LEIBNIZ AND ALCHEMY*

George MacDonald Ross (g.m.ross@leeds.ac.uk)

Studia Leibnitiana, Sonderheft 7, Magia naturalis und die Entstehung der modernen
Naturwissenschaften, 1975, pp.166–177

[Digital version 2017, with added translations of quotations from Latin, German, and
French into English, and original page numbers in square brackets]

Introduction

[166] The topic of Leibniz’s relation to alchemy is a large one; so I shall impose two
limitations on the scope of this paper. Firstly, I shall not go into the question of how alchemy
may have influenced the development of his philosophical thought, but shall confine myself
to the more straightforwardly factual question of what he believed about it. It is a pity to have
to make this limitation, since facts about Leibniz’s alchemical beliefs acquire significance
only through their relation to more important aspects of his intellectual achievement. But, as
far as I am aware, no one has yet assembled the evidence in a systematic way; and this has to
be done before its significance can be evaluated. I am surprised that this is still necessary,
since in the history of ideas it has recently become almost fashionable to seek out the
influence of various forms of occultism on major thinkers of the past; and I would have
expected to have been in a position to take the straight historical work for granted, and
concentrate instead on giving a more balanced assessment of its importance. But the situation
is still confused enough for some writers to find it unthinkable that a rationalist philosopher
such as Leibniz could have anything to do with the irrationalism of alchemy, whereas others
see alchemy as simply a non-twentieth-century form of chemistry which was perfectly
rational in its own terms, and would be surprised [167} if contemporary thinkers were not
heavily influenced by its modes of thought.

*In the notes I use the following abbreviations: A = G.W. LEIBNIZ Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, Hrsg. von
der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (Berlin 1923-). BOD. K. = “Korespondencya
Kochanskiego i Leibniza”, ed. E. BODEMANN, in: Prace Matèmatyczno-fizyczne 12 (1901) 225–278, 13
(1902), 237–284. BOD., L.Br. = E. BODEMANN, Der Briefwechsel des Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (Hannover
1895). DUTENS = L. DUTENS, G.G. Leibnitii Opera Omnia (Geneva 1768). G = G.I. GERHARDT (ed.), Die
Philosophischen Schriften von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (Berlin 1875–90). KLOPP = ONNO KLOPP, Die
Werke von Leibniz . . . (Hannover 1864–1884). L.Br.L.H.: Leibniz MSS in the Niedersächsische
Landesbibliothek. Misc. Ber. = Miscellanea Berolinensia I (Berlin 1710). PETERS (1912) = HERMANN
PETERS, “Kunckels Verdienst um die Chemie”, in Archiv für Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften und der
Technik 4 (1912) 178–214. PETERS (1916) =- HERMANN PETERS, “Leibniz als Chemiker”, in Archiv für
Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften und der Technik 7 (1916) 85–108, 220–235, 275–287. STEIN = LUDWIG
STEIN, Leibniz und Spinoza (Berlin 1890).
 2

These differences in approach arise from disagreements both about how alchemy should be
defined, and, more generally, about how we are to understand outmoded ways of thinking;
and this brings me to my second limitation on the scope of my paper. Although answers to
such questions cannot be determined solely by the results of historical research, we are most
likely to arrive at a useful concept of alchemy if we base it on well established historical data,
rather than try to fit the data to a concept which may be either arbitrary or formed by
mistaken assumptions about the history. With this in view, I hope to bring more of the
relevant data to light by confining myself to a topic which is archetypally alchemical, but
which can be discussed without prejudging the issue of the nature of alchemy in general. I
shall therefore pose the question: Did Leibniz believe that it was technically possible to make
gold with the resources currently available?

The strongest conceivable indication that someone believes something to be possible consists
in their actually trying to bring it about; so I shall start by reviewing evidence that Leibniz
was actively involved in goldmaking. I shall then consider his explicit comments on its
possibility and desirability, and conclude with some remarks about the significance of his
attitude to it.

Leibniz’s Active Involvement in Goldmaking

As I have shown in my article “Leibniz and the Nuremberg Alchemical Society”, which
appeared in last year’s Studia Leibnitiana1, it is beyond all reasonable doubt that Leibniz was
employed by an alchemical society during the winter of 1666–67. We have no firm
information about its activities, but these would almost certainly have included attempts at
making gold. Leibniz himself is strangely reticent about the affair, and his biographer
Eckhart2, who is virtually our only source, reports him as giving the impression that it was an
isolated incident which he did not take seriously even at the time. Indeed, the story that he
tricked his way into the society by pretending to be an adept finds an echo in the advice he is
known to have given to Christian Philipp: that he could best get information out of the
alchemist M. Arendten by concealing his scepticism and pretending to be an alchemist
himself3. However, to take the trouble [168] to pretend to be an alchemist already
presupposes considerable interest in and knowledge of alchemy; and in any case we have
Leibniz’s own word for it that he was devoted to the subject in his youth. As he wrote to
Kochansky in 1696:

“Etsi ego quoque inde a prima juventa sim hoc studio delectatus. 4”
1
Studia Leibnitiana 6 (1974) 222–248
2
J.G. VON ECKHART, Lebensbeschreibung des Freyherrn von Leibniz, in: C.G. VON MURR, Journal zur
Kunstgeschichte und zur allgemeinen Literatur VII (Nürnberg 1779) 137–140.
3
CHR. PHILIPP to Leibniz, 4/14.2.1680 and 25.2/6.3.1680 (A.I.iii.353 and 358).
4
Leibniz to Kochanzky, 6/16.5.1696 (Bod., K. 69). Cf. Leibniz to Kochansky, 11/21.3.1692 (Bod., K.28 =
A.I.vii.616): “Meque quoque fateor delectari studio hermetico,” [“I admit that I too enjoy hermetic study”] and
26.3.1696, s.v. (Bod., K.61: “Quamvis vix quisquam me fuerit a multis annis curiosior in indagandis viris
interiora naturae noscentibus ex eo praesertim ordine, quem vocant adeptorum”. [“Although for many years
hardly anyone was more diligent than me in hunting down people who knew about the inner workings of nature,
especially from the ranks of so-called adepts.”] Leibniz to Tenzel, 29.7./8.8.1692 (A.I.viii,365–6): “Et omnino
admodum hactenus apud me (harum rerum si quis alius a tot annis curiosum) laborat aurificinae fides.” [“And
up till now I have certainly laboured under a belief in goldmaking (as inquisitive as anyone about such matters
 3

[“Even if I too took a delight in this sort of pursuit right from my earliest youth.”]

But in order to prove conclusively that Leibniz’s involvement with the alchemical society
was not just an isolated piece of hypocrisy, it will be necessary to give evidence of other
expressions of an interest in the art of making gold.

It seems that by his twenties Leibniz already had a reputation for knowledge of alchemical
matters. For instance, Kochansky told him:
“An ex Adeptorum numero sis . . . est qui nosse disiderat” 5

[“There is someone who wants to know whether you are one of the adepts . . .”];

and sometimes Leibniz himself boasted of his wide acquaintance and correspondence with
alchemists:
“Jucundissima tamen cum magna talium vi, et fortasse non infructuosa , et qvod apud eos plerumqve
suspicaces rarum, intima conversatio fuit”6.

[“However, my acquaintance with a large number of such people was most pleasant, and perhaps not
unfruitful, and intimate, which is rare among them because they are mostly mistrustful.”]

More significantly, various German princes interested in alchemy pestered him for his
services; as he wrote to Kochansky:
“Apud Principes nonnullo loco fuerim, qui talia impense quaerebant, et occasione itinerum
commerciorumque literariorum non paucis fuerim familiaris, qui in his excellebant” 7;

[“I was in very good standing with princes who persistently asked me about such things, and I was on
familiar terms with quite a few who excelled in these matters, in the course of my travels and through
exchange of letters.”]

and again to Gottfried Thomasius:

“Crebro pulsatus sum, non tam mea quam principum gratia, apud quos mihi aditus erat” 8

[“I was frequently importuned, not for my sake, but for that of princes to whom I had access.”]

[169] It seems that at least one of these princes succeeded in getting something out of him,
for in 1698 he wrote to Peter Müller:

for so many years).”] Leibniz to Gottfried Thomasius, 7/17.12.1696 (L. Br. 925. 13r): “Me Noriberga primum
chemicis studiis imbuit nec poenitet adolescentem didicisse quod viro cautioni esset . . . neque defui curiositati,
sed ita ut circumspectione temperaretur.” [“Nuremberg first introduced me to chemical studies, and I do not
regret having learned as an adolescent what a grown man should be wary of . . . nor did I lack curiosity, but in
such a way as to be tempered by circumspection.”]
5
Kochansky to Leibniz, 1.7.1671 (A.II.i.137). In subsequent letters he continues to pester Leibniz for advice
about alchemical questions. Cf. also Leibniz’s letter to Tentzel of 29.7./8.8.1692 (A.I.viii.365), in which he
refers to a rumour that he possessed a Ducat of alchemical gold; and J.C. Wachsmuth’s letter of 24.1.1697
asking Leibniz for a loan for alchemical experiments: “Ich weiss wohl, dass dergl. curios ist, deswegen habe
etwas melden wollen.” [“I well know that he is curious, which is why I have something to report,”] (Quoted in
Peters (1916), p.285).
6
Letter to Carcavy of Nov. (?) 1671 (A.II.i.182). Cf. letters to von Fürstenberg of April (?) 1673 (A.I.i.346). and
to Müller of 23.12.1698, s.v. (quoted in Bod., L.Br., p.189).
7
6/16.5.1696 (bOD., K. 69–70).
8
7/17.12.1696 (L.Br. 925,13r).
 4

“Ich muss bekennen, dass ob ich schon viele der berühmtesten Chemicorum in Europa, deren theils pro
adeptis gehalten worden, gekennet, u. vermittelst grosser Potentaten, die diese studia geliebet, dazu
Gelegenheit gehabt, ich dennoch keine vergnügende Wahrheit der grossen Werks gesehen; daher ich
noch allezeit sehr angestanden, ob ich gleich in den Philosophie, die davon gehandelt, so viel als
wenige Andere mich umgesehen, so gar, dass ich bereits im 22. Jahr meines Alters eine harmoniam
derselben gemacht u. einem grossen Chürfursten offerirt, welcher daran ein besonderes Vergnügen
gefunden; u. möchte ich nun der Curiosität willen wünschen, dass ich die Schriften jetzo wieder hätte” 9

[“I must admit that, although I have known many of the most famous chemists in Europe, some of
them held to be adepts, and although I have had opportunities for it through powerful potentates who
love these studies, yet I have not seen any satisfactory proof of the Great Work. Consequently I am still
always very cautious, even though few people are more familiar with the philosophy of it than me. So
much so, that as young as 22 I had already written a harmony of the philosophers, and offered it to a
great Elector. He was very satisfied with it, and out of curiosity I wish I still had a copy.”]

