Alchymia

Alchymia

[This short essay, exclusively for Universal Brotherhood members, was written on 12 December 1929.]

Only the slightest and most indirect references to the Science of Alchemy are to be found in the documents of G.T.

The Historical Studies occasionally refer to men who have transmitted certain aspects of Alchemical tradition but they give little or no detail of the nature of Alchemy itself.

Lesson 17, The Sciences, makes a single reference to Hermetic Philosophy under which Alchemy subsumed.^[1] It indicates that the subject of the formal or ideal science of Symbology (including Hermetic Philosophy) is the mystical significance and esoteric correspondences of mental processes, mathematical elements and corporeal things and attributes.

It may be gathered from this lesson that Symbology may be subsumed under the science of Ontology (the subject of which is Being as such) in its larger sense.

Also, it informs us that many sciences have thus far been very little or very ineffectively cultivated, especially in the world of exoteric learning, and that this particularly true of Symbology, which, taken with certain other sciences, is of special importance to the mystic.

Mystical science, it states, is the highest of the special sciences. It focuses all the light of all the sciences upon the Supreme Object of spiritual consciousness, as manifested in and by the Macrocosm, with a view to enabling man to attain to the vision of the whole through its Archetypal Idea.

Alchemy insofar as it even in directly contributes towards that end, must, therefore, be considered as of importance and value, especially to the mystic.

One of the Integral Gurus makes certain references to Alchemy in his Responsa to a Quaerenda submitted by a Neophyte. He informs us that the subject discussed under that name in such periodicals as The Occult Review and Le Voile d'Isis is merely a jumble of chemistry with the superstitious connected with its origin. this, he states, is as much as can easily be learnt from the profane history of chemistry and Alchemy.

Genuine Alchemy, he continues, is not experimental, but symbolical. He further states, "The subject of Alchemy, is of much less importance to a Neophyte, and even to a Chela and Mahachela than the faithful carrying out of his own proper duties, and the thorough study and assimilation of the instruction which the Integral Wisdom has provided for him.

It is evident, therefore, that Alchemy is not to be considered as of great importance for study in the lower stages of advancement, unless perhaps it be for those whose aspiration is particularly directed toward the Mystical Goal.

On the other hand, Lesson 7 informs us: "Since every idea, theory or doctrine must, in the very nature of things, have some truth at its basis, it happens that the difficult, unreasonable or even absurd, any idea seems to be, the more illuminative does it become when thoroughly understood; for only some very important truth could have availed to give currency to a teaching of extreme incredibleness and difficulty.

A short examination of the literature of Alchemy cannot fail to convince the student that much that has been written upon the subject fails to be comprehensible and appears quite unreasonable and absurd, while, at the same time, it cannot be denied that during certain periods of history, Alchemy has been very widespread and that since its roots are in the far distant past it is part of tradition which has persisted for many ages despite its incredibleness and apparent absurdity.

Alchemy may therefore, be considered as concealing beneath the mass of symbolism which covers its essential doctrine, some very important truth.

Although, while lacking the Integral Teaching on this subject, we may find it beyond our power to discover just what that very important truth is, it may be possible for us to eliminate some of the graver sources of error which detract from such a possible discovery, and such a course appears to be in conformity with the principles of Alchemy itself, if the meaning of the term be rightly understood.

Reference to an ordinary dictionary gives the definition as: "Medieval chemistry, especially the pursuit of the transmutation of base metals into gold." The Stand Dictionary gives: "Alchemy, the immature chemistry of the middle ages, characterized by the pursuit of the transmutation of base metals into gold, and the search for the alkahest and the panacea." These further terms are defined as follows: "Alkahest: An imaginary liquid, reputed to be universal menstruum, capable of dissolving all bodies into their constituent elements.

Panacea: A remedy or medicine proposed for, or professing to cure all diseases; cure-all; catholicon; hence a remedy or cure for all ills, mental or physical.

It would however, appear to be wiser to refer to a dictionary published at a time when Alchemy was in less ill-repute than it is at the present day, if we are to discover what the meaning of the word was considered to be by those who practiced the Art. Turning to a "Chemycal Dictionary, explaining Hard Places and Words met with in the Writings of Paracelsus and other Obscure Authors", London, 1674, we find a great consistency in the definition given of various words relating to Alchemy. Thus:

ALCHYMIA is the separation of that which is impure from a purer substance.

CHYMIA is the art of Separating pure from impure and making essences.

SPAGIRUS or SPAGIRICUS is he who knows to distinguish between good and bad, to separate pure from impure; a CHYMIST or ALCHYMIST.

SPAGIRIA is commonly taken for ALCHEMY.

YSOPUS is the art of Alchemy to separate pure from impure.

