Alchemy is often thought of, thanks to mainstream media, as solely revolving around the philosophers’

stone, whether transforming iron to gold or granting immortality to the welder. In actuality, alchemy is
much more, and represents a fundamental shift in the approach and exploration of philosophical
theories. The transition of alchemy to chemistry during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, from
the shifting lens of a pseudoscience to the realm of a credible field of scientific research, is a complex,
weaving topic still worthy of analysis. While chemistry is a reputable discipline, in which one studies the
complexities, composition and structure of matter, it does owe its existence to what is perceived as the
pseudoscience known as alchemy [i] . Alchemy, the pursuit of matter’s transmutation [ii] , was viciously
defended and explored by alchemists based on Aristotelian and Thomistic theory, that matter has two
stages, a beginning and an end stage [iii] . Under certain circumstances derived from Aristotelian theory,
matter can be forced to transfer between these two stages, which was the pursuit of many alchemists
[iv]

the contributions of alchemists through their analytical techniques that combined philosophical theories
with experimental techniques, which led to the development and prevalence of chemistry. These
techniques and the work performed by later alchemists laid the groundwork that shaped chemistry,
through experimental design and methodology, combining theory with factual support that cast aside
old unsupported theories and began the modernization of chemistry.

The underlying theory to chemistry and alchemy alike, stems from several philosophers, starting with
Empedocles introducing the theory of the four core elements; earth, air, fire and water, in 450 BC [viii] .
Democritus in 420 BC laid the foundation for the theory of matter, by stating that all matter is composed
of indestructible, infinitely small particles that form the objects we perceive [ix] . Aristotle in fourth
century BC combined the ideas of the two philosophers that later became known as Aristotelian theory,
that dominated European chymistry until the seventeenth century

[x] . Alchemy began as a search for replicating nature through the transmutation of matter, in particular
of metals, into a pure and final form [xi] . While many pursuits into alchemy were to better understand
nature there was just as many that had less than noble intents. Due to the methods many used to
conduct alchemy, it became infamously associated with less reputable

The Paris Academie Royale des Sciences in 1666, prohibited all research into the Philosophers’ stone,
followed by any work into transmutation of metals in 1686 [xii] . This ban on alchemy related studies
was founded on several concerns: from the social upheaval that could result from limitless precious
metals flooding markets, to promoting a purely scientific image of chemistry that the public could trust,
and lastly with distancing the academic institutions from their alchemy related past [xiii] . This was
mirrored by the French ministry’s fear of alchemy as to the effects transmutation could have on the
political establishment and economic fallout that an influx of precious metals, mainly gold, could have if
transmutation had indeed ever been successfully accomplished [xiv] . Even with the prohibition of
alchemy in place, many academics took to the privatization of alchemy to continue their work, hidden
from public scrutiny[xv] .
Etienee-Francois Geoffroy’s memoir regarding alchemy was seen to champion the anti-alchemy cause, in
which he claims “the philosophers’ stone opens a very large field for deception in chemistry [xvi] .” The
negative perception of alchemy during this time was only fueled further by Geoffroy’s memoir, even
though he intended the opposite. His work was meant to denounce the cheats, counterfeits, and con
men, not force philosophers into the shadows. Since chemistry’s origins were buried deep in alchemy,
Geoffroy wanted to preserve that legacy, and draw from the experiments performed by early alchemists
rather then just dismiss them out of convenience [xvii] . He worried about the rigidness of the French
academics, since they even rejected the works of English and German chemists[xviii] . So while he
denounced the fraudulent work of many fraudulent alchemists, those that did perform science had to be
protected, and their experiments needed to be evaluated on a equal footing with other scientific
endeavors. Other philosophers and chemists who were well respected at the Academie or other
academic institutions, also worked on their own alchemist experiments in private.

Even during this purging of alchemy from academic circles, many great philosophers still took it upon
themselves to continue their work into alchemy, such as Isaac Newton, Robert Boyle, John Locke, Paul of
Taranto, and Joan Baptista Van Helmont. While alchemy may have been perceived to be a worthless
endeavor, philosophers like these continued their work, seeing the value that alchemy could still play in
transforming chemistry. In the Geber corpus, composed by several European authors in the thirteenth
century, a novel technique was applied to the experiments being conducted that held a lasting influence
on the theory of early modern chemistry

[xix] . Even with the commonly used techniques, incorrect theories and explanations cited throughout
the Geber corpus, the idea to apply artisan techniques as a test for determining the components of
matter was unheard of [xx] . The idea to meld philosophical theories about matter with written
techniques and to verify the composition of matter and its properties is what shaped early alchemy, and
later chemistry. Modern chemistry is based heavily on this approach, of having a testable hypothesis
and a documented method to confirm or discredit that hypothesis, and this approach to science was
revolutionary, shaping eighteenth century chemistry and beyond.

Another example to support this novel approach to science, would have occurred in the fourteenth
century, in the works of Paul of Taranto. His work challenged the commonly held belief of Thomas
Aquinas and his Thomistic theory, that matter had no intermediate stages between the origin and the
final formed substance[xxi] . Paul’s hypothesis that matter was particles that could be separated and
recombined was supported by experimental work, that was unusual and rare at the time [xxii] . This
linking of philosophical theory and experimentation was as the Geber corpus, one of the lasting
contributions to chemistry that lay in alchemy’s origins. The works of the Geber corpus, and Paul of
Taranto, laid the groundwork for others in the eighteenth century to build upon, influencing
philosophers such as Robert Boyle, with early alchemy resurfacing throughout others’ work [xxiii] .

