Some ten years before, in 1764, Valmont de Bomare published “Dictionnaire Raisonné Universel d’Histoire Naturelle”, or Universal Explicated Dictionary of Natural History, in which the term Guhr was already present, with some differences: “The Guhr is a leaking or pappy mineral matter, which drips as stalagmite in caves. Most mineralogists take it as the first matter and mumush of minerals. Maybe it is formed by decomposed minerals. At least Guhr is a sign of some metallic veins, furthermore the hardened and reddish one. When red, it designates an iron vein; if green and blue, a copper one; if white and blue, a silver.”
Valmont de Bomare’s reports on Guhr are more exhaustive of his age. It is a pity that the Guhr is bound to disappear from scientific publications in some decades. Modern mineralogy now applies molecular examination to classify substances, not only organoleptic checks. Nevertheless, what’s interesting to us is the definition of Guhr as Materia Prima or the first matter of minerals. I have already said on this site that the idea of a general primordial substance for the formation of minerals in mines is a superstition, which also greatly affected alchemists. I presented the opinion of Michael Maier in Symbola Aureae Mensae and Sabine Stuart Chevalier to cite some. The idea was that a milky Mercurius and a greasy Sulphur formed all minerals and metals. In Symbola Aureae Mensae, the engraving number eight (5), dedicated to Aquinas, puts on display the supposed phenomenon occurring in the deep of the earth, comparing the work of an alchemist to that of nature: what nature unifies; the alchemist has to divide.
Sabine Stuart Chevalier (6) imagines that Mercurius re-acquires the virginal status once divided from its natural companion, Sulfur. She imagines the milky mercurial part as a woman deprived of a man and looking for, that to say, looking for another greasy Sulphur. But she fails to say that Sulphur is just the same as Mercurius in a further and more fixed phase. To this extent came the necessity to create a whole system to unify Alchemy and Nature. Nowadays, we treat this unifying system as superstitious. Ancient chemists did not know and search for molecular purity; they were limited to testing matters with their eyes.
In countless treatises, alchemists’ main task was said to be the imitation of Nature. But the theories put forward are today nonsense. The imitation of nature is to a deeper level. Deeper than the molecular one. We know that our Secret Fire is extracted from raw matters to become Mercurius and worked till Sulphur. Ancient alchemists seemed to be content with that. It is strange because they went on to say that their ultimate goal was making a magnet. Just a few wrote that. For instance Philalethes in his Introitus Apertus ( 7).
And then I can return to what was said above: this Mercurial-Sulphureus matter is our unique Prima Materia, first matter. Our Antimonium-Bright Star-Universal Dissolvent, as said Fulcanelli. Our vase-bowl-heart-graal, as said Guénon. Our magnet to call the universe. When Canseliet referred to the matter by which “metals are perpetually produced in the deep of the earth” he meant our seed of metals, not an uncertain leaking matter inside a mine ( at least, I hope). The real Guhr, not the improbable pulpy mineral described by Valmont de Bomare. Our letter “G”, Tree of Life, indeed. A matter is a liquid that can appear in almost every state—and is produced by weird tools, as said Reghini.
Valmont de Bomare has lived in a border age. An age in the second half of the eighteenth century in which alchemical terms and terms derived from ancient natural philosophy were the unique ones available to start to define things. When Valmont de Bomare begins investigating earth’s classification, he cannot but re-organize ancient concepts. He lacks parameters different from ancient unverified superstitions.
I think the ancient natural philosophy was nonscience because it seems to have used a parody of Alchemy’s keys as magic did. When science became an experimental discipline, the result was a serious setback to Alchemy’s credibility as though Alchemy had been a natural phenomenon to be applied to all natural phenomena.
This thought could lead us to consider whether, in Nature, any alchemical process could occur. As far as I know, yes, but certainly not through the procedures described by Valmont. If not, every piece of rock extracted from a mine is a potential Philosophers Stone when Alchemy is rather about destroying these pieces of rock to extract our potential Philosophers Sto.
It remains for us to give plausibility to picking up the latin letter “G” as a symbol for our, and I call it the name I prefer, Universal Magnet. And here, two paths are opened, an etymological and a morphological one:
Etymology: let’s take Fulcanelli’s suggestion for granted on our turn and search the ancient art of Grammatica for the latin letter G, and this time without quotation marks. So I have looked up in Nuovo Dizionario Scientifico e Curioso Sacro-Profano, or sacred-profane scientific and curious dictionary, by Gianfrancesco Pivati, Venezia 1747, the definition of Latin-Italian letter G: ” seventh letter of our alphabet and the fifth of consonants. In oriental idioms, it is instead the third, as by Hebrews, Phoenicians, Chaldeans, Samaritans, Arabs, and Greeks who received it from Phoenicians. This order is very ancient, as seen in Jeremiah’s lamentations and Psalm 118. Hebrews call it Gimel or Ghimel, that’s to say camel because it has a hump like a camel; in Arabic is gijm; by Syrians gomal.
The letter G is a mute letter, which we cannot hear the sound without the addition of a vowel… Latins used to change it to C, as gamelus becomes camelus, gragulus graculus, quingentum quincentum, and so on. Latins used to omit it before an N, gnatus became natus, gnosco nosco. It was taken as P , magalia mapalia. For Q, aquina angina. It was also changed in R, aquagium aquarium, and even in S, spargo sparsi, fingo finxi. The reason is G has a very bad sound. It is cacophonous”.
So, according to Romans, the Letter “G” is a letter to hide and with an inaudible sound—kind of weird… exactly like our Magnet.
Let’s finish with Morphology: an uncertain Masonic tradition says that the letter “G“ is a hypostasis of God, adding that the letter “G“ looks very much like the shape of an ear. Perhaps this may seem incomprehensible to most people, but those who know about the importance of sound in alchemy. In the book “The World of the Hittites“ by Margarete Riemschneider, one of the oldest representations of the mother goddess was two big ears.
Alchemy has an old saying: “Search for the light that can be seen with ears“.
- Arturo Reghini & Pythagorean Tetraktys 11;
- See also Artephius and Antimonium est de Partibus Saturni ;
- Fulcanelli & Antimony of Wises ;
- Symbola Aureae Mensae and the Supreme Purpose ;
- Stuart Chevalier and the Marriages of a Virgin ;
- Canseliet, the Art of Music & Weight ;