says, we find our Sun in the Sun and the vulgar Moon, but it is more difficult to find in vulgar Gold the matter closest to the Stone, than to make the Stone. Ordinary Gold is the next matter of the Stone; Philosophical gold is the closest subject.

Ordinary Gold mixed with our Mercury, and cooked, will be converted into our Sun, but it is not yet the Stone; but, if this Gold is cooked a second time with our Mercury, it will give the Stone, that is clear.

Our Gold is of our Mercury and it is also in common Gold.

Finally, to know that Mercury alone can give philosophical Gold, in a short time, and also to see that Mercury and vulgar Gold mixed together give this same philosophical Gold, but with more difficulty; and to see again that this Gold is not the Stone, but that it is only one of its immediate principles with Mercury, one need only read Philalethes, chap. X, XI, XVIII, XIX and XX; for it would be necessary to copy everything, so much does he expressly speak there, and also to read the Treatise on Salt, chap. 2, etc.

And to know again that vulgar Gold must, with Mercury, be converted into Gold or philosophical Sulphur, and that this sulfur being in the second operation mixed with our Mercury, will give the Stone, which makes the two operations, I will report some authorities.

First, Philalethes, ch. XIX and XX, says that these two Works have an emblematic representation of each other, namely that in the first of Mercury alone, which is to make in the second philosophical Gold with vulgar Gold, we see a blackness, a whiteness and a redness; but that in the second Work one sees a perfect blackness, a perfect whiteness and a perfect redness.

The Cosmopolitan, ch. XI, says that the fire of the second Work is not such as that of the first.

For the time of these two works, Philalethes marks them in chapters XVIII, XIX and XXXI, the Cosmopolitan, in chap. X, in his Parables. the Treatise on Salt, in chap. VI, which I do not report, because I would have to write too much; D'Espagnet, Canon 137, says that the first Work for red is done in the second house of Mercury; and that the second Work is done in the second house of Jupiter; which fits for the times with those above: and because it is necessary to know some principles of Astrology to explain this, I will say that Astronomers begin their year in the sign of Aries, that is to say when the Sun enters it, which is about the 21st of March.Mercury's second house is Virgo, which includes the month of September or thereabouts, when the Sun is there; Jupiter's second house is Pisces which includes part of February, when the Sun is in this Sign; beginning therefore with March, the first Work must last six months, that is to say, end in September.

These two Works are seen absolutely required in this last Author.

Canon 121: The practice of our Stone is perfected by two operations; the first by creating the Sulphur, the other by making the Elixir.

Canon 123: Let those who apply themselves to Philosophy know that from the first Sulphur, one can draw a second and multiply it. The Sulfur multiplies from the same matter, from which it is generated, by adding a small portion of the first.

Canon 124: For the Elixir is composed of a metallic water, or of Mercury, of this second sulfur and ferment.

But, when the ferment is added, the Stone is made, if the ferment is added to this second sulphur; one adds the ferment to the Stone, therefore this second sulfur is the Stone produced by the second sulphur: now according to this Author, this first sulfur was made of Mercury and vulgar Gold; it remained to show that the leaven should not be added until the Stone is made; what can be seen in the Treatise on Salt, chap. VIII, Philalethes, ch.XIX and XXXI, Cosmopolitan, to the Treatise on Sulphur, to show again by the Cosmopolitan the necessity and resemblance of the two operations, working with mercury conjunct with vulgar gold, and passing on what Morien says about it which is quite remarkable, we will consider some passages of this philosopher, which we will see being the same thing expressed variously.

Chapter 9 of the Cosmopolitan says: there is a metal which is a philosophical Steel, which joins with the vulgar; Steel designs and engenders a son brighter than his father; then if the seed of this son who has just been born is put in his womb, it purges it, and makes it a thousand times more fit to bear very good fruits. Here is an abridgement of the first and second Work, which will appear even better by the conformity of the other following passages.

Chap. 10, says: it is necessary that the pores of the body open in our water, that its seed is pushed outside cooked and digestible; and then let her be put into her womb; the body is Gold, our water does not wet the hands and is liquid; the womb is our Moon and not vulgar Silver, and thus is engendered the Child of the second generation; here again are the two procedures; which is enough designated by this Child of the second generation, because there must be one of the first, which is the Gold of the Philosophers, which is the cooked seed of this Child of the first generation, which is clearer than its father.

Chapter 11: The earth must resolve itself into a water which is the Mercury of the Philosophers, and this water resolves the Sun and the Moon, so that only the tenth part remains with one part, and this is called the humid radical of the metals: then, take water from our earth, which is clear, and in this water put this humid metallic radical, and govern everything by a fire not such as in the first operation, then you will see all the true colors etc. I revealed everything to you in the first and second Work.

In the Epilogue, he says: dissolve the congealed Air, or cook it so that it becomes water. In this Air you shall dissolve the tenth part of Gold, seal it, and cook until the Air becomes powder, which is the Philosophical Gold; then after having the Salt of the world, the various colors will appear.

