University of Virginia Library

Search this document 
Dictionary of the History of Ideas

Studies of Selected Pivotal Ideas
  
  
expand section 
  
expand section 
  
  

expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionV. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionI. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionV. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionV. 
expand sectionV. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionVII. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionII. 
expand sectionI. 
expand sectionI. 
expand sectionI. 
expand sectionV. 
expand sectionVII. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionV. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionII. 
expand sectionI. 
expand sectionI. 
expand sectionI. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionVII. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionVII. 
expand sectionVII. 
expand sectionVII. 
expand sectionV. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionVII. 
collapse sectionIII. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
expand sectionIV. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionV. 
expand sectionV. 
expand sectionV. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionVII. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionI. 
expand sectionV. 
expand sectionV. 
expand sectionVII. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionI. 
expand sectionI. 
expand sectionI. 
expand sectionI. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionIV. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionIV. 
expand sectionIV. 
expand sectionIV. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionVI. 
expand sectionV. 
expand sectionIII. 
expand sectionVI. 

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


032

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.