The Chemical Philosophers: Chemical Medicine from Paracelsus to Van Helmont

Here referring to the Renaissance metallurgist, Georgius Agricola (Bauer) (1494–1555), noted for his De re metallica (1556); the Renaissance surgeon, Hieronymus Brunschwig (c. 1450–1533), noted for his Liber de arte distillandi (1500); and the late medieval alchemist, Thomas Norton (c. 1437–1514), whose Ordinall of alchimy (1477) became one of the English classics of this literature.

For a general survey of the work of Paracelsus see Debus Allen G. , The English Paracelsians (London, 1965), ch. i, passim. The basic single work is Pagel Walter , Paracelsus. An introduction to philosophical medicine in the era of the Renaissance (Basel/New York, 1958).

Representative seventeenth century definitions will be found in Nicholas Lemery, A course of chymistry … (trans. Harris Walter , md, 2nd English edition from the 5th French edition, London: Walter Kettilby, 1686), 2; Nicholas le Febure (Le Févre), A compleat body of chymistry … (trans. P.D.C., Esq., corrected edition, London: O. Pulleyn for John Wright, 1670), pt i, 6–12. Additional pertinent material is to be found in the present author's “Alchemy” in the Dictionary of the history of ideas (executive ed., Wiener Philip P. , New York, 1973), i, 27–34 and “Renaissance chemistry and the work of Robert Fludd”, Ambix, xiv (1967), 42–59.

The influence of Ecclesiasticus 38 is evident in Paracelsus's contemptuous address to the physicians of his day (from the Paragranum; see Paracelsus , Sämtliche Werke (ed. Sudhoff Karl Matthiessen Wilheim , 15 vols, Munich and Berlin, 1922–33), viii, 63–65) and in Jean Baptiste van Helmont's lengthy discussion of the text offered in an autobiographical context (“De Lithiasi” (“Philiatro lectori”) in Opuscula medica inaudita (Amsterdam: Ludovicus Elsevir, 1648; reprinted Brussels, 1966), 4; and in English translation in the Oriatrike or physicke refined. The common errors therein refuted, and the whole art reformed & rectified. Being a new rise and progress of phylosophy and medicine, for the destruction of diseases and prolongation of life (trans. J[ohn] C[handler], London: Lodowick Loyd, 1662), sig. Nnnnn 2^v).

Traditional alchemical claims regarding the scope of the science remained influential in the seventeenth century. Van Helmont was to quote the fourteenth century pseudo-Lullius at length on this point: “… our Philosophers or followers, have directed themselves to enter through any kind of Science, into all experience, by Art, according to the course of Nature in its Univocal or single Principles. For Alchymie alone, is the Glass of true understanding: And shews how to touch, and see the truths of those things in the clear Light”. Van Helmont , “De Lithiasi” (ch. iii, sect. 1), Opuscula medica inaudita (Frankfort: Joh. Just. Erythropili, 1682), 12; Oriatrike or physick refined, 839–40.

This is discussed at some length by the present author in “Mathematics and nature in the chemical texts of the Renaissance”, Ambix, xv (1968), 1–28.

Again this is a persistent theme in the literature—perhaps most succinctly stated by the English Paracelsian, Tymme Thomas : “The almighty Creatour of the Heauens and Earth (Christian Reader), hath set before our eyes two most principall Bookes: The one of Nature, the other of his written Word …”. A dialogue philosophicall (Londini: T. S[nodham] for C. Knight, 1612), sig. A3 (from the dedication of Sir Edward Coke, Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas).

Note the anonymous author of the Philiatros exhorting his readers to “put then on Gloues and Cuffes, for you must to the fire, and happily to the fiery furnace”. (London, 1615), fol. 14. And frequently repeated was Peter Severinus's statement that true physicians should discard their books, collect samples of all things in nature and subject them to the fire in their laboratories. Idea medicinae philosophicae (1571; 3rd ed., Hagae Comitis: Adrian Clacq, 1660), 39.

Paracelsus, Labyrinthus medicorum in Opera omnia medico-chemico-chirurgica (trans. Bitiskius F. , 3 vols, Geneva: Loan. Antonij, & Samuelis De Tournes, 1658), i, 264–88, p. 275.

