A Beginning Study of the Double Transmutation of Alchemy Across Cultures

The purpose of this essay is to illustrate how alchemy is and has been embedded within the

cultures of several societies, across time. It is also the purpose of this essay is to compare how

alchemy is and was embedded in the societies studied. In an attempt to define a topic that has

been somewhat overlooked by academics, this paper employs ideas taken from Anthropology, as

the discipline of Anthropology has useful ideas to apply, to the study of alchemy. And since al-

chemy is a culture feature underrepresented in Anthropology, it is also thought that observing

how alchemy is and was embedded, in these different societies, may provide insight into this

ancient art. “From [the] twentieth-century standpoint alchemy is the study of error, but so is all

science. The chemistry of the moment is merely another phase in a long history of trial and error,

conjectures and refutations. Until recently we seem to have lost sight of this truth.” (Coudert

1980:220)

Alchemy historian John Holmyard explains the etymology of the word alchemy as follows:

“The word alchemy is derived from the Arabic name of the art, alkimia, in which ‘al’ is the
definite article. On the origin of ‘kimia’ there are differences of opinion. Some hold that it is
derived from kmt or chem, the ancient Egyptians’ name for their country; this means ‘the
black land’, and is a reference to the black alluvial soil bordering the Nile as opposed to the
tawny- coloured desert sands. [] Against this etymology is the fact that in ancient texts kmt or
chem, is never associated with alchemy, and it is perhaps more likely that kimia comes from
the Greek chyma, meaning to fuse or cast a metal.” (Holmyard 1957:17)

It stands to reason that the alchemists of every age were moulded by the culture in which

they were enculturated. “Which alchemist is speaking, and the context in which the text or

practice exists, need be kept in mind while considering any text. Speaking even more broadly,

context is everything.” (Cotnoir 2006:17) This is where the cross-cultural understanding inherent

to Anthropology comes in so handy; for in comparing a practice, across cultures, Anthropology,

of all the academic disciplines, can well assist in the understanding of the art of alchemy, an art
practiced across cultures and ages. H. J. Sheppard, an historian of alchemy explains that "in the
absence of any accurate dating of authors and texts [] it appears to the writer that the problem is

similar to many of those which confront the student of cultural anthropology, or ethnology. If

alchemy is regarded as a culture trait of any society in which it was operative it seems reasonable

to suppose that something may be learnt from the methods adopted by anthropologists [].”

(Sheppard 1970:69) Thus, the meaning of alchemy for several cultures will be studied, by apply-

ing anthropological ideas, starting with contemporary Western culture.

For the time being the following definition, from a contemporary alchemist, will be used; as

this essay progresses, the definition of alchemy will get more refined:

“Alchemy IS A WORD that has come to mean, in popular imagination, the changing of
lead into gold. It is true that many historical alchemists have pursued this goal, each with a
different motivation. For some, transmutation was an outward sign – dramatic, yet only a
sign of inner attainment; for others, it was a demonstration of profound insight into nature.
For quite a few others, it was the dream of fast money. And for some, it was a way to bring
about peace and prosperity for the many poor and sick.” (Cotnoir 2006:15)

Cotnoir’s definition includes both some of the various motivations for engaging in the art of

alchemy, as well as the underlying premise of alchemy, which is the belief in the possibility of

the transmutation of metals.

The key words in studying the art of alchemy are transmutation and metals. Transmutation

implies change, instability, and even unpredictability due to change. Transmutation also implies

an ability on the part of the person effecting the transmutation. Religious historian Mircea Eliade,

wrote that alchemists had mastered the element of fire in order to transmute the metals they

started with: “The alchemist, like the smith, and like the potter before him, is a ‘master of fire’. It

is with fire that he controls the passage of matter from one state to another. (Eliade 1978:79) And

metals are the basis for the existence and maintenance for types of modes of subsistence. The use

of metals have been key in the development of certain types of modes of subsistence; industrial

agricultural societies especially rely heavily on metals. Both agricultural and industrial agricult-
ural societies would be almost unthinkable without the use of metals. Some qualities of metal are

conductivity, hardness, sharpness, strength and especially durability. Thus metals exhibit qualit-

ies which are the opposite in meaning to that of transmutation. The qualities of metals have made

it possible for agricultural and industrial agricultural societies to maintain themselves, by using

metals to bore, drill and plough, into the soil and into the Earth, even in the search for more

metal- bearing ores. Classically, even the ages of humankind have been classified according to

metals. (ie- the gold, silver, bronze and iron ages.)

