1

IntroductIon

n old man sits alone in a dimly lit

room. His tattered chair creaks. A
ire crackles in the small furnace
by his feet. The sun’s rays are just
beginning to creep onto his desk
through an open window. He has been awake
all night. The man stares intently at the vial
over the stove and mutters softly to himself.
“The queen is called the daughter of the water-
bearer.” He says, “She ariseth out of his loins...”1
As he stares at the lask something mysterious
begins to happen. A seed at the bottom begins
to spark and glow. The surrounding liquid
begins to lash with color, irst silver, now
gold. The man can hardly bear to rip his eyes
away, but he does so just long enough to page
through an ancient and sooty tome by his
desk. Dust lies as he races to ind the correct
entry. “Philalethes sayeth…” He gasps at what
he inds. “There was a most radiant twinkling
Spark, which sent forth its Beams even to the very
surface of the Water, and appeared as if were a Lamp
burning, and yet no way distinguishable from the
Water, for the Bearer, the Pitcher, and the Water in
it were one…”2 As he reads the seed begins to
grow. Slowly, like the branches of a tree, the
seed sprouts and expands outwards. Soon the
entire lask is illed and glowing with the light
of the dawn. What could this mean? The man
is exhausted. He sits down and closes his eyes Figure 1: The Chemist, 19th century, Edward Allen Schmidt, German, 7 in x 9 in.
for a moment. But when he opens them again, A robed alchemist is seated in his laboratory performing an experiment. The
the light from the vial has begun to fade. Soon equipment on his lab bench includes an adjustable clamp stand and an alcohol
it is as grey and lifeless as it was before. What burner, contemporary to the 19th century. FA 2000.001.246
did he just witness? Did it even happen, or was it just a dream?

1
This quote was inspired by Newton’s Praxis. The literal quote is: “This preparation Philaletha hints by calling the Queen the
daughter of the Waterbearer arising out of his loins, and says that she is contained invisibly in the water of his silver colored
pitcher and arose out of the water in which, saith he, was seen a lamp burning, or a twinkling spark which sent forth its beams
from the center. And that, by a strange metamorphosis done by a magical virtue of nature, after this rise she was naked, that is,
divested of impurities, beautiful, and though a body, yet she was all spirit and yet able to endure without hurt the greatest fires
that can be made. And in this state it is properly of matter in which vulgar chymists do not work.” The full citation is: Newton,
Isaac. Praxis. 1696. MS MS 420. The Babson College Grace K. Babson Collection of the Works of Sir Isaac Newton, Huntington Library, San Marino,
California, USA. p.3
2
This quote was inspired by an alchemical tract by Eirenaeus Philalathes, a.k.a George Starkey. The literal quote is: “Then I
viewed his Pitcher well, and I found that his Pitcher was clear as pure Silver; and what was strange, the Bearer, and the Pitcher,
and the Water in it were one; and in the midst of the Water, as it were in the very centre, there was a most radiant twinkling
Spark, which sent forth its Beams even to the very surface of the Water, and appeared as it were a Lamp burning, and yet no way
distinguishable from the Water.” Newton was quoting this work directly in the footnote above. The full citation is: Starkey, George.
An Exposition upon Sir George Ripley’s Epistle to King Edward IV. London: Printed for William Cooper. 1677.
 2
hat meaning, if any, does the preceding image contain? Would that meaning be historical?
Scientiic? Religious? Alchemy holds a unique place in the narrative of the history and
philosophy of science because, more than any other tradition, it has been mythologized.
The archetype of the alchemist, the wise sorcerer pondering the mysteries of the universe,
has inluenced our society in a way that is independent of, and yet intimately connected
with, the scientiic advances upon which our modern society is based. Of course, the implicit assump-
tion in that past statement is that alchemy and modern science have some sort of inherent difference
that keeps them opposed. One of the main goals of this paper is to question that assumption.
t goes without saying that the scene of the alchemist I contrived above is lawed, anachronistic,
I or even downright false. So why did I choose to open with it? The image of the alchemist holds
a strange allure for me. It hints at ancient wisdom, along with the quest for the unknown. If anything
differentiates alchemy from modern science, or even from contemporaneous natural philosophy, it
is that alchemical lore is rife with imagery. One cannot page through an alchemical treatise without
encountering images of dragons eating their own tails, ætherial spirits, or the death and rebirth of
hermaphroditic royalty. As fantastical as the narrative above was, it contains too many elements of
truth to be completely discounted. Such men, men so consumed by their pursuit that they would stay
up nights tending a forge and staring into vials, did exist; Sir Isaac Newton was one of them. In a letter
describing Newton shortly after his death, Humphrey Newton recalled,
“He very rarely went to Bed, till 2 or 3 of the clock, sometimes not till 5 or 6, lying about 4 or 5
hours, especially at spring & ffall of the Leaf, at which Times he us’d to imploy about 6 weeks
in his Elaboratory, the fire scarcely going out either Night or Day, he siting up one Night, as I
did another till he had inished his Chymical Experiments, in the Performances of which he
was the most accurate, strict, exact: What his Aim might be, I was not able to penetrate into, but
his Paine, his Diligence at those sett times, made me think, he aim’d at somthing beyond the
Reach of humane Art & Industry.”
ven in Newton’s own time,
E his contemporaries
mythologizing his character and
were

his craft. This wasn’t simply natural

philosophy; it was Chymistry, a
practice ‘aim’d at somthing beyond
the Reach of humane Art and
Industry.’ The elaborate imagery
associated with the practice relects
its lofty goals. While alchemical
images certainly relate directly
to real chemical products, their
vibrancy lends them multiple
layers of meaning far beyond that
Figure 2, Aurora Consurgens, Demon and Ouroboros in a Flask. original scope. The images I used
The Aurora Consurgens is an illuminated manuscript of the 15th century now housed in the in the narrative above are only a
Zürich Zentralbibliothek (MS. Rhenoviensis 172). It contains a medieval alchemical treaise, in most limited sampling of the rich
the past someimes atributed to Thomas Aquinas, now to a writer called the “Pseudo-Aqui- and vibrant alchemical environ-
nas.” This illustraion shows a classic depicion of the Ouroboros; the Dragon and the Raven
in the lask consume each other’s tails. In this image the Ouroboros is linked to the alchemical ment. Their presence is striking. In
step of putrefacion. When exposed to heat, the mater in the lask must consume itself, die, alchemy we ind a scientiic meth-
and become black. When the mater putreies, the soul leaves the lask, and the mater is odology that is capable of poetic
ready to accept a new spark of life from the alchemist. The transmutaion is completed when
the mater is reborn in a more perfect state. expression. Nowhere else in history
can this be found; although my hope
for the future is that our science will again be open to the use of metaphor. Most scholars in the past three
hundred years have not been able to penetrate these images, which has resulted in widely differing and
 3
contradictory interpretations of what
alchemy actually was. Some maintain
the images were carefully calculated
decknamen, or code words, intended
to both reveal and conceal chemical
practices and theories. Others beleive
that the images were produced during
hallucinatory or dreamlike states, and
that they pertain more to the spiritual
development of the alchemist than they
do to material properties. Both inter-
pretations will be explored more fully
later in this paper, and I do not believe
that they are mutually exclusive.
Alchemy was an incredibly diverse
practice spanning many centuries. Its
symbolism changed and evolved over
time and the images almost deinitely
had a personal meaning for each of its
practitioners.
he focus of this paper will be on
T the alchemy of Isaac Newton, and
discerning what the imagery meant to
him is central to its focus. But Newton
died almost three hundred years ago,
and reconstructing the intricacy of his
thoughts from a few alchemical manu-
scripts is next to impossible. It would
be unduly prideful for me to claim to
know what was going on inside the
head of a man who, as Humphrey
Newton put it, “Comprehends as much
as all mankind besides.” If anyone
understood the importance of good
evidence, it was Newton, and there
Figure 3, Splendor Solis Plate 4 simply is not enough evidence to make
Splendor Solis is one of the most well know alchemical manuscripts due to its extensive
illustraions. The earliest version, writen in Central German, is dated 1532–1535. This many statements about what Newton
image contains the King and the Queen, which correspond to Gold and the Sun, and thought about the nature of alchemy or
Silver and the Moon, respecively. The lames underneath the king are linked to the its imagery. The statements that I do
masculine indicate the start of the alchemical process. The queen stands upon the
earth, linking mater with the feminine. The royal robes are colored in inverse paterns, make about Newton’s alchemy, or
vindicaing that the king and queen might one day be uniied. The inscripion roughly what he thought about it, will be as
translates to, “The part includes the whole.”
objective as they can, and I will provide
extensive evidence to support my
claims. But, in order to do so, my claims must be very narrow. I have no desire to limit myself to a
narrow, objective, evidential view. To do so would be to remove any higher meaning from my work.
In order to make broad statements, I must move into the realm of opinion. I will be very clear when I
make these shifts.
his essay will be about the evolution of human thought, and in that vast realm of human thoughts
T lay my thoughts. My work is personal; it is about my relationship with science, religion, and
 4
magic, and how that relates to the greater world. As I have already done, I plan on using the irst
person extensively. I see alchemy as a practice that is concerned with both subjective and objective
truths, and I want my paper to relect that concern. Where objectivity is required, it will be presented,
but I hold my own subjective opinions with equal esteem. One of the major points I want to make is
that, as counterintuitive as it sounds, our science could beneit greatly from an increased awareness of
our own subjectivity. Since it can never be completely eliminated, I think it is necessary that we openly
incorporate our subjectivity into all the work that we do. This is why I ind alchemical imagery so
compelling. The images are by their very nature subjective. They impact each observer differently and
contain multiple levels of meaning. There is no objectivly correct way to interpret a metaphor. Such
ambiguity is the anathema of modern science because it makes communication dificult, and so it was
abandoned. But consider for a moment that there might be ideas and phenomena in the natural world
that can only be comprehended through metaphor. At some level, all language, even math, is metaphor,
and I believe that if our scientiic language embraced
the use of metaphoric imagery while maintaining
its rigor, we could create models of reality with
vast richness and more meaning than anything we
have accomplished thus far. So you see, I’m
thinking about Newton’s alchemy, but really I’m
using Newton’s alchemy as a jumping off point to
explore the way in which we think about reality.
Before I can make such broad statments about
science and reality, exactly what alchemy is needs
to be explicated. To that end, I will begin with a
historiography…
Figure 5, Death
Rider Waite Tarot Deck
The Rider Waite Tarot deck was formulated by
famous occulist Arthur E Waite and illustrated by
Pamela Coleman Smith in 1909.

Figure 4, Splendor Solis Plate 13

The Splendor Solis contains 22 illustraions, each corresponding to one of
the 22 major arcana in a classic Tarot deck. The card plate 13 corresponds
to is Death. In addiion, there are 7 plates (12-18) which feature large
vials whose contents are in various stages of transmutaion. The 7 lasks
correspond to the 7 celesial bodies. Similar to igure 2, and in line with
the tarot card Death, plate 13 corresponds to the stage of putrefacion.
Here we see three crows in another form of the ouroboros. The mater
is breaking into its component parts (colors) so that it can be reborn in a
more perfect form.
 5
HIstorIograpHy

will start explaining some general alchemical theory by chronologically describing the
work of some of the major alchemists whose works were found in Newton’s library.
From there I will summarize the evolution of alchemical interpretations during the past
300 years, after alchemy ceased to be an area of serious academic study. Throughout, I
will give my own thoughts on how alchemy should be interpreted.
he irst alchemist (supposedly) was named Hermes Trismegestus ‘Hermes Thrice Greatest.’ The
Tearliest appearance of the name dates back to just before the time of Christ. It is extremely doubtful
that an alchemist by the name of Hermes Trismegestus ever actually lived. More likely, Hermes
Trismegestus is a synthesis of the Greek god Hermes and the Egyptian god Thoth, both of whom were
gods of writing and magic in their respective traditions. Both gods were psychopomps, guiding souls
to the afterlife1. Alchemy’s focus on death and rebirth, as well as its long literary tradition, makes
Trismegestus a natural choice as a sort of patron saint. Trismegestus is a proto Christ igure. He is a
god, but he is also a man; a real alchemist who experimented on matter. That duality is central to
alchemical theory; recognizing opposites and then unifying them was of primary importance. Hermes’s
relationship between humanity and the divine is paralleled by the theoretical relationship between
matter and spirit. There is something corporeal, material and manlike about him, as well as something
ætherial, spiritual and divine. He personiies duality. It is worth emphasizing at this point that
Trismegistus’s identity is decidedly mythological. We see nothing comparable to him in modern
science. Characters like Newton or Einstein are often elevated to a superhuman status (recall Humphreys
quote), but Hermes Trismegistus has a decidedly Herculean nature that makes him it more easily into
the category of religious igures than the category of famous scientists. I ind alchemy so special because
it gives me a venue to talk about both categories in the same breath. I think it is worth pondering for a
moment what our science would look like if we had mythological igures more consciously incorpo-
rated into the cannon.

T
he Emerald Tablet of Hermes
Trismegestus is what brings
Hermes his fame. It is akin to the
Ten Commandments in terms of its
symbolism and purpose in alchemical
craft. The tablet sets out some of the
basic principles of Alchemy: the
doctrine of uniication of opposites,
the promise of transmutation, and
the anthropomorphisation of the
elements and celestial bodies. In the
early 1680’s, around the same time as
he was writing the Principia, Newton
translated The Emerald Tablet into
English. The translation is reproduced
in full on the next page.

Figure 6, Hermes Trismegestus and Mercury’s Caducean Rod, 1617

This image of Hermes Trismegestus was origionally found in Symbola Aureae Mensae Duo-
decim Naionum writen by alchemist Michael Maier. The book was present in Newton’s
library. The rod Hermes holds is a version of Murcury’s Caducean Rod (the names Hermes
and Mercury were used synonomously) . Note the similarity of the Sun and Moon symbol-
ism to Plate 4 Splendor Solis (Figure 3)
Mercury’s Caducean Rod Sketch by Newton in Praxis
1
“Hermes Trismegistus.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia is often looked down upon in scholarly work but I think it is an incred-
ibly useful and reliable source of introductory information. I see Wikipedia as the collected knowledge of all of humanity.
 6
Tabula Smaragdina
Hermetis Trismegistri
Philosophorum patris
Tis true without lying, certain & most true.
That which is below is like that which is above &
that which is above is like that which is below to
do the miracles of one only thing.
And as all things have been & arose from one by
the mediation of one: so all things have their birth
from this one thing by adaptation.
The Sun is its father, the moon its mother, the
wind hath carried it in its belly, the earth is its
nurse. The father of all perfection in the whole
world is here. Its force or power is entire if it be
converted into earth.
Separate thou the earth from the ire, the subtile
from the gross sweetly with great indoustry. It
ascends from the earth to the heaven & again it
descends to the earth & receives the force of things
superior & inferior.
Figure 7, Table of Alchemical Symbols By this means you shall have the glory of the
(Above) This Table, copied directly from The Foundaions of Newton’s whole world & thereby all obscurity shall ly
Alchemy by Bety Jo Teeter Dobbs, shows some of the common
from you.
symbols found in `vNewton’s alchemical manuscripts, as well as
their various meanings. The symbols were used in many contexts, Its force is above all force. For it vanquishes
someimes meaning the metal, someimes meaning a planet, and every subtile thing & penetrates every solid
someimes meaning a God. Those groups of nouns were not nearly
as difereniated for the alchemists as they are for us. It was not thing.
uncommon to see the name Aries used to indicate Mars, i.e. Iron. So was the world created.
Diana was frequently a pseudonym for Silver. The celesial analog for
From this are & do come admirable adaptations
Animony was Earth. The symbol for Animony, a globe surmounted
whereof the means (or process) is here in this.
by a cross, emphasizes the relaionship between alchemy and Christ.
(Below) These alchemical symbols indicate the four Aristotelian elements:
Hence I am called Hermes Trismegist, having
Air, Earth, Fire and Water. Note their similarity to each other and how
they combine to create æther. the three parts of the philosophy of the whole
world
That which I have said of the operation of the
Sun is accomplished & ended.
See the French Bibliotheque. Theatrum
Chemicum vol. 6. p.715. & vol 1 p 362 et p 8 et
p 166 & p 685 et vol 4 p 4972
t irst glance the meaning of the tablet is far from clear. Just what exactly was the writer’s original
A intention? The origin of the text is quite obscure, and it is dificult to imagine that the tablet is
referring to a chymistry remotely similar to what Newton was doing. And yet Newton translated not
only the tablet, but also an extensive commentary on it. Clearly the document was important to him.
To ind meaning in the tablet, the most important thing to notice about the text is the motif of presenting
pairs of opposites. A fairly comprehensive list would be: ‘true without lying’, ‘above & below’, ‘sun &
moon’, ‘father & mother’, ‘earth & ire’, ‘subtle & gross’, ‘heaven & earth’, ‘ascends & descends’ and
‘superior & inferior.’ Along with these pairs of opposites comes the constant suggestion that they can
be uniied. Perhaps the entire tablet could be summed up by the second line, “That which is below is
like that which is above & that which is above is like that which is below to do the miracles of one only
thing.” Alchemy is not alone in its emphasis on the uniication of opposites. Its philosophical import
2
Newton, Isaac. Hermes. 1680-1684. MS 28. Kings College, Cambridge.
 7
has long been recognized in many eastern religious traditions. The Hindu god Siva, lord of creation
and destruction, is a prime example. In the west, uniication of opposites was central to irst Neoplatonic
and later Gnostic philosophies, from which Hermeticism is largely based. Likely the most famous
philosopher to employ imagery the uniication of above and below was Frederic Nietzsche. For my
purposes, I think the best way to explain the implications of the uniication of opposites is through the
Gnostic concept of the Pleroma.3
leroma is a iller word for the wordless
state or place than can be reached when
all the opposites are uniied. It is beyond
everything, underneath nothing, past
God and greater than ininity. Essential to under-
standing the concept is the idea that we can
only perceive reality by breaking it up into pairs
of opposites which are arguably artiicial. For
example, you can only know that something is
hot by comparing it to something that is less hot
than it, i.e. something cold. We create the concept
of temperature by sorting our experiences into one
of the two categories. With enough experiences
we can create a temperature spectrum, but at its
highest resolution that spectrum will always be
based on a binary distinction between ‘hotter’ and
‘colder.’ In other words, the idea of hot cannot
exist without the idea of cold. Acknowledging that
opposite concepts are inexorably linked produces
a paradox. If one cannot exist without the other,
they must be the same thing, like a lichen which is
neither an algae nor a fungus, but both. All of the
pairs of opposites you could ever imagine existed
in a strange state of indescribable symbiosis before Figure 8, Table of Alchemical Symbols
This Table is also copied directly from The Foundaions of Newton's
they were broken apart by thought. The Pleroma Alchemy by Bety Jo Teeter Dobbs. Note how compounds like Salt,
is what exists or does not exist (both words are Tartar or Vitriol do not have a unique modern chemical idenity.
unsatisfactory) before any pairs of opposites are Chymical compounds in the early modern period were not organized
differentiated from each other. By differentiating as rigorously as they are today, and ideniicaion oten had to do with
physical properies rather than atom ones.
the pairs of opposites in our minds, we bring them
into reality. Hot comes with cold. Zen Buddhism is famous for expressing similar concepts with bizarre
koans, but the idea is not just rooted in religious philosophies. Opposites are relected in or biology.
Our sensory neurons function as difference detectors, either iring or not iring in response to some
measured value of the external environment. But what exactly our neurons respond to is metaphysi-
cally arbitrary. While there are evolutionary reasons why our eyes should respond to light between
400 nm and 700 nm wavelengths, there is nothing in the ‘essence’ of electromagnetic radiation in that
spectrum that should cause it to be perceived as light, while longer wavelengths are perceived as heat.
It is dificult, arguably impossible, to think of a method of perception that does not rely on arbitrary
differentiation as its method of deining reality. And yet this reliance on differentiation ushers in a host
of philosophical dilemmas. For example, it is hard to uphold ideas of an absolute or objective morality
from this perspective. Good and evil become subjective ideological constructs that exist only to the
extent that they are differentiated from each other. From this mindset, any attempt to strive for ‘the
good’ will always be haunted by the shadow of evil lurking in the void that your good actions create.
3
Much of my discussion of the Pleroma stems from Carl Jung's use of it in The Red Book, specifically in The Seven Sermons of the
Dead. The Red Book is a series of dreams and hallucinations Jung recorded between 1914 and 1917, his analysis of which form
the basis of his psychological theories. Much of the imagery of The Red Book is alchemical in nature. Jung, C. G., and Sonu
Shamdasani. The Red Book: Liber Novus. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2009. Print. p. 348-351
 8
et’s tie this back in with The Emerald Tablet. The alchemists irmly recognized that perception was
L linked to pairs of opposites and their writings relect that. Alchemical theories of matter functioned
by describing material properties in terms of opposed qualities. Perfection could only be attained when
those qualities were in balance. It bears repeating, “That which is below is like that which is above &
that which is above is like that which is below to do the miracles of one only thing.” God is the manifes-
tation of the uniied opposites, the one only thing that can perform miracles. The Philosopher’s Stone
is much more than a magical substance that can turn Lead into Gold; it is divinity materialized and
matter perfected. It can only be produced when all of the various properties of matter are in complete
balance. The idea of transmutation stems from the belief that seemingly opposite materials are, at their
root, the same thing. Our modern science is reductionistic, it tends to break things down into their
simplest form to discover their properties. In contrast, alchemy was holistic, and held the view that
ultimately, everything was uniied. Now yet again I’ve created an artiicial dichotomy between reduc-
tionist and holistic practices, and between modern science and alchemy. Such distinctions do not
necessarily need to be made, and Hermes Trismegestus would probably say that both qualities ‘arose
from the mediation of the one.’ But it is useful nonetheless to appreciate these subtle differences in
world view. As we will see later, the holistic nature of alchemy had a huge effect on what kinds of
statements alchemists could make about reality.

