Chemical Education Today
Evolving Alchemy into Chemistry: No Longer a Dichotomy The recent article by Fabbrizzi on the evolution of alchemy into chemistry offers useful insights and a broad perspective into a subject that has fascinated modern scholars for decades (1). As a history of chemistry aficionado, I agree with the salient role exerted by symbology and recipes, which were often claimed by alchemists to be the essence of their secret knowledge. I would like, however, to offer some observations relative to the last section (alchemy evolves to chemistry), which apparently suggests that alchemy naturally evolved into chemistry by progressively replacing symbols (along with other fantasies such as transmutation and vital force) by structural formulas intended to represent an objective reality. Importantly, yet largely overlooked, chemistry (or chymistry) had its roots not only in alchemical practices, but also in related disciplines of natural science and philosophy, which exerted varied influences and acted in synergy. An insightful and thoughtprovoking analysis was recently provided by Newman (2), who rejects the traditional dichotomy between alchemy and chymistry. Rather, the evolution was closer to a continuum than once thought. An in-depth examination of original sources, especially in the case of a few salient post-Renaissance alchemists (notably Daniel Sennert and Robert Boyle), reveals corpuscular and preatomistic conceptions. Equally visible is a strong association with pharmacy and other arts. In a critical article in the context of history of chemistry courses, Jensen claimed that “...alchemy proper is not an important progenitor of modern chemistry, which instead clearly evolved out of metallurgy and pharmacy” (3). In a related essay (entitled “Not a Pure Science”), Klein discusses chemistry in the 18th and 19th centuries (4). A popular and well-respected persona throughout this period in
_
Europe was the chemist-apothecary. Such savants explored both the natural history and physiology of plants and animals and described numerous recipes for the preparation of medicines and their properties. In addition, interest in minerals and inorganic substances arose from mining and metallurgical activities, often with military goals, especially in Sweden and Germany. It should be noted that these connections date back to medieval times, although operations such as distillation or extraction were not invented by apothecaries but learned from alchemists. Since the 1850s, some chemists turned their attention to organic chemistry disconnected from pharmacy: the investigation of molecular composition and structure, which led later to the emerging synthetic chemistry. Even in the last third of the 19th century, numerous chemistry textbooks described atoms and molecules as ideas (big anyway) and metaphysical entities. Probably, only the emergence of stereochemistry (after 1874) contributed to re-establish formulas as models capable of explaining the properties of almost identical substances. Then, and only then, chemists recognized that their symbology could be real after all. Literature Cited 1. Fabbrizzi, L. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 1501. 2. Newman, W. R. Atoms and Alchemy: Chymistry and the Experimental Origins of the Scientific Revolution; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, 2006. 3. Jensen, W. B. Bull. Hist. Chem. 2006, 31, 1. 4. Klein, U. Science 2004, 306, 981. Pedro Cintas Departamento de Quimica Organica e Inorganica Facultad de Ciencias-UEX E-06071 Badajoz, Spain
[email protected] _
r 2009 American Chemical Society and DIvision of Chemical Education, Inc. pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc Vol. 87 No. 1 January 2010 10.1021/ed800032n Published on Web 12/18/2009
_
Journal of Chemical Education
17
