#paramirum

[becdecorbin]

[elementroar]

Flament Nagel, the Flaming Nail - Paracelsus theory(ies)

This was gonna go out earlier yesterday, but you know, Slayer happened lol.

I feel that ArcSys has been hinting that Paracelsus' 'true nature' is more complicated than described, even more than how his true form being kinda formless and his nature as a morph weapon that reacts to the emotions of his wielder.

So below is his appearance during A.B.A's Instant Kill move back in ACCENT CORE +R, which were a signature cinematic and flashy move that instantly destroys your opponent regardless of health. It's a retired game mechanic now in STRIVE.

So back in their previous appearance back in ACCENT CORE+R, this is the form Paracelsus briefly takes when performing A.B.A's Instant Kill, where he first flies up into the sky while she summons her door.

What’s interesting is it’s only in this form that we see him resemble his original name - Flament Nagel - which is misspelled German for “Flaming Nail”. In no other move or scene does he actually look or behave like a 'nail' that's on fire.

After their enemy is sucked into the door and it closes, Paracelsus returns but in Goku Moroha mode (the extreme mode above his usual Moroha mode) and slices the door in half to break it and ‘seal’ their enemy on the other side to ‘instant kill’ them.

He then slices the doors apart forcefully because he is actually rotated with his blade facing the door. Paracelsus is not facing us the audience in this animation. The 'face' facing us isn't his actual face morphing, but some kind of energy entirely.

What’s more, Paracelsus himself appears to be knocked out (😵) during the entire animation and only opens his eyes after the black smoke dissipates and seems kinda scared or confused at the end of it. Which suggests it isn’t even 'him' doing the attack with A.B.A, or at least not him consciously doing it.

There's the possibility that this smoke and the sludge we now see in STRIVE are suppose to be the same thing, but changed due to art evolution. A kind of formless mass Paracelsus takes on when he doesn't have a definite form, or a form that differs from his default.

I'm not saying Paracelsus was taken over by a completely separate personality or entity, because he still had agency and awareness, he still talked as himself in Moroha mode. And it's clear he enjoys/enjoyed blood and violence and he still reminisces about them with some fondness in STRIVE.

But when he says he "lost his sanity" during his bloodlust, I wonder if it was more like he was partially possessed, and he didn't realize it.

Paramirum

Coupled with his new transformation which is called “hyoui” (“possession”) internally, and his STRIVE axe form has both two 'heads' at once, and is actually a double-bladed axe with one blade broken off. It feels like hints and motifs that Paracelsus is or has multiple entities or personalities in one.

Like on his blade in Jealous Rage mode, that word on the blade is "Paramirum" which is actually one of the books written by the real-life alchemist Paracelsus. It means "beyond wonder". What's more interesting is that the roman numeral Ⅱ is on that blade too, right above "Paramirum".

Does that mean something like a second Paracelsus, or "Paramirum" personality is appearing on that blade? There is a goat's eye on that half in Jealous Rage, which gets much larger in hyoui mode. Could this be his old goat's head personality reappearing indepedently of the main Paracelsus personality?

(There's also text on Paracelsus' end in Jealous Rage, but I can't tell what it is from the gallery images, prolly will need to see the actual model textures)

It should also be noted that in his original Moroha mode, it’s shown that only one of his eyes lights up. So the idea of him being somehow ‘half’ isn’t entirely new to STRIVE.

It’s also not clear if Paracelsus is actually aware in red hyoui mode, and if it's actually him snarling with A.B.A in her attack. His regular face is apparently still there when the attack happens, according to this concept art, so it's a second face appearing on the blade half. Could this actually be a completely separate personality from the main Paracelsus?

Personal headcanon/theory

My personal headcanon now is that ArcSys is heavily hinting a dual-personality situation with Paracelsus. If he really is actually a twin-bladed axe that got one edge broken off, then maybe the Paracelsus we know is ‘half’ of his full personality and is technically incomplete. If Moroha partially reveals his other personality, maybe they use to both be present at the same time (both blades present) but now only one can take dominance at one time (as a single bladed axe).

Or a new personality is emerging that's in response to A.B.A's bloodlust in STRIVE.

There's also a lesser-known property of magical foci like Paracelsus, in that they described as 'physical proxies' to the real 'data' they're pulling from in the Backyard (think in computer terms: the main Guilty Gear world is really more like the Windows Desktop of reality while the Backyard is the actual hard drive).

