The Alchemist in Fiction: The Master Narrative Roslynn Haynes Abstract: In Western culture, as expressed in fiction and film, the master nar- rative concerning science and the pursuit of knowledge perpetuates the arche- type of the alchemist/scientist as sinister, dangerous, and possibly mad. Like all myths this story may appear simplistic but its recurrence suggests that it embodies complex ideas and suppressed desires and fears that each generation must work through. This paper explores some of the most influential exam- ples of such characterization, links them to contemporary correlatives of the basic promises of alchemy and suggests reasons for the continuing power of such images. Keywords: alchemists in fiction, Frankenstein, Faust, characters, narratives. 1. Introduction The most widely known creation myth of modern times is not that of Gene- sis or Darwin but Frankenstein. Why does Mary Shelley’s novel, first pub- lished in 1818, still provide the most universally invoked imagery for science in the twenty-first century? Western culture relies on and reveres science far beyond any known precedent; yet, paradoxically, the master narrative of sci- entific knowledge in both literature and film focuses on an evil and dangerous maniac, obsessive, secretive, ruthless, and arrogant, drawing on many of the qualities popularly associated with medieval alchemy. This paper explores the reasons for this disjunction between the regard and monetary reward heaped on science and technology in the ‘real world’ and the judgment these disci- plines receive in the world of film and fiction. Fundamentally this master narrative concerning science and scientists is about fear – fear of specialized knowledge and the power that knowledge confers on the few, leaving the majority of the population ignorant and there- fore impotent. In a typical scenario the mad scientist achieves a knowledge break-through that threatens the social order (sometimes the whole planet), HYLE – International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 12 (2006), No. 1, 5-29. Copyright (cid:211) 2006 by HYLE and Roslynn Haynes. 6 Roslynn Haynes either through evil designs or by accident (‘collateral damage’ in today’s me- dia-speak). Even though the disaster may be (and usually is) averted, the memory of disempowerment remains, augmenting the repository of previous fears, to be recalled the next time there is a new knowledge breakthrough and hence the perception of a new threat. The origins and trappings of this potent story lie in the precursor of chemistry, alchemy. Although dismissed by scientists as outmoded and irrel- evant to their practice, alchemy has continued to provide a potent source of myth-making for the critique of modern science. Its chequered reputation has been revived and reinforced as perennially pertinent by writers, by artists and film-makers and, perversely, by scientists themselves in response to both their own psychological proclivities and the constraints placed on them by contemporary scientific culture with its emphasis on the priority of publica- tion and by military or industrial requirements of secrecy. 2. The popular appeal of alchemy The craft of alchemy both intrigued and frightened those who hovered on its fringes. Its allure lay in the immensity and immediacy of its promises and its professions of power surpassing that of kings or priests. In their most crude form these promises might now seem to appeal only to the excessively naïve or the inordinately greedy, yet in their generic form they continue to be highly attractive. To understand the ongoing fascination with the figure of the alchemist, we need to review some of the perceived foci of alchemy and the way in which they achieved a paradigmatic status, as well as the origins of the evil reputation that coalesced about such practices. The history of alchemy has been well documented (Burckhardt 1967, Ca- ron et al. 1961, Cummings 1966, Debus et al. 1966, Edwardes 1977, Gettings 1986, Hollister 1990, Lindsay 1970, Read 1947) and will be familiar to readers of this journal, so here I shall select for mention only those particular preoc- cupations that seized the imagination of the medieval public and have contin- ued to provide material for fiction, being constantly re-invented and reap- plied to claim relevance to contemporary issues or to add a degree of univer- sality to fictional representations of the scientist. Among the foundational concepts of alchemy the following have retained an allure that is both theoretically satisfying and appealing to self-interest. (a) The notion that all things are interchangeable and exist in a state of flux. One source for this premise