Alchemy.
The tradition of craftsmanship in metallurgy, an art that was practiced
from the earliest times, was during the speculative period of human
culture, saturated with philosophy. Especially was this the case in Egypt,
where metallurgy, as the source of royal riches and especially the methods
of gold mining and extraction, were guarded as a royal secret. In the
Hellenistic period the art of metal working, knowledge of which has spread
abroad and in which the interest had been raised to almost scientific
character, was penetrated by the philosophical theories of the Greeks: the
element and atom ideas of the nature-philosophers and of Plato and of
Aristotle, and the religious views of the neoplatonists. The magic of the
orient was amalgamated with it, Christian elements were added—in brief,
the content of the chemistry of that time, which mainly had metallurgy as
its starting point, took a vital part in the hybrid thought of syncretism
in the first centuries after Christ.
As the chemical science (in alchemy, alkimia, al is the Arabic article
prefixed to the Greek χημεία) has come to us from the Arabs (Syrians,
Jews, etc.) it was long believed that it had an Arabian origin. Yet it was
found later that the Arabs, while they added much of their own to it,
still were but the preservers of Greek-Hellenistic knowledge and we are
convinced that the alchemists were right when they indicated in their
traditions the legendary Egyptian Hermes as their ancestor. This legendary
personage is really the Egyptian god Thoth, who was identified with Hermes
in the time of the Ptolemies. He was honored as the Lord of the highest
wisdom and it was a favorite practice to assign to him the authorship of
philosophical and especially of theological works. Hermes’ congregations
were formed to practice the cult, and they had their special Hermes
literature.(2) In later times the divine, regal, Hermes figure was reduced
to that of a magician. When I speak, in what follows, of the hermetic
writings I mean (following the above mentioned traditions) the alchemic
writings, with, however, a qualification which will be mentioned later.
The idea of the production of gold was so dominant in alchemy that it was
actually spoken of as the gold maker’s art. It meant the ability to make
gold out of baser material, particularly out of other metals. The belief
in it and in the transmutability of matter was by no means absurd, but
rather it must be counted as a phase in the development of human thought.
As yet unacquainted with the modern doctrine of unchangeable elements they
could draw no other conclusion from the changes in matter which they daily
witnessed. If they prepared gold from ores or alloys, they thought they
had “made” it. By analogy with color changes (which they produced in
fabrics, glass, etc.) they could suppose that they had colored (tinctured)
the baser metals into gold.
Under philosophical influences the doctrine arose that metals, like human
beings, had body and soul, the soul being regarded as a finer form of
corporeality. They said that the soul or primitive stuff (prima materia)
was common to all metals, and in order to transmute one metal into another
they had to produce a tincture of its soul. In Egypt lead, under the name
Osiris, was thought to be the primitive base of metals; later when the
still more plastic quicksilver (mercury) was discovered, they regarded
this as the soul of metals. They thought they had to fix this volatile
soul by some medium in order to get a precious metal, silver, gold.
That problematic medium, which was to serve to tincture or transmute the
baser metal or its mercury to silver or gold, was called the Philosopher’s
stone. It had the power to make the sick (base) metal well (precious).
Here came in the idea of a universal medicine. Alchemy desired indeed to
produce in the Philosopher’s Stone a panacea that should free mankind of
all sufferings and make men young.
It will not be superfluous to mention here, that the so-called materials,
substances, concepts, are found employed in the treatises of the
alchemists in a more comprehensive sense, we can even say with more lofty
implications, the more the author in question leans to philosophical
speculation. The authors who indulged the loftiest flights were indeed
most treasured by the alchemists and prized as the greatest masters. With
them the concept mercury, as element concept, is actually separated from
that of common quicksilver. On this level of speculation, quicksilver
(Hg.) is no longer considered as a primal element, but as a suprasensible
principle to which only the name of quicksilver, mercury, is loaned. It is
emphasized that the _mercurius philosophorum_ may not be substituted for
common quicksilver. Similar transmutations are effected by the concept of
a primal element specially separated from mercury. Prima materia is the
cause of all objects. Also the material from which the philosopher’s stone
is produced is in later times called the prima materia, accordingly in a
certain sense, the raw material (materia cruda) for its production. But I
anticipate; this belongs properly to the occidental flourishing period of
the alchemy of scholasticism.
A very significant and ancient idea in alchemy is that of sprouting and
procreation. Metals grow like plants, and reproduce like animals. We are
assured by the adepts (those who had found it, viz., the panacea) in the
Greek-Egyptian period and also later, that gold begets gold as the corn
does corn, and man, man. The practice connected with this idea consists in
putting some gold in the mixture that is to be transmuted. The gold
dissolves like a seed in it and is to produce the fruit, gold. The gold
ingredient was also conceived as a ferment, which permeates the whole
mixture like a leaven, and, as it were, made it ferment into gold.
Furthermore, the tincturing matter was conceived as male and the matter to
be colored as female. Keeping in view the symbol of the corn and seed, we
see that the matter into which the seed was put becomes earth and mother,
in which it will germinate in order to come to fruition.
