270 ANNUAL REPORT SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION, 1933 



are not so different from, for example, the notion of the four states 

 of matter proposed by Sir William Crookes, the solid state, the 

 liquid state, the gaseous state, and the ionized state.) The alchemists 

 also believed that there was one basic entity — prima materia — which 

 was identical in all bodies but which took different forms according 

 as it was brought into combination with one or more of the funda- 

 mental elements — earth, water, air, and fire. (In our time, we recog- 

 nize this prima materia to be electricity, existing in two forms as 

 electrons and protons.) By action of earth, water, air, or fire on 

 the various manifestations of the prima materia, these alchemists 

 performed oxidation, reduction, solution, smelting, alloying, and 

 it is not to be wondered that they interpreted their work as a " trans- 

 mutation of matter." From their standpoint it was transmutation. 



On account of the variety of colors which their compounds exhibit 

 and their ease of chemical change, it is not surprising that mercury 

 and sulphur were of particular interest to the alchemists, and were 

 supposed to be quite close to this prima materia which they sought. 

 It is not so easy, however, to understand their choice of some of the 

 other substances. For example, Beauvais in 12.50 classified matter 

 as consisting of four spirits and six bodies: the four spirits w^ere 

 mercury, sulphur, arsenic, and sal ammoniac — and the six bodies 

 were gold, silver, copper, tin, lead, and iron — of which gold and 

 silver were pure and the rest impure. 



In addition to this Greek background, which was gropingly sci- 

 entific in its approach, the mystery and magic of the Orient were 

 introduced from Arabia, Persia, and India as a result of the various 

 wars and invasions. Thence came the notion of the "philosopher's 

 stone ", whose magic touch would transform common substances into 

 gold. (I suppose that the philosoj^her's stone should be thought of 

 as the first catalyst — only it was, like the fountain of j'^outh or the 

 end of the rainbow or Utopia, only a beautiful product of the 

 imagination.) 



We must not despise the efforts of these alchemists. Among them 

 were numbered such great minds as Newton, Leibnitz, and Boyle, 

 all of whom studied and practiced alchemy, though they were be- 

 ginning to realize its defects. But from this mixed ancestry of 

 legend, experiment, and magic was born the modern science of 

 chemistry. 



In the rapid rise of chemistry during the nineteenth century, a 

 beautiful and nearly perfect scientific theory of atoms and molecules 

 was developed as a far extension of the ancient philosophical ideas 

 of atoms of Democratus. How sound was this theory was demon- 

 strated by the fact that it was only extended, but not essentially 

 changed, when physicists devised methods of counting and weigh- 