Flemish chymist Joan Baptista Van Helmont’s experiments were another step in the modernization and
transformation of alchemy from private experimentation to mainstream practice in the form of
chemistry [xxiv] . One of Helmont’s experiments involved the making of glass out of sand and salt of
tartar, then reversing the experiment. Where his work was novel, was in the details of the
experiment[xxv] . By measuring the weight of the original ingredients and the weight of the products, he
noted that they had the same weight. This simple revelation was ground-breaking, providing recognition
to the principle of mass balance[xxvi] . This was important as it provided an insight into physics that
Aristotelian physics did not consider. His work in preserving mass through chemical changes later served
Helmont to counter argue the held traditional theory of the four elements [xxvii] . It was his work into
transmutation and alchemy that provided the combination of philosophy and laboratory
experimentation to lead to these conclusions, lending further weight to the contributions that early
alchemy played in shaping early modern chemistry.

It is from this early work in alchemy that chemistry was shaped. Driven by seeking the knowledge of
matter manipulation, alchemists played a crucial role in early modern chemistry. It was through their
experiments that many basic principles of chemistry were founded upon. Chemists understanding of the
states of matter and mass stem from this early work, as does the method of experimentation we employ
today. Philosophy entwined with experimental design stemmed from chymists’ work, even when it was
driven from academic institutions. Many reputable philosophers believed in the value of continuing
research into alchemy, and it is from their conclusions that much more about molecular nature is known.
It is important to view alchemy not as its own distinct category of science, but more a fluid discipline,
playing a key role in chemistry, medicine and physics. Alchemy’s presence throughout the seventeenth
and eighteenth century had more influence on modern chemistry then many give credit to. There are
still more disciplines that alchemy influenced, leaving more avenues for discussion and debate as to
potentially other disregarded fields of pseudoscience that really did have a lasting impact on early
modern sciences.

there are two categories of contribution to the rise of science that alchemy made.

First, there is equipment and techniques.

Perhaps the biggest and most important is distillation; it was perhaps known of before alchemists, but
they (in conjunction with physicians) used and expanded it and used it to spread knowledge of distilled
spirits of wine etc, and through their experimenting discovered mineral acids, made by distillation.

The mineral acids are useful in testing and producing pure gold and silver and of course the concepts of
acids and alkalis was to play some part in the formation of chemistry as a separate discipline.

Alchemists in general were responsible for using and passing on all the general techniques of chemistry,
from solution, calcination ,distillation, cohobation, coagulation et, without which the chymists and early
chemists would have had a much harder time in the 17th and 18th centuries. Because of the alchemists
they had these techniques and a vast array of substances ready and waiting to be used.

These varied from ammonium chloride to various minerals, acids, mercuric chloride, oxides of metals
etc.

There is also the harder to estimate expertise associated with manipulating matter, which accumulates
with practise and which can be passed on in the way of better furnace designs, the types of crucibles to
be used etc. Of course the latter is also where artisans work and alchemists work overlaps. For instance,
alchemists and goldsmiths were interested in proportions of matter, e.g. of how much silver or lead was
in this gold coin. They were both interested in weighing and the earliest illustration of a balance in a
glass case to allow accurate measurement is in a late 15th century alchemical manuscript.

Furnaces and heat were important too, in a more detailed way than to the normal artisan. Alchemists
probably helped invent all sorts of useful and not so useful furnaces, and their activities provided the
seed or source of various more modern methods of heating used by the early scientists.

The second category was ideas about how the world worked. That is what makes it alchemy, the tying
together of practical work with a philosophy of matter, of how and why things worked, rather than the
artisanal “I do this, it melts and changes colour and I cast it into the mould, I don’t need to know how
and why it does it”.

Which is a bit unfair to artisans, some of whom were alchemists and many of whom must have had their
own ideas about how things worked, but because they didn’t write them down or communicate with
others and discuss things like that, we don’t really know what they thought.

The alchemists inherited the standard ideas of how the world works of their period, but they discussed
them a lot and their variation and how it explained what they observed. For instance the author of the
Summa Perfectionis, a 13th century alchemical book, explained the meltings and reactions he saw by
means of an early form of corpuscular theory, and other alchemists elaborated upon the four elements
theory. A corpuscular theory is, roughly, where everything was made up of little bits of stuff which
interacted with each other, and it was important in proto-scientific discussions in the 16/17th centuries.

The alchemists argued about what things were, how they worked etc, and following on from medieval
natural philosophy, looked to experiments to demonstrate which view was correct.

Again, without alchemists, the chymists would have had to invent it all themselves, thus retarding the
growth of science by a century or two.

Chymist is a word used in the 16/17th century that has been adopted by modern historians of science
for the in-between stage where you had real chemistry by modern standards being done, but often
based on alchemical works from the medieval period. See for instance Robert Boyle, who was an
alchemist, but is also sometimes called the father of chemistry.

As mentioned already, alchemists and physicians were often related to each other. Rhazi, an early Arabic
alchemist was a physician, as were many alchemist right up until the 17th century. Medicine and
alchemy overlapped at all levels – they were about healing humans or metals, they were about
manipulating the four elements to achieve a good outcome, they had similar cosmologies and beliefs in
how the world worked. The techniques used were also very similar, or at least physicians were quick to
adopt anything alchemists could do, perhaps the most famous example being Paracelsus, who
championed mineral and metal based medicines e.g. the use of antimony preparations and I think also
sulphuric acid. Moreover it took an education to be properly involved in alchemy, because so much of it
was passed on in books, not by word of mouth. The idea that alchemy was an initiatory practise is not
wrong, but many, many people practised it without any master telling them what to do, hence the
interest in and trade in books of alchemical lore and practises.