In this connection belongs also the ancient alchemic symbol of the
philosopher’s egg. This symbol is compared to the “Egyptian stone,” and
the dragon, which bites its tail; consequently the procreation symbol is
compared to an eternity or cycle symbol. The “Egyptian stone” is, however,
the philosopher’s stone or, by metonomy, the great work (magnum opus) of
its manufacture. The egg is the World Egg that recurs in so many world
cosmogonies. The grand mastery refers usually and mainly to thoughts of
world creation. The egg-shaped receptacle in which the master work was to
be accomplished was also known as the “philosophical egg” in which the
great masterpiece is produced. This vessel was sealed with the magic seal
of Hermes; therefore hermetically sealed.
A wider theoretical conception, originating with the Arabs, is the
doctrine of the two principles. They were retained in the subsequent
developments and further expanded. Ibn Sina [Avicenna, 980-ca. 1037]
taught that every metal consisted of mercury and sulphur. Naturally they
do not refer to the ordinary quicksilver and ordinary sulphur.
From the Arabs alchemy came to the occident and spread extraordinarily.
Among prominent authors the following may be selected: Roger Bacon,
Albertus Magnus, Vincent of Beauvais, Arnold of Villanova, Thomas Aquinas,
Raymond Lully, etc.
The amount of material that could be adduced is enormous. It is not
necessary, however, to consider it. What I have stated about the
beginnings of alchemy is sufficient in amount to enable the reader to
understand the following exposition of the alchemic content of the
parable. And what I must supply in addition to the alchemic theories of
the time of their prevalence in the west, the reader will learn
incidentally from the following analysis.
In concluding this preliminary view I must still mention one novelty that
Paracelsus (1493-1541) introduced into the theory. Ibn Sina had taught
that two principles entered into the constitution of metals. Mercury is
the bearer of the metallic property and sulphur has the nature of the
combustible and is the cause of the transmutation of metals in fire. The
doctrine of the two principles leads to the theory that for the production
of gold it was necessary to get from metals the purest possible sulphur
and mercury, in order to produce gold by the union of both. Paracelsus now
adds to the two principles a third, salt, as the element of fixedness or
palpability, as he terms it. According to my notion, Paracelsus has not
introduced an essential innovation, but only used in a new systematic
terminology what others said before him, even if they did not follow it
out so consistently. The principles mercury, sulphur and salt—their
symbols are [Symbol: Mercury], [Symbol: Sulphur] and [Symbol: Salt]—were
among the followers of the alchemists very widely used in their technical
language. They were frequently also called spirit, soul and body. They
were taken in threes but also as before in twos, according to the
exigencies of the symbolism.
The alchemists’ usual coupling of the planets with metals is probably due
to the Babylonians. I reproduce these correspondences here in the form
they generally had in alchemy. I must beg the reader to impress them upon
his memory, as alchemy generally speaks of the metals by their planetary
names. According to the ancient view (even if not the most ancient) there
are seven planets (among which was the sun) and seven metals.
Planet. Symbol. Metal.
Saturn. [Symbol: Saturn] Lead.
Jupiter. [Symbol: Jupiter] Tin.
Mars. [Symbol: Mars] Iron.
Sun. [Symbol: Sun] Gold.
Venus. [Symbol: Venus] Copper.
Mercury. [Symbol: Mercury] Quicksilver.
Moon. [Symbol: Moon] Silver.
Relative to the technical language, which I must use in the following
discussion also, I have to make a remark of general application that
should be carefully remembered. It is a peculiarity of the alchemistic
authors to use interchangeably fifty or more names for a thing and on the
other hand to give one and the same name many meanings. This custom was
originally caused partly by the uncertainty of the concepts, which has
been mentioned above. But this uncertainty does not explain why, in spite
of increase of knowledge, the practice was continued and purposely
developed. We shall speak later of the causes that were active there. Let
it first be understood merely that it was the case and later be it
explained how it comes about that we can find our way in the hermetic
writings in spite of the strange freedom of terminology that confuses
terms purposely and constantly. Apart from a certain practice in the
figurative language of the alchemists, it is necessary, so to speak, to
think independently of the words used and regard them only in their
context. For example, when it is written that a body is to be washed with
water, another time with soap, and a third time with mercury, it is not
water and soap and mercury that is the main point but the relation of all
to each other, that is the washing and on closer inspection of the
connection it can be deduced that all three times the same cleansing
medium is meant, only described three times with different names.
The alchemistic interpretation of our parable is a development of what its
author tried to teach by it. We do not need to show that he pursues an
hermetic aim, for he says so himself, and so do the circumstances, i.e.,
the book, in which the parable is found. In this respect we shall fare
better in the alchemistic exposition than in the psychoanalytic, where we
were aiming at the unconscious. Now we have the conscious aim before us
and we advance with the author, while before we worked as it were against
his understanding, and deduced from the product of his mind things that
his conscious personality would hardly admit, if we had him living before
us; in which case we should be instructing him and informing him of the
interpretation afforded by psychoanalysis.