It really doesn't come up much, maybe in I-No's story, but functionally doesn't mean anything for characters like Paracelsus. Usually.

But there's an interesting thing with what we see pop up out of A.B.A's door when she does her Keeper of the Key Overdrive.

The multiple tentacles are made of sludge similar to Paracelsus' form, have eyes similar to Paracelsus', and also sharp blades and red energy. The Jealous Rage version even reminds me of Paracelsus' other nickname, 'the Sanguine Gale', where he supposedly swung so fast that he sent blades of wind out to slash at enemies back in his berserker days. The Jealous Rage version has the tendril twist around like a tornado with blades extended.

My theory is THAT is part of Paracelsus' 'full body' back in the Backyard. A giant formless mass much like Paracelsus' true sludgy form, that is summoned A.B.A unlocks the way to it when she uses Paracelsus himself as the key, and reacts to A.B.A's wish for them to attack by forming blades and lashing out.

Maybe it's a giant collection of multiple souls, entities, and memories, because magical foci can be created from multiple things attaching to each other and an object or human. In its case, I can imagine it's the collective memories of warriors who died on the battlefield, that melted together in the Backyard and attached themselves to a weapon - an axe.

And Paracelsus could be just one facet of the collective whole that has grown independent in the physical world of GG.

But big reminder that this is all my personal speculation. I don't expect ArcSys to ever definitely say what's coming out of the door; because there's always the chance it's really just 'rule of cool' like most things in the game, to be honest.

But I like to think it's not a coincidence that A.B.A's new Overdrive has her actually use Paracelsus as a key now, and she's summoning something that looks like it's also sludge like him.

[gear-project]

Taken from Twitter. Label is Paramirum II (a variant of Paracelsus).

The Gate Design is taken from the Sephirot/Qliploth or "Tree of Life".

Otherwise the other label is Hoenheim (the Alchemist's surname).

I can't say for sure if this is Flament Nagel's original form (since he possessed multiple body vessels over the years, but it is one form he can take).

The other is his old Goat-Skull Look:

Side Note: Flament Nagel's Historical Nickname is the "Sanguine Gale" [Budoshu no Tachikaze]

[mirandamckenni1]

How Alchemy & Hermeticism Revolutionized Medicine | Introduction to Paracelsus pt II Through the 1520s Paracelsus led a revolution in Alchemy and Medicine. Rejecting the Galenic theory of the Humors in Medicine and the mechanistic sulfur-mercury theory in Alchemy, here we find his famed theory of the Tria Prima of Sulfur, Salt and Mercury, his Alchemical theory of the human body, and a medicine founded on the Hermetic principle that the microcosm is truly bound up with the cosmic macrocosm. His medical philosophy foresaw organic chemistry, pharmacology, toxicology and even psychiatry - the Paracelsian revolution in alchemical medicine. In this episode we explore his revolutionary textbook the Opus Paramirum (Beyond Wonders) as part II of our exploration of the foundations of the Paracelsian Revolution. Episode I - The Paragranum - https://youtu.be/DqkuvWpH7AQ?si=8vvopsj9NAS21gVM Consider Supporting Esoterica! Patreon - https://ift.tt/Z5FaJIi Paypal Donation - https://ift.tt/tMWZsL4 Merch - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoydhtfFSk1fZXNRnkGnneQ/store New to Studying Esotericism? Check out my Reading Guide here - https://ift.tt/p0UgXlW Recommended Readings: Weeks (trans.) - Paracelsus (Theophrastus Bombastus Von Hohenheim, 1493-1541): Essential Theoretical Writings Moran - Paracelsus: An Alchemical Life - https://amzn.to/3QhIGXh Ball - The Devil's Doctor - https://amzn.to/4aPr25h Paracelsus Opera - https://ift.tt/LJKTjcf via YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULThSCD0SdE

[ieisia]

Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim [Paracelsus]. Reproduction, 1927, of etching by A. Hirschvogel

