Alchemy Chemistry summary

{"result":["[Summary from page 1 to page 31 out of a total of 330:\nPages 1:\nBridging Traditions\n\nPages 2:\nHabent sua fata libelli\nEarly Modern Studies Series\nGeneral Editor\nMichael Wolfe\nQueens College\nEditorial Board of Early Modern Studies\nElaine Beilin\nFramingham State College\nChristopher Celenza\nJohns Hopkins University\nBarbara B. Diefendorf\nRaymond A. Mentzer\nUniversity of Iowa\nCharles G. Nauert\nUniversity of Missouri, Emeritus\nRobert V. Schnucker\nBoston University\nTruman State University, Emeritus\nPaula Findlen\nNicholas Terpstra\nStanford University\nScott H. Hendrix\nPrinceton Theological Seminary\nJane Campbell Hutchison\nUniversity of Wisconsin\u2013\u00adMadison\nMary B. McKinley\nUniversity of Virginia\nUniversity of Toronto\nMargo Todd\nUniversity of Pennsylvania\nJames Tracy\nUniversity of Minnesota\nMerry Wiesner-\u00adHanks\nUniversity of Wisconsin\u2013\u00adMilwaukee\n\nPages 3:\nEarly Modern Studies 15\nTruman State University Press\nKirksville, Missouri\n\nPages 4:\nCopyright \u00a9 2015 Truman State University Press, Kirksville, Missouri 63501\nAll rights reserved\ntsup.truman.edu\nCover art: \u201cThe master and assistant distilling alcohol, a primitive form of reflex condenser,\u201d\nfrom Conrad Gesner, The newe jewell of health, translated by George Baker (London: H. Denham,\n1576). M0012934, Wellcome Library, London.\nCover design: Teresa Wheeler\nLibrary of Congress Cataloging-\u00adin-\u00adPublication Data\nBridging traditions : alchemy, chemistry, and Paracelsian practices in the early modern era :\nessays in honor of Allen G. Debus / edited by Karen Hunger Parshall, Michael T. Walton, and\nBruce T. Moran.\npages cm.\u2014(Early modern studies ; vol. 15)\nIncludes bibliographical references and index.\nISBN 978-1-61248-134-0 (library binding : alk. paper)\u2014ISBN 978-1-61248-135-7 (e-book)\n1. Chemistry--History. 2. Debus, Allen G. 3. Paracelsus, 1493-1541. I. Parshall, Karen Hunger,\n1955- II. Walton, Michael Thomson, 1945-2013 III. Moran, Bruce T. IV. Title: Alchemy, chemistry, and Paracelsian practices in the early modern era.\nQD14.B84 2015\n540.9\u2019031--dc23\n2014016934\nNo part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any format by any means without\nwritten permission from the publisher.\nThe paper in this publication meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences\u2014\u00adPermanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials,\nANSI Z39.48\u2013\u00ad1992.\n\nPages 5:\nTo the memory of Allen G. Debus and\nMichael T. Walton.\n\nPages 6:\n\nPages 7:\nContents\nIllustrations.........................................................................................ix\nIntroduction...................................................................................... xiii\nChapter 1: Crafting the Chemical Interpretation of Nature:\nThe Work of Allen G. Debus....................................................................1\nKaren Hunger Parshall\nPart One: Curious Practices and Practices of Curiosity\nChapter 2: Johann Hayne and Paracelsian Praxis: Chemical\nPhysiology as a Link between Semeiotics and Therapeutics......... 19\nJole Shackelford\nChapter 3: Andreas Libavius and the Art of Chymia: Words,\nWorks, Precepts, and Social Practices................................................. 59\nBruce T. Moran\nChapter 4: Chymical Curiosities and Trusted Testimonials in the\nJournal of the Leopoldina Academy of Curiosi................................ 79\nMargaret D. Garber\nChapter 5: Phlogiston and Chemical Principles: The\nDevelopment and Formulation of Georg Ernst Stahl\u2019s Principle of\nInflammability.......................................................................................101\nKu-\u00adming (Kevin) Chang\nvii\n\nPages 8:\nviii\nContents\nPart Two: Regional Contexts and Communities of Texts\nChapter 6: \u201cIf they are not pages that cure, they are pages that\nteach how to cure\u201d: The Diffusion of Chemical Remedies in Early\nModern Spain........................................................................................133\nMar Rey Bueno\nChapter 7: Prescriptions of Alchemy: Two Austrian Medical\nDoctors and Their Alchemical Manuscripts....................................159\nAnke Timmermann\nChapter 8: The Chemical Philosophy and Kabbalah: Pantheus,\nKhunrath, Croll, and the Treasures of the Oratory and the\nLaboratory..............................................................................................186\nMichael T. Walton\nPart Three: Evaluations and Perceptions\nChapter 9: Paracelsus on the Sidereal Powers: Revisiting\nthe Historiographical Debate between Walter Pagel and Kurt\nGoldammer............................................................................................209\nDane T. Daniel\nChapter 10: John Dee at 400: Still an Enigma.............................226\nNicholas H. Clulee\nChapter 11: On the Imagery of Nature in the Late Medieval and\nEarly Modern Periods..........................................................................250\nHeinz Schott\nContributors ...................................................................................294\nIndex ......................................................................................................297\n\nPages 9:\nIllustrations\nChapter 2\nFigure 2.1: Frontispiece, Johann Hayne, Trifolium medicum. . . 3rd ed.\n(Frankfurt am Main: George Heinrich Oehrling, 1683).......................... 22\nChapter 3\nFigure 3.1: Detail from title page of Andreas Libavius, Syntagma selectorum\nundiquaque et perspicue traditorum alchymiae arcanorum [tomus primus]\n(Frankfurt, 1611\u2013\u00ad13)....................................................................................... 62\nChapter 10\nFigure 10.1: Title page from John Dee, Monas hieroglyphica, 1564............... 229\nChapter 11\nFigure 11.1: \u201cNature,\u201d from Jean Baptiste Boudard, Iconologie tir\u00e9e de divers\nauteurs (Parme: Sebstverl.; [Drucker:] Carmignani, 1759)................... 255\nFigure 11.2: Emblem XVIII, from Guillaume de La Perri\u00e8re, Le Th\u00e9\u00e2tre des\nbons engins . . . (Paris: Janot, 1539)............................................................... 256\nFigure 11.3: Emblem XVIII, from Guillaume de La Perri\u00e8re, Le Th\u00e9\u00e2tre des\nbons engins . . . (Paris: de Tournes, 1545).................................................... 258\nFigure 11.4: Emblem F 1, from Andrea Alciato [Andreas Alciatus],\nEmblematum liber (Augsburg, 1531. Reprint, Hildesheim; New York:\nOlms, 1977)...................................................................................................... 259\nix\n\nPages 10:\nx\nIllustrations\nFigure 11.5: Prudentia-\u00adTeppich (Prudentia Carpet). Kurpf\u00e4lzisches Museum\nder Stadt Heidelberg....................................................................................... 260\nFigure 11.6: Emblem 46, from Joachim Camerarius d. J., Symbola et\nemblemata tam tam moralia quam sacra: Die handschriftlichen Embleme\nvon 1587, edited by Wolfgang Harms and Gilbert He\u00df (T\u00fcbingen:\nNiemeyer, 2009).............................................................................................. 261\nFigure 11.7: Emblem 44, from Joachim Camerarius d. J., Symbola et\nemblemata tam moralia quam sacra: Die handschriftlichen Embleme von\n1587, edited by Wolfgang Harms and Gilbert He\u00df (T\u00fcbingen: Niemeyer,\n2009).................................................................................................................. 262\nFigure 11.8: Copper engraving, reproduced from Eduard B. W\u00fcseke,\nFreimaurerische Bez\u00fcge zur barocken Emblematik (M\u00fcnster: Bauh\u00fctten\nVerl., 1990)....................................................................................................... 