H. Stanley Redgrove
Ancient and Modern Alchemy
UUID: a162870c-5883-11e5-b03b-119a1b5d0361
This ebook was created with StreetLib Write (http://write.streetlib.com)by Simplicissimus Book Farm
Table of contents
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
PREFACE
CHAPTER I THE MEANING OF ALCHEMY
CHAPTER II THE THEORY OF PHYSICAL ALCHEMY
CHAPTER III THE ALCHEMISTS [41](A. BEFORE PARACELSUS)
CHAPTER IV THE ALCHEMISTS (continued)(B. PARACELSUS AND AFTER)
CHAPTER V THE OUTCOME OF ALCHEMY
The Genesis of Chemistry.
CHAPTER VI THE AGE OF MODERN CHEMISTRY
CHAPTER VII MODERN ALCHEMY
Conclusion.
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 in
Chapter I
has 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 entitled
Bygone 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 my
Bygone 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. 264
et 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. 419
et seq.; and “The
Production of Neon and Helium by the Electric Discharge,”
Proceedings of the Royal Society,
A, vol. xci.
(1915), pp. 30 et
seq.[3]
See especially the report of negative experiments by Mr. A. C. G.
Egerton, published in
Proceedings of the Royal Society,
A, vol. xci.
(1915), pp. 180 et
seq.[4]
See the
Philosophical Magazine
for 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, but
without 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
§§ 77 and
81: the
reader who wishes to follow the matter further should consult the
fourth edition of Professor Frederick Soddy’s
The Interpretation of Radium
(1920), and the two chapters on the subject in his
Science 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 his Science and
Life just 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
§ 101 of
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 theories
in 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 the
first chapter
of 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