WHAT IS ALCHEMY?
By Arthur E. Waite
The Introductory Notes are taken
from "Hermetic Papers of A.E. Waite", edited by R.A Gilbert (Aquarian
Press,1987). The text of "What is Alchemy?" reproduced here is scanned from
the periodical "The Unknown World", and formatted and corrected by hand. [Adepti.com]
Introductory Notes: [First printed in the monthly journal
The Unknown World
from August to December 1894
and in April, 1895. It was reprinted in
The Alchemical Papers of
Arthur Edward Waite,
ed. J. Ray Shute, Monroe, N.C., 1939, a privately printed collection limited
to seventy copies.] In his earlier writings on alchemy Waite maintained that
the spiritual interpretation of alchemy was first systematically presented
by Mrs. Atwood in her
Suggestive Inquiry into the
Hermetic Mystery -a
point of view that he was later to reject completely, to the extent of
saying that the book 'is not, however, final or satisfactory as a critical
study, indeed, in some respects it is a morass rather than a pathway'
(The Secret Tradition in
Freemasonry, 1911,
Vol.2, p. 414). For
this he was taken to task, in the pages of the
Occult Review,
by Isabelle de Steiger; but he
justified himself by stating that 'What I said of the
Suggestive Enquiry
in 1888 and 1893 was in the
light of my knowledge at those dates; that which I have recorded since has
been under a fuller and clearer light'
(Occult Review,
Vol. 15, No.1. January 1912, p.
50). Nonetheless, his early essays on alchemy retain their value for the
obscure information they contain and for their critical comments on Madame
Blavatsky's dubious manipulation of her source material on alchemy.
[FIRST PAPER.] THERE are certain
writers at the present day, and there are certain students of the subject,
perhaps too wise to write, who would readily, and do, affirm that any answer
to the question which heads this paper will involve, if adequate, an answer
to those other and seemingly harder problems- What is Mysticism? What is the
Transcendental Philosophy? What is Magic? What Occult Science? What the
Hermetic Wisdom? For they would affirm that Alchemy includes all these, and
so far at least as the world which lies west of Alexandria is concerned, it
is the head and crown of all. Now in this statement the central canon of a
whole body of esoteric criticism is contained in the proverbial nut-shell,
and this criticism is in itself so important, and embodies so astounding an
interpretation of a literature which is so mysterious, that in any
consideration of Hermetic literature it must be reckoned with from the
beginning; otherwise the mystic student will at a later period be forced to
go over his ground step by step for a second time, and that even from the
starting point. It is proposed in the following papers to answer definitely
by the help of the evidence which is to be found in the writings of the
Alchemists the question as to what Alchemy actually was and is. As in other
subjects, so also in this,
The Unknown World
proposes to itself an
investigation which has not been attempted hitherto along similar lines,
since at the present day, even among the students of the occult, there are
few persons sufficiently instructed for an inquiry which is not only most
laborious in itself but is rendered additionally difficult from the
necessity of expressing its result in a manner at once readable and
intelligible to the reader who is not a specialist. In a word, it is
required to popularise the conclusions arrived at by a singularly abstruse
erudition. This is difficult- as will be admitted- but it can be done, and
it is guaranteed to the readers of these papers that they need know nothing
of the matter beforehand. After the little course has been completed it is
believed that they will have acquired much, in fact, nothing short of a
solution of the whole problem. In the first place, let any unversed person
cast about within himself, or within the miscellaneous circle of his
non-mystical acquaintance, and decide what he and they do actually at the
present moment understand by Alchemy. It is quite certain that the answer
will be fairly representative of all general opinion, and in effect it will
be somewhat as follows: "Alchemy is a pretended science or art by which the
metals ignorantly called base, such as lead and iron were supposed to be,
but were never really, transmuted into the other metals as ignorantly called
perfect,
namely, gold and silver. The
ignis fatuus
of Alchemy was pursued
by many persons- indeed, by thousands- in the past, and though they did not
succeed in making gold or silver, they yet chanced in their investigations
upon so many useful facts that they actually laid the foundations of
chemistry as it is. For this reason it would perhaps be unjust to dishonour
them; no doubt many of them were rank imposters, but not all; some were the
chemists of their period." It follows from this answer that this guesswork
and these gropings of the past can have nothing but a historical interest in
the present advanced state of chemical knowledge. It is, of course, absurd
to have recourse to an exploded scientific literature for reliable
information of any kind. Goldsmith and Pinnock in history, Joyce and
Mangnall in general elementary science, would be preferable to the
Alchemists in chemistry. If Alchemy be really included as a branch of occult
wisdom, then so much the worse for the wisdom-
ex uno disce omnia.
The question what is Alchemy is then easily answered from this standpoint-
it is the dry bones of chemistry, as the Occult Sciences in general are the
debris of of [sic: this is the first of several typos existing in the
original journal article. We will, from this point, simply correct these
errors without comment. Adepti.com] ancient knowledge, and the dust from the
ancient sanctuaries of long vanished religions- at which point these papers
and The Unknown
World itself; would
perforce come to a conclusion. There is, however, another point of view, and
that is the standpoint of the occultist. It will be pardonable perhaps to
state it in an occult magazine. Now, what does the student of the Occult
Sciences understand by Alchemy? Of two things, one, and let the second be
reserved for the moment in the interests of that simplicity whicht he
Alchemists themselves say is the seal of Nature and art-
sigillum Natura et artis
simplicitas. He
understands the law of evolution applied by science to the development from
a latent into an active condition of the essential properties of metallic
and other substances. He does not understand that lead as lead or that iron
as iron can be transmuted into gold or silver. He affirms that there is a
common basis of all the metals, that they are not really elements, and that
they are resolvable. In this case, once their component parts are known the
metals will be capable of manufacture, though whether by a prohibitively
expensive process is another issue. Now, beyond contradiction this is a
tolerable standpoint from the standpoint of modern science itself. Chemistry
is still occasionally discovering new elements, and it is occasionally
resolving old and so-called elements, and indeed, a common basis of all the
elements is a thing that has been talked of by, men whom no one would
suspect of being Mystics, either in matters of physics or philosophy.
There is, however, one obviously
vulnerable point about this defensive explanation of Alchemy. It is open to
the test question: Can the occultist who propounds it resolve the metallic
elements, and can he make gold? If not, he is talking hypothesis alone,
tolerable perhaps in the bare field of speculation, but to little real
purpose until it can be proved by the event. Now,
The Unknown World
has not been established to
descant upon mere speculations or to expound dreams to its readers. It will
not ignore speculation, but its chief object is to impart solid knowledge.