Metals themselves have been won from ores through the transmutation processes resulting

from the application of fire and heat. What is unique to alchemy, is that the art of alchemy can

take the transmutation one step further: certain metals themselves are transmuted into another

state of matter, that has entirely different qualities than the metals had, before the alchemical

transmutation processes. After alchemical transmutation, metals become an alchemical product,

known by many names, but often called the Philosopher's Stone. This alchemical product, which

I will refer to by its contemporary name, which is ORMES, certainly exhibits different qualities

from the metals it was manufactured from. Gardner wrote that it has the qualities of being a very

fine powdery, weightless, indestructible substance, and curiously, it is a superconductor at room

temperature; it is also edible and beneficial for biological beings' health, and it has even been

said to bestow illumination and also physical immortality on humans.

Metals have been used not only for agriculture, in both agricultural and industrial agricultural

societies, they have also been used extensively in the manufacture of machinery, including

weapons. Thus their qualities have made them as a double-edged sword. The idea that metals

may be further transmuted, into beneficial alchemical products, implies that metals may be

alchemically transmuted and thereby lose their dangerous edge. Henceforth, this double trans-

mutation, meaning the transmutation from ore to metal, and a further, second transmutation from

a metallic form to ORMES (plural of ORMUS), will be the operating definition of alchemy in
this paper. In order to have a handle to write about the particular transmutation practiced by

alchemists I will use the words double transmutation.

Taking into account linguistic anthropologist Levi-Strauss’ concept of the binary opposites

found in the myth of all cultures, and applying it to the idea of transmutation, means that

transmutation then would have a binary opposite concept. (De Burgos 2007) The binary opposite

concept would be something like immutable, permanent, or unchanging. And these are qualities

that metals exhibit. It is likely that peoples, in their quest for a stable agricultural or industrial

agricultural society, would tend to view the metals as relatively durable or stable. Transmutation

and hence alchemy implies metals changing into something else radically different that the

original metals. And the alchemical transmutation also implies the possibility of changes in the

social rank and status of those in possession of the ability to transmute metals. The real

possibility of the introduction of major change and instability to a given society might be seen as

undesirable by the elite of any society, if an elite’s goal is to maintain the established social

order, unless of course they benefited from the alchemical process, or the alchemist's particular

mastery of fire.

The idea that metals may be transmuted died in Western societies with the introduction of

Dalton’s periodic table, as the periodic table implies elements do not transmute in short periods

of time; elements are only said to transmute over very long periods of time, far longer than a

human lifespan. However, by the 1990s, beginning with a pivotal event and person, the practice

of alchemy was resurrected in contemporary Western culture, starting with a wealthy, third-

generation cotton farmer from Phoenix, Arizona, in the 1970s.(Gardner 2003:159-60).

In his book Secrets of the Sacred Ark, British historian, Laurence Gardner wrote that David

Hudson succeeded in his determination to scientifically prove the existence of an undefined

substance he had discovered in his soil and which he named manna. In naming this undefined
substance, that he discovered in his soil, manna, Hudson borrowed a term from the bible, the

Old Testament specifically. In Gardner's words: "After centuries of trial, error, frustration, and

failure, the Philosophers' Stone of ancient times had at last been rediscovered.” (Gardner

2003:170-1). Only since David Hudson began to popularize the notion of alchemy, has it

made a comeback in contemporary Western society.

Hudson’s discoveries attracted the attention of a leading zero-point physicist, Hal Puthoff:

“In his studies of zero-point energy and gravity as a zero-point fluctuation force, Puthoff had
determined that when matter begins to react in two dimensions (as Hudson’s samples were
doing), it should theoretically lose around four-ninths of its gravitational weight. This is about
44%, precisely as discovered in the white powder experiments. Hudson was therefore able to
confirm Puthoff’s theory in practice. [] the [manna] would then be resonating in a different
dimension, under which circumstance it should be totally invisible. Again, Hudson confirmed
that [].” (Gardner 2003:168)

For any persons interested in alchemy, this was a major breakthrough in the acceptance of

alchemy as an art that actually produced something tangible. Hudson and Puthoff had provided a

framework for contemporary Westerners to understand alchemy within the context of contemp-

orary Western myth, namely the particular myth of modern science, specifically Dalton's

periodic table of elements. Note that, in this instance I am using the word myth in the Levi-

Straussian sense, so that it does not mean untrue; in this instance myth means the particular

belief system underpinning a society. Since Dalton, Western science believed the elements of the

periodic table, in their natural state, to be immutable and unchanging, unless an atom were to be

smashed with extremely high-energy sub-atomic particles, by those trained in science, to do so.

Without negating Dalton's periodic table of elements, Hudson and Puthoff added a caveat to

the periodic table, namely that some elements, the Platinum Group Metals especially, exist in
another state, in nature; they may exist as metals, or they may exist in an alternative state named

ORMUS. Gardner explains that "in old Mesopotamia the exotic white powder of gold and
platinum group metals was called shem-an-na. In ancient Egypt it was mfkzt. Today it is recog-

nized as a high-spin, single-atom substance for which the scientifically coined term is ORMUS

or ORMES (Orbitally Rearranged Monoatomic Element)." (Gardner 2003:159)

Thus, by the 1990s, the art of alchemy had become embedded within the context of the pre-

dominant myth of contemporary Western society, namely Western science, for the first time.

