Ancient and Modern Alchemy
Ancient and Modern AlchemyPREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITIONPREFACECHAPTER I THE MEANING OF ALCHEMYCHAPTER II THE THEORY OF PHYSICAL ALCHEMYCHAPTER III THE ALCHEMISTS [41](A. BEFORE PARACELSUS)CHAPTER IV THE ALCHEMISTS (continued)(B. PARACELSUS AND AFTER)CHAPTER V THE OUTCOME OF ALCHEMYThe Genesis of Chemistry.CHAPTER VI THE AGE OF MODERN CHEMISTRYCHAPTER VII MODERN ALCHEMYConclusion.Copyright
Ancient and Modern Alchemy
H. Stanley Redgrove
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
It is exceedingly gratifying to me that a second edition of
this book should be called for. But still more welcome is the
change in the attitude of the educated world towards the old-time
alchemists and their theories which has taken place during the past
few years.The theory of the origin of Alchemy put forward inChapter Ihas led to considerable discussion;
but whilst this theory has met with general acceptance, some of its
earlier critics took it as implying far more than is actually the
case. As a result of further research my conviction of its truth
has become more fully confirmed, and in my recent work
entitledBygone Beliefs(Rider,
1920), under the title of “The Quest of the Philosopher’s Stone,” I
have found it possible to adduce further evidence in this
connection. At the same time, whilst I became increasingly
convinced that the main alchemistic hypotheses were drawn from the
domain of mystical theology and applied to physics and chemistry by
way of analogy, it also became evident to me that the crude
physiology of bygone ages and remnants of the old phallic faith
formed a further and subsidiary source of alchemistic theory. I
have barely, if at all, touched on this matter in the present work;
the reader who is interested will find it dealt with in some detail
in “The Phallic Element in Alchemical Doctrine” in myBygone Beliefs.In view of recent research in the domain of Radioactivity and
the consequent advance in knowledge that has resulted since this
book was first published, I have carefully considered the
advisability of rewriting the whole of the last chapter, but came
to the conclusion that the time for this was not yet ripe, and
that, apart from a few minor emendations, the chapter had better
remain very much as it originally stood. My reason for this course
was that, whilst considerably more is known to-day, than was the
case in 1911, concerning the very complex transmutations undergone
spontaneously by the radioactive elements—knowledge helping further
to elucidate the problem of the constitution of the so-called
“elements” of the chemist—the problem really cognate to my subject,
namely that of effecting a transmutation of one element into
another at will, remains in almost the same state of
indeterminateness as in 1911. In 1913, Sir William
Ramsay[1]thought he had obtained evidence
for the transmutation of hydrogen into helium by the action of the
electric discharge, and Professors Collie and
Patterson[2]thought they had obtained
evidence of the transmutation of hydrogen into neon by similar
means. But these observations (as well as Sir William Ramsay’s
earlier transmutational experiments) failed to be satisfactorily
confirmed;[3]and since the death of the
latter, little, if anything, appears to have been done to settle
the questions raised by his experiments. Reference must, however,
be made to a very interesting investigation by Sir Ernest
Rutherford on the “Collision of α-Particles with Light
Atoms,”[4]from which it appears certain
that when bombarded with the swiftly-moving α-particles given off
by radium-C, the atoms of nitrogen may be disintegrated, one of the
products being hydrogen. The other product is possibly
helium,[5]though this has not been
proved. In view of Rutherford’s results a further repetition of
Ramsay’s experiments would certainly appear to be
advisable.[1]See his “The Presence of Helium in the Gas
from the Interior of an X-Ray Bulb,”Journal of
the Chemical Society, vol. ciii. (1913), pp.
264et seq.[2]See their “The Presence of Neon in Hydrogen
after the Passage of the Electric Discharge through the latter at
Low Pressures,”ibid., pp.
