2.1.4 Research Paper

Introduction 

From the outside, alchemy seems to have nothing but pseudoscience about it according to Hansson’s standards (2017). Upon deeper research, alchemy has contributed to modern chemistry and thus should not be labeled as pseudoscience. Alchemists have always been interested in exploring and trying to understand nature and chemical reactions. Hence, chemistry has always been an aspect of alchemy. But beginning in the 1980’s, scholars and historians began questioning the reputation of alchemy as a pseudoscience, and instead began to investigate the legitimacy of alchemy as a contributor to modern science. The question at issue is why exactly has alchemy recently been accepted as an important contributor to modern chemistry, leading to its current identification as a science instead of a pseudoscience? The answer lies in the complicated history of alchemy, and the way historical sciences have recently examined that history without the biases of its occult reputation. This paper presents evidence that alchemy helped develop modern chemistry through scientific experimentation conducted by prominent scientists in the Middle Ages and Renaissance.

Aspects of Alchemy

Alchemy is divided into two parts. The first half is exoteric alchemy, which is the study of the transmutation of one base metal (lead, tin, copper, iron, and mercury) into a more precious metal (gold and silver). The changing of one metal into another, also known as transmutation, is based on the theory that everything is made up of certain elements in different amounts. Assuming this is true, then breaking down a piece of matter into its basic elements, separating them, and changing their proportions to one another will lead to an underlying shift in the substance’s chemical structure. Basically, one substance can actually transform into another. Exoteric alchemy evolved to be considered practical alchemy by the mid-18th century after the idea of alchemy being able to make gold had been disproven. Making gold was never the main objective for alchemists, but rather the production of an immortality elixir was considerably more essential and appealing to them (Maxwell-Stuart, 2012). This leads to the other side of alchemy, the esoteric one, which is a spiritual quest for the creation of an elixir that could cure illnesses and even achieve immortality.

Once regarded as a secret of divine power, the philosophers’ stone was an important aspect of alchemy. It is said to be made of a reddish powder from a mineral that is broken into three elements and then recombined into a solid stone that can be melted by wax. To start, pontic water must be used to cleanse the original substance of its darkness. The body, soul, and spirit must next be purified, resulting in a liquid known as mercurial water. Then the liquid is separated into five portions. Two should be put aside while three of them should be blended together and added to one-twelfth of the gold weight. Once the gold and water are mixed, a solid amalgam is formed. Meanwhile, the amalgam is added to one of the two saves of the mercurial water in a tear-shaped phial. Then add the last portion of the water in seven small installments and cover the phial. After forty days, the contents of the phial will be black (this step is known as the “raven’s head”), and then seven days later, at a little higher heat, powdery bodies form, followed by a circle around the substance. Finally, the soul and spirit combine with their bodies to produce an everlasting essence under the force of fire. Assuming this is valid, the philosopher’s stone’s essence was said to have the ability to turn any metal touched by it into gold and restore health and immortality to anyone who ate it (Holmyard, 1968). This idea that immortality “could be obtained through divine grace and favor” (Holmyard, 1968, p.15) resulted in esoteric alchemy, in which the tedious process of transmutation became a representation of turning sin into perfection of man through faith and God’s will. This half of alchemy is much more hidden from public perception.

There are different sectors of religious alchemy that are considered esoteric because they involve similar basic beliefs. The religion of Taoism, which is thought to have originated around 300 B.C., served as the foundation for Chinese alchemical theory. The Taoists desired a long life, so they started preparing for Paradise, and to this end, they practiced meditation, breathing exercises, different physical activities, and fasting. Followers were drawn to alchemy as a desire for a longer lifespan, which evolved into the goal of immortality (Holmyard, 1968). The Taoists’ desires and goals are somewhat similar to those of Christianity. Both wanted to achieve immortality, to reach Heaven (or Paradise for Tao), and praised their gods in ways to help them reach Heaven (praying) or Paradise (meditation, fasting, etc.). Other religious alchemy followed similar desires but sometimes used different methods to achieve their objectives.

