Speaker 1: Welcome to Criminalia, a production of Shonda Land Audio in
Speaker 1: partnership with I Heart Radio. Welcome to Criminalia. If you're
Speaker 1: bracing yourself for more discussions of false imprisonment and extreme porture,
Speaker 1: this episode has neither. No one is wrongly accused of
Speaker 1: a crime here. The crime we're going to talk about
Speaker 1: is that alchemy has long been considered a bunch of quackery.
Speaker 1: This is our alchemical April Fool episode, starring names that
Speaker 1: may surprise you. I'm Maria Tremarquis and I'm Holly Fry.
Speaker 1: Social conventions, economics, and royal patronage greatly affected alchemy's history
Speaker 1: and development. But there's no mistake that, no matter the
Speaker 1: where or the when, it's practice laid the foundation for
Speaker 1: the modern science of chemistry. And though the contributions of
Speaker 1: alchemists have been dismissed by scholars for years, centuries, to
Speaker 1: be accurate it some of the names that we recognize
Speaker 1: as being influential in the early days of our modern
Speaker 1: sciences were also alchemists. Whether it was known that they
Speaker 1: were practicing alchemists, that is a different story. He put
Speaker 1: Aristotle's theory of the elements, as well as Paris Elysis's
Speaker 1: Three Primes or Tria Prima of alchemy to the test
Speaker 1: with analysis and thorough criticism. He defined chemical elements, compounds,
Speaker 1: and mixtures, and coined the term chemical analysis. He was
Speaker 1: an advocate of corpuscularianism, a theory partly based in alchemical
Speaker 1: work that stated all matter is composed of minute particles.
Speaker 1: He believed that he had achieved a form of reverse
Speaker 1: transmutation by changing gold into silver, and he also believed
Speaker 1: that the Philosopher's stone existed. So who was this transmutational alchemist?
Speaker 1: We're talking about the guy who's often known as the
Speaker 1: father of modern chemistry, Robert Boyle. That's right. And Robert
Speaker 1: Boyle was born on January sixty seven in the town
Speaker 1: of Lismore, County Waterford, Ireland. He was the fourteenth child
Speaker 1: of Richard Boyle, first Earl of Cork, Lord Treasurer of
Speaker 1: the Kingdom of Ireland, and his second wife, Katherine Fenton,
Speaker 1: who was the daughter of the Secretary of State in Ireland.
Speaker 1: Through business marriage and landownership, Richard became one of the
Speaker 1: most powerful landed and industrial magnets in seventeenth century Ireland.
Speaker 1: And we really have to be clear that the Boyle
Speaker 1: family was incredibly rich. It's often said it was one
Speaker 1: of the wealthiest families in the British Isles at the
Speaker 1: time that Robert lived. As a child in this very
Speaker 1: aristocratic family, Robert was educated in some of the most
Speaker 1: prestigious schools and by some of the most amazing minds.
Speaker 1: He attended Eton College and he even studied with tutors
Speaker 1: around Europe for several years. He took a just a
Speaker 1: general chemistry class in high school. You may remember Robert
Speaker 1: Boyle as the person who discovered the law of gases.
Speaker 1: Boil's law states that the volume of a gas decreases
Speaker 1: with increasing pressure, and vice versa. He was a resolute
Speaker 1: proponent of the experimental method, which is a method of
Speaker 1: research that's conducted using the assignment and the manipulation of
Speaker 1: variables to test a hypothesis, which is really just a
Speaker 1: long way of saying that the method is he used
Speaker 1: to show a cause and effect relationship between two variables.
Speaker 1: He's regarded as one of the pioneers of modern experimental
Speaker 1: scientific method and he's widely considered to be one of
Speaker 1: the first modern chemists and founders of the science of chemistry.
Speaker 1: So why would he bother with something like alchemy. Since
Speaker 1: its beginnings a few thousand years ago, alchemy was divided
Speaker 1: among philosophical, religious, mystical, and scientific pursuits. It was a
Speaker 1: branch of natural philosophy that combined proto scientific work and philosophy,
Speaker 1: and it flourished around the world for centuries. But alchemy
Speaker 1: has a bad reputation among modern scientists, primarily because of
Speaker 1: the association it developed with astrology, black magic, and the occult.
