Janet Gleeson’s book is exceptional in providing details of events that occurred over two hundred and fifty years ago. She presents a fun, easy-reading historical narrative by combining her interest in ceramics, and her ability to entertain, with outrageous human behavior. (Previously, she co-authored with Gordon Lang the reference book, Miller’s Collecting Pottery and Porcelain: The Facts at Your Fingertips.) While she clearly wants to share her interest in porcelain with her readers (her descriptions of the porcelain objects are excellent), the book contains no photographs of porcelain except for the dust cover. Without photographs the book seems incomplete.

Gleeson’s extensive research in Germany leads the reader to assume that her narrative is historically accurate, however her research concentrates mainly on human interactions. As a result, she provides an entertaining story but little information on the chemistry and process of making porcelain. Throughout the book it is apparent that she prefers to write about people. The book lacks any historical sense of the sciences involved.

The title, The Arcanum, fits the first half of the book—the most entertaining—where Böttger’s trials and successes with the arcanum of porcelain are described. But it took some effort to read the second half of the book as she describes Herold’s contributions and Kaendler’s artistic efforts. The human conflict is much less entertaining and the scientific aspects seem to evaporate. Again, photographs would help to illuminate her points.

More problematic is Gleeson’s apparent misunderstanding of chemistry. She states that Böttger’s development of porcelain is “one of the first major successes of analytical chemistry.” If she is talking about the branch of chemistry known as analytical chemistry, then what about the well known story circa 200 B.C.E., when Archimedes analyzed gold based on his famous water displacement principle? Equally bothersome, Gleeson erroneously claims that Böttger’s triumph with porcelain (early seventeen hundreds) started modern chemistry. A startling revelation! What happened to those usually credited with starting modern chemistry like Robert Boyle?

There is also a contradiction in the book when she states that the development of ceramic material was the start of modern chemistry. Gleeson tells us that Böttger had written over his laboratory door: “God the creator has made a potter from a gold-maker.” Apparently, Böttger felt his work was not in chemistry. In fact, Böttger’s success was in the multidisciplinary field of ceramics. Gleeson makes more than a careless error in not stating that the development of porcelain was the start of modern ceramics. One would not expect the co-author of a reference book on pottery and porcelain to make such an error.

Additionally, it could be said that discovering the arcanum of porcelain was essential to the process of making porcelain. In this sense, Böttger’s work was more like development chemistry rather than the more theoretical modern chemistry as Gleeson proposes. Development chemistry has been practiced since ancient times and is still practiced today. Comparing the labels of soap and shampoo will reveal to the initiated an astonishing list of ingredients. All of these ingredients are necessary so that you can shampoo or shower every day. The formula for mild soaps and shampoos are the result of hard working development chemists.

Finally, as an aside, it is interesting to speculate as to why the practice of alchemy lasted for hundreds of years in Europe. The failures should have forced the alchemists to discard the ancient theories of gold making. Certainly, alchemists clung to the old speculative theories because of ignorance, bold claims of success, religion, and greed. But, speaking as an organic chemist, there may be another reason for the alchemists’ persistence. There are similarities to be found in the experiences of alchemists and organic chemists. For both, reactions convert one or more substances into a product. Analysis of the product reveals whether it is indeed the intended product. Success in organic chemistry and alchemy comes only if the desired product has been made. Organic chemists have all experienced failure at making compounds; sometimes it takes a year’s effort or more to make a highly desired compound. Some of the most interesting compounds are so challenging that organic research groups from different universities compete to be the first to make them. To succeed, organic chemists like alchemists make many attempts, varying methods, conditions, and starting materials. Of course, alchemists used an additional factor, the mystical aspect of different incantations.

At a typical chemical research meeting of today, at least ten times as many chemists attend presentations dealing with organic chemistry as compared to other branches of chemistry. Organic chemists want to learn about other methods, conditions, or special reagents that may be the arcanum for the next compound they have to make.

William E. Adams, chair of the chemistry and physics department at Salem State College, received his B.S. from Bucknell University and his M.S. and Ph.D. from Lehigh University. He has been involved in research collaborations since his high school days when he did experiments in his backyard and basement. When not on campus, Bill enjoys doing hands-on chemistry demonstrations with students and teachers on visits to elementary and high school classrooms. His previous contribution, “Saccharin: Is It Safe?” (co-authored with J.D. Davis of Merrimack College) was published in the Sextant, Volume 1, Number 2 (1987).