He does not say who he wrote his “harmony of the philosophers” for; but since he places it in
the year 1667–68, his patron must surely be the Elector of Mainz, to whom he wrote as
follows in November 1668:
“Bitte aber unterdessen E. Churf. Gn. unterhänigst, dass das jenige, so ich E. Churf. Gn. einsmahls
unterhänigst offerirt, de vera materia tincturae, nicht etwa, wie ich verständigt worden bin, spargiret
werden möge”10

[“I humbly request your Electoral Grace that the thing I humbly offered to your Electoral Grace on the
true matter of the Tincture, as I have been advised, is not something that should be publicised.”]pok

So, since he did in fact provide at least one prince with a goldmaking recipe or something like
it, it seems to me probable that his alchemical reputation was at least instrumental in his
gaining employment at the courts of Mainz and of Hannover, perhaps under a disguise
similar to that of Johann Kunckel, whom he refers to as the Chamberlain of the Elector of
Saxony,

“sed qui chymicos labores sub hujus nominis velamento obibat.”11

9
Leibniz to Müller, 23.12.1698, s.v. (Bod., LBr., p.189). Cf. Leibniz to Kochansky, 6/16.5.1696 (Bod., K. 70):
“Nam etsi et ego aliquando tantum studii autoribus qui adepti creduntur impenderim, ut ipse mihi (tunc quidem
paulo faciliori) persuaderet, me philosophorum harmoniam assecutum.” [“For I too once devoted so much time
to studying authors who are believed to be adepts, that he himself persuaded me (rather more easily then) to
undertake a harmony of the philosophers.”]
10
Leibniz to the Elector of Mainz, 12/22.11.1668. Another likely candidate is the Elector of Hannover; cf. letter
to Chr. Philipp, 17/27.12.1678 (A.I.ii.396): “Je voudrais bien sçavoir des particularités de ce qve vous m’avés
dit un jour en passant du secret chymiqve de l’Electeur Auguste. Il me semble qve l’Electeur a eu le secret de
David Beuther. Vous m’avés dit qv’il ne manqve aujourdhuy qve le ciment: il seroit à souhaiter qve l’on pût
voir au moins ce qv’on en a, parce qve j’ay trouué un Manuscrit ou il y a qvelqves secrets de ce Beuther, et entre
autres un ciment.” [“I would love to know the details of what you said to me one day in passing about the
chemical secret of the Elector August. It seems to me that the Elector had the secret from David Beuther. You
told me that the only thing missing today is the cement. It would be desirable if one could see at least what one
has of it, because I have found a manuscript in which there are some of the secrets of this Beuther, among which
is a cement.”] Misc. Ber. 94: “Erat Kunkelius Serenissimi Electoris Saxoniae Johannis Georgii III [sic! — he
must mean Georg II] Chymicus , et cum Augustus Elector olim arcana quaedam Alchymistica lucrifera
possedisse pro certo in illis terris habeabatur; scripta (partim propria Principis manu) quae Dresdae extant, et
arcani vestigia habere putantur, fidei Kunkelii credita fuerant, ut tentaret, an aliquid inde exsculpi posset: Ex his
nonulla etiam ad me pervenere.” [“Kunkel was the chemist of his serene highness the Elector of Saxony, Johann
Georg II; and since the Elector August was held at one time to have certainly possessed in those lands certain
valuable alchemical secrets, the writings (partly in the prince’s own hand) which are still in Dresden, and are
believed to have traces of the secret, were entrusted to Kunkel so that he could try and dig something out of
them. Some of these have also come down to me.”]
11
Misc. Ber. 94.
 5

[“but who undertook chemical works under cover of this title.”]

Interesting though this is, it is still conceivable that Leibniz was merely humouring the
nobility in the hope of personal advantage. More significant, therefore, is the fact that in
about 1676, he entered into an agreement with Georg Hermann Schuller and Johann Daniel
Crafft that they should share the profits from any success in making gold12. Apparently some
itinerant alchemist was also [170] involved, since in his correspondence with Leibniz,
Schuller repeatedly reports on the whereabouts of “Protheus noster” [“our Proteus”] and
“Chrysopoejus noster” [“our Goldmaker”]; and it is also possible that Johann Joachim Becher
was party to the agreement, since Schuller talks of him and Crafft working together on the
transmutation of metals13. Leibniz’s role is not made clear, but it seems to have been confined
to that of supplying money and theoretical advice. It is indicative of the current attitude to
alchemy that Leibniz went to great lengths to conceal the true reason for his sending money
to Schuller in Holland by pretending that it was for the purchase of books, and by suggesting
a secret code for use in their correspondence14.

A few years earlier Leibniz may have had a similar arrangement with Paul Barth and Peter
Paul Metzger. In December 1670, Barth answers Leibniz’s request for information about the
progress of “opus nostrum philosophicum” [“our philosophical work”] by giving a detailed
account of his difficulties, which included Metzger’s promotion to public office, and asking
Leibniz’s advice on how to proceed15. Much later, in 1688, Metzger sends his greetings to
Leibniz and Barth, and reminisces about their alchemical discussions:
“Meines hochgeEhrten Herrn dortmahls, schöne discursen, von dem waaren subjecto der
philosophorum, mit besteifnus vnd authorität derselben, dass es das vitriolum seye, erinnere ich mich
noch wol, wo ich es aber hinverwahret, weiss ich nicht, so bald ich aber ein wenig zeit habe, will ich
nach suchen, ob ich es wieder finden kan”16

[“I still remember well from those days my most honoured Sir’s beautiful discourses on the true subject
of the philosophers, holding with firmness and authority that it was vitriol. I don’t know where I have
kept it, but as soon as I have a little time, I shall try and find it again.”]