In one respect we are therefore better off, but in another we are much
worse off. For the matter in which we previously worked, the unconscious,
remains approximately the same throughout great periods; the unconscious
of the wanderer is in its fundamentals not very different from that of a
man of to-day or from that of Zosimos. [Zosimos is one of the oldest
alchemistic writers of whom we have any definite knowledge—about the 4th
century.] It is the soul of the race that speaks, its “humanity.” Much
more swiftly, on the contrary, does objective knowledge change in the
course of time and the forms also in which this knowledge is expressed.
From this point of view the conscious is more difficult of access than the
unconscious. And now we have to face a system so very far removed from our
way of thinking as the alchemistic.
Fortunately I need not regard it as my duty to explain the parable so
completely in the alchemistic sense that any one could work according to
it in a chemical laboratory. It is much more suitable to our purpose if I
show in general outline only how we must arrange the leading forms and
processes of the parable to accord with the mode of thinking peculiar to
alchemy. If I should succeed in doing so clearly, we should already have
passed a difficult stage. Then for the first time I might venture
further—to the special object of this research. But patience! We have not
yet gone so far.
First of all it will be necessary for me to draw in a few lines a sketch
of how, in the most flourishing period of alchemy, the accomplishment of
the Great Work was usually described. In spite of the diversity of the
representations we find certain fundamental principles which are in
general firmly established. I will indicate a few points of this iron-clad
order in the alchemic doctrine.
There is, in the first place, the central idea of the interaction or the
coöperation of two things that are generally called man and woman, red and
white, sun and moon, sulphur and mercury. We have already seen in Ibn Sina
that the metals consist of the combination of sulphur and mercury. Even
earlier the interaction of two parts were figuratively called
impregnation. Both fuse into one symbol, and indeed so much the more
readily, as it probably arose as the result of analogous thoughts,
determined by a sexual complex. Also there occurs the idea that we must
derive a male activity from the gold, a female from the silver, in order
to get from their union that which perfects the mercury of the metals.
That may be the reason that, for the above mentioned pair that is to be
united, the denotation gold and silver ([Symbol: Gold] and [Symbol:
Silver]) prevailed. Red and white = man and woman (male and female
activity), we found in the parable also when studied psychoanalytically.
In the “Turba philosophorum” “the woman is called Magnesia, the white, the
man is called red, sulphur.”
Morienus says. “Our stone is like the creation of man. For first we have
the union, 2, the corruption [i.e., the putrefaction of the seed], 3, the
gestation, 4, the birth of the child, 5, the nutrition follows.”
Both constituents come from one root. Therefore the authors inform us that
the stone is an only one. If we call the matter “mercury,” we therefore
generally speak of a doubled mercury that yet is only one.
Arnold (Ros., II, 17): “So it clearly appears that the philosophers spoke
the truth about it, although it seems impossible to simpletons and fools,
that there was indeed only one stone, one medicine, one regulation, one
work, one vessel, both identical with the white and red sulphur, and to be
made at the same time.”
Id. (Ros., I, 6): “For there is only one stone, one medicine, to which
nothing foreign is added and nothing taken away except that one separates
the superfluities from it.”
Herein lies the idea of purification or washing; it occurs again. Arnold
(Ros., II, 8): “Now when you have separated the elements, then wash them.”
The idea of washing is connected with that of mechanical purification,
trituration, dismemberment in the parable, grinding (mill), and with the
bath and solution (dissolution of the bridal pair). “Bath” is, on the
other hand, the surrounding vessel, water bath. Arnold (Ros., I, 9): “The
true beginning, therefore, is the dissolution and solution of the stone.”
Fire can also cause a dissolution, either by fusion or by a trituration
that is similar to calcination. They are all processes that put the
substances in question into its purest or chemically most accessible form.
Arnold (Ros., I, 9): “The philosophical work is to dissolve and melt the
stone into its mercury, so that it is reduced and brought back to its
prima materia, i.e., original condition, purest form.”
Through the opening of the single substance the two things or seeds, red
and white, are obtained.
But what is the “subject” that is put through these operations, the matter
that must be so worked out? That is exactly what the alchemists most
conceal. They give the prima materia (raw material) a hundred names, every
one of which is a riddle. They give intimations of interpretations but are
not willing to be definite. Only the worthy will find the keys to the
whole work. The rest of the procedure can be understood only by one that
knows the prima materia. Much is written on it and its puzzling names.
They are, partly as raw material, partly as original material, partly as
prime condition, called among other names Lapis philosophicus
(philosopher’s stone), aqua vitæ (water of life), venenum (poison),
spiritus (spirit), medicina (medicine), cœlum (sky), nubes (clouds), ros
(dew), umbra (shadow), stella signata (marked star), and Lucifer, Luna
(moon), aqua ardens (fiery water), sponsa (betrothed), coniux (wife),
mater, mother (Eve),—from her princes are born to the king,—virgo
(virgin), lac virginis (virgin’s milk), menstruum, materia hermaphrodita
catholica Solis et Lunae (Catholic hermaphrodite matter of sun and moon),
sputum Lunae (moon spittle), urina puerorum (children’s urine), fæces
dissolutæ (loose stool), fimus (muck), materia omnium formarum (material
of all forms), Venus.