Suddenly, alchemy was no longer just an underground practice for quacks; it was legitimized and

even incorporated into Western science. Science historian, Kuhn, explains that science has

periodically changed in this sudden, revolutionary manner, as follows: “And that means that

theories too do not evolve piecemeal to fit facts that were there all the time. Rather, they emerge

together with the facts they fit from a revolutionary reformulation of the preceding scientific

tradition, a tradition within which the knowledge-mediated relationship the scientist and nature

was not quite the same.” (Kuhn 1970:141) To this I might add that since Dalton's periodic table

was heretofore grounded almost entirely in the belief in the immutability of the elements, it may

have only been a matter of time, before the binary opposite concept of transmutation of elements

would somehow become included in the myth of Western scientific. Otherwise, this myth would

still be incomplete, from the perspective of structuralism's binary opposite pairs.

Only since the 1990s has there been room in contemporary Western myth for both of Levi-

Straussian binary opposite ideas, namely the immutability of the elements and the transmutation

of the elements. Not until prominent scientists legitimised the existence of the products of

alchemy, meaning the products of the double transmutation, did alchemy become a recognized

culture feature of contemporary Western society. It seems then, that in this particular industrial

agricultural society it was the high priests of the scientific model who had the authority to with-

hold, or to grant legitimacy to the double transmutation that is alchemy. Note that the words
“exotic matter” are used to describe and affirm that ORMES are a peculiar caveat of the periodic

table of elements, perhaps serving to marginalize the ORMES.

At the risk of boring the reader, I would like to include some auto-ethnographical information

pertinent to this essay. As I am a child of my times, I understand my world through the lens of

the myth of contemporary Western science. Thus I did not engage in studying alchemy and

conducting alchemical experiments, until after David Hudson popularized the existence of the

Philosopher’s Stone, within the context of contemporary Western science. I am currently a

member of an internet-based, alchemical workgroup and I have noticed that there are several

such workgroups. This workgroup includes hundreds of members, from around the globe, and it

shares alchemical information and methods, offers critique and provides a forum for lively

discussion, all via the world wide web. Thus, during this first decade of the third millennium CE,

alchemy is being practiced by contemporary individuals from diverse societies, across the globe.

And the majority, if not all, of these individuals, including myself, are not part of the elite of the

societies we are a part of.

In medieval Europe, alchemy was also embedded in certain societies, albeit differently. Of

great import for medieval Europe was the fact that “in the fourteenth century, the papacy itself

took official notice of the situation, [as in] 1317, Pope John XXII issued a decree against alchem-

ists.” (Johnson 1974:125) An historian of alchemy, Geoghegan, explains that "the practice of

alchemy in England had been forbidden by the promulgation of a Statute of 1404 by Henry IV."

Alchemy had thus been a cultural feature of Medieveal England. Geoghan also writes that "many

persons subsequently petitioned for Letters Patent to engage in alchemical operations; and

licenses (with a non obstante of this statute), were granted on several occasions up to the first

part of the 16th century." (Geoghegan 1957:80)

 In stark contrast to the royal ban on alchemy in medieval England, the art was widely prac-

tised in Renaissance Prague. During the reign of the Habsburg emperor, Rudolf II, despite the

papal ban on alchemy, the practice of alchemy became widespread, and was even done openly.

Rudolf II is an example of an elite member of an agricultural society, an emperor namely, who

had openly practised and also benefitted from alchemy. “Rudolf did not shrink from his reputa-

tion as an adeptus; indeed in 1606, he authorised the issue of a thaler which depicted him as an

alchemist, []. On seeing the silver coin, the Pope sent a message via the nuncio in Prague warn-

ing Rudolf against advertising his involvement with the forces of the ‘inferior world’ in such a

blatant manner.” (Marshall 2006:212) Rudolf II continued practising alchemy nonetheless.

Medieval historian, Peter Marshall, portrays the Renaissance alchemist as follows:

“[The Renaissance alchemist] prays on his knees in front of a tabernacle. The Latin word
Laboratorium is inscribed above the mantelpiece, combining the two essential aspects of the
alchemist’s endeavour: Labor (work) and Oratorium (prayer). The alchemist cannot hope to
discover the Philosopher’s Stone or attain divine wisdom without the two. It is the process
which brings together the traditional distinction between inner and outer alchemy: success in
the laboratory is not possible without the spiritual illumination of the soul.” (Marshall 2006:
137)

Thus for the Renaissance alchemist both the alchemy work in the laboratory and prayer were

combined in her or his practice. The tension between the religious constraints on the alchemist’s

life, in a time and place where alchemy was banned by the pope, and the laboratory work, was

mediated by the way that alchemy was practised during the Renaissance. Alchemists considered

both work and prayer necessary in order to successfully complete the double transmutation of

alchemy. Including prayer, as an essential component of alchemical practice, likely made al-

chemy more acceptable to the deeply religious society of that period in time.