His comment that Leibniz once believed that the philosopher’s stone could be developed
from vitriol is important, since it adds a new dimension to Leibniz’s own more neutral
statement in the Miscellanea Berolinensia of 1710: he reports how in his youth he had solved
two alchemical riddles, and then continues:

“At Aenigma Basilianum a Graeco dissentire videtur. Ita est: erunt tamen fortasse, qui conciliationem
comminiscentur. Nostrum Vitriolum, nostrum Arsenicum clamant illi, qui se unos philosophos
appellandos contendunt. Nempe est in arcanis eorum schedis, ad quas aliquando, tanquam ad Eleusinia
sacra admissus sum, materia quaedam, cui utrumque nomen non inepte attribui possit”17.

12
Schuller to Leibniz, 10.10.1678 (Bod., L. Br. p.271); Peters (1916), p.283 (who dates the letter 19.10.1673);
Peters (1912), p.195. Cf. Leibniz to Carcavy, 22.6 (?).1671 (A.II.i.130).
13
Stein, p.284ff.
14
Schuller to Leibniz, 3/13.9.1678, (Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 24 (1970) 123–5); Leibniz to
Schuller, 23.8.1678 and s.d. 1678 (Stein, 293–6).
15
Barth to Leibniz 6/16.12.1670 (A.I.i.214–216).
16
Metzger to Leibniz, 10/20.3.1688 (A.I.v.62).
17
Misc. Ber. 22. Cf. Leibniz to Hoffmann, 23.9.1701 (Fr. HOFFMANNI Opera Omnia, Suppl. Tom. I (Geneva
1749), p.55: “Multa quidam jactant in alchemia de spiritu volatili vitrioli, qui prodeat, si communis spiritus
vitrioli sali tartari instilletur. Basilius Valentinus, vel qui se hoc nomine occultat, mira de eo promittit; sed quae
hactenus nemini successere.” [“Some people boast about many things in alchemy concerning the volatile spirit
of vitriol, which is produced if the common spirit of vitriol is instilled into salt of tartar. Basil Valentine, or
whoever hides under this name, promises wonderful things of it; but hitherto no-one has had any success.”] In
 6

[“But Basil Valentine’s riddle seems to be inconsistent with the Greek’s one. Indeed it is. However,
there will perhaps be people who will fabricate a conciliation. ’Our vitriol’, ‘Our arsenic,’ cry those
who claim that they alone are worthy to be called philosophers. Certainly among their secret
documents, to which I was once given access as if to the Eleusinian mysteries, there is a certain type of
matter to which both names can, not inappropriately, be attributed.”]

[171] Perhaps Leibniz is concealing the fact that he is referring to his very own “harmony of
the philosophers”, which would have consisted in reconciling Basil Valentine’s vitriol with
Stephen of Alexandria’s arsenic.

But to return to hard facts, apart from co-operative endeavours between friends, Leibniz was
for a long time willing to invest considerable sums of money in the projects of individual
alchemists, the latest example I can find being that of Math. Starck in 169318. And even
where there is no evidence of his demonstrating his confidence in such a tangible way, there
are records of many occasions on which he showed a keen interest in learning about and
testing claims that the philosopher’s stone had been found, and in some of these he seems to
have thought the prospects were encouraging. In particular he considered it worthwhile
suggesting to Duke Johann Friedrich in 1678 that Wenzel Seyler should be tested19, and in
1679 that the Duke should be ready to imitate Becher’s process for getting gold from sand
(though he might already have considered this to be a case of extraction rather than of
transmutation)20. Two years later he was encouraging Duke Ernst August to test Captain
Vierort21, and as late as 1698 we find him writing to Peter Müller:
“Ich wünsche nicht wenig, ein specimen der wahren Tinctur sehen zu können, dergl. mein Herr von
einem adepto erwartet”22.

[“I have no little desire to be able to see a specimen of the true Tincture, which my master expects from
an adept.”]

Indeed, it is reported that while on his deathbed Leibniz spent part of his last hours discussing
with his physician, Dr. Seip, the case of the famous alchemist Furtenbach, who had claimed
to have changed half an iron nail into gold23.