Figure 9, Newton’s copy of a diagram of the Philosophers Stone, Babson MS 420

Note the various alchemical symbols arranged in a geometric patern. See Figure 7 above for symbolic meanings. The text around
the central circle reads Prima Materia. Prima Materia, irst mater, or philosophic mercury, was a hypotheical universal men-
strum from which all mater could grow. Mater and spirit were conceived of as disinct eniies that could be separated from
one another. Philosophical Mercury was created by removing the soul of a lesser metal (usually silver or vulgar mercury). Once
formed, the Philosophical Mercury could be easily transmuted into Gold by adding the proper spirit. This is a brief theoreical
explanaion of the events that occurred in the introducion, a more detailed one will be found later in the text.

lchemy has a rich history between Hermes Trismegestus and Newton, most of which I cannot
cover here. There are fantastical names like Zozimos of Panopolis (~300 A.D) and Mary the
Jewess (there is a long history of the relationship between alchemy and Jewish mysticism
called cabala), but the next name that I would like to focus on is Nicholas Flamel (1330-1418),
made famous by J.K. Rowling in her Harry Potter series. Like Trismegestus before him, Flamel blurs
the line between man and myth. While Flamel was certainly a real person, most of the history attributed
to him was published over 200 years after his death, in 1624, in a book called Exposition of the Hiero-
glyphical Figures.4 In the Exposition, Flamel claims to have purchased a mysterious book full of Hebrew
symbols and hieroglyphics from an unknown source. Over time, Flamel and his wife decoded the

4
Nicolas Flamel.Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation,
 9
symbols and determined the proper procedure for producing the Philosophers Stone. The Philoso-
phers Stone granted the Flamels immortality, which conveniently explains why the Exposition was
published in the seventeenth century instead of the fourteenth. This obviously ictitious story offers me
the opportunity to explain another important aspect of alchemical lore: the idea of Prisca Sapientia.
risca Sapientia, or irst wisdom, was an idea held by most academics in the early modern period. I
P see Prisca Sapientia sort of like the premise of Star Wars: ‘A long time ago in a galaxy far far away,
the ancients knew much much more than we do now’. In less anachronistic language, Prisca Sapientia
is an extension of the biblical myth of the fall. It is the idea that the God imparted truth to Adam and
Eve that was lost when they were expelled from Eden. Even after the fall, Adam and Eve had true
religion and true natural philosophy, but this ancient wisdom was lost and degraded through the
generations. It could be argued that igures such as Noah or Moses, or even Flamel, possessed Prisca
Sapientia, but the 17th century Church and natural philosophers certainly did not. For this reason,
academics were constantly referring to the wisdom of the ancients to give themselves credibility. Many
times in my research I encountered long lists of authors (usually starting with Pythagoras or Euclid)
and claims about what those authors thought. Newton employed such a list in A Treatise of the System

Figure 10, “Grand Rosicrucian Alchemical Formula.” Emblem from Museum Hermeicum Reformatum et Ampliicatum, 1678.
The Museum Hermeicum Refromatum et Ampliicatum is a collecion of alchemical wriings from the most famous alchemical authors of the day.
It contains Nicholas Flamel, The book of Lambspring, Michael Maier, Michael Sendivigious, George Ripley, Erienaeus Philalethes, among others.
Note the alchemical symbols and vast array of opposites. The emblem is divided in half, with Man, Day, Sun, Fire, Phoenix, Iron and Mars on the let
and Woman, Night, Moon, Water, Aquila, Copper and Venus on the right. Many more pairs of opposites are present. Note also that the symbol for
Gold is at the center of the image inside the central tree, and the symbol for Philosophical Mercury (the symbols for mercury and gold combined)
is in the center of the mandala in the clouds. Between them a crow transforms into a phoenix. At center botom day and night combine in the
alchemist and two opposed lions merge with one head. Philosophical Mercury drips from their jaws.
 10
of the World to contend that all the ancients believed in the heliocentric Copernican system. With the 5

doctrine of Prisca Sapientia we see a sharp contrast between early modern academic thought and
current academic thought. In academia today, we are constantly improving upon old ideas. With each
generation our technology becomes more eficient, our history more nuanced. Old systems, like
Newtonian mechanics, are subsumed by new systems, like relativity. This was not thought to be the
case in the early modern period. The natural philosophy of Trismegistus was considered more complete
than that of Descartes as a matter of course. The only problem was that the knowledge had been lost,
or was encoded in inaccessible ways, like the hieroglyphics of Abraham the Mage.6 This was the
motivation for a seventeenth century author to
fabricate the 200 year old identity of Flamel. An
alchemist from 1400 had much more authority
than one from 1600. In this way, alchemy is
more akin to religious scriptural traditions like
the Hebrew cabala than it is to modern science.
All manuscripts, as well as commentaries on
those manuscripts, are considered valid parts
of the cannon.7 From a modern perspective
Prisca Sapientia may seem like absurdity,
especially if your irst introduction to the idea
was through the story of Nicholas Flamel. But
it is an idea that needs to be taken seriously if
alchemy is to be properly understood. Consider
for a moment that to study alchemy today, or
history of science at all, is to believe in some
form of Prisca Sapientia. For why else would
we devote so much time reconstructing the Figure 11, Ouroboros
thoughts of dead men if we did not believe This is a classic version of the ouroboros where the winged and wingless
there would be some value in what we found? dragons consume each other. Note the alchemical symbols in the center, as
well as the pairs of opposites around the outside of the dragons and inside
he next alchemist I want to focus on, the Star of David, which in a merger of cabalisic and alchemisic lore sym-
Paracelsus (1493-1541), inally crosses bolizes æther and quintessence, all the opposite elements uniied.
the barrier from ictional to real
person. His real name was Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim,
but like many alchemists he published under a pseudonym.8 Alchemy can be broken into many sub
categories. For example Chrysopoeia is the study of gold making. Paracelsus is credited with estab-
5
He cites the ancient philosophers: ‘The
Newton, Isaac. A Treatise of the System of theWorld. London: Printed for Fayram, 1728. Print. p.1-4.
Ancients,’ Philolaus, Aristarchus of Samos, Plato, ‘The Pythagoreans,’ Anaximander, Numa Pompilius, ‘The Egyptians,’
Anaxagoras, Democritus, Eudoxus, Calippus, Aristotle, ‘The Chaldeans,’ as well as the contemporary philosophers Kepler,
Descartes, Borelli and Hook.
6
Vickers, Brian. “The ‘New Historiography’ and the Limits of Alchemy.” Annals of Science 65.1 (2008): 127-56. p.133.
Vickers writes, “Alchemy could only metamorphose into chemistry when some practitioners ceased to rely on this textual
morass and formulated new, independent theories of substances and processes to be investigated by laboratory practice. Their
practical operations had undoubtedly benefited from the technological developments made since the Arabic Middle Ages, but
alchemy is, and always was, an art which depends in large part on the interpretation of texts.”
7
Idem p.132. Vickers writes, “One of the major difficulties in studying alchemy, as I have observed elsewhere, is its cumula-
tive nature, the fact that alchemists copied and recopied ancient texts, created bewildering variations in terminology, and
used allegorical or deliberately obscure accounts of substances and processes. It is important to recognize that alchemy, in
this respect like astrology and magic, was a textually cumulative discipline. No text was ever thrown away, since none was
ever superseded. Potentially, any work produced in Hellenistic Egypt, Medieval Islam, or Renaissance Europe, could divulge
the arcanum arcanorum.”
8
“Paracelsus.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation
 11
lishing, or at least strongly inluencing, the study
of Iatrochemistry, `or medical alchemy. Paracelsus
proposed the idea that there are certain material
substances (what we would now call drugs) that
can affect human health in speciic ways. In a
parallel vein, Paracelsus frequently emphasized
that alchemical theory linked transmutations of
materials to transmutations of the human soul.
(Figure 12) Lawrence Principe writes of Paracelsus,
“Paracelsus intensiied such linkages and
devised a world-system populated with a
vast number of supernatural beings and
elemental spirits and where natural and
sympathetic magic played a central role in
an organic cosmos. The material tria prima
of Mercury, Sulphur, and Salt was linked in
a web of correspondences that included the
Triune Godhead and the threefold nature of
man: spirit, soul, and body.”9
ria Prima theory had its origins in Islamic
Talchemy, and held the view that all the diversity
of matter arose from three fundamental properties:
Mercury, Sulphur and Salt. Similar ideas were held
Figure 12, Paracelsus, Portrait by Quenin Massys, 1528 in the west since the time of Aristotle: The Aristote-
Paracelsus wrote in Paragranum, “The purpose of alchemy is not, as it lian four elements of Earth, Water, Air and Fire were
is said, to made gold and silver, but in this instance to make arcana and
direct them against diseases...For all these things conform to the instruc-
said to be what all matter is made up of. Paracelsus
ion and test of nature. Hence nature and man, in heath and sickness, is often cited as the irst to merge the two theories
need to be joined together, and to be brought into mutual agreement.” together.Sulphur and Mercury were often singled

out in chrysopoeian contexts.10 Gold was a mixture of Sulphur and Mercury in perfect proportions. Iron
was said to have excess Sulphur, which was why it was so brittle, while Mercury was said to have excess
Mercury, which was why it was so volatile. That last phrase may be a bit confusing. The Tria Prima
were not elements or compounds per say, but more like properties. Vulgar, elemental Mercury had
very strong Mercurial properties, but it was not the same as the essence of Mercury, because it still had
some Sulphur in it. The most pristine essence of Mercury was a theoretical compound called Philosoph-
ical Mercury, and the alchemists were constantly trying to make it. Preparing Philosophical mercury
was not as simple as purifying vulgar Mercury. There were myriads of methods of varying complexi-
ties for preparing Philosophical Mercury, and Newton tried more than one.11 One of the most iconic
attempts was by Herman Boerhaave in 1718 where he heated Mercury continuously at a temperature
above 100oF for 15 years and 6 months.12 Philosophical Mercury was purported to have truly magical
9
Principe, Lawrence M., and Robert Boyle. The Aspiring Adept: Robert Boyle and His Alchemical Quest. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ., 1998. Print. p.189
10
For example, Newton writes in one tract, “A double mercury is the sole first and proximate matter of all metals, and these
two mercuries are the masculine and feminine semens, sulfur and mercury, fixed and volatile, the serpents around the cadu-
ceus, the Dragons of Flammel. Nothing is produced from the masculine of feminine semen alone. For generation and for the
first matter the two must be joined.” Newton, Isaac. Sententiæ Luciferæ Et Conclusiones Notabiles. 1696-98. MS Keynes MS 56. King’s College,
Cambridge. Translation found in Westfall, Never at Rest p.299 See figure 11
11
For a very thorough explication of Newton’s attempts at creating Philosophical Mercury see Dobbs, Betty Jo Teeter. The
Foundations of Newton’s Alchemy: Or “The Hunting of the Greene Lyon.” Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983. Print.
12
Dobbs, The Foundations of Newton’s Alchemy. p.86. Boerhaave is typically considered more of a chemist than and alchemist, but ex-
amples like his Philosophical Mercury experiments show the fuzziness of these definitions before the mid eighteenth century.
 12
properties. It went by many names: “the ☿ of
☿”, “Our Mercury”, “The water that does not
wet one’s hands.”13 The most evocative name
I have found for Philosophical Mercury is
the “true metaline menstrum.”14 In the vast
array of symbolic alchemical associations
(Figure 10), Mercury was decidedly female.
Philosophical Mercury was the womb out of
which all life could grow. All matter was at
its root the same stuff, and that same stuff
was Philosophical Mercury, Prima Materia,
irst matter, the universal menstrum. All of
the various forms of things in the world were
caused by different spirits forming the Prima
Materia into diverse arrangements. And so
matter and spirit were separate, but they were
also irmly linked. Matter and spirit coexisted
together, and they had to be separated in
order for transmutation to occur. Heat was
a key player in separating spirit from matter.
A gentle heat would spark the spirit to grow,
whereas the intense heat of the alchemical
furnace would cause death and putrefaction.
The heat would cause the spirit to leave the
matter, whereby the vulgar Mercury would
become Philosophical Mercury. Next, a male
seed or spark, sometimes associated with
Sulphur or Fire, but usually associated with
Gold, would be added to the Philosophical
Mercury, where it would take life and grow.
In this way the dead matter was reborn in
a new, perfect form; the Philosophers Stone. Figure 13, Splendor Solis Plate 6
The Philosophers Stone was for much more The creaion of the Philosophers Stone was oten likened to the growth of a tree.
than making Gold; it linked the corporeal In this image the stone is symbolized by a tree with golden roots growing through
world with the divine. This interaction the crown. Two men in inversly colored robes look upon the tree. One holds a
dead branch, the other a living sprig.
between matter and spirit was the key to
life. Metals were alive. For transmutation to
occur the metals had to die and then were reborn, transformed. These transmutations were thought
to occur with or without the help of the alchemist. Alchemists were just capable of speeding up the
process. Independent of human intervention, metals were thought to grow in the ground like trees15
(Figure 13), and what element they ended up becoming was a matter of time and balance of properties.
So, to summarize, matter was made of opposed qualities, which are ultimately personiied as body and
spirit, but any number of qualities were it into the binary cosmology. Gold and Philosophical Mercury

13
Idem p. 84
14
Ibid
15
Michael Sendivigious wrote in A New Light of Alchemy, “Are not metals of as much esteem with god as trees?” Gold was the
most mature metal, and all the other metals were in various stages of growth and maturation. The connection between metals
and trees sees to stem from the root-like ramification of metal veins in mines, but there is laboratory evidence as well that will
be discussed later in the paper.
 13
were both considered to be exemplars of uniied opposites, but they too formed a pair of opposites and
when they were brought together they produced the Philosophers Stone. The Philosophers Stone, as
its name suggests, has philosophical (spiritual) as well as material (stone-like) properties. Its material
purposes were to turn Lead into Gold, or provide eternal life, but spiritually it was a manifestation of
the Pleroma. It was God, or Christ. It was perfection.
n describing Paracelsus’s Tria Prima theory, I have been fairly ahistorical in my approach. Likely
Isome of the aspects of Philosophical Mercury or the Philosophers Stone would be more correctly
attributed to later alchemists such as Michael Maier, Jan Baptist van Helmont, George Ripley, or
Michael Sendivigious. There are also other alchemical theories that do not fall in line with Paracel-
sus’s thinking. But my goal here has not been to point out subtle differences between the various
alchemists, or to describe the evolution of alchemical theory over time, but rather to give you a sense
of the alchemical theory Newton was exposed to. I want to explore the work of the next alchemist I
cover, George Starkey, in some depth, and a general sense of alchemical theory is required in order to
understand it.
eorge Starkey was born in Bermuda in 1628. He attended Harvard College, and in 1650 he emigrated to
London, likely in order to increase his access to alchemical resources and knowledgeable adepti.16 Starkey
published chymical works under his given name, but also under the pseudonym Eiranaeus Philalethes,
‘a peaceful lover of truth.’ The rhetorical styles of Starkey and Philalethes differ greatly. Starkey’s
tracts are direct, and refer mostly to chemical materials,
procedures and observations. Philalethes refers to those
same materials, procedures and observa-
tions, but he does so through extensive use of
imagery and metaphor. Philalethes achieved
great renown in London alchemical circles,
and it seems most of the alchemists that
Starkey was in contact with were unaware of his dual
identity, even when he wrote introductions to Phila-
lethes’s manuscripts and was responsible for much of
their distribution. Starkey was in frequent contact with
Robert Boyle and taught him much of the laboratory
practice Boyle became famous for.17 Towards the end
of the 1650’s Philalethes’s fame declined. Starkey was
incarcerated multiple times in a debtors prison for
debts he accrued furnishing his laboratory (chemistry
was then, as it is now, an expensive hobby). In 1665 he
died of the plague. Newton and Starkey were contem-
poraries; both were in close communication with Robert
Boyle, although at different times. Philalethes was the Figure 14, First Ediion Philalethes text, 1678
most modern alchemist that Newton read, and of all Ripley Reviv’d, Or, An Exposiion upon Sir George Ripley’s
Hermeico-poeical Works Containing the Plainest and Most
the alchemists found in Newton’s library, the alchemical Excellent Discoveries of the Most Hidden Secrets of the Ancient
theories of Eiranaeus Philalethes were most closely tied Philosophers, That Were Ever Yet Published by Eirenaeus
to Newton’s. Newton’s tract Praxis relies heavily on Philalethes
many of Philalethes’s works, notably An Exposition upon Sir George Ripley’s Epistle to King Edward IV.
Prisca Sapientia is heavily employed in that work. An Exposition is a commentary upon an earlier tract
by George Ripley, although much of the theory and procedure described in it are Philalethes’s own. I
am going to analyze portions of An Exposition, both because it will provide much insight into Newton’s
work, but also because it will serve as an excellent introduction to the work of William Newman and
Lawrence Principe. These modern historians of science are Starkey’s chief biographers and I will be
relying on them for my own analysis of Starkey’s work. Principe and Newman have put forth a new
historiography of alchemy that is radically different from most of the prior interpretations of alchemy
16
“George Starkey.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 31 May 2012.
17
Newman, William R., and Lawrence M. Principe. Alchemy Tried in the Fire: Starkey, Boyle, and the Fate of Helmontian Chymistry. Chicago: University of
Chicago, 2002. Print. p.12
 14
that have been produced over the past 300 years. While I am critical of some of their positions (my
views tend to be more spiritual), the overall picture they paint is too compelling, and full of too much
evidence to try to ignore, discredit or refute.
o analyze An Exposition, I will be quoting from a paper written by Newman entitled Decknamen
T or pseudochemical language?: Eirenaeus Philalethes and Carl Jung. Newman has condensed sections
of the Philalethes’s treatise so that they are much easier to quote and analyze, so I will be quoting
Newman directly rather than the primary source. In this paper, Newman presents portions of An
Exposition, complete with images of copulating hermaphroditic royalty, and then translates the images
into a reproducible chemical procedure. In doing so, Newman claims to have found an explanation of
alchemical imagery without needing to resort to a Jungian interpretation. Although I question Newman’s
dismissal of Jungian views, his analysis of Philalethes
is completely sound and deserves our attention here.
I will delve deeper into the various conlicting inter-
pretations of alchemy later in the paper, once I have
more fully explicated alchemical theory and history
through the present day. Beginning his description of
An Exposition, Newman writes,
“Philalethes begins his allegory by welcoming
the reader to the “garden of the Philoso-
phers”, where he may behold a glorious castle
having twelve entrances. These are the twelve
gates of Ripley’s Compound of alchymie,
the text that Philalethes is commenting, by
which Ripley referred to twelve alchemical
processes calcination, dissolution, separation,
conjunction, putrefaction, congelation
cibation, sublimation, fermentation, exaltation,
multiplication, and projection. The irst gate
is recessed into the earth and surmounted by
a dire inscription, “Dust thou art, and unto
Dust thou shalt return”. Within the gate lies
the corpse of a “Great Person”. A lady stands
there in mourning, “very comely, yet black, for
why the Sun hath shined upon her”. Her name
is Juno. But the castle is guarded by a garrison,
and Philalethes assures us that we must have
a guide, lest we be taken as spies.”18
Figure 15, The Mountain of the Adepts, Michelspacher, Cabala, 1654
want to emphasize the scenario that Philalethes
The Mountain of the Adepts documents the various stages of mater
as it progresses to the philosophers stone. Mater is transformed Iplaces us in. Newman assures us this is a
laboratory text that explains a real and reproducible
from one stage to the other via various acive principles listed in the
chemical process. And yet this introduction is unlike
pyramid. These stages are reminiscent of the twelve gates of Ripley’s
compound Philalethes describes.
any laboratory procedure a modern chemistry
student might ind. It reads more like Lord of the
Rings than a lab book. Imagine a would be adept in Newton’s time (or ours), set upon discovering the
mysteries of the material world. She opens up a text book eager to learn, but instead of receiving dry
explanations of properties he is thrown into a fantastical world where castles that hide ancient wisdom
are guarded by corpses. The castle not only hides the wisdom, it is the wisdom itself. Its twelve gates

18
Newman, William R. “Decknamen or Pseudochemical Language ? : Eirenaeus Philalethes and Carl Jung.” Persee 3rd ser. 49.2 (1996): 159-88. Print.
p.166. Quotes within the citation reference either Philalethes or Philalethes quoting George Ripley directly. Please view New-
man’s article directly for more complete bibliographical information. It is freely available online.
 15
correspond to alchemical processes. (Figure 15) At the door the would be adept is reminded of the
19

scope of his quest. It is not just about Chrysopoeia, but about inding her place in the universe. She is
reminded that “Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return”20 Think for a moment what it would be
like if our modern science pedagogy were concerned not only with describing material properties but
with teaching students how to ind meaning in their lives. What would it be like if our universities were
built like Ripley’s compound? What if our academic buildings were cathedrals couched in symbolism
whose very structure relected the knowledge to be learned?
ur adept enters the compound,
O and is quickly met by the guide
Philalethes insisted upon. Newman
writes,
“The guide receives a circumstantial
description. He has a “humour of his
own not to be equalled in the World”,
so that if he is angered or made
sullen, all will be lost. He is very
simple, indeed, “a very stupid Fool.”
Nonetheless, he is silent and faithful,
though “if he can ind an opportunity
he will give you the slip, and leave
you in a world of misfortune.” One
can tell if he is happy or not by his
countenance. He should therefore
be “shut up close where he may not
get forth,” and the alchemist should
“go wisely before with heat.” The
servant, who will follow, will grow
red in the face if he should become
angry, but if he is in a good temper, Figure 16, Atalanta Fugiens, Emblema X, De Secreis Natura, Michael Maier, 1617
The inscripion reads roughly, “Give ire to ire, Mercury to Mercury and it is suicient
“he is indifferent active and merry.” for thee” This image perhaps depicts something similar to Philalethes’s ire guide.
Philalethes continues to say that the The presence of two Mercuries is also a common trope. “Double Mercury” was some-
guide will “presently take snuff” if imes used as an analog to Philisophical Mercury.
left to his own devices, for due to his
“perpetual working” he tires easily.”21
n the surface, it appears Philalethes is providing a character study of the new companion that has
Ojoined our adepts quest. He resembles Shakespeare’s Caliban; a brutish servant who dutifully but
unwillingly serves the old wizard Prospero. It is doubtful that Starkey had Caliban in mind when he
concocted the description, but the resemblance emphasizes that there is clearly something archetypal
about the image. However, Newman warns us that before we slip into Jungian language we should
take a closer look at the description, and keep chymical purposes in mind. On second glance, it becomes

