Distilling Knowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry, and the Scientific Revolution

by Moran

Alchemy can't be science--common sense tells us as much. But perhaps common sense is not the best measure of what science is, or was. In this book, Bruce Moran looks past contemporary assumptions and prejudices to determine what alchemists were actually doing in the context of early modern science. Examining the ways alchemy and chemistry were studied and practiced between 1400 and 1700, he shows how these approaches influenced their respective practitioners' ideas about nature and shaped their inquiries into the workings of the natural world. His work sets up a dialogue between what historians have usually presented as separate spheres; here we see how alchemists and early chemists exchanged ideas and methods and in fact shared a territory between their two disciplines.

Distilling Knowledge suggests that scientific revolution may wear a different appearance in different cultural contexts. The metaphor of the Scientific Revolution, Moran argues, can be expanded to make sense of alchemy and other so-called pseudo-sciences--by including a new framework in which "process can count as an object, in which making leads to learning, and in which the messiness of conflict leads to discernment." Seen on its own terms, alchemy can stand within the bounds of demonstrative science.

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, History, History Of Science, Alchemy, Chemistry

224 pages, Paperback

First published January 30, 2005

Reviews

[QOH · Rating 5 out of 5]

Disclaimer: the author was one of my college professors, and I took three of his classes (history of science, history of early modern Europe--with my husband, one of the two university classes we took together--and an independent study). He's a great lecturer with a dry sense of humor, but you will never take more difficult exams (for me, outside of the hard sciences) in undergrad.

Disclaimer to the disclaimer: I got As. There isn't another place on the internet I can brag about this, since it happened long ago, so...sorry. I got As!

This is a very rich, very interesting, and *very* dense account of how we got from mystical alchemy to the beginning of "real" chemistry of the Scientific Revolution. Oddly, this is an area that is underrepresented in historical scholarship (I don't get it, because I think it's one of the most interesting aspects of intellectual/scientific history).

The transition from "pure" alchemy to "pure" chemistry is a lot like watching a child grow: there's vertical progress, but not without periodic regressions and quite a few tantrums. Then, suddenly, you're shipping your kid off to college and wondering "where did the girl who liked My Little Pony go?"

Like I said: it's a dense book (my husband, who got a B in Early Modern Europe and took the history of science class before I did, tried and failed to finish it), and I can't summarize. The book itself is a survey, and I'm guessing it was written with graduate students in mind. I'll punt to the professor:

"To include alchemy and chemistry as parts of the Scientific Revolution, it is not necessary to wait until Lavoisier made use of quantitative (gravimetric) techniques in the laboratory, acknowledged the conservation of weight...or explained combustion and calcination by means of oxygen....Cleaving matter from spirit may be a notable achievement from the point of view of contemporary experimental research; but to partition the two in the early modern era, so as to separate wholesome science from feeble metaphysics, is to make a serious mistake." (p. 184)

Also,

Chemistry "first became suitable to the university not by becoming anything new or unique but by adapting itself to the procedures of medieval alchemy and traditional (scholastic) natural philosophy." (p. 185)

That really is the book in a nutshell. I would give extra stars for the Lemery bit about ferrets if I could, because I don't often laugh out loud when I'm reading about the history of science.

I would have loved footnotes. Alas.

[LaanSiBB]

Is alchemy a science? This has been a subject of controversy. Scientists, philosophers of science, and historians of science who hold a narrower "scientific view" either treat alchemy as a non-scientific kind, or treat it as old ideas and technologies replaced by modern chemistry. For example, Hall of Science historian believes that modern chemistry began in the 17th century. Although alchemy is often regarded as the ancestor of chemistry, it is not a kind of inheritance of knowledge. Because alchemy uses natural witchcraft, and it has a mysticism, it is even a mysterious result. It lacks a clear idea and refuses to describe it clearly.

Obviously, alchemy is negative in Hall's writing. The science historian Debus provided positive images for alchemy and symbolism. Then, there are some scientific historians such as Limberg who value the reasonable theoretical basis of alchemy on the one hand, and also mention that alchemy has infected witchcraft, religion and other elements in the long history. As discussed in the previous section, alchemy is part of the overall idea of ​​symbolism, and they undoubtedly have a set of natural philosophies, so no matter what our attitude towards alchemy is, it is difficult not to admit the impact of alchemy on the promotion of chemical experiments, let alone Alchemy has a set of material transformation theories.

