A very useful Henri La Croix Haute’s definition of Philosophical Mercurius accords with modern science. But that would horrify a scientist.
Apprentice to Henri Coton-Alvart, Henri La Croix-Haute is less pretentious than his Master, nevertheless, he still claims to explain Alchemy in the light of a proto-science, very often complicating things. This excerpt on what Mercurius could possibly have, taken from “Propos sur les deux Lumières”, Paris 1996, is however very interesting and explicative. One of the cases where modern chemistry can help to understand Alchemy foundations.
To be honest, I wouldn’t say I like Coton-Alvart’s way of trying to give a scientific foundation to Alchemy. Mainly because he was not a scientist and he spared no efforts to force a science he is not so learned in, within acceptably Christian borders. He had a degree in chemistry, but chemistry is not physics. So it remained to Coton-Alvart to be too much dependable in his unbiased Christian convictions. In the case of his “Les Deux Lumières”, I must confess to having thought to be before the worst hermetic book ever read.
Nevertheless, from time to time, a very illuminating and decisive paragraph can be found. His pupil, Henri La Croix-Haute, probably more rational and less overambitious, wrote a more intelligible book. However, on some occasions, “Propos sur les deux Lumières” presents Alchemy as a proto-science with just a strange nomenclature.
For instance, the chapter the excerpt is taken from tries to recognize the presence of our three principles in chemical processes. This is frankly impossible and absurd. Since Alchemy has a lexicon and a tradition far from modern chemistry oxidations or hydrations, I don’t understand why a process like an exothermic reaction, that’s to say, a reaction accompanied by the release of heat should be read commensurate with our Philosophical Fire. Simply, the author should have ignored the thing or managed it as a purely chemical process necessary in our preliminary works, those performed to volatilize salts to achieve our Mercurius/Secret Fire ( see an Opus magnum scheme). Of course, our Secret Fire does not produce any exothermic reaction, even if it can oxidize, as we can see in ancient chemists’ treatises (1).
Paragraphs such as: ” Sulfur can therefore be summarized schematically by the metalloid, the anion, while the Mercurius can be summarized in the idea of metal, the cation” is an affirmation that starts from a specific path and cannot be adapted to a didactic Alchemy.
For this reason, I will limit myself to producing just the two little paragraphs I have judged interesting for the comprehension of what Mercurius could be. Although not new for alchemists such as Canseliet and Alexander von Bernus, the idea we will read is presented in an easy-to-point schematic way. Sadly, the rest of the chapter will be redundantly misleading for a beginner.
To summarize, I will say that Mercurius is our First Matter for the newcomer we are talking about. It is the product of reiterated salt volatilizations in preliminary works and is an Alchemy foundation. It is assimilable to the Secret Fire concept. For alchemists, it is the ineffable Spirit of Life. The other two principles, Sulphur and Salt, are produced by the same Mercurius (the same Mercurius) in our works’ different stages (2). Philosophers Stone is the last step of these works on, and with, Mercurius.
So, my translation from french from “Propos sur les deux Lumières” by Henri La Croix-Haute. The chapter on the three Principles, Mercurius, Sulphur and Salt, 1957.
Page 115: ” The electron free from attachment with any gas, a liquid or a solid, becomes apparent through the appearance of radiant energy: light or heat. The same electron attached to a gas particle or taking the form of gas, that’s to say, the so-called electric charge becomes electricity rather than light. If it takes the form of water, that’s to say, it is related to a material particle subject to this element, to a flowing and not rarefied material, a liquid; it is what the alchemists called Mercurius.
… when the fire is contained in the aerial form, we are dealing with a volatile Sulphur, and if the fire condenses in a more material form, in the form of the element water, we have to speak of Mercurius.”
Page 119: “… Fire and Earth are the two constituent parts of the fixed Sulphur, the fire called infernally. On the contrary, air and water were the two constituent parts of Mercurius. For this Mercurius to be alive and vibrant, it must contain a higher fire, free energy we can temporarily assimilate to the electron. “
But if the Mercurius were the electron entirely, it would be too simple. The passage of colors would not be explainable, in my opinion.