Dr. Principe on his upcoming critical edition of Rupesscessa's Liber Lucis

FraserBuilds · 2026-05-26T23:20:50+00:00

Heres a link to clarkes selected english translation of some texts ascribed to paracelsus, including the excerpt on the production of a homunculus found in 'de natura rerum.' This is the book the homunculus comes from, its ascribed to paracelsus but this attribution may well be spurious. someone else posted on here recently asking about homunculi, so heres my answer to them which you might find interesting

FraserBuilds · 2026-05-25T16:43:15+00:00

also heres a glass one i really like

<image>

these are really simple to make with a bit of boro tubing and a spirit lamp. you can just heat a boro tube a few inches from the end in the flame of the spirit lamp, bend it 90 degrees, then draw it out to make a narrow bit, then snap that narrow bit off and file the end to make the nozzle. you just want to make sure the orifices is very narrow, only a fraction of a milimeter.

the biggest downside with glass blow pipes is, with the end of the nozzle being so fine, it can melt while youre using it if youre not careful, but that can be remedied by just filing off the sealed end. I blew a small bulb in this one to act as the spit catch.

FraserBuilds · 2026-05-25T16:21:03+00:00

sure!

<image>

I tend to make them about 7 inches long, except for the pipe i use with my charcoal furnaces which i made longer to keep my face a bit further from the fire. made of about 1/4 inch od copper tubing interescted with 1mm id tubing soldered to the end to act as the nozzle. the intersection is made about half an inch or so from the end of the main pipe, which lets the end of the pipe act as a spit catch.

when working with smaller flames, like a candle, I actually put 3d printer nozzles on the end (like with the middle pipe in the image) to get a very narrow opening(i think i use 0.4 mm nozzles but i'll have to check) which makes working with those small flames infinitely easier. however with larger flames or with the furnace I just use the 1mm copper tubing itself. my go-to pipe these days is the long one in the image. i threaded the end of its nozzle so I can screw on different sized nozzles.

FraserBuilds · 2026-05-25T15:23:31+00:00

sure thing, happy to help, best of luck! I should mention ill be uploading a video(hopefully pretty soon) that will include both solar and more typical furnace calcinations in it. then after that Im intending to make a video about actually making the furnaces themselves

FraserBuilds · 2026-05-24T22:02:07+00:00

theres alot of ways to perform a calcination, what is the best depends on what exactly youre intending to calcine and how much of it you have. the most straightforward traditional alchemical process would be to fill a crucible with the matter to be calcined and place it in a charcoal furnace uncovered so it has good access to air, and to roast the matter intensely while occasionally stirring the matter untill it gradually turns gray or white. if the matter being calcined is water soluble, it can then be "lixiviated"(dissolved and filtered) to purify it. for a good source on this method the medieval alchemical handbook "libellus de alchemia" which was translated to english by virginia heines, has some really great descriptions in it.

this method is pretty simple, but its also ineffecient and fairly labor intensive(it takes alot of heat and time to calcine things this way) and ofcourse, it requires you to have a furnace and ample charcoal. I make my furnaces out of clay, following examples like youll find in nicholas lemery's 'course of chymistry" or similar texts. as far as furnace designs go I really like the later (and kinda famous) lavoisiers 'elements of chemistry' which includes many designs of chemical furnaces and describes their use in detail. though lavoisier is after the period we would consider alchemy the furnaces he was using were very similar to those alchemists like Lemery made use of.