Paracelsus's doctrine of the microcosm is discussed in the Philosophia sagax, Opera omnia ( Bitiskius , ed., 1658, ii, 601) and is described by Pagel Walter , Paracelsus. An introduction to philosophical medicine in the era of the Renaissance (Basel/New York, 1958), 65–68.

On this see Debus Allen G. , “Edward Jorden and the fermentation of the metals: An iatrochemical study of terrestrial phenomena”, in Toward a history of geology (ed. Schneer Cecil J. , Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1969), 100–21.

This is a prominent theme in Paracelsus, Philosophia ad Athenienses (1564) and in Dorn Gerhard , Liber de naturae luce physica, ex Genesi desumpta (1583). In England Thomas Tymme insisted that “Halchymie should have concurrence and antiquitie with Theologie”, since Moses “tels us that the Spirit of God moved upon the water: Which was an indigested Chaos or masse created before by God, with confused Earth in mixture: Yet, by his Halchymicall Extraction, Separation, Sublimation, and Coniunction, so ordered and conioyned againe, as they are manifestly seene a part and sundered: In Earth, Fyer included, (which is a third Element) and Ayre, [and] (a fourth) in Water …”. From the dedication to Sir Charles Blunt in Joseph Duchesne (Quercetanus), The practise of chymicall, and Hermeticall physicke, for the presentation of health (trans. Tymme Thomas , London: Thomas Creede, 1605), sig. A3 recto.

The ‘chemical’ role of the Paracelsian archeus is developed in Paracelsus, Volumen medicinae paramirum (trans. and with a preface by Leidecker Kurt F. , Supplement of the bulletin of the history of medicine, xi (Baltimore, 1949)), 29. For a later period see Davis Audrey B. , Circulation physiology and medical chemistry in England 1650–1680 (Lawrence, Kansas, 1973).

See Debus Allen G. , The English Paracelsians (London, 1965), 26–29 and 45.

Ibid., 29–31.

Note the ongoing debate over this issue, described in Debus Allen G. , “The Paracelsians and the Chemists: The chemical dilemma in Renaissance medicine”, Clio medica, vii (1972), 185–99.

Biggs Noah , Mataeotechnia medicinae praxeωs. The vanity of physick … (London: Giles Calvert, 1651), 80. See also Debus Allen G. , “Paracelsian medicine: Noah Biggs and the problem of medical reform”, in Medicine in seventeenth century England (ed. Debus Allen G. , Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1974), 33–48.

A short life—with references— Has been prepared by the present author for the Dictionary of scientific biography (editor-in-chief, Gillispie Charles C. , New York, in press).

Severinus Petrus , Idea medicinae philosophicae. Continens fundamenta totius doctrinae Paracelsicae Hippocraticae & Galenicae (3rd edn, Hagae-Comitis, 1660), 2–3. An early seventeenth century English translation of this text exists in The British Museum as “A Mappe of Medicyne or Philosophicall Pathe conteininge The Grounds of all ye doctrine of Paracelsus. Hippocrates & Galen” (Sloane Collection, No. 11). The translation is of interest for its short summaries of the various chapters. See also the discussion by Debus Allen G. in “Mathematics and nature in the chemical texts of the Renaissance”, Ambix, xv (1968), 1–28, pp. 19–20.

Severinus , op. cit. (ref. 19), 3, 21.

Although Severinus's views on the relation of the greater to the lesser worlds appear throughout the Idea, the reader is directed particularly to the third chapter, “Universalis totius medicinae adumbratio”, op. cit. (ref. 19), 19–21.

Ibid., 40.

Ibid., 186–8.

Ibid., 95.

Pagel Walter , William Harvey's biological ideas. Selected aspects and historical background (Basel/New York, 1967), 239–47, pp. 241–4.

On Erastus see particularly Pagel Walter , Paracelsus. An introduction to philosophical medicine in the era of the Renaissance (Basel/New York, 1958), 311–32. My earlier account in The English Paracelsians (London, 1965), 37–39, upon which the present discussion is based, has here been strongly influenced by Pagel's research. A useful summary of Erastus's views is to be found in Pagel's article on him in the Dictionary of scientific biography, iv (1971), 386–8.

