There’s more to alchemy than its mystical nature

Recently, I have been studying alchemy and I have been surprised by how little I used to think of it despite the very important part it plays in the history of chemistry. My misconceptions have been partly shaped by how alchemy is represented in popular culture and by the views that – at least until recently – were prominent in the history and philosophy of science.

To be fair, there is truth to some of the things alchemists have been accused of. Often deliberately, alchemists presented their work in a language that was very obscure and unapproachable to someone who did not belong to their group. They created a secretive and mysterious atmosphere, in part to hide exactly what they were doing but also to gain reputation, as their purported success very much depended on their ability to offer medicine and recipes that could heal all diseases and help resolve everyday problems. Alchemists also proposed theories of everything; namely, theories that could account not just for what we would call today ‘chemical phenomena’ but would also explain – among other things – the movements of the planets, the functions of the human body and the relation of man with the divine.¹ Gods and mythical figures such as Isis, Hermes Trismegistus or Moses’ sister Miriam were considered some of the most important alchemists. Undoubtedly, all this created a mythical dimension to alchemy and opened the door to people making the most unlikely claims.

Alchemy no longer holds the allure it once did. Nonetheless, there are still some very exciting secrets to uncover; secrets that can surprise us and give us a renewed appreciation of what alchemists did and of how important their work was to modern science.

Firstly, the questions alchemists raised and the theories they developed were not as far-fetched as they may seem to the modern eye. Before the Scientific Revolution it was common practice to construct complete worldviews that could purportedly explain everything. Aristotle was part of this tradition, as were other major figures since antiquity. After all, it was only after the Scientific Revolution that the idea of science as an organised activity with clearly defined and distributed tasks and responsibilities was formed. In addition, the search for a substance that could transform other materials into gold (what is popularly called the ‘Elixir of Life’ or the ‘Philosopher’s Stone’) was not such an irrational pursuit if we consider what people observed in nature. Given that they would often see one metal transforming into another and observe substantial changes in the properties of materials when combined in specific ways, why would it be irrational to think that it is possible to create gold? (Philip Ball makes a similar point about a much more recent attempt to transmute metals into gold).

Alchemists developed a practice that very much resembles how modern scientists do chemistry today

Secondly, it may help overcome some of the prejudices we hold against alchemy if we take into account that part of its ‘bad’ press was created and promoted deliberately by well-known chemists (but also other prominent figures in science and philosophy, such as René Descartes). Robert Boyle is a characteristic example of this. In his effort to separate his work from alchemy, he would publicly cast a very negative image of alchemists. This is despite the fact that some of his contributions to chemistry were either taken from or based on the extensive work alchemists had done before him and who – of course – he did not properly acknowledge.²

In contemporary history of chemistry, there is a growing effort to set the record straight regarding alchemy’s contributions to chemistry and science overall. Historians William Newman and Lawrence Principe have argued that alchemy very much relied on the empirical analysis of nature and developed rigorous techniques and experimental procedures to closely study phenomena.³ In fact, they offer evidence of alchemical recipes whose clarity and precision show that alchemists developed a practice that very much resembles how modern scientists do chemistry today.

Lastly, it should not be overlooked that very important work was done by female alchemists. In fact, given that women are usually omitted by history books on science, it is quite surprising that they were well-respected and often referenced and praised by their male colleagues, especially in ancient times. This is the case with Zosimos of Panopolis, who lived in the 3rd–4th century CE and extensively talked about the work and contributions of Mary the Jewess (unfortunately, historians haven’t found any of her own writings).⁴

All in all, alchemy laid some important foundations for contemporary chemistry through the discovery of elements and the invention of important chemical apparatuses. It would be a loss not to fairly appreciate its value.

Acknowledgement

Special thanks to James Ladyman and Nick Norman for the fascinating discussions we’ve had on this issue.