The various colors only appear, as I have said, in the second Work. The Salt of the World, or simply Salt, is the name given by the Cosmopolitan to the Mercury of the Philosophers; this can be proved by chaps. 3, 10, and at the end of the Epilogue. Philalethes also calls it Salt chap. I, The Treatise of Salt almost never calls it otherwise.

The Parable says, The Solar Tree is vulgar Gold; the fruit of the Solar Tree is the Philosophical Gold, which we must put in our Mercury, from which the Stone must be formed. Which can be proved by what is said at the end of this Parable. A single thing mixed with philosophical water, etc., where by this thing he means philosophical Gold, as we can show that this passage is explained in the Treatise on Salt, chap. 6.

It would be too much to undertake to want to prove everything, just let me know what you find fault with here, and I will try to satisfy you, as well as to explain to you all the passages you want in the sense that I understand them; but, to answer in a few words to what you say, to know if (as some believe) saltpetre, antimony and iron can be the first matter of the Philosophers, I will tell you that I do not believe that this opinion can reasonably be supported, whether one takes these three matters separately, or jointly. Firstly, with regard to saltpetre, there is no appearance in that it is not a mineral thing; now all the Philosophers agree that the ore from which they draw their Mercury is a mineral thing.Secondly, these same Authors say that the subject of the Philosophers is the same as that which Nature uses to form Gold and Silver and the other Metals in the mines, as asserted by the Trevisan, Zachaire, the Treaty of Salt, the Cosmopolitan, etc. Now never has any philosopher said that metals were formed of salt nitre, unless to take this word in a figurative sense. Thirdly, the water that can be made from salt nitre is like common water, and the water of the Philosophers does not wet. In the fourth place, the Treatise on Salt, in the Dialogue which is at the end, treats this opinion as a vision, and treats as ridiculous an Alchemist who persuaded himself that this Salt was the subject of the Philosophers. Zachaire, the Treaty of Salt, the Cosmopolitan etc.Now never has any philosopher said that metals were formed of salt nitre, unless to take this word in a figurative sense. Thirdly, the water that can be made from salt nitre is like common water, and the water of the Philosophers does not wet. In the fourth place, the Treatise on Salt, in the Dialogue which is at the end, treats this opinion as a vision, and treats as ridiculous an Alchemist who persuaded himself that this Salt was the subject of the Philosophers. Zachaire, the Treaty of Salt, the Cosmopolitan etc. Now never has any philosopher said that metals were formed of salt nitre, unless to take this word in a figurative sense. Thirdly, the water that can be made from salt nitre is like common water, and the water of the Philosophers does not wet.In the fourth place, the Treatise on Salt, in the Dialogue which is at the end, treats this opinion as a vision, and treats as ridiculous an Alchemist who persuaded himself that this Salt was the subject of the Philosophers.

As for what you say that Antimony and Iron are the matter of Mercury, and of the Sulfur of the Philosophers, I would have wished two things; one that you had explained yourself more, to know if you mean that Antimony is the matter from which one must extract the Mercury of the Philosophers and Iron, that from which one must extract their Sulphur, to mix it with this Mercury; or if you consider that Antimony with Iron must together compose the mine from which, with artifice, one must extract this philosophical Mercury. The other thing that I would have liked is that you would have wanted me to quote some principal authorities, on which you base yourselves;for in all these cases it seems to me that it would not be difficult for me to explain them in their true sense, and to show what may be the cause that all these suppositions do not agree, neither with Nature nor with the Philosophers . Instead, in the state I am in, you have to guess your supposition and the proof you have of it.

The number of Metals is not the same among all Authors; it depends on the definition you want to give to the metal; so it's just a matter of name. With Geber, there are only six metals: he does not include Mercury; Paracelsus and Glauber count nine or ten of them, they include Mercury, Antimony and Bismuth; but, without embarrassing ourselves in this chicanery, we can assure with Richard Anglais of whom there is so much mention in the great Rosary, that Minerals such as Antimony, Zinc, Bismuth and the other Metals are composed of the same principles, namely of Sulphur, and of Mercury; this is also what Trevisan and Zachaire provide.

But the Philosophers still assure us that their subject is that which Nature uses for the production of vulgar Metals; and therefore it cannot be a metal, nor a thing composed of these principles, and altered into a metallic form. So that the subject of the Philosophers must be the thing from which Antimony itself was formed, and which is still cruder than this mineral, and nearer to the principle of Nature.

There is no reason for wanting the Mercury of Antimony to be rather the philosophical Mercury than the Mercury of lead or tin. For, if Mercury could be drawn from Antimony, which I would not willingly grant, although many fusses are made to prove it, it would differ very little from the Mercury of lead; and according to Geber and all the Philosophers, the Mercury of tin would be still purer. Also, the Treatise on Salt in chap. 2, enumerating the various particular tinctures that can be made in imitation of the Stone of the Philosophers, which is the root of these tinctures, says, that the tincture of Antimony, Iron, Sun, Moon, Vitriol, Mercury, Venus, etc. do not dye universally as does the Stone of the Philosophers,which is the principle by which all these other particular tinctures are drawn; that this Stone of the Philosophers is the first of all: that we must apply ourselves to this first metallic subject. What he borrows from Basil Valentine, and what is in conformity with what the Cosmopolitan says at the end of the sixth chapter, of the three Principles, that after one has the tree which is the universal Work, one can bring forth the branches, which are these particular tinctures. Philalethes, c.13 and 17, sufficiently indicates that it is not a Mercury Extracted from Metals and Minerals, and what he says in these two chapters suffices to show that the Mercury of the Philosophers is the non-vulgar Mercury, which must be animated, or given to it a certain metallic Sulfur which it does not have; and that their Sulfur is unequivocally Gold, as I said above,

Leave all Minerals and leave all Metals alone, Trevisan, pag. 177; Zachaire confirms this opinion in several places.