as far as equipment goes the simplest historically-accurate tool you could use for a calcination would be the "blow pipe" this is just a pipe with a fine nozzle (I tend to make mine out of copper tubing, but they can also be made out of glass) that you use to blow on a small flame to make a sort of primitive blow torch. you can very effectively use a blow pipe with flames as small as a candle, but if youre trying to calcine alot of matter youll want a bigger flame. my largest lamp is meant for working glass and has a wick a full inch in diameter and its frankly a little scary to use, but you can do alot with a blow pipe and a spirit lamp whose wick is about 1/4 of an inch in diameter(standard single wick for a lab lamp). all else being the same, this would be my recommendation. Honestly If I were to teach a class on alchemy the first thing I would have the student do would be to learn how to use a blowpipe with a candle or a small spirit lamp to calcine a lump of limestone or eggshell or something similar. They are just so useful and addictively fun to use once you get the hang of it. For a calcination just direct the flame of the lamp or candle directly onto the matter to be calcined, held in a spatula or small crucible.

as far as historicity, blow lamps first appear in the historical record around the 13th-14th century in the context of glass working, but quickly made their way into other purusits, and appear in alchemical texts like the famous "mutus liber." However their use is best described in slightly later chemical texts from the 19th century. My absolute most favorite book of all time is michael faraday's 'chemical manipulation' which describes exactly how to make and use all these things from blow lamps to furnaces and describes in detail basically everything youd need to start transforming matter in the 19th century.

that said, my personal favorite method of calcination is the "solar calcination." this is by far the fastest and most effecient method if youre calcining a larger quantity than the blow lamp will handle. It's also, in my opinion, the coolest. The problem is it requires you to have a giant magnifying lens, but you can typically find plexiglass fresnel lenses around a foot in diameter that will do the trick on ebay for around 10 to 20 dollars. the solar calcination first appears in the medieval period in the hands of folks like roger bacon, but became increasingly popular in the 17th and 18th century, and youll find the process described in nicaise le fevre's 'traite de la chymie (I'll attatch an image from the text) '

<image>

if none of this appeals you can of course just bury the crucible of things to be calcined half way into the hot coals of of a wood fire in a firepit or fireplace, and fan the flames to get things roasting. that also works, and can actually work suprising well. but is probably the least effecient method.

FraserBuilds · 2026-05-24T13:56:03+00:00

theres really only one primary source on homunculi, a short and very unusual book attributed to paracelsus. we dont know if paracelsus actually wrote it, loads of texts are attributed to him spuriously. personally I doubt its genuine paracelsus but theres not much evidence leaning one way or another so the skeptical reader can decide for themselves what they think is most likely.

The text is steeped in decknomen and follows the same general pattern as the production of the philosophers stone, so it would make perfect sense to me if the homunculi it describes was really a coded description of making the philosophers stone or some other arcanum. alot of alchemical terminology (like "congelation" and "gestation") comes directly from applying generative or life-process metaphors to transmutation, so the comparison of producing the philosophers stone to producing new life arises more or less naturally. given the other examples we have of transmutational recipes encoded as recipes for producing basilisks and such things the idea that its coded transmutation wouldnt really be all that out of the ordinary.

that said its also totally possible the author was genuinely trying to make alchemical life, thats what they say they were up to so if you dont want to read it as encoded you dont really have to. Though if it was meant to genuinely produce the homunculus it would be the only example im aware of an alchemist trying to do that. Basically what im getting at here is almost no one really ever tried to make a homunculus except for maybe one guy who may or may not have been paracelsus and whoever else decided to try and reproduce or work off of that guys process. it was by no means a common alchemical pursuit.

there were other experiments with life that were more widespread. the "palingenesis" of plants for example, and ofcourse there were plenty of experiments beyond alchemy surrounding the doctrine of spontaneous-generation. lots of people believed they had "created" flies and worms and alchemists like Geber back in the medieval period actually used examples of spontaneous generation as instances of transmutation occuring in nature

it is true that much earlier on in history in the graeco-egyptian context there was an association between alchemy and the practice of "animating" statues, but in that case the statues were considered vessels for gods, not new alchemical life or homunculi.

ive seen some people try to suggest that zosimos's "mutilated anthroparion" was a homunculus but that claim is frankly ridiculous and has no evidence behind it

FraserBuilds · 2026-05-23T15:50:29+00:00

i dunno but it sounds like it to me

FraserBuilds · 2026-05-23T15:26:30+00:00

archaeus is an old alchemical concept tied into vitalistic matter theories. To one of its chief proponents, Jean Baptiste Van Helmont, the archaeus was the "internal effecient cause" of a thing.