was the Taoist belief, originating in China in the fifth century BCE, that transformation and change are essential and innate in all things. In Europe, parallel ideas were put forward by the philos- The Alchemist in Fiction: The Master Narrative 7 opher Empedocles and further developed by Aristotle in his thesis regarding the unity of matter and the interchangeable qualities of the four elements. The aspect of Aristotle’s theory immediately seized upon was his premise that everything in nature strives towards perfection. Since gold was consid- ered the most perfect and noble state of matter, it followed that all baser metals must necessarily ‘aspire’ to become gold. This changed a general, theo- retical principle into a specific, material one, with the added implication of inevitability. The alchemist’s task was simply to assist nature in realizing its goal. In practical terms, this role had been regularly performed by Egyptian metalworkers who, using the secret recipes of the goddess Isis, were adept at ‘extending’ a given quantity of gold by producing alloys with silver, copper, tin, and zinc. Thus, from the beginning, alchemy was associated both with the apparent ‘production’ of gold and, simultaneously, with the suspicion that this was a deception, a confidence trick practiced on the greedy and the gullible. In the eighth century these secrets of metallurgy passed to the Arabs who, through trade with the Chinese, added the idea of a transforming catalyst, the origin of the Philosopher’s Stone, that would enable, or at least assist, base metals to be transformed into gold. Inevitably such a catalyst conferred pow- er and subsequently wealth on the alchemist who claimed to possess it and to have the knowledge necessary to activate it. (b) The ‘elixir of youth’, a universal panacea that would cure illness and prevent ageing, thereby conferring longevity, perhaps even immortality. Like the Philosopher’s Stone for transformation of metals, the elixir of youth was a catalytic substance, usually a powder or liquid. As pharmacy developed from herbalism this alleged elixir achieved greater credibility. These two aspects of alchemy were studied and written about at length by the Arabs for whom they were associated with the Islamic faith, part of a ho- ly search for perfection. In medieval Christian Europe it was a very different story. These two projects were cause enough for suspicion but the third ma- jor preoccupation of alchemy finally placed it beyond the tolerance of the Church. (c) Creation of homunculi. Compared with the previous two, this project might seem less desirable, even bizarre, but it constituted an even greater threat to the social fabric and to the doctrines of the medieval Church. Alt- hough the other claims of alchemy involved a degree of arrogance in the pro- fession of ‘unnatural’ powers, the attempt to produce a tiny human being (always a masculine person) was an example of extreme hubris, since it claimed to by-pass both the Creator and the divinely ordained method for reproduction. It challenged the Church’s teaching that the soul was created at the moment of conception and mimicked both the Greek legend of Prome- theus moulding humans from clay and breathing life into them, and the crea- 8 Roslynn Haynes tion story of Adam in Genesis. The sub-title of Frankenstein is ‘or, the Mod- ern Prometheus’ and in her epigraph from Milton Shelley makes specific refer- ence to the parallel between Frankenstein’s creation of his Monster (an out- size parody of the homunculus) and the genesis of Adam: Did I request thee, Maker, from my clay To mould me man? Did I solicit thee From darkness to promote me? [Shelley 1996, p. 3] The Monster, too, compares his own creation to that of Adam. “Remember, that I am thy creature: I ought to be thy Adam: but I am rather the fallen angel, whom thou drivest from joy for no misdeed.”(Shelley 1996, p. 66) We can understand the appeal of the homunculus-peddlers better if we realize that robots are of the same conceptual family. They, too, represent ‘beings’ we have created at will through our intellect, without recourse to female biology, and which we hope to enslave. In contemporary biological terms, cloned organisms, genetic engineering, in vitro fertilization, and em- bryo transfers involve a comparable desire to take control of the genesis of organisms, especially in relation to humans. 