Alchemists—especially those of Paracelsus and Basilius Valentinus, and
the authors of the Collectnnea Chemica. The ushering in of the Atomic Age should have made it comparatively easy to lay aside some of the prejudices which were previously held, yet they are still partially sustained by an incongruous criterion. Why is it so unreasonable to assume—casting aside the overwhelm- ing percentage of charlatans and imposters who called themselves Alche- mists—that men such as Paracelsus and Valentinus did speak the truth about their discoveries? Is it because of what may seem an absurd termi- nology intermixed with metaphysical symbolism? Suppose, then, that this represents one of the main arguments. A “Red Lion” or “Peacock’s Tail” become, therefore, impossible childish non- sense, for the simple reason that, in current technical terminology, word combination such as “tetraphenylethylene dichloride”* are standard expression in the world of science. Similar letter and number combina- tions are no puzzle to one initiated into the marvels of chemistry. When such a term as “tetraphenylethylene dichloride” is expressed by means of its chemical symbols as:
this makes sense to the chemist. However, to the layman it represents
only a meaningless scramble of letters and numbers. The chemical termi- nology, likewise, conveys no meaning to him. Valentinus, who, with Paracelsus, shares fame as the Father of Mod- ern Chemistry and Medicine, writes about himself: “Though I have a peculiar style in writing, which will seem strange unto many, causing strange thoughts and fancies in their brains, yet there is reason enough for me so doing; I say enough that I may remain by my own experience, not esteeming much of others prating, because it is concealed in by