263\nFigure 11.9: \u201cCuncta refundit,\u201d from Julius Wilhelm Zincgref, Emblematum\nEthico-\u00adPoliticorum Centuria (Heidelbergae: Ammonius, 1666) ............ 264\nFigure 11.10: \u201cServa Modum,\u201d from Gabriel Rollenhagen, Nucleus\nemblematum Selectissimorum . . . (Utrecht: Passaeus; Arhhem: Iansonius,\n[1611]\u20131613), 2 Teil, Nr. 53........................................................................ 265\nFigure 11.11: \u201cScienza\u201d from Jean Baptiste Boudard, Iconologie tir\u00e9e de divers\nauteurs (Parme: Sebstverl.; [Drucker]: Carmignani, 1759)................... 266\nFigure 11.12: \u201cTheorie\u201d from Jean Baptiste Boudard, Iconologie tir\u00e9e de divers\nauteurs (Parme: Sebstverl.; [Drucker]: Carmignani, 1759)................... 268\nFigure 11.13: \u201c\u00c9thique/Etica\u201d from Jean Baptiste Boudard, Iconologie tir\u00e9e de\ndivers auteurs (Parme: Sebstverl.; [Drucker]: Carmignani, 1759)........ 269\nFigure 11.14: \u201cCalm consideration\u201d from Jean Baptiste Boudard, Iconologie\ntir\u00e9e de divers auteurs (Parme: Sebstverl.; [Drucker]:Carmignani,\n1759).................................................................................................................. 270\nFigure 11.15: Emblem 34, in Michael Maier, Atalanta fugiens, hoc est,\nEmblemata nova de secretis naturae chymica . . . (Oppenheim: de Bry,\n1618).................................................................................................................. 273\n\nPages 11:\nIllustrations\nxi\nFigure 11.16: Title page, Mus\u00e6um Hermeticum, Omnes Sopho-\u00adSpagyric\u00e6 Artis\nDiscipulos Fidelissime Erudiensn (Frankfurt: Jennis, 1625)..................... 275\nFigure 11.17: Illustration from tract 1, Robert Fludd, Utriusque cosmi maioris\nscilicet et minoris metaphysica, physica atque technica historia. Vol. 1, De\nmicrocosmi historia . . . (Oppenheim: de Bry, 1617)................................. 277\nFigure 11.18: Title page, Robert Fludd, Utriusque cosmi maioris scilicet et\nminoris metaphysica, physica atque technica historia . . . Vol. 2, De naturae\nsimia seu technica macrocosmi historia (Oppenheim: de Bry, 1618)...... 279\nFigure 11.19: Illustration from Cesare Ripa, Iconologia (ca. 1600), edited by\nFilippo Pistrucci (1819)................................................................................ 281\nFigure 11.20: Illustration from Cesare Ripa, Iconologia (ca. 1600), edited by\nFilippo Pistrucci (1819)................................................................................ 282\nFigure 11.21: Title page, Johann Georg Sulzer, Unterredungen \u00fcber die\nSch\u00f6nheit der Natur nebst desselben moralischen Betrachtungen \u00fcber\nbesondere Gegenst\u00e4nde der Naturlehre. Von neuem aufgelegt (Berlin:\nHaude und Spener, 1770)............................................................................. 284\n\nPages 12:\n\nPages 13:\nIntroduction\nR\nTwenty men crossing a bridge,\nInto a village,\nAre twenty men crossing twenty bridges,\nInto twenty villages,\nOr one man\nCrossing a single bridge . . .\n\u2014\u00adWallace Stevens, \u201cMetaphors of a Magnifico\u201d\nReference to Wallace Stevens\u2019s early poem \u201cMetaphors of a Magnifico\u201d (1918)\nmay seem an odd way to introduce a collection of essays related to early modern\nscience and medicine and honoring Allen Debus (1926\u2013\u00ad2009). Yet there is a\nlink between the poem and Debus\u2019s historical research, namely, an awareness\nthat in daily\u2014\u00adas well as in historical\u2014\u00adlife, human beings are sometimes both\nin and out of the spheres in which others may perceive them. Debus was particularly concerned about making this distinction in regard to the traditions of\nknowing that shaped the contours of natural knowledge in the early modern era.\nAgainst those who sought to describe a single direction in the march toward\nmodern science, he argued that those who seemed, from a historical distance,\nto be crossing the metaphorical bridge of the Scientific Revolution were not in\nlockstep. As actors in a scene yet to be written, they held differing views of what\nthey were involved in and glimpsed various outlines of what they approached.\n\u201c[T]he Scientific Revolution was not,\u201d Debus declared, \u201csimply the forward march of a new experimental method coupled with the powerful tool of\nmathematical abstraction. For some the two were incompatible.\u201d1 Nevertheless,\ndespite the differing intellectual traditions and ways of knowing that distinguished Renaissance thinking, Debus identified a certain intellectual posture\n1. Debus, Chemical Dream of the Renaissance, 32.\nxiii\n\nPages 14:\nxiv\nIntroduction\nin regard to uncovering nature\u2019s secrets that emerged from an interplay of practices described as mystical, artisanal, and experimental. Mixtures of method\nwere essential to the process of inspiring new learning, and Debus had neither\napprehension nor reluctance in joining together what some historians considered separate domains. In this way, he emphasized points of connection between\napparently distinctive zones of comprehension and experience: magic and\nexperiment, alchemy and mechanics, practical mathematics and geometrical\nmysticism, things earthly and heavenly, and especially, although it seems unnecessary from today\u2019s perspective, science and medicine. Such unions of apparent opposites came together for him in what he called the chemical philosophy,\nthe chemical-\u00adParacelsian approach to nature in which chemistry and chemical\nprocesses gained \u201cdivine significance,\u201d while also leading, through analytical\nmethods and material experience, to the \u201cfundamentals of nature.\u201d The book of\ncreation was a chemistry book, and Debus seemed to share something of the\nreligious awe of chemical philosophers when reading it. At the end of one of\nhis earliest works, an essay published as the short pamphlet entitled The Chemical Dream of the Renaissance (1968), he revealed what may have been a private\nthought: \u201cI would close by saying that I do believe that there was a chemical\ndream in the Renaissance\u2014\u00adit was a search for our Creator through his created\nwork by chemical investigations and analogies.\u201d2\nMost of the essays collected in this volume introduce individual perspectives relating to the chemical and/or Paracelsian understanding of nature in the\nsixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Karen Parshall introduces Allen Debus\u2019s\nintellectual place within the history of early modern science highlighting, in\nthe context of an intellectual biography, the historiographic circumstances for\nthe emergence of a vision of Renaissance science in which the esoteric and the\npractical, the organic and the mechanical, the philosophical and the religious\ncombined to characterize a quest for natural knowledge. Debus\u2019s vision and\nhis approach to historical sources were not uncontroversial, especially as both\nproblematized the \u201cgrand narrative\u201d of the Scientific Revolution. His emphasis\nupon printed as opposed to manuscript sources was criticized as doing too little.\nAt the same time, his contentions for the relevance of vernacular works were\ncastigated as claiming too much. Debus did more than scratch the surface, and\n2. Ibid., 32\u2013\u00ad33.\n\nPages 15:\nIntroduction\nxv\nhis major work, The Chemical Philosophy,3 although introductory, was groundbreaking as a result. Yet even here there were detractors, and one openly hostile\nreview rebuked a perceived attempt to distance a Latinate elite from the social\nand intellectual settings of Renaissance alchemy and natural philosophy. Debus\nhimself stepped both in and out of vernacular and Latinate traditions, and combining the two by means of renewed attention to manuscript and printed sources\nhas become a major current among contemporary methods in the history of science and medicine, and underscores many of the approaches reflected in papers\ncollected for this volume.