This book regards alchemy as the "chemistry" before the rise of modern chemistry. It can be regarded as the origin of modern chemistry, and explains alchemy from three aspects of psychology, theoretical methods and technology. The psychological motivation for alchemy is to convert base metals into precious metals. Humans have this desire because they find that there seems to be a theory that can explain the transformation of matter. If they can realize the imagination of the theory, their goals can be achieved. The next focus is how to discover and achieve this Target methods and techniques.

The theoretical basis of medieval alchemy was based on Aristotle's four-element theory. Arab scholars became interested in alchemy after absorbing Greek thoughts, and improved their theoretical basis in the pursuit. We see that the soil, stones and metals that appear underground are compounds, which are composed of four elements of soil, water, gas and fire in different proportions. Metal is a compound, but metal is very different from ordinary soil and stone, so a special "metal theory" is needed. Common metals such as copper, iron, silver, gold, etc. are shiny, or silver or golden yellow. At the same time, general metals will flow under high heat, and then solidify into hard metal utensils after cooling. Alchemists found in nature silver mercury that flows at room temperature, and yellow sulfur that appears in volcanic areas.

According to the four-element theory, mercury contains water and sulfur contains fire. These theories and discoveries have convinced alchemists that gold is composed of mercury and sulfur, because mercury can provide luster, and sulfur can provide yellow color. From here: Putting mercury and sulfur together, through some unknown process, they can be combined into gold. However, after numerous experiments, alchemists cannot always synthesize gold with mercury and sulfur alone, and various operating procedures. Now that element theory has provided a feasible theoretical basis, the problem may be in unknown components. Therefore, the alchemist assumes that there is a special substance called "philosopher's stone" (or "alchemy stone" or "alixir" [elixir]). Mercury and sulfur must pass through it. Only synthetic gold. The reason why it is called the "Wise Stone" is because only wise philosophers can find it. This assumption of course also enchants alchemy.

As a result, after a long-term practice, alchemy developed from the theory of elements of Aristotle and Islam produced a atmosphere of secrecy and mysticism, especially the assumption that alchemy requires wisdom; and this wisdom is often understood Success must be obtained through esoteric, mysterious religious experience. In fact, this is also used by alchemists to explain why they ca n’t always produce gold, because those practitioners have insufficient wisdom to understand the signs and allegory of nature, so that they find Not to the "Stone of the Wise". However, this does not mean that alchemy is always a mysterious, religious, pure belief and indulging in meaning interpretation, alchemists also emphasize the experimental and observation evidence, this process is reflected in their implementation. For them, correct operation steps and procedures are also an indispensable part of success. In this sense, alchemy is indeed one of the sources of modern chemistry and experimental science.

On the technical level, Europeans from the Greek era to the Middle Ages have been able to produce many substances through chemical means, such as glass, pigments, gunpowder and other pyrotechnics, medicaments, and some chemical substances such as sulfur and alum. Many compound techniques are derived entirely from experience, and many were learned from the alchemy of the Arabs; in the long process of pursuing alchemy, many important techniques developed by alchemists were continued to be used in future chemistry, the most important of which Distillation, even a panacea in the 15th century. In alchemy, distillation is the core operation, and its procedures can be divided into different steps according to different operations in order to extract the quintessence of all substances. It is these contributions that make this book accept alchemy as the predecessor of modern chemical science.

Why do Arabs and Europeans pursue alchemy? In addition to psychological motivation, a theoretical foundation is also necessary. Alchemists believe that the various substances in our experience are composed of four elements in different proportions, so as long as we find a way to decompose them, we may be able to separate "pure elements". Without this theory and the beliefs it provides as a basis, alchemy is also difficult to expand and develop many special techniques. However, if this theory does not tell us how the four elements can be used to synthesize everything in various proportions-that is, to provide a "theory of mixture", the theoretical basis of alchemy is not solid. The Aristotelian did provide a set of compound theory of matter.