It therefore appears indisputable that for much of his life Leibniz considered goldmaking to
be a worthwhile endeavour, although we do not know how far he pursued this aim by actual
experiments in his laboratory. He would certainly [172] have had adequate facilities, if not
the time, in Nuremberg and in the Harz Mountains; but the only occasion on which he even
his early years, Leibniz frequently cites Basil Valentine’s works with approval, e.g. in his letter to Hobbes of
13/23.7.1670 (A.II.i.58). He argues for his pseudonymity in Misc. Ber. 17.
18
BOD., L.Br., p.311; PETERS (1916), p.285.
19
Leibniz to Johann Friedrich, Dec. 1678 (A.I.ii.106–7).
20
Leibniz to Johann Friedrich, June 1679 (A.I.ii.177). Leibniz also showed great interest in Becher’s recipe for
transmuting mud and linseed oil into iron. Cf. especially his letter to Oldenberg of 8/18.6.1671 (A.II.i.124).
21
Leibniz to Ernst August, June 1681 (A.I.iii.118) and Sept. 1681 (A.I.iii.127).
22
Leibniz to Müller, 23.12.1698 (Bod., L.Br., p.181) . Other examples are to be found in: Leibniz to Joh.
Friedrich, Nov.(?) 1678 (A.I.ii.99); Dec. 1678 (A.I.ii.106); Leibniz to Th. Craanen, June 1679 (A.II.i.471);
Hansen to Leibniz, 17/27.10.1680 (A.I.iii.436–8); Leibniz to Chr. Philipp, 8/18.11.1680 (A.I.iii.443) and
11/21.4.1682 (A.I.iii.529); Reise-Journal (Hildesheim 1966), Bl. 15v; Leibniz to Thévenot, 13/23.3.1691
(A.I.vi.410) and 24.8/3.9.1691 (A.I.vii.351–2); Leibniz to Tentzel, 29.7/8.8.1692 (A.I.viii.366) and 5.6.1699
(L.Br. 915 Bl.141r); Leibniz to Sophie Charlotte, 14.12.1701 (Klopp, I.x.110–112); Leibniz to Hartsoeker,
12.12.1706 (G.vii.489); Misc. Ber. 16ff. He also possessed Kunckel’s copy of Sebald Schwertzer’s process
(L.H.xxxvii.6.56–71), and some of David Beuther’s papers (cf. n.10, above). There are many more instances of
unsolicited information about alchemical recipes being sent to Leibniz.
23
C.G. VON MURR, Journal zur Kunstgeschichte und zur allgemeinen Literatur VII (Nürnberg 1779) p.220;
PETERS (1916) p. 287.
 7

hints that he might himself have had any laboratory experience is when he writes to Peter
Müller:

“Ich habe auch die Hand angelegt u. sowohl bey Bergwerken als in Laboratoriis viel gesehen u.
erfahren; aber die grösste Hauptsache oder doch wenigstens unguem ex leone illo viridi vel rubeo habe
ich nicht gesehen, wohl aber Manchen, qui erat magno promissor hiatu.”24

[“I have also worked with my hands, and have seen many things and had many experiences, as much in
mines as in laboratories; but I have not seen the Supreme Thing, or even the unguent from the green or
red lion.”]

Leibniz’s Attitude to Goldmaking

Leibniz always believed in the theoretical possibility of creating gold, apparently on the
general metaphysical grounds that matter is one25. More specifically, the possibility of
transmutation was also implicit in the doctrines of his Hypothesis Physica Nova of 1671,
which excluded truly elementary chemical substances (the nearest being smaller or larger and
exhausted or distended bubbles, corresponding to volatile or fixed alkali or acid
respectively)26. On a number of occasions he makes it explicit that one of the merits of his
hypothesis is that it can account for the tincture and the alkahest, if such things exist27. Nor is
it surprising that he should have believed in the practical as opposed to the merely theoretical
possibility of transmutation, since he held that all metals had already been generated from
more elementary substances through natural processes during the course of the earth’s
evolution; and what nature can do, art can imitate28. In addition, he was aware of many
examples (real or imaginary) of the use of laboratory processes to bring about radical changes
in physical [173] substances, or to extract substances with amazing properties from the most

24
Leibniz to Müller, 23.12.1698, s.v. (Bod., L.Br.,p.189).
25
Letter to Heinrich Horb, 2/12.1.1671 (A.I.i.112): “Nam qvi hoc [i.e. proximas atqve plenas rerum naturalium
causas exhibere] posset, esset in natura omnipotens, qvidlibet ex qvolibet facturus: materia enim omnium eadem
est.” [“For if anyone could do this [i.e. lay out the immediate and complete causes of natural things], he would
be omnipotent in nature, able to make anything out of anything; for the matter of everything is the same.”]
26
A.VI.ii.221–257, esp. p.224.
27
Leibniz to Carcavy, 22.6(?).1670 (A.II.i.128) and 17.8.1671 (A.II.i.143–4); De Qualitatibus Sensibilibus,
1671(?) (A.VI.ii.291); De Liquore Alcahest, 1671(?) (A.VI.ii.291).
28
He argues for the natural origin of metals in a letter to Thomasius of 20/30.4.1669 (A.II.i.18 = A.VI.ii.437–8),
and to Hobbes of 13/23.7.1670 (A.II.i.58); but he is more cautious in a letter to Arnauld of 14.7.1686 (G.II.61)
when he writes: “J’ay aussi esté curieux en matiere de mines, à l’occasion de celles de nostre pays, où je suis
allé souvent par ordre du prince, et je croy d’avoir fait quelques decouvertes sur la generation, non pas tant des
metaux, que de cette forme où ils se trouvent, et de quelques corps où il sont engagés . . .” [“I have also been
curious as far as mines are concerned, in relation to those of our country, which I have often gone to on the
prince’s orders, and I believe I have made certain discoveries about the generation, not so much of metals, as of
the shape in which they are found, and some bodies they are bound up with.”] But he always remained
convinced that metals were naturally generated, even if he could not explain how; as he wrote to Hartsoeker in
about 1710 (G.III.497): “Je suis assés du sentiment de ceux qui n’admettent point que nous connoissons
jusqu’icy des productions et des destructions des metaux, du sel commun et du salpetre et de quelques autres
corps de cette simplicité. Cependant je n’en juge ainsi que provisionellement, ne voyant point d’impossibilité à
la chose, et je n’ay garde de croire qu’ils sont aussi anciens que le Monde. Il faudroit des grandes preuves pour
avancer de telles propositions.” [“I am very much of the opinion of those who do not accept that we know up to
now about the production and destruction of metals, about common salt, about saltpetre, and about some other
substances of this simplicity. Nevertheless, my judgment about this is only provisional, since I don’t see the
impossibility of the thing, and I take care not to believe that they are as ancient as the Earth. Major proofs would
be required to put forward such propositions.”]
 8