It will be evident to the psychoanalyst that the original material is
occasionally identified with secretions and excretions, spittle, milk,
dung, menstruum, urine. These correspond exactly to the infantile theories
of procreation, as does the fact that these theories come to view where
the phantasy forms symbols in its primitive activity. It is also to be
noticed that countless alchemic scribblers who did not understand the
works of the “masters” worked with substances like urine, semen, spittle,
dung, blood, menstruum, etc., where the dim idea of a procreative essence
in these things came into play. I will have something to say on this
subject in connection with the Homunculus. I should meanwhile like to
refer to the close relationship of excrement and gold in myth and
folklore. [Cf. Note B at the end of this volume.] It is clear that for the
art of gold production this mythological relationship is of importance.
To the action of analyzing substances before the reassembling or
rebuilding, besides washing and trituration, belongs also putrefaction or
rotting. Without this no fruitful work is possible. I have previously
mentioned that it was thought that semen must rot in order to impregnate.
The seed grain is subject to putrefaction in the earth. But we must
remember also the impregnating activity of manure if we wish to understand
correctly and genetically the association rot—procreate. Putrefaction is
one of the forms of corruption (= breaking up) and corruptio unius est
generatio alterius (the breaking up of one is the begetting of another).
Arnold (Ros., I, 9): “In so far as the substances here do not become
incorporeal or volatile, so that there is no more substance [as such
therefore destroyed] you will accomplish nothing in your work.”
The red man and the white woman, called also red lions and white lilies,
and many other names, are united and cooked together in a vessel, the
philosophical Egg. The combined material becomes thereby gradually black
(and is called raven or ravenhead), later white (swan); now a somewhat
greater heat is applied and the substance is sublimated in the vessel (the
swan flies up); on further heating a vivid play of colors appears (peacock
tail or rainbow); finally the substance becomes red and that is the
conclusion of the main work. The red substance is the philosopher’s stone,
called also our king, red lion, grand elixir, etc. The after work is a
subsequent elaboration by which the stone is given still more power,
“multiplied” in its efficiency. Then in “projection” upon a baser metal it
is able to tincture immense amounts of it to gold. [In the stage of
projection the red tincture is symbolized as a pelican. The reason for
this will be given later.] If the main work was interrupted at the white
stage, instead of waiting for the red, then they got the white stone, the
small elixir, with which the base metals can be turned into silver alone.
We have spoken just now of the main work and the after work. I mention for
completeness that the trituration and purification, etc., of the
materials, which precedes the main work, is called the fore work. The
division is, however, given in other ways besides.
Armed with this explanation we can venture to look for the alchemic
hieroglyphs in our parable. I must beg the reader to recall the main
episodes.
In the wanderer we have to conceive of a man who has started out to learn
the secret of the great work. He finds in the forest contradictory
opinions. He has fallen deep into errors. The study, although difficult,
holds him fast. He cannot turn back (Sec. 1). So he pursues his aim still
further (Sec. 2) and thinks he has now found the right authorities (Sec.
3) that can admit him to the college of wisdom. But the people are not at
one with each other. They also employ figurative language that obscures
the true doctrine, and which, contrasted with practice, is of no value. (I
mention incidentally that the great masters of the hermetic art are
accustomed to impress on the reader that he is not to cling to their words
but measure things always according to nature and her possibilities.) The
elders promise him indeed the revelation of important doctrines but are
not willing to communicate the beginning of the work (Sec. 5, 6,
preparation for the fight with the lion). That is a rather amusing trait
of hermetic literature.
We have come to the fight with the lion, which takes place in a den. The
wanderer kills the lion and takes out of him red blood and white bones,
therefore red and white. Red and white enter later as roses, then as man
and woman.
I cite now several passages from different alchemistic books.
Hohler (Herm. Phil., p. 91) says, apparently after Michael Meiers,
“Septimana Philosophica”: “The green lion [a usual symbol for the material
at the beginning] encloses the raw seeds, yellow hairs adorn his head
[this detail is not lacking in the parable], i.e., when the projection on
the metals takes place, they turn yellow, golden.” [Green is the color of
hope, of growth. Previously only the head of the lion is gold, his future.
Later he becomes a red lion, the philosopher’s stone, the king in robe of
purple. At any rate he must first be killed.]
The lion that must die is the dragon, which the dragon fighter kills. Thus
we have seen it in the mythological parallel. Psychoanalysis shows us
further that lion = dragon = father (= parents, etc.). It is now very
interesting that the alchemistic symbolism interchanges the same forms. We
shall see that again.
Berthelot cites (Orig. de l’Alch., p. 60) from an old manuscript: “The
dragon is the guardian of the temple. Sacrifice it, flay it, separate the
flesh from the bones, and you will find what you seek.”
The dragon is, as can be shown out of the old authors, also the snake that
bites its own tail or which on the other hand can also be represented by
two snakes.
Flamel writes on the hieroglyphic figure of two dragons (in the 3d chapter
of his Auslegung d. hierogl. Fig.) the following: “Consider well these two
dragons for they are the beginning of the philosophy [alchemy] which the
sages have not dared to show their own children.... The first is called
sulphur or the warm and dry. The other is called quicksilver or the cold
and wet. These are the sun and the moon. These are snakes and dragons,
which the ancient Egyptians painted in the form of a circle, each biting
the other’s tail, in order to teach that they spring of and from one thing
[our lion!]. These are the dragons that the old poets represent as
guarding sleeplessly the golden apples in the garden of the Hesperian
maidens. These are the ones to which Jason, in his adventures of the
golden fleece, gave the potion prepared for him by the beautiful Medea.
