The Story of Alchemy and the Beginnings of Chemistry

by Matthew Moncrieff Pattison Muir

This book was converted from its physical edition to the digital format by a community of volunteers. You may find it for free on the web. Purchase of the Kindle edition includes wireless delivery.

Genres: Science, History, Alchemy, Chemistry, Nonfiction, Academic, Philosophy

151 pages, Kindle Edition

First published November 1, 1902

Reviews

[for-much-deliberation ... · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book traces the development of the science from its beginnings as the mysterious discipline, alchemy, to modern atomic theory highlighting alchemical theory, alchemical elements, and alchemists and Greek thinkers.

[Charles · Rating 3 out of 5]

I listened to the LibriVox audio recording of this book. Pretty interesting. I like learning about all the old alchemical ideas.

[Elisa]

A good concise history of Alchemy and science in relation to nature.

[Valentin Chirosca · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is a pregnant example of the contrast between the scientific and the emotional methods of regarding nature; and it admirably illustrates suggestive, hypotheses, and baseless speculations.

[Tububa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Heard on Librivox, as read by the wonderful Peter Yearsley. I enjoyed this far more than I would have expected. For anyone who had a reasonably good science education, the "modern" parts of this book will be familiar ground, somewhat outdated of course as this was written in 1902. At that time, they had just discovered radiation--literally seven years before this book, 1895. The implications for understanding matter, atomic structure, and particle physics were profound, and Pattison Muir was clearly doing his best to explain it all in accessible terms. It is hard to tell how accessible this would all be to someone who didn't know things that Pattison Muir does not explain. For example, we know about valency, atomic weights, and what makes an acid an acid (hydrogen cations... wow, I am amazed I remembered which ones were cations and which ones were anions). Ol' P.M. is a bit hazy on this--I do not think this was unknown at the time, but he does not explain it. Perhaps it is not essential to his point.

But Pattison Muir is clear and interesting when it comes to alchemy, which of course we would not have covered in our middle school chemistry classes. They just told us that alchemy was a pseud-science, but that the alchemists stumbled upon a few interesting things by accident, and of course that they perfected some of the equipment that is still used in the labs today. Alchemy is of historical and cultural interest, so one generally picks things up about it here and there, but it was good to see a thorough review of the alchemists' philosophy. The blind poking around, working from a theory without any foundation in evidence... it is amazing how long that persisted.

Equally amazing are people like Lavoisier, who had the clarity and the careful approach to experimentation that methodically destroyed so many harebrained ideas prevailing at the time, like Phlogiston theory. I remember in our chem classes, when we had to weigh things carefully, contain everything in sealed beakers and such, capture the steam--but we knew about the law of the conservation of matter. The medieval scientists did not. When reading books like this, one is reminded of how many things we take for granted with the benefit of current knowledge.

One of Pattison Muir's preoccupations is whether an element can be properly defined except through reference to its properties. I can appreciate the philosophical issue here, but I kept saying to myself, "yes, of course you can define an element independent of its properties... it is a collection of the atoms that have the same structure." I mean, no? I can explain what hydrogen is, without knowing all of its properties (other than, don't try the Hindenburg thing). But, we all have our pet peeves, and this particular one is Pattison Muir's, and he is entitled to it.

I chuckled at PM's take on Paracelsus. I went through a little Paracelsus phase, and some of the stuff I read about him was somewhat mystifying. PM made it all a lot clearer. Paracelsus was an alchemist first and foremost, and while he might have been an intuitive and gifted "healer", he was no scientist. He was also a big arrogant asshole, from the sound of it. One gets that sense from other sources, but PM just comes out and says it. Bravo.

I think this book should be required reading for all the kids who did not know that the Philosopher's Stone was a real (well, imaginary) thing that existed before J K Rowling wrote her first book.

[Sotiris Makrygiannis · Rating 3 out of 5]

I asked AI to write me a review for this book, and i actually approved it. However, do pay attention to the 2nd question made to AI related to the key and core element of Alchemy: transmutation

question 1:
"The Story of Alchemy and the Beginnings of Chemistry" by Matthew Moncrieff Pattison Muir is a fascinating historical account of the origins and evolution of alchemy and its eventual transformation into modern chemistry. Muir's writing is clear, concise, and engaging, making the book an enjoyable and informative read.