Paracelsus was one of the first medical professors to recognize that physicians required a solid academic knowledge in the natural sciences, especially chemistry. Paracelsus pioneered the use of chemicals and minerals in medicine. From his study of the elements, Paracelsus adopted the idea of tripartite alternatives to explain the nature of medicines, which he thought to be composed of the tria prima ('three primes'): a combustible element (sulphur), a fluid and changeable element (mercury), and a solid, permanent element (salt). The first mention of the mercury-sulphur-salt model was in the Opus paramirum dating to about 1530.  Paracelsus believed that the principles sulphur, mercury, and salt contained the poisons contributing to all diseases.  He saw each disease as having three separate cures depending on how it was afflicted, either being caused by the poisoning of sulphur, mercury, or salt. Paracelsus drew the importance of sulphur, salt, and mercury from medieval alchemy, where they all occupied a prominent place. He demonstrated his theory by burning a piece of wood. The fire was the work of sulphur, the smoke was mercury, and the residual ash was salt.  Paracelsus also believed that mercury, sulphur, and salt provided a good explanation for the nature of medicine because each of these properties existed in many physical forms. The tria prima also defined the human identity. Salt represented the body; mercury represented the spirit (imagination, moral judgment, and the higher mental faculties); sulphur represented the soul (the emotions and desires). By understanding the chemical nature of the tria prima, a physician could discover the means of curing disease. With every disease, the symptoms depended on which of the three principals caused the ailment. Paracelsus theorized that materials which are poisonous in large doses may be curative in small doses; he demonstrated this with the examples of magnetism and static electricity, wherein a small magnet can attract much larger metals.

He was probably the first to give the element zinc(zincum) its modern name, in about 1526, likely based on the sharp pointed appearance of its crystals after smelting (zinke translating to "pointed" in German). Paracelsus invented chemical therapy, chemical urinalysis, and suggested a biochemical theory of digestion. Paracelsus used chemistry and chemical analogies in his teachings to medical students and to the medical establishment, many of whom found them objectionable.

Paracelsus in the beginning of the sixteenth century had unknowingly observed hydrogen as he noted that in reaction when acids attack metals, gas was a by-product. Later, Théodore de Mayerne repeated Paracelsus's experiment in 1650 and found that the gas was flammable. However neither Paracelsus nor de Mayerne proposed that hydrogen could be a new element.

[normal-horoscopes]

An Extremely Oversimplified Guide To Medieval Alchemical Theory:

The medieval world was generally divided into three categories: Animals, Minerals, and Vegetables.

People had a solid handle on where vegetables came from. Plants come from seeds. You put them in the earth, give them plenty of air and sunlight, they produce more seeds and eventually they die.

Animals were a bit more complicated. Animals had to have sex. Medieval scholars didn’t know exactly how it worked, but they knew that animals could have sex and give birth. Additionally, it was thought that animals could be “generated,“ literally constructed via recipe like a cake. Many medieval magical texts contain what are essentially crafting recipes for rats or frogs.

Metals though, metals were tricky. Nobody could really figure out where exactly metals came from. They were under the earth, that much was understood, but exactly how and why deposits of ore formed was the center of intense debate among medieval alchemists. There were essentially three main theories:

First, let us establish that Alchemists were working from the Aristotelian view of the world. The world was made of four elements: Earth, Air, Water, and Fire. These elements interacted through four causes: Material, Formal, Efficient, and Final.

Sulfur-Mercury Theory: This is the “traditional“ alchemical position pioneered by (the likely legendary) Jabir Ibn-Hayyan, but eventually reached Europe through the 1144 translation of the Book of the Composition of Alchemy. The theory itself posits that when sulfur and mercury are trapped beneath the earth and combined, metals are produced. Which metal is produced is based on the ratio of sulfur to mercury. The more balanced the ratio, the closer the metal would be to gold. This was the generally accepted theory among alchemists for most of the medieval era, but it is important to remember that every alchemist had their own spin on how metal generation worked.

Sulfur-Mercury-Salt Theory: The radical, upstart theory of wild mavericks like Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim, better known as Paracelsus, who developed the theory in his text 1530 text, the Opus paramirum. Paracelcus conceptualizes sulfur and mercury not simply as physical substances, but as metaphysical essences necessary to all chemical change. The theory considers all change, not only the creation of metals, to have three components: A sulfur (the combustible element, the fuel which prompts change), a mercury (the thing which is changed), and a salt (the ash, the detritus given off by the change.)

Mercury Alone Theory: The fringe position, though one notably held by John Dee. This theory posits that all metals were simply the result of mercury trapped in the earth and subjected to various forces which “cooked“ it into the metals we know today. Dee specifically believed that it was stellar rays which “cooked” the metals, and that the ore produced was determined by astrology. This theory is also related to the “metallic seed“ theory of metals, which conceptualizes mercury as the seedbed into which tiny yet indestructible “seeds“ of metal can be planted, eventually transforming the mercury into the desired metal. This theory was actually tested and conclusively disproved by Sir Issac Newton, who dissolved metals in powerful acid and distilled the mixture to see if any “metallic seeds“ were left behind.

