Alchemy.
For most people, the word conjures images of crazy mystics using magic and hand-waving to try to turn lead into gold. In my head, alchemists looked like the witches of Macbeth, laughing maniacally as they tossed frightening-sounding ingredients into cauldrons with no apparent rhyme or reason.
That is, until I attended a lecture by Dr. Lawrence Principe: Revealing the Secrets of Alchemy.
Dr. Principe, Professor of the History of Science and Technology and Professor of Chemistry at Johns Hopkins University, delivered this lecture at noon on Saturday, February 19th, at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) convention at the Washington Convention Center in DC. He got his PhD in Organic Chemistry at Indiana University and went on to get a second PhD in History of Science at Hopkins. (He actually taught me organic chemistry in 2008, and although orgo didn’t agree with me at all, Principe was a very good professor.)
Then what’s a guy like Principe, a consummate scientist, doing messing around with alchemy? Why does he study old alchemical texts- and why does he actually follow these recipes to see what happens?
The answer is that, according to Principe, alchemists don’t deserve their bad rep. They should not have been eradicated from the history of chemistry. They weren’t a bunch of irrational spiritualists who followed hokey cultist practices and had no conception of the scientific method. In fact, according to Principe’s research, this image we have of them is a deliberate cover-up for the fact that they were actually very methodical, experimental, and clear-headed in their scientific pursuits.
In the middle of his lecture, Principe showed pages from the private lab notebook of the alchemist George Starkey. These pages demonstrated exemplary notebook-keeping even by 21st century standards- in fact, Principe remarked that he wished his own chemistry students could be as methodical and clear. Starkey recorded every step of his methods and performed several trials of every experiment. When the experiments did not turn out as planned, he’d note any known sources of error and speculate what else might have gone wrong. Then he’d modify his experimental design and keep meticulous notes on how his modifications altered the results.
This clarity was only present in the private notebooks. Alchemy was outlawed by rulers, not (as I’d assumed) because they considered it heresy or witchcraft, but because they were worried that if alchemists succeeded in turning lead into gold, it would devalue the currency. Secrecy was important. Alchemists continued their experimentation and passed on their knowledge via symbolism-ridden pictures and “recipes” of heavily coded language. These recipes are perhaps the reason why historians, until about 30 years ago, considered alchemy to be so unscientific and silly. But Principe’s work at decoding the pictures has revealed that under the layers of allegory lie instructions for actual chemical processes.
This is an example of alchemical allegorical imagery from Wikimedia Commons. Nicolas Flamel, who was in fact a real alchemist and not just a Harry Potter character (as I'd imagined), had it inscribed on his tombstone.
Principe showed us one example of a published picture and description, and his own results from following the outlined procedure in his own lab. This was the work of the Mercurialists, who believed that common mercury could be turned into “philosophical mercury,” which could then be used to turn lead into gold. The Mercurialists used an agricultural metaphor for this, stating, among other things, that philosophical mercury was a tree that bore fruits of gold.
Principe abandoned his preconceived notions of what is possible, as he always does when he carries out alchemical experiments, and set out to create this philosophical mercury. He deduced that it was a combination of mercury, gold, and antimony, and he combined them in the prescribed way and heated the mixture to almost the boiling point of mercury. He showed us pictures of before and after heating it to this temperature. Before, it looked like nondescript liquid metal in a round bottom flask.
After, it looked like a lacy silver tree, reaching to the sky.
Not only that, but the silver tree of philosophical mercury melted in his hand, the way Boyle had said it would, in 1670.
“For a while, I thought that… lunacy had set in,” said Principe.
Until the 18th century, there was no division between alchemy and chemistry. Chemistry also had a bad rep for the longest time: it had no place in the universities, and because it was dirty and smelly and dangerous and required working with your hands, it was considered more of an artisanal craft than a form of higher learning. The distinction between alchemy and chemistry was an artificial one, imposed by early-18th-century scientists who wanted chemistry to have more credibility. They didn’t systematically or experimentally refute any of the alchemists’ theories- they merely abandoned them, and demonized them as unscientific, irrelevant, and totally distinct from the science they pursued. In reality, scientists like Newton and Boyle pursued alchemy secretly after it was no longer socially acceptable.
“I have not yet succeeded in making gold,” said Principe with a smile.
Although Principe probably won’t end up turning lead into gold from following the procedures of alchemists (who weren’t able to do it either: the only way it can be done requires particle accelerators, according to http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/amber/go336/lawrenz/index.htm#modalch), he has a great deal of respect for the ideas the alchemists developed. Though there was dissent on the numbers and identities of the Principles, alchemists generally believed that metals arose from the differential combination of the underground Wet Principle (mercury) and Dry Principle (sulfur). Gold was believed to have the perfect mixture of the Principles, and moreover, to be compacted together hard enough to be resistant to tarnish. Iron rusted, according to alchemists, because the Principles were loosely packed, allowing foreign bodies to come in and corrupt the metal’s structure. Although this information is now known to be untrue, the alchemists who labored under these ideas developed the most thorough understanding of matter of anyone at the time.
“[Alchemy] was a completely reasonable pursuit for its time,” concluded Principe. “It set the practical, technical, and theoretical expectations for the chemistry that followed. It is definitely a key part of the history of science.”