Above all it desires to deal candidly on every subject. There are occultists
at the present day who claim to have made gold. There are other occultists
who claim to be in communication with those who possess the secret. About
neither classis it necessary to say anything at present; claims which it is
impossible to verify may be none the less good claims, but they are
necessarily outside evidence. So far as can be known the occultist does not
manufacture gold. At the same time his defence of Alchemy is not founded on
merely hypothetical considerations. It rests on a solid basis, and that is
alchemical literature and history. Here his position, whether unassailable
or not, cannot be impugned by his opponents, and this for the plain reason
that, so far as it is possible to gather, few of them know anything of the
history and all are ignorant of the literature. He has therefore that right
to speak which is given only by knowledge, and he has the further
presumption in his favour that as regards archaic documents those who can
give the sense can most likely explain the meaning. To put the matter as
briefly as possible, the occultist finds in the great text- books of Alchemy
an instruction which is virtually as old as Alchemy, namely, that the metals
are composite substances. This instruction is accompanied by a claim which
is, in effect, that the Alchemists had through their investigations become
acquainted with a process which demonstrated by their resolution the alleged
fact that metals are not of a simple nature. Furthermore, the claim itself
is found side by side with a process which pretends to be practical, which
is given furthermore in a detailed manner, for accomplishing the
disintegration in question. Thus it would seem that in a supposed twilight
of chemical science, in an apparently inchoate condition of physics, there
were men in possession of a power with which the most advanced applied
knowledge of this nineteenth century is not as yet equipped. This is the
first point in the defence of Alchemy which will be raised by the informed
occultist. But, in the second place, there is another instruction to be
found in these old text-books, and that is the instruction of development-
the absolute recognition that in all natural substances there exist
potentialities which can be developed by the art of a skilled physicist, and
the method of this education is pretended to be
imparted by the textbooks, so that
here again we find a doctrine, and connected with that doctrine a formal
practice, which is not only in advance of the supposed science of the period
but is actually a governing doctrine and a palmary source of illumination at
the present day. Thirdly, the testimony of Alchemical literature to these
two instructions, and to the processes which applied them, is not a casual,
isolated, or conflicting testimony, nor again is it read into the literature
by a specious method of interpretation; it is upon the face of the whole
literature; amidst an extraordinary variety of formal difference, and amidst
protean disguises of terminology, there is found the same radical teaching
everywhere. In whatsoever age or country, the adepts on all ultimate matters
never disagree- a point upon which they themselves frequently insist,
regarding their singular unanimity as a proof of the truth of their art. So
much as regards the literature of Alchemy, and from this the occultist would
appeal to the history of the secret sciences for convincing evidence that,
if evidence be anything, transmutations have taken place. He would appeal to
the case of Glauber, to the case of Van Helmont, to the case of Lascaris and
his disciples, to that also of Michael Sendivogius, and if his instances
were limited to these it is not from a paucity of further testimony, but
because the earlier examples, such as Raymond Lully, Nicholas Flamel,
Bernard Trevisan, and Denis Zachaire, will be regarded as of less force and
value in view of their more remote epoch. Having established these points,
the occultist will proceed to affirm that they afford a sufficient warrant
for the serious investigation of Alchemical literature with the object of
discovering the actual process followed by the old adepts for the attainment
of their singular purpose. He will frankly confess that this process still
remains to be understood, because it has been veiled by its professors,
wrapped up in strange symbols, and disguised by a terminology which offers
peculiar difficulties. Why it has been thus wilfully entangled, why it was
considered advisable to make it
caviare
to the multitude, and what purpose
was served by the writing of an interminable series of books seemingly
beyond comprehension, are points which must be held over for consideration
in their proper place later on. Those who, for what reason so ever, have
determined to study occultism, must be content to take its branches as they
are, namely, as sciences that have always been kept secret. It follows from
what has been advanced that the occultist should not be asked, as a test
question, whether he can make gold, but whether he is warranted in taking
the Alchemical claim seriously, in other words, whether the literature of
Alchemy, amidst all its mystery, does offer some hope for its unravelment,
and if on the authority of his
acquaintance therewith he can, as
he does, assuredly answer yes, then he is entitled to a hearing. Now, the
issue which has been dealt with hitherto in respect of Alchemy is one that
is exceedingly simple. Assuming there is strong presumptive evidence that
the adepts could and did manufacture the precious metals, and that they
enclosed the secret of their method in a symbolic literature, it is a mere
question of getting to understand the symbolism, about which it will be well
to remember the axiom of Edgar Allan Poe, himself a literary Mystic, that no
cryptogram invented by human ingenuity is incapable of solution by the
application of human ingenuity. But there is another issue which is not by
any means so simple, the existence of which was hinted at in the beginning
of the present paper, and this is indeed the subject of the present inquiry.
To put it in a manner so elementary as to be almost crude in presentation,
there is another school of occult students who believe themselves to have
discovered in Alchemy a philosophical experiment which far transcends any
physical achievement. At least in its later stages and developments this
school by no means denies the fact that the manufacture of material gold and
silver was an object with many Alchemists, or that such a work is possible
and has taken place. But they affirm that the process in metals is
subordinate, and, in a sense, almost accidental, that essentially the
Hermetic experiment was a spiritual experiment, and the achievement a
spiritual achievement. For the evidence of this interpretation they tax the
entire literature, and their citations carry with them not infrequently an
extraordinary, and sometimes an irresistible, force. The exaltation of the
base nature in man, by the development of his latent powers; the
purification, conversion, and transmutation of man; the achievement of a
hypostatic union of man with God; in a word, the accomplishment of what has
been elsewhere in this magazine explained to be the true end of universal
Mysticism; not only was all this the concealed aim of Alchemy, but the
process by which this union was effected, veiled under the symbolism of
chemistry, is the process with which the literature is concerned, which
process also is alone described by all veritable adepts. The man who by
proper study and contemplation, united to an appropriate interior attitude,
with a corresponding conduct on the part of the exterior personality,
attains a correct interpretation of Hermetic symbolism, will, in doing so,
be put in possession of the secret of divine reunion, and will, so far as
the requisite knowledge is concerned, be in a position to encompass the
great work of the Mystics. From the standpoint of this criticism the power
which operates in the transmutation of metals alchemically is, in the main,
a psychic power. That is to say, a man who has passed a certain point in his
spiritual development, after the mode of the
Mystics, has a knowledge and
control of physical forces which are not in the possession of ordinary
humanity. As to this last point there is nothing inherently unreasonable in
the conception that an advancing evolution, whether in the individual or the
race, will give a far larger familiarity with the mysteries and the laws of
the universe. On the other hand, the grand central doctrine and the supreme
hope of Mysticism, that it is possible for "the divine in man" to be borne
back consciously to "the divine in the universe," which was the last
aspiration of Plotinus, does not need insistence in this place. There is no
other object, as there is no other hope, in the whole of Transcendental
Philosophy, while the development of this principle and the ministration to
this desire are the chief purpose of
The Unknown World.