unpromising materials. One instance of this was the production of phosphorus from urine —
and Leibniz may for a time have shared its discoverer’s hope that it would yield the
philosopher’s stone29. Besides, a number of cases of alleged transmutation, such as those
performed by Baron de Chaos and by Wenzel Seyler, had been authenticated by the most
irreproachable of witnesses30.

But although he was enthusiastic, he was certainly never credulous. He was always careful to
test claims that transmutation had been or could be successfully carried out, and there is no
record of his ever having been convinced by any particular recipe. For instance, he pestered
Crafft and Schuller for detailed information about their processes, and when he finally got a
long explanation from Schuller, he noted on the letter:

“4 Gran Gold sind 1/16 vom quintlein, das quintlein ist ongefähr 1 Ducaten, wäre 3 Gutegroschen.
Schöner Process, da man mit 6 Gutegroschen 6 Pfennigen verlegt 3 Gutegroschen gewinnt”31.

[“4 grains of gold are 1/16 of a quentchen, the quentchen is roughly 1 ducat, which comes to 3
groschen. A fine recipe! — an expenditure of 6 groschen and 6 pennies yields 3 groschen.”]

Again, Landgrave Ernst once asked him why Becher, in his Närrische Weisheit und weise
Narrheit [Foolish Wisdom and Wise Folly], had ridiculed him for claiming to have invented a
chariot that could travel from Amsterdam to Hannover in 6 hours; and Leibniz explained that
it was because Becher was furious with him for having prevented “une certaine fourberie
Alchymistique, qu’il meditoit”32 [“a certain alchemistic deceit which he was planning”].
From his earlier years he was aware of the mixture of fraud and stupidity that characterised
the majority of self-styled “sons of the art”33, and he singled out alchemical writings as
examples of reprehensible obscurity34. On the other hand, he recognised that uneducated and
misguided alchemists were responsible for as many useful discoveries as the intellectual
establishment, and drew the conclusion that the enthusiasm and abilities of all should be
harnessed to a properly organised programme of scientific research35. And he remarked that
even if the stone did [174] turn out to be an illusion, the hope of finding it would still have
stimulated much worthwhile investigation36.
29
But this is pure speculation. Even while negotiating for Brand to be employed by Duke Johann Friedrich,
Leibniz did not take Brand’s goldmaking ambitions seriously. Cf. Leibniz to Johann Friedrich of 31.7/10.8.1678
(A.I.ii.64) and Sep. 1686 (A.I.ii.69–70); to Christian Philipp of 11/21.4.1682 (A.I.iii.529) and Misc. Ber. 93.
30
Leibniz to Ernst, June 1681 (A.I.iii.118).
31
Schuller to Leibniz, 16/26.12.1678, quoted in Peters (1916), p.282, and paraphrased in Bod., L.Br., p.271.
Leibniz’s request for information from Crafft and the latter’s response are mentioned in the former’s letter to
Ernst of Nov.(?) 1678 (A.I.ii.99).
32
Leibniz to Ernst, 14/24.3.1683 (A.I.iii.278). Cf. Ernst to Leibniz, 2/12.11.1682 (A.I.iii.274).
33
Misc. Ber. 19. Even in his most youthful writings he sometimes seems more scathing in his dismissal of
alchemy than in later ones. E.g. in a letter to Carcavy of Nov.(?) 1671 (A.II.i.182) he calls the search for the
stone a “disease”, and at about the same date he refers to the “fabulosum Philosophorum lapidem” [“the
mythical philosophers’ stone”] (A.VI.i.279).
34
Prefact to Nizolius, 1670 (A.VI.ii.419); letter to Hoffmann, 27.9.1699 (Fr. Hoffmani Opera Omnia, Suppl.
Tom. I (Geneva 1749), p.51.
35
Preface to Nizolius, 1670 (A.VI.ii.413); letter to Carcavy of Nov.(?) 1671 (A.I.i.182); Bedenken von
Aufrichtung einer Akademie, 1671(?) (A.IV.i.543–552); letter to Tentzel, 29.7/8.8.1692 (A.I.viii.366–7).
36
Letter to Gottfried Thomasius of 7/17.12.1696 (L.Br. 925, Bl. 13r): “Interea utile fortasse est scientiarum
incrementis, etiam rararum aut dificillimarum rerum spem inter homines vulgo manere, ut Astrologiae
judiciariae, et perpetui motus, et quadraturae circuli per regulam circinumque, et metallica non minus quam
humana corpora emendantis tincturae.” [“Meanwhile it is perhaps useful for the advance of the sciences even
that hope should remain among ordinary people of rare or very difficult things, such as judicial astrology, and
perpetual motion, and the squaring of the circle with ruler and compass, and tinctures for improving metals no
less than human bodies.”]
 9

However, by the 1690s he had gradually changed his mind about both the possibility and the
desirability of transmutation, and had become openly critical of people like Tollius, Crafft
and Becher for dissipating their energies on vain alchemical dreams37. The reason he most
commonly gives for doubting that anyone would succeed in making gold is the empirical one
that all previous attempts have failed, though he is often careful to add that this does not show
that transmutation is absolutely impossible. Thus, he writes to Hartsoeker in about 1710:

“Je n’ay point la moindre esperance de parvenir a la transmutation des metaux et je ne connois aucune
experience qui la confirme. Mais pour dire absolument qu’elle est impossible, il faudroit en avoir des
preuves”38.