Continuation of the previous Treaty

What you are asking of me now, after you have explained your feelings to me a little more specifically, embarrasses me no less than when I was more ignorant of it. For you tell me little; I cannot yet perceive on what more formal passages, and on what authorities you base your conjectures; it is a question of knowing which is the subject, or which are the subjects (if one wants) of which the Philosophers compose their Work, to avoid the equivocations, it is necessary a little to be explained; the Work of the Philosophers is to make the Stone with Mercury alone, or with Mercury and vulgar Gold;one makes by one or the other of these two ways, first, the Gold of the Philosophers: then of this Gold with Mercury, one composes the Stone, of which one finds the process in Raymond Lully, Arnaud de Villeneuve etc., and it is beyond doubt that the immediate principles of the Stone are the Mercury of the Philosophers and the Gold of the same Philosophers ; it is still very clear, it seems to me, in all the Authors, that the Gold of the Philosophers is the product of vulgar Gold and Mercury mixed together. I have reported enough authorities, it is not necessary to repeat them;and this philosophical Gold can also be produced from the philosophical Mercury all alone, as asserted by Geber, the Cosmopolitan, Philalethes etc., all this must pass without dispute, and it would be very easy for me to prove it by the authorities. But the principal difficulty in the philosophical work, is to have Mercury or this liquor of which the Cosmopolitan speaks, which dissolves the Gold as the hot water melts the ice; and finding this liquor is the whole work, says Philalethes, chap. 17.

But, because this Mercury, according to Geber, Philalethes and the Cosmopolitan, is not found on the earth, according to them it must be done; not by creating it, but by drawing it from the things in which it is enclosed: this Mercury therefore has a mineral, either that the Philosopher must compose it, or that Nature offers it ready-made, whence the industry of the Artist must draw it, by extracting it from the mineral body.

But, as all the Books of the Philosophers are full of enigmatic recipes, and as they declare quite clearly elsewhere the whole process, one has reason to believe that all these recipes concern only the composition of the Mercury of the Philosophers. Thus, the Cosmopolitan, ch. 11, teaches it in these terms which I write, because there are only two words: Take from our earth, by eleven degrees, eleven grains; of our Gold a grain; of our Moon two grains, put all this in our fire, and it will be made a dry liquor.First, the earth will dissolve into water, which is the Mercury of the Philosophers, and this is all he says about it, which he repeats at the end of this chapter under a riddle, saying, it will happen, if you give our old man Gold and Silver to devour, so that he consumes them etc.

Philalethes, c. 7, the sign of the same: Take from our igneous Dragon, which conceals in itself the mysterious Steel, four parts: from our Magnet nine parts: mix that by a burning fire etc. Geber, in a hundred places, hides under sophisticated processes the whole composition of Mercury, and the process of the Work, as he warns. We therefore have some reason to think that several materials are needed to compose this ore; I do not inquire whether these materials enter essentially into the composition of Mercury, or whether they serve only for its purification, I only consider them as absolutely necessary to make this Philosophical Mercury.

But I find in d'Espagnet, Canon 46, that mercury has a sulphur, which has been multiplied by artifice; Canon 30, that mercury must be impregnated with an invisible sulfur, to become philosophical mercury; and Canon 51, ch. 11, Philalethes, that it is not enough to remove from mercury all its impurities, but that it must add a natural sulfur which it does not have, and of which it has only the ferment. And in Canon 58, that the winged mercurial Virgin must be impregnated with the invisible seed of the first male.

I find again in the Cosmopolitan, chap. 6, of the three principles, that mercury is a quintessence created from sulfur and mercury, that mercury is drawn from sulfur and mercury conjoined. Finally, I find in Philalethes, chap. 21, that it is necessary to introduce a sulfur into mercury, which renders it philosophical; in chapter 10, that in our mercury there is an actual and active sulphur, which by preparation has been added to it. In chapter 2, that in our water there is a fire of the fire of sulfur, and another matter. In chapter 14, that this addition of true sulfur is done by degrees, according to the number of eagles or philosophical sublimations;in chapter 17, that our water is composed, and that our mercury must be animated with a sulfur which is found in a vile matter, not in itself, but in the eyes of the vulgar, besides an infinity of authorities that I could report . I am led to believe that it is necessary, to compose the mine of mercury to mix several things, of which the principal thing which is there is a mercury and a sulphur. All this being understood, I say that common iron is not the subject from which sulfur or philosophical gold must be drawn, which must be mixed with philosophical mercury, to make the Stone immediately; nor is he the subject who furnishes mercury with the invisible and interior sulfur which he needs to become philosophical mercury;or what is the same thing, that it does not enter into the composition of the mining of the Philosophers; and I add that neither is antimony the matter from which philosophical mercury is extracted; because it comes from a quasi-metallic mineral, imperative to all minerals,