It is obvious that Alchemy, understood in this larger sense, is mystically
of far higher import than a mere secret science of the manufacture of
precious metals. And this being incontestable, it becomes a matter for
serious inquiry which of these occult methods of interpretation is to be
regarded as true. A first step towards the settlement of this problem will
be a concise history of the spiritual theory. Despite his colossal doctrine
of Hermetic development, nothing to the present purpose, or nothing that is
sufficiently demonstrable to be of real moment, is found in the works of
Paracelsus. The first traces are supposed to be imbedded in the writings of
Jacob Bohme and about the same time Louis Claude de Saint Martin, the French
illumine, is discovered occasionally describing spiritual truths in the
language of physical chemistry. These, however, are at best but traces, very
meagre and very indefinite. It was not till the year 1850, and in England,
that the interpretation was definitely promulgated. In that year there
appeared a work entitled
A Suggestive Inquiry Into
The Hermetic Mystery And Alchemy, Being An Attempt To Discover The Ancient
Experiment Of Nature.
This was a large octavo of considerable bulk; it was the production of an
anonymous writer, who is now known to be a woman, whose name also is now
well known, at least in certain circles, though it would be bad taste to
mention it. [Mary Ann South, later Mary Ann Atwood. Isabelle de Steiger saw
to it that the book was republished, with attribution (Watkins, 1918).
Reproductions are available from the Yogi Publication Society, among others.
Adepti.com] For the peculiar character of its research, for the quaint
individuality of its style, for the extraordinary wealth of suggestion which
more than justifies its title, independently of the new departure which it
makes in the interpretation of Hermetic symbolism, truly, this book was
remarkable. Scanned from the periodical "The Unknown World", No. 1, Vol. 1;
Aug. 15, 1894.
[SECOND PAPER.] ELIPHAS LEVI
affirms that all religions have issued from the Kabbalah and return into it;
and if the term be intended to include the whole body of esoteric knowledge,
no advanced occultist will be likely to dispute the statement. So far as
books are concerned, it may, in like manner, be affirmed that all modern
mystical literature is referable ultimately to two chief sources: on the one
hand, to the wonderful books on Magic which were written by Eliphas Levi
himself, and of which but a faint conception is given in the sole existing
translation; and, on the other, to the "Suggestive Inquiry Concerning the
Hermetic Mystery," that singular work to which reference was made last month
as containing the first promulgation of the spiritual theory of Alchemy.
This seems at first sight an extreme statement, and it is scarcely designed
to maintain, that, for example, the Oriental doctrine of Karma is traceable
in the writings of the French initiate who adopted the Jewish pseudonym of
Eliphas Levi Zahed, nor that the "recovered Gnosis" of the "New Gospel of
Interpretation" is borrowed from the <I>Suggestive Inquiry</I>. But these
are the two chief sources of inspiration, in the sense that they have
prompted research, and that it is not necessary to go outside them to
understand how it is that we have come later on to have Theosophy, Christo-Theosophy,
the New Kabbalism of Dr. Wynn Westcott, and the illuminations of Mrs.
Kingsford. Everywhere in
Isis Unveiled
the influence of Eliphas Levi is
distinctly traceable; everywhere in the Recovered Gnosis there is the
suggestion of the Inquiry.
Even the Rosicrucianism of the late Mr. Hargrave Jennings, so far as it is
anything but confusion, is referable to the last mentioned work. It is
doubtful if Eliphas Levi did not himself owe something to its potent
influence, for his course of transcendental philosophy post dates the
treatise on the Hermetic Mystery by something like ten years, and he is
supposed to have accomplished wide reading in occult literature, and would
seem to have known English. As it is to the magical hypotheses of the
Frenchman that we are indebted for the doctrines of the astral light and for
the explanations of spiritualistic phenomena which are current in
theosophical circles, to name only two typical instances, so it is of the
English lady that we have derived the transcendental views of alchemy, also
every where now current, and not among Theosophists only. At the same time,
it is theosophical literature chiefly which has multiplied the knowledge
concerning it, though it does not always indicate familiarity with the
source of the views. It is also to Theosophy that we owe the attempt to
effect a compromise between the two schools of alchemical criticism
mentioned last month, by the supposition that
there were several planes of
operation in alchemy, of which the metallic region was one. Later
speculations have, however, for the most part, added little to the theory as
it originally stood, and the
Suggetive Inquiry
is in this respect still
thoroughly representative. To understand what is advanced in this work is to
understand the whole theory, but to an unprepared student its terminology
would perhaps offer certain difficulties, and therefore in attempting a
brief synopsis, it will be well to present it in the simplest possible
manner. The sole connection, according to the
Suggestive Inquiry,
which subsists between Alchemy and the modern art of Chemistry is one of
terms only. Alchemy is not an art of metals, but it is the Art of Life; the
chemical phraseology is a veil only, and a veil which was made use of not
with any arbitrary and insufficient desire to conceal for the sake of
concealment, or even to ensure safety during ages of intolerance, but
because the alchemical experiment is attended with great danger to man in
his normal state. What, however the adepts in their writings have most
strenuously sought to conceal is the nature of the Hermetic Vessel, which
they admit to be a divine secret, and yet no one can intelligently study
these writings without being convinced that the vessel is Man himself. Geber,
for example, to quote only one among many, declares that the universal orb
of the earth contains not so great mysteries and excellencies as Man
re-formed by God into His image, and he that desires the primacy amongst the
students of Nature will no where find a greater or better subject wherein to
obtain his desire than in himself, who is able to draw to himself what the
alchemists call the Central Salt of Nature, who also in his regenerated
wisdom possesses all things, and can unlock the most hidden mysteries. Man
is, in fact, with all adepts, the one subject that contains all, and he only
need be investigated for the discovery of all. Man is the true laboratory of
the Hermetic Art, his life is the subject, the grand distillery, the thing
distilling and the thing distilled, and self-knowledge is at the root of all
alchemical tradition. To discover then the secret of Alchemy the student
must look within and scrutinize true psychical experience, having regard
especially to the germ of a higher faculty not commonly exercised but of
which he is still in possession, and by which all the forms of things, and
all the hidden springs of Nature, become intuitively known. Concerning this
faculty the alchemists speak magisterially, as if it had illuminated their
understanding so that they had entered into an alliance with the Omniscient
Nature, and as if their individual consciousness had become one with
Universal Consciousness. The first key of the Hermetic Mystery is in
Mesmerism, but it is not Mesmerism working in the therapeutic
sphere, but rather with a theurgic
object, such as that after which the ancients aspired, and the attainment of
which is believed to have been the result of initiation into the Greater
Mysteries of old Greece. Between the process of these Mysteries and the
process of Alchemy there is a distinctly traceable correspondence, and it is
submitted that the end was identical in both cases. The danger which was the
cause of the secrecy was the same also; it is that which is now connected
with the Dwellers on the Threshold, the distortions and deceptions of the
astral world, which lead into irrational confusion. Into this world the
mesmeric trance commonly transfers its subjects, but the endeavour of
Hermetic Art was a right disposition of the subject, not only liberating the
spirit from its normal material bonds, but guaranteeing the truth of its
experiences in a higher order of subsistence. It sought to supply a purely
rational motive which enabled the subject to withstand the temptation of the
astral sphere, and to follow the path upwards to the discovery of wisdom and
the highest consciousness. There the soul knows herself as a whole, whereas
now she is acquainted only with a part of her humanity; there also,
proceeding by theurgic assistance, she attains her desired end and
participates in Deity. The method of Alchemy is thus an arcane principle of
self-knowledge and the narrow way of regeneration into life. Contemplation
of the Highest Unity and Conjunction with the Divine Nature, the soul's
consummation in the Absolute, lead up to the final stage, when the soul
attains "divine intuition of that high exemplar which is before all things,
and the final cause of all, which seeing only is seen, and understanding is
understood, by him who penetrating all centres, discovers himself in that
finally which is the source of all; and passing from himself to that,
transcending, attains the end of his profession. This was the consummation
of the mysteries, the ground of the Hermetic philosophy, prolific in
super-material increase, transmutations, and magical effects." It was
impossible in the above synopsis, and is indeed immaterial at the moment, to
exhibit after what manner the gifted authoress substantiates her theory by
the evidences of alchemical literature. It is sufficient for the present
purpose to summarize the interpretation of Alchemy which is offered by the
Suggestive
Inquiry. The work, as
many are aware, was immediately withdrawn from circulation; it is supposed
that there are now only about twelve copies in existence, but as it is still
occasionally met with, though at a very high price, in the book-market, this
may be an understatement. Some ten years later, Eliphas Levi began to issue
his course of initiation into "absolute knowledge," and in the year 1865 an
obscure writer in America, working, so far as can be seen, quite
independently of both, published anonymously a small
volume of "Remarks on Alchemy and
the Alchemists," in which it was attempted to show that the Hermetic adepts
were not chemists, but were great masters in the conduct of life. Mr.