19
Newton was particularly interested in fermentation and putrefaction. Putrefaction was the step of death in the alchemical
process. The next step was fermentation. At its simplest, fermentation had the same meaning for Newton as it does for us
today: the growth of yeast in a sugar medium. But alchemical fermentation had a much broader scope, and was the process by
which all life was formed. Newton frequently referred to fermentation as vegetation. The bubbling of a fermenting flask was
seen as an indication of the active spirit within. Any smoke or gas rising up was the material manifestation of that spirit. Jan
Baptist van Helmont (1579-1644) is credited with introducing the word gas into chymical terminology. The word derives from
the Greek word chaos and its metaphorical links with spirit run deep. One excellent example would be the Hebrew word
ruach which means synonymously breath, wind, and spirit.
20
Philalethes, Eirenaeus, and William Cooper. Ripley Reviv’d, Or, An Exposition upon Sir George Ripley’s Hermetico-poeticalWorks Containing the Plainest and Most
Excellent Discoveries of the Most Hidden Secrets of the Ancient Philosophers,ThatWere EverYet Published. London: Printed by Tho. Ratcliff and Nat. Thompson, for
William Cooper ..., 1678.
21
Newman, William R. “Decknamen or Pseudochemical Language? p.166
 16
obvious that the servant is ire incarnate; the irst thing any adept would need on his quest for the
Philosophers Stone. Fire tires easily because of its perpetual working. It will treat our adept dutifully
and loyally, but if given the opportunity (a stray piece of paper perhaps) he will give her the slip
and leave her in a world of misfortune. To protect himself from the ires dangers our adept should
shut the servant up close where he may not get forth, in a furnace. What could be the purpose in
anthropomorphizing ire in this way? Doubtless, there are many reasons on multiple levels (personal,
aesthetic, chemical) but rather than conjecture what was going on in Starkey’s head when he wrote the
description, I want to emphasize the simple fact that these multiple levels exist at all. Even in a simple
description of ire, we see a richness of meaning that is unparalleled in modern laboratory procedure.
Today we have exchanged this richness for objectivity, and it has been unquestioned among historians
of science until very recently that that exchange had to occur for modern chemistry to develop. I think
it is possible with our modern perspective to reassimilate aesthetics and depth of meaning into our
science without losing the objectivity and rigor we have worked for 300 years to produce. But I’ll get off
my soap box for a moment to delve further into An Exposition. In a later scene we see further evidence
of Prisca Sapientia. Newman quotes,
““I lift up mine eyes, and
behold I saw Nature as a
Queen gloriously adorned.”
The queen is holding a book
entitled Philosophy restored
to its primitive purity, which
she gives the alchemist to
eat. After being so honored
by the lady, Philalethes says
“was my Understanding so
enlightened, that I did fully
apprehend all things which I
saw and heard” ”22
ere Prisca Sapientia is
H personiied as literal book
eating. We also see a web of inter-
connected symbols in “Nature
as a Queen gloriously adorned.”
(Figure 17) In this context both
Nature and Queen have multiple
meanings. The Queen is Silver,
companion to Gold, but she is
also Philosophical Mercury, from
Figure 17, Atalanta Fugiens, Emblema XXVI, De Secreis Natura, , Michael Maier, 1617 which all things may grow. Nature
The inscripion reads “Man’s wisdom is the fruit of the tree of life.” Natures scrolls read, “Long too is Philosophical Mercury, and
life and health, wealth and ininite glory. “ she is also the predictable natural
law of the universe with which
Newton was deeply concerned. Newton believed (and from this quote it seems likely Starkey did too)
that discovering natural law from phenomena was a method of reaching God, of discovering true
religion and restoring philosophy “to its primitive purity.” The image of consuming the book of nature
is an incredibly effective and evocative way of expressing this sentiment. It is again worth pausing here
to note the differences between modern science and the natural philosophy of Philalethes and Newton.
For them, science and religion ran parallel to each other, each complimenting the other with insights
into how the world worked. What would a high school chemistry textbook look like today if it were
modeled after the book Nature feeds Philalethes? What if chemistry were taught as a pathway to the
divine secrets of the universe?

22
Idem. p.167
 17
he next quote I want to look at
Tfrom An Exposition you were
irst exposed to in the introduction.
Newman quotes,
“Then I viewed his Pitcher well,
and I found that his Pitcher was
clear as pure Silver; and what was
strange, the Bearer, and the Pitcher,
and the Water in it were one ; and
in the midst of the Water, as it were
in the very centre, there was a most
radiant twinkling Spark, which sent
forth its Beams even to the very
surface of the Water, and appeared
as it were a Lamp burning, and yet
no way distinguishable from the
Water”23
ere we see, in a highly condensed
H form, the theoretical process for
producing Philosophical Mercury and
the subsequent Philosophers stone.
Opposites are uniied to create the
Philosophical Mercury, “the Bearer, Figure 18, Atalanta Fugiens, Emblema XXVI, De Secreis Natura, , Michael Maier, 1617
and the Pitcher, and the Water in it The inscripion roughly reads, “Conceived in the bath, and born in the air, the red stone
was made gradually over the waters. ” The Philosophers Stone was oten refered to
were one.” Then the spark appears in as the red stone. Many alchemical elements are dynamically integrated in this image.
the Prima Materia and the Philoso- The Sun and the Moon copulate in thr water, while the Earth gives birth amidst burning
phers Stone grows. Imagery of water mountains thick with smoke. Death and Rebirth are synthesised with Earth, Air, Fire and
and light are intimately tied up with Water to create the Philosophers Stone.
the generation of life. The images have mythological parallels in Greek Ambrosia and Hindu Amrita
as well as obvious biological parallels which are their original inspiration. Philalethes expands upon
his procedure with more detail and varied imagery, describing the irst step of the generation of the
Philosophers Stone. Newman writes,
“Philalethes then lights the furnace beneath the chamber, and the Water-bearer pours forth his water,
now mixed with ire. The Waterbearer then makes his exit by diving into the stream of water and
disappearing. Inspecting the released liquid, Philalethes notices “a goodly Lady in the midst of it”,
not Nature herself, but one as beautiful as Helen. She is naked, and her skin as bright as ine silver.
Although she is tiny at irst, she soon grows bigger, consuming all the water as she expands. The
new lady, unlike the old, is pained horribly by the heat of the stove, and she repeatedly faints. The
King, meanwhile, feeling pity for her whom he knows to be “his Sister, his Mother, and his Wife”,
embraces her. He is at once covered with her sweat and tears, so that both take on the color of silver.
Gallantly, he asks her what he can do to help, and she replies that she wants his “Conjugal Fealty”.
Not one to be diverted by euphemism, the King grants her request in such a way that she conceives
“the King’s Seed”, saying with some relief that she is now “better able to endure the Fire which did
prevail upon her”. But this is not enough: The King, “wasted by his Venery” begins to sweat marvel-
lously, until his body is almost consumed. The Queen, no doubt feeling a combination of guilt and
disappointment, sheds so many tears that, mixed with the sweat, they produce a river, and so the
two are drowned. Philalethes, musing “at the strangeness of the sight”, then notices a carcass on the
surface of the water, which soon grows “livid, black, blewish, and yellowish” with putrefaction. This
horrible decay soon infects the water, which now grows black and thick, like turbid slime. The heat
gradually dries up this decaying mass, only to reveal “a horrible venomous tumeied Toad, [...] as
it were dying [...]” A raven eats the toad, die of its poison, and dissolves into a “most ilthy squallid
Liquor blacker than Ink, and thick like Pitch melted.” ” 24
23
Idem. p.170 also, Philalethes, Exposition upon the first six gates..., in Ripley Reviv’d, op. cit. p.114
24
Newman, William R. “Decknamen or Pseudochemical Language? p.171
 18
etaphors of death and rebirth are present in every image in this sequence, highlighting the irst
Malchemical step of Putrefaction. In Putrefaction previously living matter loses its spirit, dies, and
putreies. Putrefaction was frequently cited as evidence for spontaneous generation; lies would arise
only from putrefying meat. Death and dead material was required for all life to grow. And so the lady
is pained horribly by the life giving light of the stove and repeatedly faints. After the couple copulates
they dissolve and drown in each other tears. Their bodies decay in the water and cause it to metamor-
phose; irst into turbid slime, then a toad, then a raven, and inally pure blackness. Putrefaction puts the
Philosophical Mercury is on its way to completion and it soon will give birth to the Philosophers Stone.
hilalethes continues on for many pages. There is much more nuance and technicality to these
P images than I care to cover, all of which is explicated beautifully in Newman’s paper. To conclude
the process, I will quote not from An Exposition but from a private letter Starkey wrote to Robert Boyle
in 1651. This letter had a great inluence on Newton’s alchemy. He transcribed a full copy of it in the
late 1670’s. Before 1987, when Newman identiied an earlier version of the letter written by Starkey,
many scholars (most notably B.J.T. Dobbs in The Foundations of Newton’s Alchemy) believed Newton’s
transcription to be an original composition entitled Clavis or Key.25 This mistake occurred in part because
the style of this letter is differs dramatically from the metaphorical prose of Philalethes. Starkey is direct
and to the point. Much of the letter contains detailed lists of procedures. For example, the Putrefaction
process beautifully illustrated above is
put forth in much more direct terms
“If [antimony] be amalgamated
with mercury vulgar and is
digested with it a small time (2
or 3 hours) in a closed pot with a
cover or a glass stopped in such a
heat that the mercury may begin to
arise like a dew… and then ground
[for] a convenient time, about half
a quarter of an hour, (if in a hot
mortar the better, yet not over hot)
till it spew out a blackness, and
then washed till the blackness do
come in small quantity which will
be discerned by the light fouling of
the water (for at irst it will make
ye water very black) which must be
poured off and fresh water poured
on till ye blackness decrease, then
amalgamated, then dried. [It] is to
be set to the ire and kept about 3
hours more in the former heat then
Figure 19, Atalanta Fugiens, Emblema XXXIII, De Secreis Natura, , Michael Maier, 1617 ground in a hot mortar as before,
The inscripion roughtly translates to, “Lying in the dark like death, the hermaphrodite it yeildeth fresh blackness which
needs ire.” Similar to images of kings being placed into vessels to die (See pages 63&69)
here we see the hermaphrodite requiring death and ire in order to transform. The use
must be washed as before, and
of androgeny as a metaphor for Prima Materia highlights its lexible, undifereniated this reiterated till ye amalgama-
state tion become as bright as burnished
silver.”26
ith this quote it becomes evident that the various transformations of the putrefying matter from
W slime to toad to raven were actually the repeated burning and removal of impurities from an
amalgamation of Mercury. Starkey is speciic about tools, temperature and procedure. But we do get a
glimpse of awe as well later in the letter,
25
Newman, William. “Newton’s Clavis as Starkey’s Key.” Isis 78.4 (1987): 564. Print
26
Idem. p.572. This quote has been edited for clarity. I have updated most
of the words to their modern spellings and changed
some of the punctuation to make the meaning more clear. Words inside [square brackets] are my own insertions.
 19
“I have now in ire several glasses
of Gold with that Mercury which
grow in the form of trees, and by
Continual Circulation resolve the
trees with ye Body into one Mercury
of which sort I have now one glass
in which Gold is dissolved not to
sight by Corrosion into atoms, but
really inwardly & outwardly into
Mercury as quick as any Mercury
in the world. It also makes Gold to
puff up to swell to putrefy, to grow
with sprigs and branches to Change
Colours daily which sights doe
daily salute me, and truly it is the
only great thing which I think is in
all Alchemy.”27
ewton often made the distinction
N between mechanical transforma-
tions of vulgar chemistry and true trans-
mutations of alchemy and Starkey is
doing the same. He points out the Gold
has not simply been dissolved visibly
Figure 20, Atalanta Fugiens, Emblema IX, De Secreis Natura, , Michael Maier, 1617
by corrosion into small atoms, but has The inscripion roughly reads, “The old man will eat the fruit of the tree, shut up in its
inwardly and outwardly transformed dewy house, and will regain his youth.” The dewy house bears strong resemblence to
into Philosophical Mercury. This Philo- the mercury soluion in the Starkey quote. The Philosophers Stone was said to grant
sophical Mercury is differentiated from eternal life. But images of trees growing in enclosed spaces have meaning on muliple
vulgar Mercury by its quickness, or its levels. They depict agriculture, and the relaionship between man and nature. The tree
also signiies the growth of the soul within the vessel of the human body.
ability to low. The color changing sprigs
and branches seem to conirm the theoretical description of a living Philosophers Stone. Thus with
Starkey/Philalethes we see a marvelous merging of vibrant alchemical theory and concrete laboratory
practice. It was this alchemical landscape molded by Philalethes’s theories in which Newton learned
and practiced his craft. But before we can delve into Newton’s alchemy, the subsequent 300 years
of alchemical history need to be analyzed, because that analysis will profoundly affect the way that
I interpret Newton. For even before Newton began searching for the Philosophers Stone, the seeds
of alchemy’s undoing were being sewn. We can explore the reasons for alchemy’s decline, and the
subsequent growth of our skewed modern interpretation of it, by examining one of the last alchemists,
and one of the irst chemists, Robert Boyle.
obert Boyle (1627-1691) is often described as the father of modern chemistry. He was one of the
irst members of the Royal Society and was a champion of open distribution of information,
a practice shunned by many alchemists who preferred to use pseudonyms and encode their
practices in metaphor. Boyle’s distaste for secrecy highlighted the differences between the
new chemistry and the older alchemy, but Newman and Principe have pointed out that the differen-
tiation of chymistry into alchemy and chemistry was a deliberate and conscious act by Boyle and his
contemporaries, and that at the time of Boyle’s activity the differences between the two disciplines
ran only skin deep. “Boyle often strove to distinguish himself from his predecessors, thus aiding his
subsequent deployment as a point of demarcation between an older alchemy (often characterized as
“obscurantist”) and a modern experimental science.”28 At the end of the seventeenth century science
was in its earliest infancy, and exactly what its boundaries were not well established. In order to bring
credibility to their discipline, the founders of the Royal Society had to work actively to deine what

27
Idem. p.573. This quote has also been edited for clarity.
28
Newman, William R., and Lawrence M. Principe. Alchemy Tried in the Fire: Starkey, Boyle, and the Fate of Helmontian Chymistry. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago, 2002. Print. p.15
 20
they were as well as what they were not. We see in the irst actions
of the Royal Society a deinition of science that has lasted into the
present day. But the foundations of that deinition are a bit shaky. The
authors remark,
“Boyle’s presentation of himself and his scientiic
development thus projects both the image of a disinterested
and modest natural philosopher and the sense of a thinker
who owed little of substance to the foregoing traditions of
“the chymists.” But Boyle’s self portrayal can be taken too
uncritically; indeed, his writings present a distorted image of
his relationship to contemporaneous chymistry and its practi-
tioners. Boyle’s public attitude toward chymistry actually
involves…a posture of independence from previous chymical
traditions. Boyle’s publications often display a pattern of
accepting the technology and empirical results of contem-
poraneous chymists while conspicuously rejecting their
theories. This pattern has been largely recapitulated in much
of the secondary literature, and in both locales it has had the
effect of elevating Boyle’s own status and diminishing that of
the foregoing traditions.”29
Figure 21a, The Magician, Rider Waite Tarot
odern historians of science have recently started piercing
Note the hands of the magician connecing
the above with the below. 1909. M
through the veil of science’s apparent positivist origins and
begun to look at what thought processes lay underneath. Dobbs
writes in her introduction to The Foundations of Newton’s Alchemy that,
“Modern science in its nascence surely bore the marks of the ancient womb of human thought
in which it had its long period of gestation. Not all of those antique thought patterns are
acceptable today as valid approaches to the world of phenomena or as genuine and honest
efforts at making the world comprehensible. Modern science, like an adolescent, denies its
parentage”30 Figure 21b, The Wheel of Fortune
Rider Waite Tarot, 1909
think the metaphor of a rebellious teenager is quite appropriate. Note the diverse mixture of symbolism,
I I see a rejection of all things associated with the parent during Greek, Egypian, Alchemical, Astrological,
adolescence as utterly necessary for establishing identity. Many and Cabalisic
historians of science have noted that rejecting old thought patterns
was required modern science to mature.31 But few have extended the
metaphor to note that our young scientiic method has now matured
enough to look back upon its ancestors and glean wisdom from
practices that earlier it had to reject as a matter of self-preservation.
he rejection of alchemy by the natural philosophers of the early
eighteenth century has affected its history to the present day.
The disdain of the academic community relegated the more
esoteric and mystical portions of alchemy to a fantastical realm
that contained witchcraft and astronomy’s forgotten twin, astrology,
while the practical elements of the discipline were assimilated into the
newly forming chemistry. Hermeticism became a sort of religion in its
own right (the modern day Freemasons draw much of their doctrine
from Hermetic texts) and practices associated with the word alchemy
became increasingly segregated from any sort of material experimen-
tation. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, academics like
Arthur E Waite (most famous today for the Rider Waite tarot deck,

29
Ibid
30
Dobbs, The Foundations of Newton’s Alchemy, p.xi
31
See the work of Helene Metzger and Brian Vickers
 21
igures 5&21) legitimized the view that alchemy was predominantly
a spiritual quest that had little to do with the exploration of material
properties.32 Waite lumped alchemy together with all things occult,
which of course obscured its practical applications. Alchemy clearly
has strong links to religious practices, and I think the popular
modern stance to deemphasize those religious components is
lawed, but writers like Waite distorted alchemy too
far in the opposite direction by insisting its focus was
predominantly on self-transformation. Shortly after
Waite’s death, psychologist Carl Jung assimilated the
spiritualist interpretation of alchemy into his psycho-
logical theories. Jung is famous for claiming that
alchemical imagery was a product of the unconscious
mind of the alchemist. The Philosophers Stone was a Figure 22a, Sketch of Alchemical Furnace and disilaion aparatus
The Art of Disillaion, London, 1653, p.64.
metaphor for the completed individuation process, a
word coined by Jung to describe a stage of consciousness akin to Buddhist enlightenment in which the
True Self is found. From a Jungian perspective, alchemical imagery was produced in a trancelike state
and projected into the lask, where the fermenting matter could be observed like a dream, playing out
the activity of the psyche of the alchemist. The Jungian perspective does not lack evidence. Paracelsus
equated Tria Prima with the Mind, Body and Soul of man, and the metaphor was widespread among
other alchemists. Alchemy clearly makes statements about divine and human experiences pertaining
to things other than material properties. But Newman and Principe express some very serious criticism
of the Jungian explanation that cannot be ignored.
“While one cannot (and would not wish to) deny that alchemy is replete with a singular
lushness of symbolism and overlapping levels of meaning or that it presents important
resonances with religious speculations, it does not follow that this arises from hallucina-
tion, unbridled imagination, or a predominant focus on the spiritual to the exclusion or
diminution of the kind of laboratory operations we have come to view as a property of
“chemistry.” Nor does it follow that alchemy is nothing but the manipulation of such
symbolism or texts without reference to laboratory activities. Yet the widespread stress on
the “otherness” of alchemy tends to support the view that alchemists in their laboratories
were not focused on material substances and their actual transforma-
tions and even that those alchemists acted more or less haphazardly or
randomly in their operations.” 33
hroughout their work, Principe and Newman argue
T
aggressively that the “otherness” of alchemy is an
historical construct produced after alchemy ceased to be
an actively practiced discipline. In this vein, their
main critique of the Jungian view is that is that it
does not take into account any physical meaning of
the alchemical imagery. Raw alchemical symbolism
was central to Jung’s goals. He cared little for chemical
applications; he was interested in the images in their
own right, and their effects on human beings. Focusing
on symbolism alone allowed Jung to further a soterio-
logical34 interpretation of alchemy that differentiated it
Figure 22b, Modern Alchemical Furnace and Disiller from chemistry. Principe and Newman’s many attempts
Made by William Newman, Modeled ater Figure 22a to demonstrate the physical meaning of alchemical texts
32
For an example of Waite’s work, see Waite, Arthur E. “The Pictoral Symbols of Alchemy.” Occult Review 8.5 (1908). Print
33
Newman, William R., and Lawrence M. Principe. Alchemy Tried in the Fire. p.38
34
Soteriology, according to Wikipedia, “is the study of religious doctrines of salvation.” Soteriological goals are expressed
in all of the major religions. In the east the goal is called enlightenment, nirvana, or Brahman. In the west the goal is usually
personified in Christ’s ascension to heaven. The Jungian soteriological goal is individuation.
 22
has led them to conclude that the Jungian interpretation is invalid, or at
least superluous. In actuality the Jungian view isn’t superluous; it is just A.
focused on different issues. Imagery is central to Jungian philosophy, but
for Newman and Principe it represents a hurdle to be overcome. Their
goal is to show how alchemy its in with the rest of contemporary natural
philosophy. As such, they need to show that the images have scientiic
credence, but they care little for any other meaning the images might
hold. The only level of meaning that Principe and Newman are concerned
with is the chemical one. They cannot be faulted for this; someone had to
focus on chemical aspects of alchemy in order to bring a more balanced
conception of it into the modern awareness. From the perspective the
new historiographers take, it makes sense that they would be critical of B.
the Jungian interpretation; it does not it their needs. They are quite open
about this. In one paper Principe writes,
“The Jungian interpretation has owed much of its acceptance
and continuance to the fact that it advances an explanation of the
origins of the notoriously extravagant imagery of alchemical texts.
The very frequent references to hermaphrodites, lowers, dragons,
kings, queens, and a multifarious menagerie of real and mythical
creatures involved in everything from birth to marriage to incest
and death have been a chief locus for arguing the “otherness” of C.
alchemy. Indeed, [Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs] following Jung’s lead,
has declared rather incautiously that “clearly these picturesque
symbols have nothing to do with chemical realities or with rational
theories of transmutation.”35 These igures have thus played a key
role in allowing alchemy to be disjoined from chemistry and seem
to countenance the formulation of the rather far-fetched Jungian
notion of “irruptions of the unconscious.” Indeed, the promise of
providing an explanation of alchemical imagery has probably been
the chief preservative of the Jungian interpretation over so many
years, even though Jung’s system does little more than explain the Figure 23, Reporduced Reguluses
Made by William Newman in modern
apparently inexplicable by means of something yet more inexplica- chemical labratory folowing manu-
ble, even though tricked out in pseudoscientiic language. Thus, it script procedure.
is crucial for any convincing dismissal of the Jungian interpretation A regulus was a compact alloy that
to advance a more plausible origin for these alchemical images.”36 theoreically mediates materials
during the preparaion of Philisophical
cannot agree that Jungian theory is far-fetched, inexplica-
I ble, or pseudoscientiic. Personal experiences have shown
Mercury. The star regulus (A,D),
named for the starlike paterns on
its surface, was an alloy of animony,
me unequivocally that eruptions of the unconscious are a
mercury, and other metals, that was
r e a l phenomenon. But I still ind great value in following supposed to act as a magnet and
D. Princpe’s arguments to their logical conclusion. draw out Philisiphical Mercury from
He provides some very convincing evidence vulgar mercury. The Net (B,C) was a
for the dismissal of the Jungian interpretation, copper iron alloy whose preparaion
provided chemical meaning is the only procedure was apparently derrived
from greek myth. When Vucan (ire)
sort of meaning we’re looking for. After catches his wife Venus (copper) in
the above quote, Principe goes on to bed with Mars (Iron) he prepares a
describe in great detail the alchemical net and hangs the lovers within it.
history of using trees as metaphors for the Newton used iron to reduce animony
sulide and combined it with copper
philosophers stone, citing Philalethes, Maier, to produce the “network” on the
Ripley and others. He then describes how he alloy, as fulilling the real meaning of
used a laboratory procedure derived from their the story.