In its prime, from about A.D. 800 to the middle of the 17th century, alchemy was practiced by kings, popes, and emperors to minor clergy, parish clerks, smiths, dyers, and tinkers. While metal transmutation was a permanent aspect of alchemy, other prominent areas included medicine distillation, metalworking, chemical process analysis, and the production of items such as dyes, inks, imitation gems, gums, resins, acids, and beauty products (Coudert 2008). All of these elements of alchemy were similar in their effort to turn physical materials into something better than they were originally.

During the 12th century, Christians spent a lot of time and effort attempting to figure out which practices were appropriate in the eyes of the faith and what the best way to do so was. During this time, alchemy was rarely considered as a potentially dubious art that required the practitioner to make contact with demons in order to achieve its intended effects. As a result, it was never a point of contention within the Christian higher power, although Christians were slightly worried about alchemy’s practical consequences. In 1123, the Fathers of the First Lateran Council passed a canon that stated, “Whoever knowingly makes or intentionally spends false money is to be separated from the community of the faithful, as the cursed oppressor of poor men, and also as a disturber of the civitas” (Tarrant, 2018, p. 213). Despite the fact that the canon made no mention of alchemy or transmutation, it authorized the use of church sanctions to penalize individuals who made or used counterfeit coins, and that made alchemists nervous as they dealt with metal. As early as 1376, Nicholas Eymerich created the Directorium Inquisitorum, an alternate view of alchemy. The notion that an alchemist was seeking to achieve naturally impossible goals prompted Eymerich to conduct a more thorough inquiry into their operations. Eymerich compared alchemy to astrology, which many Christian leaders condemned, claiming it “required the invocation of demons in order to achieve its practitioner’s desired outcome” (Campbell, 2018, p. 206). The Directorium Inquisitorum was a turning point in the Church’s stance on alchemy during the late 16th century.

Religion heavily influenced scientific theories in the medieval and early modern periods. Moreover, alchemists and theologians studied various parallels between alchemy and Christianity, when alchemical writings and concepts began to spread in European intellectual circles during the Renaissance. Some found parallels between the development and functioning of alchemical substances and Biblical texts, or compared the effects of alchemical remedies on regular bodies to the bodies of divine individuals such as Adam, Mary, and the saints. Many devoted church-goers were offended by alchemy’s presentation as a spiritual practice, seeing the union of alchemical principles and Christian faith in the works of spiritual alchemists as harmful, or even sacrilegious. Scandalous parallels were made between the two, but the comparison of Christ to the process of the philosopher’s stone was one of the most shocking examples. This said that Christ had to be crucified in order to redeem his humanity. The alchemist’s substances had to go through similar sufferings, including death and revival, before they could “redeem base metals as the philosophers’ stone” (Nummedal, 2013). This was unheard of because spiritual alchemists associated Christ with the philosopher’s stone and implicated themselves with both! Assuming that the philosophers’ stone can be compared to Christ (and vice versa), then the other alchemical aspects must be regarded as potentially able to provide salvation in some way. Other allegorical alchemical interpretations are frequently problematic in matters of religion, and symbolism’s language allows for a lot of creative license while also creating a lot of danger in terms of religion’s credibility and thus the power of the Church. Another point of tension between the Church and alchemists was that the entire purpose of alchemy was to improve elements of nature, which, in the eyes of the Church, was an attempt to improve God’s creation. This notion of ‘improving upon nature’ was considered a threat to the Church and God, so it was seen as an attack. Spiritual alchemists’ outright political dissent and critique had the greatest impact on the decline of alchemy.