Hitchcock, the reputed author, was not an occultist, though he had
previously written on Swedenborg as a Hermetic Philosopher, and no attention
seems to have been attracted by his work. The interpretation of the
Suggestive Inquiry
was spiritual and "theurgic"
in a very highly advanced degree: it was indeed essentially mystical, and
proposed the end of Mysticism as that also of the Alchemical adepts. The
interpretation of Eliphas Levi, who was an occultist rather than a Mystic,
and does not seem to have ever really understood Mysticism, may be called
intellectual, as a single citation will suffice to show. "Like all magical
mysteries, the secrets of the Great Work possess a three-fold significance:
they are religious, philosophical, and natural. Philosophical gold is, in
religion, the Absolute and Supreme Reason; in philosophy, it is truth; in
visible nature, it is the Sun; in the subterranean and mineral world, it is
most pure and perfect gold. It is for this cause that the search for the
Great Work is called the search after the Absolute, and that the work itself
passes as the operation of the Sun. All masters of the science have
recognised that material results are impossible till all the analogies of
the Universal Medicine and the Philosophical Stone have been found in the
two superior degrees. Then is the labour simple, expeditious, and
inexpensive; otherwise, it wastes to no purpose the life and fortune of the
operator. For the soul, the Universal Medicine is supreme reason and
absolute justice; for the mind, it is mathematical and practical truth; for
the body, it is the quintessence, which is a combination of gold and light."
The interpretation of Hitchcock was, on the other hand, purely ethical. Now,
as professedly an expositor of Mysticism,
The Unknown World
is concerned here only with
the first interpretation, and with the clear issue which is included in the
following question:- Does the literature of Alchemy belong to Chemistry in
the sense that it is concerned with the disintegration of physical elements
in the metallic order, with a view to the making of gold and silver, or is
it concerned with man and the exaltation of his interior nature from the
lowest to the highest condition? In dealing with this question there is only
one way possible to an exoteric inquiry like the present, and that is by a
consideration of the literature and history of Alchemy. For this purpose it
is necessary to begin, not precisely at the cradle of the science, because,
although this was probably China, as will be discussed later on, it is a
vexatious and difficult matter to settle on an actual place of origin; but
for the subject in hand
recourse may be had to the first
appearance of Alchemy in the West, as to what. is practically a
starting-point. It is much to be deplored that some esoteric writers at this
day continue to regard ancient Greece and Rome as centres of alchemical
knowledge. It is true that the Abbe Pernety, at the close of the last
century, demonstrated to his own satisfaction that all classical mythology
was but a vesture and veil of the
Magnum Opus
and the fable of the Golden Fleece
is regarded as a triumphant vindication of classical wisdom in the deep
things of transmutation. But this is precisely one of those airy methods of
allegorical interpretation which, once fairly started, will draw the third
part of the earth and sea, and the third part of the stars of heaven, in the
tail of its symbolism. Neither in Egypt, in Greece, or in Rome, has any
trace of Alchemy been discovered by historical research till subsequent to
the dawn of the Christian era, and in the face of this fact it is useless to
assert that it existed secretly in those countries, because no person is in
a position to prove the point. All that is known upon the problem of the
origin of Alchemy in the Western Hemisphere is to be found in Berthelot's
Collection des
Anciens Alchimistes Grecs,
and the exhaustive erudition which resulted in that work is summed up in the
following statement:- "Despite the universal tradition which assigns to
Alchemy an Egyptian Origin, no hieroglyphic document relative to the science
of transmutation has yet been discovered. The Graeco-Egyptian Alchemists are
our sole source of illumination upon the science of Hermes, and that source
is open to suspicion because subject to the tampering of mystic imaginations
during several generations of dreamers and scholiasts. In Egypt,
notwithstanding, Alchemy first originated; there the dream of transmutation
was first cherished;" but this was during and not before the first Christian
centuries. The earliest extant work on Alchemy which is as yet known in the
West is the papyrus of Leide, which was discovered at Thebes, and is
referable to the third century of this era. It contains seventy-five
metallurgical formulae, for the composition of alloys, the surface
colouration of metals, assaying, etc. There are also fifteen processes for
the manufacture of gold and silver letters. The compilation, as Berthelot
points out, is devoid of order, and is like the note-book of an artisan. It
is pervaded by a spirit of perfect sincerity, despite the professional
improbity of the recipes. These appear to have been collected from several
sources, written or traditional. The operations include tinging into gold,
gilding silver, superficial colouring of copper into gold, tincture by a
process of varnishing, superficial aureation by the humid way, etc. There
are many repetitions and trivial variations of the same recipes. M.