As it seems that we only group our way in the study of this Science, we also receive all sorts of proofs; it is not among those who demonstrate themselves metaphysically, it does not establish its principles in order to draw conclusions from them in order, one must guess all that; but, whatever there is to guess, one must not suppose anything that one does not find in some Author; but I do not think that there is a single one who has spoken of iron and antimony for the material principles of the Work; I know that this proof is negative and that we have no right to conclude anything rigorously from it, but, if we take the trouble to examine it, it will not fail to have some weight, considering that the Philosophers wrote only to teach their Science.There would also be some cause for astonishment that the Philosophers had not written more clearly of these two matters; it is true that they keep their Science secret, but it would not have run any risk, because I do not believe, notwithstanding everything that is said, that one can draw either sulfur from iron, or mercury from antimony; and I can assure you that the Stone is easier to make than that, after the Authors who have spoken of it.

Finally, they tell us that whoever knows matter can easily overcome everything else; and they warn us that this first work, which is to produce mercury, is so simple, so easy and so natural that it is for this reason that they speak of it with so much restraint, because they could say nothing about it that did not make it known: whence comes the Cosmopolitan's motto: Simplicity is the seal of Truth, and that he says everywhere that the Stone is very easy. The labors of an infinity of persons who kill themselves in these extractions of sulfur and mercury, as much of antimony as of iron, and of other metals and minerals, and who have never been able to succeed therein, would seem to justify that it is not such an easy thing, if a child of the Art stopped at all their sophisticated operations.

But let us leave these conjectures and verisimilitudes, to which the pale Chemists, in defiance of hermetic art, have given rise, by their obstinacy in contradicting Nature, whose operations are so simple; and let us see if, in the Authors approved and who have the character of Philosophers, we could find something which excludes iron and antimony from their Work.

First, iron cannot provide the philosophical Gold, or the sulfur of the Sages, which is one of the immediate materials of which, with the philosophical mercury, the Stone is composed: I prove this by the sole authority of Philalethes and Flamel, in his Poem Philosophical, and by the Fountain of the Lovers of Philosophy. Flamel, in his poem, and the Fountain of the Philosophers say that many seek this sulfur in minerals etc., in Saturn, Jupiter and Mars, in vain, and he then adds:

But I found it
In the sun and plowed it.

Philalethes, in chapter 19, says in express terms, that the philosophical Sun is drawn from Mercury alone, and more easily and more quickly than from common Gold; thus, he says, our Sun is the matter very close to our Stone, vulgar Gold is its next matter, because we draw our Sun from it by the help of our Mercury, and the other metals and minerals are a foreign matter from it, where we can say that the metals contain our Sun, insofar as from them we can draw vulgar Gold.

This is what Philalethes says; but it could be assured that it would be more difficult to make iron become gold than to extract the philosophical sulfur from gold, because, according to the philosophers, and particularly Geber and Zachaire, there is no metal less disposed to perfection or conversion into gold than iron. I imagine that this proof is positive and sufficient, but it is further confirmed by the universal feeling of the Philosophers, who demand Gold for their work; Philalethes is formal there in chaps. 13, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16 etc., and he repeats it in an infinity of places; the Cosmopolitan, in chapter 10 and at the end of chapter 16 of the Treatise on Sulphur; d'Espagnet, cannon 18, 19, 20, 24, 28, 29 etc.,and all these philosophers want to prove by reason that it is vulgar Gold which gives the Gold of the Philosophers; but this vulgar Gold must first have drunk the water of the Fountain of Youth and drowned in it, for he is converted into her and she into him.

Geber at the end of the investigation, although elsewhere rather obscure, speaks of it very clearly. I believe that this suffices to show that the Gold of the Philosophers cannot be drawn from iron; and we will remain convinced of it, if we take the trouble to examine the places that I quote, and if we want to make some reflection on what Philalethes says in the passage of the Nineteenth Chapter, which I have just quoted; for we must conclude that before we could extract this philosophical sulfur from iron, this iron would have to become gold.

It also seems that reason agrees with this, for the Metals are endowed with a seed, as your friend has well remarked; and they are said to have been included in that general blessing which the Creator gave to creatures (grow and multiply). The seed they have is a water, according to the Cosmopolitan, it is a Mercury; and this seed must be double, there must be male and female; the masculine seed is Sulfur, and the feminine is Mercury; one without the other can be of no use, such is the purity of the seed, such will be the purity of the metal. But, since there is an opportunity to speak of the generation of Metals, to make clear the reasoning that I claim to draw from it, I am going to explain it, as some Philosophers have done,and I will only establish this system on the authority of Geber, Cosmopolite, Trevisan, Zachaire and Arnaud, without reporting their authorities; as these Philosophers lived in centuries, where there was great veneration for Aristotle, they reasoned according to the principles of his Physics.