3. The public image of alchemists Because alchemy re-entered Europe through translations of Arabic writings, it became a casualty of transferred racism and religious prejudice. Its practical and socially acceptable origins in metallurgy and medicine were soon ob- scured and instead it was associated by name and origin with a race regarded as infidels. Linked with the black arts, with heresy, astrology, and magic, it was decried and finally outlawed by the Church. A series of Acts were passed forbidding the practice of alchemy, culminating in Pope John XXII’s formal edict Spondent, denouncing the alchemists as tricksters and counterfeiters (Duncan 1968, pp. 636f.). It was widely believed that alchemists were in league with the devil and that those who patronized their services were in danger of eternal damnation. Concealment, isolation, and the arcane symbol- ic language of the Hermetic tradition were evolved not only as a mechanism to guard secret knowledge, but also as a strategy for survival in the face of persecution. At first the astrological signs of the planets were used as alchem- ical symbols; later alchemists invented their own secret symbols. The ‘Table of Chemical Symbols’ in the Encyclopédie of Denis Diderot and Jean d’Alembert in the late eighteenth century still resembles the medieval alche- mists’ symbols. These characteristics, accidents of history, have been perpet- uated in fiction, not only in relation to alchemists but as essential features in The Alchemist in Fiction: The Master Narrative 9 the characterization of modern scientists, especially chemists, as cloistered, secretive, engaged in practices that violate the norms and moral values of so- ciety, speaking a language and writing in symbols designed to exclude the uninitiated. Despite this reputation of illicit practices and even condemnation by the Church, alchemists exerted a continuing fascination because of their alluring promises. In various forms these all represented power to transcend the nor- mal limitations of the human condition – the power of wealth, power over ageing and death, and power over the creation of life. For this reason alche- mists were wooed by princes1 and paupers alike, even though their clients may have suspected that they were being deluded. In modern dress these promises remain universally attractive and lucrative propositions, appearing closer to realization than ever before. 4. Prototypes of the alchemist in literature The simple medieval stereotypes of the alchemist, memorably represented in Chaucer’s The Canon’s Yeoman’s Prologue and Tale (Chaucer 1957, pp. 473- 98), were the deluded ‘puffer’ who wasted his life and money in the pursuit of alchemy and the unscrupulous trickster who defrauded others. Although these were later tempered by more benign successors – the natural philoso- pher and the scientist – the recurrent fictional image of the knowledge-seeker retains many of the characteristics of the alchemist obsessed with the pursuit of dangerous or socially unlawful knowledge. These characters, invariably male, still shroud their research in secrecy and isolation. Likewise, the master narrative in which they feature perpetuates the same concerns and repeats the same moral strictures as were leveled against their predecessors. The alchemist stereotype as we know it today results largely from an amalgam of two fictional characters, so universally recognized and enduring that they have become prototypes in their own right. Dr Faustus and Victor Frankenstein have continued to provide the imagery, even the iconography, for representations of both the alchemist and modern scientists. The former figure provides the link between medieval superstition and Renaissance aspi- rations to understand Nature, while the latter situates archetypal desires and knowledge hubris within the context of a recognizably modern world. 4.1 Faust Probably derived originally from the real-life Georg Faust of Knittlingen,2 Faust in all his literary manifestations was depicted as displaying intellectual 10 Roslynn Haynes arrogance and an obsession with transcending the boundaries of human knowledge. Circulated orally, the Faust legends became increasingly exagger- ated, involving magic and familiars. The first written account, the anonymous Spieß edition of Historia von D. Johann Fausten of 1587 had an unmistakable religious moral, focusing on the pact with the devil and Faust’s gruesome end, accompanied by suitable passages from Scripture. However, The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus (1604), written only seventeen years later by Eng- lish playwright Christopher Marlowe, presented the story in a quite different light. Although the incidents of Marlowe’s play were based on those in the English translation of the Spieß text, the assessment of the protagonist is totally divergent. Marlowe’s Faust is a man of his time. His Renaissance-humanist longing to transcend the limitations of the human intellect is still tempered