What is Alchemy?
---
(Continued from Vol. I., page 233.)
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 ofphysical
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 unmistakeable
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 uncertam whether
it produced a spiritual result or the perpetuation of physical life.
***
Scanned from the periodical "The Unknown World", Vo. II, No. 3. April
15, 1895. Formatted and corrected by hand.