Le Trévisan, Zachaire and Arnaud quote him at all times; As for Geber, he does not speak of it, but it is clear enough that he follows his feelings, and that he would even have believed that he had made a considerable fault against reason by departing from it: he, who was an Arab, followed in this the feeling of the most skilful of his Nation, who took great pains to comment on this Philosopher; which shows the esteem they held for his doctrine: one should only see the exorbitant praise, and against the common sense, given him by all the Arabs, particularly Averroes and Avicenna; we can therefore say with these Philosophers, that the four Elements produce towards the center of the earth a certain liquor, which is Mercury and the feminine seed;and that these same Elements also produce another dry substance, which is sulphur; in the first dominate water and air, in the second dominate earth and fire. Others have explained it otherwise and claim that Mercury is made only of water and earth, and Sulfur of air and fire; and others have said that Mercury is of air and water, and Sulfur of earth and fire. But, whatever the case, there are always two matters, two seeds, a masculine and a feminine; and as the Philosophers seem to contradict each other on these principles, it is difficult for an Inquisitor of Science, who is not yet well assured, to decide anything certain;however, he must not hesitate to follow them, because they all agree in the effects of the principles which they variously suppose. The more general feeling they have about the formation of Metals, is that Mercury contains all that is necessary to produce a metal; it is like a hen's egg which had not suffered the rooster, or, again, like a perfect egg and which would contain the seed of the rooster, but which would never give movement to the matter of the egg, if this inner seed is not excited by an external Agent. In the same way, say Zachaire and the Trevisan, nature, after having made Mercury, adds to it a Sulfur which is its Agent, and which does not essentially enter into the composition of Metal;but this Agent is gradually separated from it by coction alone, and the less of this Agent remains, the more perfect the Metal. The Mercury is therefore with regard to the Metal like the matter, and the virtue of the Sulfur is like the form. When nature has joined these two, she only cooks them, and by this cooking the sulfur separates, and its virtue acts on this Mercury, and remains in it; now if this Sulfur is entirely separated, the Metal will be very perfect, and it will be Gold which is only a pure fire in Mercury; which is seen in that Gold imbibes Mercury more easily than any other Metal, because it is only Quicksilver baked by its own sulphur. The other metals therefore participate more in this sulfur than they can imbibe less in quicksilver.It is therefore evident that what makes the perfection in the Metals is the Mercury and what causes their imperfection is the mixture of this earthly Sulphur. because it is only Quicksilver baked by its own brimstone. The other metals therefore participate more in this sulfur than they can imbibe less in quicksilver. It is therefore evident that what makes the perfection in the Metals is the Mercury and what causes their imperfection is the mixture of this earthly Sulphur. because it is only Quicksilver baked by its own brimstone. The other metals therefore participate more in this sulfur than they can imbibe less in quicksilver.It is therefore evident that what makes the perfection in the Metals is the Mercury and what causes their imperfection is the mixture of this earthly Sulphur.

This is so hackneyed by Geber and Arnaud that there can be no doubt about it, if we do not wish to renounce their doctrine. I have imperceptibly gone further than I wanted to, and therefore abandon the pursuit of this explanation, because it would take me too far, and I will conclude that if iron, as it is true, abounds in an impure, livid, terrestrial, fixed and non-fusible sulfur (which are the qualities attributed to it by Geber in chap. 8 of the second Book) it is absolutely useless to take it for the Gold of the Philosophers, since it would rather cause imperfection than perfection, and the 'one cannot say that one can separate the impurity from this sulphur, after Geber assures us that this is impossible, in chaps. 9, 14, book 2, where he gives the reason.

But, if the Stone is nothing other than the extremely digestible Gold, as the Cosmopolitan assures us, Chap. 10, in the Treatise on Salt, ch. 2, 8, Trevisan and Zachaire, why not take Gold to try to cook it more than nature did, and restore to it the life it had lost by the extraction of its mine and the martyrdom of the fire, and, thus give it more perfection? For the other Metals, and iron less than any, have not so much coction as Gold.It would therefore be necessary, by taking the iron, or if you like its sulphur, that it be made to pass through the degree of coction or metallization which corresponds to Gold, before it could become the Stone, which is even more perfect than Gold, which is a work of Hercules, and moreover superfluous, as soon as one can have vulgar Gold without it.

Since the Metals have their seed in which they multiply, it seems that the seed of Gold must give Gold, which is the intention of the Philosophers. But, it will be said, this seed is found in the other Metals; this is true, but it is not so pure there, the Metals are infected with leprosy or bad sulphur. The Treaty of Salt says, only Gold is pure. Now to follow our comparison, an impure seed coming from an impure body, will only beget an impure fruit, and if it is said that it is possible to purify this seed, and to draw it (which, however, the Philosophers deny), would it not be better to take this seed from Gold, where there is no impurity, than to have the trouble of purifying it, after having extracted it from an imperfect body?