by the medieval awareness that such an aspiration, like Lucifer’s revolt against God, is doomed to destroy him. Yet Marlowe contrives to imply that his ultimate destruction is the tragic waste of a gifted man. The kind of Faust figure that predominates at any point in history is an index of the status accorded by a society (or an author) to the individual and to the intellect, as opposed to the value placed on obedience to the prevailing hegemony, whether Church or State. At one end of the evaluation spectrum, Faust is condemned for his hubris and arrogant denial of God-given limits, and thoroughly deserves his terrible end. At the other extreme, Faust represents a noble Prometheus fig- ure, asserting the right to freedom of knowledge and the full development of the individual’s powers against a repressive regime, whether of Zeus, the Church, or public opinion. This is the Faust of German Romanticism, of Klinger, Goethe, and Lessing. Scientists are still regularly characterized across a similar range, depending on prevailing social and moral support for the in- trinsic value of knowledge or for the contrary view that it should be subsidi- ary to the public interest and, if necessary, suppressed. 4.2 Frankenstein Mary Shelley’s character Frankenstein has become an archetype in its own right, universally referred to and providing the dominant image of the scien- tist in twentieth-century fiction and film. Frankenstein is the prototype of the mad scientist who hides himself in his laboratory, secretly creating not an elixir of immortality but a new human life, only to find he has created a Mon- ster. Not only has his name become virtually synonymous with any experi- ment out of control, but also his relation with his creation has become, in popular misconception, complete identification: Frankenstein is the Monster. The power of the Frankenstein story can be attributed to the fact that, in its essentials, it was a product of the subconscious rather than the conscious The Alchemist in Fiction: The Master Narrative 11 mind of its author and thus, in Jungian terms, draws upon the collective un- conscious of the race. The circumstances of the composition of Frankenstein, as described by the author in her Introduction to the 1831 edition, are almost as well known as the story itself and have themselves inspired other fictional accounts in- cluding a film and an opera3. Yet it is worth stressing that, according to Mary Shelley, the story was produced by the concurrence of two specific factors: the need to produce a horror story and the account of an alleged scientific experiment. Mary and Percy Shelley, their baby son William and Mary’s step- sister Claire Clairmont were spending the summer of 1816 near Geneva, as neighbors of the poet Lord Byron and his personal physician Polidori. Kept indoors by a stretch of bad weather, Byron, Percy, Polidori, and Mary each agreed to write a ghost story as entertainment. Mary records that she found great difficulty in thinking of a suitable plot until the evening when the oth- ers were discussing the latest experiments allegedly conducted by Erasmus Darwin whereby he was said to have “preserved a piece of vermicelli in a glass case till by some extraordinary means it began to move with voluntary mo- tion. Not thus, after all, would life be given. Perhaps a corpse would be rean- imated; galvanism had given token of such things: perhaps the component parts of a creature might be manufactured, brought together, and endued with vital warmth” (Shelley 1996, pp. 171f.). That night Mary allegedly dreamed the central scene of her novel. Doctor Darwin has been transformed into “the pale student of unhallowed arts, kneeling beside the thing he had put together” (Shelley 1996, p. 172). This suggests that the very attempt to create life was already associated, at least in Mary’s subconscious mind as ac- cessed by her dream, with alchemy, the “unhallowed arts”, with the demonic and the horrific. The problem of finding a subject for her story was instantly solved: “What terrified me will terrify others; and I need only describe the specter which had haunted my midnight pillow. […] making a transcript of the grim terrors of my waking dream.” (Shelley 1996, p. 172)4 It is not difficult to supply reasons why the account of Darwin’s alleged experiments should have had such a profoundly unsettling effect on Mary Shelley, aged eighteen, the youngest and least assured person present, and clearly intellectually overawed by the discussion (she tells us that she was “a devout but nearly silent listener”). Only the preceding year, Mary had lost her first child born prematurely and had recently undergone a second, diffi- cult