 | Alchemy |  |
RENAISSANCE ALCHEMY AND THE
"NEW SCIENCE"
The work of Marsilio Ficino and his followers associated 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 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 witness o 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 expressed 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 religious 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 Scripturcs 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 Creation 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 formation 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 elementary 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 microcosm. 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 medieval distillation chemistry, but by the end of the century iatrochemists were turning less to distilled quintessences 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 fundamental 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 medicines. Both Andreas Libavius and Daniel Sennert reviewed 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 Physicians 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 macrocosm and the microcosm. Here he placed considerable emphasis on an alchemical interpretation of the Creation 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.
| Alchemy | |