For Rudolfine Prague, alchemy was, in defiance of the papal ban on alchemy, legitimised by

the emperor himself. Thus, it became embedded in the society as an art and practice of many of
the elite, some of whom benefitted from the practice of alchemy. “His tortured search for mirac-

ulous knowledge and his active support for some of the greatest and most daring thinkers of the

late Renaissance made a profound contribution to the history of Western civilisation.” (Marshall

2006:243)

The issue about the believability of the double transmutation of alchemy in particular, did not

exist until the widespread acceptance of Dalton’s periodic table of elements made the transmuta-

tion of metals seem impossible. During the Renaissance it was still considered possible to trans-

mute metals, but it was considered taboo by the prevailing religious institution of that time, the

Holy Roman Catholic Church. The binary opposite concepts of immutability and transmutation

were embedded in Rudolfine Prague such that transmutation, the double transmutation particular

to alchemy in particular, was prohibited by the papacy, but legitimised by the emperor. Including

prayer, as practiced in Christian churches was an intelligent, and perhaps necessary way to

include alchemy as a culture feature, openly. And since the alchemists of Prague and central

Europe were often enough Christian, they may well have believed, in the efficacy of prayer to

help them succeed in their alchemical work.

Marshall also explains that “Rudolf’s greatest achievement was to have created a positive

and tolerant environment and then to have had the wisdom to let things happen. He provided just

the catalyst required to fixate the boiling crucible of ideas that was lighting up Europe. Under his

patronage he turned Prague into the principal cultural and intellectual centre of the West.”

(Marshall 2006:243) This observation shows how it required a kind of tolerant and genius leader-

ship in order for alchemy to gain some acceptability in medieval central Europe. Perhaps just as

important is the fact that Rudolf II was himself a practising alchemist which means that he under

-stood alchemy, was familiar with it, and was tolerant and supportive of the practice as well.
 One might ask then, what underpins the widespread fear of alchemy in medieval and also in

Renaissance Europa? Was it that alchemists could alter the status quo of the society in which

they practised? Or was there a widespread belief associating alchemy with magic? Going back

further in time, prior to the Middle Ages, religious historian, Mircea Eliade wrote about how the

practice of alchemy, was understood by alchemists, as a kind of practice that necessitated the

mastery of fire. Within this context, Eliade includes alchemy with the mastery of fire required to

make pottery and the mastery of fire that smiths must have, in order to make their wares out of

metal. (Eliade 1978:79)

For alchemists, fire greatly speeds up the geological processes that transmute metals, thus

making alchemy possible at all. In a similar vein, fire also makes pottery and the smithy possible.

Below, Eliade elucidates that ancients viewed alchemists, potters and smiths as possessing a

magical power because of their mastery of the element of fire in their respective crafts:

“Fire turned out to be the means by which man could ‘execute’ faster, but it could also do
something other than what already existed in Nature. It was therefore the manifestation of a
magico-religious power which could modify the world and which, consequently, did not be-
long to this world. This is why the most primitive cultures look upon the specialist in the
sacred – the shaman, the medicine-man, the magician – as a ‘master of fire’.” (Eliade 1978:79)

Although Eliade uncritically refers to ancient cultures as primitive, his explanation, that alchem-

ists, potters and smiths are considered to have mastery over a magico-religious power, provides

insight into the fear of alchemists, prevalent in some societies, since ancient times.

Eliade refers to the Yakut society of Yakutia and Russia to make his point. For the Yakut, the

“common origins of the sacredness of shamans and smiths is shown in their ‘mastery over fire.’

In theoretical terms this ‘mastery’ signifies the attainment of a state superior to the human con-

dition. [] it is the smith who creates weapons for heroes. [] the smith’s mysterious art transforms

them into magic tools.”(Eliade 1978:85)

 Keeping in mind that alchemy also requires a certain mastery of the element of fire helps to

understand why alchemy was considered a sacred practice. According to anthropologist Anthony

F. C. Wallace’s classification of cults (Wilkes 2007), alchemists, practitioners of an art viewed as

sacred, since ancient times, may be considered as members of an individualistic cult, meaning

that an alchemist practices the rituals by him or herself. Perhaps alchemy may also be considered

a shamanistic cult, as some alchemists have acted, and act as healers and are part-time

practitioners.

In light of the ancient history that alchemy has of being viewed as a sacred practice and since

it may be considered as either an individualistic or shamanic cult, it becomes understandable that

an ecclesiastical cult, like the Roman Catholic church, might perceive alchemists as competition

or even as a threat to the absolute authority they had enjoyed in medieval Europe.