[See my explanation of the motive of dismemberment] of which discourses
the books of the philosophers are so full that there has not been a single
philosopher, from the true Hermes, Trismegistus, Orpheus, Pythagoras,
Artephias, Morienus, and other followers up to my own time, who has not
written about these matters. These are the two serpents sent by Juno (who
is the metallic nature) that were to be strangled by the strong Hercules
(that is the sage in his cradle) [our wanderer], that is to be conquered
and killed in order to cause them in the beginning of his work to rot, be
destroyed and be born. These are the two serpents that are fastened around
the herald’s staff and rod of Mercury.... Therefore when these two (which
Avicenna calls the bitch of Carascene and the dog of Armenia) are put
together in the vessel of the grave, they bite each other horribly. [See
the battle of the sons of the dragon’s teeth with Jason, the elders in the
parable, but also the embrace of the bridal pair and the mythological
parallels wrestling = dragon fight = winning the king’s daughter,... =
incest = love embrace or separation of the primal parents, etc....] ... A
corruption [destruction] and putrefaction must take place before the
renewal in a better form. These are the two male and female seed that are
produced ... in the kidneys and intestines ... of the four elements.”
The dragon, who is killed at the beginning of the work, is also called
Osiris by the old alchemists. We are now acquainted with his
dismemberment, also his relation to lead ore. Flamel calls the vessel of
the alchemistic operation a “grave.” Olympiodorus speaks in an alchemistic
work of the grave of Osiris. Only the face of Osiris, apparently wrapped
up like a mummy, is visible. In the parable only the head of the lion is
golden. The head as the part preserved from the killing [dismemberment]
stands probably for the organ of generation. The phallus is indeed exactly
what produces the procreating substance, semen. The phallus is the future.
The phallus was consecrated by Isis as a memorial.
Janus Lacinius gives in his Pretiosa Margarita the following allegory. In
the palace sits the king decorated with the diadem and in his hand the
scepter of the whole world. Before him appears his son with five servants
and falling at his feet implores him to give the kingdom to him and the
servants. [The author takes the thing wrong end to. The gold, king, is
assailed by the other six metals, because they themselves wish to be gold.
The king is killed. Essentially the same thing happens as above.] Then the
son in anger, and at the instigation of his companions, kills his father
on the throne. He collects the father’s blood in his garment. A grave [the
lion’s den, the grave] is dug, into which the son intends to throw the
father, but they both fall in. [Cf. the dangerous walk of the wanderer on
the wall, Section 8, where the people fall off.] The son makes every
effort to get out again, but some one comes who does not permit it.
[Symbolism of obstruction, the locked door, etc., in the parable. The
grave changes imperceptibly into the vessel where the bridal pair—with
Lacinius they are father and son instead of mother and son—are united and
securely locked in.] When the whole body is dissolved the bones are thrown
out of the grave. They are divided into nine [dismemberment], the
dissolved substance is cooked nine days over a gentle fire till the black
appears. Again it is cooked nine days until the water is bright and clear.
The black, with its water of life [in the parable the mill water is black]
is cooked nine days till the white earth of the philosophers appears. An
angel throws the bones on the purified and whitened earth, which is now
mixed with its seeds. They are separated from water in a strong fire.
Finally the earth of the bones becomes red like blood or ruby. Then the
king rises from his grave full of the grace of God, quite celestial, with
grand mien, to make all his servants kings. He places golden crowns on the
heads of his son and the servants.
As bearers of both seeds, male and female, the lion is androgynous.
Actually the subject (i.e., the first material) is conceived as twofold,
bisexual. It is called by names that mean the two sexes, it is also called
“hermaphrodite.” It is represented as rebis (res bina = double thing), as
a human with a male and a female head standing on a dragon. From the
conquered dragon (lion) comes forth the Double. The substance is also
called Mercurius; his staff bears the two antagonistic serpents mentioned
by Flamel. In the parable also appears an hermaphrodite, the being (Sec.
8) which the wanderer cannot distinguish, whether it be a man or a woman.
It is the original substance, Mercury, “our hermaphrodite.”
In Section 9 of the parable, and also later, red and white appear in
roses. The white and the red tincture are often in alchemy compared to
white and red roses.
In Section 9 the wanderer comes to those houses where people work alone or
by twos. They work in a slovenly fashion. The alchemistic quacks are
generally called “bunglers” and “messy cooks” by the masters of the art.
These are the ones who do not work according to the “possibilities of
nature,” which is, nevertheless, the touchstone of all right production.
The garden (Sec. 10, 11) is one of the “rose gardens” of which, e.g., the
alchemist, Michael Meier, likes to speak.
There are difficulties in uniting the red youths with the white maidens. A
wall separates them. The wanderer removes the obstruction in unlocking the
door. That may indicate a chemical unlocking, by which the bodies are
chemically brought nearer together.