[“I haven’t the least hope of attaining the transmutation of metals, and I know of no experiment that
confirms it. But to say absolutely that it is impossible, one would have to have proof of that. “]

But, as he writes to Kochansky in 1696, the chance of success is so small that it is as

irrational to devote oneself to searching for the stone as it is to give up everything on the
assumption that one is going to win a lottery39. More generally, and with a certain modern
ring, he implies in a letter to Queen Sophie Charlotte that the claims of alchemists are
discredited by their unfalsifiability as much as by lack of direct confirmation40. But in
addition to arguing at this empirical level, Leibniz also produced some theoretical grounds for
doubting the possibility of making gold, though he was still prepared to recognise that he
might eventually be proved wrong.

Firstly, he seems to have come round to the view that, at least for all practical purposes,
certain types of substance were specifically distinct, so that any prima facie case of
transmutation would have to be considered as really only a mixture, in which the particles of
the original substance still lay concealed41. But he did not lay much stress on this as an
argument against transmutation, presumably because to do so would involve a petitio
principii. Much more important is his discussion in his Oedipus Chymicus42, published in
1710, in [175] which he argued that it is difficult to imagine how anything could have the
properties required of the philosopher’s stone, in particular the capacity to bring about a rapid
increase in the density of a quantity of material much larger than itself. The alchemists’
conception of the stone as like a seed was doubly wrong, since it must be part of inorganic,
not organic nature; and in any case the action of a seed would be far too slow. But, on the
other hand, who would have conceived of the possibility of gunpowder without having
experienced it first? —
“Caeterum quod parum verisimile censeo, non ideo impossibile pronuntiare ausim. Certe esse aliquid
in natura, quale pyrius pulvis, nisi experimento convicti, aegre crederemus.”

[“But what I consider to be highly unlikely, I would not on that account dare to pronounce impossible.
Certainly we would hardly believe that something like gunpowder existed in nature, unless we were
convinced by experience.”]

37
Letter to Ericus of 12/22.1.1691(A.I.vi.346–7); to Gottfr. Thomasius of 7/17.12.1696 (L. Br.925 Bl. 13r);
Misc. Ber. 94–5.
38
G.III.500–501. Cf. Leibniz to Hartsoeker of 1710(?) (G.III.497); to Bourguet, 22.3.1714 (G.III.566); to
Tentzel, 29.7/8.8.1692 (A.I.viii.365) and 17/27.10.1692 (A.I.viii.475).
39
Letter to Kochansky, 6/16.5.1696 (Bod., K. 70). Cf. letter to Gottfried Thomasius, 7/17.12.1696 (L.Br. 925,
Bl.13r).
40
Leibniz to Sophie Charlotte, 14.12.1701 (Klopp, I.x.111).
41
Leibniz to Stisser, 24.3.1699 (Dutens, II.ii.122) and 12.12.1699 (Dutens II.ii.126). Cf. letter to Christian
Philipp, 8/18.11.1680 (A.I.iii.443), and Misc, Ber. 18.
42
Misc. Ber. 17–19.
 10

He admitted that it was easier to imagine a quintessence of gold, which could be used to
produce a strictly limited quantity of ordinary gold in the way that a mixture of alcohol and
water would yield something analogous to wine; but this would not constitute true
transmutation, and it could not increase the total amount of gold in the universe.

As for the desirability of finding the philosopher’s stone, Leibniz had always been conscious
of the moral responsibility incumbent on its possessor. As he wrote in about 1671:

Es ist ein wichtiger Punct, daran die Seeligkeit und endtliche Rechenschafft hanget, seinen verstand
und macht recht zu Gottes ehre brauchen. Dass ich glaube es solte ein gewissenhaffter Mensch den
Lapidem Philosophorum, mit so schwerer condition, so aller grossen macht unablösslich anhafftet,
ohne furcht und zittern nicht annehmen. Damit er nicht einmal die harte wort, dass du verdammet
seyest mit deinem Gelde, hören müsse.43.

[“It is an important point, on which salvation and the last judgment depend, to use one’s understanding
and power properly for the glory of God. So I believe that a conscientious person should not embark on
the philosophers’ stone without fear and trembling, but under the strict conditions that indissolubly
adhere to all great power. Thus they must never hear those harsh words, that you are damned with your
money.”]