If Iron is not the Gold of the Philosophers, nor the subject from which they must extract it in order to conjoin it with their Mercury, and immediately make it their Stone, it is not also the subject which gives Mercury the Sulfur which it does not have, or which it appears not to have, so that it becomes the Mercury of the Philosophers; but it seems to me that I have no need to prove this, because you suppose that the Mercury extracted from the Antimony is that which radically dissolves all the Metals, which only suits the Mercury of the Philosophers.

But the Philosophers affirm that one can do the entire work of Mercury alone, without any addition, and that it is even the shortest, easiest and most excellent way, but not yet the transmuting Stone. It will therefore not be necessary to mix in it either Iron or Gold, although one can mix Gold in it, to make it transmutatory, when we do not yet know the mystery of drawing our Gold, and from our Mercury, as Philalethes speaks, chap. 19. If anything can be done with Mercury, then it contains its own sulfur in its entrails; this is indeed what all Philosophers universally assure us of, and it is for this subject that they call it Androgyne, as if to say that it is the seed both masculine and feminine;they also call him Hermaphrodite, which has given rise to many people who philosophize over words,

Perhaps I could have been mistaken above in all these reasonings, and I have just realized that if I didn't do a little reflection, I was going to be even more grossly mistaken. I remain in agreement that if not only from Antimony, but from any Metal whatsoever, one could extract a pure Mercury, it would be a Mercury of the Philosophers, supposing that it were impregnated with the virtue of sulphur; because all Metals are founded from this Mercury; the Philosophers indeed warn us that we must take a matter from which the Metals are formed, but they do not say that we must draw this matter from the Metals; on the contrary, they defend it, as I will show after a few exhibitions.

We have to consider Mercury and Sulfur, as the masculine and feminine seed, as matter and form. But by Mercury and by Sulphur, I do not mean the vulgar, but the two principles of Metals; for the vulgar Mercury is made of these two, these principles being separated contain each two Elements, and are the first and true metallic matter, of which one without the other will never produce a metal; witnesses the Cosmopolitan, chap. 3, Geber, ch. 25, Book I, Trevisan, Zachaire, Flamel.

These two principles are the first matter, which is useless to the artist, according to the Cosmopolitan, Chap. 4, 7, 12. And the reason why these two principles are useless to us is that we do not only know the proportion of the mixture of these two principles, but we also do not know the manner of the mixture; and when we had them both in their entire purity, they would be useless to us for this reason. There is only nature which can make this mixture, and to make it in the proportion which it is necessary to produce a Metal; the Cosmopolitan assures us of this, chap. 4, 6, 12, etc .; Geber, ch. 9, 10, 11, Book 1; and Zachaire says that Nature makes this composition in an unspeakable way.

When Nature has mixed these two seeds, it is then the second matter or the next matter of the Metals; it is the metallic seed: and as from each of these two separate matters, it has been able to produce something other than a metal, when it has mixed and altered them into a certain terrestrial substance, it never makes them anything but a metal. This is what the Philosopher must take, and it is from this earthly subject that he must draw his Mercury, say the Cosmopolitan, chap. 4, where it is formal, chap. 3, 6, 12, Geber, ch. 26, Book 1, Trevisan, part 2, 3, Zachaire, p. 203 of the Paris edition, 1672, where he calls this material Mercury animated, Treatise on Salt, chap. 2, 8.

Nature, acting on this matter, by coction alone, makes of it all Metals and Metallions in order. The first degree of alteration is Lead, the second Tin etc. But, if there is too much earthiness, it only produces Marcasites and Metallines, like Zinc or Bismuth, which are imperfect Tin, Antimony, which is impure Lead, according to Zachaire, the Trevisan, the Cosmopolitan. If we therefore want to make the metallic seed, or to speak more properly, if we want to extract it, we must know this subject which contains it, and which if we had left it in the earth, and that there was enough heat in this place, would have become a metal, according to the purity of the place where it was found. But for that we must not imitate the vulgar Operators, who take Metallic bodies, either Gold,either Mercury or Lead etc. Who wants to do something good, must take the seed, and not the whole bodies, says the Cosmopolitan, chap. 6.

1. The first matter is Mercury and Sulfur apart, according to the same, chap. 3.
2. The second is the Metallic seed or the philosophical Mercury, from which the Metals are engendered, chap. 4, 6, and 7.
3. The third matter is Metal, in the Epilogue.

The first matter, that is to say, these two principles are useless; the second matter which is the seed, or the principles united by Nature, is the only useful one; the third, which is the body produced by this seed, is useless.

That the first matter is useless has been proved; that the second is useful, it appears from chapters 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, and that the third is useless, it also appears from the Epilogue: if you work, he says, in the third matter you will do nothing, and those work there, who leaving our matter, amuse themselves to work on grasses, stones and mines, all beings determined and inanimate, and consequently, incapable of giving life.

And in chap. 6: those who work on Mercury, and on the other Metals, take the bodies instead of the seed, which are the third matter which is useless.