In the 17th century, alchemy was considered a subset of chemistry. This changed in the 18th century, when scientific communities cast alchemy out as an “intellectual taboo” (Principe 2011, p. 306), its followers as uneducated and troublesome, and its materials as foolishness in an effort to disassociate from alchemy and make chemistry more respectable. Writers commonly selected non significant individuals or ideas as a reflection of the entire or mixed fragments of work separated from its context, which made alchemical works seem like jumbled pieces of nonsense (Principle, 2011). This demonstrates the logical fallacies of cherry-picking information and hasty generalizations used in order to dismantle alchemy in order to make room for chemistry. According to Miroslav Vacura, if scientific publishing practices do not match rigorous analytical quality standards, they spread lies and misinformation. He goes on to explain that people become “overwhelmed by scientific facts that may sometimes seem contradictory or may have a commentary or context that creates a completely misleading image” (Vacura, 2019, p. 5). To put it in context, if the public is repeatedly told by a reliable source that alchemists are unstable introverts who hide in their dingy basements mixing nefarious ingredients by candlelight in the pursuit of communicating with demons, then obviously it will provide a false and damaging image. Vacura further explains that the “facts” presented will have been “replaced by [social] media ‘fictionalization’” (Vacura, 2019, p. 12), or in other words, an explanation that helps only the people who created it.

Despite not having advanced technology, the spread of misinformation through word of mouth during this time has continuously managed to connect alchemy with outdated conceptions of the occult and pseudoscience to this day and still hinders people from accepting alchemy as creditable. The slander of alchemy during the late 16th century onward was very effective because the public accepted the warnings of both the Church and the scientific community. As a result of society’s rejection and the Church’s fury, the study of alchemy or claiming to be an alchemist became increasingly dangerous. Scared of anti-counterfeiting regulations, excommunication, imprisonment, ridicule, or kidnapping by powerful individuals wanting to learn transmutation, alchemists kept their heads low in order to keep existing. In turn, this made alchemists extremely secretive and paranoid of other alchemists trying to steal their work.

Alchemy, like modern science, had its own signs, symbols, and technical phrases that seemed incoherent to the untrained mind. Alchemists were concerned with secrecy, so they wrote their experiments and writings in code that included allusions to astrology and nature. Alchemy used symbols in literal and allegorical ways to expand a thought and explain its history. There is no universal alchemical symbolism vocabulary.  Sometimes alchemists used the same symbol in a variety of ways, and a symbol can have multiple meanings within the same work. While certain symbols have core ‘meanings,’ their importance has to be determined from the symbolic context in which they occur. This made translating and comprehending alchemical texts difficult, but it has been proven that they have made significant contributions to the body of knowledge in the field of chemistry.

Around 1416 to 1425, Franciscan friars compiled the Tabula Medicine, an “encyclopedic handbook of medicine” (Jones, 2018, p. 234), as a source for a variety of treatments to sickness, many of which are alchemical. The creators of these remedies assumed that Tabula Medicine readers were willing to make their own alchemical medicines rather than buying them. Furthermore, Tabula Medicine demonstrates practical alchemy in treating illness with techniques accessible in the medical capacity, ignoring the themes of spiritual alchemy and putting practicality first (Jones, 2018). This development was the beginning of publications produced by alchemists providing readers with technical details about mining and metalworking, as well as a variety of methods for making steel and glass, distilling mercury, and crystallizing saltpeter, salt, and vitriol. While there were many manuals mainly for the male audience, there were also some specifically for women. The Books of Secrets was a type of genre that gave instructions on how to remove stains, fuse and color metals, fashion imitation gems, manufacture new colors, make shoe polish, and even lotion to lighten the skin and eliminate wrinkles (Coudert 2008). This ushered in the era of scientific and technical reference books, which are still widely available in the DIY sections of bookstores today.

