A cosmology is undoubtedly at the root of the theory of transmutation; this is what needs to be studied if certain aspects of this elusive theory are to be understood. What we briefly describe here is the cosmology found in the first book of the MiftaJt al-ltikma (The Key of Wisdom, or Philosophy), the work of a self-styled pupil of Apollonius of Tyana; this cosmology has slightly different characteristics in the works of Jabir b. Hayyan and other authors, but the theory of transformatioi n resulting from it is not substantially different.
At the origin of the creation of the universe, God, in his eternal solitude, expressed a desire to create; the result of this desire, which God expressed without further definition, is a substance bearing the characteristics of absolute potentiality; since opposites had yet to be defined, this matter is at once everything and nothing. Then (a ‘‘then’’ that is beyond time), God uttered the word kun (‘‘let there be,’’ cf. the fiat of the Genesis). This word, which is light, defined its opposite, darkness; and with the creation of these opposites, light and darkness, which carried with them heat and cold and all other ‘‘physical’’ opposites associated with them (movement/stillness, hot/cold, light/heavy, rarefied/dense, etc.), the whole universe was produced through a series of opposites and intermediates. In the beginning, five ‘‘natures’’ (hot/dry, cold/dry, hot/ damp, cold/damp, and balanced, or damp, intermediate) were formed as four concentric spheres of decreasing luminosity and mobility, gathered around a still and dark core. This first stratification was defined by three concentric regions: the higher realm (spiritual), the intermediate (planetary), and the sublunar; within the sublunar world, the natures produce the four elements, which then produce the three composite bodies: minerals, vegetables, and animals.
If we were to compare the vast body of the universe with the bodies of the sublunar world, we would immediately notice a characteristic that makes them opposite: while the body of the universe presents itself as a creature of light with a dark inner core (where the darkest point is the Earth at its center), each body contained within it has a dark and passive exterior, which is matter, and a more “luminous” core where operational capacities reside: this is true for creatures at all levels, including the most noble, mankind, which hosts a rational soul within its body’s matter.
Still, aside from this inversion of conformation, there are two fundamental characteristics shared by the universe and each creature: (a) the recurrent stratification in opposites and intermediates, and (b) the shared substratum formed by the natures.
(a) Just like in the universe, between the higher and sublunar realms lies the intermediate planetary realm, joining the other two, while in the sublunar realm, between animals and minerals, there are plants: in each subject, be it mineral, plant, or animal, there is an intermediate state between two complementary compositions, exterior and interior.
(b) Beyond and below the ‘‘actual’’ configuration that each formed creature manifests, in the innermost core of its being there is a substratum made up by the natures. The different arrangement of these natures, meaning the different relations in their composition, results in different creatures; yet the substratum itself, meaning the natures, is shared by each form.
This type of cosmology, which has been expressed with slight differences by different authors, still leads to very similar conclusions in what concerns the theory of transmutation - directly generating the theory of alchemical transmutation. In alchemy, transforming something (transmutation) means correcting the relation between the natures: an extremely difficult process of immersion in the structure of matter itself, moving gradually from the composite body to the elements and then to the natures; operating then on the natures themselves, where the transformation will occur. If we view the body as composed of three levels: exterior, interior, and intermediate, we see that correcting relations between the natures is especially achievable at the intermediate level, since, due to its position, it involves the other two adjacent levels; in any event, each body can be transformed into another simply by ‘‘correcting’’ its natures, and transformation will occur via the careful and experienced application of fire, since applying or subtracting its warm nature will result in the desired corrections. The highest and most noble of all transformation procedures within the alchemical tradition is the Great Work, which results in the obtainment of the ‘‘object of desire,’’ the ikstr (elixir): its nature, the most balanced, the nature of gold, can ‘‘tint with its color’’ (transform into itself) each inferior nature.
Jabir b. Hayyan’s work (corpus giabirianum, Kitab al-alijar) describes the theory of the composition of the bodies and transmutation and also defines what we might call quantitative aspects. The text states that each body, in the form in which it appears to our eyes, has an exterior ‘‘actual’’ composition and an interior ‘‘potential’’ composition; these two compositions, exterior and interior, together, form a total composition (where the relation between natures is 1:3:5:8). Operating a transformation means modifying the exterior ‘‘actual’’ composition by accessing the interior ‘‘potential’’ composition: at the end of this procedure, the total composition will remain unchanged, but the exterior (or ‘‘actual’’) composition will have changed because actual natures will have transferred, in a certain percentage, to a condition ofpotentiality, while interior natures will have become exterior.
This Jabirian theory, although interesting because it attempts to mathematize the composition of matter, highlights a weakness of the alchemical theory: the impossibility of determining the two initial and final compositions between which the transformation is realized leads the author to rely on improbable numerological theories (relations between names and compositions in natures). Unable to rely on a strong and solid theory, degenerating into the most pure forms of empeiria, alchemy often ended up attempting to simply repeat the procedures of its predecessors.
World History