Berthelot and his collaborator regard this document as conclusively
demonstrating that when
Alchemy began to flourish in Egypt
it was the art of sophistication or adulteration of metals. The document is
absolutely authentic, and "it bears witness to a science of alloys and
metallic tinctures which was very skilful and very much advanced, a science
which had for its object the fabrication and falsification of the matters of
gold and silver. In this respect it casts new light upon the genesis of the
idea of metallic conversion. Not only is the notion analagous, but the
practices exposed in this papyrus are the same as those of the oldest Greek
alchemists, such as pseudo-Democritus, Zosimus, Olympiodorus, and
pseudo-Moses. This demonstration is of the highest importance for the study
of the origines of Alchemy. It proves it to have been founded on something
more than purely chimerical fancies- namely, on positive practices and
actual experiences, by help of which imitations of gold and silver were
fabricated. Sometimes the fabricator confined himself to the deception of
the public, as with the author of Papyrus X (i.e., the Theban Papyrus of
Leide), sometimes he added prayers and magical formulae to his art, and
became the dupe of his own industry." Again: "The real practices and actual
manipulations of the operators are made known to us by the papyrus of Leide
under a form the most clear, and in acccrdance with the recipes of
pseudo-Democritus and Olympiodorus. It contains the first form of all these
procedures and doctrines. In pseudo-Democritus and still more in Zosimus
(the earliest among the Greek alchemists), they are already complicated by
mystical fancies; then come the commentators who have amplified still
further the mystical part, obscuring or eliminating what was practical, to
the exact knowledge of which they were frequently strangers. Thus, the most
ancient texts are the clearest." Now, there are many points in which the
occultist would join issue with the criticism of M. Berthelot, but it is
quite certain that the Egyptian papyrus is precisely what it is described to
be, and there is, therefore, no doubt that the earliest work which is known
to archaeology, outside China, as dealing with the supposed transmutation of
metals is in reality a fraudulent business. This fact has to be faced,
together with any consequences which it rigidly entails. But before
concluding this paper it will be well to notice (I.) That it is impossible
to separate the Leide papyrus from a close relationship with its context of
other papyri; as admitted by Berthelot, who says:- "The history of Magic and
of Gnosticism is closely bound up with that of the origin of Alchemy, and
the alchemical papyrus of Leide connects in every respect with two in the
same series which are solely magical and Gnostic." (II.) That, as Berthelot
also admits, or, more correctly, as it follows from his admissions, the
mystic element entered very early into alchemical literature, and was
introduced by persons who had
no interest in the practical part,
who therefore made use of the early practical documents for their own
purposes. (III.) That the Leide papyrus can scarcely be regarded as
alchemical in the sense that Geber, Lully, Arnold, Sendivogius, and
Philalethes are alchemical writers. It neither is nor pretends to be more
than a thesaurus of processes for the falsification and spurious imitation
of the precious metals. It has no connection, remote or approximate with
their transmutation, and it is devoid of all alchemical terminology. In
itself it neither proves nor disproves anything. If we can trace its recipes
in avowedly alchemical writers, as M. Berthelot declares is the case, then,
and then only, it may be necessary to include alchemists in the category of
the compiler of this papyrus. Scanned from the periodical "The Unknown
World", No. 2, Vol. 1; Sept. 15, 1894.
[THIRD PAPER] THE next stage of
inquiry into the validity of the venous answers which have been given to
this question will take us by an easy transition from the nature of the
Leide papyrus to that of the Byzantine collection of ancient Greek
alchemists. It will he recollected from last month that the processes
contained in the papyrus are supposed to represent the oldest extant form of
the processes tabulated by Zosinius, pseudo-Democritus. and others of the
Greek school. The claims of this school now demand some brief consideration
for the ultimate settlement of one chief point, namely, whether they are to
be regarded as alchemists in the sense that attaches to the term when it is
applied as advigoration of men like Arnold, Lully, and Schmurath. It was
stated last month that the compiler of the Leide papyrus could not be so
regarded, and it will, furthermore, pass without possible challenge that no
person could accuse that document of any spiritual significance. The
abbreviated formulae of a common medical prescription are as likely to
contain the secret of the tincture or the mystery of the unpronounceable
tetrad. In proceeding to an appreciation of the Greek alchemists, our
authority will he again M. Berthelot, who offers a signal and, indeed, most
illustrious instance of the invariable manner in which a genuine and
unbiased archeologist who is in no sense a mystic can assist a mystic
inquiry by his researches. M. Berthelot offers further a very special
example of unwearied desire after accuracy, which is not at all common even
among French savants, and is quite absent from the literary instinct of that
nation as a whole. The fullest confidence may always be reposed in his
facts. The collection of Greek alchemists, as it now exists, was formed
during the eighth or ninth century of the Christian era, at Constantinople.
Its authors are cited, says Berthelot, by the Arabian writers as the source
of their knowledge, and in this manner they are really the fountain-head of
Western alchemy as it is found during the middle ages, because the matter
was derived from Arabia. The texts admit of being separated into two chief
classes, of which one is historical and theoretical, the other technical and
covered with special fabrications, as for example, various kinds of glass
and artificial gems. It is outside the purpose of an elementary inquiry to
enumerate the manuscript codices which were collated for the publication of
the text as it was issued by M. Berthelot in 1847. It is sufficient to say
that while it does not claim to include the whole of the best alchemists, it
omits an author who was judged to be of value either to science or
archeology, and it is thus practically exhaustive. The following synthetic
tabulation will be ample for
the present purpose:- a. General
Indications, including a
Lexicon of the best
Chrysopeia, a variety
of fragmentary treatises, an instruction of Iris to Honris, &c. b. Treatises
attributed to Democritus or belonging to the Democritic school, including
one addressed to Dioscorus by Sycresius, and another of considerable length
by Olympiodorus the Alexandrian philosopher. c. The works of Zosinius the
Panopolite. d. A collection of ancient authors, but in this case the
attribution is frequently apocryphal, and the writings in some instances are
referable even to so late a period as the fifteenth century. Pelopis the
philosopher, Ortanes, Iamthichers, Agathodamion and Moses are included in
this section. e. Technical treatises on the goldsmith's art, the tincture of
copper with gold, the manufacture of various glasses, the sophistic
colouring of precious stones, fabrication of silver, incombustible nelphom,
&c. f. Selections from technical and mystical commentators on the Greek
alchemists, including $tephanus, the Christian philosopher, and the
Anonymous Philosopher. This section is exceedingly incomplete, but M.
