Hermetic names

Use in the book

At p. 150 the author offers four reasons for the subject’s many mineral and metallic names (II.150.2). First, it possesses mineral and metallic nature richly. Second, raw matter must be distinguished from matter already freed of superfluities. Third, names may mislead the ignorant. Fourth, they may indicate changes in form and colour during operation. These reasons allow overlap; the author does not assign every subsequent word to exactly one category.

The first reason concerns capacity rather than ordinary appearance. A universal material can produce or perfect mineral things without already being a common metal. The second concerns condition: a name suitable to raw matter need not describe the same visible state after purification. The third acknowledges concealment, complicating the book’s promise of sincerity without cancelling it. The fourth ties language to operation, so that a sequence of names may follow one subject through transformation.

At p. 151 the saying that antimony is Mercury and vitriol Sulphur is immediately qualified: neither ordinary mineral serves the purpose (II.151.1). Antonius de Abbatia’s longer list then includes vegetable salt, gold made spiritual, common metallic names, arsenic, sal ammoniac, vitriol, magnesia, alum, Hybith, sulphur, milk, vinegar, urine, honey, fountain, dew, wine and a blessed drink (II.151.2). The possessive “our” and the opening condition of knowing how to labour rightly govern the list. It is not an inventory to be combined literally.

The vitriol argument tests the rule rather than merely repeating it. Ordinary Roman or Hungarian vitriol appears promising because philosophers use its name, it resembles dry water, nature has begun but not completed it, and it has excellent virtues (II.152.1). The author answers each reason and concludes that particular excellence does not establish universal capacity (II.153.1–II.154.1). Interpretive correction therefore has a causal foundation, not just an appeal to secrecy.

The Löwenstein manuscript presents a harder case. It explicitly distinguishes ordinary mercury from the philosophers’ Mercury and describes a red substance drawn from the mine, while another maxim says matter touching earth is useless (II.147.1). The author supplies sayings in tension so that the reader must distinguish their referents and modes of speech. He does not authorize a modern editor to solve the mine’s exact identity by unsupported substitution.

The concluding return at pp. 235–236 is especially decisive. The philosophers’ Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Moon, Sun, arsenic, vitriol, antimony and marcasite were mistaken by common alchemists for the separate particulars bearing those names (II.235.1). These workers alternate among materials or combine several, while the philosophers meant their universal matter. The author says a wrong beginning necessarily yields a wrong end even with a clear procedure.

This rule also applies to apparently practical expressions. “Make Mercury through Mercury” at p. 135 should be interpreted within the appropriate subject, not automatically converted into treatment of quicksilver (II.135.1). Four days can mean principal colours (II.168.2). The author repeatedly demonstrates that linguistic competence and operational competence belong together. Yet none of these explanations completely discloses the precise manipulations he says he will not describe.

Places to read

1. Part II · II.150.2; II.151.1; II.151.223Four reasons for names and the long list of philosophical products.
2. Part II · II.152.1; II.153.1; II.154.123Vitriol as a worked test of literal interpretation.
3. Part II · II.135.1; II.147.1; II.168.2; II.235.1234Mercury, mining language, figurative days and the concluding rule.

Translation

The edition retains unfamiliar names rather than normalizing them into an allegedly known modern substance. Hybith, for example, remains as printed because a secure identification is not established. Inflected Latin names and German forms are not additional materials. The possessive “our” remains important when it marks the philosophers’ usage.¹⁰²

The translated wording distinguishes raw matter from matter already separated from superfluities. Suppressing that distinction would make all names appear simultaneous and erase the role of operation. Conversely, inventing a precise stage for every list member would claim more order than the author provides.

Connections

Allegory and analogy gives the broader interpretive method. Universal and particular explains why ordinary named minerals can fail. Colours supplies one stated reason for changing names, while Secrecy and publication addresses the acknowledged purpose of misleading the ignorant. Antimony and Vitriol provide concrete examples that must be read as full local arguments.

Cautions

This is a local account of naming in the Candida, not a complete lexicon for every alchemical author. It does not establish a universal cipher or a one-to-one chemical decoding. Where the author gives reasons without exact assignments, the entry should keep the resulting openness. Interpretation is constrained by principles and passages, not licensed by the mere possibility of a hidden meaning.

mineral- und metallische Nahmen

mineral- und metallische Nahmen — mineral and metallic names. II.150.2.

materiam crudam

materiam crudam — raw matter; inflected Latin phrase. II.150.2.

materiam à superfluitatibus jam separatam

materiam à superfluitatibus jam separatam — matter already separated from superfluities. II.150.2.