confinement. Inevitably she would have felt emotionally disturbed, even violated, by a discussion which not only abolished the role of the female in the creation of life, but trivialized the process by reducing it to “a piece of vermicelli in a glass case”. Unable to argue at a rational level with the intellec- tual giants Byron and Shelley, she doubtless suppressed her disquiet, which emerged violently in her subsequent dream. What is more interesting for the 12 Roslynn Haynes purpose of this exploration of images is her immediate identification of the highly visual nightmare image of the attempt to create life with her earlier aim “to think of a story […] which would speak to the mysterious fears of our nature and awaken thrilling horror” (Shelley 1996, p. 171). Frankenstein is not only the Romantic over-reacher determined to trans- cend human limitations; he is also the heir of Baconian optimism and En- lightenment confidence that everything can ultimately be known and that such knowledge will inevitably be for the good. “I doubted not that I should ultimately succeed […]. A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me.” (Shelley 1996, pp. 31f.). Frankenstein also accepts uncritically the reductionist premise of the eighteenth-century mechanists, that an organism is no more than the sum of its parts. As heir to a such a view, he has no sense of the extraordinary irony involved when he sets out to create a “being like myself” from dead and inan- imate components, ignoring the possible need for any living or spiritual ele- ments. Even in retrospect he seems to see no anomaly in this, for he tells Walton, not without pride: “In my education my father had taken the great- est precautions that my mind should be impressed with no supernatural hor- rors. I do not ever remember to have trembled at a tale of superstition, or to have feared the apparition of a spirit.” (Shelley 1996, p. 30) But the being he creates is not merely a mechanism, the sum of its inani- mate parts; it is indeed a being like himself, with free will not subject to Frankenstein’s control. As such, it enacts Frankenstein’s own unconscious desires, both good and evil, which have been sublimated by the discipline of his research program and by cultural censorship. The Monster responds to the beauties of nature, to the joys of domesticity and the ideas of great books, occupations that Frankenstein had put aside for his research. But it also kills Frankenstein’s younger brother William, his fiancée Elizabeth, and his friend Henry Clerval, the very people whom Frankenstein is duty-bound to love but whom he has subconsciously wished to be rid of because they attempt to distract him from his obsession. The Monster is thus both an alter ego and a substitute for the natural child he has denied existence by deferring his marriage with Elizabeth. This Doppelgänger relationship symbolizes the belief in the essential duality of man, the complex of rational and emotional selves, mutually alienated but finally inseparable (Bloom 1965, pp. 611-18; Levine et al. 1979, p. 15; Miyoshi 1969, pp. 79-89). This image was to be ex- panded in Stevenson’s The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde (1886). In the image of the larger-than-human Monster, Shelley reaffirms the Romantic position that the unconscious is an intrinsic and more powerful part of the human experience than the rational mind and, if suppressed, will ultimately emerge to destroy the latter. The Alchemist in Fiction: The Master Narrative 13 It is not surprising that playwrights and film makers have returned with such frequency to the story, modifying it to suit the prevailing tastes, values, and scientific debates of their time, but it is interesting that no screen version has retained Shelley’s pessimistic ending. The first physical presentation of Frankenstein was H.M. Milner’s play of 1826, Frankenstein; or, the Man and the Monster and the story became the subject of one of the earliest films, the Edison Company’s Frankenstein (1910). This film concentrated on the psychological aspects of the story, em- phasizing the fact that the creation of the Monster was possible only because Frankenstein allowed his normal healthy mind to be overcome by evil and unnatural thoughts. Edison’s ending was far more positive and romantic than Shelley’s, echoing contemporary optimism about science: the Monster finally fades away, leaving only his reflection in a mirror. And even this is subse- quently dissolved into Frankenstein’s own image by the power of Elizabeth’s love. Frankenstein has been restored to mental health and hence the Monster can no longer exist. Carlos Clerens, the historian of