35
Dobbs, The Foundations of Newton’s Alchemy, p.32
36
Principe, Lawrence M. “Apparatus and Reproducibility in Alchemy.” Instruments and Experimentation in the History of Chemistry. Ed. Frederic L. Holmes
and Trevor Levere. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2000. 55-74. Print. p.64-65
 23
work to produce some astonishing results. Principe writes,
A. “After interpreting Starkey’s Marrow of alchemy for
advice regarding the exact proportions and method
of mixture and digestion, I used this material along
with gold to prepare a mixture that was sealed in a
“glass egg” and heated. The mixture soon swelled and
bubbled, rising like leavened dough, recalling (perhaps
not unwarrantably) the numerous references to fermen-
tation and leavening in mercurialist literature. Then it
became more pasty and liquid and covered with warty
excrescences, again perhaps accurately recalling the
“moorish low bog” that “toads keep.”37 After several
days of heating, the metallic lump took on a completely
new appearance, as illustrated in igure [24a]. Some
today might call this a dendritic fractal, but I think most
onlookers would refer to it irst as a tree.”38
he resemblance of Principe’s description to the
T Philalethes tracts I quoted above is remarkable. It would
seem that with these results Principe has found the evidence
needed to dismiss the Jungian interpretation. Principe
certainly thinks so,
“Thus, we come to the surprising turn that these
very same repeated images – which lead Jung to his
psychological interpretation of alchemy and
lead the enlightenment writers and, more
recently, [science historians] to their rejection
B. of alchemy as serious experimentalism –
may actually be (at least, in some cases) not
only artifacts of, but arguments in favor of the
reality and reproducibility of experimen-
tal programs carried out by Stone-seeking
alchemists. Of course, I agree that the choice
of image is closely bound up with a variety
of cultural factors, philosophical, theological,
artistic, experiential, and so forth, but all
I contend is that the admittedly culturally
inluenced metaphorical clothing, no matter
how bizarre, may (in more than a few cases)
cover a solid body of repeated and repeatable
observations of laboratory results”39
Figure 24, Two Alchemical Trees. A, Apparatus and Reproducablity
in Alchemy p.69. B, “Miscellanea d’acheimia” MS Ashburnham 1166
(14th century) Florence, Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana.
Principe uses B to argue that alchemical imagery has its root in objec-
ive physical processes by comparing it to the coumpund he produced,
A. Jung uses B in his work as evidence for the collecive unconscious.
He labels the igure Adam, and also as Materia Prima. Adam is the
irst mater, and as such he is dead and without a soul. The spark of
life from heaven can be seen in Adams let hand. The light enlivens
his body and converts it to the Philosophers Stone. The link between
sexual generaion is and the Philosophers Stone is exceedingly clear in
this image. Both authors explain certain qualiies of the drawing, but
only by synthesizing the two veiws can the symbols be fully compre-
37
Philalethes, Exposition upon the first six gates..., in Ripley Reviv’d p.65 hended
38
Principe, Lawrence M. «Apparatus and Reproducibility in Alchemy.” p.69-70
39
Idem p.70
 24
rincipe is aware that the images possess depth and complexity beyond their chemical reproduc-
P ibility, but it is beyond his scope to do anything but label them as cultural factors. What he sees as
a dismissal of the Jungian interpretation I see as a revelation that alchemy was far more intricate than
most academics to date have ever imagined. I think Principe takes too narrow a view when he relegates
the function of imagery to metaphorical clothing, but doing so has some historical merit, because it
allows alchemy to be viewed in the greater context of natural philosophy, rather than being dismissed
as the study of occult magic. Principe concludes his paper with a strong argument for continuity,
We are not justiied in disconnecting “alchemy” from “chemistry” on the basis of a radically
differing valuation or of involvement in laboratory experimentation. Indeed, if we cannot
make such a disconnection, we must look even more closely at the whole of early alchemical/
chemical thought and practice and at the evolving role and method of laboratory practice
over a long period of “chymical” history, free from the obscuring shadows of untenable
interpretations of alchemy.40
his continuity argument is in my opinion the most important idea to come out of the new historiog-
T raphy. It forces us to expand our view of science beyond its original boundaries. For me, it hints at
the possibility that the chymistry of the past might become the chymistry of the future. Although they
are reluctant to explore the actual meaning of religions symbolism in early modern natural philosophy,
Newman and Principe do an excellent job showing that that spirituality had an inluence on early
modern thinkers that cannot be ignored if historical accuracy is to be maintained. They write,
Seventeenth-century “alchemy” or “chemistry” was not inherently and essentially any more
necessarily linked to religious interests than other contemporaneous natural philosophical subjects.
It is nineteenth and twentieth-century interpretations of alchemy which stress this linkage as a distin-
guishing characteristic of alchemy. This linkage would not have been considered essential before the
middle of the eighteenth-century; indeed, the occult revivals which so transformed perceptions of
alchemy were themselves born partly
from a reaction against Enlighten-
ment rationalism and secularization.
“Alchemy,” as a ield which “died”
before the widespread seculariza-
tion of the sciences, preserves in its
written remains all the marks and
expressions of pre-Enlightenment
piety, and thus when laid alongside
the secularized descendants of early
modern physics, astronomy, and
other sciences, it naturally appears
more closely linked to theological
and spiritual preoccupations. But
the work of the current generation of
historians of science has fully shown
that theological considerations were
fundamental to all branches of early
modern natural philosophy. Thus, a
comparison between early modern
alchemy and other branches of
contemporaneous natural philosophy
(rather than contemporary science)
indicates far less distinction on the Figure 25, Atalanta Fugiens, Emblema XXXII, De Secreis Natura, , Michael Maier, 1617
The inscripion roughly reads, “The coral grows under water and hardens in the air into
score of theological preoccupations the stone.” In this image we again see the idea that the stone is made by unifying all
than previously thought.41 the elements together. Note the life giving wind in the upper let corner, as well as
the striking resemblance the Philosopher’s coral stone bears to Principe’s compound in
40 Figure 24a.
Idem p.71
41
Principe, Lawrence M. “Reflections on Newton’s Alchemy in Light of the New Historiography of Alchemy.” Newton and Newtonianism: New Studies.
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 2004. 205-19. Print. p.214
 25
ecognizing the ubiquity of religious concerns in early modern natural philosophy is incredibly
R important. By blurring the lines between alchemy and chemistry, the lines between modern
science and natural philosophy come into stark relief. If chymistry is really the best word to describe
the exploration of matter, what happened to all the chymists? Why did they turn into chemists? What
was lost during that transformation, and what was gained? It has never been my intention to segregate
alchemy from chemistry as the early scientists did three centuries ago. On the contrary, my goal is to
point at that such segregation exists, and to provide hints at how we might bridge the gap. Alchemy
has a breadth of scope to which our modern science pales in comparison. Alchemists were not solely
concerned with the palpable physical world that lay before them; they were also exploring the world
of spirit that lay beyond the realm of imagination. If science could explore that realm in the past, why
can’t it today? Newman and Principe have cracked opened the door to a much broader deinition of
what science is. Rather than emphasize where I disagree with them, I want to continue their work,
break open that door, and radically redeine what science could be in the future. Principe’s conclusion
to his article Alchemy Restored speaks to this issue and is worth quoting at length,
“Alchemy’s exile resulted from a conscious redrawing of the boundaries of “science,” and the
modern resistance to assertions of alchemy’s importance came from proponents of a narrow view
of what counted as science. This view was shaped by eighteenth-century rhetoric and enhanced by
nineteenth and early twentieth-century positivism, progressivism, and a priori or normative philo-
sophical or political formulations
about science. Alchemy represented
the “other,” a convenient foil against
which chemistry or science in
general could be set off. Alchemy’s
estrangement exempliies how
science does not always develop by
means of cold reason or demonstra-
ble experiment. Transmutational
alchemy, viliied by declamation
rather than disproved by demon-
stration, was ostracized for the
sake of professional expedience at a
time in which there was no way to
know that its goals were physically
unobtainable. Chemists of the day
had the problem of their social status
and reputation to solve, and the
public sacriice of transmutational
alchemy was the way they chose to
solve it—“cleansing” their ield and
deining themselves as reputable by
marking out a disreputable other.
An analogous dynamic explains
the antagonism of some twentieth-
century historians and scientists
toward claims for alchemy’s
Figure 26, Kepler’s Platonic Solid model of the Solar System, 1597 importance and its connection to
The relaionship between alchemy and chemistry is mimicked by the relaionship between major igures. They were invested
astronomy and astrology. Johannes Kepler believed he could ind perfecion in the cosmos in a particular foundation myth
and tried to map the orbits of the planets to circumscribed platonic solids. By remarkable of science. To maintain it, they
coincidence, the error between the actual observed orbits and the geometric circumscrip-
ions was less than 10%. Kepler’s religious relaionship with the cosmos is evident in other
needed alchemy to be “something
ways. His posthumously published book Somnium documents a dream where a student other,” something in opposition
of Tycho Brahe is transported to the moon by a sorcerer and from the lunar landscape is to which modern, rational, experi-
able to conirm the Copernican system. Somnium has been referred to as the irst work of mental science could deine itself
science icion and shows a remarkable synthesis on astrological and astronomical ideas. and upon which they could in
 26
turn deine themselves. Hence
the intensely personal nature of
some of their attacks. There was
no place for alchemy in accounts
of the canonized heroes of modern
science. A similar incredulity or
dismissal (and often by the same
individuals) sometimes greeted
the fact that religion was a crucial
motivating force behind the
Scientiic Revolution and that our
heroes from the period were almost
invariably committed Christians.
Over the past ifty years, insistence
on the importance of alchemy (and
theology) has broadened our disci-
pline’s vision and enhanced our
understanding of the ever evolving
thing we call science.
Alchemy’s exclusion illustrates
strategic redeinitions of science,
Figure 27, Aurora Consurgens,
A black angel stands upon a charred world as she rips herself in two. while its rehabilitation points to
the contextual nature of those
deinitions. One gift offered by the history of science is the recognition that science is a far messier
process than simple models, wishful thinking, or programmatic philosophies will allow. It collects
elements from unexpected sources and synthesizes them in unexpected and unpredictable ways.
It is never a mechanical or impersonal process—nor would we want it to be. While the laws of
nature exist independently of us, the ways we choose to conceive of them, to explore or not to
explore them, to describe or not to describe them—that is to say, science—is a very human affair,
illed with all the complexities and simplicities, errors and insights, pettiness and nobility that
customarily attend human activity. And, to be sure, alchemy forms an important part of that
story.42
he inal paragraph is one of the most beautiful and unique descriptions of the interaction of science
Tand humanity that I have come across, but what I want to emphasize in this quote is how Principe’s
rhetoric describing the differentiation of alchemy from science unconsciously parallels the Gnostic
Pleroma that I used as an introduction to alchemical theory. I think we can use alchemical philosophy
itself to deine how alchemy should be viewed from and integrated into our modern perspective. The
fundamental alchemical belief, stretching from Hermes to Philalethes, was that the uniication of opposites
leads to perfection. Alchemy was not about rational exploration of matter. It was not about attaining
enlightenment. It was about the interplay between those two goals; about merging the material with the
spiritual worlds. I ind it almost laughable to have read so many scholarly articles arguing that alchemy
was or wasn’t scientiic; is or isn’t spiritual, when it seems so obvious to me that it was and is both. Like
the twin Caducean Snakes entwined around Mercury’s rod, so alchemy can only be understood when
both its spiritual and rational practices are taken into account. This concept seems so central to me, that
I am often surprised when it isn’t shared. Even with their broad and dynamic redeinition of science, the
new historiographers still display a profound distaste for mysticism. In one paper they write,
“Finally, the casual equation … of alchemy with “mysticism,” even to the point of calling
alchemy “mystic chemistry” – a conlation which is so odd and so thoroughly annoying to
informed modern readers – undoubtedly springs from an acquaintance only with nineteenth-
century occultist constructions rather than with seventeenth century primary sources.”43

42
Principe, Lawrence M, Alchemy restored p.311-312
43
Principe, Lawrence M. “Reflections on Newton’s Alchemy in Light of the New Historiography of Alchemy.” p.212
 27
his is the quote against which I must differentiate myself and single out ‘the other’ so that my
identity may be more clear. I am an informed modern reader and I am very well acquainted
with seventeenth century primary sources. I do not ind calling alchemy mystic chemistry a
thoroughly annoying conlation. Quite the contrary, I think it is one of the best descriptions of
alchemy I have come across so far. In all my research I have come across zero evidence which indicates
that alchemy should not be correlated with mysticism and much evidence that would make mysticism
a deining characteristic of alchemy instead. Newman and Principe should not be ignored, and perhaps
mysticism is better assigned as a deining characteristic of all early modern natural philosophy rather
than of alchemy per say, but that simply expands the issue onto a larger playing ield. Where did
mysticism go? The new historiographers approach the question, but they never quite reach the point of
producing what I believe to be the correct answer. They recognize at least that alchemy’s relegation had
nothing to do with its content. Principe writes, “The banishment of chrysopoeia—increasingly called
“alchemy” in the early eighteenth century—from respectable chemistry remains a topic of study. Yet
it is clear that developments in the understanding of nature had little to do with it.”44 He expresses a
similar idea in another paper, “The “otherness” of alchemical texts rests, then, more on their modes of
expression than on their modes of laboratory work.”45 Thus it was not what alchemy was saying, but
how alchemy was saying it that was the problem. From my perspective in this paper, the segregation
of spirituality from science came from thinkers who were uncomfortable with the use of symbolism
and mysticism as methods of explaining reality. A profound discomfort with religion and metaphor in
general has been perpetuated and expanded by the entire scientiic community over the course of its
brief lifetime. Even Principe and Newman, who most view as defenders of a more holistic interpreta-
tion of alchemy, cannot bring themselves to assign meaning to alchemical imagery outside of a physical
reality. In arguing for alchemy’s methodological rigor, the historiographers have taken the position
of downplaying it’s symbolic and religions aspects, stressing their importance mainly
as evidence for laboratory reproducibility that have no inherent value
on their own. They seek to explain alchemical images as “metaphorical
clothing,” and feel that once that clothing is removed, alchemy’s rightful
place in the history of natural philosophy can be revealed,
and the practice can be rescued from being ostracized
as something occult. But throughout their argument,
metaphor is something in the way of the truth that
needs to be removed. It is an aesthetic coating under
which meaning is hidden, not a means of expression
that has meaning of its own. Newman writes of the
history of alchemy in the late middle ages that, “The
increasingly picturesque language of alchemy
represented a real turning away from academic
discourse,”46 as if picturesque language and
academic discourse were mutually exclusive.
Metaphor is simply not seen as a valuable
mode of expression, at best it functions only
as a tool. The authors write that, “In all these
interactions of alchemy with spirituality, it
is clear that alchemy functions as a source
of tropes and imagery for rhetorical
embellishment or didactic exempliica-
tion rather than as an inherently spiritual Figure 28, The Greene Lyon Devouring the Sun, Stadtbibliothek Vadiana, St. Gallen
Here raw animony ore, the greene lyon, draws in vivifying ætherial inluences
exercise which elevates the practitioner symbolized by the sun, and emits Philosophical Mercury, whose vitalisic, menstrual
by some esoteric illumination.”47 Or, in nature is symbolized by blood.
44
Principe, Lawrence M, Alchemy restored p.306
45
Principe, Lawrence M. “Apparatus and Reproducibility in Alchemy.” p.71
46
Newman, William R. “Decknamen or Pseudochemical Language?” p.162
47
Principe, Lawrence M., and William R. Newman. “Some Problems with the Historiography of Alchemy.” Secrets of Nature: Astrology and Alchemy in Early
Modern Europe. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2001. 385-431. Print. p.398
 28
another example, “What may have appeared at irst to be a naïve case of hylozoism turns out to be 48

a deliberate choice of metaphor.”49 But what is hylozoism but a deliberate choice of metaphor? The
meaning of alchemy cannot rest only in its raw content. As Principe wrote, alchemy’s “otherness”
stems from its modes of expression, rather than what it was expressing. A vitalistic mode of expression
imparts just as much meaning to an alchemical text as any chemical procedure encoded within it. The
fact that the alchemists used vitalistic metaphors is the only evidence needed to prove that alchemy
contained implicit vitalistic philosophies.
n alchemy we see a system in which parallel truths on multiple levels of meaning can exist simul-
I taneously. Symbols provide the medium in which disparate aspects of reality, internal, external,
objective, subjective, spiritual and material, can all ind expression and comprehension. I see symbolism
as a topic deserving study in its own right, and I am
fascinated by the potential symbolism has to affect scientiic
thought. The history of religion shows how humanity has
universally used symbols to make statements about the
unknown50 and I think that symbolism could enable
scientists too to make statements about the immaterial, the
unknowable, and the ininite. Our modern positivist
perspective tells us that the scientiic method can say
nothing about the question of spirit, in the same way that
Newton could say nothing about the cause of gravity.
From a scientiic standpoint, something that cannot be
observed does not exist. But if our scientiic methodology
prevents us from making statements about spirit, perhaps
that methodology needs to be expanded. As Principe said,
the laws of nature exist independently of us, but our
expression of them is an entirely human affair. When
constructing our models of reality we need to be concerned
not only with their accuracy and predictive power but also
their ability to be comprehended and accepted by a vital
human mind. Models must have two components in order
for them to be considered Truth. To be True, the model
must be correct, but it must also be meaningful. It is correct
to say that the force of gravity = , but it is much more
meaningful to say that gravity is a universal force that
connects every particle in the universe with every other. A
scientiic law describing a geometric relationship is useless
without comprehension, and a religious metaphor saying
we are all connected is useless without a medium for its
action. Alchemy is notable because it considers both halves
of Truth when expressing its theories.
he new historiographers have done an admirable
T
job dispelling some major myths about the nature
Figure 29, Aroura Consugens of alchemy. They have shown conclusively that alchemy
In the stage of putrefacion, the black crow rips the two was deeply linked to laboratory practice and chemistry;
halves of the hermaphrodite appart. so deeply linked in fact, that both disciplines should
rightfully be called chymistry. But by accepting chymistry as part of natural philosophy, they reveal
a deeper question: How does natural philosophy differ from modern science? While the difference
between alchemy and chemistry may be a modern one with little historical validity, the fact remains
48
Hylozoism, according to Wikipedia, “is the philosophical point of view that all matter (including the universe as a whole) is
in some sense alive. This may include the view that “inanimate” matter has latent powers of abiogenesis, a widely held position
in the scientific community.” Throughout the paper, I will usually refer to hylozoic alchemical philosophies as vitalism.
49
Idem p.413
50
For the use of symbolism in cosmology see Campbell, Joseph. The Hero with a Thousand Faces. New York, NY: Meridian, 1956. Print.
 29
that from my modern perspective I look back upon the history and see a chymical practice with philos-
ophies very different from the modern ones I grew up learning. And in some of those philosophies, far
from the apparent gibberish many academics see, I see wisdom. It is important to note how remarkable
an idea it is that it is possible to draw wisdom out of alchemy at all. No one would read a modern
chemistry book and say they became wise from exploring its contents. They would learn chemistry,
not wisdom. But the idea that there was true, genuine wisdom to be found in alchemy, passed down
from the ancients, was widespread. Likewise, there was a notion of vitalism that pervaded virtually
every alchemical work. All matter was alive, be it metals vegetating in the ground or planetary Gods
orbiting the cosmos. All matter was alive because all matter contained spirit. Determining the nature
between matter and it’s spirit was the fundamental quest of alchemy. Zozimos of Panopolis (~300A.D.)
wrote that alchemy is “the composition of waters, movement, growth, embodying and disembody-
ing, drawing the spirits from bodies and bonding the spirits within bodies.”51 Very few things can be
said about all alchemists universally, but I can say this with conidence: As a whole, not only did the
alchemists believe that spirit existed, they also believed that it had properties, potentially material
properties, which could be observed and measured. This belief in spirit had a remarkable effect on
Newton’s work, which I inally feel ready to approach. Throughout my argument, I have hinted at
what effects a vitalistic interpretation could have on modern science. This has been one of my main
goals all along; I have been using alchemy as a medium to make that argument more clear. In the rest of
the paper, I will use Newton’s natural philosophy: his alchemy, his religion, and his physics combined,
as a medium of much greater idelity (a medium of increasing subtlety, to use Newton’s terminology)
to show how a vitalistic interpretation affected Newtonian science, which will make its potential effects
on modern science much more clear.