Erastus Thomas , Disputationes de medicina nova Paracelsi. Pars altera in qua philosophiae Paracelsicae principia et elementa explorantur (s.l., 1572), 2. Here Erastus accused Paracelsus of being a magician and of having called the Devil his friend.

Erastus Thomas , Disputationes de medicina nova Paracelsi. Pars 1 in qua quae de remediis superstitiosis et magicis curationibus prodidit praecipue examinantur (Basel, s.a. [1572]), 16. At this point Erastus spoke of the “monstrosae Paracelsi cõtradictiones”.

Ibid. , 4. In referring to the account of Creation in the Philosophia ad Athenienses and its doctrine that the Creation was a separation, Erastus objected that “Nihil tam praeposterè, tam inconditè, tam imple [?], tam sacrilegè scriptum excogitari potest, quam sunt in hunc librum ex spurcissima mente expuit”.

See Pagel , Paracelsus, 323–4.

For the role of Severinus in this significant problem see Debus Allen G. , “Fire analysis and the elements in the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries”, Annals of science, xxiii (1967), 127–47.

Pagel , Paracelsus, 324–6.

Ibid., 327.

On the life of Guinter and his relationship to Vesalius see O'Malley C. D. , Andreas Vesalius of Brussels (Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1964), 54–61, and also his biography of Guinter in the Dictionary of scientific biography, v (New York, 1972), 585–6. O'Malley did not refer to the chemical and Paracelsian views of Guinter although W. P. D. Wightman had called attention to their interest in his Science and the Renaissance (2 vols, Edinburgh/London, 1962), i, 256, n. 1. The following account of Guinter's De medicina veteri et nova … is based upon my earlier paper, “Guintherius-Libavius-Sennert: The chemical compromise in early modern medicine”, Science, medicine and society in the Renaissance. Essays to honor Walter Pagel (edited by Debus Allen G. , New York, 1972), i, 151–65.

von Andernach J. Guintherius Guinter , De medicina veteri et nova turn cognoscenda, turn faciunda commentarij duo (2 vols, Basel: Henricpetrina, 1571), ii, 11, 651.

Ibid., 25–26.

Ibid., 31.

Ibid.

Ibid., 28–31.

Ibid., 31–32. “Veterum sanè medicina propter auctoritatem primum obtinere locum debet: Recentiorem, si quid primae attulerit, aut in ea correxerit, contemnenda non est, sed ambae simul conferri debent, & quicquid melius in utraque fuerit retineri”.

le Baillif Roch , Edelphe Medecin Spagiric, Le demosterion… auquel sont contenuz trois cens aphorismes latins & francois. Sommaire veritable de la medecine Paracelsique, extraicte de luy en la plus part, par le dict Baillif, Le sommaire duquel se trouvera a fueillet suyvant (Renaes: Pierre le Bret, 1578). The present account of le Baillif's career is based primarily on Hugh Trevor-Roper's “The Sieur de la Rivère, Paracelsian physician of Henry iv”, Science, medicine and society in the Renaissance (ed. Debus Allen G. , New York, 1972), ii, 227–50.

Joseph Duchesne (Quercetanus), Ad Iacobi Auberti Vindonis de ortu et causis metallorum contra chymicos explicationem … Eiusdem de exquisita mineralium, animalium, & vegetibilium medicamentorum Spagyrica praeparatione & usu, perspecua Tractatio (Lyon, 1575). A discussion of the literature on Duchesne will be found in the present author's biography in the Dictionary of scientific biography, iv (New York, 1971), 208–10. His very considerable influence on English chemistry and medicine is discussed by the present author in The English Paracelsians, 87–101.

Duchesne Joseph , Traicté de la matiere, preparation et excellente vertu de la medecine balsamique des anciens philosophes (Paris: C. Morel, 1626), 4; Liber de priscorum philosophorum verae medicinae materia, praeparationis modo, atque in curandis morbis, praestantia (1603; Leipzig: Thom. Schürer and Barthol. Voight, 1613), sig. A3^r.

Duchesne (French, 1626), 5–6; (Latin, 1613), sig. A3^v.

