RENAISSANCE ALCHEMY AND THE
“NEW
SCIENCE”
The work of Marsilio Ficino and his followers asso-
ciated with the Platonic Academy in Florence resulted
in a
heightened interest in the mystical texts of late
antiquity. Ficino himself
translated the Hermetic
corpus (1463) and this text was of great influence
in
the revival of Natural Magic, Astrology, and Alchemy.
Interest in
these subjects is closely intertwined with
the course of the Scientific
Revolution. Indeed, the
sixteenth and the early seventeenth centuries
witnessed
an ever-quickening concern with alchemy. This new
interest
reached a peak in the middle years of the latter
century before declining.
It was just at this time that
the major collected editions of alchemical
classics were
being prepared by Zetzner (1602, 1622, 1659-61),
Ashmole
(1652), and Manget (1702).
The fresh flavor of Renaissance alchemy is perhaps
best seen in the work of
Paracelsus (1493-1541) and
his followers. The iatrochemists of the
sixteenth and
the seventeenth centuries follow directly in the steps
of their medieval predecessors. Like them, they ex-
pressed an interest in transmutation, but they were
primarily
concerned with the medical applications of
alchemy. For some this meant the
preparation of
chemical drugs, but for others it meant a mystical
alchemical approach to medicine that might apply to
macrocosmic as well as
to microcosmic phenomena.
Paracelsus may be characterized as one of the many
nature philosophers of
his time, but he differs from
others in his emphasis on the importance of
medicine
and alchemy as bases for a new understanding of the
universe.
Characteristic of the Paracelsians was their
firm opposition to the
dominant Aristotelian-Galenic
tradition of the universities. They were
unyielding in
their opposition to Scholasticism which they sought to
replace with a philosophy influenced by the recently
translated
Neo-Platonic and Hermetic texts. The reli-
gious nature of their quest is ever present. Man was
to seek an
understanding of his Creator through the
two books of divine revelation;
the Holy Scriptures
and the Book of Creation—Nature. The
Paracelsians
constantly called for a new observational approach to
nature, and for them chemistry or alchemy seemed to
be the best example of
what this new science should
be. The Paracelsians were quick to offer an alchemical
interpretation of Genesis. Here they pictured the Cre-
ation as the work of a divine alchemist
separating the
beings and objects of the earth and the heavens from
the unformed
prima materia much as the alchemist
may
distill pure quintessence from a grosser form of matter.
The search for physical truth in the biblical account
of the Creation
focused special attention on the forma-
tion
of the elements. Paracelsus regularly used the
Aristotelian elements, but
he also introduced the tria
prima—the principles of Salt. Sulphur, and Mercury.
The latter were a modification of the old sulphur-
mercury theory of the metals, but they differed
from
the older concept in that they were to apply to all
things rather
than being limited to the metals alone.
The introduction of these
principles had the effect of
calling into question the whole framework of
ancient
medicine and natural philosophy since these had been
grounded
upon the Aristotelian elements. Furthermore,
the fact that Paracelsus had
not clearly defined his
principles tended to make the whole question of
ele-
mentary substances an ill-defined
one.
The Paracelsians sought to interpret their world in
terms of alchemy or
chemistry. On the macrocosmic
level they spoke of meteorological events in
terms of
chemical analogies. On the geocosmic level they
argued over
differing chemical interpretations of the
growth of minerals and the origin
of mountain springs.
And in their search for agricultural improvements
they
postulated the importance of dissolved salts as the
reason for
the beneficial result of fertilizing with
manure. For them this was the
familiar universal salt
of the alchemists.
The Paracelsians approached medicine in a similar
fashion. They felt assured
that their knowledge of the
macrocosm might be properly applied to the
micro-
cosm. Thus, if an aerial sulphur
and niter were the
cause of thunder and lightning in the heavens, the
same
aerial effluvia might be inhaled and generate burning
diseases in
the body. Similarly, chemical deposits were
formed when the internal archei
governing the various
organs failed to properly eliminate impurities from
the
system.
The Renaissance was a period of new and violent
diseases and the chemical
physicians stated that their
new stronger remedies were essential for the
proper
cures. The work of Paracelsus is reminiscent of medie-
val distillation chemistry, but by the end of the
century
iatrochemists were turning less to distilled quintes-
sences and more to precipitates and
residues in their
search for new remedies. In all cases it was argued
that alchemical procedures resulted in the separation
of pure substances
from inactive impurities.
In the century between 1550 and 1650 conflicts
between Paracelsian
iatrochemists and more traditional
Galenists were common. The detailed critique of the
Paracelsian
position by Thomas Erastus became a fun-
damental text for those who opposed the chemical
medicine, and a
sharp confrontation between chemists
and Galenists followed in Paris in the
first decade of
the seventeenth century. Here the debate centered
largely around the possible dangers of the new med-
icines. Both Andreas Libavius and Daniel Sennert re-
viewed this controversy and concluded that the best
course for physicians would be to accept the useful
remedies of both the
old and the new systems. This
was the compromise position taken by the
compilers
of the Pharmacopoeia of the Royal College
of Physi-
cians of London (1618) and after
this time there were
few who denied the value of chemistry for medicine.
Yet, if the chemists debated with more traditional
philosophers and
physicians, they disagreed no less
among themselves. At the opening of the
seventeenth
century Robert Fludd defended the chemically
oriented
views of the Rosicrucians and he described
his mystical alchemical
interpretation of nature and
supernature in a series of folio volumes on
the macro-
cosm and the microcosm. Here he
placed considerable
emphasis on an alchemical interpretation of the Crea-
tion and he utilized mechanical examples to
support
his views. His work gave support to the alchemical
plea for a
new science and it was viewed with alarm
by Johannes Kepler, Marin
Mersenne, and Pierre
Gassendi.
Jean Baptiste van Helmont was no less a chemical
philosopher than Fludd, and
he described in detail his
transmutation of mercury to gold by means of a
small
sample of the philosopher's stone. Van Helmont sought
a chemical
understanding of man through medicine,
but, in contrast to Fludd and most
Paracelsians, he
rejected the macrocosm-microcosm analogy. Van
Helmont
thus was less interested in macrocosmic and
geocosmic phenomena than Fludd
and he concentrated
more on practical and theoretical medical
questions.
The influence of both authors was considerable in an
age
when great uncertainty existed about the future
course of the new science.
As late as 1650 John French
could still suggest that only chemistry should
properly
be considered the basis for a reform of the universities.
Similarly John Webster (1654) stated that the new
learning must be grounded
principally upon the works
of Francis Bacon and Robert Fludd.