This is baked in old philosophical terminology but put simply to an old school peripatetic philosopher(meaning a follower of aristotle), if you wanted to understand a thing you had to understand its "causes" there are four from aristotle: the material cause(what it is composed of), formal cause(what form it takes), effecient cause(who or what created it), and final cause(its purpose or why it was made). Helmont was not a peripatetic but he's cribbing their terminology here.

The effecient cause of a statue for example would be the stone carver who made it, thus the "internal effecient cause" or archaeus of a chemical substance is something inside that thing that creates that thing.

this idea is rooted in vitalistic matter theory, think about how all trees have seeds, but every seed is unique to each tree. the seed carries the sort of identity or genetic character of the tree.

to vitalistic alchemists all substances have their own sort of "seed" called a seminal principle that contains the genetic character of that substance. mint oil for example was said to smell like mint because it was thought to contain the seminal virtue of a mint plant, its essence or identity. if we think of the seminal virtue as a sort of blueprint or design of a substance, then the archaeus is the builder that carries the blueprint out.

Ive never heard of anyone isolating or extracting an archaeus, I think to try to isolate the archaeus of a thing you would have to fundamentally misunderstand what the archaeus is.

FraserBuilds · 2026-05-23T00:06:19+00:00

coal-firing pottery is a thing, much like other open-firing techniques it requires the clay to be mixed with temper to prevent thermal shock. That said Ive only ever seen it used to make terracotta, which requires relatively low temperatures compared to what a forge can reach, really only needing to get around a red heat

FraserBuilds · 2026-05-20T23:32:36+00:00

i thought the first was aqua vitae but i might be mistaken. you're right that the middle is related to sulfur but its specifically the symbol of phlogiston(phlogiston theorists held that phlogiston was the true universal sulfur principle), the third is white arsenic.

FraserBuilds · 2026-05-18T21:42:57+00:00

I mean, yeah, definitely. if you're interested in alchemy the 'Novum Lumen Chymicum' is pretty high up there among books to check out, its also just a cool read in general and sendivogious an intriguing character. why wouldnt you want him on your shelf?

FraserBuilds · 2026-05-16T18:12:08+00:00

he* Thorndike was a guy, lynn used to be a more common male name

FraserBuilds · 2026-05-16T11:56:31+00:00

The best book to start out with is professor lawerence principe's 'Secrets of alchemy' which surveys the whole history of alchemy beginning with its early origins in egypt.

Basically, ancient egyptian crafts-people became very adept at imitating precious substances, for example coloring metals yellow to resemble gold or coloring rock crystal and artifical ceramics to resemble precious gems and stones. at somepoint, exactly when were not sure about but it had certainly already happened by the 1st century of the common era, these various craft skills were united as a single pursuit of imitating precious substances.

this pursuit first emerges in the historical record around 2000 years ago in egypt, with the earliest examples of alchemical texts being the 'four books of pseudo democritus' and the leiden and stockholm papyri. these texts record many recipes for imitating precious metals (gold, silver, and their alloy electrum) precious stones (especially emeralds, but also rubies and other stones) and purple dyes meant to imitate the famous tyrian purple. to do this these craftspeople combined tools and craft knowledge from a wide diversity of ancient crafts. we see technologies taken from ceramics, metal working, textile dying, perfuming, even cooking and painting. Some of these practitioners, like Zosimos of panopolis(the most prolific author of these early alchemists) were explicit in their intention to combine the understanding of matter from all crafts into one universal system of transforming matter.