Not only does the word alchemy come to us from Arabic, the practice of alchemy also came to

medieval Europe via the Arabs. The principal practitioners of alchemy during the early Middle

Ages were Muslims, many of them Arabic. (Holmyard 1957:17) Alchemy historian, Eric Holm-

yard itemized no less than 26 English words pertaining to alchemy and chemistry, derived from

Arabic. (Holmyard 1957:107-8)

In the following, alchemist Dennis Hauck provides a lesson in history, thereby elucidating that

Alchemy survived in Western Europe only due to the Arabic tolerance of, and love for, learning:

“The demise of Egyptian alchemy began when the Romans took control in the first century
B.C. The Romans considered the alchemists a dangerous group of freethinkers and tried to
suppress their activities. [] Diocletian (emporer of Rome 281-305 A.D.) ordered the destruct-
ion of all alchemical writings in Egypt. In 313, after Emperor Constantine declared Christian-
ity the official religion of the Roman Empire, alchemists and other philosophers of nature
were severely persecuted. Fortunately, a mystical group of Christians, known as the Nestor-
ians, smuggled many of the alchemical manuscripts into Persia and shared them with the
Arabs. [] Alchemy took root in the Arabian lands and Arab alchemists played a key role in
pre-serving the Egyptian source documents.” (Hauck 2004:18)
During the reign of enlightened Muslim rulers such as the seventh and eighth century Caliphs
Harun al-Rashid and Al-Ma’mun works on alchemy in Greek were translated into Arabic. These

works were derived from Greek at Alexandria and also Constantinople. (Holmyard 1931:52)

Other works on alchemy were translated into Arabic, from other languages in use, in ancient

pre-Islamic intellectual centres that were incorporated into the geographically vast medieval

Islamic empire, such as Harran, Nisibin, Edessar and Jundi-Sapur. (Coudert 1980:30)

Arabic and Muslim alchemists of the early Middle Ages were blessed to live in an empire

wherein both rulers (Caliphs) and ecclesiastical authorities (imams) tolerated, and often enough

supported their art. This in no way implies that Islamic alchemy merely served to preserve a pre-

existing art. Muslim Arabic alchemists, such as the well-known Jâbir ibn Hayyân, known as

Geber in Latin, greatly enhanced the laboratory practice of the art. In those areas where fire had

been used in alchemical practice, Jabir introduced the use of acids, where fire had been used pre-

viously. Jâbir is credited with the first recipes for making nitric acid and for concentrating acetic

acid, by distilling vinegar. (Coudert 1980:34)

Prohibitions of alchemy from either ecclesiastical or imperial authorities were non-existent, as

alchemy was not a threat to the elite of the society. Alchemy reached a high-point and flowered

in medieval Arabia, and only faded as the Arabian empire itself declined. Arabic and Muslim al-

chemists were thus able to practice their art unfettered during the early Middle Ages and they

were able to experiment with new ways to practice this ancient art. The practical laboratory

aspect of alchemy was able to flower in the Muslim world of that time. And the Arabic and

Muslim alchemists brought alchemy to a new and different constellation, that substituted acids

and technique, for some of the transmutations, that were previously only made possible by apply-

ing fire. There was no tension between the structuralist binary opposite ideas of the transmuta-

ation and the immutability of metals, as mentioned previously. Arabic and Muslim alchemists,
Jâbir especially, formulated the polar opposite ideas of substances which are sulphur-like and

those which are mercury-like. (Coudert 1980:31). Sulphur-like substances have earthy qualities,

whereas mercury-like substances have more spiritual qualities. Thus the myth of alchemy, devel-

oped in medieval Arabia, also contained within it binary opposite concepts. And it was possible

for the tension, between these binary opposite concepts of earthy (sulphur-like) and spiritual

(mercury-like) to be mitigated, by the practice of alchemy in the laboratory. Making the ORMUS

in the alchemical laboratory equaled the creation of a spiritual substance made more earthy, in

the sense of tangible, and even edible; and so the laboratory of the medieval Arabic and Muslim

alchemist became a unique place, where these binary opposite substances, could be united.

Oriental historian Obed Johnson wrote that alchemy was indigenous to China rather than

brought to China by cultural diffusion as it was in Arabia and Europe. He explained “that

Chinese alchemy was, in fact, indigenous – a product of Taoism. For this purpose it is deemed

essential to state the early historical development of Taoism – the soil in which alchemy found

root and grew – with some detail.” Johnson 1974:5) “The general term used for alchemy in

Chinese literature is “lien tan”[]. Its literal meaning is, the pill, or drug, of transmutation.”