Berthelot is essentially a scientist, and from the scientific standpoint the
commentators are of minor importance. The bulk of these documents represent
alchemy as it was prior to the Arabian period according to its ancient
remains outside Chinese antiquities, and any person who is acquainted with
the Hermetic authors of the middle ages who wrote in Latin, or, otherwise,
in the vernacular of their country, will most assuredly find in all of them
the source of their knowledge, their method, and the terminology of the
Latin adepts. For, on examination, the Greek alchemists are not of the same
character as the compiler of the Leyden papyrus, though he also wrote in
Greek. With the one as with the other the subject is a secret science, a
sublime gnosis, the possessor of which is to be regarded as a sovereign
master. With the one as with the other it is a divine and sacred art, which
is only to be communicated to the worthy, for it participates in the divine
power, succeeds only by divine assistance, and invokes a special triumph
over matter. The love of God and man, temperance, unselfishness,
truthfulness, hatred of all imposture, and the essential preliminary
requisites which are laid down most closely by both schools. By each
indifferently a knowledge of the art is attributed to Hermes, Plato,
Aristotle, and other great names of antiquity, and Egypt is regarded as
par excellence
the country of the
great work. The similarity in each instance of the true process is made
evident many times and special stress is laid upon a moderate and continuous
heat as approved to a violent fire. The materials are also the same, but in
this connection it is only necessary to speak of the importance attributed
to many of the great alchemists in order to place a student of the later
literature in possession of a key to the
correspondence which exist under
this head. Finally, as regards terminology, the Greek texts abound with
references to the egg of the philosophers, the philosophical stone, the same
which is not a stone, the blessed water, projection, the time of the work,
the matter of the work, the body of Morpresia, and other arbitrary names
which make up the bizarre company of the mediaeval adepts. This fact
therefore must be faced in the present enquiry, and again with all its
consequences: that the Greek alchemists so far as can be gathered from their
names were alchemists in the true sense of Lully and Arnold: that if Lully
and Arnold are entitled to be regarded as adepts of a physical science and
not as physical chemists, then Zosinius also is entitled to he so regarded:
that if Zosinius and his school were, however, houseminters of metal, it is
fair to conclude that men of later generations belong to the same category:
that, finally, if the Greek alchemists under the cover of a secret and
pretended sacred science were in reality fabricators of false sophisticated
gold and riches, there is at any rate some presumption that those who
reproduced their terminology in like manner followed their objects, and that
the science of alchemy ended as it begun, an imposture, which at the same
time may have been in many cases "tempered with superstition", for it is not
uncommon to history that those who exploit credulity finish by becoming
credulous themselves. It is obvious that here is the crucial point of the
whole inquiry, and it is necessary to proceed with extreme caution. M.
Berthelot undertakes to shew that the fraudulent recipes contained in the
Leyden papyrus are met with again in the Byzantine collection, but the
judgment which would seem to follow obviously from this fact is arrested by
another fact which in relation to the present purpose is of very high
importance, namely, that a mystic element had already been imported into
alchemy, and that some of those writers who reproduce the mystic processes
were not chemists and had no interest in chemistry. Now, on the assumption
that alchemy was a great spiritual science, it is quite certain that it
veiled itself in the chemistry of its period, and in this case does not
stand or fall by the quality of that chemistry, which, as M. Berthelot
suggests, may very well have been only imperfectly understood by the mystics
who, on such a hypothesis, undertook to adopt it. The mystic side of Greek
alchemical literature will, however, be dealt with later on. Scanned from
the periodical "The Unknown World", No. 3, Vol. 1; Oct. 15, 1894.
[FOURTH PAPER] WHEN the
transcendental interpretation of alchemical literature was first enunciated,
the Leyden papyruses had indeed been unrolled, but they had not been
published, and so also the Greek literature of transmutation, unprinted and
untranslated, was only available to specialists. This same interpretation
belongs to a period when it was very generally supposed that Greece and
Egypt were sanctuaries of chemical as well as transcendental wisdom. In a
word, the
origines of alchemy
were unknown except by legend. Now this paper has already established the
character of the Leyden papyrus numbered X. in the series, and it was seen
that there was nothing transcendental about it. On the other hand, it was
also stated that the Byzantine collection of Greek alchemists uses the same
language, much of the same symbolism, and methods that are identical with
those of the mediaeval Latin adepts, whose writings are the material on
which the transcendental hypothesis of alchemy has been exclusively based,
plus whatsoever may be literally genuine in the so-called Latin translations
of Arabian writers. Does the Byzantine collection tolerate the
transcendental hypothesis? Let it be regarded by itself for a moment,
putting aside on the one hand what it borrowed from those sources of which
the Leyden Papyrus is a survival, and on the other what it lent to the long
line of literature which came after it. Let it be taken consecutively as it
is found in the most precious publication of Berthelot. There is a
dedication which exalts the sovereign matter, and seems almost to deify
those who are acquainted therewith; obviously a spiritual interpretation
might be placed upon it; obviously, also, that interpretation might be quite
erroneous. It is followed by an alphabetical
Lexicon of Chrysopeia,
which explains the
sense of the symbolical and technical terms made use of in the general text.
Those explanations are simply chemical. The Seed of Venus is verdegris; Dew,
which is a favourite symbol with all alchemists, is explained to be mercury
extracted from arsenic,
i.e.,
sublimed arsenic; the Sacred Stone
is chrysolite, though it is also the Concealed Mystery; Magnesia, that great
secret of all Hermetic philosophy, is defined as white lead, pyrites, crude
vinegar, and female antimony,
i.e.,
native sulphur of antimony. The
list might be cited indefinitely, but it would be to no purpose here. The
Lexicon is followed by a variety of short fragmented treatises in which all
sorts of substances that are well known to chemists, besides many which
cannot now be certainly identified, are mentioned; here again there is much
which might be interpreted mystically, and yet such a construction may be
only the pardonable misreading of unintelligible documents. In the copious
annotations
appended to these texts by M.
Berthelot, the allusions are, of course, read chemically. Even amidst the
mystical profundities of the address of
Isis to Horis,
he distinguishes allusions to
recondite processes of physical transmutation. About the fragments on the
Fabrication of Asem and of Cinnabar, and many others, there is no doubt of
their chemical purpose. Among the more extended treatises, that which is
attributed to Democritus, concerning things natural and mystic, seems also
unmistakably chemical; although it does term the tincture, the Medicine of
the Soul and the deliverance from all evil, there is no great accent of the
transcendental. As much may be affirmed of the discourse addressed to
Leucippus, under the same pseudonymous attribution. The epistle of Synesius
to Dioscorus, which is a commentary on pseudo-Democritus, or, rather, a
preamble thereto, exalts that mythical personage, but offers no mystical
interpretation of the writings it pretends to explain. On the other hand, it
must be frankly admitted the treatise of Olympiodorus contains material
which would be as valuable to the transcendental hypothesis as anything that
has been cited from mediaeval writers- for example, that the ancient
philosophers applied philosophy to art
by the way of science-
that Zosinius, the crown of philosophers, preaches union with the Divine,
and the contemptuous rejection of matter- that what is stated concerning
minera is an allegory, for the philosophers are concerned not with minera
but with substance. Yet passages like these must be read with their context,
and the context is against the hypothesis. The secret of the Sacred Art, of
the Royal Art, is literally explained to be the King's secret, the command
of material wealth, and it was secret because it was unbecoming that any
except monarchs and priests should be acquainted with it. The philosopher
Zosinius, who is exalted by Olympiodorus, clothes much of his instructions
in symbolic visions, and the extensive fragments which remain of him are
specially rich in that bizarre terminology which characterized the later
adepts, while he discusses the same questions which most exercised them, as,
for example, the time of the work. He is neither less nor more
transcendental than are these others. He speaks often in language mysterious
and exalted upon things which are capable of being understood spiritually,
but he speaks also of innumerable material substances, and of the methods of
chemically operating thereon. In one place he explicitly distinguishes that
there are two sciences and two wisdoms, of which one is concerned with the
purification of the soul, and the other with the purification of copper into
gold. The fragments on furnaces and other appliances seem final as regards
the material object of the art in its practical application. The writers who
follow Zosinius in the collection, give much the same result. Pelagus uses
no expressions capable of transcendental interpretation. Ostanes
gives the quantities and names the
materials which are supposed to enter into the composition of the
all-important Divine Water. Agathodaimon has also technical recipes, and so
of the rest, including the processes of the so-called Iamblichus, and the
chemical treatise which, by a still more extraordinary attribution, is
referred to Moses. The extended fragments on purely practical matters, such
as the metallurgy of gold, the tincture of Persian copper, the colouring of
precious stones, do not need investigation for the purposes of a spiritual
hypothesis, their fraudulent nature being sufficiently transparent, despite
their invoking the intervention of the grace of God. There is one other
matter upon which it is needful to insist here. The priceless manuscripts
upon which M. Berthelot's collection is based contain illustrations of the
chemical vessels employed in the processes which are detailed in the text,
and these vessels are the early and rude form of some which are still in
use. This is a point to be marked, as it seems to point to the conclusion
that the investigation of even merely material substances inevitably had a
mystic aspect to the minds which pursued them in the infancy of physical
science. Scanned from the periodical "The Unknown World", No. 4, Vol. 1;
Nov. 15, 1894.