Speaker 1: Considered tricksters and frauds for overpromising and under delivering. Many
Speaker 1: alchemists themselves did not help their own reputation. Sometimes, of course,
Speaker 1: they ended up executed for it. It's a story we
Speaker 1: have seen this season. Remember George Honauer. He was a
Speaker 1: goldsmith and an alchemist in the late sixteenth century, and
Speaker 1: he claimed that he could convert iron into gold. But
Speaker 1: when he could not deliver on that claim due Frederick
Speaker 1: the first of Wurtemburg had him dressed in a gold
Speaker 1: tinsel suit and hanged from a gallows covered in gold
Speaker 1: colored foil. We're gonna take a break for a word
Speaker 1: from our sponsor, and when we return we'll get into
Speaker 1: how and why alchemy grew into the respectable science of chemistry.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to criminalia. Between alchemy and chemistry, there once
Speaker 1: was a field of study known as chemistry. That's with
Speaker 1: two wise Please allow us to explain. Alchemy is based
Speaker 1: on the idea that every substance is made up of
Speaker 1: some combination of the four Aristotilian elements earth, fire, air, water.
Speaker 1: You'll note this is different from chemical elements such as
Speaker 1: sodium or phosphorus. It was sort of the proto concept
Speaker 1: of the periodic table of elements, but obviously simplified at
Speaker 1: a little misguided. So if you were able to figure
Speaker 1: out the right proportions of those four elements, you would
Speaker 1: be able to make gold or the elixir of life,
Speaker 1: or maybe whatever you want it. Throughout its history, alchemy
Speaker 1: was sometimes celebrated, sometimes feared. It's secretive nature drew suspicions
Speaker 1: from the government and from the church, and many who
Speaker 1: pro just did so in secret, in part because they
Speaker 1: feared punishment from those establishments. So there's this full circle
Speaker 1: going around here. But there were alchemists who did legitimate work,
Speaker 1: legit chemical experimentation processes and applications that helped bring alchemy
Speaker 1: into what we know as modern chemistry. It was about
Speaker 1: the turn of the eighteenth century when alchemy and chemistry
Speaker 1: started to grow apart. Medieval scientific study was dominated by
Speaker 1: the ideas of the Greek philosopher Aristotle and physician slash
Speaker 1: philosopher Paracelsus Boyle. That meant was working in an interesting time.
Speaker 1: Alchemy was still very much alive and practiced during his lifetime.
Speaker 1: But it's not like alchemy woke up one morning to
Speaker 1: find out it was now called chemistry. The period from
Speaker 1: the fifteenth century through the eighteenth century is often referred
Speaker 1: to as the early modern world. In the first half
Speaker 1: of that period, from the late fifteenth century through the
Speaker 1: seventeenth century, is con sidered the dawn of a hybrid
Speaker 1: between alchemy and chemistry called chemistry. It sounds like chemistry,
Speaker 1: but it's spelled as follows c h y m I
Speaker 1: asked t r y. An alchemist could have been known
Speaker 1: as an alchemist, sure, but he also might have been
Speaker 1: known as a chemist that spelled c h y m
Speaker 1: I s t. Hybrid names for a hybrid science. And
Speaker 1: it's not just Boyle who straddles this alchemical slash chemist line.
Speaker 1: Influential early chemists such as George Ernst Stall and Isaac
Speaker 1: Newton did too, and there really wasn't a whole lot
Speaker 1: that was different between a laboratory used by an alchemist
Speaker 1: versus one that was used by an early chemist. Yes,
Speaker 1: the father of modern physics and the inventor of calculus,
Speaker 1: Isaac Newton was a curious and practiced alchemist, and he
Speaker 1: didn't just dabble or borrow from their works and theories.
Speaker 1: Newton believed that in his experiments he had found the
Speaker 1: recipe for the Philosopher's stone, but you'd never have known.
Speaker 1: He kept that business a well guarded secret. Those scholars
Speaker 1: have known for a long time that Newton had a
Speaker 1: general interest in alchemy. It wasn't until much more recently
Speaker 1: that science historians discovered the scope of his interest through
Speaker 1: analysis of his voluminous alchemical works housed in the Newtonian archives,
Speaker 1: most of which were actually never published. He was prolific,
Speaker 1: they've learned. He was quite serious about the study and practice,
Speaker 1: and spent three decades trying to transmute one chemical element
Speaker 1: into another. It's actually pretty telling that Newton's interested in
Speaker 1: alchemy was something he didn't advertise. It already had a
Speaker 1: bad reputation in his time. Newton's writings also showed that
Speaker 1: he was strongly influenced in his work by a person
Speaker 1: who wrote under the name Eranius Philolities. According to modern historians,
Speaker 1: that was colonial American Harvard educated alchemist George Starkey, also
Speaker 1: known as George Stark, hiding behind the pseudonym him. Starkey,
Speaker 1: who called himself the Philosopher by Fire, was a physician
Speaker 1: and an alchemist who not only influenced Newton, but also
Speaker 1: Boyle and other early modern scientists. It was perfectly reasonable
Speaker 1: for Isaac Newton to believe in alchemy, says William Newman,
Speaker 1: a historian at Indiana University, Bloomington, and he continued his
Speaker 1: quote most of the experimental scientists of the seventeenth century did.