Of the above definitions CHYMIA alone appears to denote the making of anything (essences). The others all refer exclusively to the SEPARATION OF THE PURE FROM THE IMPURE—THE GOOD FROM THE BAD.

These older definitions throw quite a different light upon what was meant by Alchemy by those who practiced the Art. They supply the Key to the study of the subject, the student who is a true Son of the Science must learn to distinguish between the good and the bad alchemist, to separate the pure from the impure symbolism, as well as to discover the essence of the subject.

A certain author (not writing for the Occult Review) makes the following remarks which may be of service to the true student and save him much useless labor and research. He writes: "Modern research by profane scholars leaves it still doubtful as to whether Alchemical treatises should be classified as mystical, magical, medical or chemical. The most reasonable opinion is that all these subjects formed the preoccupation of the alchemists, in varying proportions.

"The literature of alchemy is immense. Practically the whole of it is wholly or partially unintelligible.

"We do not propose any of the actual processes. Most readers will be already aware that the main objects of alchemy were the Philosopher's Stone, the Medicine of Metals, and various tinctures possessing diver's virtues; in particular, those of healing diseases, extending the span of life, increasing human abilities, perfecting the nature of man in every aspect, conferring magical powers and transmuting material substances, especially metals, into more valuable forms.

"The subject is further complicated by the fact that many authors were unscrupulous quacks. Ignorant of the first elements of the Art, they plagiarized without shame, and reaped a harvest of fraudulent gain. They took advantage of general ignorance, and the convention of mystery, in just the same way as their modern successors do in the manner of the Occult sciences generally.

"But despite all this, one thing is abundantly clear: all serious writers, though they seem to speak of an infinity of different subjects, so much so that it has proved impossible for modern analytic research to ascertain the true nature of any single process, were agreed on the fundamental theory on which they based their practices. It appears at first sight as if hardly any two of them were in accord as to the nature of the "First Matter of the Work". They describe this in a bewildering multiplicity of unintelligible symbols. We have no reason to suppose that they were all talking of the same thing, or otherwise. The same remarks apply to every reagent and every process, no less than to the final product or products.

"Yet, beneath this diversity, we may perceive an obscure identity. They all begin with a substance in nature which is described as existing almost everywhere, and as universally esteemed of no value. The alchemist is in all cases to take this substance and subject it to a series of operations. By doing so, he obtains his product. This product, however named or described, is always a substance which represents the truth or perfection of the original "First Matter", and its qualities are invariably such as pertain to a living being, not to an inanimate mass. In a word, the alchemist is to take a dead thing, impure, valueless and powerless, and transform it into a live thing, active, invaluable and thaumaturgic."^[2]

The above quotation should be sufficient to help the student over many difficulties by enabling him to separate that which is essential from that which is inessential in alchemical writings and symbols.

A few further hints may be obtained from one of the best of the Alchemical treatises written by an Adept whose name is unknown but whose work is held in high esteem.

"I protest unto you, (he writes) before God, and upon the eternal Salvation of my Soul, with a sincere Heart, touched with compassion for those who have been a long while in this great Search; and I give you notice, a;; you who Esteem this wonderful Art, that our whole work takes its Nativity from one only thing, and that in this thing the Work finds its Perfection, without need of any other thing whatsoever, but to be dissolved and coagulated, which it must do itself, without the assistance of any foreign Thing."^[3]

He also gives this further piece of advice which should in now wise be neglected: "But remember, ye Sons of the Science, that the knowledge of our Magistry comes rather by the Inspiration of Heaven, than from the Lights which we can get ourselves. This Truth is acknowledged by all Philosophers; 'tis for that reason that it is not enough to Work; Pray daily, read good books and meditate Night and Day on the Operations of Nature, and on what she may be able to do when she is assisted by the help of our Art, and by these means you will succeed, without doubt, in your undertaking.

From all of which we may gather in some manner, not perhaps clearly known to us as yet, the Art of Alchemy serves to raise Nature above Herself, and this the Integral Teaching tells us, is one of the great privileges and duties of Man.

December 12, 1929

1—['Sutra Saptadashan: The Sciences'. This is one of the sutras or instructional papers given to members of the first grade of the Universal Brotherhood.]

2—[Aleister Crowley, Magick in Theory and Practice (Paris, Lecram Press, 1929), pp. 183-185]

3—[The Hermetical Triumph: or, The Victorious Philosophical Stone. A Treatise more complete and more intelligible than any has been yet, concerning The Hermetical Magistery. London: Printed; and Sold by P. Hanet, at the Sign of the Black-Spread-Eagle, near Somerset-House in the Strand, 1723, p. 2.]

[348]