In the Treaty of Salt, chap. 2: you must have a seed of a subject of the same nature as the one you want to produce. We must therefore take the unique metallic Mercury in the form of the raw and unripe Semen, which is Hermaphrodite, which resembles a stone, because of its power to pass into action, and which as such can be crushed and whose external form is a stinking sulphur, which is the first metallic subject which nature has left raw and imperfect. And in chap. 8, Mercury must be taken from the same subject from which the vulgar Metallic bodies that we see are produced.

Zachaire says, the matter we use is only one, similar to that which Nature uses underground in the production of Metals; so far from it that all the matters which we could take and mix, were metallic or not, are the matter of our science.

The Philosophers say nothing else, and repeat nothing so much; if we must therefore take the matter from which the Metals are formed, we must not take Antimony, nor Mercury, nor Iron; but it is necessary to take a matter of which Iron, vulgar Mercury and Antimony have been formed, as well as the other Metals. As soon as Nature has joined and united the two metallic principles, it does not make an Antimony of them; Antimony is a very production of these two principles altered and cooked by Nature: just as soon as the hen has laid her egg which contains, like the Mercury of the Philosophers, an active and passive principle, which contains within itself the two seeds, matter and form; as soon as she has made, I say, this egg, it is not a chicken in act, but in virtue.The comparison of chicken to metal, and from the egg to the matter of the Philosophers, is not new, Hermes was the first to do it, and assures us that there is a great analogy between the egg and the work; Flamel did it too; and there are entire Books of it; thus, the Antimony and the Metals produced from the subject of the Philosophers are like so many chickens produced from one or more eggs. If it were possible that a chicken could be born from an egg that contained impurity, it would be unclean, crippled and languishing. Likewise, when the philosophical subject contains impurity, or is found in an impure place, such as Antimony, Lead, Bismuth etc., depending on the quality or degree of impurity.But, if an egg is well conditioned, it produces a perfect chicken, just as our matter, being pure, produces a perfect metal; for says the Cosmopolitan,

So if you wanted to hatch a perfect chicken, you wouldn't take a few of those impure chickens half hatched in the egg; but we would take a well-conditioned egg, we would remove, if possible, the superfluous, and what would be born from it would be perfect. It is the same in the philosophical work; we want to hatch this philosophical chicken of Hermogenes, we must not take it already formed and impure, because these impurities can no longer be removed, that is to say, we must not take any metal or metalline, from which the impurities cannot be separated, as Geber says; nor should any metal be taken, however pure it may be, because it has impurities, according to the Cosmopolitan, chap.3. But we must take this philosophical egg, this metallic seed which is in a certain earthly subject, and which has not yet been altered into any metallic species; that is to say, not specified nor determined: we will separate the impurities from it by the preparation and we will thus cook and hatch this perfect chicken.

I therefore repeat that we must take a matter which, once conceived, can never change form, according to the Cosmopolitan, chap. 4. Just as the egg can never become anything but a chicken.

Now the Antimony that we would take already has the metallic form; but although the subject which the Philosophers must take does not change its form, that is to say, according to the Cosmopolitan, that it is determined to become a metal, it does not follow that it must be metal, when taken.

I believe that one can easily think that from the first mixture that nature makes of the principles, although she acts on them to mingle them per minima and determines them to become a metal, it does not immediately make Antimony; likewise, as I said, that as soon as the rooster and the hen had mated and she had laid her egg, it did not make a chicken of it, but only an egg, it may therefore be inferred that the philosophical subject is something cruder than Antimony; that it is the subject from which the Antimony and the Metals are formed.

I think that is sufficient, but here are yet more authorities; for I have only cited a few authors from the first Volume of the Alchemical Library, and Geber, d'Espagnet, the Cosmopolite, Lully and Arnaud, who are not there; I have reported nothing from those of the second Volume, which includes only Artephius and the Summa of Geber, because the translator has miserably truncated and crippled this last Author, he is ignored in this Translation; so that, as he has changed the order, it is not necessary to stop there to find the places which I quote, but only on the Latin edition. I therefore take up the following of these authorities.

The Cosmopolitan, ch. 3, says, there are some who take the body for their matter, that is to say for their seed; the others take only part of it; all these are in error, as well as those who try to reduce the grain or the body to seed, and who amuse themselves with vain dissolutions of Metals, striving from their mixture to create a new one.

Take for granted that we must not look for this point or this seed in the vulgar Metals, because it is not there and they are dead.

The Cosmopolitan, ch. 6, says, the vulgar Mercury as well as the other Metals have their seed like the animals; the animal's body is compared to mercury or some other metal. Who would therefore want to beget another man, it would not be necessary to take a man; in the same way who wants to engender the metallic man, he must not take the body of mercury or of another metal; even less could one of their different mixture produce one, nor after having dissolved them and divided them into parts; for this division and dissolution kills them.

The Cosmopolitan, in his Preface, says that all the extractions of soul or sulfur from metals is only a vain persuasion and a pure fantasy. Geber says the same, chap. 21, Book I.