Aristotle's "formality theory", "potential realization theory", and "four causes theory" illustrate changes in everything, including changes between different types of matter. The theory of form and matter tells us that all material entities are the combination of form and material. Form shapes the appearance of an object, and material transformation is a combination of form and material. However, in the phenomenon of material transformation, substances with different appearances will gather, mix, or form new substances with new appearances, which will lead to the question of how new forms are generated and how old forms are missing.

The Aristocrat first distinguishes the form of the combination of two substances-"mechanical aggregate" (mechanical aggregate) and "complex" (mixtum); the former is the component particles of two different entities are mixed together, but each entity Have not lost their individuality and appearance characteristics, such as mixing white salt with yellow sand-similar to what is called "mixture" in today's chemistry; the latter is a combination of different ingredients to form a "homogeneous compound" ), With new forms, new essences and new properties, the forms and characteristics of the original entities have disappeared. For example, solid sugar cubes are dissolved in water, the solidity and whiteness of sugar cubes disappear, and they become a colorless and transparent liquid (although Bote has its sweet taste). This new form and property permeates all the ingredients and is roughly the average of the original form and property (sugar is not as sweet as cube sugar).

This theory poses a problem for later philosophers and their interpreters: how did the new forms and new features of the complex appear? Where did the original form and characteristics of the ingredients go? How to explain it with "formality theory"? Another important and related issue is the empirical observation. Empirically, people have observed that the so-called "complex" may be reduced to a component entity through a certain process. For example, after salt water is dried, it will return to the original white salt crystals. This is equivalent to saying that the original forms and features will reappear after disappearing, so in what way do they exist in the complex when they are in the "composite state"?

Aristotle's supporters and interpreters agree that the physical form of the component elements has been replaced by the new form of the complex, and the generation of the new form must rely on a higher level of power-celestial power or heavenly power The intellectual capacity may be God himself. This high-level force injects new solid forms into the original material when the matter is combined into a composite. As the original forms and characteristics of the constituent substances may reappear in theory, it must be assumed that they are hidden in a new complex, waiting for a suitable opportunity to reappear. But what is the way of hiding? Different interpreters have different opinions.

Avicenna believes that the form (essence) of the constituent elements is kept intact in the new substance, but their nature is weakened to an imperceptible point. In this way, when the restoration occurs, the old form can reappear. The question is: how does the form become "an imperceptible point"? If the old form remains intact, how does it coexist with the new form? Avilloai advocates that the strength and density of the form and nature of the constituent elements will be greatly reduced, and exist in the composite in a subtle way. Its form (essence) is no longer a physical form, but is in Between the state of an entity and an attribute. Therefore, when the new substance is reduced to the original component, the latent form is restored.

The question is, this represents a new state between entities and attributes, and what kind of state is that? Should Aristotle's original "entity-attribute" distinction also be modified? The official church master Aquinas believes that the form of the original ingredients disappears during the compounding process, but their nature has a virtual influence on the compound. So when restored, this virtual influence reappears in its original form; in other words, the original form arises as if a new form of material combination arises. The advantage of this interpretation is that it is not necessary to modify the distinction between "entity" and "attribute" of Aristotle; the question is, why is the form of the composition the same as the original form when it is reduced? Arguments over such issues became the main "scientific research" from the late Middle Ages to the Renaissance.

As mentioned earlier, the motivation for alchemy is to convert base metals into precious metals—especially gold. However, it should be noted that alchemy does not specifically specify "gold". Now that Aristotleism has provided a theoretical guarantee for the transformation of material entities, the next question is only how to do it technically. Aristotle's theory tells alchemists that if the nature and form of a substance can be changed through a certain procedure, the substance can be changed. For example, if you can transplant the "yellow", "gloss" and "ductility" of gold to other base metals, you can turn them into gold. In the eyes of alchemists, the fluidity of mercury is similar to the ductility of gold. The silver luster of mercury is also very similar to the bright luster of gold. The only thing missing is the characteristic of "yellow"; sulfur is the most easily found yellow substance, so Can the "yellow" of sulfur be transferred to mercury? If you find a way, you can turn mercury into gold.

