Magic? Science?
Constance August 1st, 2006
Transforming the Alchemists.
The painting chosen to be reproduced as the illo for this article is worth looking at by itself. There is also a link to the author of the article, who will answer any questions about this subject you might want to ask.
Here is a pull that may be representative of this long article, and that I, at least, quitel liked:
“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.”
Love, C.
I’d like to know which “modern scientists” are embarrassed. I’ve seen discussions of alchemy as the transition point between pre-scientific and “modern” scientific thought by any number of scientists, completely without embarrassment. It had to be kept secret back then by its practitioners, not because it was Unscientific, but because it was heretical to church doctrine. A number of “scientists” who disdained it then often did so as a matter of self-defense over issues of religious dogma. Later, like any convert, they dissed Alchemy, but today’s scientists put it in context.
Fascinating article, Constance–thanks for the link. I especially liked this quote:
and what it implies about ideas of perfection/imperfection, spiritual/worldly. Because heaven knows, “baser Metalls” such as iron and nickel are much more useful, from a pragmatic point of view, than “perfect” ones such as gold. Are they simultaneously less perfect and more useful because of a “worldly” taint that separates them from their “spiritual” origins?
Now I want to know who the chemists were to whom Boyle was referring and read up a bit on what they actually managed to accomplish…
Molly — I thought this was fascinating too, and particularly so since Deep Genre’s Own Kit Kerr has explored so many alchemical ideas in her Deverry series.
Mark — If you’d like to know which scientists were embarrassed, as posted the site has a link so you could ask the author of the article reporting on this.
Love, C.
I have read a couple of “history of science” books, and one of history of chemistry, and it did seem to me that (as Mark says) those writing about the history of science and/or chemistry at least were very clear about the importance of alchemy as a step along the way.
However, I once made the mistake of trying to say (badly) on a panel that ancient astrology was important to the development of modern astronomy, iow that we couldn’t have had the latter without the foundation work of the former, or something on that line, and it was instantly clear to me that the distinguished panelists thought I was a believer in modern astrology and sun signs etc when that wasn’t my intent at all, so . . .
Newton was an alchemist.