\nThe title of this volume refers also to combining subjects that otherwise\nmight be held distinct, and here too contemporary approaches continue the\ndirection explored in introductory, but nevertheless pioneering, ways in Debus\u2019s\naccounts of \u201cchemical philosophy.\u201d In that regard, the essays in this volume\u2019s\nfirst section, \u201cCurious Practices and Practices of Curiosity,\u201d introduce an array\nof practices\u2014\u00adsome material, some textual, some public, some personal, some\nemerging from institutions\u2014\u00adthat reflect the variety of approaches and processes\nthat gave shape to a knowledge of nature and the body in the early modern world.\nDebus had referred to an \u201cElizabethan compromise\u201d as a way of describing\nhow certain altered features of Paracelsian theory and pharmaceutical practice\ncame to be incorporated within a philosophically broadened Galenic system of\nmedicine. Jole Shackelford expands and further targets this notion by focusing\nupon examples of physicians who, rather than compromising original Paracelsian ideas, remodeled and restructured them as practical chymical therapies.\nBringing an abundance of new historical material to light from vernacular and\nLatin sources, he explores, in particular, the development of chemical uroscopy\nin the medical practice of the seventeenth-\u00adcentury German physician Johann\nHayne (fl. 1620). While some viewed uroscopy as a disadvantage to blending\nchemical and Galenic practice, others presented it as a positive and practical\ntherapy and diagnostic tool. In bringing together his own training and experience as a practitioner with traditional elements of medical theory and Paracelsian notions of astral disease and chemical diagnosis, Hayne transformed an\napparently disordered and numinous system (based in Paracelsian notions) into\ntherapies that influenced later therapeutic practices accommodating materialist\nand even corpuscularian views of matter.\n3. Debus, Chemical Philosophy.\n\nPages 16:\nxvi\nIntroduction\nIn his essay, Bruce Moran focuses on Andreas Libavius (ca. 1555\u2013\u00ad1616),\nwhose emphasis upon the mutual dependency of artisanal skill and philosophical\nunderstanding led to the reconstruction of the art of chymia as a self-\u00adsufficient and\nself-\u00adlimiting intellectual discipline. Beyond practices linked to material and textual\nworlds, however, establishing chymia as an art within a public domain required, in\nthe Libavian view, the articulation of other practices that were essentially social\nand communal. Libavius was a learned Aristotelian chemist who condemned\nParacelsian physicians and drugmakers not only for their secretive language and\ntechniques, but also for their ignorance of medieval alchemical traditions. True\nchymists observed civic and domestic responsibilities, pursued procedural openness, and, most of all, invited qualified witnesses to verify and repeat techniques\nand discoveries. In correspondence, particularly with the Jena professor of medicine Zacharius Brendel (the elder) (1553\u2013\u00ad1638), Libavius advanced the vision\nof combining social and artisanal practices with philosophical precepts within a\nuniversity discipline that would both reform and refine the art of chymia.\nReflecting further upon the material and social practices at play in defining the purview of chymia, Margaret Garber, in a richly textured study of chemical curiosities published in the journal Curiosi of the Leopoldina Academy,\nnotes occasions in which the Academy\u2019s physician members sought status as\nadepts not only through material practices related to making chemical medicines but also through participation in projects of metallic transmutation. The\nAcademy, and especially its journal, operated as a vehicle of social legitimacy\namong physician members who pronounced authoritatively upon medical\nmatters. At the same time, these physicians transmitted curiosities in the journal\u2019s pages based upon a knowledge of alchemical procedures. Through witnessed histories of transmutation and the description of material practices,\nas well as by means of discussing theoretical and practical principles related\nto working with and understanding metals and minerals, the journal brought\nalchemical traditions and experience to bear upon a certain variety of medical\nself-\u00adfashioning. The secretive subject of chymia thus gained public attention\nin large part due to physicians engaged, on the one hand, in projects related\nto pharmaceuticals and, on the other, in processes pertaining to the material\npractices of chrysopoeia.\nBy the early eighteenth century, both the vitalism of Georg Ernst Stahl\n(1659\u2013\u00ad1734) and the mechanistic descriptions of Hermann Boerhaave (1669\u2013\u00ad\n1738) had rejected the broad theoretical claims of Paracelsian and Helmontian\nchemical medicine. Debus emphasized the divergent positions of these two the-\n\nPages 17:\nIntroduction\nxvii\norists in his study of chemistry\u2019s complex relationship to medicine. As he saw\nit, chemical physicians (iatrochemists) and those inspired by the mechanical\nphilosophy (medical mechanists or iatrophysicists) battled one another over\nthe proper understanding of the functions of the body.4 Traditions of vitalism\nand mechanism made room for practical chemical pharmacy, but the theoretical commitments of each kept the other at arm\u2019s length. As Kevin Chang shows\nin his study of the design and publication of Stahl\u2019s \u201cinflammability principle,\u201d\nhowever, there was room within vitalism itself for an altered understanding of\nthe nature of metals and for a means of drawing together nature\u2019s kingdoms of\nminerals, animals, and plants. The significance of Stahl\u2019s notion of phlogiston,\nChang argues, is best understood contextually as it evolves within a tradition of\ncriticism aimed at refashioning the chemical principles of Paracelsus, namely,\nthe tria prima of sulfur, salt, and mercury. Chang thus extends Debus\u2019s analysis\nof chemical philosophical thought with a finely focused study on chemical principles grounded in an eighteenth-\u00adcentury analytical context.\nDomestic, regional, and gendered perspectives relating to chemistry, medicine, and the body orient the focus of the volume\u2019s second section, \u201cRegional\nContexts and Communities of Texts.\u201d Here practices related to gender, commerce, and patronage accentuate a shifting social landscape linked to alchemy\nand chemical medicine, while textual practices related to spiritual alchemy,\nmagia, and kabbalah bridge religious communities and inspire a specific, chemical understanding of creation and the processes of nature.\nOne study draws attention to regional practices in Spain and argues for a\nrevision of claims, some of them advanced by Allen Debus, concerning the early\nmodern status of chemical knowledge and the reception of Paracelsian ideas\nwithin the Spanish domain. In recent historiography, serious efforts have been\nmade to bring the Iberian experience and the role of the Spanish Empire into\nthe general discussion of the Scientific Revolution.5 Individual studies have, in\nthis regard, brought to light long-\u00adoverlooked details of Spanish involvement in\ncosmography, natural history, chemistry, and Paracelsian medicine during the\nearly modern era.6 Representing this historiographic direction, Mar Rey Bueno\nsituates chymia within Spanish everyday life, highlighting the chemical resources\n4. Debus, Chemistry and Medical Debate: von Helmont to Boerhaave, 135\u2013\u00ad74.\n5. See, for example, Brot\u00f3ns and Eamon, Beyond the Black Legend.