[leorant-velizhansky]

***

Что такое Алхимия.

Алхимия - это не что иное, как поставленная цель, намерение и тонкое стремление трансмутировать (преобразовать) виды металлов из одного в другой.

Парацельс, "Coelum philosophorum".

***

Алхимия - это, так сказать, своего рода "нижнее небо", с помощью которого Солнце отделяется от Луны, день от ночи, лекарство от яда, полезное от мусора. - De Colica. Поэтому изучайте Алхимию, которую (!) _иначе называют Спагирией_. Это научит вас различать истинное и ложное. Таков Свет Натуры, что он служит доказательством во всех вещах - и ходит в свете. От этого Света Натуры мы должны знать и говорить, а не от простой фантазии, откуда ничего не рождается, кроме 4-х жидкостей и их соединений, увеличения, застоя и уменьшения с другими пустяками подобного рода. Они не исходят из чистого интеллекта, этой полной сокровищницы хорошего человека, а основываются скорее на фиктивном и ненадёжном фундаменте.

Парацельс, "Paramirum".

[epakhomov]

***

"К вопросу о духовной Алхимии в отрыве от оперативной работы"

«Не понимая, что для философа достаточно _одного_ вещества, вы хватаетесь за множество, о, невежественные химики! В то время, как следует находящийся в процессе сгущения пар варить в одной чаше, выставленной под лучи Солнца, вы предаёте своему огню тысячи составляющих. Так, в отличие от Бога, составившего всё из ничто, вы, напротив, сводите всё к первоначальному небытию».

Космополит, "О Естестве в целом", трактат III.

***

"Достаточно одного вещества". Другие авторы писали - "достаточно одного Меркурия". Одного, но в 2-х "ипостасях", хотя по сути это два разных вещества с точки зрения современной науки. И "Солнце" это металлическое.

Да, тоже когда-то считал иначе. Однако излишняя "эзотеризация" и наведение мистического флера с Вообразилией - хороший способ увода в сторону от оперативной работы. А уж мистический флер авторы наводить умели - кроме тех, кто сам реально в первую очередь был христианским мистиком, а Алхимией занимался лишь дополнительно - таковые пытались даже "отождествить" Алхимию и алхимические идеи с христианством - во всяком случае в глазах общества того времени, ибо на занятия Алхимией был наложен запрет - однако христианские образы и сюжеты обычно брались вне канонического контекста, принимая порой весьма причудливые формы, но по большому счёту алхимические идеи могут быть выражены любыми образами - хоть "языческими", хоть "христианскими", хоть совершенно новыми, хоть бытовыми. Привязка к христианству в средневековой европейской Алхимии - это результат влияния культурной среды, а не некая якобы "изначально алхимическая суть христианства". Алхимики использовали фрагменты из Библии для описания тех или иных процессов вне канонического контекста и значения. Я и сам так легко могу делать, но в то же время я прекрасно понимаю, что изначальное религиозное значение тех или иных фрагментов далеко от их "алхимической" интерпретации - зато подкрепление (даже ошибочное) своих слов цитатами из Библии давало в те времена этому тексту некий авторитет. Что уж говорить - даже отцы церкви и пр. деятели часто использовали цитаты вне изначального контекста, когда им это было надо. Это не отменяет, однако, того факта, что многие из занимавшихся Алхимией наверняка были при этом вполне искренними христианами (в то время "не быть христианином", живя и воспитываясь _в той среде_, было весьма сложно, мягко говоря). Однако всё это не значит, что Алхимия суть мистика или очередной аналог "исихазма", "умного делания" и т.п. Это заблуждение поздних веков. Нельзя взять столько-то частей Духа или души, например, как это описывается в разных текстах, если подразумевать под этим Дух буквально, нельзя получить порошок из воображаемого и т.д. Тут говорится о множестве ошибочных веществ, которые принимают за те 2 настоящих. Теургия есть теургия - принципы подобны, но о разных "царствах" проявления речь в них идет. "Царство металлов" не есть "царство" людей и животных. Одни практики с другими совмещали, конечно, но не отождествляли до более позднего времени. Эти образы и фразы легко расшифровываются через работу оперативную.