In the history of alchemy, there have been numerous individuals from different religious branches of alchemy who have changed our understanding of alchemy and modern chemistry. One of the most well-known and respected Islamic alchemists (or alchemists in general; the word ‘alchemy’ is derived from the Arabic, al-kimiya) is Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Zakariyya, also known as Al-Razi (825–925), who became a physician at the age of 30 and helped contribute to chemistry and other sciences today. Al-Razi took an interest in practical alchemy and transformed alchemy by flipping the significance of experiments and speculation when his writing, “The Book of the Secret of Secrets,” was suggested for use as a laboratory manual. Moreover, Al-Razi was the first to encounter substance division when he devised a framework for the categorization of alchemical substances. Al-Razi’s concentration on practical alchemy undoubtedly contributed to developments in medicine. The thoroughly observed work of Al-Razi helped to demonstrate that alchemy resulted in an ever-increasing amount of reliable chemical knowledge (Holmyard, 1968). Alchemy is no longer hiding in the dark, but rather being re-evaluated as an important and relevant part of the history of science.

Influences on Modern Chemistry 

Looking into specific examples of alchemy’s influence on the modern world, an alchemical experiment conducted by Hennig Brandt is crucial. Hennig Brandt was a German physician working to create the philosophers’ stone. His experiment consisted of “heating a mixture of sand and charcoal with a tar-like substance produced by boiling down about 1,200 gallons of urine over two weeks” (Hansen, 2019). He maintained the mixture at a constant temperature at the maximum his furnace could go. After hours of boiling the mixture, white vapor began to form. This white vapor condensed into thick drops. These thick drops sparkled for hours. Because of this Brandt named his creation phosphorus which means “things that give off light” in Latin (Hansen, 2019). This alchemy experiment led to the development of a new chemical element that is still on the modern Periodic Table of Evidence. Mineral phosphates have replaced urine as the best source material for phosphorus, however, Brandt’s experiment led to the discovery of an element that is now used in essential items in modern-day society such as matches, fertilizer, and bombs (Hansen, 2019).

Alchemist’s experiments were also very beneficial for the development of early forms of modern chemistry equipment. During the time period when alchemy was extremely popular, alchemists had to be creative and come up with their own processes and resources for their experiments. Examples of equipment that have been a result of alchemy experiments are flasks, funnels, beakers (Holmyard, 1968), and Bunsen burners. All of these have origins in alchemy and early forms were created by alchemists. A female alchemist, Mary the Jewess, was given the credit for the invention of the tribikos, which is a piece of equipment used for the early process of distillation. The tribikos and other forms of it consists of a bottle where the liquid is held during the distillation. This “bottle” later evolved into the flask which is now seen in modern chemistry labs. Flasks are common for holding solutions and are extremely important in the modern chemistry world (Holmyard, 1968). The experiment that led to the founding of phosphorus mentioned before, also used early stages of a very common piece of chemistry equipment, specifically the Bunsen burner. In order to create the white vapor that would condense into the phosphorus, Brandt boiled his solution on top of his furnace for an extended period of time. In modern chemistry, Bunsen burners are used to heat up solutions through the use of a flame (Hansen, 2019).

Evidence of alchemical practice and its influence on science and chemistry can be found even earlier than Hennig Brandt or Mary the Jewess. In the third or fourth century C.E., a group of Graeco-Egyptian papyri known as “The Leyden and Stockholm papyri” was written. The documents thoroughly describe the practices of alchemy that were used in chemical experiments during the Graeco-Roman period of Egypt. The papyri document 75 methods of purifying metals, including experiments with gold, silver, tin, copper, lead, mercury, arsenic, antimony, and zinc. The “recipes” recorded in the papyri were originally for making alloys and various new metals. It wasn’t until later in the Middle Ages that alchemy became distorted and associated with magical and religious practices and because of this, the Leyden and Stockholm papyri have the highest historical importance as a record of ancient chemical practices using alchemy (Caley & Jensen, 2008).

Some notable experiments in this document include the purification/hardening of lead, manufacture of asem, and more. In the purification/hardening of lead the experiment was as follows: “melt it, spread on the surface lamellose alum and copperas reduced to a fine powder and mixed, and it will be hardened.” To produce asem they would “take soft tin in small pieces, purified four times; take 4 parts of it and 3 parts of pure white copper and 1 part of asem. Melt, and after the casting, clean several times and make with it whatever you wish to. It will be asem of the first quality, which will deceive even the artisans” (Caley & Jensen, 2008, 18-20). Both experiments show an understanding of the scientific process as well as chemical processes. In the first experiment the alchemists are said to “melt” and “mix” reactants to form a solid product; this is an example of the physical properties of elements. In the next experiment they are shown to use measurements, four and three parts, an important part of any experiment so that results can be replicated accurately (Caley & Jensen, 2008, 18-20).

