ET LES DEBUTS
DE LA SCIENCE MODERNE
Allen G. Debus (U.S.A.)
ROBERT FLUDD AND THE CHEMICAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE RENAISSANCE
The influence of Galileo has perhaps proved g reater than even he would have dared hope. Not only did his approach to th e physical sciences prove to be th e correct one, his in terp retatio n of the scientific scene of his own day has rem ained relatively unchallenged u n til recently. Traditionally, basic courses in physics begin w ith a study of the problem of motion, and the font of this subject—if w e ru le out the m edieval com m entaries on th e A ristotelian corpus—m ay be found in G alileo’s now classic Dialogue on the Great W orld System s (1932) and his D is
courses and D em onstrations Concerning Tw o N ew Sciences (1638). Here
the au th o r in the guise of Salviati repeatedly ov ertu rn s the argum ents of his conservative adversary Simplicio. To the post-N ew tonian scientist this w ould appear to be the herald of the forthcom ing trium p h of m odem mechanics over m oribund mysticism and an tiq u ity—and it is understandable, I think, th a t these te x ts have profoundly colored recent in terpretations of the rise of m odem science. On the surface the issue seems clear, the scientific revolution m ay for th e most p a rt be pictu red as the collapse of A ristotelian and medieval concepts u n d er th e onslaught of the evidence provided by the inspiration of a new m echanical and experim ental approach to n a tu re based upon a heliocentric view of the universe.
This interp retation is neat, relatively uncom plicated, and is given added w eight by the convincing literary style of Galileo. U n fortunately it is only p artially true. For w hile w e m ay easily draw a series of steps leading onw ard and upw ard from Copernicus to Tycho, to K epler, to Galileo and then to Newton, in so doing we ignore other significant aspects of Renaissance and early m odem approaches to nature. Recent studies by a num ber of scholars indicate th a t m any proponents of the
1 2 0 A. G. Debus
new mechanical philosophy felt th reaten ed as m uch by the n atu ral magicians and the Paracelsians as by the still lingering A ristotelians.
If we are to u n d erstan d th e Scientific Revolution it is im portant to ask why these occult strain s of thought w ere considered a dangerous rival by those w ith a m ore m odem approach to nature, and perhaps p a rt of the answ er m ay be found in th e published aim s of the n atu ral magicians and the Paracelsians. A lthough th e ir enemies m ight dispute the point w ith them, the n atu ra l m agicians w ere not overly concerned w ith w itchcraft and demonology. H enry Cornelius A grippa stated th a t “N atu ral Magick is... the top and perfection of N atural Philosophy,” 1 and John B aptista P orta repeated these views w hen he w rote th a t “Magick is nothing else bu t the survey of th e whole course of N atu re.” 2 This m aster science which was described as m athem atical, experim ental, and mechanical in approach has another aspect w hich we find in the works of the alchem ists and th e Paracelsians. To be sure, the average chem ist of the period was p rim arily engrossed in th e problem s of tra n s m utation or the preparation of medicines for the ills of mankind, b u t th ere was a more sweeping goal as well. Most theoretical chem ists of the Renaissance placed a special em phasis on the traditional claim of the alchem ists th a t th e ir science was the “tru e K ey of N atu re.” 3. There is nothing equivocal in this position. Nicholas Le Fevre, w riting in 1660, stated blu ntly th a t “C hym istry is nothing else b u t th e A rt and K now ledge of N atu re it self.” 4 A uthority for this position w as found in the H erm etic approach to th e Biblical sto ry of C reation w hich was in ter preted essentially as a divine and m ystical chemical separation which resulted at an early stage in th e elem ents from which all other substances derive. 5 By m an’s exam ination of m a tter and these elem ents he m ight discover hidden secrets of n a tu re and the Creator.
