Magick in Theory and Practice (Section 2)

of a Magician; that Paracelesus applied himself to the cure of disease and the prolongation of life as the first considération, ai- though his greatest achievements seem to modem thinkers to hâve been ratifier his discoveries of opium, zinc, and hydrogen; so that we tend to think of him as a chemist no less than we do of Van Helmont, whose conception of gas ranks him as one of those rare geniuses who hâve increased human knowledge by a fundamentally important idea. The literature of Alchemy is immense. Practicaliy ail of it is wholly or partially unintelligible. Its treatises, from the aAsch Metzareph” of the Hebrews to the “Chariot of Antimony” are deliberately couched in hieratic riddles. Ecclesiastical persécution, and the profanation of the secrets of power, were equally dreaded. Worse still, from our point of view, this motive induced writers to insert intentionally misleading statements, the more deeply to bedevil unworthy pretenders to their mysteries. We do not propose to discuss any of the actual processes. Most readers will be already aware that the main objects of alchemy were the Philosopheras Stone, the Medicine of Metals, and varions tinctures and élixirs possessing divers virtues; in particular, those of healing disease, extending the span of life, increasing human abilities, perfecting the nature of man in every respect, conferring magical powers, and transmuting material substances, especially metals, into more valuable forms. The subject is further complicated by the fact that many authors were unscrupulous quacks. Ignorant of the first éléments of the art, they plagiarized without shame, and reaped a harvest of fraudulent gain. They took advantage of the general ignorance, and the convention of mystery, in just the same way as their modem successors do in the matter of ail Occult sciences. But despite all.this, one thing is abundantly clear; ail serious writers, though they seem to speak of an infinity of different subjects, so much so that it has proved impossible for modem analytic research to ascertain the true nature of any single process, were agreed on the fundamental theory on which they based their practices. It appears at first sight as if hardly any two of them were in accord as to the nature of the “First Matter of the Work”. — 184