(Johnson 1974:43) The other Chinese name for alchemy is “the term “wai tan” [] – the exoteric

drug – grew to imply the system known as the “alchemy of transmuting metals.” (Johnson

1974:43)

In ancient China, the goal of alchemy was to be able to make the elixir that could make a mortal,

immortal. “The Chinese view of immortality was radically different from the West’s because the Chinese

never made the invidious distinction between matter and spirit. They consider ed the two as part of one

organic continuum. [] The function of the elixir was to act as a kind of permanent glue, keeping

body and souls eternally united.” (Coudert 1980:163) It seems that in China then there was no
tension between the structuralist binary opposite ideas of the transmutation and the immutability

of metals, as mentioned previously. Chinese alchemy, embedded in the Taoist worldview was

rather a practice, dedicated to the manufacture of elixirs which could make a practitioner im-

mortal. Johnson elucidates the notion of Tao as follows: “Tao was not only an eternal principle –

it was the ruling and directive force of the universe. All creation was subject to Tao. Complete

possession of Tao therefore came to imply mastery over the material world. (Johnson 1974:

43-44). And possession of the Tao means knowing how it works.

Within the myth of Chinese alchemy then, the tension between the two binary opposite ideas

of mortality and immortality, was mitigated by the practice of alchemy. In the following quote,

scholar of alchemy, Alison Coudert provides a portrait of the playful holism of Chinese alchemy:

“Chinese alchemists were constantly eating things which promised to make them immortal, and
not all of these were gold. [] Whatever Chinese alchemists ate, their goal, quite literally, was
to ingest eternal life. The immortality they sought was not in some intangible, spiritual realm,
as it was for Western alchemists, but on earth, or in a heavenly realm like earth, only better.
The Chinese never considered this world an ephemeral and trying antechamber to the next, as
Westerners, conditioned by centuries of Christian preaching, were apt to do. In their view, the
universe was uncreated and indestructible, and anyone who played his alchemical cards cor-
rectly could swallow the right elixir and go on doing forever what he had always enjoyed
doing before.” (Coudert 1980:162)

Obed Johnson noted that although the primary goal of Chinese alchemy was to make elixirs of

immortality, the pursuit of transmuting metals into gold was also an aspect of it: “we have seen

that the origins of Chinese alchemy may be traced to Taoism, and that by virtue of a literal

method of interpretation of certain of its tenets, an elaborate system was developed for the dual

arts of prolonging life and transmuting metals.” (Johnson 1974:89)

Ancient Chinese alchemists did not suffer from any prohibitions or persecution by either eccl-

esiastical or imperial authorities, as their medieval European counterparts had. Chinese emperors

often acted as patrons for alchemists and trusted them to make them the elixirs that could secure

their immortality. Some Chinese emperors were even too trusting of the alchemists they patron-
ized and ended up dying from being poisoned by an elixir. Indeed, “between AD 820 and 859 no

less than six emperors were poisoned by the elixirs they took confidently expecting to live for- e

ver.” (Coudert 1980:183) However, Chinese alchemists did not look upon their failings as a

failure in the methods of their art; they looked upon their failings as caused by their own moral

shortcomings. (Coudert 1980:183)

Eventually, after the ninth century the laboratory aspect of Chinese alchemy fell into decline

and alchemy became a different art. No longer were elixirs made nor were other metals trans-

muted into gold. Instead the new way to pursue immortality was through the mastery of certain

physiological practices, namely breathing techniques, diet and calisthenics. The reasons for the

decline of the laboratory alchemy are given as the loss of Taoist writings during political upheav-

als and the fact that the age-old Confucian disdain for manual labour reasserted itself under the

Ming dynasty and thus the Taoist interest in science got undermined. (Coudert 1980:189)

Nathan Sivin, another scholar of Chinese alchemy explains the transition from an alchemy, that

included the laboratory, to a purely physiological alchemy below:

“In China the language of alchemy was applied to various techniques of breath control whose
ain was physical immortality – material resurrection of the integral personality in a new and
imperishable body which is nurtured like an embryo by yogic disciplines within the old
physique, just as the alchemist brings an elixir to maturity in a matrix of lead. The breathing
techniques themselves are very ancient in China, certainly older than alchemy itself. The
coincidence of aim and many formal similarities made it possible, once the language of
alchemy was fully developed, to use it as an extended metaphor. Finally the metaphor replaced
the reality, and old alchemical writings were either reinterpreted in terms of physiologic
procedures (and even religious meditation once Buddhist influence made itself felt) or else
dismissed as aberrations. But was the success of the metaphor a major cause of the demise of
the operative art, or did internal alchemy merely fill the gap as external alchemy lost its
intrinsic vitality?” (Sivin 1968: 31-32)
Thus in China, up until the ninth century AD, the transmutation of metals written about in

medieval European and contemporary Western alchemy was also a culture feature of Chinese

society. Up until that time, metals were transmuted into alchemical elixirs to bring about

immortality, as this was the goal of the older Taoist Chinese alchemy, which included working
in an alchemical laboratory. I will leave Chinese alchemy at this juncture, as the unique operat-

ional definition of alchemy in this essay remains, that alchemy is the transmutation of metals

into ORMUS.