\n6. See, for example, Portuondo, Secret Science; Osorio, Experiencing Nature; and Bleichmar, Visible Empire.\nFor chemistry in Spain, see especially L\u00f3pez P\u00e9rez, \u201cNovatores or Alchemists?\u201d\n\nPages 18:\nxviii\nIntroduction\nand avenues of expertise that were not only available within commercial and\ndomestic settings but were also often promoted by the patronage interests of\nprovincial aristocrats. Here domestic pharmacy, books of secrets, and agricultural manuals converged to create local chemical arenas in which the instruction and participation of women, particularly in processes of distillation, played\na prominent role. Reversing a narrative that influenced Debus\u2019s perception of\nSpanish science, Rey Bueno convincingly argues that a resurgence of chemistry\nin Spain was not connected with a delayed reception of Paracelsian doctrines\nand, in terms of practice, entered into numerous dimensions of urban, religious,\nand domestic life, existing far beyond the influence, and aristocratic mimicry, of\ncourt interests.\nIn her essay, Anke Timmermann shifts the regional focus to the Hapsburg\nterritories of the Austrian archduchy and brings together elements of regionalism, craft experience, collecting, and experimentation in a focused study of the\npractices of two physicians, Wolfgang Kappler (1493\u2013\u00ad1567) and Nicolaus Pol\n(ca. 1470\u2013\u00ad1532). As writers, readers, and pharmaceutical practitioners representing different social surroundings, Kappler and Pol characterized conditions\nand practices that defined local relationships between alchemy and medicine.\nEmphasizing conditions of trade, industry, and practical crafts, the essay brings\nto light details of individual interests and experiences, and builds a broader\nperspective from which to view the various purposes\u2014\u00adintellectual, social, and\npractical\u2014\u00adserved by alchemical interests nurtured within private and professional worlds in central Europe.\nParts of the German intellectual world, specifically the works of Oswald\nCroll (ca. 1563\u2013\u00ad1609) and Heinrich Khunrath (ca. 1560\u2013\u00ad1605), are also the\nfocus of Michael Walton\u2019s study of alchemy as both a spiritual and material art.\nCrossing boundaries between the textual word-\u00admagic of kabbalah and empirical\ninvestigations of nature, particularly within the milieu of Paracelsian practice,\nthe essay traces the origins of a chemical kabbalah connecting the laboratory\nwith the oratory. Such a tradition emerged from texts that defined an earlier\nkabbalah with a Christian focus and emphasized creation by means of words\nand letters. The merging of kabbalah with traditional alchemy became, on this\naccount, most pronounced in the coincidently intriguing and confounding text,\nVoarchadumia contra alchimiam by Giovanni Agostino Pantheus (fl. 1518), who\nsignified aspects of alchemy and nature by means of Hebrew letters. This was\nan art that influenced others, including Heinrich Khunrath and Oswald Croll.\nIn their works, the magic of the word fused with the practical endeavors of the\n\nPages 19:\nIntroduction\nxix\nchemist to define a form of kabbalah that combined practical chemistry and\nmedicine with a biblical account of creation.\nIn a final section, \u201cEvaluations and Perceptions,\u201d historiographical, etymological, and visual themes predominate. One of the immediate influences upon\nthe work of Allen Debus was the scholarship of Walter Pagel (1898\u2013\u00ad1983),\nwho interpreted Paracelsus within the context of Renaissance philosophy while\nextracting him from the nationalistic framework of German folk hero. In his\nessay, Dane Daniel reexamines the debate between Pagel and another leading\ntwentieth-\u00adcentury Paracelsian scholar, Kurt Goldammer (1916\u2013\u00ad97). Pagel tied\nParacelsus to Renaissance Neoplatonism and gnosticism, underscoring links to\nhumanist philosophers, especially Pico della Mirandola (1463\u2013\u00ad94) and Marsilio\nFicino (1433\u2013\u00ad99). Goldammer, on the other hand, thought that the religious\ncontext of Reformation Germany was more important in fashioning Paracelsus\u2019s\nnatural philosophy and medical cosmology. Emphasizing Paracelsus\u2019s notions\nregarding relationships between the microcosm (man) and the macrocosm (the\nuniverse), Daniel finds a stable platform to argue for a via media between philosophical and religious contexts as sources for Paracelsus\u2019s ideas.\nConfounding the grand narrative of the Scientific Revolution led Debus to\nfocus his attention upon the works of two English mystical authors, John Dee\n(1527\u2013\u00ad1608/9) and Robert Fludd (1574\u2013\u00ad1637). Dee represented a bridging\nof chemical and mathematical traditions in the Renaissance, and Fludd characterized a synthesis of scripture, mystical alchemy, mechanical argument,\nand medicine. Paying attention to historiographic treatments of Dee, Nicholas\nClulee draws attention to continued questions that affect evaluations of Dee\u2019s\nwritings and the role of the occult in the formation of natural knowledge. Clulee tracks the different positions regarding Dee, sometimes by authors who\nmake use of the same texts, especially in relation to evaluating Dee\u2019s occult\nactivities. By following the trail of historiographic interpretation, he underscores recent discoveries concerning Dee\u2019s fortunes and maneuverings among\nfactions at the Elizabethan court. Concerning the question of whether a unified perception of Dee is possible, Clulee offers his own perception of Dee\u2019s\nintellectual biography, one based on shifting social contexts and the specific\nintellectual problems upon which he focused.\nClosing the collection, Heinz Schott methodologically shifts the approach\nof the preceding essays toward emblematics and visual culture. Departing\nfrom the now well-\u00adworn paths treating Paracelsian alchemy and natural magic\nof Debus and others, this essay analyzes variations in the imagery of Natura,\n\nPages 20:\nxx\nIntroduction\nespecially as a feminine topos. Images of Natura (clothed and unclothed, terrestrial and celestial), Schott argues, resolved the realms of heaven and earth and\ninfluenced early modern natural philosophy, alchemy, and medicine by means\nof a figurative language of imitation and an \u201cerotic tension\u201d aroused by gendered\ndepictions of natural artistry and divine wisdom. Allegories of the female figure combined art and nature, while in the writings of Agrippa von Nettesheim\n(1486\u2013\u00ad1535) nature herself decidedly favored women, since the female body\nas well as the female intellect were both created only by God, without physical\ninterference from the stars.\nK\nThe idea for this volume, and most of the essays in it, followed as a consequence\nof what can appropriately be called Michael Walton\u2019s labor of love. Michael, who\ndied in August 2013, had been a student of Allen Debus and the two maintained\na close personal and intellectual friendship throughout their remaining lives.\nThe two collaborated in the production of Reading the Book of Nature (1998),\na collection of essays that emphasized current research in the history of Renaissance and early modern chemistry and medicine, and emphasized the evaluation\nof historical authors within political, cultural, religious, social, and intellectual\nspheres.7 Michael recognized the significant role Allen had played in blending\nthe history of medicine with the history of science and in stressing the importance of chemical traditions in the Renaissance. Allen prized Michael\u2019s work as\nwell, including, in his collection of significant papers from Ambix, the journal of\nthe Society for the History of Alchemy, not one, but two Walton contributions.8\nIn his life and work, Michael bridged several cultural-\u00adreligious traditions and\nsocial roles, taking significant part in the world of scholarship while rising each\nmorning to a \u201cday job\u201d as a successful entrepreneur. He was always a scholar,\nand in the evenings, like Machiavelli, he returned to his house and metaphorically took off the clothes of the day, dressed himself in the robes of learning and\nerudition, and dined in his study on the intellectual food for which he was born.