Duchesne (French, 1626), 6; (Latin, 1613), sig. A3^v.

Wightman , op. cit. (ref. 34), i, 257–63.

See Debus , The English Paracelsians, 49–85.

Ibid., 145–57.

The best biography available is that of Gibson Thomas , “A sketch of the career of Theodore Turquet de Mayerne”, Annals of medical history, n.s., v (1933), 315–26. For Mayerne's relationship to Ribit de la Rivère see Trevor-Roper, op. cit. (ref. 41).

Pharmacopoeia Londinensis (2nd edn, London, 1618), “Candido Lectori”.

In recent years Robert Fludd has been the subject of numerous studies by Frances A. Yates, C. H. Josten, Serge Hutin, the present author and others. This literature is summarized in Debus Allen G. , “Robert Fludd”, Dictionary of scientific biography , v (New York, 1972), 47–49. The standard biography remains that of Craven J. B. , Doctor Robert Fludd (Robertus de Fluctibus), the English Rosicrucian, life and writings (Kirkwall, 1902; reprinted New York, n.d.). Although badly outdated, this still contains useful material.

On the Rosicrucians see Yates Frances A. , The Rosicrucian Enlightenment (London and Boston, 1972). Some conclusions of this work may be questioned, but it serves as a useful guide to the literature. See also Debus A. G. , Science and education in the seventeenth century: The Webster-Ward debate (London, 1970), 20–29.

Fludd Robert , Apologia compendiaria fraternitatem de rosea cruce suspicionis et infamiae maculis aspersam, veritatis quasi fluctibus abluens et abstergens (Leiden: Godfrid Basson, 1616). The second—greatly enlarged—edition, Tractatus apologeticus integritatem societatis de rosea cruce defendens (Leiden: Godfrid Basson, 1617), was used as the basis of the following account. Here see especially 91–124. The present account of the work and debates of Fludd is based upon the fourth chapter of my forthcoming The chemical philosophy.

Fludd , Tractatus apologeticus, 187–92.

While we may call Fludd an ‘atomist’ at this date (see also “The sixt experiment w^ch maketh it probable y^t all things wer made of Atoms as some Philosophers haue gessed” (fol. 79^r of Fludd's A philosophicall key, Trinity College, Cambridge, Western ms. 1150 (0.2.46)). The present author is preparing an edition of this manuscript for publication) it is important to note that ‘corpuscularian’ explanations did not play a major part of his system. Important recent discussions of early seventeenth century atomism are to be found in McGuire J. E. Rattansi P. M. , “Newton and the ‘Pipes of Pan’”, Notes and records of the Royal Society, xxi (1966), 108–41 and in the series of papers by Gregory T. , “Studi sull'atomismo del seicento”, Giornale critico della filosofia Italiana, xliii (1964), 38–65; xlv (1966), 44–63; xlvi (1967), 528–41. Here the section on the early seventeenth century iatrochemist, Daniel Sennert (1572–1637) is of special interest (xlv (1966), 51–63).

Fludd , Tractatus apologeticus, 190–2.

Fludd Robert , Utriusque cosmi maioris scilicet et minoris metaphysica, physica atque technica (Oppenheim: T. de Bry, 1617).

Among the many accounts of the Fludd-Kepler debate the most detailed is still that of Wolfgang Pauli, “The influence of archetypal ideas on the scientific theories of Kepler”, in Jung C. G. Pauli W. , The interpretation of nature and the psyche (trans. Silz Priscilla , New York, 1955), 147–240.

Ibid., 194.

As quoted by Pauli , ibid. , 196, from the Veritatis proscenium, 12.

This episode is discussed in a lengthy note by the editor in the Correspondance du P. Marin Mersenne, Religieux Minime (publiée par Mme Paul Tannery, éditée et annotée par Cornelis de Waard avec la collaboration de René Pintard, i (1617–1627), Paris, 1945), 167–8. The Theses are described by Mersenne in La vérité des sciences contre les septiques ou Pyrrhoniens (Paris: Toussainc Du Bray, 1625; reprint Stuttgart/Bad Constatt, 1969), 79–80.

Mersenne , Correspondance, i, 167–8.

Mersenne , La vérité des sciences, 82–83.