By applying some ideas from the discipline of Anthropology to the study of alchemy, it was

possible to observe how the art of alchemy, which applied a magico-religious force, namely fire,

was embedded in the structure of the societies studied. Anthony F.C. Wallace defined religion as

“a set of rituals, rationalized by myth, which mobilizes supernatural powers for the purpose of

achieving or preventing transformations of state in humans and nature”. (De Burgos: 2007) The

last part of Wallace’s definition has relevance to this essay, because it refers to transformations.

And by applying Wallace’s definition one may observe how the prevailing religion, or myth of a

given society may allow, curtail or exclude the double transmutation particular to alchemy.

Arabic alchemy flourished under the Muslim Caliphs, mentioned above, flourished to the

point that the double transmutation that I have referred to as alchemy was so well understood

by the Arabic alchemists, that they managed to replace the double transmutation by fire, with a

double transmutation by using a combination of acids and fire. Give such perfect freedom to

pursue alchemy, Arabic alchemists invented the binary opposite terms sulphur-like, meaning

earthy, and mercury-like, meaning like Spirit. In Renaissance Europe by contrast, alchemy was

an occult (meaning hidden) art, except for a brief period under the Habsburg Holy Roman

Emperor, Rudolf II. Under the deeply suspicious gaze of the Roman Catholic Church, alchemy

changed to include Christian prayer as part of the alchemical process. Indeed for alchemy to

survive under Rudolf II it was necessary to “Christianize” alchemical practice, in order to legit-

imise it.

In ancient China, alchemy was viewed as a possible way to achieve immortality, especially by

the Taoists; the binary opposite ideas of mortality and immortality were mediated by the practice

of alchemy. At first, the ingestion magical pills made by alchemists through the double transmut-
ation process allowed alchemists and their patrons to become immortals, when they were not

poisoned to death. Later, Chinese alchemy changed to an inner alchemy and the double transmut-

ation practice was discontinued, for the reasons mentioned above.

And in contemporary Western society alchemy is again being practised. The idea of the trans-

mutation of metals, although still controversial, has been accepted as a caveat of the predominant

model, namely Dalton’s periodic table. Because of experimental farmers and quantum physicists

who were willing to challenge the orthodoxy of Dalton’s periodic table, starting in the 1990s,

and hence challenge the idea that metals are immutable, the products of the double transmutation

of alchemy have gained a place in contemporary Western society, albeit still on the fringes. And

thanks to the information sharing possibilities of the Internet alchemy is once again being

practiced by many amateurs, myself included. If it were not for the discovery of ORMES this

paper on the double transmutation of alchemy would not have been written.

Coming back to Wallace’s definition of religion, it becomes understandable that different

societies “controlled” the use of the magico-religious force of fire, the force that alchemists

applied to effect the double transmutation in particular. And each society had its particular way

of controlling the practice of and the practitioners of alchemy. The Yakut smiths are considered

as shamans and they were usually themselves descended from smiths themselves. The ancient

Taoist Chinese and medieval Muslim Arabian societies allowed alchemists to freely practice

their art of double transmutation. Indeed, medieval Arabic alchemists understood their art so

well that they discovered how to substitute acids for alchemical processes, which were previous-

ly only made possible, by applying fire. Thus, the Yakut, ancient Taoist Chinese and medieval

Muslim Arabic societies were structured such that the transmutation of metals performed by

smiths, and the alchemical double transmutation performed by alchemists, were achievable.

The central Europeans of the Renaissance, who inherited the knowledge of alchemy from the

Arabs, had to practice their art in secret, as it was literally prohibited by the predominant eccles-
iastical religion of the time, until the time of Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II. Thus in central

Europe, alchemy became an occult (meaning hidden) art, as the structure of the religion of that

era, was such that alchemists were prevented from practicing their art of double transmutation

Rudolf II was a political genius who personally managed to counterbalance the prohibitions

against alchemy, originating from the papacy in Rome, with his own brilliant political

machinations. Under Rudolf II, European alchemy briefly changed from being an occult art, to

an art practiced openly. However, in order to legitimise their practice in a time of prohibition, by

the Holy Roman Catholic church, alchemists of that era incorporated prayers, of the predominant

religion, into their practice, thereby making their alchemy a syncretism of Christian, and

originally Arabic influences.

From the time of Dalton’s periodic table, alchemy was relegated to the realm of error and

even ridicule, as the prevailing myth, namely Western science, decreed that the transmutations

of elements were not possible. Oddly then, the most repressive time period for alchemy began

with the Enlightenment, and continued well into modernity, because during this era alchemy

went from being considered an occult art, to being considered charlatanism. Thus the Enlighten-

ment and modernity may be critiqued as having adopted a myth, rather than an ecclesiastical

religion, which did not prohibit the practice of the art of alchemy, but instead, excluded the

possibility of the transmutation of metals, into other metals, or into ORMES, thereby also

preventing the double transmutation of alchemy. In light of the predominant myth of the

Enlightenment, the practice of alchemy was made to appear a ridiculous, and even dishonest

practice. The prevailing myth of the Enlightenment and modernity, namely Western science,

ended up being the darkest myth ever adopted by a society, with respect to alchemy. This also

raises the question of whether the officialdoms of the myth of Western science, (such as the

Royal Academies of Science) may not themselves be considered ecclesiastical religions?