But by the time he had come to the conclusion that the stone was unattainable anyway, he
was less concerned about the moral dangers for its possessor than about the damage its
discovery would do to commercial life. Without a high-value medium of exchange we would
return to the days when a peasant selling his produce in the town needed a cart to take his
money back home.44 Thus the only lasting value of the philosopher’s stone would be
scientific, insofar as its discovery would yield new knowledge of nature; but in that case
scientists [176] would be much more usefully employed on more promising channels of
research.45

One final indication of Leibniz’s attitude is a growing tendency to use witty turns of phrase
when discussing alchemy. The only attempt at wit I have noticed in his earlier writings on the
topic is in his letter to Carcavy of Nov.(?) 1671, where he refers to the philosopher’s stone as
“Sisyphium hoc saxum”46 [“this Sisyphean boulder”]. Later, he quite frequently reinforces his
view that chemical studies should be scientifically rather than financially rewarding with a
play on words between “lucifera” [“illuminating”] and ”lucrifera”47 [“profitable”]. He also
43
Grundriss eines Bedenkens von Aufrichtung einer Societät, 1671(?) (A.IV.i.533). In his Monita Sapientiae
Christianae, MERLO HORSTIUS had written: “Cogitandum divitias plures patere ad inferos vias”,[“It is to be
contemplated that much wealth opens the road to hell.”] and Leibniz made the following comment on this in
1671(A.VI.ii.150): “Unde nemo debet optare potentiam, nisi qui se novit sapientem. Unde res esset plena
periculi damnationis. Lapis philosophorum . . .” [“Therefore no-one should wish for power, except for those
who know they are wise. Therefore the matter would be full of the danger of damnation. The philosophers’
stone . . .”]
44
Misc. Ber. 18: “Sed aucta nimium copia perfectorum metallorum, ad aes et libram redeundum foret, et (uti non
ita pridem in Svecia) pecunia a rustico ex venditis in urbe agelli fructibus quaesita, non marsupio, sed carro
domum referenda.” [“But if there were too big an increase in the quantity of perfect metals, we would have to
revert to brass and the pound, and (as happened not so long ago in Sweden) the money earned by a peasant by
selling the fruits of his little plot of land in the city would have to be taken back home, not in a purse, but in a
cart. “]Cf. also his note for the Monatliche Unterredungen, 27.10.1692 (A.I.viii.481–2), and his letter to
Kochansky of 26.3.1696 (Bod., K.61).
45
Letter to Kochansky of 26.3.1696 (Bod., K. 61); letter to Sophie Charlotte of 14.12.1701 (Klopp, I.x.111–
112).
46
A.II.i.182.
47
First in 1681(G.VIII.69). Cf. letter to Stisser, 24.3.1699 (Dutens, II.ii.122). He must have got the idea from
Schuller: Cf. Schuller to Leibniz, s.d. 1678 (L.Br. 843, Bl.22r). But see also Boyle, Origin of Forms (1666),
p.349 (misprinted in Works (1772), III.93).
 11

seems to have been pleased with his metaphor of the “Sancti Chemici” [“chemical saints”]
and the “Adeptorum calendarium” [“almanac of adepts”], from which he had expunged a
number of names, and for which he expected a stricter “Canonisationis processum”
[“canonisation procedure”] in future48. Finally, he is trying hard to be funny in his letter of
December 1701 to Queen Sophie Charlotte, when he says of an alchemical recipe: “Les
années se multiplieroient et non pas l’or,” [“The years will multiply, but not the gold,”] and
that, unlike the brown beer of Berlin, the philosopher’s stone would not make him any
fatter49.

Conclusion

The facts I have assembled about Leibniz’s activities and attitudes are of interest in their own
right. But what significance do they have for understanding his thought in general?
Surprisingly, their significance does not consist so much in our finding connections between
his alchemical and other beliefs; rather it seems that Leibniz’s change of mind about the
possibility of making gold bears no relation to any important change in world-view or general
philosophical and scientific approach. Nor is it associated with any change in his attitude
towards practising alchemists, since he had from his earliest years been careful to preserve a
distinction between rational and irrational approaches to science, even if he drew the line
differently from us.

One lesson to be learned from this is that we should not assume either that because he could
once believe in goldmaking he must have been favourable to occultism in general, nor should
we assume that because he could later reject it, he must have rejected every other mode of
thought which a modern scientist would regard as irrational or mystical. On the other hand,
the fact that Leibniz [177] did take goldmaking seriously should remind us that the way he
thought about chemical (or, if you prefer, alchemical)50 questions will have been determined
largely by what he had absorbed from the background of contemporary thought.

At first sight, it may not seem obvious why this should be important, since Leibniz’s fame
does not rest on his contributions to chemistry. However, I believe that there is a very good
theoretical reason for expecting to find his chemical beliefs influencing the formation of his
mature philosophy. This is that he was living in an age when it was still considered
appropriate for a philosopher to tackle questions about the inner nature of things in general;
but since this enterprise is hardly distinguishable from the more theoretical aspects of
chemistry, it would be surprising if the two were not closely interwoven. In Leibniz’s case we
find a remarkable confirmation of this in a letter to Johann Friedrich of May 167151, in which
he uses explicit chemical terminology to formulate a theory of what he calls “kernels”, which
are clearly nothing other than a primitive and materialist version of the monads of his mature
philosophy. I intend to go into this in greater detail on a future occasion; for the present I
hope that I have at least succeeded in showing that influences of this sort are to be expected.

48
Leibniz to Tentzel, 29.7/8.8.1692 (A.I.viii.366). Cf. Misc. Ber. 19.
49
Klopp, I.x.111–112.
50
Cf. Gottfried Thomasius to Leibniz, 31.7.1696 (L. Br. 925 Bl.12v): “Vir chemicorum aut si malis
Alchemistarum. . . .” [“A man who is one of the chemists, or if you prefer, alchemists, , ,”]
51
Leibniz to Joh. Friedrich, 21.5.1671 (A.II.i.108–9), and De Resurrectione Corporum, 1671 (A.II.i.116–7).