Paolo Lucarelli (scientist, essayist, and Canseliet’s friend) explains the historical origins of Alchemy and philology of the word Sulphur, θεῖον, Theion, sacred.
Though it may seem strange in an age that seems quite indifferent, the literature on Hermetic in the contemporary west is huge and was further expanded in recent decades. Unfortunately, barring a few exceptions (Among them, Elemire Zolla must certainly be mentioned for his“the wonders of nature”, Milan 1975), it seems curiously deformed, mostly useless for those who want to explore the issue seriously.
It is divided into two main strands, each recognizable by a parent of success. Marcelin Berthelot (Introduction à I’etude de la chimie des Anciens et du Moyen Age, Paris 1889; Les origines de l’Alchimie, Paris 1885; La chimie au Moyen Age, Paris M.DCC.XCIII.) has opened a careful and comprehensive study from Alexandrian Alchemy to medieval period. To him, and his school, we owe the recovery of rare manuscripts, Syriac and Greek, in the only edition still available. Berthelot was a famous chemist who never moved away from the view that alchemy was a kind of ancient chemistry that was more or less rudimentary.
All his studies and research sought to investigate in this effect the value of the texts translated and published in an attempt to show that under a pseudo-esoteric language lurked trivial metallurgical operations, more or less misunderstood by those investigators. This way of approaching the problem has continued without doubt or hesitation till today. However, the scholars who take charge are mostly forced to give up the understanding of most of the texts or consider our ancient predecessors some naive incurables and, at best some ‘idiots who liked to repeat unnecessary operations without conclusive results, all taken by a form, fortunately harmless, of schizoid monomania. From time to time, happy event, they discovered a new compound or procedure used for less noble purposes than those which openly sought, and then enriched dyeing fabrics, or hidden drunk brandy, or the less honest, proposed for alloys Pinchbeck to other idiots who took the gold for good. A relatively recent example, by an expert in Alexandrian Alchemy (F. Sherwood Taylor: A survey of Greek Alchemy. Quoted by M. Eliade), is particularly illuminating on this strange way of thinking. Having considered the various alchemical processes in which a body recurred, which the Greeks called sulfur, he finds that it was described as none of the reactions very evident and common. Completely indifferent to the exhortations of the same text ( “our sulfur is not vulgar sulfur, our sulfur is alive sulfur …») infers that the authors (in particular Zosimos of Panopolis) had no ability for testing, actually, any interest for testing. He is not even touched by doubt that they are not talking about the chemical element with which it is used to operate. Among others in ancient greek, there was a pun between “θεῖον Theîon”, meaning “divine – from the gods – sacred “, as an adjective, and “god – nature or divine being “ as a noun, and ”θεῖος Theîos”, meaning Sulfur, which should lead to cautious reflection.
At the other extreme, another group of scholars stands out for absolute technical-scientific ignorance. This allowed observation of the Hermetic texts without any injury of the type described and led them to an exegesis that reads each statement or description allegorically.
Some schools are being born, and they rely on a personal culture that filters each reading. C.G. Jung inaugurated the psychological interpretation, which imagines the alchemists suffering, more or less unconsciously, a language that conceals a metallurgical process outlined in “individuation” or other obscure similar terms (1). Others closer to the historical religious and anthropological theories have mediated with appropriate comments. To all these were added, weedy bottom row so-called esotericism who have precluded any chance of understanding in a vicious circle that explains the alleged allegory with allegory, creating intense happiness to anyone who wants to exclude the existence of the problem. These authors carefully avoid most of the Hermetic literature, which is too inconsistent with their hypothesis. Indeed they are recognized by a particular characteristic, which consists of circularity of citations that are passed to each other, always the same text, which nobody reads in full. They are, therefore even less useful than the former, who have at least made available more or less complete editions of the authors studied (2).
It remains for us to determine what the hermetic philosophers have said about themselves. Few, however, until the seventeenth century, introduced ramblings of theoretical or historical texts, given the substantial indifference to everything that was not guiding the operations. So the medieval monk Simon of Cologne (3) is an exception, with these considerations accompanying practice:
“In many ancient manuscripts, there are definitions of this art, which we need to know the aim immediately. Hermes said: Alchemy is a substance from one body and for one, made with precious minutiae for alternating decoration, reaching the effect in the same natural mixture, converting generally better. Another says it is a science that teaches how to transform every kind of metal into another through their own medicine, as appears in many philosophical books. So is knowing that a certain degree of so-called science through a philosopher named Alchemus and this art teaches you to make a medicine called Elixir, which poured over imperfect metals, it perfects them completely, and this was the reason why it was invented ”.
- Jung was preceded by H. Silberer, a student of Freud who in turn, had been taken up and developed by E. A. Hitchcock, a General American scholar and Freemason influenced by Swedenborg. The works of Jung and his students are still driving this trend now. For these problems, see A History of Psychological Interpretation of Alchemy of L. H. Martin jr., In Ambix vol 22 n ° 1, March 1975 ;
- Do not give bibliographical information, it is easily accessible. We can never forget the hermetic tradition of J. Evola, if only for its considerable glee that gave us a reading of some passages in the text exceptionally, and for the profound boredom that inspired the stupidity of the doctrines of social-political implications;
- Speculum minus alchimiae Bibl. Univ Bologna 153, chap. 1 XII;