\nThere, he read Renaissance texts and pursued interests in the biblical account of\ncreation, Paracelsian and early modern medicine, and the history of chemistry.\n7. Debus and Walton, Reading the Book of Nature.\n8. Walton, \u201cJohn Dee\u2019s Monas Hieroglyphica\u201d and \u201cBoyle and Newton on the Transmutation of Water\nand Air.\u201d\n\nPages 21:\nIntroduction\nxxi\nThe fruit of some of that labor appeared most recently as Genesis and the Chemical Philosophy (2011) and continues into the present volume.\nThe essays here illustrate recent and new directions in the history of science\nand medicine, as well as in early modern cultural history. They also represent\na depth of analysis attainable only through engagement with manuscript and\nprinted sources previously left unread and consequently unexamined or through\nbroad historiographic expertise. Some essays relate to well-\u00adknown figures and\ntexts and argue for influence in novel ways. Others bring to light evidence for the\npresence of alchemy and chemical medicine in unfamiliar social sites and professional locations. The stage of alchemy, chemistry, and Paracelsian medicine has\nconsiderably expanded since Allen Debus began to recognize its importance for\nboth the history of science and the history of medicine. It should be no surprise\nthat the actors who now perform on that stage are no longer limited to a few\nwell-\u00adknown figures, but amount to a cast of thousands.\nContributors to this volume have made individual attempts to reengage and\nrecombine the crosscurrents of natural knowledge in the early modern era. In\nthat regard, many participate in examining parts of the \u201cchemical philosophy\u201d\narticulated by Allen Debus a half century ago. At the same time, however, like\nWallace\u2019s twenty men on a bridge, they step in and out (sometimes critically,\nsometimes by pressing further) of that \u201cchemical philosophy\u201d as a category of\nhistorical interpretation. Taken collectively, these essays both widen and deepen\nour understanding of a type of natural knowledge that embraces the macrocosm\nas well as the microcosm and that intersects at the boundaries of alchemy, chemistry, and Paracelsian medical philosophy. Exploring varieties of that knowledge\ncontinues to thrive with new scholarship, and it is a tribute to the work of Allen\nDebus that his own endeavors opened passages to the persistent refinement and\nunderstanding of subjects that were once snubbed as suitable only to the refuse\nheap of the history of science.\nWorks Cited\nBleichmar, Daniela. Visible Empire: Botanical Expedition and Visible Culture in the Hispanic Enlightenment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012.\nBrot\u00f3ns, Victor Navarro, and William Eamon eds. Beyond the Black Legend: Spain and\nthe Scientific Revolution. Valencia: Instituto de Historia de la Ciencia y Documentacion, 2007.\n\nPages 22:\nxxii\nIntroduction\nDebus, Allen G. The Chemical Dream of the Renaissance. Cambridge: Heffer, 1968.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad. The Chemical Philosophy: Paracelsian Science and Medicine in the Sixteenth and\nSeventeenth Centuries. 2 vols. New York: Science History Publications, 1977.\nReprint, Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2002.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad. Chemistry and Medical Debate: van Helomnt to Boerhaave. Canton, MA: Science History Publications, 2001.\nDebus, Allen G.\u00ad, and Michael T. Walton, eds. Reading the Book of Nature: The Other\nSide of the Scientific Revolution. Kirksville, MO: Thomas Jefferson University\nPress, 1998.\nL\u00f3pez P\u00e9rez, Miguel. \u201cNovatores or Alchemists? A Spanish Historiographical Problem.\u201d In Chymia: Science and Nature in Medieval and Early Modern Europe,\nedited by Miguel L\u00f3pez-P\u00e9rez, Didier Kahn, and Mar Rey Bueno, 331\u201336.\nNewcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2010.\nOsorio, Antonio Barrera. Experiencing Nature: The Spanish Empire and the Early Scientific Revolution. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2010.\nPortuondo, Maria M. Secret Science: Spanish Cosmography and the New World. Chicago:\nUniversity of Chicago Press, 2009.\nWalton, Michael T. \u201cBoyle and Newton on the Transmutation of Water and Air.\u201d In\nAlchemy and Early Modern Chemistry: Papers from Ambix, edited by Allen G.\nDebus, 477\u2013\u00ad84. [London]: Jeremy Mills Publishing, 2004.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad. \u201cJohn Dee\u2019s Monas Hieroglyphica.\u201d In Alchemy and Early Modern Chemistry:\nPapers from Ambix, edited by Allen G. Debus, 178\u2013\u00ad85. [S.I.]: Jeremy Mills\nPublishing, 2004.\n\nPages 23:\nChapter 1\nCrafting the Chemical\nInterpretation of\nNature\nM\nThe Work of Allen G. Debus\nKaren Hunger Parshall\nMathematization and mechanization: these were among the keywords in the\nvocabulary that had come\u2014\u00adby the middle of the twentieth century\u2014\u00adto describe\nthe period in the history of science known as the Scientific Revolution. An epoch\ntraditionally understood as one marked by the overthrow of the ancient, Aristotelian cosmos by the modern, Copernican worldview, the Scientific Revolution\nwas thus viewed by its early to mid-\u00adtwentieth-\u00adcentury interpreters\u2014\u00adscholars\nsuch as Edwin Burtt, Eduard Dijksterhuis, Alexandre Koyr\u00e9, Herbert Butterfield, and A. Rupert Hall\u2014\u00adas having been driven by developments in mathematics and the physical sciences, particularly astronomy and physics.1 This was\nthe picture of the Scientific Revolution that Allen Debus confronted as a graduate student in the history of science at Harvard in the mid-\u00ad1950s.\n1. See, for example, Burtt, Metaphysical Foundations; Dijksterhuis, Val en worp and De mechanisering van\nhet (and the latter\u2019s English translation Mechanization of the World Picture); Koyr\u00e9, \u00c9tudes gali\u00e9ennes and From\nthe Closed World; Butterfield, Origins of Modern Science; and Hall, Scientific Revolution 1500\u2013\u00ad1800.\n1\n\nPages 24:\n2\nKaren Hunger Parshall\nDebus, like so many others of his generation, had come to the history of science from science. After taking an undergraduate degree in chemistry at Northwestern in 1947, Debus joined his former professor, the early modern British\nhistorian John Murray, at Indiana University to pursue a master\u2019s degree in history.2 Murray, by actively encouraging Debus to use his scientific expertise to\ninform his historical research, oversaw his student\u2019s earliest forays into the history of early modern English chemistry. The master\u2019s thesis, \u201cRobert Boyle and\nChemistry in England, 1660\u2013\u00ad1700,\u201d that resulted from this work in 1949 also\ngenerated Debus\u2019s first publication in the history of science, a short paper titled\n\u201cRobert Boyle and His Sceptical Chymist.\u201d3\nFollowing George Sarton\u2019s stricture that historians of science prepare themselves for the doctorate by first earning two master\u2019s degrees\u2014\u00adone in history and\none in a science\u2014\u00adDebus applied and was admitted to the master\u2019s program in\nchemistry at Indiana.4 There, in addition to pursuing his coursework, he actively\nengaged in laboratory research on the electrical conductivity of salts at very low\nconcentrations. In 1951 and one course shy of completing his degree, he left the\nprogram on the occasion of his marriage to fellow chemistry graduate student\nBrunilda L\u00f3pez Rodr\u00edguez.