Speaker 1: In his opinion, alchemy was synonymous with chemistry, and chemistry
Speaker 1: was much bigger than transmutation. No one, though, successfully transmuted
Speaker 1: any metal into gold. No one discovered the Philosopher's Stone
Speaker 1: or the elixir of life. But that doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: this was all for nothing, or that it was even
Speaker 1: all bunk. Alchemists discovered a lot of significant things we've
Speaker 1: discussed on the show. Before distillation refining of ores, the
Speaker 1: production of gunpowder, the manufacturing of glass and ceramics, things
Speaker 1: like leather tanning, the production of inks, dies and paints.
Speaker 1: There's so much more to add to that list that
Speaker 1: came out of alchemy using laboratory based analysis and synthesis.
Speaker 1: Alchemists were among the first to formulate the principle of
Speaker 1: mass balance, and their experiments on crystallographic analysis would seem
Speaker 1: right at home in a modern chemistry lab. They invented
Speaker 1: many of the instruments and equipment that you will still
Speaker 1: find used in modern laboratories. And those of you who
Speaker 1: were with us during our first season where we talked
Speaker 1: all about lady poisoners, hey, hey, here it is alchemists
Speaker 1: were the ones to isolate the chemical element arsenic first.
Speaker 1: I feel like since that first season, I'm never gonna
Speaker 1: be more than say, maybe two steps away from arsene
Speaker 1: my life. It always just seems to pop up in
Speaker 1: articles or somewhere like arsenic is the Kevin Bacon of
Speaker 1: modern history. And on that. We're going to take a
Speaker 1: break for a word from our sponsor, and when we're
Speaker 1: back we will explain how a true alchemist never admits it.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to criminalia. We discovered that Boil penned the
Speaker 1: list of things he predicted would be invented, including antidepressants.
Speaker 1: But first we're gonna talk about patent protection among alchemists.
Speaker 1: Science historian, chemist, and professor at Johns Hopkins University, Lawrence
Speaker 1: Princeship Hay is also one of the world's foremost experts
Speaker 1: on alchemy. He deciphers codes and replicates ancient formulas at
Speaker 1: time and again. He has shown that the metaphors used
Speaker 1: to write alchemical recipes really do provide real laboratory instructions,
Speaker 1: if that is, you can decipher them in He analyzed
Speaker 1: volumes of Boyle's writings in the Royal Society of London.
Speaker 1: Those writings, he found our with references to Boyle's own
Speaker 1: attempts at transmutation, and include the same phrasing, vocabulary, and
Speaker 1: symbology known among alchemists. Boyle believed in empiricism and that
Speaker 1: a scientist's results should be shared with peers so that
Speaker 1: their experiments could be repeated and their results confirmed. But
Speaker 1: Print chap A discovered that while Boyle advocated knowledge sharing,
Speaker 1: he did, like a true alchemist, used code words in
Speaker 1: his texts. For example, whenever Boyle wrote Ormant in a recipe,
Speaker 1: he was really referring to potassium nitrate. For many alchemists,
Speaker 1: that was a way to keep their study out of
Speaker 1: what they considered dangerous hands, which is also another way
Speaker 1: of saying that there was a belief among alchemists that
Speaker 1: only some people could and should be in the know.
Speaker 1: But according to Prince Chape, in Boyle's case, it may
Speaker 1: have been more like a version of patent protection after
Speaker 1: rivals had stolen some of his work. Uh So, speaking
Speaker 1: of stealing work, In sixteen sixty Boyle published his work
Speaker 1: New Experiments Physico Mechanical, Touching the Spring of the Air
Speaker 1: and Its Effects, in which he explored the physical nature
Speaker 1: of air and discussed his experiments using an air pump
Speaker 1: to create a vacuum. This was only seventeen years after
Speaker 1: Evangelista Toricelli produced the first laboratory vacuum that happened in
Speaker 1: sixteen forty three, and in the second edition of New
Speaker 1: Experiments Physical Mechanical, published two years later in sixteen sixty two,
Speaker 1: Boyle outlined his law of gases, stating that the volume
Speaker 1: of a gas varies inversely to the pressure of the gas.