Figure 30,
Aroura Consugens
On the right, the Sun
and the Moon Batle
each other on lyon
and griin. On the let, an exposed woman is surrounded
by the zodiac. Much of the sense of what alchemy was can
be gleaned from the aestheics of illuminated manuscripts.
I am oten struck by how beauiful they are. I have tried
to mimic the feeling of a manuscript somewhat with the
formaing and illuminaions in this paper. Many of the
illuminated leters at the beginning of secions were pulled
directly from Royal Society reports.

51
“Zosimos of Panopolis.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation,
 30
newton’s alcHemy
here are a bundle of six interrelated ideas of varying scopes surrounding Newton’s alchemy
1

which I wish to explain, describe, or prove. The largest, which I have already argued in
some detail, is that science needs spirituality in order to make meaning out of the unknown.
Something is missing in our current methodology, a spark, spirit, symbol, or metaphor,
that keeps our thinking stuck in the realm of the knowable. Another, smaller idea, is that
alchemy had that living spark. To further that idea I will attempt to describe is how a subtle change in
interpretation could help us regain spirit in modern science. A parallel idea is that alchemy theorized
a vitalistic interpretation of the cosmos. The world the alchemists lived in was suffused in spirit, and
the recognition of that spirit allowed them to produce theories of matter which, although they pale in
predictive power when compared to our matter theories today, had far more theological meaning than
any p orbital. Newton speciically was looking for deep theological meaning in his theories. So, the next
idea is that Newton saw natural philosophy as a way of restoring true religion. The last ideas contain
some jargon that may not hold much meaning at the moment. They are that the alchemical notion
of an active principle allowed Newton
to theorize action at a distance, action
without mechanism; and that these
alchemical active principles eventually
evolved into our modern notion of
fundamental forces.
’ll start with the idea that Newton
Isaw natural philosophy as a way
of restoring true religion. Proving
that idea will lead nicely to all the
others. This is one of the few aspects
of Newton’s thought that I believe
actually is objectively provable. Ill
provide quotes of Newton’s writing,
as well as modern and early modern
scholars expressing similar views. It’s
relatively strait forward to prove, and
quite beautiful. After that things will
quickly get a lot more messy.
et’s begin the way the Principia
Figure 31, Atalanta Fugiens, Emblema I, De Secreis Natura, , Michael Maier, 1617
L
began in 1687, with an ode by
The inscripion roughly translates to, “He carried the wind in his womb.” This image
Sir Edmond Halley. Halley’s ode was
shows a unique version of the hermaphrodite, not as two conjoined bodies, but as a
deity with both male and female qualiies.
written as a sort of introduction to the
Principia. While its devoid of any scientiic content, its metaphorical meaning could not be clearer. The
irst few lines of the ode are quoted below,
Behold the pattern of the heavens, and the balances of the divine structure;
Behold Jove’s calculation and the laws
That the creator of all things, while he was setting the beginning of the world, would
not violate;
Behold the foundations he gave to his works.
Heaven has been conquered and its innermost secrets are revealed;
1
Six is really just an arbitrary number. There are hundreds of ideas that I want to explain that split off from each other like
fractal tree limbs. But 6 is a good place to start. These six ideas are the trunks of the tree I suppose.
 31
The force that turns the outermost orbs around is no longer hidden.
The Sun sitting on his throne commands all things
To tend downward toward himself, and does not allow the chariots of the heavenly
bodies to move
Through the immense void in a straight path, but hastens them all along
In unmoving circles around himself as center.2
hink about how powerful a statement it is to claim that heaven has been conquered and its in-
T nermost secrets are revealed. Just who exactly does Halley think Newton is? Today, scientists
don’t reveal the secrets of heaven, prophets do. But in 1687 a natural philosopher was a kind of prophet.
Also note the kind of cosmos Halley is prophesizing. The sun has a throne on which he sits. The heav-
enly bodies are chariots. Halley was one on the most
famous astronomers who ever lived; he knew per-
fectly well the sun was a star made of matter. But
that knowledge did not prevent him from anthropo-
morphizing him as a king. Halley’s ode shows a re-
markable interplay between reason and faith. Heav-
en has a pattern, a divine structure with laws, which
were calculated…by Jove! Halley saw the Principia
as revelation. His view of the role science is to play
in our lives differs fundamentally from the modern
one, but I do not believe he was mistaken. Newton
unveiled the force that moves the outermost orbs.
Think about that for a moment. The theological im-
plications of the law of gravity are not insigniicant.
Newton was well aware of them; he viewed his dis-
covery of gravity as discovering the word of God. In
one of his private theological manuscripts he wrote,
“So then the irst religion was the most rational of
all others till the nations corrupted it. For there is no
way (without revalation) to come to the knowledge
of a Deity but by the frame of nature”3 In this quote
we see Newton adhering strictly to the doctrine of
Prisca Sapientia. The wisdom of the ancients was
imparted to them via revelation, which was quickly
corrupted. Only so much of the original wisdom was
passed down in the scriptures. What knowledge of
the deity the scriptures could not produce had to be
Figure 32, Title page of the Principia , 1728 ediion
I took this photo at the Wilson rare book library at UNC Chapel Hill,
learned by examining the frame of nature. Thus sci-
with my smart phone, in an air condiioned room under lorescent ence and religion played complementary roles for
lighing, while a librarian watched me and asked me to turn the Newton; either could be used as an avenue towards
pages slower so that I did not damage the text. I like to imagine how
the printer in 1728 would have reacted, ater lining up the metal
truth. Newton thought that true religion was ratio-
typeface and pulling a lever to print each page, if he could have seen nal; scientiic even. These two opposites, reason and
me photographing it with a silicon chip in a library across the ocean faith, were uniied in Newton, and both were uti-
almost 300 years later. I wonder if Newton ever dreamed of the
technological innovaions that the scieniic method laid out in the
lized in his quest.
Principia would produce.
2
Newton, Isaac, and I. Bernard Cohen. The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy. Berkeley, Calif. [u.a.: Univ. of California, 1999.
Print. p.379
3
Newton, Isaac.Yahuda MS Var 1, Newton MS 41, F.7. MS. Jewish National and University Library, Jerusalem. I found this quote in Dobbs, The Janus
Faces of Genius, p. 151
 32
he last sentence I quoted of the Ode is also worth noting. “The Sun sitting on his throne commands
T all things to tend downward toward himself, and does not allow the chariots of the heavenly bod-
ies to move through the immense void in a straight path, but hastens them all along in unmoving circles
around himself as center.” There again is the interplay between scientiic and religious language that
I noted above,4 but, in addition, the orbital struc-
ture Halley is describing itself implicitly contains
the dichotomy. Of course Halley is describing the
correct orbital geometry, but he goes one step fur-
ther to imbue that geometry with meaning. Halley
is describing the prytaneum, which B.J.T. Dobbs
provides an excellent description of in her book The
Janus Faces of Genius,
““The structure by which the ancients repre-
sented the world in the most ancient form of
religion, Newton said, was, “a ire for offering
sacriices [that] burned perpetually in the
middle of a sacred place.”5 This arrangement,
which Newton called a Prytanæum, symbol-
ized the cosmos, with the ire representing
the sun at the center and the sanctiied space
around the central ire representing the entire
world which was “the true and real temple of
god.”6
“The whole heavens they recconed to be the
true & real Temple of God & therefore that
a Prytanæum might deserve the name of
his Temple they framed it so as in the ittest
manner to represent the whole systeme of
the heavens. A point of religion then which
nothing can be more rational.””7
or Newton, the Copernican system wasn’t sim-
F ply the way things were, it was also the most
grand and majestic temple honoring God to ever
be conceived by human kind. The universe itself Figure 33, Metamorphosis Planetarium, John de Monte Snyders, 1663
was an indicator of God’s presence and grandeur, Perhaps this image, or something similar is what Newton had in mind
and evidence of God was to be looked for rational- when speaking of the Prytanæum, or what Halley had in mind when
wriing about Jove’s calculaion and laws.
ly in all natural phenomena. Newton wrote in his
general scholium to the Principia that, “To treat of God from phenomena is certainly a part of natural
philosophy.”8 For Newton, science and spirituality were not segregated; they were one and the same.

S
o, now, the idea that Newton saw natural philosophy as a means of restoring true religion
has been covered. It is evident that theological concerns were of primary importance to
Newton as he practiced natural philosophy. But what exactly were his religious views? What
did he think “true religion” was? Newton’s most famous statements on God likely occur in
the general scholium to the Principia. There he writes,
4
Compare the sun on his throne commanding heavenly chariots to bodies moving through the void on a strait path.
5
Newton, Isaac. N.d. MS Yahuda MS Var. 1, Newton MS 17.3 Ff.8-10. National Library of Israel, Jerusalem, Israel.
6
Dobbs, Betty Jo Teeter. The Janus Faces of Genius:The Role of Alchemy in Newton’s Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991. Print. p.151
7
Newton, Isaac. Yahuda MSVar 1, Newton MS 41, F.7. N.d. MS. Jewish National and University Library, Jerusalem. f.6r
8
Newton, The Principia, p.943
 33
“He rules all things, not as the world soul but as the lord of all. And because of his domin-
ion he is called Lord God Pantokrator. [Παντοκράτωρ, or Universal Ruler] For “god” is a
relative word and has reference to servants, and godhood is the lordship of God, not over
his own body as is suppose by those for whom God is the world soul, but over servants.
The supreme God is an eternal, ininite, and absolutely perfect being; but a being, however
perfect, without dominion is not the Lord God”9
uch intense focus on lordship and dominion might seem a bit archaic to our modern sensibilities,
S but we should not pass it off as a worthless expression of pre-enlightenment piety. Deeper mean-
ing can be found in this description if we take into account Newton’s anti-trinitarianism10. Newton
was clearly a deeply religious man, but like his views on mechanics, his religious views were not at
all mainstream. Newton’s insistence on God’s dominion came from a desire to differentiate him from
Gods source of action in the world: Christ. For Newton, God could not the world soul because in al-
chemy spirit and matter were linked, and God needed to be distinctly separate from the material world
he created. The world needed a soul, and it had one, Christ. God instead was an entity more akin to the
Pleroma than Christ was.11 The Pleroma is the source
of all, but creation has this property of created-ness
which differentiates it from nothingness. The Pleroma
transcends creation because it embodies the properties
of uncreation as well. And so God was omniscient, and
was everywhere, but in a sense he was also nowhere.
This idea perhaps places Newton’s words about God’s
resistance in the general scholium into their proper con-
text. Newton writes,
“In him all things are contained and move*, but
he does not act on them nor they on him. God ex-
periences nothing from the motion of bodies; the
bodies feel no resistance from God’s omnipres-
ence.
*This opinion was held by the ancients: for
example, by Pythagoras…Virgil…Jeremi-
ah 23.23,24. Moreover, idolaters imagined
that the sun, moon, and stars, the souls of
men, and other parts of the world were
Figure 34, Jupiter Enthroned, Yale Medical Library parts of the supreme god and so were to be
Newton’s drawing with his copy of John de Monte-Snyder’s worshiped, but they were mistaken.”12
Metamorphosis Planetarium. Note how Jove plays a unifying
t was important for Newton to provide a metaphys-
role similar to Hermes Trismegestus. The Sun and the Moon are
linked through his arms. Under his feet are two large animony I ical reason why God, in his omniscience, should
symbols (Earth) that contain the other six elements and celes-
ial bodies. These are all connected through his body to an
not impede the motion of bodies. Resistance of bodies
animony symbol at the crown of his head. in the void of space was one of Newton’s chief concerns,
9
Idem p.940.
10
Newton was an Arian, i.e. a follower of Arius (250-336 A.D.) an influential Christian priest from Alexandria, Egypt who was
pronounced a heretic for his views. Arianism is not to be confused with Aryanism which formed the core of Nazi racial ideol-
ogy. Rather, Arianism is the belief that the holy trinity is hierarchical. There was a time before time when God created Christ.
The son is subordinate to the father. Christ is Logos, the word of God, but he is not the omniscient lord himself.
11
I do not mean to say here that Newton’s conception of God was identical to that of the Pleroma, or that Newton was even
aware of the Gnostic concept. Rather, I make the comparison because Newton was clearly influenced by neoplatonic writers,
and his conception of God bears important similarities to the Pleroma that may not be immediately evident to the general
reader.
12
Newton, The Principia, p.941-942 The footnote is from the first edition.
 34
and we will see how his thoughts on divine resistance affected his theory of gravity later in the paper.
Newton wanted to make very clear that the properties of the Pantokrator were not to be confused with
the properties of the world; such things as the sun, moon, stars and souls. For the interaction of God
with the world, there needed to be a medium, and that medium was Christ. There is one phrase that
Newton repeats in his theological manuscripts that makes Christ’s role as a medium exceedingly clear,
“God doth nothing by himself which he can do by others.”13
[Christ] is said to have been in the beginning with God & that all things were made by him
to signify that as he is now gone to prepare a place for the blessed so in the beginning he pre-
pared & formed this place in which we live, & thenceforward governed it. ffor the supreme
God doth nothing by himself which he can do by others.14
od was present before Christ, and at the beginning of time Christ was God’s irst and only cre-
Gation . It was then Christ that acted in the world and created it. The will of God was enacted
15

through Christ. The most important idea here is that God works through mediums. There is a signii-
cant isomorphism between God working through Christ, and gravity working through the æther. In
order to make this isomorphism suficiently clear, Newton’s thoughts on miracles need to be eluci-
dated. In one of his theological manuscripts he wrote,
For Miracles are so called not because they are
the works of God but because they happen
seldom & for that reason create wonder. If
they should happen constantly according
to certaine laws imprest upon the nature of
things, they would be no longer wonders
↑or miracles↓ but might be considered in
Philosophy as a part of the Phenomena of
Nature notwithstanding that the cause of
their causes might be unknown to us. And
Occult qualities have been exploded not
because their causes are unknown to us but
because by giving this name to the speciic
qualities of things, a stop has been put to all
enquiry into the causes ↑of their qualities↓
as if they could not be known because ↑ the
great Philosopher ↓ Aristotle↑ was not able to
ind them.”16
ssentially, what Newton is saying is that the Figure 35, Bartholomaeus Anglicus, De proprietaibus rerum, 1495
E ultimate unknown cause of everything is God,
By John Trevisa, Westminster: Wynken de Worde
Here Christ is depicted as the mediator of the four elements
or to be more sensitive to his Arianism, Christ. We

13
This phrase appears twice in Yahuda MS 15.5, on f.96v and 97.r
14
Newton Ms. 15.5. MS Yahuda MS Var. 1. National Library of Israel, Israel, Jerusalem f.97r
15
This sort of cosmology is not unique. In the Hindu creation myth there is a long succession of Gods, all stemming from the
eternal Brahman, or alternatively from Vishnu’s navel. Less anciently, J.R.R. Tolkien produced a similar cosmology in his epic
The Silmarilion. There Iluvatar in the time before time created the Valar, and they in turn created the world.
16
This quote seems to be related to the Leibniz-Clarke correspondence but was written by Newton. I took the quote is (and
the notes on it below) directly from Dobbs, Janus Faces of Genius, p. 230. Dobbs writes, “Lehigh University Libraries, Beth-
lehem, PA, Isaac Newton, “MS on Miracles,” verso (of its single page); all indication of Newton’s deletions omitted ... Arrows
up and down indicate Newton’s interlineations. The recto and part of the verso of this sheet arc concerned with Catherine
Barton’s inheritance from Lord Halifax.” This quote is also cited in McLachlan, H. Sir Isaac Newton Theological Manuscripts.
Liverpool: University, 1950. Print. p.17
 35
can ask as many why questions as we want, but we will only ind answers to how. Why does the earth
rotate around the sun? Because the force of gravity impels it to. Why does the force of gravity impel
it to? Because the strength of the force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between
the centers…Why does gravity obey that formula?...etc. We can describe how something works, but
ultimately not why. The only answer we can ever give to all our why questions is, “God did it; it’s
a miracle.” Carl Jung stated in The Red Book that,
“Magic happens to be precisely everything that
eludes comprehension.”17 There will always
be another why question, the causes of the
causes will always need to be found out, and
the unknown that eludes comprehension will
always lurk underneath. There will always be
concepts like ininity which are by deinition
incomprehensible. And so magic underlies
every aspect of reality because root causes
will always be unknowable. Recognizing this
fact produces a subtle shift in our deinition
of miracles. If root cause of everything is mi-
raculous, then existence is a constant, self-re-
newing miracle. Miracles need not be deined
by their rarity. By incorporating miracles
into the fabric of the universe, Newton made
God, or more correctly, his medium Christ,
an active participant in Creation. Christ was
not the deist’s watchmaker, who wound up
the world and let it tick away undisturbed.
No, every moment was mediated by Christ
and existed because God willed it to be so.
The only thing that differentiates miracle
from natural law is regularity. Miracles are
extraordinary exceptions to everyday life;
natural laws are equally unexplainable
phenomena that scientists have observed to
it into certain deined patterns. To translate
this idea into some theological jargon, Newton
is speaking to the balance between Gods absolute
Figure 36, Spiritus Mercurialis and ordained providence. Christ would be exercising
Here the Spirit of Mercury is his absolute providence when performing miracles, and
personiied as a grotesque dragon his ordained providence when upholding natural law. Newton

is emphasizing that he believes Christ’s ordained natural law to be just as active and dynamic as a
miracle. Although ordained natural law is predictable, it is not mechanical, and does not necessarily
require contact. Miracles make action at a distance possible. Newton takes great care here to point out
that unlike natural law, occult qualities do not it into predictable and deined patterns, or at least, no
effort is made to deduce them. He sets up Aristotle as a straw man who would interpret his message
to mean that everything was magic and incomprehensible. There is no special occult quality that keeps
the earth rotating around the sun, while another different quality that keeps the moon around the
earth, and a third which causes apples to fall to the ground. If this were the case, we could suficiently
explain the whole world by saying “It has a quality which makes it so.” But such an answer is clearly
unsatisfactory, and as Newton points out, puts a stop to all enquiry of the causes of qualities. It is far
17
Jung, C. G., and Sonu Shamdasani. The Red Book: Liber Novus. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2009. Print. p.313
 36
more true to say that all of the special qualities working on the earth, and the moon, and the apple, are
in fact the same quality working in a different context, because “Tis suitable with ininite wisdom not
to multiply causes without necessity.”18 Just because the ultimate cause is assuredly unknowable does
not mean that there are no patterns and reasons to be found.

