In Gilchrist’s fifth chapter “A Mirror of the World” she wants to establish that alchemy has had an important impact on the practical endeavours of humanity. She asks if “such a secretive, enigmatic study as alchemy has any relevance at all to the world at large.” Of course her answer is “yes” and the chapter proceeds to show ways in which alchemy is relevant. She has examples, albeit some are a bit of a stretch, but what interests me is how she sets up the chapter in first paragraph. Still worrying the truth that alchemists tended to be secretive, she seeks for a way that the truth of an ultra secretive discipline could, at the same time, be public enough that it becomes one of the foundation stones of the mundane world.

If its (alchemy’s) structure is rooted in universal principles, in what is sometimes referred to as the ‘perennial philosophy’, then it can affect every level of human existence, right through from the spiritual to the practical. Even if its inner teachings remain concealed, perhaps for a number of years, perhaps permanently, it will almost inevitably affect the course of human endeavour sooner or later. Esoteric becomes exoteric; theory turns into practice; abstract becomes concrete. It can be said that the capacity of a wisdom tradition to bear fruit in everyday life is at least as important as the illumination of its followers.

Whoa – another alchemical slide.  The fact that alchemy’s questions may in fact be the same questions normally associated with perennial philosophy doesn’t make them universal in the ideological/structural sense.  All the phrase perennial philosophy means is that these are the kinds of questions that keep arising in human societies regardless of cultural age or ethnicity. The question what is the meaning of human existence is a perennial question. All human societies past and present ask it in one form or another.  The critical thing is how the various societies answer the question. This is where “structure” comes in. “Structure” used like this is just a short-form for “belief system” and these vary wildly across age and culture. So a question like “what do I mean” may be asked human-universally, but the answers – oh no. Not “universal” at all. So the fact that the alchemical experts asked perennial questions had nothing whatsoever to do with alchemy’s (ideological) structure or its practices (which presumably are a result of its ideological structure) except in as far as those structures guided what kind of answers “appeared”. What Gilchrist does with that sentence is put “structure” on one side of “universal” and “perennial philosophy” on the other allowing the slippery meaning of the world “universal” to appear to connect the two outlying terms. Nice slide!

To be clear: the ideological structure of alchemy – the idea that it is important to separate the tripartite nature of the material world, purify it, and return the elements back into some ideal configuration, let alone that man is responsible for this – is not “universal.” The assumptions about the nature of reality that underly alchemy are Western. A close look at Eastern forms of the search for physically transformative wisdom (i.e. magic), even though they may appears to be similar to those of the West, reveal profound differences in the underlying cultural realities.

The other interesting thing about that section I quoted is that she never addresses the question of how a “secret” tradition bears everyday fruit. What it implies, of course, is that there is some unseen way in which the work done by alchemists (even in the deepest secret) secretly influences the daily life of others. Sort of like those who pray for unknown others expect that this secret “work” of theirs will influence the outcome of the prayed-about parties. The assumption posits another realm, an aether or etheric plane, which does the actual transmitting. Of course the other possibility is that alchemy and its practices were one of those secrets that everybody knew. I’m plumping for the second possibility.

Still, the fact that Gilchrist posits a problem and never answers it but takes off instead on this nice little homily to close out the paragraph is a good way to close out the previous “slide.” Religious writings do it all the time. I don’t see why alchemical writings should be any different.

OK, that was a bit of mean-spirited grousing, but really, since it wasn’t really necessary for the content of the chapter, it surely does feel like she thinks her readers’ a bit thick. All she had to say was that this secretly-affecting-the-world thing is a cool mystery and leave it at that.  She does have some actual evidence to back up her claim that alchemy has been an important cultural influence. I mean the chemistry thing alone is good enough for that. I think the alchemical slide should be used only when it is actually necessary – like when you really don’t have a leg to stand on but you still have to prove your ambulatory nature anyway.