Alchemical Symbolism in the VMS

[Barbrey]

And then there's the question of language. Is it Latin or Greek, Arabic or Croatian?

@Barbrey

I like what you said here: "Alchemy started with dyeing so it might mean just that. No idea what the phrase would mean, sounds like more code. It’s never nonsense, though, just code. 50% of it is in code, even when the writer says they’ll explain it all in simple terms!  Never believe them!"

Perhaps you could explain more about "It's never nonsense,". Of course they had processes for dyeing, tanning, metallurgy, etc. They knew how, but they didn't know why. Any explanation of alchemical work, based on the classical four elements theory was derived from a paradigm that is innately flawed and fictional. What results is utter nonsense. It's actually a code for nonsense. To say nothing about the toxicity of mercuric vapor to those cooking up that stuff.

The philosopher’s stone was nonsense, though based on what alchemists thought were observable changes in metals, as well as Aristotlean theory. Alchemists were working with a theory, charlatans were pretending to have proved it. 

You should try reading Roger Bacon’s Maius Opus. It’s full of interesting ideas on all sorts of topics so it’s a good read. As per alchemy, he believes there are charlatans, but doesn’t dismiss it as a possibility that metals can be turned to gold. What I like is when he talks about an elixir of life. He sounds eminently reasonable and scientific, does not believe it can confer immortality, then without switching tone says it is eminently possible it can create extremely long life spans. His evidence?  The incredibly long lives of the patriarchs in the Bible. Methuselah lived 900 years, after all. 

I just thought it a wonderful example of the medieval mindset. Science and religion are so entangled in a way we don’t see today. 

What I was trying to say is that it operates like astrology, which I believe is just as nonsensical as alchemy in its basic premises. But both are closed systems, once you believe the basic premise, all the details, the math, the calculations start supporting each other so a tentative investigator might be persuaded. Alchemy’s decknamens and imagery, and frustrating descriptions make it sound nonsensical, but behind it are observable experiments and logic, usually eminently reasonable, until bumping heads with the faulty theory that began it. 

But a few modern scholars will better persuade you than me. Try Jennifer Rampling, Lawrence Principe, Wayne Newman. It’s become a rising field in scholarship precisely because it’s no longer considered “all nonsense”. 

@Ruby is quite right. I believe it’s Wayne Newman who said an enormous amount of time was spent on ensuring the alchemist was protected from the poisonous vapours and substances they had to deal with. A hermetic seal was one of those ways.