419et seq.; and “The
Production of Neon and Helium by the Electric Discharge,”Proceedings of the Royal Society,A, vol. xci. (1915),
pp. 30et seq.[3]See especially the report of negative
experiments by Mr. A. C. G. Egerton, published inProceedings of the Royal Society,A, vol. xci. (1915),
pp. 180et seq.[4]See thePhilosophical
Magazinefor June, 1919, 6th Series, vol. xxxvii.
pp. 537-587.[5]Or perhaps an isotope of helium (see
below).As concerns the spontaneous transmutations undergone by the
radioactive elements, the facts appear to indicate (or, at least,
can be brought into some sort of order by supposing) the atom to
consist of a central nucleus and an outer shell, as suggested by
Sir Ernest Rutherford. The nucleus may be compared to the sun of a
solar system. It is excessively small, but in it the mass of the
atom is almost entirely concentrated. It is positively charged, the
charge being neutralised by that of the free electrons which
revolve like planets about it, and which by their orbits account
for the volume of the atom. The atomic weight of the element
depends upon the central sun; but the chemical properties of the
element are determined by the number of electrons in the shell;
this number is the same as that representing the position of the
element in the periodic system. Radioactive change originates in
the atomic nucleus. The expulsion of an α-particle therefrom
decreases the atomic weight by 4 units, necessitates (since the
α-particle carries two positive charges) the removal of two
electrons from the shell in order to maintain electrical
neutrality, and hence changes the chemical nature of the body,
transmuting the element into one occupying a position two places to
the left in the periodic system (for example, the change of radium
into niton). But radioactivity sometimes results in the expulsion
of a β-particle from the nucleus. This results in the addition of
an electron to the shell, and hence changes the chemical character
of the element, transmuting it into one occupying a position one
place to the right in the periodic system, butwithout altering its atomic weight.
Consequently, the expulsion of one α- and two β-particles from the
nucleus, whilst decreasing the atomic weight of the element by 4,
leaves the number of electrons in the shell, and thus the chemical
properties of the element, unaltered. These remarkable conclusions
are amply borne out by the facts, and the discovery of elements
(called “isobares”) having the same atomic weight but different
chemical properties, and of those (called “isotopes”) having
identical chemical characters but different atomic weights, must be
regarded as one of the most significant and important discoveries
of recent years. Some further reference to this theory will be
found in§§ 77and81: the reader who wishes to follow the matter further should
consult the fourth edition of Professor Frederick Soddy’sThe Interpretation of Radium(1920),
and the two chapters on the subject in hisScience
and Life(1920), one of which is a popular
exposition and the other a more technical one.These advances in knowledge all point to the possibility of
effecting transmutations at will, but so far attempts to achieve
this, as I have already indicated, cannot be regarded as altogether
satisfactory. Several methods of making gold, or rather elements
chemically identical with gold, once the method of controlling
radioactive change is discovered (as assuredly it will be) are
suggested by Sir Ernest Rutherford’s theory of the nuclear atom.
Thus, the expulsion of two α-particles from bismuth or one from
thallium would yield the required result. Or lead could be
converted into mercury by the expulsion of one α-particle, and this
into thallium by the expulsion of one β-particle, yielding gold by
the further expulsion of an α-particle. But, as Professor Soddy
remarks in hisScience and Lifejust referred to, “if man ever achieves this further control
over Nature, it is quite certain that the last thing he would want
to do would be to turn lead or mercury into gold—for the sake of gold. The energy that
would be liberated, if the control of these sub-atomic processes
were as possible as is the control of ordinary chemical changes,
such as combustion, would far exceed in importance and value the
gold. Rather it would pay to transmute gold into silver or some
base metal.”In§ 101of the book I suggest that
the question of the effect on the world of finance of the discovery
of an inexpensive method of transmuting base metal into gold on a
large scale is one that should appeal to a novelist specially
gifted with imagination. Since the words were first written a work
has appeared in which something approximating to what was suggested
has been attempted and very admirably achieved. My reference is to
Mr. H. G. Wells’s novel,The World Set
Free, published in 1914.In conclusion I should like to thank the very many reviewers
who found so many good things to say concerning the first edition
of this book. For kind assistance in reading the proofs of this
edition my best thanks are due also and are hereby tendered to my
wife, and my good friend Gerald Druce, Esq., M.Sc.
