Transcriber’s Notes
Texts printed in italics in the original work have been transcribed
as _text_, bold face texts as =text=. Small caps texts have been
transcribed as ALL CAPITALS. [U] represents a U-shape rather than
the letter U.
Depending on the hard- and software used to read this text and their
settings, not all characters and symbols may display as intended.
More Transcriber’s Notes may be found at the ned of this text.
ALCHEMY: ANCIENT AND MODERN
[Illustration: PLATE 1.
PORTRAIT OF PARACELSUS
[_Frontispiece_]
ALCHEMY:
ANCIENT AND MODERN
BEING A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE ALCHEMISTIC DOCTRINES,
AND THEIR RELATIONS, TO MYSTICISM ON
THE ONE HAND, AND TO RECENT DISCOVERIES IN
PHYSICAL SCIENCE ON THE OTHER HAND; TOGETHER
WITH SOME PARTICULARS REGARDING THE LIVES
AND TEACHINGS OF THE MOST NOTED ALCHEMISTS
BY
H. STANLEY REDGROVE, B.Sc. (Lond.), F.C.S.
AUTHOR OF “ON THE CALCULATION OF THERMO-CHEMICAL CONSTANTS,”
“MATTER, SPIRIT AND THE COSMOS,” ETC.
WITH 16 FULL-PAGE ILLUSTRATIONS
SECOND AND REVISED EDITION
LONDON
WILLIAM RIDER & SON, LTD.
8 PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C. 4
1922
_First published_ 1911
_Second Edition_ 1922
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.
H. S. R.
191, CAMDEN ROAD, LONDON, N.W. 1.
_October_, 1921.
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.
H. S. R.
THE POLYTECHNIC, LONDON, W.
_October, 1910._
CONTENTS
PAGE
CHAPTER I. THE MEANING OF ALCHEMY 1
§ 1. The Aim of Alchemy 1
§ 2. The Transcendental Theory of Alchemy 2
§ 3. Failure of the Transcendental Theory 3
§ 4. The Qualifications of the Adept 4
§ 5. Alchemistic Language 5
§ 6. Alchemists of a Mystical Type 7
§ 7. The Meaning of Alchemy 7
§ 8. Opinions of other Writers 8
§ 9. The Basic Idea of Alchemy 10
§ 10. The Law of Analogy 12
§ 11. The Dual Nature of Alchemy 13
§ 12. “Body, Soul and Spirit” 14
§ 13. Alchemy, Mysticism and Modern Science 15