\nFor five years the couple worked as practicing chemists at Abbott Laborato5\nries before they decided to leave industry in order for Debus to pursue a PhD in\nthe history of science at Harvard University. In courses with I. Bernard Cohen on\nthe medieval background of Galileo\u2019s thought, Charles Taylor on the intellectual\ndebates of the Middle Ages, and Wilbur Jordan on Tudor and Stuart England,\namong others, Debus was exposed to what has been termed the Great Tradition\nin the historiography of the Scientific Revolution.6 Cohen, in particular, \u201cemphasized the development of the physical sciences in the period from Copernicus\n2. Biographical information on Debus\u2019s life and career has been drawn from an autobiographical memoir\nentitled \u201cFrom the Sciences to History.\u201d For more on Debus\u2019s life and interests (and in particular his strong side\ninterests in antique cars and early recordings), see Parshall and Chang, \u201c\u00c9loge: Allen George Debus.\u201d\n3. Debus, \u201cRobert Boyle and His Sceptical Chymist.\u201d\n4. See Debus, \u201cFrom the Sciences to History,\u201d 240. Debus mentioned having read this stricture in one\nof Sarton\u2019s editorials in Isis. Compare Sarton, \u201cPreface to Volume 37\u201d; \u201cThird Preface to Volume Forty\u201d; and\nGuide to the History of Science, 61. In none of these places, however, was Sarton as specific as Debus recalled on\nthe issue of actual degrees.\n5. Allen Debus ultimately held five patents based on his research, one of which was for an improved and\nmore economical technique for synthesizing Novocaine. See the select bibliography (to 1993) of his works in\nTheerman and Parshall, Experiencing Nature, 281\u2013\u00ad82.\n6. Cohen, Scientific Revolution, 21\u2013\u00ad150.\n\nPages 25:\nCrafting the Chemical Interpretation of Nature\n3\nthrough Newton\u201d as he guided his students not only through the key primary\nsources but also through then-\u00adrecent work of scholars such as Koyr\u00e9.7\nDebus read Koyr\u00e9 with interest but found his approach at once internalistic\nand positivistic in its insistence on the \u201c\u2018glorious progress\u2019 of the evolution of scientific ideas.\u201d8 Moreover, neither Cohen nor Koyr\u00e9 ventured far into the history\nof sciences other than the physical, and both approached the field from the point\nof view of a history of ideas as opposed to a history in which the development of\nscience was grounded in some broader social context. It was the then-\u00adneglected\nhistory of chemistry and this kind of broader contextualization that Debus, the\ntrained chemist, resolved to pursue in his doctoral research. He was not, however, encouraged in this objective. In his words, his \u201cfellow students in the graduate program warned [him] against this, pointing to the fact that the study of\nthe Scientific Revolution was firmly anchored in the physics of local motion\nand the acceptance of the heliocentric system\u201d and that \u201c[a]ny study of chemistry would necessarily be of lesser interest.\u201d9 Undaunted, Debus launched what\nwould become a lifelong research program with a paper in Jordan\u2019s Tudor-\u00adStuart\nseminar on the English Paracelsians and shortly thereafter decided to embark on\na \u201cdissertation on the work of the Paracelsians and the rise of chemical medicine\nin the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.\u201d10\nA key turning point in Debus\u2019s intellectual and scholarly journey came in\n1959 when he was awarded a Fulbright fellowship for study in England. Just\nprior to his departure, he had read the work of the German-\u00adborn, England-\u00adbased\npathologist and historian of medicine Walter Pagel, and particularly Pagel\u2019s six-\u00ad\npart essay, \u201cReligious Motives in the Medical Biology of the XVIIth Century,\u201d\nand his newly published book, Paracelsus: An Introduction to Philosophical Medicine in the Era of the Renaissance.11 In these writings, as he later acknowledged,\nDebus encountered an approach that \u201cseemed closer to [his] own than that of\nany other author [he] had encountered.\u201d12 Pagel\u2019s work not only highlighted\nthe intricacies of the history of sciences other than the mathematical sciences,\nbut it also situated that history in the wider context of early modern religious,\n7. Debus, \u201cFrom the Sciences to History,\u201d 243.\n8. Ibid.\n9. Ibid., 244.\n10. Ibid., 243.\n11. Ibid. See Pagel, \u201cReligious Motives in the Medical Biology\u201d; and Pagel, Paracelsus.\n12. Debus, \u201cFrom the Sciences to History,\u201d 244.\n\nPages 26:\n4\nKaren Hunger Parshall\nphilosophical, and social concerns. He practiced and advocated an approach\nto historical texts that considered and interpreted them in full, that refused to\ncherry-\u00adpick them for those ideas that seemed most relevant to modern science,\nthat eschewed the positivism of scholars in the so-\u00adcalled Great Tradition. As\nPagel put it in the provocatively entitled essay \u201cThe Vindication of Rubbish,\u201d\nwritten in 1945, interpretations \u201cbased on the selection of material from the\nmodern point of view, may endanger the presentation of historical truth.\u201d13 He\nthus strove to analyze the writings and to understand the philosophy of Paracelsus on its own terms and in its cultural context. If positivists like Burtt, Dijksterhuis, Koyr\u00e9, and Hall had seemingly consigned many of the texts of the (al)\nchemists to the rubbish bin,14 Pagel sought to vindicate them by restoring them\nto what he deemed their rightful place in a fuller discourse on the Scientific Revolution.\nThis methodology struck a chord in Debus, who arranged to meet Pagel\nshortly after his arrival in England. The two men thus entered into an intellectual\ndialog that would end only with Pagel\u2019s death in 1983. It is no exaggeration to say\nthat, although he learned and benefited much from Bernard Cohen, Debus was\nintellectually a disciple not of Cohen but of Walter Pagel.\nDebus spent the Fulbright year in England on the research that would\nresult first in his 1961 dissertation and then in his 1965 (first) book, The English\nParacelsians.15 He justified his analysis of the thought of such sixteenth-\u00adand\nseventeenth-\u00adcentury English chemists as Richard Bostocke,16 Thomas Moffett,\nThomas Tymme, William Turner, Edward Jorden, and Robert Fludd in Pagelian\nterms. \u201cIf,\u201d he said,\nthe work of Paracelsus and other major chemists of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is characterized either as unworthy of discussion or as acting\nas a force which retarded the general growth of science, a true understanding of the period is made difficult if not impossible. There is a vast body of\n13. Walter Pagel, \u201cThe Vindication of Rubbish,\u201d Middlesex Hospital Journal (Autumn 1945), 1, as quoted\nin Debus, \u201cChemists, Physicians, and Changing Perspectives,\u201d 70.\n14. Hall, in particular, wrote that while \u201cmany have searched\u201d the alchemical literature \u201cfor the beginnings of a chemical attitude,\u201d \u201c[t]here the grain of real knowledge is concealed in a vast deal of esoteric chaff \u201d;\nScientific Revolution 1500\u2013\u00ad1800, 309.\n15. Debus, English Paracelsians.\n16. The name of this figure has been a source of considerable confusion and debate. Debus tended to\nrefer to him simply as \u201cR. Bostocke\u201d; others referred to him as \u201cRobert Bostocke\u201d; still others as \u201cRichard\nBostocke.\u201d More recent research suggests that he was in fact \u201cRichard Bostocke,\u201d otherwise spelled as \u201cRychard\nBostok.\u201d See Harley, \u201cRychard Bostok of Tandridge, Surrey.