Because of the prevalence of mercury and sulfur, alchemists even believe that all metals are compounded by these two substances, plus various other substances. The various metals found in the ground are made of mercury, sulfur and other substances in a natural state, naturally compounded, developed and matured for a long time. If you can simulate the natural history of the ground and find the composite material ratio, you can artificially produce all the metals you want. Furthermore, alchemists also want to shorten and accelerate the process of metal maturation, so they look for various methods and recipes in the "lab".

In fact, most alchemists are in vain. However, the Aristotelian theory gave them quite strong confidence, believing that one day they will succeed. The key to failure is not knowing the "right proportions and recipes" and that there may be some key substance that can exert the power of transformation-especially gold. They try to find this key substance-the alchemy or the wise man's stone. In the long-term efforts of alchemists, although they have never been successful, they have developed many processing procedures and experimental methods used in modern chemistry, such as distillation, solution, separation, sublimation, and precipitation , Assimilation (digestion), calcination (fusion), fusion (fusion), and so on, as well as putrefaction and fermentation (fermentation) especially for living matter. They also created many different types of chemical experiment tools, such as boilers, decanters, flasks, and collection bottles required for heating and decomposing, as well as many containers for melting, mixing, mashing and collecting alchemy materials.

In the long history of the development and evolution of alchemy, it is combined with many different skills and thought systems, such as metallurgy, dyeing, pharmaceutical production, medical treatment, witchcraft, astrology, etc., and thus has many technical, witchcraft, allegorical and secret The face of sex has gradually become an all-encompassing mysterious philosophy or knowledge system, which has been hostile and banned by the church. Throughout the late Middle Ages and Renaissance, it was even linked to the "spiritual transformation" of alchemists. Some people believe that "alchemy liquid" can not only transform base metals into gold, but also make people immortal. Faith in this concept also makes the alchemist an out-of-the-box "(natural) wizard", and as a result, alchemy has a multifaceted image in the history of science and has received quite different evaluations.

[A.M. · Rating 4 out of 5]

When I started researching the historical relationship of alchemy to chemistry, I hit a lot of brick walls. Basically, I couldn't find anything that went into much detail, though there was plenty of mention of folks like Boyle and Newton pursuing the Great Work. Based on the description, this book seems to be more or less the text I was looking for, and it turned out to be a highly informative read.

As the lone review notes, Moran is an engaging, often dryly witty, writer, who does a solid job explaining how alchemy informed early chemistry without getting dull or too technical. He draws from a lot of historians on the subject, but pulls everything together with the notion that history is messy and these guys were just trying to work things out. No one magically got to the Scientific Revolution and was like, "well obviously alchemy is a load of twaddle." It had some useful bits, some bits that mattered, and fit well enough into the pre-Cartesian scientific worldview.

All in all, a good read that taught me some things I didn't already know. Moreover taught me much of what I specifically wanted to know.

[sonia zartman · Rating 5 out of 5]

fuck stripped objectivity of science

[Connie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting book. Parts that I did not learn in my science classes while working on my degrees.

[Madeline · Rating 4 out of 5]

A really lovely book! Covered a large span of time (roughly from the 15th to the 17th century) in a precise and rather timely manner, being just under 200 pages. The information included was well thought out and was often arranged in such a way that connections were easy to make.

A good portion of the beginning was spent solely on alchemy, and the author made for such a subtle transition of topics that it wasn't until I was fully seated in the subversion of alchemy "into" chemistry that I even realized how far along in the scientific timeline it had taken me!

The only thing I disliked about this book was that there were some times where the author would directly repeat information, nearly word for word, several times within the span of a few pages. It was unnecessary and a little annoying! I wish he had just trusted his first explanations enough to leave them at that!

This book is probably more like a 4.5 to me! I've always been a huge chemistry nerd, so getting to read about its origin was very neat. And learning a bit about the reality of alchemy in the early modern era was fun too!

[Hannah]

I really wanted to like this book, but I just couldn't get into it. I felt like I was missing a prerequisite "Alchemy 101" credit; the author assumes that his readers are already familiar with a lot of terminology and history, and rarely provides context. As interested as I am in learning about the history of alchemy (and how it pertains to modern chemistry), I need a book that is more accessible to a layman like myself.