PREFACE
The number of books in the English language dealing with the
interesting subject of Alchemy is not sufficiently great to render
an apology necessary for adding thereto. Indeed, at the present
time there is an actual need for a further contribution on this
subject. The time is gone when it was regarded as perfectly
legitimate to point to Alchemy as an instance of the aberrations of
the human mind. Recent experimental research has brought about
profound modifications in the scientific notions regarding the
chemical elements, and, indeed, in the scientific concept of the
physical universe itself; and a certain resemblance can be traced
between these later views and the theories of bygone Alchemy. The
spontaneous change of one “element” into another has been
witnessed, and the recent work of Sir William Ramsay suggests the
possibility of realising the old alchemistic dream—the
transmutation of the “base” metals into gold.The basic idea permeating all the alchemistic theories
appears to have been this: All the metals (and, indeed, all forms
of matter) are one in origin, and are produced by an evolutionary
process. The Soul of them all is one and the same; it is only the
Soul that is permanent; the body or outward form,i.e., the mode of manifestation of the
Soul, is transitory, and one form may be transmuted into another.
The similarity, indeed it might be said, the identity, between this
view and the modern etheric theory of matter is at once
apparent.The old alchemists reached the above conclusion by a
theoretical method, and attempted to demonstrate the validity of
their theory by means of experiment; in which, it appears, they
failed. Modern science, adopting the reverse process, for a time
lost hold of the idea of the unity of the physical universe, to
gain it once again by the experimental method. It was in the
elaboration of this grand fundamental idea that Alchemy failed. If
I were asked to contrast Alchemy with the chemical and physical
science of the nineteenth century I would say that, whereas the
latter abounded in a wealth of much accurate detail and much
relative truth, it lacked philosophical depth and insight; whilst
Alchemy, deficient in such accurate detail, was characterised by a
greater degree of philosophical depth and insight; for the
alchemists did grasp the fundamental truth of the Cosmos, although
they distorted it and made it appear grotesque. The alchemists cast
their theories in a mould entirely fantastic, even ridiculous—they
drew unwarrantable analogies—and hence their views cannot be
accepted in these days of modern science. But if we cannot approve
of their theoriesin toto, we
can nevertheless appreciate the fundamental ideas at the root of
them. And it is primarily with the object of pointing out this
similarity between these ancient ideas regarding the physical
universe and the latest products of scientific thought, that this
book has been written.It is a regrettable fact that the majority of works dealing
with the subject of Alchemy take a one-sided point of view. The
chemists generally take a purely physical view of the subject, and
instead of trying to understand its mystical language, often (I do
not say always) prefer to label it nonsense and the alchemist a
fool. On the other hand, the mystics, in many cases, take a purely
transcendental view of the subject, forgetting the fact that the
alchemists were, for the most part, concerned with operations of a
physical nature. For a proper understanding of Alchemy, as I hope
to make plain in thefirst chapterof
this work, a synthesis of both points of view is essential; and,
since these two aspects are so intimately and essentially connected
with one another, this is necessary even when, as in the following
work, one is concerned primarily with the physical, rather than the
purely mystical, aspect of the subject.Now, the author of this book may lay claim to being a humble
student of both Chemistry and what may be generalised under the
terms Mysticism and Transcendentalism; and he hopes that this
perhaps rather unusual combination of studies has enabled him to
take a broad-minded view of the theories of the alchemists, and to
adopt a sympathetic attitude towards them.With regard to the illustrations, the author must express his
thanks to the authorities of the British Museum for permission to
photograph engraved portraits and illustrations from old works in
the British Museum Collections, and to G. H. Gabb, Esq., F.C.S.,
for permission to photograph engraved portraits in his
possession.The author’s heartiest thanks are also due to Frank E.
Weston, Esq., B.Sc., F.C.S., and W. G. Llewellyn, Esq., for their
kind help in reading the proofs, &c.
CHAPTER I THE MEANING OF ALCHEMY
The Aim of Alchemy.§1.Alchemy is
generally understood to have been that art whose end was the
transmutation of the so-called base metals into gold by means of an
ill-defined something called the Philosopher’s Stone; but even from
a purely physical standpoint, this is a somewhat superficial view.