[FIFTH PAPER] The next point in
our inquiry takes us still under the admirable auspices of M. Berthelot, to
the early Syriac and the early Arabian alchemists. Not until last year was
it possible for anyone unacquainted with Oriental languages to have recourse
to these storehouses, and hence it is to be again noted that the
transcendental interpretation of Alchemy, historically speaking, seems to
have begun at the wrong end. In the attempt to explain a cryptic literature
it seems obviously needful to start with its first developments. Now, the
Byzantine tradition of Alchemy came down, as it has been seen, to the Latin
writers of the middle ages, but the Latin writers did not derive it
immediately from the Greek adepts. On the contrary, it was derived to them
immediately through the Syriac and Arabian Alchemists. What are the special
characteristics of these till now unknown personages? Do they seem to have
operated transcendentally or physically, or to have recognised both modes?
These points will be briefly cleared up in the present article, but in the
first place it is needful to mention that although the evidence collected by
Berthelot shews that Syria and Arabia mediated in the transmission of the
Hermetic Mystery to the middle age of Europe, they did not alone mediate.
"Latin Alchemy has other foundations even more direct, though till now
unappreciated... The processes and even the ideas of the ancient Alchemists
passed from the Greeks to the Latins, before the time of the Roman Empire,
and, up to a certain point, were preserved through the barbarism of the
first mediaeval centuries by means of the technical traditions of the arts
and crafts." The existence of a purely transcendental application of
Alchemical symbolism is evidently neither known nor dreamed by M. Berthelot,
and it will be readily seen that the possibility of a technical tradition
which reappears in the Latin literature offers at first sight a most serious
and seemingly insuperable objection to that application. At the same time
the evidence for this fact cannot be really impugned. The glass-makers, the
metallurgists, the potters, the dyers, the painters, the jewellers, and the
goldsmiths, from the days of the Roman Empire, and throughout the
Carlovingian period, and still onward were the preservers of this ancient
technical tradition. Unless these crafts had perished this was obviously and
necessarily the case. To what extent it was really and integrally connected
with the mystical tradition of Latin Alchemical literature is, however,
another question. The proofs positive in the matter are contained in certain
ancient technical Latin Treatises, such as the
Compositiones ad Tingenda,
Mappa Clavicula, De Artibus Romanorum, Schedula diversarum Artium, Liber
diversarum Artium, and
some others. These are not Alchemical
writings; they connect with the
Leyden papyrus rather than with the Byzantine collection; and they were
actually the craft- manuals of their period. Some of them deal largely in
the falsification of the precious metals. The mystical tradition of Alchemy,
as already indicated, had to pass through a Syriac and Arabian channel
before it came down to Arnold, Lully, and the other mediaeval adepts. Here
it is needful to distinguish that the Syriac Alchemists derived their
science directly from the Greek authors, and the Arabians from the Syriac
Alchemists. The Syriac literature belongs in part to a period which was
inspired philosophically and scientifically by the School of Alexandria, and
in part to a later period when it passed under Arabian influence. They
comprise nine books translated from the Greek Pseudo-Democritus and a tenth
of later date but belonging to the same school, the text being accompanied
by figures of the vessels used in the processes. These nine books are all
practical recipes absolutely unsuggestive of any transcendental possibility,
though a certain purity of body and a certain piety of mind are considered
needful to their success. They comprise further very copious extracts from
Zosimus the Panopolite, which are also bare practical recipes, together with
a few mystical and magical fragments in a condition too mutilated for
satisfactory criticism. The extensive Arabic treatise which completes the
Syriac cycle, is written in Syriac characters, and connects closely with the
former and also with the Arabian series. It is of later date, and is an
ill-digested compilation from a variety of sources. It is essentially
practical. The Arabian treatises included in M. Berthelot's collection
contain The Book
of Crates, The Book of El-Habib, The Book of Ortanes,
and the genuine works of Geber.
With regard to the last the students of Alchemy in England will learn with
astonishment that the works which have been attributed for so many centuries
to this philosopher, which are quoted as of the highest authority by all
later writers, are simply forgeries. M. Berthelot has for the first time
translated the true Geber into a Western tongue. Now all these Arabic
treatises differ generally from the Syriac cycle; they are verbose, these
are terse; they are grandiose, these are simple; they are romantic and
visionary, these are unadorned recipes. The book of El-Habib is to a certain
extent an exception, but the Arabian Geber is more mysterious than his Latin
prototype. El-Habib quotes largely from Greek sources, Geber only
occasionally but largely from treatises of his own, and it is significant
that in his case M. Berthelot makes no annotations explaining, whether
tentatively or not, the chemical significance of the text. As a fact, the
Arabian Djarber, otherwise Geber, would make a tolerable point of departure
for the transcendental
hypothesis, supposing it to be
really tenable in the case of the Latin adepts. Scanned from the periodical
"The Unknown World", No. 5, Vol. 1; Dec. 15, 1894.