Speaker 1: In sixteen sixty one, he wrote A Skeptical Chemist. The
Speaker 1: Skeptical Chemistry is where Boyle argued for the scientific method
Speaker 1: of inquiry and the development of proof, and today it's
Speaker 1: considered a foundational work. It's also considered the point when
Speaker 1: the mystical traditions of alchemy transitioned into the science of chemistry.
Speaker 1: Boil re spected alchemical work, elevated the practice into a science,
Speaker 1: and established his reputation as a founder of modern chemistry.
Speaker 1: There's a quote from William Newman, who we referenced earlier,
Speaker 1: that says that Boyle quote basically pillaged the work of
Speaker 1: the German physician and alchemist Daniel Center, who published a
Speaker 1: few decades before him in the early seventeenth century, and
Speaker 1: he borrowed heavily and without any kind of acknowledgement from
Speaker 1: Center in his essay on Corpuscularianism titled of the Atomical Philosophy,
Speaker 1: and again in his work The Skeptical Chemist, where he
Speaker 1: used Centered's experiments of gold and silver, again without acknowledgement.
Speaker 1: Newman has also pointed out that some of Centered's corpusculary
Speaker 1: and ideas oh much to the corpusculary and alchemical theory
Speaker 1: of the Suma perfectionists of the pseudo javert, a collection
Speaker 1: of alchemical writings that dates back to the late thirteenth
Speaker 1: and early fourteenth century. Incidentally, the javert re for instant.
Speaker 1: The name is not Abu and Masa Jaber, even highan
Speaker 1: who was an influential part of the Islamic Golden Age
Speaker 1: of alchemy. We spoke about this in a recent episode.
Speaker 1: Hyan was known by the name Jabbart throughout Europe, and
Speaker 1: much of his work had been translated into Latin during
Speaker 1: the eleventh through the centuries. There is another Jabbart known
Speaker 1: as the pseudo Jabbart. Scholars believe it may have been
Speaker 1: a thirteenth century alchemist, possibly a man named Paul of Taranto,
Speaker 1: who borrowed the name. Or perhaps they say it might
Speaker 1: have been a few alchemists who published under the pseudonym.
Speaker 1: No one is exactly sure, but people who were not
Speaker 1: that man used that man's name. So what's the quote
Speaker 1: from the Dalai Lama? Share your knowledge? It's a way
Speaker 1: to achieve immortality. In sixteen sixty, with eleven other poly maths,
Speaker 1: Boil formed the Royal Society in London, which was created
Speaker 1: to discuss scientific topics and share knowledge as els to
Speaker 1: witness experiments. Peer review wouldn't be introduced as we know
Speaker 1: it until seventeen thirty one, when the work Medical Essays
Speaker 1: and Observations was published by the Royal Society of Edinburgh.
Speaker 1: A devout and pious Anglican, Boyle was elected President of
Speaker 1: the Society in sixteen eighty, but refused the position because
Speaker 1: he felt that the oath required of him violated his
Speaker 1: religious principles. The Royal Society's motto nullius in verba can
Speaker 1: be roughly translated to take nobody's word for it. One
Speaker 1: of my goals, Prince of Hay, is quoted as saying,
Speaker 1: is to demonstrate the importance of alchemy to the history
Speaker 1: of science, and to show that alchemy cannot be dismissed
Speaker 1: out of hand as a worthless and past endeavor, simply
Speaker 1: because the alchemist had a worldview very different from our own.
Speaker 1: In sixteen sixty eight, Boyle moved permanently to London to
Speaker 1: live with his sister, who was also his best friend,
Speaker 1: Katherine Jones, Viscountess Randolam. Catherine was also a scientist and
Speaker 1: a political and religious philosopher, and the two of them
Speaker 1: spent much of their later years together, sharing scientific ideas
Speaker 1: and editing each other's manuscripts. Robert died from paralysis on
Speaker 1: December thirty one, that was just a week after Catherine
Speaker 1: had died. After his death, found among his private papers
Speaker 1: was a kind of wish list if things Boil hoped
Speaker 1: would be achieved through science in the coming centuries. And
Speaker 1: his list includes things that have come to be like airplanes,
Speaker 1: oregan transplants, submarines, commercial agriculture, psychotropic drugs. But it does
Speaker 1: seem we're still waiting for the prolonged life and recovery
Speaker 1: of youth, though, I mean, I think that's debatable. Maybe
Speaker 1: we're on our where it depends how you look at it.