"Теургический" элемент в практической (лабораторной) Алхимии "даёт золоту золотистость", например. Однако не только, но "теургического" в ней всё-таки не столько, чтобы отождествлять Алхимию с теургией полностью. Поясню мысль. Я когда-то увидел множество параллелей с Алхимией (как мне тогда казалось, точнее в той _интерпретации_ Алхимии, которая тогда казалась верной) в апокрифических гностических текстах (см. библ. Наг-Хаммади, см. "Гимн жемчужине" или "Песнь о жемчужине" и мн. др.), сюжетах и образах - что закономерно, если учитывать общее синкретическое происхождение с тем же герметизмом и др. синкретическими учениями/философиями etc. - пока не понял, что это всё уже получается уход в другую область, далёкую от Алхимии в узком смысле - и в той интерпретации (тоже с элементами теургии, да, только в гностической версии - см., например, гностическую "Книгу Величия Отца") было всё складно - ведь принципы-то во многом действительно подобны (на деле же это обусловлено общим синкретическим происхождением и взаимосвязью культурной среды и представлений тех времён, как я потом понял). Кроме одного, но весьма существенного момента: как совместить всё это с множеством конкретных рецептов (Камня в том числе) и детальных указаний о печах, количестве вещества, форме сосуда и т.п.? Потом дошло, что они руководствовались подобными принципами, но применяли их в _разных_ сферах деятельности, в разных областях. Поднятие ("возгонка", если угодно) души до уровня Духа, "призыв" в "сосуд" своего тела активного "агента", который запускает процесс преобразования "носителя", "отсекая лишние ветви" (ср. Ин. 15:1-2 и далее, например, если интерпретировать сей фрагмент в "теургическом", а не в каноническом ключе), подготавливая личность и суть человека к "полному принятию", доводя должным образом до своего подобия и т.п. - это происходит в "царстве" человека, но не в "царстве металлов" - аналогия есть, да, но это не одно и то же. Пресловутый "павлиний хвост", например, очень явственно идентифицируется в реальном сосуде в процессе реальной реакции, если всё сделано правильно - и наблюдать это может любой присутствующий. И так в остальном. На примере "Магического Архидокса" всю лабораторную работу можно подробнейшим образом разобрать без ухода в излишнюю "эзотеризацию", например. Другое дело, что в определённый момент многие начали использовать "алхимические" образы, сюжеты, термины и понятия для выражения других практик (в том числе и чистых теургических, и прочих) - уже в период Бёме это было распространено, а по факту подобное возникло гораздо раньше.

Кто думает, что это - "лишь версия, а на самом деле иначе!" - сильно ошибается. Почему? Потому что эти рецепты _воспроизводимы в лабораторных условиях_. Если бы это были просто "аллегории практик духовной работы", то они бы не воспроизводились - это очевидно. Кроме того, слова тех или иных алхимических авторов, не касающиеся рецептов напрямую, сильно переоценивают и слушают некритически - а это ошибка: ибо сами авторы не всё знали и были когда-то обычными людьми своего времени - они тоже когда-то что-то слышали, у кого-то учились, читали чьи-то книги и т.п., поэтому доверять им в вопросах "происхождения Алхимии", например, не стоит. Автор, воспитывавшийся и живший в одной религиозной среде, будет закономерно приписывать Алхимию к своему учению/религии, живший в другой - уже к другой религии и т.п. Про множество мистификаторов я вообще молчу. Так что всегда стоит анализировать всё со своей стороны - "непогрешимых авторитетов, которых нельзя критиковать" нет - и в Алхимии тоже.

***

Что такое Алхимия.

Алхимия - это не что иное, как поставленная цель, намерение и тонкое стремление трансмутировать (преобразовать) виды металлов из одного в другой.

Парацельс, "Coelum philosophorum".

***

Алхимия - это, так сказать, своего рода "нижнее небо", с помощью которого Солнце отделяется от Луны, день от ночи, лекарство от яда, полезное от мусора. - De Colica. Поэтому изучайте Алхимию, которую (!) _иначе называют Спагирией_. Это научит вас различать истинное и ложное. Таков Свет Натуры, что он служит доказательством во всех вещах - и ходит в свете. От этого Света Натуры мы должны знать и говорить, а не от простой фантазии, откуда ничего не рождается, кроме 4-х жидкостей и их соединений, увеличения, застоя и уменьшения с другими пустяками подобного рода. Они не исходят из чистого интеллекта, этой полной сокровищницы хорошего человека, а основываются скорее на фиктивном и ненадёжном фундаменте.