The wanderer comes to a mill (Sec. 11). The mill naturally indicates the
already mentioned trituration of the substance. It has, however, also
reference to fermentation and in particular to that by means of meal.
Rulandus (Lex., pp. 211 ff., s. v. Fermentum): “Ferment is elixir, leaven,
or yeast as it is called; it makes porous the body that swells up and the
spirit finds a place in it so that it becomes fit to bake. As now the meal
is not yeast, but meal and water [mill water] and the whole dough is
thoroughly leavened and real yeast, so also the lapis [stone] is itself
the ferment, yet gold and mercury are also called ferment.”
Now begins the main work—marriage, prison, embrace, conception, birth,
transfiguration—to which the rest of the parable is devoted.
The prison is the philosophic egg. It is also called “Athanor, a sieve,
dunghill, bain-marie (double cooker), a kiln, round ball, green lion,
prison, grave, brothel, vial, cucurbit.” It is just like the belly and the
womb, containing in itself the true, natural warmth (to give life to our
young king). The warmth that is used must first be gentle, “like that
after the winter”; it must be stronger like the sun in spring, in summer
[cf. the seasons in our parable]. (Flamel, pp. 50 ff.)
Daustenius (Ros., VII): “... And this thing can be a symbol of a woman’s
belly, which, when she has conceived, will immediately close the womb.”
Id. (Ros., VII): “Therefore, when you have put them (the white woman and
the red man) in their vessel, then close it as fast as possible....” [Seal
of Hermes.]
Id. (Ros., VIII): “Therefore that you arrange the substances right and
fine, and regulate your work well, and marry consanguineous matter with
masses acting consanguineously....” [Incest.]
Id. (Ros., VII): “So now this is our solution, that you marry the Gabricum
with the Beja, which when he lies with the Beja, dies immediately and is
changed into her nature. Although the Beja is a woman, still she improves
the Gabricum because he is come out of her.” [Death of the bridegroom son.
It should be remembered in this connection that all metals or all
substances generally—consequently also the [Symbol: Sun]—come forth from
the “mother,” the primal substance [Symbol: Mercury].]
In a “Vision” of Daustenius, the king is to return into his mother’s womb
in order to be procreated afresh. The king “goes into his bedroom and
unexpectedly is fired with a great desire for coition, and goes to sleep
at once, and has lain with a surpassingly beautiful maiden, who was a
daughter of his mother” [weakened form of mother incest]. Later the vision
says, “The woman, however, incloses her man, as a mother, quite carefully
in the innermost part of her body.”
The bodies inclosed in the vessel fall to pieces and are partly volatile.
The vapors [soul] return, however, into the bodies. There conception takes
place.
Daustenius [Ros. IX.]: “... From that are airy spirits come, that with
each other rise into the air, and there have conceived life, that is blown
into them by their dampness, as the human being has life from air, by
which it increases.... For life of all natural things depends upon the
blowing in of air.”
The bestowing of life by a blowing in of air plays a great part in myths.
Also there occurs quite frequently special impregnations by air and wind.
It is a primitive impregnation theory, that is found also in the ideas of
children.
Children think of the blowing in of air into the anus as a natural sexual
theory. I know several cases where this practice is carried out with
emphasis on the erotic under the pretense of “playing doctor.” A child
once told what papa and mamma do when they are alone; they put their naked
backsides together and blow air into each other.
Another infantile theory explains impregnation by the swallowing of an
object. In myths and fairy lore this motive occurs with extraordinary
frequency. To the swallowing as conception, corresponds defecation as
parturition. Incidentally we should note that the bodies in the
philosophic egg turn actually into a rolling, stinking, black mass, which
is expressly called dung by many authors. The water is also called urine.
The prima materia is also called urine. In the philosophical egg the white
woman swallows the red man, man-eating motive. (Stucken.)
Liber Apocal. Hermetis (Cited by Hohler, p. 105 f.): “... Therefore the
philosophers have married this tender young maiden to Gabricus, to have
them procreate fruit, and when Gabricus sleeps he dies. The Beja [i.e.,
the white maiden] has swallowed him and consumed him because of her great
love.”
Now as to the intra-uterine nourishment of the fetus by means of the water
of life:
Daustenius [Ros. vi.]: “... The fruit in the womb is nourished only by the
mother’s blood.” Id. (Ros. x):
“Without seeds no fruit can grow up for thee:
First the seed dies; then wilt thou see fruit.
In the stomach the food is cooked tender
From which the limbs draw the best to themselves.
When too the seed is poured into the womb
Then the womb stays right tenderly closed.
The menstruum does not fail the fruit for nourishment
Till it at the proper time comes to the light of day.”
Later he says (Id., XI): “Lay the son by her that she suckle him.” [The
water of life is therefore also the milk.]
The new king is born, and now he and his consort appear in priceless
garments (cf. Section 18 of the parable). The color change of the
substance is expressed by means of the change of garments, like peacock’s
tail, rainbow. The process goes from black through gray to white, yellow,
red, purple.
The end is reached with purple. The wanderer at the end describes the
virtues of the philosopher’s stone. We have already compared the great
elixir with soma. In the old alchemistic book, which bears the name of the
Persian magician, Osthanes (Berthelot, Orig., p. 52), the divine water
heals all maladies. Water of life,—elixir of life.