N
ewton’s deinitions of miracle, natural law, and occult quality given here make his famous
discussion active principles and occult qualities in query 31 of The Opticks much more clear.
An important portion of that query is quoted at length below.
“It seems to me farther, that
these Particles have not only a Vis
intertiae, accompanied with such
passive Laws of Motion as naturally
result from that Force, but also that
they are moved by certain active
Principles, such as that of Gravity,
and that which causes Fermentation,
and the Cohesion of Bodies. These
[active] Principles I consider, not as
occult Qualities, supposed to result
from the speciick Forms of Things,
but as general Laws of Nature, by
which the Things themselves are
form’d; their Truth appearing to us
by Phaenomena, though their Causes
be not yet discover’d. For these are
manifest Qualities, and their Causes
only are occult. And the Aristotelians
gave the Name of occult Qualities,
not to manifest Qualities, but to such
Qualities only as they supposed to
lie hid in bodies, and to be unknown
Causes of manifest Effects: Such as
would be the Causes of Gravity, and Figure 37, Frontpeice of Museum Hermeicum Reformatum et Ampliicatum, 1678.
of magnetick and electrick Attractions, At the risk of sounding repeiive, note the pairs of opposites. Sun and Moon, igures
and of Fermentations, if we should above and underground, Fire and Water combine to make æther, four elements in
suppose that these Forces or Actions the corners. The central igure in red represents the Philosophers Stone.
arose from Qualities unknown to us, and uncapable of being discovered and made manifest.
Such occult Qualities put a stop to the Improvement of natural Philosophy, and therefore of
late Years have been rejected. To tell us that every Species of Things is endow’d with an occult
speciic Quality by which it acts and produces manifest Effects, is to tell us nothing: But to derive
two or three general Principles of Motion from Phaenomena, and afterwards to tell us how the
properties and Actions of all corporeal Things follow from those manifest Principles, would be
a very great step in Philosophy, though the Causes of those Principles were not yet discover’d:
And therefore I scruple not to propose the Principles of Motion above-mentioned, [Gravity, Fer-
mentation, Cohesion, Electrick and Magnetick attractions], they being of very general Extent,
and leave their causes to be found out.”19

18
Newton, Isaac. Dibner MSS 1031 B “Of Natures Obvious Laws and Processes inVegitation” N.d. MS. Dibner Library of the History of Science and Technol-
ogy, n.p. f.4r
19
Newton, Isaac. Opticks; Or, A Treatise of the Relections, Refractions, Inlections & Colours of Light. Based on the 4th Ed., London, 1730;. NewYork: Dover Publica-
tions, 1952. Print. p.401-402 [square brackets] are my own, for clarity.
 37
ewton used the term active principle in an alchemical context to refer to a property of matter that
N produces an effect. The term is found throughout his written work, although Query 31 is impor-
tant because it makes the relationship of active principles and natural laws exceedingly clear. On a very
simplistic level, Query 31 is the only text I need to prove my idea that the alchemical concept active
principles evolved into our modern idea of fundamental forces. The parallels are obvious. Newton cites
the active principles of ‘Gravity and magnetick and electrick attractions’ as ‘general Laws of Nature.’
He even calls them “Forces or Actions.” I’m sure that if Newton had been able to observe the Weak
force and the Strong force in his time, he would have labeled them as active principles too. But simply
proving that Newton correlated a modern term to an archaic one is not my intention. I want to empha-
size the difference between Newton’s idea of active principles and our modern conception of force, to
show where we might improve our science. The difference I see relates fundamentally to notions of
vitalism (or lack thereof). I will be expanding on this idea throughout the rest of the paper; proving that
alchemy was vitalistic, and that we should adopt that vitalism once more, is one of my major goals.
ewton’s active principles were, for lack of a better word, active. They were vital, they had life to
N them. The active principle Newton listed that is not one of our fundamental forces, fermentation,
is most telling of this difference. Fermentation was the alchemical stage after Putrefaction where the
dead matter in the lask began to bubble with life. Another term that Newton often used synonymously
with Fermentation was Vegetation, or the vegetable spirit. But the modern connotation of these words
does not encompass the scope of Newton’s use. For Newton, Fermentation was the source of all life
and growth, be it animal, vegetable or mineral. Much more about the vegetable spirit needs to be said,
as it is central to my ideas about vitalism, but for now I want to keep focusing on Query 31. The query
illuminates another major quality of active prin-
ciples in the line, “These [active] Principles I con-
sider, not as occult Qualities, supposed to result
from the speciick Forms of Things, but as general
Laws of Nature, by which the Things themselves
are form’d.” Newton is making a subtle causality
shift. Properties produce matter; matter does not
produce properties. He expressed a similar idea
in an earlier alchemical treatise. He wrote, “Tis
the ofice therefore of those grosser substances
to bee medium or vehicle in which rather then
upon which those vegetable substances perform
their actions.”20 It is similar to the difference be-
tween a physicist today saying, “electrons exert
electromagnetic force” and “electromagnetic force
is manifested in electrons.” Richard Westfall ex-
presses the idea nicely in his book, Never at Rest.
There he writes,
As it appears to me, Newton’s philosophy
of nature underwent a profound conversion
in 1679-80 under the combined inluence of
alchemy and the cosmic problem of orbital
mechanics, two unlikely partners which
made common cause on the issue of action at
Figure 38, Portrait of Isaac Newton, Never at Rest p.852 a distance. Insofar as he continued to speak
This portrait was sketched by William Stuckley when Newton was about
77. Note its cosmic and alchemical nature. Newton is held by Nature of particles of matter in motion, Newton
incarnate, seated upon the earth driting among the stars. remained a mechanical philosopher in some
20
Newton, Isaac. Dibner MSS 1031 B “Of Natures Obvious Laws and Processes inVegitation” f.5r
 38
sense. Henceforth, the ultimate
agent of nature would be for him
a force acting between particles
rather than a moving particle
itself--what has been called a
dynamic mechanical philosophy
in contrast to a kinetic.21
ewton was the irst to propose the
Nidea, still largely held today in
some form, that the ultimate agent of
nature is force. In Query 31, but also
more famously in his introduction to
the Principia, Newton essentially deines
natural philosophy as a quest to ind out
the fundamental forces of nature, “For
the basic problem of philosophy seems
to be to discover forces of nature from
the phenomena of motions and then to
demonstrate the other phenomena from
Figure 39, Atalanta Fugiens, Emblema XXIV, De Secreis Natura, , Michael Maier, 1617 these forces.” So then it is essential to
22

The inscripion roughly translates to, “The wolf was consumed, burned, and returned pay careful attention to what exactly
to life.” Note the dynamic interplay of opposites between the King burning the Wolf Newton conceives of as a force. In Que-
and the Wolf consuming the King. Also note the presence of Earth, Air, Fire and Water
in this image. ry 31 Newton diligently differentiates
active principles from occult qualities,
and in the quote on miracles I provided earlier Newton differentiates miracles from occult qualities on
exactly the same grounds. He even uses Aristotle as a foil in both cases. The similarity of the arguments
shows how much luidity there was between Newton’s theological and scientiic concerns. Natural
philosophy contained miracles. Occult qualities are to be shunned because the use of them puts a stop
to all inquiry. But shunning occult qualities does not mean we need to shun everything inexplicable,
incomprehensible, or magical. Quite the contrary, what at its root may be inexplicable, can, with care-
ful observation, be found to follow certain regular laws that manifest themselves at higher levels of
complexity than the original root why question. All natural laws might as well be considered miracles,
but that does not make them occult.
o expand this idea further, it is useful at this point to examine the implications that Newton’s ac-
T tive deinition of force has on the philosophical problem of free will. Determinism makes me un-
comfortable. The Cartesian analogy of the universe as a giant machine, a computer or clock that slowly
ticks away my fate, is useful for building technology like computers or clocks, but leaves me with a dull
grey taste in the back of my mouth. From the wrong perspective, a deterministic universe governed by
causality can suck all meaning out of life. What is the point of living if every smallest detail of existence
21
Westfall, Richard Samuel. Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton. Cambridge [etc.: Cambridge UP, 1980. Print. p.390.
Westfall expands on these ideas throughout his book. Elsewhere he writes, “In the mechanical philosophy, Newton had found
an approach to nature which radically separated body and spirit, eliminated spirit from the operations of nature, and explained
those operations solely by the mechanical necessity of particles of matter in motion. Alchemy, in contrast, offered the quint-
essential embodiment of all that mechanical philosophy rejected. It looked upon nature as life instead of machine, explained
phenomena by the activating agency of spirit, and claimed that all things are generated by the copulation of male and female
principles….[In alchemy Newton found an idea] that refused be reconciled with the mechanical philosophy. Where that phi-
losophy insisted on the inertness of matter, such that mechanical necessity alone determines its motion, alchemy asserted the
existence of active principles in matter as the primary agents of natural phenomena.” Westfall, Never at rest. p.299
22
Newton, The Principia, p.382
 39
is determined by an ininite series of causes and effects? Newton’s conception of active principles al-
lows us to sidestep this problem a bit. Christ did not set up an ininite row of dominoes at the beginning
of time just to sit back and watch them fall. He is not an absentee landlord. Rather, Christ is the gravity
actively pushing each domino down. He is present everywhere, making sure each and every moment
occurs exactly how it does. Newton wrote in the general scholium to the Principia that, “A God with-
out dominion, providence, and inal causes is nothing other than fate and nature”23 Clearly Newton
had something more dynamic than mechanical causality in mind when he conceived force in this way.
With this interpretation, the world is still deterministic and follows certain patterns and laws, but those
laws are perpetually actively manifesting themselves. This is the fundamental difference I see between
forces and active principles. Forces are static. They are ixed and rigid and as such they are conceptu-
ally removed from the phenomena which they describe. But an active principle is dynamic and vital.
It is the soul of the phenomena, not just a description of it. The rules are not separate from the ruled.
lright. Let’s pause for a second. Things have gotten a bit abstract and heady, and you’re
probably wondering how philosophizing about free will has anything to do with alchemy.
I’d like to use this juncture to take stock of exactly where we are in my argument. We’re
about half way. I’ve proven that Newton believed that natural philosophy was a method for
restoring true religion. While science and religion were not identical pursuits per say, they were pursu-
ing the same goal. I then went on to show how the union of natural law with miracle produces a highly
dynamic conception of force that differs from the modern one in its vitality and religious associations.
By quoting Query 31 I proved that force and active principles are rhetorically linked, but that linkage
still requires much more exploration. Essentially, by focusing on those words I was arguing that New-
ton saw semantic linkages between ideas that today hold fairly disparate meanings. The words force,
miracle, active principle, and spirit all served similar functions for Newton, although their context
varied. All four words were connected by Newton’s Arian views of Christ. Christ was perpetually in
the world, actively manifesting the will
of God. Christ was the medium through
which the divine and material worlds
interacted. But there was another me-
dium of great importance which linked
all those words together with Christ:
Æther. My inal ideas – that alchemy
was inherently vitalistic, that vitalism
allowed Newton to conceive of action at
a distance, and that our science would
improve if we readopted a vitalistic phi-
losophy – all hinge upon a close analy-
sis of Newton’s æther theories.
o, what exactly is æther? Æther has
Sa very long history in scientiic,
religious, and metaphysical contexts.
Its meaning has changed dramatically
over time, and one of the most dramatic
shifts occurred in the process of sciences
conversion from a Cartesian to Newto-
nian mechanical philosophy. Although
humankind has certainly had ætherial Figure 40, Atalanta Fugiens, Emblema XVII, De Secreis Natura, , Michael Maier, 1617
notions since before antiquity, the ori- The inscripion roughly translates to, “Four orbs of ire rule this great work.” This image
gin of our word æther comes from the shows clearly the idea that all four elements at their root are composed of æther.

23
Ibid 942
 40
Greek αiθήρ. Aiθήρ, also known as
Acmon, was one of the primordial el-
emental Greek gods, along with Earth,
Water, Air and Fire.24 His name means
light in ancient Greek. The irst person
to use æther in a metaphysical context
was Aristotle. Along with the four clas-
sical elements, there was the ifth ele-
ment, æther, which was quintessence.
For Newton, and other early atomists,
the Aristotelian elements corresponded
roughly to particle size. The elements
made up the spectrum of the alchemi-
cal pair of opposites gross and subtle,
which are roughly isomorphic to den-
sity, thick and thin, or big and small.
The best translation of the Aristotelian
elements into modern lexicon would
be that Earth, Water, Air, and Fire cor-
respond to the states of matter solid,
Figure 41, Atalanta Fugiens, Emblema XIX, De Secreis Natura, , Michael Maier, 1617
The inscripion roughly translates to, “If one of the four is killed, all will die.” Here, an liquid, gas and plasma. Thinking of the
alchemist ighing the four elements is reminded that they are all linked together at elements as states of matter explains the
their root through the æther. corpuscularian associations with densi-
ty; solids tend to be solid at room temperature because of their large particle size, and compounds with
smaller particles tend to be liquid or gas. Following this idea to its logical conclusion, if particle size
decreases with increasing subtlety, then æther, which is the subtlest matter of all, must have a particle
size of zero, or ininitesimally small. Viewing æther as a luid with ininitely small particle size allows
us to it some of its supposed alchemical properties into a modern context. Ininitesimal particle size
makes æther the ideal luid for the continuum hypotheses25, and it also makes æther the ideal medium
for alchemical interactions between matter and spirit.26 An æther of ultimate subtlety exists exactly on
the boundary between material and immaterial opposites. Newton deined it as, “spiritus corporalis
et corpus spirituale,”27 spiritual body and corporeal spirit. Æther, like Christ, mediates the interaction
between physical and divine. Ininitesimal particle size also its in quite nicely with the alchemical
postulate of the universality of matter. Newton theorized that all the varieties of matter were made of
gross corpuscles that adhered together in patterns based on active vegetative principles. Those gross
corpuscles were themselves concatenations of smaller corpuscles, which were in turn made up of even
smaller corpuscles, on and until the universal indivisible particle was reached. All matter was made up
of this same universal substance; variety was caused by the varying actions of the vegetable spirit. It
is easy to imagine why the alchemists would theorize that the universal matter was in fact æther. For
what else could be indivisible but the ininitely small? Newton expressed the idea that all mater came
from æther in 1675 in a letter to Oldenburg,

24
“Aether (mythology).” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation
25
Fluids are composed of molecules that collide with one another and solid objects. The continuum assumption, however,
considers fluids to be continuous. That is, properties such as density, pressure, temperature, and velocity are taken to be
well-defined at “infinitely” small points. “Fluid Mechanics.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation.
26
It also makes æther the ideal medium for my discussion of science and spirituality because meaningful statements about
æther can be made in so many different contexts. I love that I can talk about infinity, fluid mechanics, and spirit in the same
sentence. Æther is the perfect symbiosis of known and unknown.
27
Newton, Isaac. Praxis.
 41
“Perhaps the whole frame of nature may be nothing but various contextures of some certain
æthereal spirits, or vapours, condensed as it were by precipitation, much after the manner,
that vapours are condensed into water, or exhalations into grosser substances, though not
so easliy condensible; and after condensation wrought into various forms; at irst by the im-
mediate hand of the Creator; and ever since by the power of nature; which, by virtue of the
command, increase and multiply, become a complete imitator of the copies set her by the
protoplast. Thus perhaps may all things be originated from æther.28
t is important to note that Newton used æther in two distinct ways. In the quote above, æther is
I Prima Materia, out of which all matter can grow. What sparks and guides that growth is Christ,
enacting God’s will through the function of the vegetative spirit. But in some cases, the vegetative spirit
is equated with æther itself. For example, in one alchemical tract Newton writes,
This and only this is the vital agent
diffused through all things that
exist in the world.
And it is the mercurial spirit, most
subtle and wholly volatile, dis-
persed through all places.
This agent has the same general
method of operating in all things,
namely, excited to action by a
moderate heat, it is put to light by
a great one, and once an aggregate
has been formed, the agents irst
action is to putrefy the aggregate
and confound it into chaos. Then it
proceeds to generation.
And the particularities of its method
are many, according to the nature
Figure 42a, Æther vial, 2004
of the subject which it operates. Figure 42b, Æther vial, 2010
Today, æther is relegated to the For it accommodates itself to every nature. From ...inued In the game, as in alchemy,
realm of science icion and fantasy. metallic semen it generates gold, from human to capture æther in a vial is to
And yet it sill plays the metaphys- harness great power. Note how
ical role it always has. These images
semen men, etc. æther is depicted in the cards. It
are from a popular collecing card In the metallic form it is found most plentifully emits light, but it also lows like a
game, Magic the Gathering. cont... in Magnesia. luid. It is plasma, liquid light.
And from this one root came all species of metals.
And that in this order: Mercury, lead, tin, silver, copper, iron, gold. 29
n this quote, the vegetative spirit and æther are fused, and permeate all things that exist in the
I world. Æther mediates the various alchemical stages of transmutation; putrefaction, fermentation,
and so on. Not only that, æther was linked to Philosophical Mercury. This connection gives us a better
picture of what Philosophical Mercury ought to be. Philosophical Mercury was the root universal mat-
ter, so essentially it was æther than had been corporialized enough to be contained in a vial (Figure 42).
As such it was supposed to be exceedingly subtle and volatile, and run quicker than water or quick-
silver. This quote makes clear that Philosophical Mercury had deep meaning beyond chrysopoeian
contexts. It was the root not just of metallic growth but human growth. It was the vital agent diffused
through the world, everywhere and nowhere, its particles too subtle to actually be material, and just
subtle enough to connect matter to Christ. But I should be careful to point out that linking the æther
28
Newton, Isaac. “Hypothesis Explaining the Properties of Light.” The History of the Royal Society. Comp. Thomas Birch. Vol. 3. London: n.p., 1757.
247-305. Print.
29
Newton, Isaac. Keynes MS 12. 1675. MS. Kings College, Cambridge. ff 1v-2r
 42
to ininitesimals, while pedagogically and philosophically useful, is far too anachronistic to be taken
at face value. Æther theory was well established before Newton, and use of ininitesimals only became
common practice after his death. A more nuanced description of æther in the early modern period
would be that, while æther deinitely had both spiritual and material properties, its particle size and
the manner in which it interacted with matter was not at all well-deined. It seems to me that Newton’s
awareness of these issues, among others, (and his ability to utilize ininitesimals) is what caused him
to break with Cartesian æther theory, and to develop an æther theory of his own that permitted action
at a distance.
he Cartesian æther was conceived
T to solve a number of problems
plaguing celestial dynamics. The
doctrine of mechanical theory was
that all phenomena were produced
by particle to particle interactions.
A vacuum was impossible, and all
apparently empty space was illed with
exceedingly subtle ætherial particles
that transferred impact effects from one
place to another. Magnetic attraction
was caused by tiny screw shaped
particles being emitted from the magnet
and screwing into holes in the attracted
body. Celestial motion was caused by
vortices in the cosmic æther dragging
planets around with it in like a sailor
drowning in a whirlpool. The Cartesian
æther was decidedly corporeal, at least
in retrospective comparison to the æther
Newton developed in response. The Figure 43, Atalanta Fugiens, Emblema XLV, De Secreis Natura, , Michael Maier, 1617
The inscripion translates to, “The Sun and its shadow perfect the work.” The image
æther had to be corporeal in order for it and the inscripion make clear that the Philosophers Stone is the world and is to be
to interact with the planets; collisions of atained by unifying light and dark. Note also how the rays of light suggest an ætherial
æther particles with the earth were what luid through which the earth and moon move.
provided the impetus to keep the planet in motion. Much of the Principia was devoted to disproving
Cartesian æther vortex theory. Key to Newton’s proof was the extensive work on luid resistance in
book II. Newton pointed out, correctly, that if æther had enough corporeality to drag the planets along
with it, then at some point, when the orbits of the planets were interacting, or when comets were
passing through, that same corporeality would cause resistance. No resistance had ever been recorded
in the motions of the planets, so Newton performed an experiment to see if the æther resisted at all.30
He created a pendulum out of a hollow box of wood, and observed it swinging for several trials. He
then illed the box with heavy metal and repeated the experiment. If the Cartesian æther theory was
correct, and æther permeated all space, and also interacted with matter via impact, then the box illed
with metal should experience an observable resistance. Newton records his results as follows,
“The resistance encountered by the empty box on its internal parts is therefore more than 5000
times smaller than the similar resistance on the external surface. This argument depends on
the hypothesis that the greater resistance encountered by the full box does not arise from some
other hidden cause but only from the action of some subtle luid upon the enclosed material.”31