Парацельс, "Paramirum".

***

Примечательно, что многие алхимики (особенно европейские), говоря о Боге/Божественном, говорили по сути о Боге Философов (концептуально и по всем признакам, так сказать) - но сами отождествляли его с "ветхозаветным" Яхве, считая, что так было всегда и других вариантов (восприятия Божественного в том числе) быть не может. Хотя вполне очевидно, что эти "образы" восприятия Божественного концептуально "слились" уже в ранний период формирования христианства, как отдельной религии, а сам процесс начался ещё раньше - за несколько веков до т.н. "н.э.".

***

Бёме, Ульман, Розенкрейцеры и т.п. - это не совсем Алхимия, а скорее христианская мистика и эзотерическое христианство, "неканоническое" и местами "политизированное" умозрительное домысливание, использующее квази-"алхимическую" терминологию, символизм и образность, но не имеющее прямого отношения к практической Алхимии (за редким исключением), появившейся изначально в "языческой" Александрийской среде, а то и гораздо раньше. Своим пониманием Алхимии они просто пытались "проапгрейдить" своё эзотерическое христианство, добавить ему веса в глазах прочих. Подобные люди любую метафору из ВЗ или НЗ, связанную с рудой, камнями, печами и металлами, пытаются притянуть к Алхимии задним числом, тогда как на деле это просто бытовое/ремесленное иносказание, использованное другими авторами для наглядности, чтобы их религиозный посыл к читающим был более понятен - если человек сравнивает какое-то событие с "плавкой" или "удалением шлаков", например - это не значит, что это-де "зашифрованная Алхимия". Алхимия изначально была прикладной. Не надо путать визионерство с Алхимией. Я не говорю, однако, что это-де само по себе есть "что-то плохое" - просто это иная сфера. Кроме того, я не отрицаю, что они могли заниматься _в том числе и Алхимией_ - и скорее всего занимались. Однако с религиоведческой точки зрения стоит отделять одно от другого, чтобы не запутаться.

***

Ещё момент. Суть т.н. "духовной Алхимии" в трактовке некоторых "обществ" заключается в том, чтобы человек постепенно изменил свой образ мышления и поведение на более соответствующие христианскому этосу и идеалу, т.е. чтобы он "подогнал" себя, свою личность и т.д. под этот "образец", который заранее "задан" ему другими. "А вот на этом этапе ты должен мыслить так-то" и т.п. Если же человек полностью или частично не разделяет христианский этос, то смысла для него в этой работе нет. Какое отношение вся эта игра символами имеет к реальной, в том числе к оперативной Алхимии? Да по сути никакого. Замечу, что речь идёт о конкретной разновидности интерпретации этого аспекта, а не о самом аспекте вообще - работа на разных уровнях должна была идти синхронно, без отбрасывания других сторон и аспектов. В работе должна быть симфоничность.

***

"Возьми кусочек этого драгоценного медикамента величиною с боб. Брось его на тысячу унций ртути. Вся эта ртуть превратится в красный порошок. Прибавь унцию этого порошка к тысяче унций ртути - и эта ртуть тоже превратится в красный порошок. Если из этого порошка взять одну унцию и бросить ещё на тысячу унций ртути - всё превратится в медикамент. Брось унцию этого медикамента на новую тысячу унций ртути - и она тоже превратится в медикамент. Брось унцию этого нового медикамента ещё на тысячу унций ртути - и она вся превратится в золото, которое лучше рудничного".

Раймунд Луллий.

***

Подобных моментов в алхимических текстах тысячи. Покажите этот фрагмент (и ему подобные) любителям говорить о якобы "исключительно духовной природе" Алхимии вообще и алхимической практики в частности...

27 сент. 2020 Евгений Пахомов

[phillipkingsbury]

top 5 books

“Oh good grief… erm, give me a minute to think… Well, these aren’t in any specific order, but these are the five I love and return to most often.”

Percy Shelley’s Adonaïs. I’d qualify it as a book since I own a copy of it by itself, not in a collection of his work. I’m not really one for poetry, but it has a lot of imagery in it that I find… rather moving. And it helped me a great deal after Laura… and it’s proven a great inspiration for much of my work since.

