C. H. Beck: Munich, 2000. 602 pp. ISBN 3-406-46638-9.

There are probably more books on alchemy in print than there are histories of legitimate chemistry. The problem, however, is that the vast majority of these books are uncritical compilations that trade on the mystical and allegorical aspects of alchemical art and symbolism. The last critical treatments of alchemy intended for the general reader and written by serious historians of science date back to the 1940s and 1950s. The best known of these--The Alchemists, by F. Sherwood Taylor (1949), and Alchemy, by E. J. Holmyard (1957)--are both still in print.

Consequently, it is a pleasure to note the appearance of a new general history of this controversial subject by the German historian of chemistry Hans-Werner Schütt, who is best known for his work on the history of isomorphism and the life of Eilhard Mitscherlich. Though written in German, it is hoped that this volume will soon merit translation into English, where, as already noted, it will provide a much needed update for the general reader.

Three significant events have occurred since the appearance of the volumes by Taylor and Holmyard: the development of an extensive literature dealing with the interpretation of alchemical symbolism and allegory based on the work of the Swiss psychologist Carl Jung; the successful replication of several alchemical recipes, demonstrating that they do indeed produce gold-like substances (though, of course, no real gold); and the appearance of a pervasive fad among revisionist historians who would now have us believe that such luminaries as Newton and Boyle were avid alchemists and that all of modern physics and chemistry is the product of alchemical thought.

As for the first trend, there are some very real doubts among both skeptics and philosophers of science as to whether Jungian and Freudian psychology actually qualify as science--doubts which force one to question the value of using one pseudoscience to analyze another. As for the third trend, I, at least, feel that these claims are vastly overexaggerated and trade on an inherent ambiguity in the motives behind Newton's and Boyle's interest in alchemical literature, not to mention an ambiguity in the very definition of exactly what one means by the term "alchemist". Schütt deals with all three of these developments, and I will leave it to the readers to judge for themselves how well he handles them.