Alchemists of alchemy: Principe and Jonson

Everything you know about alchemy is wrong. Well, not everything. Yes, some alchemists tried to discover the Philosophers’ Stone, which could turn base metal into gold and guarantee long life and health. Sort of like going to Vegas. In his oft-perused book, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841), Charles Mackay grouped alchemists with rogues, pseudo-science, and irrational fads such as the Dutch tupilomania. In short, it was bunk.

Principe decodes the allegories in several alchemical drawings

Principe decodes the allegories in several alchemical drawings to explain their logic and philosophy

Not so, says Lawrence M. Principe, in his new book The Secrets of Alchemy (2013). Principe, who is a professor of chemistry and the history of science, believes alchemy has been misunderstood, both in historical and scientific terms. He claims that there was no real distinction between alchemy and chemistry prior to the Enlightenment.

Principe’s claim rests on three arguments. First, Principe shows that Classical and medieval Arabic texts on alchemy contained valid chemical processes, some of which he has duplicated himself to prove the point. Second, that those valid chemical processes and what we would think of as fanciful alchemical thinking relied on a common theory about the nature and composition of matter, especially metals. Put these two arguments together, and alchemy appears no longer as a fanciful guessing game, but a serious attempt to understand and change the world — science, or at least proto-science.

"I'm not mad, I'm just creating a homunculus."

“I’m not mad, I’m just creating a homunculus.”

But what of alchemy’s bad reputation? That’s where Principe’s other argument come into play. Unlike the other sciences, alchemy was a messy affair, and it was often put to dubious uses. One of the processes Principe duplicated was designed to make silver look like gold! (He even supplies a photo of the result.) And it had no mathematically theorized framework or an ancient pedigree, unlike, say, astronomy. So it was disreputable. As chemists tried to gain a prestigious position as scientists, they sought to distinguish themselves from the more dubious parts of their field, which they labeled alchemy.

Which brings us to the time of Mackay. By the mid-19th century, the chemists had succeeded. All that was useful of the old science was now “chemistry,” all that was fraudulent, impossible, and disreputable was alchemy. If we factor in the attempt by occultists of the late 19th century to refashion alchemy, as they incorrectly understood it, into a spiritual discipline instead of a physical one, we have the modern view of alchemy complete.

An 18th century production of the play

An 18th century production of the play

Ironically, the playwright Ben Jonson (1572 -1637) anticipated the occultists by using alchemical thinking and language in his plays, to mirror in the spirit what is happening in the material world. But far from turning lead into gold, Jonson uses alchemy to turn gold into dross. The Alchemist (1610) features a trio of rogues: a fraud of an alchemist, a whore, and a traitorous servant. They work together to fleece the greedy and lustful of their every gold coin and shilling with promises of the Philosophers’ Stone, good fortune, and a chance to seduce willing women. I learned more 17th century ways of cursing people in the opening lines of this play than I knew existed, and it overflows with alchemical knowledge. It also overflows with Jonson’s biting attack on human foibles, as all the rogues and their victims are thwarted in their designs. Jonson must have been well-versed in alchemy, for he used its language and philosophy repeatedly in his work. But to judge from The Alchemist and the other two works bound with it in my library (Volpone and Mercury Vindicated from the Alchemists at Court), he viewed alchemy unfavorably as a fraudulent attempt to mimic or surpass nature. A century before the Enlightenment, the seeds of the later division into alchemy and chemistry were already present in Jonson’s writing.

Advertisements

About Brian Bixby

I enjoy history because it helps me understand people. I'm writing fiction for much the same reason.
This entry was posted in History, Reading fiction, Reviews and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Alchemists of alchemy: Principe and Jonson

  1. E. J. Barnes says:

    What? You mean “alchemical philosophy” isn’t legitimate? And all this time I thought this was that last bit of alchemy that had any legitimacy.

    • Brian Bixby says:

      “Legitimate” and “historical” aren’t synonyms. Principe’s argument is that attempts to read “personal transformation” in medieval and early modern alchemical work is ahistorical, a misreading of how alchemists and other intellectuals reasoned allegorically.

  2. crimsonprose says:

    Humph. Bad news, you deliver, Bixby. Now how am I to free my soul from its leaden form and shine out to the world, like gold?

  3. lly1205 says:

    Really neat! Thanks for writing such an informative piece 🙂

    Lily

    • Brian Bixby says:

      Serendipity played a role. I’d picked up a paperback of three of Jonson’s plays many years ago, but never opened it. Then Principe mentioned “The Alchemist,” and that sent me scurrying into my library . . . and there it was!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s