Paracelsus’s Volumen Paramirum. Although we’ve progressed our field a great deal since his time, this is one of the quintessential treatises on alchemy and frankly, I judge fellow alchemists rather harshly if they’ve never read it.

This may sound a bit lame, but I actually rather enjoyed A History of Magic. Coming from a half-Muggle family, I didn’t necessarily grow up just hearing about many of the magical events that most wizards just know about from birth, so it was fun to learn about them.

Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time. Really, it’s criminal to write off Muggles as simple when work like this exists. He lays it all out very plainly for anyone to understand and it’s absolutely riveting. I could honestly go on for hours about it, if you have the time.

J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Hobbit. My father read it to me as a boy. Since by then he knew my mother was a witch and I’d started showing signs of magical talent, he thought I’d enjoy seeing things like magic in a good light to make things a little easier. Obviously, Tolkien had a very different view of how magic should work, but I admire his vision and the depths he went to with his world.

[hermanwatts]

A Short History of the Gnomes: Part II

Part I discussed Paracelsus’ gnomes and this post details my attempt to find the underlying myths that influenced his gnome concept.  His statement in A Book on Nymphs, Sylphs, Pygmies, and Salamanders, and on the Other Spirits* that he didn’t like the name “pygmie” for earth dwellers as the name had “been given them by people who did not understand them” reveals that his gnomes were not wholly original.

The difficulty in researching Paracelsus’ influences is the lack of written documentation on the old beliefs. Paracelsus lived, learned and wrote in the century after Gutenburg developed the printing press and books were a rare luxury for a small literate population. My guess is the thought of publishing low brow fairy tales and commoner’s myths did not cross anyone’s mind and the relatively limited runs of books were reserved for religion, the classics and popular plays.

I had two avenues of research. Initially, I tried the primary sources searching for clues in Paracelsus’ own writings (this post). When this proved fruitless, I turned towards 19th century documentation of the old fairy tales. Over time, tales that were passed down verbally would change to suit the storyteller’s preferences which were molded by the culture in a certain time and place. Despite that the general essence of fairy tales / myths remains showing a remarkable resilience . Example is Snow White and other popular tales such as Jack and the Beanstalk. My assumption is that description of dwarfs, elves and other mysterious folk captured in the 19th century retained essential characteristics of these folk over the centuries and these essential characteristics predated Paracelsus. I’ll explore that in Part III.

* Information about this book in Part I. An English translation can be found as one of the four treatises in this book.

Primary Sources –

On the Minder’s Sickness and Other Minter’s Diseases

I was fortunate in that the Four Treatises book mentioned above contains Theopharastus von Hohenheim’s (Paracelsus) On the Miner’s Sickness and Other Miner’s Diseases. I dove into it searching for references to gnomes, pygmies or earth mannikins. A significant portion of the text explores the causes of miner’s illnesses in which much of the blame can be laid on the various “spirits” found underground.  It turns out that these spirits are not non-material entities with malicious intent but a gas or essence emitted by the various ores that proved harmful to human beings. There is a little ambiguity in the definition of spirits and this was probably purposeful. There was a strong religious belief that many maladies were caused by demons or malicious entities. Paracelsus was exploring the boundaries between his religious beliefs, the dominant religion of the time, and his personal observations.

This doesn’t help in trying to find what influenced his thinking on gnomes but it does give insight into his “spirit men”.  Originally, I was in error in thinking of spirit in a mystical sense. His spirit men were obviously elemental representations so their spirit designation is more physical than mystical. Of all the spirit people only the salamander gets a mention:

“Therefore know that the transient corpora make a peculiar air in the element fire, with which one can also maintain oneself, just as with the ordinary air which we receive. This is proven by the salamander, which does not maintain itself with the air by means of which man lives, but by the air which is peculiar to the fire. In the power of the element the salamander has its breath, and outside f the fire it has no life.” 

There is a chance I missed a reference to earth dwellers in the text and will keep looking but in the meantime I found another passage that sounded promising:

“The one body is that of the inhabitants of the earth; for this I recommend the Archidoxa and the books Paramiris.” 

Off topic but of interest that Paracelsus believed the different minerals in the earth grew in a manner similar to plants. “The seeds of the metals and the minerals have been sowed in the earth” and “They have their fall and their harvest in order to sprout sooner or later according to the arrangement of the godly order“.