horror films, rates the 1931 Universal film classic, Frankenstein, which introduced Boris Karloff as the Monster, as “the most famous horror movie of all time” (Clerens 1967, p. 64). Yet by comparison with the novel the film is hardly horrific at all. The heavily un- derlined moral, stated at the beginning, that “it is the story of Frankenstein, a man of science who sought to create a man after his own image without reckoning upon God”, restores an element of supernatural order and justice to Shelley’s entirely secular and unredeemed situation. In this version, Henry Frankenstein (who, following Peggy Webling’s 1930 play on which the film is based, has exchanged given names with Clerval) is presented as the innocent victim of a mistake whereby his careless assistant has brought him the brain of a murderer instead of a noble person, for inserting into his creature. The evil character of the Monster is therefore merely an experimental error, rather than the inevitable result of Frankenstein’s hubris, and the implication is that the creation of the Monster per se posed no abiding procedural problem; with due precautions a better result could be obtained next time. Such an attitude, including the otherwise anomalous introductory moral, was consistent with the adulation of scientists, and particularly of inventors, in the United States during the 1930s (Haynes 1994, pp. 163-5). Although the film ended with the Monster being burnt to death and the celebration of Frankenstein’s wedding to the (spared) Elizabeth, the box-office success indicated a sequel. The final scenes of the 1931 film were cut from all prints in circulation and Bride of Frankenstein (1935) opened with a scene in which Mary Shelley relates to Shelley and Byron the sequel to her novel. In this film Frankenstein becomes the pawn of another scientist, the mad, evil Dr Pretorius who, having con- structed various homunculi, now wishes to produce something larger. He 14 Roslynn Haynes forces Frankenstein to create the mate for which the Monster of the novel had begged. The female Monster (in an extension of the Doppelgänger effect in the novel she is played by the same actress, Elsa Lanchester, as Mary Shel- ley) is striking but not hideous and she immediately rejects the Monster who in despair electrocutes her, Dr Pretorius, and himself. In this film Franken- stein has become entirely absolved of guilt, and the role of the evil scientist bent on creating life, has passed to the alchemist-like Pretorius. Bride of Frankenstein was followed by a long succession of Frankenstein derivatives whose titles are sufficiently indicative of their content and of the way in which Frankenstein has been integrated into Western culture as an ever-contemporary by-word, almost as a real person, engaging in dialogue with other characters both real and imaginary.5 At different periods the em- phasis falls variously on horror, space travel, sexuality, or comedy associated with the figure of the scientist. One of the most interesting films in terms of the application of the Frankenstein story to a contemporary scientific debate is Frankenstein 1970 (1958) in which Boris Karloff returns to the screen as the disfigured Victor Frankenstein, victim of Nazi torture. By means of an atomic reactor he raises to life the Monster from his ancestor’s 1757 experi- ment, but they both die a horrible death from radioactivity when the reactor blows up. Only then is the Monster’s face revealed. It is the face of a youth- ful Victor Frankenstein, symbolizing in startling visual imagery the identifi- cation of creator and creature, in this case the atomic scientist and his dan- gerous and faulty creation, atomic power. 5. The endurance of the alchemist stereotype It may seem anomalous that, after the rise of the great scientific societies in the seventeenth century and the European Enlightenment of the eighteenth century with its emphasis on rationality, this archetype has endured, not only in fiction but also in the more recent medium of film. From his extensive analysis of horror films in English between 1931 and 1960, Andrew Tudor estimated that 30% of the villains were scientists; 40% of the threats were spin-offs from science; and a mere 10% of the heroes were scientists (Tudor 1989b, pp. 589-92). It should be noted that, whether noble or evil, the scien- tist figure remained overwhelmingly male even when this no longer reflected the actual degree of involvement of women in science. The most obvious reason for the perpetuation of the evil alchemist figure is that the personality traits to which alchemy appealed – greed, vanity, desire for power, immortality, and manipulation of other human beings – remain