The Cosmopolitan, ch. 11, of Nature, and chap. 6, Sulfur says, it is necessary in imitation of Nature, to cook the first matter of the Philosophers or their Mercury. Now, if this Mercury were drawn from Antimony, it would therefore be necessary for nature, in order to produce metals, to take this mercury from Antimony, because she only produces them with this mercury; I do not believe that anyone doubts that Antimony is itself composed of this same mercury. The Cosmopolitan, ch. 6, of Sulfur, says, the Mercury of the Philosophers is in every subject, but it is nearer in one than in the other, and the life of man would not be long enough to extract it;there is only one Being in the world where it is easily found: since that is the case, I am surprised that you did not say that this mercury must be extracted from tin; for this mercury is purer there than in antimony, and in greater abundance, according to Geber, since, after the Sun and the Moon, there is none more perfect, nor which contains so much Mercury as Tin; I would also say that I am surprised that you did not take Copper instead of Iron; for Copper is more perfect, according to Geber, and its Sulfur is purer than that of Iron, and it abounds as well as Iron, and has more of it good than Iron has.For the ease or difficulty of extracting Mercury from Antimony or Tin and Sulfur from Iron and Copper, I think that having no experience of either, it was as well to take Jupiter or Venus, which are purer, as to choose Mars or Antimony, which have so much impurity; but, as there is, according to the Cosmopolite, only one material in the world in which Art consists,

To show that the Imperfect Metals and other Metallions, either if we take them entirely, or if we have the skill to separate them into various substances, which is to extract their Mercury and their Sulphur, can be of no use, it would be necessary to copy the whole chap. 14 of Book 2 of Geber's Summa. I prefer that you have the pleasure of reading it; it is the 13, of the new French edition, read again the chap. 9 of the same Book, which is the 8 of the short story; on the end Philalethes, chap. 17, many torment themselves to draw the Mercury from Gold, the Mercury from the Moon, but it is a waste of time.

Trevisan, latest edition: Leave all Metals.

Zachaire, speaking of those who are in error, counts therein those who convert Metals or Minerals into flowing Mercury or Quicksilver; that would be enough to prove that this should not be done with Antimony.

Please add to this what I wrote to you about it the first time; but, as I am not persuaded that I will satisfy you rather this time than the other; do me the grace to mark me what you find to take back; far from saddening me, you will oblige me sensibly, and I don't think anyone can oblige me more than to disillusion me and make me see that I am mistaken. But I confess to you frankly here that I do not believe that one can do it; for I did all I could to undeceive myself: I pretended a hundred times that all my principles were false, I examined them in order, more the last times than when I received them. And finally, the more I tried to disillusion myself, the clearer I saw in what I was looking for;and indeed to him who knows what the Cosmopolitan in his Epilogue calls the point of Magnesia, all difficulties are lifted, all clouds are dissipated, and all these things are clear and manifest to him. That if you have some experiences or some reasons, or some authorities to found your opinion, and that you wanted to tell me, I will try to destroy them or to explain by the same Philosophers whom you will quote to me, the passages which you will believe to make speak in favor of your opinion.

Art must begin where nature finishes the perfect metallic bodies, says the Cosmopolitan, chap. 4. It is when one takes Gold or Silver to mingle them with the philosophical Mercury, which is the earth and the field, in which the Gold being sown, it will multiply, according to Philalethes; it is therefore not Iron. But, if it were necessary to bring positive proofs that it is Gold which must give this philosophical Sulphur, that it is, I say, Gold or Silver which must mingle with Mercury, it would be necessary to copy all these Authors, and principally Artephius.

Richard Anglais in his Treatise, which is in the Chemical Theater and of which there is something inserted in the Great Rosary, absolutely rejects all Metals and Minerals Metallic or which have the form of any Metal, such as Antimony etc., for the composition or extraction of the philosophical Mercury. You will follow their advice, if you believe me. Their experience and their unequivocal feeling on this first matter should be enough for you.

I will add another reflection to it, to destroy your feeling. The Philosophers say without riddles that their first matter is a mercurial substance, which contains within it a spirit of celestial Fire, active, vivifying, and non-corrosive with which it is impregnated; Art has very little to do to extract this same substance from its mine, it first appears to the eyes covered with an earthly and impure Sulphur, which soon after, without the help of Art, it abandons of itself, to offer itself to the skilful Artist, who recognizes it, collects it with precaution, but whom the vulgar, blind to himself, trample underfoot. This should convince you, weighing all the words well;for I defy you to be able, as you believe, to extract from Iron, Antimony or other vulgar Metals, this vegetable Saturnia, this universal and unctuous Spirit, which spreads in everything, animates everything, determines everything and informs everything, without using a force foreign to Nature. This Worker, this industrious Mother does not need the help of Art to give us her first-born Son. We let her act, she gives it to us ready to be operated on, all the Philosophers agree with what I am telling you. Instead of you, you force nature.When you will have found a Mine from which emerges naturally and without the help of any Art, this Mercury Generalissimo determining and not determined, specifying and not specified, then you will be on the right path, you will recognize your error. And by the Writings of the Philosophers you yourself will feel that you can work with sureness, and that you have found this Cahodic Water, which digested by a well-conducted coction,

So be it.