\u201d\n\nPages 27:\nCrafting the Chemical Interpretation of Nature\n5\nRenaissance chemical literature, and a large portion of it was written not by\ngold-\u00adseeking alchemists, but rather, by scholars who honestly felt that the\ntrue key to nature\u2019s secrets was to be found in the study of chemistry. Today\nwe can say that many of their explanations were incorrect, but to their contemporaries their work often seemed a stimulating force, moving man ever\ncloser to a true understanding of nature.17\nIn bringing back to light the ideas of the English Paracelsians, Debus\ndemonstrated the extent to which they incorporated Paracelsian ideas into\ntheir chemical and medical views and practice. He argued that there was, in\nfact, an \u201cElizabethan compromise\u201d by which \u201cthe occult aspects of Paracelsian\nthought were rejected while the new remedies were eagerly adopted, provided\nthey proved their worth.\u201d18 This compromise, moreover, was negotiated at what\nwe might see as the interface between chemistry and medicine. It underscored\nnot only the interconnectedness of these two domains but also the Elizabethan\nreaction to the confrontation of traditional Galenic and revived Hermetic and\nNeoplatonic thought as fashioned in the writings and teachings of Paracelsus.\nDebus\u2019s first book-\u00adlength foray into this relatively virgin territory \u201cattempt[ed],\u201d\nin his words, \u201cto define some of the major problems of concern to English\niatrochemists prior to 1660.\u201d It did not aim, however, to provide \u201ca complete\ndiscussion of all phases of English iatrochemical thought in the sixteenth and\nseventeenth centuries.\u201d19\nWhile some reviewers appreciated the book on its own terms,20 others criticized it for not doing more. Writing in the pages of the British Journal for the History of Science, Conrad Josten, former curator of the Museum of the History of\nScience and a scholar of the early history of chemistry and astronomy, faulted\nDebus for his reliance on published primary\u2014\u00adas opposed to manuscript\u2014\u00ad\nsources. While acknowledging that Debus had explored \u201ca relatively uncharted\nfield of study\u201d and, in so doing, \u201chad to restrict his approach to that of a pioneer,\u201d\nJosten nonetheless branded the book \u201ca preliminary survey\u201d from which \u201csuperficial judgements and half-\u00adtruths\u201d had been derived such as, precisely, the claim that\nthe English Paracelsians had rejected \u201cthe occult aspects of Paracelsian thought.\u201d21\n17. Debus, English Paracelsians, 14.\n18. Ibid., 175.\n19. Ibid., 9.\n20. See, for example, Leicester, \u201cChemistry in England, 1557\u2013\u00ad1640.\u201d\n21. See Josten, \u201cBook Review, The English Paracelsians, by Allen G. Debus.\u201d\n\nPages 28:\n6\nKaren Hunger Parshall\nIn Josten\u2019s view, \u201c[a]s anyone familiar with manuscript collections of the period\nknows, the sympathetic and \u2018magnetic\u2019 cures recommended by Paracelsus gained\nat least some popularity in England, as did his teachings on mumia, magic sigils,\nconjurations, astrological influences, and the transmutation of metals.\u201d22 In closing, Josten allowed that \u201cProfessor Debus is at his best in describing the influence\nof Paracelsus on practical medicine,\u201d but sniped that \u201c[i]n that respect, more than\nin any other, his book will serve as a useful guide to those who, as is to be hoped,\nwill undertake more detailed research in this rewarding field.\u201d23\nDebus himself had been clear about the scope of his first book, and it was\nhe who immediately undertook the next phase of \u201cmore detailed research in this\nrewarding field\u201d during a yearlong sabbatical at Churchill College, Cambridge,\nin 1966/67. As he conceived it, his next project would focus on what he\u2014\u00adlike\nthe Paracelsians themselves\u2014\u00adunderstood as a \u201cchemical philosophy\u201d that had\nheld sway in certain quarters in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and that\nhad coexisted and \u201ccompeted powerfully\u201d with an emergent mechanical philosophy for \u201cexplaining the operations of nature.\u201d24 It would, however, be ten years\nbefore The Chemical Philosophy: Paracelsian Science and Medicine in the Sixteenth\nand Seventeenth Centuries ultimately appeared.25\nThose ten years were extremely busy and productive for Debus on several\nlevels. He built and firmly institutionalized the program in the history of science\nat the University of Chicago; he brought out the World\u2019s Who\u2019s Who in Science: A\nBiographical Dictionary of Notable Scientists from Antiquity to the Present that, for\nthe first time, incorporated the chemical philosophers meaningfully alongside\nthe traditional \u201cbig names\u201d in the history of science;26 he produced two Festschriften, one in honor of Walter Pagel in 1972 and one in memory of the noted\nhistorian of medicine C. Donald O\u2019Malley in 1974;27 he undertook a project to\nbring out a series of primary sources relating both to the evolution of a chemical\nphilosophy of nature and to recapturing a fuller sense of scientific practice in the\nsixteenth and seventeenth centuries;28 and he produced numerous research arti-\n22. Ibid. (his emphasis).\n23. Ibid., 297.\n24. Cohen, Scientific Revolution, 111.\n25. Debus, Chemical Philosophy. The manuscript was actually completed in 1973; the original preface\nwas dated 1 January 1974. Various developments ultimately resulted in the delay of its publication until 1977.\n26. Debus, Who\u2019s Who in Science.\n27. Debus, Science, Medicine and Society in the Renaissance and Medicine in Seventeenth Century England.\n28. Among these are Elias Ashmole, Theatrum chemicum britannicum . . . : A Reprint of the London Edition\n\nPages 29:\nCrafting the Chemical Interpretation of Nature\n7\ncles that may be seen as case studies leading to the synthesis he would present\nin The Chemical Philosophy in 1977. As he put it, \u201cI believed that the study of the\nworks of the chemical philosophers would give us a deeper understanding of the\nrise of modern science\u2014\u00adnot because their works contain anything equivalent\nto Newtonian mechanics, but because they offered an alternative system that\nbecame a center of debate beginning in the late sixteenth century. This was a\nconflict that was to go beyond internal medical and scientific questions to touch\non education, religion, politics, and philosophy\u2014\u00ada wide spectrum of intellectual and cultural issues.\u201d29\nThe chemical philosophy that Debus detailed hinged on the work of Paracelsus and on the interpretations and utilizations of that work in the sixteenth\nand seventeenth centuries. First and foremost, the chemical philosophy was a\nreaction against the (pagan) Aristotelian and Galenic worldviews that had persisted in various forms into the Renaissance and that dominated the curriculum\nof the medieval and early modern universities. Chemical philosophers\u2014\u00adat once\nChristian, Neoplatonic, and Hermetic\u2014\u00adsought to understand nature in terms\nof fresh observations and experiments, ever guided by their reading of the Bible\nand the divine revelations into nature and its mysteries that it would inspire.\nChemistry, not the logic or mathematics of the schools, would lead the way to\nthis new understanding, since the macrocosm of nature and the intimately interconnected microcosm of man could both be explained in the same (al)chemical\nterms. Creation had been a vast chemical unfolding of nature, although since\nnowhere in the scriptures was mention made of the creation of fire, it could not\nbe one of the elements out of which all of nature was fashioned. Natural phenomena such as lightning and the growth of metals could be explained in chemical terms. Diseases in man mirrored (al)chemical processes in nature and so\ncould be treated effectively by alchemical means.