Alchemy was both a philosophy and an experimental science, and the
transmutation of the metals was its end only in that this would
give the final proof of the alchemistic hypotheses; in other words,
Alchemy, considered from the physical standpoint, was the attempt
to demonstrate experimentally on the material plane the validity of
a certain philosophical view of the Cosmos. We see the genuine
scientific spirit in the saying of one of the alchemists: “Would to
God . . . all men might become adepts in our Art—for then
gold, the great idol of mankind, would lose its value, and we
should prize it only for its scientific
teaching.”[6]Unfortunately, however, not
many alchemists came up to this ideal; and for the majority of
them, Alchemy did mean merely the possibility of making gold
cheaply and gaining untold wealth.[6]“Eirenæus Philalethes”:An
Open Entrance to the Closed Palace of the King(seeThe Hermetic Museum, Restored and
Enlarged, edited by A. E. Waite, 1893, vol. ii.
p. 178).The Transcendental Theory of
Alchemy.§2.By some
mystics, however, the opinion has been expressed that Alchemy was
not a physical art or science at all, that in no sense was its
object the manufacture of material gold, and that its processes
were not carried out on the physical plane. According to this
transcendental theory, Alchemy was concerned with man’s soul, its
object was the perfection, not of material substances, but of man
in a spiritual sense. Those who hold this view identify Alchemy
with, or at least regard it as a branch of, Mysticism, from which
it is supposed to differ merely by the employment of a special
language; and they hold that the writings of the alchemists must
not be understood literally as dealing with chemical operations,
with furnaces, retorts, alembics, pelicans and the like, with salt,
sulphur, mercury, gold and other material substances, but must be
understood as grand allegories dealing with spiritual truths.
According to this view, the figure of the transmutation of the
“base” metals into gold symbolised the salvation of man—the
transmutation of his soul into spiritual gold—which was to be
obtained by the elimination of evil and the development of good by
the grace of God; and the realisation of which salvation or
spiritual transmutation may be described as the New Birth, or that
condition of being known as union with the Divine. It would follow,
of course, if this theory were true, that the genuine alchemists
were pure mystics, and hence, that the development of chemical
science was not due to their labours, but to pseudo-alchemists who
so far misunderstood their writings as to have interpreted them in
a literal sense.Failure of the Transcendental
Theory.§3.This theory,
however, has been effectively disposed of by Mr. Arthur Edward
Waite, who points to the lives of the alchemists themselves in
refutation of it. For their lives indisputably prove that the
alchemists were occupied with chemical operations on the physical
plane, and that for whatever motive, they toiled to discover a
method for transmuting the commoner metals into actual, material
gold. As Paracelsus himself says of the true “spagyric physicians,”
who were the alchemists of his period: “These do not give
themselves up to ease and idleness . . . But they devote
themselves diligently to their labours, sweating whole nights over
fiery furnaces. These do not kill the time with empty talk, but
find their delight in their
laboratory.”[7]The writings of the
alchemists contain (mixed, however, with much that from the
physical standpoint appears merely fantastic) accurate accounts of
many chemical processes and discoveries, which cannot be explained
away by any method of transcendental interpretation. There is not
the slightest doubt that chemistry owes its origin to the direct
labours of the alchemists themselves, and not to any who misread
their writings.[7]Paracelsus: “Concerning the Nature of
Things” (seeThe Hermetic and Alchemical Writings
of Paracelsus, edited by A. E. Waite, 1894, vol.