P a rt of the appeal of this chemical philosophy in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries m ay be traced to this very fact—in an era w hen religion was predom inant these men claimed th a t th e ir science would aid man to u nderstand his Creator. 6 The A ristotelian and Galenic corpus was held to be inimical to C hristianity and therefore rig htly condemned by Church authorities in th e past. In contrast, th e valuable w ritings
1 H enry Cornelius Agrippa, The V a n ity of A rts and S ciences, London 1684, p. 110.
3 John Baptista Porta, N atu ral M agick, N ew York 1957, p. 2.
3 N icasius le Febure, A C om pleat B ody of C h ym istry , trans. P. D. C. Esq., one of th e G entlem en of His M ajesties Privy-C ham ber, London 1670, p. 3.
4 Ibid., p. 1.
5 A good exam ple is Joseph D uchesne (Quercetanus), The P ractise of C h ym i-
call, and H erm eticall P h ysicke, trans. Thom as Tymme, M inister, London 1605,
sig. Hi.
6 See the defence m ade by Thomas Tym m e in his A D ialogue Philosophicall, London 1612, sig. A3. This is quoted by the present author in his The English
of H erm es Trism egistus and P lato w ere trea su red because both of these sages w ere thought to have had knowledge of th e tru th s of the Old
Testam ent. Thus, like the mechanical philosophers, th e chem ical philo
sophers condemned th e contem porary overreliance on the A ristotelian corpus, p artially because they felt it was full of errors, and in addition because of religious considerations. F or them m an m ight obtain certain tru th both through th e Holy S criptures or some m ystical religious experience, and also through his diligent study of nature, God’s book of Creation.
The appeal of the chemical philosophers m ay be a ttrib u te d also to th e ir stated m ethod of investigating nature. The scholastic em phasis on logic w ith its endless and sterile philosophical disputations w as to be replaced by an observational and experim ental investigation of n atu ra l phenom ena. The tru e n a tu ra l philosopher and chem ist w as told to sell all of his belongings and spend his days w andering the earth so th a t he m ight exam ine every new phenom enon he m ight encounter. Above all, as chem ists th ey w ere told to m ake th e ir exam inations in th e traditional m ethod of the alchemist. The tru e seeker of wisdom m ust “purchase coal, build furnaces, w atch and operate w ith the fire w ithout w earying. In this w ay and no other, you w ill a rriv e a t a knowledge of things and th e ir properties.” 7
Not only w as th e chem ical philosophy prom oted as a universal, observational and experim ental investigation of natu re, it w as also spoken of as the tru e m athem atical and m echanical approach to know ledge. Introducing P aracelsian thought to England in 1585, R. Bostocke insisted th a t this science was to be carried out by resort to “m athem a- ticall and su p em atu rall precepts, the exercise w hereof is M echanicall, and to be accomplished w ith labor.” 8 The words m ay be th e same, b u t the sense w as fa r different from th a t of the Galileans. If th e chem ist thought of him self as a mechanical philosopher, it w as because he thought th e term should apply to anyone w ho personally carried out experim ents in his investigations.9 If he thought th a t this w as th e proper m athem atical investigation of n atu re it w as because of his confidence in th e tru th of th e m ystical numerological relationships of the heavens and th e earth which found practical expression in the com putation of th e astrologers. A m athem atical investigation of motion such as th a t
7 P etrus Severinus, Idea M edicinae Philosophicae, 3rd ed., H agae C omitis 1660, p. 39.
8 R. B. Esq. (R. Bostocke), The differen ce betw en e th e auncient Phisicke...
and th e la tte r P hisicke, London 1585, sig. Bi(r).
9 Cf. ibid. In his L exicon A lch em iae (1612), Martin Ruland states: “M echani-
cae artes, sind d ie H andw erck.” L exicon A lch em iae, H ildesheim , Georg Olms
V erlagsbuchhandlung 1964, p. 327. Of interest is also John D ee’s definition of the “speculatiue M echanicien: w hich differeth nothyng from a M echanicall M athém a ticien.” John D ee his M ath em aticall P reface in Euclid: The E lem ents, London, John D aye 1570, fol. aiii (v).