[SIXTH PAPER] Preceding papers
have taken the course of inquiry through the Greek, Arabian, and Syrian
literatures, and the subject has been brought down to the verge of the
period when Latin alchemy began to flourish. Now before touching briefly
upon this which is the domain of the spiritual interpretation, it is
desirable to look round and to ascertain, if possible, whether there is any
country outside Greece and Egypt, to which alchemy can be traced. It must be
remembered that the appeal of Latin alchemy is to Arabia, while that of
Arabia is to Greece, and that of Greece to Egypt. But upon the subject of
the Magnum Opus
the Sphinx utters
nothing, and in the absence of all evidence beyond that of tradition it is
open to us to look elsewhere. Now, it should be borne in mind that the first
centre of Greek alchemy was Alexandria, and that the first period was in and
about the third century of the Christian era. Writing long ago in
La Revue Theasophique,
concerning
Alchemy in the Nineteenth
Century, the late
Madame Blavatsky observes that "ancient China, no less than ancient Egypt,
claims to be the land of the alkahest and of physical and transcendental
alchemy; and China may very probably be right. A missionary, an old resident
of Pelun, William A. P. Martin, calls it the 'cradle of alchemy.' Cradle is
hardly the right word perhaps, but it is certain that the celestial empire
has the right to class herself amongst the very oldest schools of occult
science. In any case alchemy has penetrated into Europe from China as we
shall prove." Madame Blavatsky proceeded at some length to "compare the
Chinese system with that which is called Hermetic Science," her authority
being Mr. Martin, and her one reference being to a work entitled
Studies of Alchemy in China
by that gentleman. When
the present writer came across these statements and this reference, he
regarded them as an unexpected source of possible light, and at once made
inquiry after the book cited by Madame Blavatsky, but no person, no
bibliography, and no museum catalogue could give any information concerning
a treatise entitled
Studies of Alchemy in
China, so that these
papers had perforce to be held over pending the result of still further
researches after the missing volume. Mr. Carrington Bolton's monumental
Bibliography of
Chemistry was again and
again consulted, but while it was clear on the one hand that Mr. Martin was
not himself a myth, it seemed probable, as time went on, that a mythical
treatise had been attributed to him. Finally, when all resources had failed,
and again in an unexpected manner, the mystery was resolved, and Mr. W.
Emmett Coleman will no doubt be pleased to learn- if he be not aware of it
already- that here as in so many instances which he has been at the pains to
trace, Madame Blavatsky seems to have
derived her authority second-hand.
The work which she quoted was not, as she evidently thought, a book
separately published, but is an article in
The China Review,
published at Hong Kong. From
this article Madame Blavatsky has borrowed her information almost verbatim,
and indeed where she has varied from the original, it has been to introduce
statements which are not in accordance with Mr. Martin's, and would have
been obviously rejected by him. Mr. Martin states (I) that the study of
alchemy "did not make its appearance in Europe until it had been in full
vigour in China for at least six centuries, or
circa
B.C. 300. (2) That it entered
Europe by way of Byzantium and Alexandria, the chief points of intercourse
between East and West. Concerning the first point Madame Blavatsky, on an
authority which she vaguely terms history, converts the six centuries before
A.D. 300, with which Mr. Martin is contented, into sixteen centuries before
the Christian era, and with regard to the second she reproduces his point
literally. Indeed, it is very curious to see how her article, which does not
treat in the smallest possible degree of alchemy in the nineteenth century,
is almost entirely made up by the expansion of hints and references in the
little treatise of the missionary, even in those parts where China is not
concerned. Mr. Martin, himself more honourable, acknowledges a predecessor
in opinion, and observes that the Rev. Dr. Edkins, some twenty years
previously, was the first, as he believes to "suggest a Chinese origin for
the alchemy of Europe." Mr. Martin, and still less Dr. Edluns, knew nothing
of the Byzantine collection, and could not profit by the subsequent labours
of M. Berthelot, and yet it is exceedingly curious to note that the
researches of the French savant do in no sense explode the hypothesis of the
Chinese origin of alchemy, or rather, for once in a season to be in
agreement with Madame Blavatsky, perhaps not the origin so much as a strong,
directing, and possibly changing influence. The Greek alchemists appeal, it
is true, to Egypt, but, as already seen, there is no answer from the ancient
Nile, and China at precisely the right moment comes to fill up the vacant
place. The mere fact that alchemy was studied in China has not much force in
itself, but Mr. Martin exhibits a most extraordinary similarity between the
theorems and the literature of the subject in the far East and in the West,
and in the course of his citations there are many points which he himself
has passed over, which will, however, appeal strongly to the Hermetic
student. There is first of all, the fundamental doctrine that the genesis of
metals is to be accounted for upon a seminal principle. Secondly, there is
the not less important doctrine that there abides in every object an active
principle whereby it may attain to "a condition of higher development and
greater efficiency." Thirdly, there is the fact that alchemy in China as in
the West
was an occult science, that it was
perpetuated "mainly by means of oral tradition," and that in order to
preserve its secrets a figurative phraseology was adopted. In the fourth
place, it was closely bound up with astrology and magic. Fifthly, the
transmutation of metals was indissolubly allied to an elixir of life.
Sixthly, the secret of gold-making was inferior to the other arcanum.
Seventhly, success in operation and research depended to a large extent on
the self-culture and self-discipline of the alchemist. Eighthly, the metals
were regarded as composite. Ninthly, the materials were indicated under
precisely the same names: lead, mercury, cinnabar, sulphur, these were the
chief substances, and here there is no need to direct the attention of the
student to the role which the same things played in Western alchemy.
Tenthly, there are strong and unmistakable points of resemblance in the
barbarous terminology common to both literatures, for example, "the radical
principle," "the green dragon," the "true lead," the "true mercury," etc. In
such an inquiry as the present everything depends upon the antiquity of the
literature. Mr. Carrington Bolton includes in his bibliography certain
Chinese works dealing with Alchemy, and referred to the third century. Mr.
Martin, on the other had, derives his citations from various dates, and from
some authors to whom a date cannot be certainly assigned. Now, he tells us,
without noticing the pregnant character of the remark, that "one of the most
renowned seats of Alchemic industry was Bagdad, while it was the seat of the
Caliphate"- that an extensive commerce was "carried on between Arabia and
China"- that "in the eighth century embassies were interchanged between the
Caliphs and the Emperors"- and, finally, that "colonies of Arabs were
established in the seaports of the Empire." As we know indisputably that
Arabia received Alchemy from Greece, it is quite possible that she
communicated her knowledge to China, and therefore, while freely granting
that China possessed an independent and ancient school, we must look with
suspicion upon its literature subsequent to the eighth century because an
Arabian influence was possible. But, independently of questions of date,
comparative antiquity, and primal source, the chief question for the present
purpose is whether Chinese Alchemy was spiritual, physical, or both. Mr.
Martin tells us that there were two processes, the one inward and spiritual,
the other outward and material. There were two elixirs, the greater and the
less. The alchemist of China was, moreover, usually a religious ascetic. The
operator of the spiritual process was apparently translated to the heaven of
the greater genii. As to this spiritual process Mr. Martin is not very
clear, and leaves us uncertain whether it produced a spiritual result or the
perpetuation of physical life.
Scanned from the periodical "The
Unknown World", No. 3, Vol. 2; April 15, 1895.
