This article investigates several discussions of “chemistry,” understood as an analysts’ category referring to theories and practices dealing with the structure and transformation of matter. By reading these texts (a treatise defending kīmiyāʾ by al-Fārābī, the famous passage from Ibn Sīnā’s Shifāʾ on transmutation, Ibn Taymiyyah’s fatwā against kīmiyāʾ, Michael Psellos’s treatise On Making Gold, and the same author’s Accusation against a sitting Patriarch of Constantinople), the article aims to lay the groundwork for integrating the historiography of Byzantine and Arabic (...) alchemy into a wider western Eurasian intellectual history. (shrink)

The history of the terms ‘elixir’ and ‘alchemy’ seems paradoxical; derived from Greek, the Arabic al-iksīr signified a dry powder capable of transforming base metals into gold or silver. Evolving through the European languages, elixir has come to mean a magic liquid that can be ingested to cure illness. The second term, al-kīmiyāʼ, which was in its Arabic beginnings almost synonymous with elixir, took a different turn and changed its meaning from a miraculous substance into an abstract noun connoting the (...) art of alchemy. This article intends to show that these changes of meaning are linked to inevitable interrelations between the two synonyms and, consequently, the generally assumed etymology of the Arabic alkīmiyāʼ from the seemingly corresponding Greek expression χυμεία must be questioned. Of particular interest is the hitherto overlooked fact that al-kīmiyāʼ ends in a glottal stop, indicated by the hamza and being a consonant in its own right, which ultimately points to a non-Greek origin. (shrink)

In this chapter, I will make the case that we can accurately describe Ghazali’s position as a natural law theory. Kevin Reinhart (1995), on whose translation of al-Mustaṣfā I will be depending in what follows, has also treated this topic. Though he did not specifically compare Ghazali’s position there with natural law theory, like Hourani (1985) he interprets Ghazali’s position as subjectivist on key points rendering it incompatible with natural law theory. Thus, I will begin with a prima facie case (...) for this incompatibility roughly along the lines one finds in Reinhart, and argue that a closer examination of the relevant text of al-Mustaṣfā along with the parallel section of al-Iqtiṣād, also cited by Hourani, shows that Ghazali’s position is not conclusively subjectivist, but instead is compatible with a natural law theory. I will examine key sections of Ghazali’s Kimiya al-Sa’dāt that quite clearly express a natural law theory of morality. (shrink)

The globalization of modern chemistry through European colonialism resulted, by the end of the nineteenth century, in the emergence of a number of parachemical knowledges. Parachemistries were bodies of non-European knowledge which came to be related to modern chemistry within particular historical milieux. Their relationship with modern chemistry was not necessarily epistemic and structural, but historical and performative. Actual historically located intellectuals posited their relationship. Such relationships were not merely abstract intellectual exercises; at a time when the practical uses of (...) modern chemistry in statecraft were growing, the existence of these rival, competing parachemical knowledges challenged modern chemistry’s regulatory deployments. Colonial locations emerged then not as mere ‘contact zones’, but as ‘zones of conflict’ where colonial chemopolitics was interrupted by the continued legitimacy and practice of parachemistries such as rasayana, kimiya, and neidan. (shrink)