1 2 2 A. G. Debus
conducted by Galileo would have been anathem a to them. Geom etry itself w as suspect, for as van Helm ont sugests, th is subject is akin to logic and therefore is tain ted w ith A ristotelianism. 10
As th e P aracelsians’ concept of the value of m athem atics and mechanics differs from ours, so too we find th eir philosophical thought based on an archaic su b structu re of H erm etic, P ythagorean and neo- -Platonic mysticism. Y et even here we find a reason for th e widespread popularity of chem istry, for the traditional macrocosmos-microcosmos analogy w hich was universally accepted by th em placed a special em phasis on man, the microcosm. Macrocosmic phenom ena should be investigated by scholars and the re su lta n t inform ation would have significance for man. The macrocosm-microcosm relationship thus form ed a basis for medecine as w ell as magic an d chem istry.
H ere was an approach to n atu re w hich had a n atu ra l appeal for physicians interested in n atu ra l philosophy. The chemical philosophy was openly experim ental in approach and it stressed medicine as its chief end. A t the same tim e those who found chem ical interpretations more appealing than m athem atical abstractions w ere being offered a p ath to tru e knowledge—not of ju st one branch of science, b u t of all nature. W ith this background the sixteenth and seventeenth century in terest in Paracelsism and chem istry is understandable. By the opening of th e seventeenth cen tu ry w ritings of th e Paracelsians reflect an elation founded on th e ir increasing num bers. Oswald Croll, w riting in 1609, argued th a t the Paracelsian views had trium phed because of the success of th e ir chemical hypotheses, because of the in h eren t progress of medical knowledge, and finally, because of the sim plicity and tru th of the macrocosm-microcosm analogy.” 11
This confidence of the Paracelsians w as n o t so pleasing to other scholars. In P aris F ath e r M ersenne was genuinely alarm ed by the num ber of scholars who w ere tu rn in g to n atu ral magic, alchemy • and Paracelsism as an alternative to the works of th e ancients. In his com m entary on Genesis (1623) M ersenne specifically attacked the com parison of th e Creation w ith a divine chemical separation, and tw o years la te r in his La Vérité des Sciences he devoted some four hundred pages to a refutation of the claims made by the alchem ists th a t th eir subject was an exact science. Only then did he proceed to a description of m athem atics which he felt should be the basis of m an’s new u n d er standing of th e universe— and for M ersenne m athem atics did not mean the numerological studies of the alchemists. In his campaign against the alchem ists he proceeded to enlist the support of his friends. P ierre
10 J. B. van Helm ont, O riatrike or P h y sic k R efined, trans. John Chandler, London 1662, pp. 33f.
11 O. Crollius, “D iscovering th e Great and Deep M ysteries of Nature,” in
Gassendi was to become his chief ally in this crusade. In a sense this confrontation m ay be viewed as a m ajor ch ap ter in th e rise of m odem science for it has been suggested th a t G assendi’s search fo r an a lte r native to n a tu ra l magic and alchem y convinced him th a t atom ism m ight be adopted as a basis fo r a new m echanized science. 12
The im m ediate focal point of the attack of M ersenne and G assendi w as centered on th e volum es of the now nearly forgotten m ystical alchemist, R obert Fludd1 (1574— 1637), and for this reason F lu d d ’s w ritings assume for us an im portance w hich they w ould not have if w e w ere interested only in anticipations of m odem discoveries. It seems appropriate th e n to tu rn briefly to F lu d d ’s w ork w hich he m odestly called his “Fluddean Philosophy,” b u t w hich is little more th a n an extrem e exam ple of the more general H erm etic-Paracelsian approach to n a tu re. 13 The am ount of his prin ted w ork is im pressive, b u t even m ore interesting is th e fact th a t he w as w illing to debate in detail his views w ith alm ost anyone who disagreed w ith him. If on th e one hand he disputed w ith giants such as K epler, M ersenne and Gassendi, on the other hand h e was willing to rep ly to autho rs as little know n as P atrick Scot and W illiam Foster. I t is possible th en through F lu d d ’s w orks to study an im portant dialogue in seventeenth century science— not between A ristotelians an d Galileans, b u t betw een H erm eticists or chemical philosophers and those who rep resen t a more m odern approach to nature. There is no tim e to discuss this debate in detail here, b u t I do think it is w orthw hile to show some aspects of F lu id ’s w ork w hich ju stify his inclusion am ong th e chemical cosmologists.