The book covers the historical development of alchemy from ancient Egypt and Greece through the Islamic Golden Age and medieval Europe. Muir provides detailed descriptions of alchemical theories and practices, including the search for the philosopher's stone and the elixir of life, as well as the transmutation of base metals into gold.

Muir also highlights the role of alchemy in the scientific revolution, showing how alchemical ideas and practices influenced the development of modern chemistry. He provides an overview of the key figures in the history of chemistry, such as Robert Boyle and Antoine Lavoisier, and shows how they built on the alchemical knowledge of their predecessors to create the modern scientific method.

Overall, "The Story of Alchemy and the Beginnings of Chemistry" is an excellent introduction to the history of alchemy and the origins of chemistry. Muir's writing is accessible to readers with little or no background in chemistry, making it a great choice for anyone interested in the history of science.

question 2:
what are the main differences between transmutation and transfiguration ?

Transmutation and transfiguration are two terms that are often used in discussions of transformation or change, but they have different meanings.

Transmutation refers to the transformation of one substance into another. In alchemy, transmutation often refers to the transformation of base metals into noble metals, such as lead into gold. This process involves changing the atomic structure of the substance, usually through nuclear reactions or chemical reactions. Transmutation is a physical process that involves changing the material composition of a substance.

Transfiguration, on the other hand, refers to the transformation of the form or appearance of a substance or object. In a religious context, transfiguration refers to the transformation of Jesus Christ's appearance during the Transfiguration in the New Testament. In literature, transfiguration can refer to the transformation of a character's appearance or nature, such as in the case of a werewolf or shapeshifter. Transfiguration involves changing the appearance or nature of a substance, but not its material composition.

In summary, the main difference between transmutation and transfiguration is that transmutation involves the physical transformation of a substance into a different substance, while transfiguration involves the transformation of the form or appearance of a substance or object.

[Caleb Kirby · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hilarious and humbling. Each era’s attempt to make sense of the world falls laughably short of what we “know” today which obviously makes you wonder what we currently have laughably wrong. It was very fun to see the progression of atomic theory originating with ancient philosophers, blossoming into modern understanding with many tangents along the way. The book really helps develop an appreciation for the little things that lubricate scientific advancement like the actual scientific method or universal acceptance of meaning of even basic words. We have certainly come a long way from the gold-obsessed alchemists of the dark ages.

[Mathias Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mercury fueled wife beating to atomic mass. 8/10

[Greg · Rating 5 out of 5]

A concise history of Alchemy and its transition to chemistry written from the point of view of a scientist at the turn of the 20th century. It gets a bit condescending, but at the time the book was written chemists and physicists had a lot going for them, so its somewhat understandable. The original book was written just 4 years after the discovery of the electron, and the 1913 revisions were made just before the Bohr Model of the atom was theorized. Very cool read and a must for any chemist, physicist, and materials engineer!

[Munqith Gharib · Rating 4 out of 5]

Had to repeat certain chapters as I found much of it very confusing, through no fault of the writer.
The alchemist's worldview and understanding of matter was all over the place.
It felt like reading Dr. Faustus with all that talk about spirits and analogies that likened gold to a king taking his clothes off as he prepares for a swim (chapter 5).
Pleasurable reading into the minds of self proclaimed quacks who nevertheless unintentionally (they thought it blasphemous to say that matter had no spirit) paved the road for the science of Chemistry as it is today.

[Sandeep Ellawala · Rating 2 out of 5]

It started off as one of the best non-fiction books I had ever read... and then it started going round and round on one fixated point. It kind of got boring and eventually made me realize that I was not enjoying this book anymore. Back in the days I would have just read through this just so that I had started reading it and I do not want to abandon it. But, No! This is an okay book for an ardent fan of Chemistry, but not for someone simply looking for an enjoyable book for time pass.

[Victor Vilchiz · Rating 3 out of 5]

a good book to learn the basics about alchemy and the beginnings of chemistry. I read it in preparation for my History of Chemistry course.

[Iyan De Jesus · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good enough as introduction to origins of Chemistry and History of Alchemy, though as expected from something that was originally published in the early 20th century, some information and scientific theories are outdated/debunked. Entertaining, nevertheless.