To further clarify that alchemy wasn’t just an art practiced by uneducated fools, it’s important to mention that there are several famous scientists who participated in alchemy. Francis Bacon was one of these scientists. Bacon was an English philosopher and a well-known political figure in England. Bacon became renowned in the late 1500s and early 1600s as he found his place among James VI’s court. Within this court he slowly travelled up the ranks becoming Lord Chancellor. However, he fell out of favor with the court and had to resign. Aside from his political work, Bacon was a natural philosopher. Natural philosophers were people concerned with the natural world and physical science. Bacon was often critical of earlier philosophers and found problems with people such as Plato and Aristotle. For instance, he believed that Aristotle’s work lacked a general theory of science, a theory that could be applied to all branches of science. With this thought Bacon strived to find a way to standardize science and how truth was found. To do this he began with what he called “Idols”, or fallacies in which humans wrongly accepted information. Some of examples of these “Idols” included Idols of the Tribe, Idols of the Cave, and Idols of the Market Place. Idols of the Tribe referred to Bacon’s idea that humans produce misinformation due to the human brain. He believed that the brain took in the natural world in a distorted way. Idols of the Cave on the other hand, were ideas people held to be true simply because that idea was close to the individual. Finally, Idols of the Market Place were ideas that influenced people because they heard it from a large public of people. After Bacon had defined why humans had wrongful thoughts, he then proceeded to create his scientific method. His method became known as induction. This method was focused on gathering information from multiple instances and then bringing that information to a consensus. Because of this method, Bacon has been credited as the father of the scientific method we use today (Klein & Giglioni, 2012).

Even though Francis Bacon was a man of science and law, he dabbled in alchemy. Bacon held stock in the achievements of alchemists but shunned them for their belief in the spiritual or their traditional nature. Nevertheless, he believed that their process produced chemical results. For example, Bacon agreed that it was well observed by the Arabic alchemists that sulfur and mercury were large components of matter. Bacon would also take an interest in the substances that the alchemists of his time were using and conduct his own experiments with them. In one of his books, Bacon even states that if a person wanted to turn silver to gold, they would only need the knowledge of guidance. This supports the alchemist idea of transmutation. However, Bacon rarely focused on transmutation as he was more concerned with what the world did naturally (Cintas, 2003).  

Robert Boyle is another reputable scientist, known as one of the first modern chemists. Boyle was a very religious man and carried that thought throughout his work. In the year 1649 Boyle began taking an interest in experiments and purchased his own furnace. He is most famous for his law on ideal gases. The law states that pressure times volume will equal a constant. This means that pressure and volume of a gas are inversely proportional. When Boyle “discovered” this, he was conducting an experiment to argue against another scientist that said pressure did not have as much effect on gases as others thought. So, while Boyle’s results are used today to express a law, Boyle at the time did not generalize this idea to all ideal gases. By not generalizing his one experiment for all gases, Boyle took inspiration from Francis Bacon’s scientific process of induction. Boyle would then go on to add to Bacon’s ideals. Boyle added that people should only accept ideas in natural philosophy that had sufficient evidence to them and to not create theories without enough observations and experiments. He also stated that when a theory is created the creator must be open to changing it based on new evidence. These principles are still used by scientists today and will continue to be used in the future (MacIntosh & Anstey, 2018). 