i. p. 167).The Qualifications of the
Adept.§4.At the same
time, it is quite evident that there is a considerable element of
Mysticism in the alchemistic doctrines; this has always been
recognised; but, as a general rule, those who have approached the
subject from the scientific point of view have considered this
mystical element as of little or no importance. However, there are
certain curious facts which are not satisfactorily explained by a
purely physical theory of Alchemy, and, in our opinion, the
recognition of the importance of this mystical element and of the
true relation which existed between Alchemy and Mysticism is
essential for the right understanding of the subject. We may
notice, in the first place, that the alchemists always speak of
their Art as a Divine Gift, the highest secrets of which are not to
be learnt from any books on the subject; and they invariably teach
that the right mental attitude with regard to God is the first step
necessary for the achievement of themagnum
opus. As says one alchemist: “In the first
place, let every devout and God-fearing chemist and student of this
Art consider that this arcanum should be regarded, not only as a
truly great, but as a most holy Art (seeing that it typifies and
shadows out the highest heavenly good). Therefore, if any man
desire to reach this great and unspeakable Mystery, he must
remember that it is obtained not by the might of man, but by the
grace of God, and that not our will or desire, but only the mercy
of the Most High, can bestow it upon us. For this reason you must
first of all cleanse your heart, lift it up to Him alone, and ask
of Him this gift in true, earnest, and undoubting prayer. He alone
can give and bestow it.”[8]And “Basil
Valentine”: “First, there should be the invocation of God, flowing
from the depth of a pure and sincere heart, and a conscience which
should be free from all ambition, hypocrisy, and vice, as also from
all cognate faults, such as arrogance, boldness, pride, luxury,
worldly vanity, oppression of the poor, and similar iniquities,
which should all be rooted up out of the heart—that when a man
appears before the Throne of Grace, to regain the health of his
body, he may come with a conscience weeded of all tares, and be
changed into a pure temple of God cleansed of all that
defiles.”[9][8]The Sophic Hydrolith; or, Water Stone of
the Wise(seeThe Hermetic
Museum, vol. i. p. 74).[9]The Triumphal Chariot of
Antimony(Mr. A. E. Waite’s translation, p. 13).
See§ 41.Alchemistic Language.§5.In the second
place, we must notice the nature of alchemistic language. As we
have hinted above, and as is at once apparent on opening any
alchemistic book, the language of Alchemy is very highly mystical,
and there is much that is perfectly unintelligible in a physical
sense. Indeed, the alchemists habitually apologise for their
vagueness on the plea that such mighty secrets may not be made more
fully manifest. It is true, of course, that in the days of
Alchemy’s degeneracy a good deal of pseudo-mystical nonsense was
written by the many impostors then abounding, but the mystical
style of language is by no means confined to the later alchemistic
writings. It is also true that the alchemists, no doubt, desired to
shield their secrets from vulgar and profane eyes, and hence would
necessarily adopt a symbolic language. But it is past belief that
the language of the alchemist was due to some arbitrary plan;
whatever it is to us, it was very real to him. Moreover, this
argument cuts both ways, for those, also, who take a transcendental
view of Alchemy regard its language as symbolical, although after a
different manner. It is also, to say the least, curious, as Mr. A.
E. Waite points out, that this mystical element should be found in
the writings of the earlier alchemists, whose manuscripts were not
written for publication, and therefore ran no risk of informing the
vulgar of the precious secrets of Alchemy. On the other hand, the
transcendental method of translation does often succeed in making
sense out of what is otherwise unintelligible in the writings of
the alchemists. The above-mentioned writer remarks on this point:
“Without in any way pretending to assert that this hypothesis
reduces the literary chaos of the philosophers into a regular
order, it may be affirmed that it materially elucidates their
writings, and that it is wonderful how contradictions, absurdities,
and difficulties seem to dissolve wherever it is
applied.”[10][10]Arthur Edward Waite:The
Occult Sciences(1891), p. 91.The alchemists’ love of symbolism is also conspicuously
displayed in the curious designs with which certain of their books
are embellished. We are not here referring to the illustrations of
actual apparatus employed in carrying out the various operations of
physical Alchemy, which are not infrequently found in the works of
those alchemists who at the same time were practical chemists
(Glauber, for example), but to pictures whose meaning plainly lies
not upon the surface and whose import is clearly symbolical,
whether their symbolism has reference to physical or to spiritual
processes. Examples of such symbolic illustrations, many of which
are highly fantastic, will be found inplates 2,3, and4. We shall refer to them again in the course of the present
and following chapters.Alchemists of a Mystical Type.§6.