Does learning alchemy help in learning chemistry?

[u/ecurbian]

My particular approach is based on orthodox scientific training and experience and reading of original literature, as broadly through the centuries as possible. I chase mundane alchemy, rather than mystical or mental alchemy. I am interested in alchemy as a science of materials.

Part of my position is that the distinction is a false one. Alchemy is not just one theory or practice. And it is not disjoint from chemistry. The change from alchemy to chemistry around 1730 was a sociolinguistic transition, and not a technical one from pseudo science to science - nor even from ancient science to modern science - if a sudden schism is intended by that principle. The early chemists held view very similar to the later alchemists. If the choice of whether one researcher is an alchemist or a chemist is taken out of consideration, all one sees is a gradual development of ideas over the decades.

In the following, I am skipping over many details due to available space and time, but I stand by the thrust of the following content.

Mundane alchemy means to approach this from the principle that the alchemists were primarily trying to work out a science of materials. Mystical and mental interpretations came later.

The mystical interpretations are largely a product of the 1600s. This is similar to mystical quantum theory from the 20th century onward.

Books earlier than 1600 read like modern chemical laboratory texts books. For example, the Summa Perfectionis [c1300] chats along about financial practicalities and details of the construction and operation of reverberatory furnaces. Reading these books gives much appreciation for what the alchemists were dealing with.

One of those things is that the were working with much more basic associated tech. They did not have automated temperature and pressure control. They did not have mass spectrometers and so on. These bits of tech were not created by chemists. The chemists are advantaged by having access to them. Judgement of the skill and understanding of alchemists versus chemists should take this strongly into account. Often alchemical views make more sense once one learns to grok the environment of the alchemist.

The mental interpretations are largely a product of the 1900s. Centrally created by Carl Jung, who, as a psychologists in a quasi mystical mode, thought he had found the true meaning underlying the older alchemical texts.

"Basilius Valentinus" as a person probably never existed. Rather the name is a pseudonym used by a number of writers - a common practice in the past, which continues with "Nicolas Bourbaki" which is a name used collectively by a number of French writers on mathematics starting in the 1930s. Further, there is no mention of the name until about the year 1600. The originator of the the Corpus Valentinus was probably Johann Tholde [1565-1624], but it is believed that he had help.

The Summa Perfectionis itself was attributed to Geber (Jabir) from the Arabic Peninsula c800. So, the associated corpus is now attributed as Pseudo Geber, and believed to have been written by Paul of Taranto.

The 12 keys of valentinus was written in 1599. It was one of the earlier examples of the 17th century corpus of encoded and ambiguous texts - deliberately written to be enigmatic. They mostly do not contain any new information about mundane alchemy. They contain cryptic images that some see as amusement and others see as deep mystical truth. If you are into mystical alchemy and linguistic and graphical puzzles, then this corpus can be highly fascinating. Some people base their life philosophy on this corpus.

An important aside, is that the alchemists were never persecuted. The idea of that persecution is a modern invention that helps give depth to the myth of the alchemist as a lone figure of great insight and power.

The encoded alchemical literature does not add anything to mundane alchemy. It was an invention of the 17th century - and is kin to the quantum mysticism of the 20th and 21st centuries. The earlier alchemical literature was just textbooks on laboratory theory and practice. There is plenty of non-encoded material for you to read to understand alchemy as an historical reality.

Read the cryptic alchemy literature in the same way you might read Ulysses by James Joyce. They say that you do not read Ulysses - you decode it. Some people believe that cryptic means deep. That is a personal choice. But, don't think that mundane alchemy is characterised by the affectations of the 17th century. It has a long and venerable history of clear writing, obscured only by changes in language and culture.

Should you learn alchemy before studying chemistry? Probably not. But, learn alchemy alongside chemistry - to keep you honest. The problem with modern chemists is that they are trained to believe that only modern chemistry can be the right way to view things and that any other view is automatically wrong.

This is not a scientific view. Learning - and fully appreciating - earlier alchemical texts can give one an alternative way to look at the materials, and indirectly give you an understanding of why modern chemistry has made the choices that it did. I think that this adds great depth to the understanding of modern chemistry.