Many believe that Boyle rejected alchemy due to a piece he wrote called The Sceptical Chymist. However, Lawrence M. Principe, the Director of the Charles Singleton Center for the study of Premodern Europe at Johns Hopkins, argues that Boyle did not reject alchemy. He says that Boyle believed in transmutation and conducted experiments while studying other alchemists’ work (Principe et al., 2000). It is also said that Robert Boyle borrowed work from famous alchemist Daniel Sennett in order to carry out certain chemistry-based experiments (Coyne, 2012).

Isaac Newton is also an incredibly famous scientist who studied alchemy. Newton was an English scientist most known for his theory of gravity which he described in his book called his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. Within this work he also described his three laws of motion.  Along with physics, Newton was a pioneer in mathematics as he figured out integrals and derivatives, both of which greatly contributed to calculus. He was known to bounce from discipline to discipline with little overlap between them. It is said that Newton was the type of person who would find a problem and become focused on that problem until a solution was found. Newton also followed in the footsteps of the previously mentioned scientists, as he was committed to creating hypotheses and only accepting them when enough information would back it up. This line of thinking allows most of his work to stand the test of time (Smith, 2007).

Alchemy can be found within the many disciplines in which Newton worked. While attending Cambridge, Newton had his own alchemy lab where he conducted many experiments, had a private collection of books, and where he wrote his own findings. Antimony, also known as regulus or “little king,” an element discovered by alchemists, particularly intrigued Newton. Newton connected this metal to the star in the Leo constellation. In doing so he then thought that antimony and celestial gravity could remove mercury from other metals. Despite all the time he spent on alchemy, Newton never published any works relating to it. This could partly be due to his fear of what alchemy could do. In 1675, Isaac Newton met Robert Boyle, and during that time, Boyle claimed that sulfur could heat gold to a dangerously high degree, a degree that Newton thought could harm the world (Gregory, 1989).

Conclusion 

In conclusion, these men are respected among their fields and their contributions to the scientific world are still used today. If men of such high regard in the history of science could participate in alchemy, it must not be as foolish as people may believe. Additionally, when it comes to chemistry, it is important to think of alchemy as a seed to a tree. This metaphor demonstrates that alchemy is the starting point of chemistry, or in other words the seed. Over time, this seed grows into the tree, the practice chemistry. The tree becomes strong and stable, much like how chemistry is reliable and factual because it is based on the scientific method and a lot of experimentation. This is due to the foundation that the seed of alchemy set with its trial-and-error-type experimentation, and the alchemist’s basic ideas surrounding isolation of elements, techniques, and tools.

As a counterargument, one might say that alchemy’s relationship to chemistry should be considered analogous to astrology’s relationship to astronomy: that is, that astrology and astronomy were initially the same practice, but they diverged over time, leaving astrology as a pseudoscience and astronomy as a science. However, this analogy ignores the nuanced development of alchemical practice and how, unlike astrology, alchemy did change over time and lead directly into the science of chemistry before being abandoned altogether. So a more complete understanding, according to Coudert (2008) is that “Alchemists were like bakers who transformed flour into bread or vintners who turned grapes into wine; they improved on nature” (Coudert, 2008). This analogy demonstrates that alchemy is chemistry because its goals were the same as the two other disciplines. The disciplines of baking and wine production are only possible through chemistry, much like the works of alchemy were.

Despite the stereotype of alchemists who were narrowly seeking the philosophers’ stone, many alchemists gathered, shared, and experimented with a range of methods and most practitioners diversified their actions to include pharmaceutical and commercial growth. This diversity makes it hard to formulate an exact claim about the significance of alchemy’s findings, and it ensures that new information will continue to be learned about the topic in years to come (Principe, 2000). Alchemists did not just talk about ideas; they put their theories to the test with a specific aim in mind, whether it was transmutation, or the production of the philosopher’s stone, or another experiment. Alchemical methods involved cultivating results that led to the investigation of various aspects of the natural world (Coudert, 2008). This is similar to the objective of current scientific inquiries. Not only have alchemists conducted experiments with similar scientific processes to modern scientific experiments, but alchemy has also influenced what we consider modern medicine, chemistry, and other aspects of everyday life.