This is a necessary book up to a crumb. It brings together a fine of chemical symbols and offers a capture of the best excessive processes of laboratory alchemy and throws in a terse biography of a double act of dozen alchemists of comply with. But it is a uncharacteristic book. It has been at once by a devotee of Gnosticism who is a great fan of the Jungian interpretation of Alchemy and yet it is, in best part, a accumulate of symbols and descriptions of chemical substances, such as would be necessary to the purely laboratory alchemist.
Indeed, it doesn't descend at alchemy, it contains symbolism and descriptions of chemical processes and substances (such as child and blade) which wave around exhaustive or nothing to do with gratifying pit alchemy. One thing seems clear: that this is a work of total award to some extent than a work written by a practising laboratory alchemist to be hidden by his peers. It is credibly a work - inclined the ubiquity of the internet - which owes especially to Wikipedia than to informal understanding.
Visibly, best of the symbolism is occupied from a work on total chemistry, to some extent than from the fairly slam running of substances and processes that characterized alchemy until the at the back of 17th century. These symbols for the elements, compounds and processes are excessive, whichever to interpret record stuff by alchemists in imitation of Boyle and Newton and to interpret the visual imagery which is so much a part of the alchemical wire and which recurrently gives the larger clues to the chain than any equivalent words do. The 'Mutus Liber', for copy, is a book relying absolutely on visual imagery and some of its images can absolutely be deciphered if one knows the symbols for definite substances, to the same degree these are fixed popular the pictures.
So this Lexicon is necessary in this privilege. But, it penury be supposed, that the symbols are helpful in repeated other places on the Internet, best extensively in Adam Maclean's website and Jordan Stratford acknowledges the help inclined to him in his researches by Adam Maclean.
Grant are some plain omissions in this Lexicon. Perchance the shriveled work on Antimony has acquired some new provisos featuring in the trendy new beginning of corporation in alchemy (bonus in France) but on the alchemical web forums, show is much deliberate about the Glitter Regulus, the 'Eagles' and the 'Remora' and these provisos are not found in the Lexicon. Nor is the become aware of (an alloy of copper and slick) of Eirenaus Philalethes, which was worked on by Isaac Newton. Nor is 'Sal Mirabilis' (Glauber's Brackish) or 'Philosopher's Fleece (Zinc Oxide), the subsequent sometimes not compulsory as Archibald Cockren's exchange for 'Antimony'. Nor is 'Adrop' mentioned, nor 'Sericon', whichever credibly provisos for Red Stream. And the airy Lion' is described as Sulphuric On the dot which is not true in privilege of Ripley's airy Lyon'.
Most pretty, in the book, is the lack of any figure to Spagyrics (help alchemy), even conversely this topic, named by Paracelsus, cannot be on bad terms from the broader definition of Alchemy. So we wave around no air of the Circulatum Imperfect of Urbigerus or of help stones in total, conversely show is the odd figure to herbs in imitation of Valerian and Anise.
All this strength guise in imitation of complaining but a good Lexicon is key. Alchemy, as a laboratory practice, is plentiful in the modern age. In the deep-rooted 20 duration, the Internet has perplexed up at least a not whole dozen decide on forums, bringing together practising alchemists from about the world; and later than usual initiatives, such as ancestors of Newman and Principe, to pause Newton's notebooks and imitation his alchemy wave around breathed life popular this primeval blend of art and science.
This Lexicon could do with refocus popular that gap but, crucially, it does not wave around the legs to do so. It is too spectacular and disjointed (no matter which a good glossary could do with not be) and spends a bit too much time concentrating on the etymology of the provisos and too exhaustive explaining their place or appliance to the running as a whole." -- Caroline Robertson"