The “F lud d ean ” or Mosaic Philosophy is characterized by an im plac able hatred of A ristotle even though A ristotelian influences are evident throughout. F or Fludd, as w ith most alchemists, A ristotle and G alen represented th e nadir of hum an know ledge and h e insisted th a t th e universities should be purged of their doctrines. R ather, he said, we should tu rn for instruction first to God’s tw o books of revelation— one, H is w ritten book, the Holy Scriptures, and the other, nature, God’s
12 The details and consequences of this conflict are beyond th e scope of the present study. The reader w ill find the m ost recent account in Frances A. Y ates,
Giordano Bruno and th e H erm etic T radition, Chicago, T he U niversity o f Chicago
Press, 1964, pp. 432—455. An older, but basic study is R. Lenoble, M ersenne ou
la naissance du m écan ism e, Paris 1943, and th e Fludd—K epler exchange has been
discussed by W. P auli in “The Influence of A rchetypal Ideas on th e S cien tific Theories of K epler,” in C. G. Jung and W. P auli, The In terp reta tio n of N atu re
and P syche, trans. Priscilla Silz, N ew York 1955. The presen t author has noted
th e significance of Fludd’s controversies in his various w orks cited in this paper. In addition to th ese see his “Robert Fludd and th e U se o f G ilbert’s De M agnete in the W eapon-Salve Controversy,” Journal o f th e H isto ry o f M edicine and A llie d
Sciences, 19, 1964, pp. 389—417.
13 On Fludd’s w ork see Debus, The English Paracelsians, pp. 105—127. On Fludd’s life see J. B. Craven, D octor R obert Fludd, K irkw all 1902; C. H. Josten,
“T ru th ’s G olden H arrow . An unpublished alchem ical T reatise o f Robert Fludd
1 2 4 A. G. Debus
book of Creation. 14 There was no question in F lu dd’s mind th a t the first of these was the m ost im portant. For him th e Holy S criptures and the semi-divine H erm etic corpus carried fa r m ore w eight than ocular dem onstrations ever could. Y et though Fludd insisted th a t experience m ay be often m isleading and th a t the scientist m ust begin his search w ith the proper philosophical framework,, a study of his views on the stru ctu re of th e h eart shows th a t he was quite capable of de fending him self w ith experim ental evidence if an adversary attacked him in this fashion. 15
W ith his em phasis on the Holy Scriptures, F ludd reechoed the H erm etic and P aracelsian belief th a t our most im portant source for the study of n a tu re will be found in the opening chapters of Genesis. We see in F ludd’s account once again th a t the divine Creation is sing led out as a great spagerich act of separation and this becomes the basis of his whole philosophy. 16 The origin of all things m ay be found in the prim eval d ark chaos from which arose the divine light. The la tte r then acting on the chaos brought forth th e w aters w hich are the passive m a tter of all other substances. 17 For Fludd this is th e true mosaic philosophy w hich is b u ilt upon the three prim ary elem ents of darkness, light, and the w aters. From th e prim ary elem ent of w ater m ay be derived all “secondary” elem ents—and if for Fludd the P a ra celsian principles could easily be explained also by this system, the significant secondary elem ents are the traditional A ristotelian elements, earth, w ater, air and fire. 18 H aving thus explained the chemical origin of the elements, he w as free to apply his approach to m ore complex problem s of th e universe. F undam ental to an understanding of his w ritings is his em phasis on th e p rim ary elem ent of light. L ight and divinity are term s w hich are constantly related in the Fluddean w ri tings. It was the light of the Lord inform ing the Chaos w hich resulted in the form ation of the worlds—and it was this same divine light arising from the S pirit which on th e fourth day was form ed into the Sun and received into the aetherial heaven. The relation of the Sun to the C reator required th a t it be a perfect body and this in tu rn was reason enough for Fludd to insist on its cen trality in the heavens— m eaning thereby its position m idw ay between th e earth and th e Lord on high ra th e r than centrality in th e Copem ican sense. 19 The univer
14 Robert Fludd, M osaicall P hilosoph y, London 1659, pp. 12— 13.
15 On Fludd’s use o f observational techniques see th e present author’s: “Robert Fludd and th e Circulation of the Blood,” J. H ist. M ed., 16, 1961, pp. 374-—393; “The English Paracelsians,” pp. 105— 127; and “The Sun in th e U niverse of Robert
Fludd.” L e S oleil a, la R enaissance—Sciences et M ythes. C olloque In ternational tenu en A v r il 1963 ... B russels 1965, pp. 259—278.