Many readers will shake their heads over the psychoanalytic exposition of
the parable. The gross development of sexuality and the Œdipus complex may
seem improbable to him. The alchemistic hieroglyphic has now in unexpected
manner shown after all, that these surprising things were not read into
the parable by psychoanalysis, but rightly found in it, even though
psychoanalysis has not by any means exhausted the contents of the parable.
What might at first have appeared to be bold conjecture, as for example,
killing of the father, incest with the mother, the conception of the red
blood and white bones as man and woman, the excrementitious substance as
procreative, the prison as the uterus, has all been shown to be in use as
favorite figurative expression among the alchemistic authors.
The alchemists like to dwell on the process of procreation, and on
infantile sexual theories. The deep interest that they show in these
matters, and without which they would not have used them so much in their
hieroglyphics, the meaning that these things must have, in order to be
regarded as worthy to illustrate the processes of the great work, and
finally, the meaning that in some form or other they actually have in the
emotional life of every man, all of this makes it evident that the line of
imaginative speculations with which we have become acquainted, deserves
independent treatment. In practice there was a fission, and procreation
becomes an independent problem for alchemists. Yet the followers of the
art did learn from nature, in order that their art might follow the works
of nature even to improve on her; what wonder then if many of them set
themselves to the artificial creation—generation—of man? Yet the belief in
generatio equivoca has not long been dead. Must it not have seemed somehow
possible, in view of the supposed fact that they saw insects develop out
of earth, worms out of dung, etc., that they should by special artificial
interposition, be able to make higher forms of life come out of lifeless
matter? And of all the substances not one was indeed completely lifeless
for the “animated” metals even, grew and increased. In short, if we regard
the matter somewhat more closely, it is after all not so extraordinary
that they made serious attempts to create the homunculus.
Generally Paracelsus is regarded as the author of the idea, which to the
somewhat uncritical, could not, in my opinion, help being in the air.
There are different views regarding the part played by Paracelsus. The
instructions that he gives for the production of the homunculus are found
in a work (De natura rerum) whose authorship is not settled. And supposing
that Paracelsus was the writer, it must be considered whether he does not
lay before the inquisitive friend to whom the work is dedicated merely a
medley of oddities from the variegated store that he had collected from
all sources on his travels among vagrant folk. We must accept the facts as
we find them; the question as to whether it was Paracelsus or not would be
idle. Enough that there is a book by some writer who describes the work
and describes it in such a way that naïve scholarship could have thought
it quite consistent. The idea as such has appeared conceivable to us. Its
form in the book mentioned appears clearly determined by alchemistic
ideas. The reader will immediately perceive it himself as I give here some
passages from the book. (Cf. the Strassb. Folio Ausg. des Paracelsus, Vol.
I, pp. 881-884.) A consideration of the production of the homunculus
appears important to me because it shows the main content of alchemistic
ideas in enlarged form and complete development, a content that gives,
moreover, the very thing that psychoanalysis would here look for.
Paracelsus begins with the fact that putrefaction transforms all things
into their first shape and is the beginning of generation and
multiplication. The spagiric [One of the names for alchemy. From σπᾶν
(separate), and αγείρειν (unite).] art is able to create men and monsters.
Such a monster is the Basilisk. “The Basilisk” grows and is born out of
and from the greatest impurity of women, namely from the menstrua and from
the blood of sperm that is put into a glass and cucurbit, and putrefied in
a horse’s belly. In such putrefaction is the Basilisk born. Whoever is so
daring and so fortunate as to make it or to take it out or again to kill
it, who does not clothe and protect himself before with mirrors? I advise
no one but I wish to give sufficient warning. [Many fables about the
Basilisk were then current. The belief, too, was general that this
terrible animal was produced from a hen’s egg. Herein lies, again, the
idea of unnatural procreation.] ... Now the generation of the homunculus
is not to be forgotten. For there is something in it, notwithstanding that
it has till now been kept in mystery and concealed, and that not a little
doubt and question there was among some of the old philosophers, whether
it was possible for art and nature that a man should be born outside a
woman’s body and a natural mother. To which I give the answer that it is
in no way contrary to the spagiric art and nature, but is quite possible;
but how such accomplishment and occurrence may be, is by the following
procedure: Namely that the semen of a man is putrefied in a closed
cucurbit per se, with the greatest putrefaction in a horse’s belly for 40
days or until it comes to life and moves and stirs, which is easily to be
seen. [Horse’s belly by metonomy for horse’s dung. Horse manure or dung
was an easily procured material that served the purpose of keeping warm at
an even mild and moist heat a vessel that was put into it. Horse manure is
then finally the gentle “moist heat” in general engendered by any means.
In the preceding case surely the narrower meaning of animal belly or dung
should not be overlooked. Here indeed this belly with its moist warmth has
to act as an equivalent for a uterus.] After such a time it will look
something like a man but transparent without a body. So after this it is
daily fed whitish (weisslich) with the Arcano sanguinis humani [the water
of life that nourishes the fœtus] and nourished about 40 weeks and kept in
the even warmth of a horse’s belly. A real live human child will come
forth with all members like another child that is born of a woman but much
smaller. We call it homunculus and it should then be brought up just like
another child with great diligence and care till it comes to its days of
understanding. That is now the highest and greatest mystery that God has
let mortal and sinful man know. For it is a miracle and magnale Dei, and a
mystery above all mystery and should also be kept a mystery fairly till
the judgment day, as then nothing will stay hidden, but all will be
revealed.