  Archidoxa

Inhabitants of the earth sounded promising and I started the search for the Archidoxa and the Paramiris books. It turns out that Paracelsus was referencing his own works.  An online English translation from an early 17th century book can be found here.  The book description from the 1660 copy:

Paracelsus, his Archidoxis comprised in ten books : disclosing the genuine way of making quintessences, arcanums, magisteries, elixirs, &c : together with his books of renovation & restauration, of the tincture of the philsophers, of the manual of the philosophical medicinal stone, of the virtues of the members, of the three principles, and finally his seven books of the degrees and compositions, of receipts and natural things / faithfully and plainly Englished, and published by J.H., Oxon

At this time I cannot find references to the spirit people as the Archidoxa is concerned with alchemy. As with his use of the word “spirits” I believe that in his quote “the one body is that of the inhabitants of the earth” inhabitants does not refer to spirit people but was used more in line with “composition”.  A modern translation of the meaning (vice literal translation) may read “the one body that is of the minerals of the earth“.

  Textus Paramiri

Detailed references on the “books Paramiris” can be found in The Hermetic and Alchemical Writings of Aureolus Philippus Theophrastus Bombast of Hohenheim, Called Paracelsus the Great, translated by Arthur Edward Waite and printed in the 1890s. The Paramiri were an ongoing series of essays and books concerning the composition of the human body which Paracelsus summarizes here:

"First, however, it had to be pointed out how man derived his origin from sulphur, mercury, and salt, regarded as metals. This I have sufficiently indicated in the Paramirum.."

No mention of gnomes I can find.

  Conclusion

Paracelsus was influenced by existing folk lore but it is hard to pinpoint the exact nature of that influence.  Paracelsus’ concerned himself with medicine and alchemy and he used his spirit people to help explain phenomena and to supplement his exploration of elements. He definitely wasn’t interested in the mythology of his spirit people and used them in a rudimentary scientific manner. What I find amazing is the power of the ancient tales. He borrowed from folk tales and essentially re-purposed the old pygmies and earth manikins as his gnomes only for the gnomes to be re-purposed back towards myth and fantasy by those with a similar interest as mine.

I may have missed a reference to spirit people in the Archidoxa and quotes from the Paramiri but the role of Paracelsus’ spirit people had nothing to do with his interest in alchemy or medicine.  As we discovered in Part I, they were used by God as guides to humanity. In the gnome’s case, as a marker that natural resources were available in the region.  Even Paracelsus’ dwarves, monstrous offspring of the gnomes, were created by God to remind humanity of God’s powers. In the dwarves case, they weren’t put on Earth to guard resources, craft them or being monstrous, cause sickness to miners but to remind humanity:

“This must also be understood to mean that although we are from Adam yet there are people who are not from Adam, such as giants and dwarfs who are greater and stronger than we. It also means that if you shall not do honest work, God can exterminate you in the root and let you all dry out like fruit on a tree, and create other people thereafter“.

 Thanks to commenter Alastair M who at the end of Part I let us know about Paul Ernst’s short story, The Microscopic Giants. From Alastair M’s description Ernst’s mannikins were very true to the original.

I hope others may be able to find hints and clues in the texts linked to above.

                    A Short History of the Gnomes: Part II published first on https://sixchexus.weebly.com/

[becdecorbin]

it’s fucked up little animal hours

[m16november]

paramirum

"Lovely night isn't it?" November stepped over to the young lady, though he was looking up at the sky with mild interest. Ah, easy to point to his star, though not much to say for it. "If I had known we would be having such clear skies, I might have rented a telescope to remember an old friend. Can I ask how your night is fairing dear?"

And now that might have all gone smoothly, without his secret agency even being suspected, maybe even stepping away with a new friend. Unfortunately, he had no way to telling that this was a skilled empathy, and she had every way of knowing that he felt absolutely nothing with each of those hollow words. Even in brain scans for intense emotions, contractors always turned up blank

[becdecorbin]

more dopey harpy nonsense asfdsg. this time with Paramirum/Antiphates, being based on a white dove to contrast with Laistrygon's crow/raven.

referenced baby pigeons for Paramirum, too. they're so gormless, I love them.

[becdecorbin]

Paramirum eating a bug and also having found a nonviable homunculus that somehow got out of its tank

[becdecorbin]

redrew an old Laistrygon & Marquis pic with extra Paramirum to turn this into a family portrait haha

original from August 22, 2008 (drawn in Tegaki E!)

[becdecorbin]

Laistrygon, Paramirum and Laistrygon's ravens.