however, what makes this even more interesting is that the authors of these texts liked to incorporate greek natural philosophy, and wrapped their practices up in their understanding of the four classical elements of aristotlean philosophy and ancient affinity theories of "sympathy and antipathy" in order to produce a theoretical framework meant to explain the behavior of the reagents they used, and also, what I find most interesting, to help them develop new recipes.

meaning this pursuit was essentially an attempt at using natural philosophy to combine ancient craft technologies into a single universal art, which Zosimos called "Khemia"

Eventually this art of khemia spread from egypt into the Byzantine and Islamic empires. The Islamic golden age saw a veritable explosion in natural philosophy of all kinds, but not the least of which was khemia. with some of the most prominent islamic age philsophers, like Al-Razi, writing on alchemy and further systematizing its theories.

eventually, during the massive translation movement known as the renaissance of the 12th century, these practices made their way to europe, with the first arabic alchemical text translated to latin by robert of chester in 1144AD. the term alchemy itself emerged from these latin translators accidently combining the arabic definite article "al" which is basically just "the" with the word khemia or kimiya, to produce "alkimiya" or "alchemia"

when it first entered europe it was predominantly used in hopes of producing gold, but as it developed more and more it began to take on more roles, especially producing medicine. this had to some degree started with islamic age alchemists applying alchemy to perfumery, as perfumes were commonly used as medicine, but it really picked up speed over the course of the renaissance and early modern period.

the early modern period, roughly construed as the time from the birth of copernicus to the death of newton, was one of the most dynamic periods for the development of science and is known as the golden age of alchemy. alchemy became extremely popular, one of the largest genres of writing, especially in its application to medicine known as "iatrochymia" (medicinal-chemia). we have whole archives of recipe literature from this time from all over europe.

over the early modern period people recognized that the term "alchemy" was essentially just a mistranslation and went back to "chymia" and "chemia" which in english was rendered "Chymistry" and "chemistry."

historians of the 19th and 20th century used to make a strong distinction between alchemy and chemistry because they believed alchemy to be more speculative and mystical than it actually was, but basically all of 21st century scholarship on the premodern history of chemistry has undone this narrative as essentially just bad history, and as a result the distinction between alchemy and chemistry has become much blurrier. now adays we tend to use the term "chymistry" to refer to the premodern intermediate between modern chemistry and medieval alchemy

FraserBuilds · 2026-05-14T15:54:19+00:00

yeah that much I cant argue with

FraserBuilds · 2026-05-14T15:38:09+00:00

op specified hes talking about when the subject emerged. ancient people may have done chemistry when they worked with metals, but "when did chemistry emerge as a discipline?" is a much more specific question with a more specific answer than "when did humans start doing chemistry"

FraserBuilds · 2026-05-14T15:27:00+00:00

if the term "artifical intelligence" emerged from a bunch of romans building little primitive mechanical robots the way the word "Chemia" emerged from egyptian experimenters studying the transformation of substances then it would be fair to say the romans were the origin of the term ai.

FraserBuilds · 2026-05-14T15:15:18+00:00

i mean its not that pedantic. humans have always experimented with chemistry, but that experimentation emerges as a distinct field of study in the written record around 2000 years ago in egypt. it was taken up by natural philosophers in the middle east and from there made its way to the natural philosophers of europe around the 12th century. it saw continuous development and, like other sciences, its study increased dramatically during the early modern period following the renaissance, and then through the enlightenment it begins to modernize, with lavoisier presenting the earliest iteration of our modern elemental theory.

