I have been re-reading The Elements of Alchemy by Cherry Gilchrist.  It’s a basic introduction to the history and concepts of alchemy – like one of those cool Very Short Introduction to (a name of some disciple here) books but for the metaphysically rather than the philosophically or scientifically inclined.

I’ve always like alchemy. It’s arcane, deeply symbolic and a bit like the game bookworm mixed up with a good dash of sudoku. One can get really captivated by it.

Gilchrist does a pretty good job of pulling together a nice mix of history and the basic ideology but with this reading I am paying more attention to how she writes rather than what she says. The thing about alchemy is that it has kind of a bad reputation. Like Ouija boards and tarot cards, it is largely considered the province of crazies, except maybe in the vastly cut down version that supports some branches of psychology (primarily counselling) today.

You can tell this from the way she (rather cleverly) slides around alchemy’s (lack of?) efficacy.  I’ve noticed it several times so far (I’m about half way through the book) and I am hereby dubbing it the “alchemical slide.”

For example, from right at the beginning of the book:

Secondly, alchemy’s claims to produce extraordinary results in the physical world are hard to assess objectively. By the laws of science as normally understood today, it is not possible to convert other metals into gold, except by nuclear fission. But since alchemy encompasses mental as well as physical participation it inevitably goes beyond the realms of material science in its scope and may be able to produce effects on the physical level that cannot be accounted for by normal chemistry. Additionally, as we shall see, the gold produced is usually said to be quite different from ordinary gold.

Whew! Nice slide!

Three things to notice: 1) the assumption is made that the mind is removed from the material world and is yet able to influence it, 2) what is produced is not “ordinary” – another hidden assumption of the extra-ordinary realm and lastly 3) the hesitant language.

Alchemy as a practice relies upon the existence of an “above” and a “below” that coexist but that can be separated and manipulated. Gilchrist is making the same assumption and using it to argue for alchemy’s efficacy. Her “above” is the mind and her “below” is the matter that “material science” works upon. Logically, using an assumption to prove the efficacy of a system built on that same assumption, seems problematic to me but OK, I’ll agree to run with it for the duration of the book. Mostly I am willing to do this because it was so nicely slid into the book. I mean if you are going to write about alchemy in today’s world you have to deal with the fact that metals aren’t actually impure forms of gold at some point and by just assuming the reality of a 2-toned universe and limiting “material science” to only one of them is a good way to undercut the power of your opposition when you don’t actually have a product that works as advertised.

Alchemy exists in a Cartesian world – dualistic (despite certain emphasis on the One) and full of the magic of  ”And Lo! A thought moves matter!”

Point 2 above though is easily my favourite slide. Not ordinary gold?  What the heck does that mean? And that is its power. Like alchemy itself, if it doesn’t work it isn’t that the system is faulty, it is because your perception is off, or because you didn’t take enough care while you were processing in the bain-marie or because you haven’t managed to ascend to include the immaterial universe. There is no way to prove something like this wrong. Nice job.

Then there is point 3. Hesitant language like “the gold produced is usually,” “hard to assess,” “laws of science as normally understood” and “may be able to produce effects” are clear clues that the discipline is in trouble and that the author is having trouble getting behind her own words. No definitive statements here. It isn’t “hard” to assess objectively. Not at all. It’ll be a thumbs-down or a thumbs-up depending on the content you give to “objectively.” And “as normally understood?” So what is the content of abnormally understood science and why should I attend to its utterances?

That paragraph is a minefield but basically what it says is: Alchemy is a load of codswollop, science has shown us that, but it is still great fun and that in itself is worth pursuing. Yeah imagination! Still, I suppose she couldn’t actually write that and expect her editors to let it pass. I imagine that they thought potential purchasers of the book might object to sentences that boot them out of the alchemical story. Bad narrative practice.

Anyway, back to the book. Alembics, two-headed dragons, emerald tablets, and the possibility of learning to listen in on the gods! It really is a fun ride.