Speaker 1: So let's do us to alchemy. Yeah, let's have an
Speaker 1: I'll come a toast. This one got me thinking a
Speaker 1: lot about the idea of hiding things. So I took
Speaker 1: it as an opportunity to take a cocktail I don't
Speaker 1: like and make it into something I do like by
Speaker 1: hiding the flavors I don't enjoy. Okay, that's like a
Speaker 1: fantastic little drink project right there, and I'm calling it
Speaker 1: Newton's Secret. So the cocktail that I do not enjoy
Speaker 1: is a negrony. Okay, do you like those? I don't really.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't go up and order one, but if you
Speaker 1: put it in front of me, accept it. It's not
Speaker 1: your go to at all. So for those of you
Speaker 1: that don't know, and negroni is super easy to make.
Speaker 1: It's one of those things that, like, every bartender should
Speaker 1: know how to make it because it's super basic in
Speaker 1: terms of how it's made. But it's also been around
Speaker 1: long enough there are lots of people that like it,
Speaker 1: and it's an interesting drink. It's just the flavors are
Speaker 1: not for me. I'm not a big pari fan. Campari
Speaker 1: is tricky, it is. It very much is. We'll talk
Speaker 1: about why in a moment exactly. So, the negroni is
Speaker 1: very easy to make. It's one part Jim, one part campari,
Speaker 1: and one part sweet vermouth. You're combining three things I
Speaker 1: don't love. Jim has grown on me, but I still
Speaker 1: it has to be a you know, particular and very
Speaker 1: delicious gin. And campari is technically a bitter. It's a
Speaker 1: liqueur and it is it will slap you. It's not
Speaker 1: your friend. And sweet vermouth that name is a misnomer.
Speaker 1: It doesn't taste like candy. It's like when you're a
Speaker 1: kid you see scotch and you think it might taste
Speaker 1: like butter scotch, but its exactly exactly right. Sweet vermouth
Speaker 1: is called that because sugar is used. It's a fortified
Speaker 1: wine and sugar is used in that process. But the
Speaker 1: flavor is really quite spicy. And so those three things
Speaker 1: they make a very interesting flavor. You' don't shake in
Speaker 1: a groaning. You stir it with ice because you want
Speaker 1: to chill it all together. It's still a little slap
Speaker 1: in the face for me. It's not my favorite thing.
Speaker 1: And I thought, what can I do to make this
Speaker 1: more yummy? And I do know a lot of people
Speaker 1: that will sub in one of these ingredients with Saint Germain,
Speaker 1: which I love. I didn't do a subout though. I
Speaker 1: just added and I kept everything equal parts because that
Speaker 1: was my other challenge to myself. So I added one
Speaker 1: part Saint Germain. This is where you get a little
Speaker 1: choose your own adventure options because I thought, if I
Speaker 1: just added juice to this, because that elder elderberry liqueur
Speaker 1: does some cool things on its own where it softens
Speaker 1: up that bitter edge, and it has its own not
Speaker 1: cloying sweetness, but it does sweeten it up a little.
Speaker 1: And I thought, if we add a juice to this,
Speaker 1: you know, one part juice surely will have cracked it.
Speaker 1: And I added just a one part cranberry juice, and
Speaker 1: I actually found that to be very yummy. And of
Speaker 1: course I said, my beloved, come here drink, because I
Speaker 1: know you also dislike the base material, and we'll see
Speaker 1: if this is better to you. But today is the
Speaker 1: day I discovered that my husband also doesn't like cranberry cheese,
Speaker 1: so there's really nothing about this drink that is redeeming
Speaker 1: for him. Then I was thinking, surely there's gotta be
Speaker 1: a way that we can make this work. And I
Speaker 1: did a second one in which I put pineapple juice.
Speaker 1: Completely changes the profile, and to me that was not
Speaker 1: as yummy as the cranberry juice one, but to him
Speaker 1: it was much nicer. Okay, well, it's get information. I
Speaker 1: think the one part juice is a choose your own
Speaker 1: adventure portion. I bet if you like grapefruit juice, that
Speaker 1: might do something beautiful here. Interesting. I have mixed feelings
Speaker 1: about grape fruit juice. Anyway, So I would give it
Speaker 1: a try. How it works in here a bit, but
Speaker 1: I'm like about the whole bottle to do that right.
