Page 47 - A critical exposition of Jung's theory of alchemy

deception. However, this does not mean that criticism cannot be made16.
Jaffe writes that “Jung’s method of research was pre-eminently

historical” (1989: 46). But sadly his method is actually almost a-
historical. The approach he uses might be better compared with the
comparative method of early anthropology, best exemplified by James
Frazer of Golden Bough fame, in which examples of an apparently
similar type of custom and myth are taken from different cultures and
historical periods and compared, either to extract the underlying cause of
their similarities, or for the light they can shed upon each other. Jung
argued that he was attempting to find the full range of the meaning of a
symbol and that this could only be done through comparative research.
It was only by viewing authors together that he thought we can get the
whole picture, and he proposed that alchemy and hermetic philosophy
were particularly good grounds for the study of the formation of images.
He remarked truly that the alchemists themselves often recommended
this type of procedure, and compared his method to comparative
anatomy (CW 13: 273-4; CW 14: 249).

There are some fairly standard objections to this method:

1) It rips out fragments of customs and texts from their cultures, or
even from a lengthier narrative, thus depriving them of the context
which makes them meaningful. The same symbols may not always
mean, or refer to, the same things in different contexts (this may be
especially true with some alchemy). If symbols and texts do not have
meaning independent of their context, we cannot strip fragments of text,
or images, away from their embodying text and images (and the work of
the writer) and then compare them to other equally stripped texts, and
say they have an overriding meaning (even if we believe this is what
many alchemists did). The new context we have provided them by our
work, will necessarily influence their meaning. There is a strong form of
this argument, that we always distort meaning by providing a context,
but we can endeavour to minimise, rather than maximise, this effect,
through careful attention to as much of the original context as possible.

2) Any apparent coherence may be given by the observer not the

16. The most detailed critique from historians of alchemy is that contained in
Principe and Newman (2001: 401-408). For an attempt to clear up some of the
issues raised in that article from a Jungian point of view, see Tilton (2002). I
have attempted not to replicate these arguments.

43