30
The experiment is recorded in Book 2, section 6 of the Principia , p.722-723
31
Newton, The Principia, p.723
 43
t is important to note here that Newton does not conclude that the æther does not exist, only that
I its resistance must be exceedingly small. This result brings to focus the problem of the corporeality
or incorporeality of æther. Too many metaphysical arguments hinged on the existence of an æther for it
to be completely abandoned, but Newton’s experiments put many of æther’s purported physical prop-
erties in serious doubt. This tension between metaphysical necessity and physical reality is evident in
Four Letters from Sir Isaac Newton to Doctor Bentley containing some Arguments in Proof of a Deity, written
in 1692-3. In perhaps the most famous quote from the letters Newton writes,
“It is inconceivable that inanimate
brute matter should, without the
mediation of something else, which
is not material, operate upon and
affect other matter without mutual
contact…That gravity should be
innate, inherent, and essential to
matter, so that one body may act
upon another at a distance through
a vacuum without the mediation
of anything else, by and through
which their action and force may be
conveyed from one to another, is to
me so great an absurdity, that I be-
lieve no man who has in philosophi-
cal matters a competent faculty of
thinking can ever fall into it. Grav-
ity must be caused by an agent act-
ing constantly according to certain
laws; but whether this agent be ma-
terial or immaterial, I have left to the Figure 44, Atalanta Fugiens, Emblema XXXVI, De Secreis Natura, , Michael Maier, 1617
consideration of my readers.”32 The inscripion roughly translates to, “The mercurial stone was cast out into the coun-
tryside, lited into the mountains, enlivened by the air and fed by the river.” The boxes
st as God, in his Arian separation
Ju
loaing in the air are suspended by mercurial spirits; the same sort of thing Newton
from the world, works through was looking for in his æther experiments.
the medium of Christ, gravity cannot be
innate to matter but must too work through a medium. For Newton a medium was a metaphysical
necessity. True action at a distance was impossible, with the caveat that the medium for force trans-
ference could be immaterial. Thus, determining what that medium was became a primary concern,
and after the æther pendulum experiments its identity became increasingly dificult to pin down;
there were signiicant arguments against both material and immaterial agents. It is likely that Newton
never completely resolved the issue for himself. I don’t think it is even resolved today. From a modern
perspective, one solution to the issue would be to consider the gravitational force ields we now
postulate to be none other than Newton’s material immaterial medium, but that explanation lacks the
divinity Newton was trying to get at. There are still tensions between what seems to me to be an innate
human belief that something exists beyond physical reality, and our inability to prove that such a thing
exists, mainly because it would not be a thing. I think that if we want to ind a more meaningful answer
to the matter-spirit problem, a good place to start looking would be alchemy, with its long history of
unifying seemingly opposite qualities.
e see the matter spirit duality popping up in all sorts of alchemical contexts. For example, there’s
the interaction of gold semen (spirit) and Philosophical Mercury (matter) to make the Phi-
32
Newton, Isaac, I. Bernard Cohen, Robert E. Schofield, and Marie Boas Hall. Isaac Newton’s Papers & Letters on Natural Philosophy and Related Docu-
ments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1958. Print. p.302-303
 44
losophers stone. In a somewhat contradictory example,
we also saw that Philosophical Mercury, the most mate-
rial of all matter, was actually made up of pure æther,
the subtlest substance imaginable. The whole practice
of alchemy is this dance between the material and im-
material. For Newton, I think that dance was best per-
soniied by his conception of the vegetable spirit. I have
been making passing references to the vegetable spirit
for the past 5 pages, since Query 31, and have been hop-
ing you would sort of guess at its properties based upon
all the other words I associated with it, like æther, force,
active principle and miracle. These similitudes are very
important33, because they link disparate ideas in surpris-
ing ways, but it’s high time I give vegetative spirit an
explanation all of its own.
uch of Newton’s views on the vegetable spirit were
Mexpressed in an alchemical tract posthumously en-
titled Of Natures obvious laws & processes in vegetation,
which was its irst sentence. The tract is dated to the
early 1670’s and I will be quoting from it extensively.
Of Natures obvious laws was an attempt at a sort of the-
ory of everything. In it Newton postulates the vegetable
spirit as an explanation for what we identify today as a
whole host of phenomena spanning electromagnetism,
molecular bonding, and evolutionary biology. The veg-
etable spirit was the spark of life that caused all things to
grow. It was Mother Nature incarnate; Christ incarnate34. Figure 45, The Mountain of the Philosophers
It was the semen which, when placed into PhilosophicalFound In Secret Symbols of the Rosicrucians, 1785. The 1604
date indicates that their is likely an earlier source for this
image.
33
On the topic of similitudes in alchemy, I find this quote by Newman and Principe very eye opening, “When alchemical au-
thors deploy sacred texts or spiritual terminology, this is a relatively unproblematic use of images, concepts, and terms drawn
from the religious culture of the time, rather than evidence that alchemical practices were concerned primarily or essentially
with the spiritual enlightenment or development of the practitioner. These linkages were made by minds more attuned to the
drawing of similitudes and the reading of “meanings” (and more convinced of the epistemological value of similitudes in gen-
eral) than are those of our highly literal modern world.” Principe, Newman. “Some Problems with the Historiography of Alchemy.” p.399
The historiographers make an important correction to the historiography of alchemy by pointing out these false similitudes.
However, the spiritual interpretation of alchemy did not pop out of nowhere, and I believe that alchemy itself, not just its Vic-
torian interpreters, was more convinced of the epistemological value of similitudes than modern thinkers are. Newton’s ability
to equate such disparate ideas as miracles, spirits, and forces shows that a focus on similitudes can produce some surprising
meanings. I think that if we are to re-imbue our science with theological significance, as a society we will need to re-convince
ourselves that similitudes and metaphor have value, even if the meaning of our metaphors does not equate directly or com-
pletely to our physical models.
34
A good example of a direct link between the vegetable spirit and Christ can be seen in an alchemical tract Newton trans-
lated entitled Out of La Lumiere sortant des tenebres. There Newton writes that the vegetable spirit is, “A corporeal spirit diffused
through all nature, the principle of all vegetation, life, attraction, sympathy, and motion; a composite of salt, sulfur, and mer-
cury; the fire of mercury and most digested part thereof; the form informing all things; the innate heat of the elements; the
lawful son of the sun and the true sun of nature.” In this quote it is useful to note the references to the Paracelsian Tria Prima,
as well as the word play at the end which clearly connects the vegetable spirit with Christ. Newton, Isaac. Out of La Lumiere Sortant Des
Tenebres. 1687-92. MS Babson MS 414 B. The Babson College Grace K. Babson Collection of the Works of Sir Isaac Newton, Huntington Library, San
Marino, CA. f.1r
 45
Mercury, would grow gold. Most importantly, unlike Cartesian mechanism, it was vital and alive.
Newton is very clear on this. He writes,
“Natures actions are either vegetable or purely mechanicall (grav. lux. meteors. vulgar
Chymistry) The principles of her vegetable actions are noe other then the seeds or seminall
vessels of things those are her onely agents, her ire, her soule, her life.” 35
ewton wrote this passage well before he had written the Principia, in a time where he still con-
Nceived the force of gravity to be a gross mechanical æther that could physically interact with mat-
ter. Yet even with this juvenile perspective on gravity, Newton still has a strong conviction that there
were other, more active, principles at work in the universe. Almost of implicit with that world view
is the anthropomorphisation of nature as a goddess. If nature is a goddess, sort of a female Christ,
then it follows that she should have a
soul. That soul is the vegetative spirit.
We see that the vegetative spirit has
many of the properties that I ascribed
to æther above. Later in the tract New-
ton writes,
“There is therefore besides the
sensible changes wrough in the
textures of the grosser matter a
more subtile secret & noble way
of working in all vegetation which
makes its products distinct from
all others & the immeadiate se-
ate of thes operations is not the
whole bulk of matter, but rather
an exceeding subtile & inimagin-
ably small portion of matter dif-
fused through the masse which if
it seperated there would remain
but a dead & inactive earth.”36
Figure 46, Atalanta Fugiens, Emblema VIII, De Secreis Natura, , Michael Maier, 1617
ere we see the matter spirit duality
The inscripion roughly translates to, “Beat the egg with a iery sword.” Eggs were
oten used to symbolise glass vials; both contained new life. Among the images in Hin full force. The vegetative spirit
is an exceedingly subtle and unimagin-
Atalanta Fugiens, this one is paricularly surreal. Its geometric structure makes it
appear more like the work of M.C. Escher than Michael Maier.
ably small portion of matter (strikingly
similar to my earlier discussion of æther), that pervades the structure of all living things and makes
them alive. The spirit is deined as material, but it doesn’t really have any material properties. It is
omnipresent, and does not seem to interact with the physical world in any corporeal way. Rather, its
activity is decidedly spiritual, it acts as a sort of energy source, and if it were removed (as happens in the
alchemical stage of putrefaction) what is left is but a dead and inactive earth. The material / spiritual
properties of the spirit become even more convoluted when we take into account Newton’s idea in his
letter to Oldenburg that “all things may be originated from æther.” We see that Idea repeated with
more nuance in Of Natures obvious laws. Newton writes,
“And thus perhaps a great part if not all the moles of sensible matter is nothing but Aether
congealed & interwoven into various textures whose life depends on that part of it which
is in a middle state, not wholy distinct & lose from it like the Aether in which it swims as in
life.”37
35
Newton, Isaac. Dibner MSS 1031 B “Of Natures Obvious Laws and Processes inVegitation” f.5r
36
Idem f.5v-6r
37
Idem f.3v
 46
hus æther makes up not only the
Tbody of matter but also its spirit.
Truly, it is the universal menstrum from
which all things are generated. Here the
matter spirit duality reaches some sort
of stability, where “life depends on that
part of it which is in a middle state.”
Only when the corporeal and incorpo-
real aspects of the æther spirit are in
balance can life emerge.38 Thus for
Newton matter, force, spirit, and life
were deeply intertwined. He saw a clear
and deined difference between vitalistic
and mechanistic actions.39 These
vitalistic active principles were what
Newton had in mind when he sent
science on the quest for forces in the
Principia. But, although active principles
were accepted in the guise of forces,
later scientists still insisted on maintain- Figure 47, Atalanta Fugiens, Emblema XII, De Secreis Natura, , Michael Maier, 1617
The inscripion roughly translates to, “The stone which Saturn consumed for the son
ing the inertness of matter. The of Jove, is vomited out and placed upon Helicon as a monument for mortal men.” In
dynamism of the ætherial medium that this, and other images from Atalanta Fugiens, we see a version of the mountain of the
makes up matter and imbues it with philosophers.
spirit was lost. But, if we begin to view the fundamental forces of the universe once again as active
spirits, perhaps we can regain the sense of vitalism we have lost. Expanding upon the ætherial linkage
between matter and spirit allowed Newton to contrive some remarkable images of the cosmos. My
favorite is quoted below. Newton writes,
“Thus this Earth resembles a great animall or rather inanimate vegetable, draws in æthereall breath for its
dayly refreshment & vitall ferment & transpires again with gross exhalations, And according to the condi-
tion of all other things living ought to have its times of beginning youth old age & perishing. [This is the
subtil spirit which searches the most hiden recesses of all grosser matter which enters their smallest pores
& divides them more subtly then any other materiall power what ever. (not after the way of common men-
struums by rending them violently assunder etc) this is Natures universall agent, her secret ire, the onely
ferment & principle of all vegetation. The material soule of all matter which being constantly inspired from
above pervades & concretes with it into one form & then if incited by a gentle heat actuates & enlivens it”40

38
In this idea we see hints of sulfur mercury theory, where the form of the Philosophers Stone emerges from a tiny spirit of
life acting on the Philosophical Mercury. The idea is that the spirit of matter is only the smallest portion of the body, and yet it
gives the matter its purpose and structure. Here is another telling quote, “Yet those grosser substances are very apt to put on
various external appeanes according to the present state of the invisible inhabitant as to appear like bones flesh wood fruit etc
Namely they consisting of differing particles watry earthy saline airy oyly spirituous etc those parts may bee variously moved
one among another according to the acting of the latent vegetable substances & be variously associated & concatenated together
by their influence” “Of Natures Obvious Laws and Processes inVegitation” f.5v
39
Another, perhaps redundant, example would be the following quote, “So far therefore as the same changes may bee wrought
by the slight mutation of the textures of bodys in common chymistry & such like experiments may judg that such changes
made by nature are done the same way that is by the sleighty transpositions of the grosser corpuscles, for upon their disposition
only sensible qualitys depend. But so far as by vegetation such changes are wrought as cannot bee done without it wee must
have recourse to som further cause And this difference is vast & fundamental because nothing could ever yet bee made without
vegetation which nature useth to produce by it. [note the instance of turning Iron into copper. etc.]” “Of Natures Obvious Laws and
Processes inVegitation” f.5v
40
Idem f.3v
 47
o me this passage represents a culmination of all of the theory I have described so far. We see the
T concepts of death and rebirth in the earths life cycle. The ininite subtlety of æther has imbued
the earth with spirit, and that spirit has
transformed it into a pyrtaneum with a
secret ire at the heart of the world. The
earth has become alive. (Figure 48) This
view has remarkably strong parallels
with modern Gaia Theory.41 Newton
expands this idea further. Not just the
earth, but the entire cosmos is viviied
by the ætherial spirit. He writes,
“And, as the earth, so perhaps may
the sun imbibe this spirit copiously,
to conserve his shining, and keep
the planets from receding further
from him. And they, that will, may
also suppose, that this spirit affords
or carries with it thither the solary
fewel and material principle of light:
and that the vast æthereal spaces be-
tween us and the stars are for a suf-
icient repository for this food of the
sun and planets.”42
Figure 48, Atalanta Fugiens, Emblema II, De Secreis Natura, , Michael Maier, 1617
ther is not only the substance The inscripion roughly translates to, “The Earth is our Nurse.” In this image a living
but the sustenance of the earth is beauifully depicted as a ferile woman. The babies on the lower right depict
cosmos. Its pervasive actions Rome’s creaion myth; its founders, Romulus and Remus were suckled by wolves. It is
keep the universe alive. impossible to miss the fecundity of this image.
This quote also hints at one of the most astounding insights I have found in my research of Newtons
alchemy. That is, that æther may be none other than light itself. Consider the following quote,
“Note that tis more probable the aether is but a vehicle to some more active spirit and the bod-
ies may be concreted of both [aether and active spirit] together. They may imbibe aether as
well as air in generation and in that aether the spirit is entangled. This spirit perhaps is the body
of light. 1) because both have a prodigious active principle (both are perpetual workers) 2) be-
cause all things may be made to emit light by heat. 3) the same cause (heat) banishes the vital
principle 4) Tis suitable in ininite wisdom not to multiply causes without necessity. 5) No heat
is so pleasant and bright as the suns. 6) Light and heat have a mutual dependence on each oth-
er and [there is] no generation [of light] without heat. Heat is a necessary condition of light and
vegetation. (heat excites light and light excites heat, heat excites the vegetable principle that
increaseth heat) 6 [6,7]) No substance so indifferently, subtly and swiftly pervades all things as
light and no spirit searches bodies so subtly piercingly and quickly as the vegetable spirit.” 43

41
Gaia theory proposes that all organisms and their inorganic surroundings on Earth are closely integrated to form a single
and self-regulating complex system, maintaining the conditions for life on the planet. The scientific investigation of the Gaia
hypothesis focuses on observing how the biosphere and the evolution of life forms contribute to the stability of global tem-
perature, ocean salinity, oxygen in the atmosphere and other factors of habitability in a preferred homeostasis. The Gaia hy-
pothesis was formulated by the chemist James Lovelock and co-developed by the microbiologist Lynn Margulis in the 1970s.
“Gaia Hypothesis.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation
42
Newton, Isaac. “Hypothesis Explaining the Properties of Light.” p.251
43
Newton, Isaac. Dibner MSS 1031 B “Of Natures Obvious Laws and Processes inVegitation” f.4r Italics and [square brackets] are my own.
 48
rom a modern perspective it is dificult for me to not look at Newton’s connections between æther,
F light, heat, and life, and not see Einstein’s mass energy equivalence formula, E=mc2. With that
interpretation, æther’s ininitesimal particle size begins to make perfect sense. What particle could be
smaller than a photon, which isn’t really even a particle at all? And yet Einstein’s formula says that
these immaterial photons can be converted into all the gross forms of matter. Perhaps I’m straining
the meaning of the formula a bit, but that strain arises only in the details of implementation, not the
relationship itself. Newton had no way of guessing at the correct mechanisms, but the big picture
concept is there. Light is energy. Energy is the spirit of life. Light can be converted into living matter.
Reason 4 for Newton’s argument that light and spirit are the same is particularly interesting. It shows
that Newton felt it would be fruitful to apply rigorous logical arguments to even decidedly spiritual
phenomena. Interestingly, that very rule is what prompted later scientists to conclude that the idea of
an ætherial spirit was superluous. Everything could be explained by force and energy. There was no
need for the intermediary ætherial spirit to explain phenomenon. But while our science may have be-
come more precise and correct by removing the ætherial spirit, in the process some of its essence was
lost. The grandeur of an interconnected universe was replaced by an ininite series of small, causally
related changes.
nergy existed in Newton’s time in
E exactly the same form that it does
today, and our ideas about it have no
power to change what energy objec-
tively is (if such objectivity exists).
The vocabulary, methodology and
milieu of the natural philosophy
Newton surrounded himself with were
conducive to formulating ideas of energy
as a spiritual, ætherial, vital, substance-
less substance.44 Today, our vocabulary,
methodology and environment rife
with technology lends us to conceive
of energy as something controllable,
quantiiable, mechanical even. We have
theories of ields and entropy that deine
and reine the concept of energy so that
we can use it to produce technology.
But those theories, at their root, do not
give us any real indication of what
energy actually IS. What is there to do?
If we reverted back to calling it æther, or
Figure 49, Atalanta Fugiens, Emblema XL, De Secreis Natura, , Michael Maier, 1617
The inscripion roughly translates to, “Blatant prosecuion, destroy your books.” even worse, spirit, we would be tapping
into a whole host of religious connota-
tions that science has declared unclean. But I would like you to consider for a moment that perhaps
those very religious connotations are what is needed to truly understand the concept as we move into
the future. For what is energy but an immaterial body? Large, almost incomprehensible, amounts of

44
For another intriguing use of æther as energy, see Query 24 in The Opticks. “Is not animal motion perform’d by the vibrations
of this medium, excited in the Brain by the power of the Will, and propagated from thence through the solid, pellucid and
uniform Capillamenta of the Nerves into the Muscles, for contracting and dilating them? I suppose that the Capillamenta of the
Nerves are each of them solid and uniform, that the vibrating Motion of the Ætherial Medium may be propagated along them
from one end to the other uniformly, and without interruption.” Here Newton sees the æther as literally the driving force of
all animal motion. Newton, Isaac. Opticks p.353-354
 49
energy are stored in each and every atom, and yet we don’t really know what it is. Is it a luid? A ield?
An ininitesimally small particle? A string? All of these descriptions have a degree of truth to them,
but to my mind the best description I’ve found is Newton’s, spiritual body, spiritus corporalis. It bears
noting here that the early modern concept closest to modern energy (mathematically speaking) was
developed by Gottfried Leibneiz and was called vis viva, which means, literally, living force.45 How
would our science look if we started calling energy life force?
o my mind, much of what separates alchemy from modern science has to do more with our se-
T mantic use of terminology than fundamental differences in perspective. Recall Principe’s state-
ment that, “The “otherness” of alchemical texts rests… more on their modes of expression than on their
modes of laboratory work.”46 Newton’s editor, Roger Cotes, said something similar in an attempt to
disprove the Cartesian gross æther, “For since there is no way to distinguish a luid matter of this sort
from empty space, the whole argument comes down to the names of things and not their natures.”47
Perhaps our modes of expression today are more sophisticated. Our names of things are more precise.
But their natures remain constant. Fundamentally, I believe that the alchemical notion of spirit and the
modern notion of energy are isomorphic. Many of the phenomena seventeenth century natural phi-
losophers were explaining (incompletely) with æther theory we now explain (more completely) with
thermodynamics, electromagnetism, force ields, atomic orbital theory and a whole host of additional
jargon – the complexity of which dwarfs any alchemical notions of transmutation. Much knowledge
has been gained, but think about what wisdom was lost in that rhetorical transition! Imagine if a Catho-
lic priest, in giving a sermon on the eternal soul, were able to work in ideas of entropy, or ininity?
What ramiications does the Hindu idea of reincarnation have if we consider that the ‘reincarnated
soul’ is in fact the body’s energy, which by the irst law of thermodynamics cannot be created or de-
stroyed? Linking energy with the soul has profound philosophical consequences that I cannot hope to
delve into completely here. Let it sufice to say that while the functional, predictive power of alchemical
theory was lacking by modern standards, its metaphorical power, its power to imbue meaning in our
lives, was far greater. That power has been lost with the shift to modern terminology. My goal with
this paper was to hint at how it might be regained.

Figure 50
Alchemist
Sendivogius.
1867
73 × 130 cm
Oil on Panel
Alchemist
Michael
Sendivogius
presents gold
to the king.

45
Smith, George E. «The Vis Viva Dispute: A Controversy at the Dawn of Dynamics.”Physics Today 59.10 (2006): 31. Print.
46
Principe, Lawrence M. “Apparatus and Reproducibility in Alchemy.” p.71
47
Newton, The Principia, p.397
 50
conclusIon
t’s been six months and 56
pages since I started this quest
for my own personal sort of
Philosophers Stone, and I’m
feeling quite relieved that
this chapter is drawing to the end. I nev-
er expected myself to become so gripped
by such an esoteric corner of academia.
By some weird twist of Prisca Sapientia,
I found myself pouring over 300 year old
laboratory notes thinking that somewhere
within them I might ind the secrets of the
universe. I’ve spent the majority of this pa-
per looking into the past, explaining old
ideas and trying to reinterpret them to it
my opinionated needs. I recognize that at
some points I may have twisted Newton’s
words a bit, but unlike the historians I was
reading, it has never been my intention to
faithfully recreate the past with my words.
I think it is false to believe that we can sep-
arate ourselves from our history enough
to do such a thing, in a similar way that
it is false to believe that we can ever sepa-
rate ourselves from our science enough to
achieve true objectivity. My goal has al-
ways been to use a unique interpretation of
the past to further my own ideas on what
science should be in the future. I will be
using this conclusion to showcase some of
those future ideas.
hroughout this paper I have been

T speaking of a divide between sci-

ence and religion, but the divide
runs much deeper than that. A similar di- Figure 51, Alchemist with Scale, 19th century, Johannes Weiland, Dutch, 24 x 16 in.
vide exists between mathematicians and Oil on canvas, mounted on board, Fisher Collecion, FA 2000.001.268
A bearded alchemist wearing a fur-trimmed top coat is carefully weighing ingredi-
artists, or between poets and logicians. ents with a balance. On top of his table is an exoic carpet covered with papers, a
The boundaries between the disciplines copper pitcher, and ceramic jar. Resing on a bench in front of the table is a large
are actually illusory1, and I think they book and jug with blue glaze marks and glass.
stem from the bizarre idea that the meaning of some form of expression can only be housed in one soli-
tary place. Scientists are reductionists. They look to ind a meaning that is shrouded by a whole host of
unwanted variables. Meaning can only be found when the variables are removed and the underlying
principles are revealed. Artists, in artiicial contrast, are holists. The meaning of a piece of art is not usu-
ally to be found by removing an aesthetic covering to reveal a gem of fact underneath. The entire piece,
in its totality, is the expression of its meaning. In our society, a focus on aesthetics is usually associated
with a notion of shallowness, as if aesthetic interests run only skin deep. I think that it is important to
realize that how a truth is expressed is just as important as what the expression is. Remember, Truth
has two aspects; it must be both correct, and meaningful.

1
Examples like Lewis Carroll and Carl Sagan show how much potential there is when the two modes of thinking merge.
 51
am fascinated by all the art that I found surrounding alchemical theory. I included a picture on

I every page of this essay because what alchemy looks like is an overwhelmingly essential aspect
of what it is. Ideally, you should have been able to get a sense of my ideas from the images I
chose alone. Alchemy was a science that had an established art form and aesthetic associated with
it. There is very clearly an alchemical style associated with the iconography; a universal language of
symbol arrangement that all alchemists employed. Think about how remarkable that is! Our physics
textbooks come with charts and diagrams, but when was the last time they contained illuminations?
What would our textbooks be like if we could associate each one with a different artistic style, like sur-
realism or expressionism?
f course, inserting metaphor into modern science is not nearly as simple as saying we should.

O Metaphor isn’t precise; it is by deinition subjective, and so in some ways metaphor is opposed
by its deinition to scientiic thought. Our science is built upon the illusion of objectivity; on
the idea that we can somehow measure and experiment upon the world without being affected by
it. Actively assimilating metaphor into our science is to accept that reality is interpretable; that there
are no universal truths. Metaphor varies from person to person, so a metaphorical science would not
be one science, but multitudes. Science would vary with its practitioners. But this wouldn’t really be
anything new; the world has been this way all along. I am just trying to make us more aware of the hu-
man element of the science that we do. When we experiment on matter, we experiment upon the stuff
which we are made of. Transmutations in the lask can indeed produce transformations of the soul, if
interpreted in the right context.
Figure 52
Der Alchimist

Ater Carl
Spitzweg
(1808–1885),
German

Paper: 8 x
10.25 in.