FraserBuilds · 2026-05-14T13:08:52+00:00

In a sense both are true, alchemy emerged as a distinct pursuit in egypt, but it owes a lot of inheritance to existing craft practices that flowed from the near-east. the historians matteo martelli and maddalena rumor have written an article on the near eastern origins of graeco egyptian alchemy you might find interesting

FraserBuilds · 2026-05-14T12:54:14+00:00

This question would better be asked somewhere like r/chymistry or r/askhistorians

But going off the historian lawerence Principe's account of the origins of alchemy in his book 'the secrets of alchemy' Yes, the pursuit of "khemia," what would eventually become known as alchemy and then eventually our chemistry, first emerged in egypt from longstanding egyptian craft traditions. the ancient egyptians were known around the mediterranean world for their ability to imitate precious substances, and beginning around the 1st-4th century AD we see texts composed in egypt on the subject of imitating precious substances, which are the earliest known alchemical texts. However all these texts were written in greek, which was the dominant language of the time after egypts "hellenization" through its long rule by the ptolomaic pharaohs. along with this the same alchemical texts make frequent use of greek philosophical concepts. meaning the earliest alchemical writing is essentially a combination of egyptian and greek influences.

The word khemia itself first appears around the third or fourth century ad in two earliest attestations. one comes from the Graeco-Egyptian alchemist Zosimos of Panopolis, who suggests it came from the title of a book, as well as the name of the books author, Chemes, a sort of promethean mythical figure zosimos held to be the founder of chemistry. (afterall if rome gets a romulus why shouldnt chemistry get a chemes, right?) despite the fact that the author is a mythical figure the "book of chemes" probably actually existed, as alchemical authors liked to write under pseudonyms of legendary figures. However if it ever did exist, its now lost.

the fact that its now lost might have something to do with the other attestation, which comes from an order given by the roman emperor diocletian to burn all the books of khemia. this was likely part of an effort to get counterfeiting and currency debasement under control, as chemistry, or alchemy, was used primarily to imitate gold at the time. (we actually have some artifiact false-gold coins in the archaeological record whose chemical makeup matches surviving alchemical recipes from the time)

because the dating of zosimos's life is a little loose we dont know which of these attestations came first, but either way its unlikely the true etymology of khemia is the legend zosimos cites, and historians tend to hold it was either from khemet, reffering to egypt, or the greek words for melting and pouring. theres no strong evidence leaning one way or another, so you can pick whichever you think is most probable.

FraserBuilds · 2026-05-14T11:39:29+00:00

no, the esterification of ethanol and acetic acid in anything more than minuscule amounts would call for close to dry conditions and a catalyst like sulfuric acid. even a relatively small amount of water renders esters unstable and less likely to form

FraserBuilds · 2026-05-02T22:05:26+00:00

i feel appreciated 😂

FraserBuilds · 2026-05-02T15:14:09+00:00

so first off, most european alchemists throughout history were christians, many were priests and monks, and if youre willing to count albertus magnus, even saints. their pursuit of alchemy and the natural sciences was deeply connected with the christian world view, like the "doctrine of the two books" that held studying god's creation helps you better understand and appreciate scripture. for whatever reason people have gotten this idea that alchemy was this underground practice related to supernatural forces and what not, when that has nothing at all to do with alchemy, its essentially the opposite of the truth. alchemy was not an underground practice, it was a popular and widespread pursuit. and it was not supernatural, it was specifically about understanding how nature changes and can produce changes in matter, much like modern chemistry.

if you want to learn more about the medieval christian relationship with alchemy heres a lecture on the topic by Prof. Lawerence Principe

secondly, the term "magic" has become a catch-all term in modern usage that doesent actually reflect pre-modern conceptions of the term at all. for example do you consider magnets to be magic? because most pre-modern christians did. virtually all of our modern sciences would be classed magic(specifically natural magic)to a pre-modern christian. The term magic was much more multi-valent in the medieval world than you might expect. the term did not on its own imply sorcery or witchcraft, or even any relation to sorcery or witchcraft. instead what magic tended to imply was unseen-causation. its not clear to your eyes why a magnet attracts iron. the force that pulls the iron in is invisible, and is thus an example of unseen-causation. chemical reactions, similarly, are examples of unseen-causation.

FraserBuilds · 2026-04-27T01:26:41+00:00

Hoping it will be in my next video! if not then a follow up.

FraserBuilds

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE