[Marxism] Alchemy revisited

Louis Proyect lnp3 at panix.com
Tue Aug 1 07:50:08 MDT 2006


NY Times, August 1, 2006
Transforming the Alchemists
By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD

PHILADELPHIA — Historians of science are taking a new and lively interest 
in alchemy, the often mystical investigation into the hidden mysteries of 
nature that reached its heyday in Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries and 
has been an embarrassment to modern scientists ever since.

There was no place in the annals of empirical science, beginning mainly in 
the 18th century, for the occult practices of obsessed dreamers who sought 
most famously and impossibly to transform base metals into pure gold. So 
alchemy fell into disrepute.

But in the revival of scholarship on the field, historians are finding 
reasons to give at least some alchemists their due. Even though they were 
secretive and self-deluded and their practices closer to magic than modern 
scientific methods, historians say, alchemists contributed to the emergence 
of modern chemistry as a science and an agent of commerce.

“Experimentalism was one of alchemy’s hallmarks,” said Lawrence M. 
Principe, a historian of science at Johns Hopkins University and a trained 
chemist. “You have to get your hands dirty, and in this way alchemists 
forged some early ideas about matter.”

Bent over boiling crucibles in their shadowy laboratories, squeezing 
bellows before transformative flames and poring over obscure formulas, some 
alchemists stumbled on techniques and reactions of great value to later 
chemists. It was experimentation by trial and error, historians say, but it 
led to new chemicals and healing elixirs and laid the foundations of 
procedures like separating and refining, distilling and fermenting.

“What do chemists do? They like to make stuff,” Dr. Principe said. “Most 
chemists are interested not so much in theory as in making substances with 
particular properties. The emphasis on products was the same with some 
alchemists in the 17th century.”

Pamela H. Smith, a history professor at Columbia, said alchemy “was the 
matter theory of its day” and was “incredibly multilayered and therefore a 
powerful way of viewing nature.”

Yet on the whole, historians say, the widespread practice of alchemy 
impeded the rise of modern chemistry. While physics and astronomy marched 
slowly but inexorably from Galileo to Kepler to Newton and the Scientific 
Revolution, chemistry slumbered under alchemy’s influence through what 
historians call its “postponed scientific revolution.”

The new research and revised interpretations concerning the role of alchemy 
in the history of chemistry as well as pharmacology and medicine were 
discussed at a three-day conference late last month at the Chemical 
Heritage Foundation in Philadelphia. The meeting, attended by more than 80 
scientists and historians, was organized by Dr. Principe, who said, “Only 
in the last 15 or 20 years have we learned how crucial alchemy was to the 
emergence of modern science.”

No one at the meeting tried to turn lead into gold. But the historians 
conjured up quite a lode of pyrite, fool’s gold, in the colorful characters 
they had found buried in previously neglected archives.

A few practicing alchemists, it seems, may have been certifiably mad — 
probably, like mad hatters, from sniffing the mercury they worked with.

One notable alchemist of the 16th century, a Swiss named Paracelsus, was 
not mad, but cantankerous and iconoclastic. “He was equal parts 
metallurgist, pharmacist, physician and crackpot,” Dr. Principe said.

Historians have found that Paracelsus made some advances in the detection 
of disorders by analyzing urine and claimed marvelous cures through alchemy.

In his chemical cosmology, he saw the world as a great distillation vessel 
and its changes as parallel to the operations carried out in a laboratory. 
But he recorded his material and spiritual ideas in the deliberately opaque 
writing typical of many alchemists, who expressed themselves in codes, 
symbols and emblems to conceal their findings from the uninitiated.

 From his study, Dane Thor Daniel of Wright State University in Dayton, 
Ohio, concluded that Paracelsus’s unwavering objective was to find a 
Christian alternative to pagan natural philosophy — science.

Other alchemists were outright charlatans or fools, ridiculed in 
contemporary art and literature. On display in a gallery at the conference 
hall were several 17th-century paintings by Flemish and Dutch artists, who 
depicted alchemists toiling in the disorder of dark workshops and the 
poverty of futile quests. The paintings were said to be popular among Dutch 
burghers as a caution to anyone contemplating a life in alchemy instead of 
steady trade.

But many an alchemist drew support from royal courts where visions of 
newfound wealth and power danced in crowned heads. It was not always a 
happy alliance.

In 1601, Hans Heinrich Nüschler signed a contract with his patron, Duke 
Friedrich of Württemberg in Stuttgart, to demonstrate his process for 
extracting a substantial amount of gold from a sample of silver. The duke, 
keen on mining technology, promised a generous reward. Nüschler agreed to 
conduct the experiments at his own expense.

After several months of failure and mounting debt, the desperate alchemist 
resorted to fraud. He asked his brother to help by surreptitiously adding 
gold to the alchemical sample. His ploy exposed, Nüschler was tried, 
convicted and hanged.

“Only a handful of alchemists actually ended their careers on the gallows,” 
said Tara E. Nummedal, a historian at Brown. “But this underscored that 
alchemy was very serious business in the Holy Roman Empire.”

In her report, Dr. Nummedal concluded that the relationships of patrons and 
alchemists showed that “alchemy was a direct engagement with the political, 
economic, religious and intellectual realities of the early modern world.”

At the turn of the 17th century, King Henry IV of France surrounded himself 
with alchemists who sought to resurrect plants from their ashes and 
experimented with ways to extend the monarch’s life. Even the diplomats had 
orders to seek out the cryptic methods of alchemists in other countries.

An alchemist in the court of a German prince scored a profitable success 
quite by accident. Looking for materials for creating precious metals, 
Johann Friedrich Böttger analyzed a “white earth” that duplicated the 
ingredients for imported Chinese porcelain. The discovery was the beginning 
of the Dresden china industry.

Even geniuses of the first order, like Isaac Newton, found alchemy 
irresistible. It was an accepted method of seeking knowledge — or 
confirmation of received truth — in early modern history.

Newton, whose laws of gravity and optics ushered in modern physics, also 
delved into alchemy with relentless energy. His notebooks contain thousands 
of pages on alchemic thoughts and experiments over 30 years.

William R. Newman, a professor of the history and philosophy of science at 
Indiana University, said many manuscripts had not received the scrutiny 
they deserved. He reported on a text in the Smithsonian Institution that he 
called “an overlooked gem.”

In these notebook entries, Newton cited the ideas of German alchemists for 
imitating the processes by which metals were generated in nature, deep 
inside the earth. These involved the familiar alchemical theory of metallic 
generation through interactions of sulfur and mercury.

But Newton, expanding on the theory, wrote: “These two spirits above all 
wander over the earth and bestow life on animals and vegetables. And they 
makes stones, salts and so forth.”

As Dr. Newman noted, “Thus we have passed from a theory of mere metallic 
generation to one that is intended to explain the totality of life on 
earth, as well as the production of all mineral materials, not just 
metallic ones.”

In this sense, Dr. Newman continued, Newton’s repeated experiments for the 
rest of his life were aimed at fulfilling the words of the Emerald Tablet 
of Hermes, considered the founding text of alchemy in ancient Egypt. Newton 
expected to achieve what the tablet said was the una res, “the one thing” 
by which “the world was created” and with which one could “perform miracles.”

So it seems that Newton was no ordinary alchemist interested in making 
gold. He apparently aspired to a theory of alchemy more comprehensive than 
even his laws of gravity. But it could be said, in a paraphrase of Newton’s 
famous expression of modesty, that the giants on whose shoulders he stood 
in this endeavor did not measure up to his antecedents in physics and 
astronomy.

Newton’s alchemical bent was not out of character, Dr. Smith of Columbia 
said. “He was drawn to the occult,” she said. “Gravity for him was an 
occult force, and so was alchemy as an explanation of how things transform 
into other things.”

The British chemist Robert Boyle, a Newton contemporary, also had a foot on 
each side of the alchemy-modern science divide. He dabbled for years in an 
alchemical obsession, the search for the philosopher’s stone — the 
long-sought agent for transmuting lead to gold and unlocking other material 
and spiritual secrets. The stone was the unified theory of everything in 
that time.

Boyle wrote enviously in 1680 that “there exists conceal’d in the world” a 
group of chemists “of a much higher order able to transmute baser Metalls 
into perfect ones.”

At the same time, Boyle hurled harsh criticism at alchemists, particularly 
Paracelsians and the obscurity of their language and concepts. His purpose, 
he wrote, was to draw “the Chymists Doctrine out of their Dark and Smoakie 
Laboratories into open light” and to engage in “better Experiments and 
Arguments.”

Citing Boyle’s “swinging critique” and even earlier attacks on alchemical 
practices, Stephen Clucas, a University of London historian, raised 
questions that he said require deeper research by historians: Why did a 
“scientific revolution” in experimental chemistry not occur earlier in the 
17th century? Why was a clear separation of alchemy and exact chemistry 
delayed until the 18th century?

Bruce T. Moran, a historian at the University of Nevada at Reno and the 
University College London, said it was not all that unreasonable at the 
time to be attracted to alchemy. “For a variety of practical and 
intellectual reasons,” Professor Moran said, “the idea of transforming one 
thing into another was to be expected.”

In everyday life, grapes were turned to wine and wheat to bread. A sour 
green apple grew into a sweet red one. It was in the nature of things to 
change, even metals. Miners and refiners already knew that lead ore almost 
always contains some silver, and silver ore almost always contains some 
gold. This implied that the metals changed one into the other over time.

In the booklet “Transmutations: Alchemy in Art,” written with Lloyd DeWitt, 
an art historian, Dr. Principe noted that in 1600, chemists knew of just 
seven metals — gold, silver, iron, copper, tin, lead and mercury. (Since 
then scientists have discovered another 60.) The original seven known 
metals had properties in common. They were shiny and, except for the liquid 
mercury, could be hammered, shaped and cast.

“The commonality of properties implied to early thinkers a commonality of 
composition,” Dr. Principe wrote., “And thus it was theorized that all the 
metals were composed of the same essential ingredients in different 
proportions and degrees of purity.”

“Even if in the modern view alchemy is all nonsense or very spiritual,” Dr. 
Moran said, “many people drawn to it for whatever reasons were actually 
creating very useful, practical chemistry and bringing to it an artisan 
know-how.”

The conference on the history of alchemy opened with a program of chamber 
music called “The Philosophers’ Tone.” The scholars delighted in Handel’s 
transmutation of Ben Jonson’s “The Alchemist” into pure gold. Over coffee 
between sessions, they pondered new directions of research and topics for 
dissertations. They said, for example, that more attention should be paid 
to alchemy’s role in the history of medicine.

They also remarked, somewhat conspiratorially, over parallels between the 
misguided certainties and self-delusion of alchemy and today’s political 
and religious attacks on modern science. Of Boyle’s efforts to replicate 
experiments from alchemical writings, Joseph E. Early, a retired Georgetown 
University professor who studies the philosophy of chemistry, said, “He 
couldn’t do it any more than we could find the weapons of mass destruction 
in Iraq.”

Then the scholars departed Philadelphia, leaving the city’s lead-to-gold 
ratio unchanged.





More information about the Marxism mailing list