course of its
history it certainly proved attractive to both knaves and fools. But if
this opinion involves some element of truth, it involves a far greater
proportion of error. Amongst the alchemists are numbered some of the
greatest intellects of the Middle Ages--ROGER BACON (_c_. 1214-1294),
for example, who might almost be called the father of experimental
science. And whether or not the desire for material wealth was a
secondary object, the true aim of the genuine alchemist was a much
nobler one than this as one of them exclaims with true scientific
fervour: "Would to God... all men might become adepts in our Art--for
then gold, the great idol of mankind, would lose its value, and we
should prize it only for its scientific teaching."(1) Moreover, recent
developments in physical and chemical science seem to indicate that the
alchemists were not so utterly wrong in their concept of Nature as has
formerly been supposed--that, whilst they certainly erred in both their
methods and their interpretations of individual phenomena, they did
intuitively grasp certain fundamental facts concerning the universe
ofthe very greatest importance.

(1) EIRENAEUS PHILALETHES: _An Open Entrance to the Closed Palace of the
King_. (See _The Hermetic Museum, Restored and Enlarged_, ed. by A. E.
WAITE, 1893, vol. ii. p. 178.)

Suppose, however, that the theories of the alchemists are entirely
erroneous from beginning to end, and are nowhere relieved by the merest
glimmer of truth. Still they were believed to be true, and this belief
had an important influence upon human thought. Many men of science
have, I am afraid, been too prone to regard the mystical views of the
alchemists as unintelligible; but, whatever their theories may be to us,
these theories were certainly very real to them: it is preposterous to
maintain that the writings of the alchemists are without meaning, even
though their views are altogether false. And the more false their views
are believed to be, the more necessary does it become to explain why
they should have gained such universal credit. Here we have problems
into which scientific inquiry is not only legitimate, but, I think, very
desirable,--apart altogether from the question of the truth or falsity
of alchemy as a science, or its utility as an art. What exactly was the
system of beliefs grouped under the term "alchemy," and what was its
aim? Why were the beliefs held? What was their precise influence upon