Speaker 1: I liked the cranberry juice just fine. You could do
Speaker 1: a grape juice, said, I bet you'd get one. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of the alcohol taste goes away, that is
Speaker 1: Newton's secret, and you just want to stir those together
Speaker 1: again with ice. Normally you would serve and a grony
Speaker 1: with a large cube. Since you're messing with it already,
Speaker 1: you don't have to beat. It's particularly adherent to those
Speaker 1: kinds of cocktail rules. But this is an interesting one
Speaker 1: to do a mocktail um because with a mocktail there's
Speaker 1: you don't have to hide anything. The mock tail is
Speaker 1: quite different, but it also has some of the same
Speaker 1: notes that play together. So I think what you want
Speaker 1: to do is select a floral tea for yourself. I
Speaker 1: would go with like a chrysanthemum here, and you're going
Speaker 1: to brew the tea, but then you're gonna boil it
Speaker 1: down and reduce it a little bit, and then add
Speaker 1: an equal part sugar and make like a chrysanthemum syrup.
Speaker 1: And I would add that to the juice of your choice,
Speaker 1: and then I would zest the peel of an orange
Speaker 1: on top, so you still get some of that bite
Speaker 1: and sharpness. And that is what I would do over
Speaker 1: ice for Newton's secret in mocktail version. Newton's secret is
Speaker 1: that it's a negrony in a cloak like the alchemy
Speaker 1: gear robes and a hat. That's the part that you
Speaker 1: hide so over that you would put a very fancy
Speaker 1: frock coat and pose. That's how that would go. So
Speaker 1: I have a question about about the drink and the juice.
Speaker 1: So yes, I am a huge granberry fan. Should I
Speaker 1: do one that has juice but like a little sweeter
Speaker 1: you do want the sweeter cranberry juice here? And I
Speaker 1: would say if it's one of those things where if
Speaker 1: you have unsweetened cranberry juice on hand, don't go out
Speaker 1: and buy more. You could just add a little simple
Speaker 1: syrup in there to sweeten yourself a little touch of sweetness.
Speaker 1: It's a little little scoche. Since I don't bring it
Speaker 1: to the table myself, I'll just have to bring a
Speaker 1: little table stewing over with me. But that's it's an
Speaker 1: interesting thing, and it's a. It was a fun experiment.
Speaker 1: I have been thinking a lot about it. Came up
Speaker 1: recently while I was traveling and I was at a
Speaker 1: bar that I love and normally always get amazing drinks,
Speaker 1: and I got a drink that I get all the time,
Speaker 1: which is a vodka Collins, but the bartender there didn't
Speaker 1: seem to have the hang of it, and so I
Speaker 1: was like, Okay, what else can I order that will
Speaker 1: make this into a yummy drink? So in that case,
Speaker 1: I went the Lazy Root and was just like, hey,
Speaker 1: can I also get a ginger ale? And I just
Speaker 1: kind of combined them and that was fine, but it
Speaker 1: did make me think a lot about fixing drinks and
Speaker 1: like when you can and cannot rescue a cocktail that
Speaker 1: might not be to your taste. Again, I always encourage
Speaker 1: people to experiment and try that you can encode your
Speaker 1: Negroni in a more delicious juice. That is Newton's secret,
Speaker 1: and if you make it, I hope it's fun. If
Speaker 1: you try different juice, let us know, because I want
Speaker 1: to know what works for everybody, because everybody's palate is
Speaker 1: a little different. I even thought about what if I
Speaker 1: put coconut water this is what would that do? Did
Speaker 1: you try? I didn't. I didn't try. You know, you
Speaker 1: gotta limit the number of experiments you do. Robert Boyle
Speaker 1: would tell you, you can't have that many variables. Newton
Speaker 1: would tell you he worked for three decades trying right.
Speaker 1: We thank you for hanging out, curing our cocktail recipes
Speaker 1: and our stories, and we will be right back here
Speaker 1: next week. I'm Criminalia with some more alchemy and witchcraft.
Speaker 1: Criminalia is a production of Shonda land Audio in partnership
Speaker 1: with I Heart Radio. For more podcasts from Shonda land Audio,
Speaker 1: please visit the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or
Speaker 1: wherever you listen to your favorite shows,