Lithograph

Fisher
Collecion

FA
2000.001.079

An alchemist
bends over to
observe his
experiment in
a laboratory;
reminiscent of
the Miller-
Urey experi-
ment
 52

Figure 53, The Alchemist, 17th century, Matheus van Helmont, Flemish

P
erhaps the most famous words from 22.5 x 16.5 in. Eddleman Collecion, FA 2000.003.002
the Principia are those Newton wrote on An alchemist hard at work amist a chaos of books.
hypothesis in the general scholium,
I have not as yet been able to deduce from phenomena the reason for these properties of
gravity, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from phenomena must
be called a hypothesis; and hypothesis, weather metaphysical or physical, or based on oc-
cult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this experimental
philosophy propositions are deduced from the phenomena and are made general by induc-
tion. The impenetrability, mobility and impetus of bodies, and the laws of motion and the
law of gravity have been found by this method. And it is enough that gravity really exists
and acts according to the laws that we have set forth and is suficient to explain all the mo-
tions of the heavenly bodies and of our sea. 2
hat can be made of this? Newton clearly delineates what methods are acceptable for deriving

W models of reality. Only conclusions based on extraordinarily sound reasoning are acceptable.
Ideally, if his methodology were followed effectively, it would be impossible to be wrong. All
conclusions would be based purely on logic, without human conjectures and aesthetics getting in the
way. What then, is to be said of Newton’s ætherial spirits, which from our modern perspective, ring
with the hollow sound of hypothesis? Was he a hypocrite? How could the æther be anything other
than hypothetical? Æther has long been derided as a scientiic catchall; when we did not understand
the cause of something or the mechanism under which it functioned, we imagined some hypotheti-
cal æther to solve the problem. All the way through the twentieth century scientists like Maxwell,
2
Newton, The Principia, p.943
 53
Michelson, and Einstein postulated one or an-
other forms of æther in order to solve problems
apparently unsolvable without it.3 Æther theory
has died and been reborn dozens of times over
the past 300 years. What this tells me is that the
æther may not exist in external reality, but it un-
doubtedly exists in our minds. Æther exists in
our collective consciousness in myriad forms,
and simply because we have not found external
proof for it does not make it any less real. Ideas
have the power not to describe the world but
to deine it. We come from the Pleroma and the
world is what we make it. I would prefer to live
in a world where æther exists than a world in
which it does not. Reality needs spirit. This is
not a delusion. It is the recognition that science
is a process that stems from a human mind, and
as such it must be conformable to how we are
best suited to perceive reality. We should not in-
vent occult qualities to make our models work
better, but we do need to ensure that they can
answer life’s existential questions in a meaning-
ful way. Perhaps statements about spirit in the
modern era are best left to psychologists and
neuroscientists rather than chemists. However,
all of our science needs to in some way relect the
existence of spirit, because it is an existence feel
and experience, even if it can never be proved. A
science that does not take into account observed
phenomena is incomplete. Spiritual phenomena
cannot be observed the way the force of gravity
Figure 54 ,The Alchemist, 1937, N.C. Wyeth, American, 75.75 x 50.625 in.
can, but the religious history of the world shows
Oil on canvas laid down on board, 2002.001.001
Alchemical apparatus are scatered throughout the laboratory. A pufer deinitively that spiritual experiences are real
ish hangs from the ceiling, and doves are lying near the windowsill in phenomena that need to be accounted for in or-
the background. Through the window is a castle atop a mountain. der for our science to be whole. We created God
in our image, why not science too?
3
Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, and endowed chair in physic at Stanford University had this to say about æther
in contemporary theoretical physics, “It is ironic that Einstein’s most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil
down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed
[...] The word ‘ether’ has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition
to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actu-
ally think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the
universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time
relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic
structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now
led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with ‘stuff’
that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of
the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.”
Laughlin, Robert B. A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom down. New York: Basic, 2005. Print. p.120-121. Quoted directly from, “Aether
Theories.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation.
 54
few years ago I lived in a Hindu monastery. Every night, we would gather together and the

A Swami would give us a lecture about Hindu theology. While I could tell there was wisdom to
his words, most of his tropes were old and outdated and had become stale with constant repeti-
tion. Often the lectures would be structured like a school class would be; for four nights in a row we
would learn about the four stages of consciousness. The next ive nights would cover the ive paths of
yoga. He would touch on morality or metaphysics, but rarely said anything of much interest to me.
What kept me going to the Swami’s sermons wasn’t their content explicitly. As I said, that was rather
stale. I went rather because I liked the feeling of being in a congregation, and that everyone around me
was searching for the unknown. For a long portion of humanities history, the quest for the unknown
was done in a religious setting, without the irm backbone of the scientiic method. It is clear to me
that any future exploration we do as a species will be done from within the framework of a scientiic
methodology, and I want to make sure that we don’t lose mysticism and communion in the process.
For most of this paper I have been pointing out areas where science and spirituality have diverged,
but now I would like to propose one way in which they might be uniied again; how science might be
taught and done in a religious context. Imagine a Swami who spends ive nights giving lectures not on
the ive paths of yoga, but the ive states of matter. She would start with earth. She would talk of order
and stability, and of our need to ind grounding. But he would talk about order in another way, order
with a crystalline structure. He would cover maybe a bit of the mathematics of crystal formation, or the
geology, all the while staying attuned to the metaphorical ramiications of stability and order in hu-
man life. The next night she would cover water. Theologically, the focus would be on the importance of
lexibility and low, but scientiically there would be a rigorous discussion of luid dynamics. The next
night, air, would be a study of evanescence, but also of the ideal gas law. The next two nights would
cover ire, æther, and plasma. He would talk about electrons dropping down orbitals to emit light, and
of electromagnetic radiation, but also of energy in a much more religious guise. She would talk about
energy as spirit, and its relation to the ininite. I have to insist that it is possible to unify scientiic and
religious sensibilities. But to do so will require us to abandon the Cartesian notion that all phenomena
must be explainable by mechanism. Likewise, we must abandon the Catholic insistence on blind faith
and divine providence.
n Query 31 Newton listed

I as active principles gravity,

electrick and magnetick
attractions, and fermentation. We
have identiied two of these three as
fundamental forces of the universe.
Why not entertain for a moment that
life is a fundamental force too? What
would life force look like? We know that
the gravitational attraction of bodies
tends to increase over time. Stars draw
matter into themselves towards their
centers, which increases the mass of
the star and makes its attractive force
even greater. Heavy bodies convert
non heavy bodies into heavier bodies.
Might life work in a similar fashion?
Living bodies convert nonliving matter
into more living matter. The biggest
difference is, instead of expanding
inward, until it collapses into a speck
of ininite gravity and density, life
expands outward, and transmutes Figure 55, The Alchymist, in Search of the Philosopher’s Stone, Discovers Phosphorus,
and prays for the successful Conclusion of his operaion, as was the custom of the Ancient
everything around it into living lesh. Chymical Astrologers” Joseph Wright of Derby, 1795, 50x40in
 55
Soon, perhaps very soon, cosmic explorers will set out from earth and begin to make nations and
cultures on other worlds. Would it be wrong to say that, with human colonization, a formerly lifeless
planet is slightly more alive than it was before? At one point, the earth was a barren and lifeless ball
of molten rock. Now it teems with life, and everything about it has transformed in that transition.
Life is a web of extraordinary complexity. It is impossible for any life form to go through its existence
without relying in some way, either symbiotically or parasitically, on another species. There are 100
bacteria cells inside you for every one of your cells. You could not live without them, nor could they
without you. Where does the human end and the bacteria begin? Zoom out your perspective enough,
and it becomes obvious that this whole planet is interconnected, alive, growing and transforming. Is it
growing according to particular laws, or is life just another occult quality? Imagine for a moment that
Newton was right; that at the core of the solar system, 4 billion years ago, some ætherial spark of life
was illuminated. The agents irst action was to putrefy and confound the matter around it into chaos.
Then it proceeded to generation. And the particularities of its method were many, according to the
nature of the subject upon which it was operating. This vital agent grew until it was diffused through
all things that existed in the world. Its forms were constantly emerging, changing, dying, growing,
until, one day, one of those forms discovered this strange ability to look backwards and forwards, and
see itself from within and without, and began to wonder where it came from, and where it might go…

Figure 56, Integrae Naturae, Utriusque Cosmi

Historia, 1618. Man is depicted at the
center as an ape, surrounded by all
of Nature, irst minerals, vegi-
tables, animals, and then the
celesial bodies, and then
the heavens. The ape
is chained to Nature
who in turn is
chained to God.
Much of Fludds
work atempts
to integrate
occult
wisdom
accross
the enire
spectrum
of early
modern
study.
 56
’d like to end the paper where I began, with Hermes Trismegistus and the uniication of

I opposites. The term might still seem a little archaic, so instead I’ll call it by its modern name,
integration. Figure 55 is an alchemical cosmology by Robert Fludd from the Utriusque Cosmi
Historia dated 1618. The mandala depicts the total integration of man, Nature and God in terms of the
cosmos. The caption uses “Integrae Naturae” and I interpret this literally, mathematically, by breaking
nature down into ininitesimal pieces and then applying a magic sigma symbol which uniies it again
into a whole. It’s funny how even with all of our attempts to lee from the incomprehensible, the
unknown inds its way into the very foundations of our rational thought, mathematical integration.
Take an undeined area under a graph. Break it into pieces. Break it into so many pieces that each piece
isn’t a piece anymore. The pieces become so small that they cease to exist as anything besides an ætherial
idea. They are ininitely subtle; everywhere and nowhere at the same time – an ininity of nothingness.
And then what do you do? You combine them, unify the opposites, and you get a inite number,
that is different every time. Max Born (a founder of quantum theory) said that theoretical physics
is “the quasi-magical process in which [mathematically formulated] laws of nature are abstracted
from experience.”4 Science works by simplifying and reducing phenomena until a state of simplicity
is reached that can be described by a
mathematical relationship. By breaking
things up we can understand their tiniest
inner workings. But sometimes, for under-
standing, a reductionist approach does not
work. We need to be able to understand
reality on all of its scales. Intriguingly in
our physics, on the largest and smallest
scales, astronomical and quantum, where
the comprehensibility of size breaks down,
so does our science. We do not know how
to process the ininitely big or the ininitely
small. Because ininity falls more into the
realm of religion than science. I believe
that ininity is just another word for God,
or that which we cannot understand, that
which, by the way in which we deine it, is
not understandable, or expressible, even in
symbols. Integration is the key to bringing
the spirit back into rational thought. We can
look at a cell, and see all the little machines
that make it up, and we can talk about the
physical rules which govern how the little
machines act. We can delve as deep as we
want into the inner workings of this stuff
we call matter, but the deeper we go, the
further away we get from understanding
what makes life, alive. All we end up with
is an ininite sum of ininitely small pieces,
each meaningless on their own. Only by
integrating all the pieces together can we
make it alive. Integration is that magic
trick by which we turn the fractured into
the whole, the many into the one. And that,
Figure 57, Splendor Solis, Plate 22
for me, is the meaning of alchemy. The Sun inishes its journey.

4
Lindorff, David P. Pauli and Jung:The Meeting of Two Great Minds. Wheaton, IL: Quest, 2004. Print. p.xi
 57
BIBlIograpHy

“Aether (mythology).” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 19 June 2012. Web. 23 June 2012. <http://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_(mythology)>.

“Aether Theories.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 17 June 2012. Web. 26 June 2012. <http://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories>.

“Aurora Consurgens.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 30 May 2012. Web. 11 June 2012. <http://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_consurgens>.

Campbell, Joseph. The Hero with a Thousand Faces. New York, NY: Meridian, 1956. Print.

Dobbs, B. J. T. “Newton’s Alchemy and His Theory of Matter.” Isis 73.4 (1982): 511. Print.

Dobbs, Betty Jo Teeter. The Foundations of Newton’s Alchemy: Or “The Hunting of the Greene Lyon.”

Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983. Print.

Dobbs, Betty Jo Teeter. The Janus Faces of Genius: The Role of Alchemy in Newton’s Thought. Cambridge:

Cambridge UP, 1991. Print.

Ducheyne, Steffen. “Joan Baptista Van Helmont and the Question of Experimental Modernism.” Ghent

University- Belgium (2006): n. pag. Web.

 58
“Fluid Mechanics.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 22 June 2012. Web. 23 June 2012. <http://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_mechanics>.

“Gaia Hypothesis.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 15 June 2012. Web. 25 June 2012. <http://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis>.

“George Starkey.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 31 May 2012. Web. 31 May 2012. <http://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Starkey>.

“Hermes Trismegistus.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 29 May 2012. Web. 31 May 2012. <http://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes_Trismegistus>.

Holmes, Frederic Lawrence., and Trevor Harvey. Levere. “, William R Newman Newton’s Alchemy,

Assaying, and Experiment.” Instruments and Experimentation in the History of Chemistry.

Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2000. N. pag. Print.

Home, R. W. “Force, Electricity, and the Powers of Living Matter in Newton’s Mature Philosophy of

Nature.” Religion, Science, and Worldview: Essays in Honor of Richard S. Westfall. By Richard S.

Westfall, Margaret J. Osler, and Paul Lawrence Farber. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire: Cambridge

UP, 1985. N. pag. Print.

 59
“Hylozoism.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 29 May 2012. Web. 08 June 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Hylozoism>.

“Jan Baptist Van Helmont.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 29 May 2012. Web. 31 May 2012. <http://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Baptist_van_Helmont>.

Jung, C. G. Alchemical Studies. [Princeton, N.J.]: Princeton UP, 1967. Print.

Jung, C. G., and Sonu Shamdasani. The Red Book: Liber Novus. New York: W.W. Norton &, 2009. Print.

Jung, C. G. Mysterium Coniunctionis; an Inquiry into the Separation and Synthesis of Psychic Opposites in

Alchemy. [New York]: Pantheon, 1963. Print.

Jung, C. G. Psychology and Alchemy. [Princeton, N.J.]: Princeton UP, 1968. Print.

Laughlin, Robert B. A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom down. New York: Basic,

2005. Print.

Lindorff, David P. Pauli and Jung: The Meeting of Two Great Minds. Wheaton, IL: Quest, 2004. Print.

Maier, Michael. Atalanta Fugiens. Oppenheimium: n.p., 1618. Print.

 60
Maier, Michael. Symbola Aureae Mensae Duodecim Nationum ... Francofurti: Typis Antonij Hummij,

Impensis Lucae Iennis, 1617. Print.

Marcy Marzuki, Marcy. “Decoding the Past: The Real Sorcerer’s Stone.” Decoding The Past. Dir. Geoffrey

Madeja. Discovery. 2006. Television.

McLachlan, H. Sir Isaac Newton Theological Manuscripts. Liverpool: University, 1950. Print.

McMaster, Joseph. “Newtons Dark Secrets.” Nova. Dir. Chris Olexy. PBS. 15 Nov. 2005. Television.

Musaeum Hermeticum Reformatum Et Ampliicatum: Omnes Sopho-spagyricae Artis Discipulos Fidelissime

Erudiens, Quo Pacto Summa Illa Veraque Lapidis Philosophici Medicina, qua Res Omnes Qualemcunque

Defectum Patientes, Instaurantur, Inveniri Et Haberi Queat. Continens Tractatus Chimicos XXI.

Frankfurt: H. à Sande, 1678. Print.

Newman, William. “Newton’s Clavis as Starkey’s Key.” Isis 78.4 (1987): 564. Print.

Newman, William R., and Lawrence M. Principe. Alchemy Tried in the Fire: Starkey, Boyle, and the Fate of

Helmontian Chymistry. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2002. Print.

 61
Newman, William R. “Decknamen or Pseudochemical Language ? : Eirenaeus Philalethes and Carl

Jung.” Persee 3rd ser. 49.2 (1996): 159-88. Print.

Newman, William Royall. Atoms and Alchemy: Chymistry and the Experimental Origins of the Scientiic

Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2006. Print.

Newton, Isaac, A. Rupert Hall, and Marie Boas Hall. Unpublished Scientiic Papers of Isaac Newton; a

Selection from the Portsmouth Collection in the University Library, Cambridge. Cambridge [Eng.:

University, 1962. Print.

Newton, Isaac. A Treatise of the System of the World. London: Printed for Fayram, 1728. Print.

Newton, Isaac, and I. Bernard Cohen. The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural

Philosophy. Berkeley, Calif. [u.a.: Univ. of California, 1999. Print.

Newton, Isaac. Dibner MSS 1031 B “Of Natures Obvious Laws and Processes in Vegitation” N.d. MS. Dibner

Library of the History of Science and Technology, n.p.

Newton, Isaac. Hermes. 1680-1684. MS 28. Kings College, Cambridge.

Newton, Isaac. “Hypothesis Explaining the Properties of Light.” The History of the Royal Society. Comp.

Thomas Birch. Vol. 3. London: n.p., 1757. 247-305. Print.

 62
Newton, Isaac, I. Bernard Cohen, Robert E. Schoield, and Marie Boas Hall. Isaac Newton’s Papers &

Letters on Natural Philosophy and Related Documents. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1958. Print.

Newton, Isaac. Keynes MS 12. 1675. MS. Kings College, Cambridge.

Newton, Isaac. N.d. MS Keynes MS 28. Kings College, Cambridge, n.p.

Newton, Isaac. N.d. MS MS on Miracles. Lehigh University Libraries, Bethlehem, PA, n.p.

Newton, Isaac. N.d. MS Yahuda MS Var. 1, Newton MS 17.3 Ff.8-10. National Library of Israel,

Jerusalem, Israel.

Newton, Isaac. Opticks; Or, A Treatise of the Relections, Refractions, Inlections &

Colours of Light. Based on the 4th Ed., London, 1730;. New York: Dover Publications, 1952. Print.

Newton, Isaac. Out of La Lumiere Sortant Des Tenebres. 1687-92. MS Babson MS 414 B. The Babson College

Grace K. Babson Collection of the Works of Sir Isaac Newton, Huntington Library, San Marino,

CA.
 63
Newton, Isaac. Praxis. 1696. MS MS 420. The Babson College Grace K. Babson Collection of the Works

of Sir Isaac Newton, Huntington Library, San Marino, California, USA.

Newton, Isaac. Sententiæ Luciferæ Et Conclusiones Notabiles. 1696-98. MS Keynes MS 56. King’s College,

Cambridge.

Newton, Isaac. Yahuda MS Var 1, Newton MS 41, F.7. N.d. MS. Jewish National and University Library,

Jerusalem.

Newton Ms. 15.5. N.d. MS Yahuda MS Var. 1. National Library of Israel, Israel, Jerusalem.

“Newton the Alchemist.” Interview by Susan K. Lewis. PBS. PBS, 15 Nov. 2005. Web. 03 Mar. 2012.

<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/newton-alchemist-newman.html>.

“Nicolas Flamel.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 30 May 2012. Web. 31 May 2012. <http://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Flamel>.

Paracelsus, and Franz Strunz. Theophrastus Paracelsus. Das Buch Paragranum,. Leipzig: E. Diederichs,

1903. Print.
 64
“Paracelsus.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 30 May 2012. Web. 31 May 2012. <http://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Paracelsus>.

Philalethes, Eirenaeus, and William Cooper. Ripley Reviv’d, Or, An Exposition upon Sir George Ripley’s

Hermetico-poetical Works Containing the Plainest and Most Excellent Discoveries of the Most Hidden Secrets

of the Ancient Philosophers, That Were Ever Yet Published. London: Printed by Tho. Ratcliff and Nat.

Thompson, for William Cooper ..., 1678. Print.

Principe, Lawrence M. “Alchemy Restored.” Isis 102.2 (2011): 305-12. Print.

Principe, Lawrence M., and Robert Boyle. The Aspiring Adept: Robert Boyle and His Alchemical Quest.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ., 1998. Print.

Principe, Lawrence M., and William R. Newman. “Some Problems with the Historiography of
Alchemy.” Secrets of Nature: Astrology and Alchemy in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge, MA: MIT,

2001. 385-431. Print.

 65
Principe, Lawrence M. “Apparatus and Reproducibility in Alchemy.” Instruments and Experimentation

in the History of Chemistry. Ed. Frederic L. Holmes and Trevor Levere. Cambridge, MA: MIT,

2000. 55-74. Print.

Principe, Lawrence M. “Relections on Newton’s Alchemy in Light of the New Historiography of

Alchemy.” Newton and Newtonianism: New Studies. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 2004. 205-19.

Print.

Sendivogius, Michael. A New Light of Alchemy: Taken out of the Fountain of Nature and Manual Experience...

written by Micheel Sandivogius: I.e. Anagrammatically Divi Leschi Genus Amo. Also Nine Books of the

Nature of Things, Written by Paracelsus... All of Which Are Faitfully Transl. : Out of the Latin into the

English Tongue, by J.F.M.D. London: n.p., 1674. Print.

Smith, George E. “The Vis Viva Dispute: A Controversy at the Dawn of Dynamics.” Physics Today 59.10

(2006): 31. Print.

Starkey, George. An Exposition upon Sir George Ripley’s Epistle to King Edward IV. London: Printed for

William Cooper ..., 1677. Print.

 66
Starkey, George, William Royall. Newman, and Lawrence Principe. Alchemical Laboratory Notebooks and

Correspondence. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2004. Print.

Vickers, Brian. “The ‘New Historiography’ and the Limits of Alchemy.” Annals of Science 65.1 (2008):

127-56. Print.

Waite, Arthur E. “THE PICTORIAL SYMBOLS OF ALCHEMY.” Occult Review 8.5 (1908): n. pag. Print.

Webster, John. Metallographia: Or, an History of Metals: Wherein Is Declared the Signs of Ores and Minerals

Both Before and After Digging, the Causes and Manner of Their Generations, Their Kinds, Sorts and

Differences; with the Description of Sundry New Metals, or Semi Metals, and Many Other Things

Pertaining to Mineral Knowledge. As Also, the Handling and Shewing of Their Vegetability, and the

Discussion of the Most Dificult Questions Belonging to Mystical Chymistry, As of the Philosophers

Gold, Their Mercury, the Liquor Alkahest, Aurum Potabile, and Such Like. Gathered Forth of the Most

Approved Authors That Have Written in Greek, Latine, or High-Dutch; with Some Observations and

Discoveries of the Author Himself. London: Printed by A.C. for W. Kettiby, 1671. Print. N.p.: n.p., n.d.

Web.
 67
Westfall, Richard Samuel. Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton. Cambridge [etc.: Cambridge UP,

1980. Print.

“Zosimos of Panopolis.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 29 May 2012. Web. 03 June 2012. <http://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zosimos_of_Panopolis>. v
68
69
70
71
72
73