Ibid., 56.

Ibid., 105.

Ibid., 106.

Ibid., 107.

Ibid., 116, 119.

Mersenne , Correspondance, i, 62.

Fludd Robert , Sophiae cum moria certamen, in quo lapis lydius a falso structore, Fr. Marino Mersenno, monacho, reprobatus, celeberrima voluminis sui Babylonia (in Genesin) figmenta accurate examinat (s.l. [Frankfurt], 1629); Frizius Joachim [Fludd?], Summum bonum, quod est verum ((Magiae, cabalae, alchymiae: Verae); Fratrum Roseae Crucis verorum) subjectum … ([Frankfurt?], 1629).

Ibid., 25.

Ibid., 31.

Mersenne , Correspondance, ii (1945), 181.

Gassendi Pierre , Examen philosophiae Roberti Fluddi in Opera omnia (6 vols, Florence, 1727), iii, 217–67, 259.

See Debus Allen G. , “Robert Fludd and the circulation of the blood”, Journal of the history of medicine and allied sciences, xvi (1961), 374–93 and “Harvey and Fludd: The irrational factor in the rational science of the seventeenth century”, Journal of the history of biology, iii (1970), 81–105.

Gassendi Pierre , Epistolica exercitatio in qua principia philosophiae Roberti Fluddi, medici, reteguntur, et ad recentes illius libros adversus R. P. F. Marinum Mersennum … respondetur (Paris, 1630), 133–6.

Fludd Robert , Clavis philosophiae et alchymiae Fluddanae, sive Roberti Fluddi Armigeri, ut medicinae doctoris, ad epistolicam Petri Gassendi theologi exercitatem responsum (Frankfurt: Wilhelm Fitzer, 1633), 33 ff.

The present account is based upon the fifth chapter of my manuscript, The chemical philosophy. The Helmontian literature has been discussed frequently by Walter Pagel. His most recent—and most convenient—description will be found in his article on van Helmont in the Dictionary of scientific biography, vi (1972), 253–59. This is to be supplemented with the bibliography of secondary sources prepared by Partington J. R. , A history of chemistry (London, 1961), ii, 209–10 (note 4).

Van Helmont (Brussels) to Mersenne (Paris), 19 December 1630, in the Correspondance, ii, 582–99, 584.

van Helmont J. B. , “De magnetica vulnerum curatione” (sect. 130), in Ortus medicinae, Id est, initia physicae inaudita. Progressus medicinae novus, in morborum ultionem, ad vitam longam (Amsterdam: Ludovicus Elzevir, 1648; reprinted Brussels, 1966), 772; Oriatrike (1662), 785.

“De magnetica vulnerum curatione” (sects 53, 153), Ortus medicinae (1648), 759, 775; Oriatrike (sects 53, 152) (1662), 771, 788.

“De magnetica vulnerum curatione” (sect. 126), Ortus medicinae (1648), 771 (sect. 125 in English ed.); Oriatrike (1662), 784.

“… alter pyrotechnice philosophando, has plus quam cimmerias tenebras, quibus utriusque intellectus altissime obsessus est, et pro nutu daemonis circumagitur, toti mundo effundant …”. As quoted by Nève de Mévergnies, Jean-Baptiste van Helmont. Philosophe par le feu (Paris, 1935), 133.

“Amico lectori” ( van Helmont F. M. ), Ortus medicinae (1648), sig. **1^v; Oriatrike (1662), sig. b2^v.

“Promissa authoris”, Ortus medicinae (1648), 6; Oriatrike (1662), 1. See also the “Logica inutilis” (sect. 3), Ortus medicinae (1648), 41; Oriatrike (1662), 37. Here he consciously refers to a “nova philosophia”.

The Helmontian views on motion are discussed at length in Debus Allen G. , “Motion in the chemical texts of the Renaissance”, Isis, lxiv (1973), 4–17.

“Blas humanum” (sect. 3), Ortus medicinae (1648), 180; Oriatrike (1662), 176.

“Causae, et initia naturalium (sect. 41)”, Ortus medicinae (1648), 39; Oriatrike (1662), 34.