“And although such a thing has hitherto been hidden from natural man, it
has not been hidden from the fauns and the nymphs and giants, but has been
revealed for a long time; whence they too, come. For from such homunculi,
when they come to the age of manhood come giants, dwarfs and other similar
great wonder people, [Just like Genesis vi, 4] that were used for a great
tool and instrument, who had a great mighty victory over their enemies and
knew all secret and hidden things that are for all men impossible to know.
For by art they received their life, through art they received body,
flesh, bone and blood, through art were they born. Therefore the art was
embodied and born in them and they had to learn it from no one, but one
must learn from them. For because of art are they there and grown up like
a rose or flower in the garden and are called the children of fauns and
nymphs because that they with their powers and deeds, not to men but to
spirits are compared.” [It is characteristic that Paracelsus passes
immediately to the production of metals.]
In the description of the generation of the homunculus the power of
rotting material has been pointed out. There is clearly evident a feeding
with a magisterium from blood (water of life) corresponding to the
intrauterine alimentation. We note that from the homunculi come giants and
dwarfs and wonderful beings.
The idea of palingenesis appears to have no little significance for the
existence of the homunculus production. They imagine that a dead living
being could be restored, at least in a smokelike image, if they carefully
collected all its parts, triturated them and treated the composition in a
vessel with the proper fire. Then there would appear after a time, like a
cloud of smoke, the faint image of the former being, plant, bird, man. The
clouds vanish if the heating is interrupted. Further it would be possible,
even if more difficult, to pass beyond this mere adumbration, and cause
the former being to arise again from the ashes, fully alive. In the
recipes for this an important rôle is regularly played by horse manure or
some other rotting substance. Many authors tell fables of all sorts of
wonderful experiments that they have made. One tells that he has reduced a
bird to ashes and made it live again, another will have seen in his retort
and coming from the moldering corpse of a child its shadow image, etc. We
see here in actuality the mythical motive of dismemberment and
revivification expressed in a naïve practice. It is quite noticeable that
this practice follows the same lines as the mythical representation. _All_
the constituent parts of the body that is _cut into little pieces_ must be
carefully collected and put in a _vessel_ and (generally) _cooked_.
The human child as result of cooking or else of a similar process in a
vessel, is not infrequent in primitive myths. I could mention a Zulu myth
(Frobenius, Zeitalt. d. Sonneng., I, p. 237) of a formerly barren woman.
It was said that she should catch a drop of blood in a pot, cover it up
and set it by for eight months, and should open it in the ninth month. The
woman did as she was advised and found a child in the pot. The drop of
blood, be it noted, came from herself. The numerous whale dragon myths
(Frobenius) where it is very hot inside of the whale, belong here in
motive. From the whale’s belly comes indeed the baked young (sun) hero.
[Who moreover generally gets nourishment in the whale-dragon’s belly.
Nutritio. Heart motive according to Frobenius.] It is interesting that the
idea of cooking human beings occurs very clearly in a well analyzed case
of dementia precox. (Spielrein in Jb. ps. F., Ill, pp. 358 ff.) In the
strongly regressive phantasies of the invalid, fragments of all sorts of
things are cooked or roasted and the ashes can become men.
A very interesting variant of the infantile theories of procreation of the
living in dung is found in the book, “De Homunculis et Monstris” (Vol. II,
pp. 278 ff. of the Strassburg edition of the works of Paracelsus). It is
there maintained that by sodomy as well as by pederasty (specifically
coitus in anum and also in os is meant) the generation of a monster is
possible.
As they did with alchemy in general, so charlatans also made use of the
production of the homunculus. Their business was based on the great
profits that were offered by the possession of a homunculus and that are
equivalent to those of mandrake alum. Mandrake alum gave a certain impetus
to the development of the homunculus idea and practice. It can be shown
that secrets of procreation seem partly to underlie this also.
It is easy to show the possibility that many a duffer was led toward the
production of the homunculus by erroneous interpretation of the
procreation symbolism occurring in the alchemistic writings. It was merely
necessary, in their limitations, to take literally one or another of the
methods. In this way there actually occurred the most ludicrous blunders.
Because the philosopher’s egg was mentioned, they took eggs as the actual
subject. Because the spermatic substance and seeds were mentioned they
thought that the prima materia was human semen, and so arose the school of
seminalists. And because it was written of the subject that it was to be
found wherever men dwell, and that it was a little despised thing which
men threw away not realizing its worth, and because they thought of
putrefaction as such, they thought to find the real substance in human
excrement, and so the school of stercoralists was founded. From the belief
in the healing and wonderworking power of excrement sprang moreover the
famous filth pharmacy, that was held in no little esteem.
The homunculus topic is exceedingly interesting. Unfortunately I cannot in
the space of this book go into it thoroughly. I shall do so in another
place.