16 Fludd, M osaicall Philosophy, p. 175. 17 Ibid., p. 82.
18 Debus, The English Paracelsians, pp. 109—112.
sal spirit of life w as also conveyed to nam through th e light of the Sun which passes through and form s p a rt of the a ir around us. H ere was a direct link betw een th e macrocosm and th e microcosm w hich Fludd utilized as a basic for a m ystical alchem ical account of the circulation of the blood in 1623. 20
Even on these few points we would seem to have strayed fa r from our topic of chem istry or alchem y—b u t actually we have not. Fludd dem onstrates precisely w h at I w anted to show. F irst, his w ork includes enough of the general characteristics displayed by the theoretical chemical philosophers for him to be classified as one of them. Second, the notice taken of his w ork by K epler, M ersenne, G assendi and others means th a t the study of his work—and th a t of the other chem ical philosophers should have m ore th an an an tiquarian value for us today. Their w ritings indicate th a t chem istry or alchem y had a m eaning far d iffere n t for them th an it does for us. Topics w hich do not now fall w ithin the province of chem istry w ere th en considered a t least by some to be a fundam ental p a rt of the discipline because th e subject had a uni versal scope. For F ludd and m any others the real m eaning of chem istry was based on the divine and m ystical chem ical separation w hich resulted in the created universe. All things had been form ed in a che mical fashion and all things could be explained in term s w hich m ight u ltim ately reduce to chem istry or chem ical analogies. Before th e w ide spread acceptance of corpuscular explanations of m a tter in th e late seventeenth century, chem istry could be equated w ith the term s n a tu ra l philosophy and medicine for this set. If M ersenne and Gassendi had reason to be w ary of th e n a tu ra l magicians, they had special cause to d istrust F ludd whose works presented th is m ystical alchemical universe in a more com prehensive fashion th a n had any other au th o r u p to th e ir time.
I do not believe th a t it is sound to dismiss the w ork of these chemists or alchem ists as valueless as has often been done simply be cause they w ere not rig h t in our term s. As a whole these m en spoke not narrow ly of technical applications of chem istry, b u t of a tru e understanding of n atu re through the aid of chem ical theories based on laboratory investigations. Like the mechanical philosophers, th e Paracelsians and th e H elm ontians stood for an unyielding attack on the blind au th o rity of the ancients, like th e mechanical philosophers they insisted th a t th e secrets of n atu re would only unfold through an unyielding observational and experim ental approach—and like them, they claimed th a t th e ir m ethod would yield eventually the secrets of the universe. If R obert F ludd was som ew hat atypical in placing a
20 See Debus, R obert F ludd and the C ircu lation of th e Blood, cited above in note 15.
1 2 6 A. G. D ebus
greater emphasis on Biblical au th o rity th an experim ent, this w as not really unusual for the period, and th ere is evidence th a t he could argue effectively from experim ental evidence w hen he w ished to do so.
T hat th e chemical philosophers w ere w rong is not th e m ain issue here. I t is im portant th a t they helped to form ulate m odem science by striving for the same goals as th e m echanical philosophers—even though they w ere encouraged to do so by hypotheses and analogies w hich we today reject outright. In the m id-seventeenth cen tu ry chemical physi cians m ight well believe th a t th e ir aim s differed little from those of the Galileans. However, th e ir fundam ental beliefs and presuppositions w ere different, and it is to th e credit of the rising mechanical philo sophers th a t they recognized this. The resulting conflicts w hich form a m ajor chapter in th e intellectuall history of the seventeenth century should be considered fully as significant for th e rise of m odem science as the eclipse of the classical A ristotelian heritage.