“Elementa” (sects 5–8), Ortus medicinae (1648), 52–53; Oriatrike (1662), 48.

“Complexionum atque mistionum elementalium figmentum” (sect. 30), Ortus medicinae (1648), 108–09; Oriatrike (1662), 109.

“Pharmacopolium ac dispensatorium modernum” (sect. 32), Ortus medicinae (1648), 463; Oriatrike (1662), 462.

Van Helmont (Brussels) to Mersenne (Paris), 30 January 1631, Correspondance, iii, 56–57. Both the willow tree experiment and the suggestion that a study of the comparative weights of metals might be made are to be found also in the fourth book of the Idiota of Nicholas of Cusa.

“Calor efficienter non digerit, sed tantum excitative” (sect. 35), Ortus medicinae (1648), 206; Oriatrike (1662), 202.

“Formarum ortus” (sect. 68), Ortus medicinae (1648), 145; Oriatrike (1662), 143; “Progymnasma Meteori” (sect. 18), Ortus medicinae (1648), 71; Oriatrike (1662), 67.

“Imago fermenti etc.” (sect. 33), Ortus medicinae (1648), 117; Oriatrike (1662), 117.

“Scabies & ulcera scholarum” (sect. 33), Ortus medicinae (1648), 328; Oriatrike (1662), 323.

See Pagel Walter , “Van Helmont's concept of disease—To be or not to be? The influence of Paracelsus”, Bulletin of the history of medicine, xlvi (1972), 419–54.

“Aura vitalis”, Ortus medicinae (1648), 726; Oriatrike (1662), 733; “Spiritus vitae” (sects 15–16), Ortus medicinae (1648), 198–99; Oriatrike (1662), 195. The influence of this work on Robert Boyle has been touched on by A. R. Hall in his “Medicine and the Royal Society”, Medicine in seventeenth century England (ed. Debus Allen G. , Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1974), 421–52.

“De febribus” (ch. 4), Opuscula medica inaudita (1648), 17–25; Oriatrike (1662), 949–57. The subject has been covered intensively by Niebyl P. H. in “Galen, van Helmont and Blood Letting”, Science, medicine and society in the Renaissance (ed. Debus Allen G. , New York, 1972), ii, 13–23.

“Sextuplex digestio …” (sect. 56), Ortus medicinae (1648), 220; Oriatrike (1662), 217; “De Lithiasi” (ch. 5, sect. 17), Opuscula medica inaudita (1648), 45; Oriatrike (1662), 863; “Potestas medicaminum” (sects 36, 37), Ortus medicinae (1648), 479; Oriatrike (1662), 477–8.

Debus , “Motion in the chemical texts of the Renaissance”, op. cit. (ref. 86), 15–16.

Although I have not read this paper, it is described in the announcement of the meeting of The British Society for the History of Science held on 4 January 1974.

“Natura contrarium nescia” (sects 11 seq,), Ortus medicinae (1648), 167; Oriatrike (1662), 163–4.

“Ignota actio regiminis” (sect. 3), Ortus medicinae (1648), 329; Oriatrike (1662), 325. The Latin for this important passage reads “itaque stabilivere omne patiens, vicissim reagere necessario, atque eatenus similiter omne Agens repati, nec etiam aliunde debilitari”. This is a far cry from Newton's succinct statement of the third law of motion, “Actioni contrarium semper & aequalem esse reactionem: Sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse aequales & in partes contrarias dirigi”. Newton Isaac , Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica (London: Jussu Societatis Regiae ac Typis Josephi Streater, 1687), 13. A paper on the relationship of Helmont to Newton and the third law is forthcoming from the present author.

Van Helmont , “Ignota actio regiminis” (sect. 4), Ortus medicinae (1648), 329; Oriatrike (1662), 325.

“Ignota actio regiminis” (sect. 6), Ortus medicinae (1648), 332; Oriatrike (1662), 327.

“Ignota actio regiminis” (sect. 7), Ortus medicinae (1648), 332; Oriatrike (1662), 327.

Hesse Mary , “Reasons and evaluation in the history of science”, in Changing perspectives in the history of science. Essays in honour of Joseph Needham (eds Teich Mikuláš Young Robert , London, 1973), 127–47, p. 143.