In contemporary Western society, the double transmutation performed by alchemists has been
resurrected from its death during the very dark ages of the Enlightenment and modernity,

relatively recently, through the efforts of one wealthy cotton farmer, named David Hudson, and

quantum physicists, such as Hal Puthoff. At present the products of the art of alchemy, namely

the exotic materials, now called ORMES, have been deemed legitimate, by contemporary

Western science. For the time being at least, the contemporary myth of Western society, has been

changed to allow a legitimate place to the practice of the double transmutation of metals, namely

the ancient art alchemy. And thus, within the structure of contemporary Western society, the

double transmutation of alchemy is achievable. Even the controversial “very first” alchemical

text, named the Emerald Tablet, attributed to the Egyptian deity, Thoth, (called Hermes

Trismegisthus, in Greek) has re-surfaced and may be found in contemporary books on the

practice of alchemy. (see Appendix A)

Bibliography:

Burckhardt, Titus
1972 Alchemy Science of the Cosmos, Science of the Soul. William Stoddart, trans.
Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books Ltd.

Cotnoir, Brian
2006 The Weiser Concise Guide to Alchemy. York Beach, ME: Weiser Books.

Coudert, Allison
1980 Alchemy, the Philosopher’s Stone. London, UK: Wildwood House.

De Burgos, Hugo
2007 Anthropology of Myth Lecture Notes. Electronic document,
http://www.ecourses.ubc.ca/SCRIPT/anth_333_001200730hb/scripts/serve_home,
accessed October 15th, 2007.

Eliade, Mircea
1978[1956] The Forge and the Crucible. Stephen Corrin, trans. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.

Gardner, Laurence
2007 Lost Secrets of the Sacred Ark, Amazing Revelations of the Incredible Power of Gold.
 London, UK: Harper Collins Publishers Ltd.

Geoghegan, D.
2008 Licence of Henry VI to Practise Alchemy. Alchemy and Early Modern Chemistry
Papers from Ambix. Allen G. Debus, ed. Pp 80-87. The Society for the History of Alchemy
and Chemistry. Huddersfield, UK: Jeremy Mills Publishing.

Hauck, Dennis William

2004 Sorcerer’s Stone A Beginner’s Guide to Alchemy. New York: Kensington
Publishing Corp.

Holmyard, Eric John

1931 Makers of Chemistry. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Holmyard, Eric John

1957 Alchemy. Toronto: Penguin Books.

Johnson, Obed Simon

1974 Gold Historical and Economic Aspects. Reprint ed. New York: Arno Press Inc.

Kuhn, Thomas S.
1973 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Second ed. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Marshall, Peter
2004 The Theatre of the World Alchemy, Astrology and Magic in Renaissance Prague.
Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Ltd.

Sheppard, H. J.
1970 Alchemy: Origin or Origins? Ambix. 17(2): 69-84.

Sivin, Nathan
1968 Chinese Alchemy: Preliminary Studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Wilkes, Barbara
2007 Anthropology of Religion Lecture Notes. Electronic document,
http://www.ecourses.ubc.ca/SCRIPT/anth_419_001200720bw/scripts/serve_home,
accessed August 16th, 2007.

Zimmermann, Rainer E.
1984 The Structure of Mythos: On the Cultural Stability of Alchemy. Ambix. 31(3):
125-137.
 Appendix A: Emerald Tablet

True, without lie, certain and most true.

That which is below is as that which is above, and that which

is above is as that which is below, to accomplish the miracles
of the One.

And as all things come from the One by the contemplation

of the One, thus all things arise from this one thing by
adaptation.

Its father is the Sun, its Mother is the Moon. The wind carried
It in its belly. Its nurse is the earth.

The Father of every miracle in the whole world is here.

Its power is complete if it will be turned into earth.

You shall separate earth from fire, the subtle from the gross,
gently and with great ingenuity.

It ascends from earth to heaven, and again descends into the

earth, and receives the powers of the things above and
below. Thus you shall have the glory of the whole world. All
obscurity shall fly from you.
This is the strength of every strength, for it overcomes every
subtle thing and shall penetrate every solid thing.
Thus the world was created.

From this shall come marvellous adaptations, of which this is

the method.

Therefore I am Hermes Trismegistus, having the three

parts of the philosophy of the whole world.

It is completed that which I had to say about the operation of

The Sun. (Cotnoir 2006:57)