Newman W R
Department of the History of Science, Harvard University.
Rev Hist Sci Paris. 1996 Apr-Sep;49(2-3):159-88.
It is impossible to investigate the historiography of alchemy without encountering the ideas of the "father of analytical psychology", Carl Jung. Jung argued that alchemy, viewed as a diachronic, trans-cultural entity, was concerned more with psychological states occurring in the mind of the practitioner than with real chemical processes. In the course of elucidating this idea, Jung draws on a number of alchemical authors from the early modern period. One of these is Eirenaeus Philalethes, the pen name of George Starkey (1628-1665), a native of Bermuda who was educated at Harvard College, and who later immigrated to London. A careful analysis of Starkey's work shows, however, that Jung was entirely wrong in his assessment of this important representative of seventeenth-century alchemy. This finding casts serious doubt on the Jungian interpretation of alchemy as a whole.
如果不接触“分析心理学之父”卡尔·荣格的观点，就不可能研究炼金术的历史编纂学。荣格认为，炼金术作为一个历时性的、跨文化的实体，更多地关注实践者头脑中出现的心理状态，而非真实的化学过程。在阐释这一观点的过程中，荣格借鉴了近代早期的一些炼金术作者。其中一位是埃里纳厄斯·菲拉莱瑟斯，这是乔治·斯塔基（1628 - 1665）的笔名，他是百慕大本地人，在哈佛学院接受教育，后来移民到伦敦。然而，对斯塔基作品的仔细分析表明，荣格对这位17世纪炼金术的重要代表人物的评价完全错误。这一发现严重质疑了荣格对炼金术整体的解读。