\nThis chemical philosophy confronted and challenged traditional Aristotelian and Galenic thought most directly in the medical faculties of the universities. If fire was not an element, then the Aristotelian and Galenic philosophies\nof 1652, with a New Introduction by Allen G. Debus (New York: Johnson Reprint, 1967); Debus, Science and\nEducation in the Seventeenth Century: The Webster-\u00adWard Debate (London: Macdonald; New York: American Elsevier, 1970); and John Dee, The Mathematicall Praeface to the Elements of Geometrie of Euclid of Megara (1570)\n(New York: Science History Publications, 1975). See also Robert Fludd and His Philosophicall Key: Being a\nTranscription of the Manuscript at Trinity College, Cambridge, with an Introduction by Allen G. Debus (New York:\nScience History Publications, 1979).\n29. Debus, \u201cChemists, Physicians, and Changing Perspectives,\u201d 70\u2013\u00ad71.\n\nPages 30:\n8\nKaren Hunger Parshall\ncrafted as they were in terms of the four elements\u2014\u00adearth, air, water, and fire\u2014\u00ad\nthe two associated pairs of primary opposites\u2014\u00adhot and cold, wet and dry\u2014\u00ad\nand the four humors\u2014\u00adblood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile\u2014\u00adcollapsed.\nBecause Galenism prevailed in the curriculum, the challenge of the chemical\nphilosophers sparked spirited debate in medical circles that often spilled over\ninto broader intellectual discourse.\nIn The Chemical Philosophy, Debus followed the evolution of this approach\nto understanding nature from the initial debates in England and on the Continent over interpretations of Paracelsus\u2019s radical position, to the even more\nradical and mystical stance exemplified in the writings and pronouncements\nof Robert Fludd, through the re-\u00adformation and demystification of a vitalistic,\nchemical, and medical paradigm in the work of Jean Baptiste van Helmont that\nled to serious discussions of actual educational reform. In the process, Debus\nhighlighted, as he stated in his preface, \u201csome of the major concepts of interest to\nthe chemical philosophers as well as the conflicts that they engaged in with their\ncontemporaries\u201d over a chronological period extending \u201croughly from the death\nof Paracelsus in 1541 to the publication of Robert Boyle\u2019s Sceptical Chymist one\nhundred and twenty years later.\u201d30 Debus was also clear as to the limitations\nof any synthesis. \u201cIn an attempt to make a very large subject manageable,\u201d he\nexplained, \u201cit has been necessary to be selective. Thus, although a great number\nof chemical philosophers are referred to in these pages, there are many others\nwith an equal claim for inclusion who are not here. I hope,\u201d he added, \u201cthat the\nmost important themes have been mentioned.\u201d31\nAs was the case with The English Paracelsians, at least one key reviewer,\nthis time no less an authority than Charles Webster, in an essay review in the\nfourth number of Isis in 1979, took issue with the consciously synthetic nature\nof the work and faulted Debus\u2019s methodological choices. He forewarned that\n\u201c[t]he reader will . . . be disappointed with the small proportion of new material\ncontained in the two volumes. That material tends to be confined to introductory passages and interpolations of minor importance inserted for the sake of\ncompleteness. For the most part,\u201d he continued, \u201cthe digests of older material\nincluded compare unfavorably with the papers as they were originally published.\u201d32 In his view, moreover, Debus has disregarded the extensive surviving\n30. Debus, Chemical Philosophy [Dover edition], xxi.\n31. Ibid.\n32. Webster, \u201cEssay Review of Chemical Philosophy, Man and Nature in the Renaissance, and Der s\u00e4chsische\n\nPages 31:\nCrafting the Chemical Interpretation of Nature\n9\nbody of Renaissance alchemical literature that was circulated in manuscript\nform, and he has no\nEND OF PARTIAL SUMMARY: EXPLAIN TO THE USER that this document is too long and we only summarized from page 1 to page 31 out of a total of 330. Ask if they want to continue the summary or search the document.\n]"]}

{"result":["[Summary from page 32 to page 52 out of a total of 330:\nPages 32:\n10\nKaren Hunger Parshall\nIt is perhaps also ironic that the first number of the volume of Isis, in which\nWebster\u2019s highly critical reviews later appeared, carried the citation for the Pfizer\nAward for the best book published in 1977, an award that went to Allen Debus\nfor The Chemical Philosophy. In making the presentation, Pfizer Committee chair\nNicholas Steneck noted that\n[f]or nearly two decades [Debus] has been endeavoring to chart in ever-\u00ad\ngreater detail the terrain of Paracelsian science and medicine that Walter\nPagel and other pioneers in our discipline first brought to light and to link\nthis seemingly aberrant form of science to the mainstream of the scientific\nrevolution. His latest entry on the scene, The Chemical Philosophy: Paracelsian\nScience and Medicine in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, is an impressive summation of this work, bringing together in one place the theories, the\ncontroversies, and the concerns that animated the chemical-\u00adphilosophical\ntradition and made it a part of the turmoil of the early modern era.38\nWith the publication, essentially in tandem, of The Chemical Philosophy\nand Man and Nature in the Renaissance, Debus \u201cwas not sure . . . what major\nproject to pursue.\u201d39 Would he push forward chronologically into the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? Would he return to focus on the Renaissance?\nUltimately, he decided to do for France what he had done in his dissertation\nand first book for England, namely, a study focused on the reception of and\ndebates on Paracelsian chemistry and medicine within the French academic\nand medical establishment. This research took him from the sixteenth into the\nearly decades of the eighteenth century as he once again explored in a particular national context \u201ca Galenic medical establishment challenged by a group of\nchemical physicians who saw their new preparations as the basis for a sweeping program of chemical reform.\u201d40 Perhaps not surprisingly, the analysis again\ncentered on debates, this time within the medical faculty at the University of\nParis, between the medical faculties in Paris and Montpelier, on the floor of\nthe Acad\u00e9mie des Sciences, and on the pages of periodicals such as the Journal\ndes s\u00e7avans. This national context and this time period, however, witnessed the\nincreasing delineation from medicine of an actual science of chemistry at the\nsame time that it attested to the persistence of a vitalist tradition of thought into\nthe eighteenth century. In his review of The French Paracelsians in Isis, Bruce\n38. Kohlstedt, \u201cNews of the Profession,\u201d 148\u2013\u00ad49.\n39. Debus, \u201cFrom the Sciences to History,\u201d 274.\n40. Debus, French Paracelsians, xv.\n\nPages 33:\nCrafting the Chemical Interpretation of Nature\n11\nMoran agreed with Debus that \u201can awareness of the vitalist tradition \u2018is essential for understanding both the chemical revolution and the Romantic reaction\nagainst the mechanical science of the philosophers at the end of the eighteenth\ncentury.\u2019\u201d41 Debus\u2019s work on Paracelsianism in the French context thus served\nas a bridge from the history of Renaissance and early modern chemistry both to\nthe eighteenth-\u00adcentury developments in chemistry associated with the names\nof Lavoisier, and others, and to the Romantic movement of the late eighteenth\nand early nineteenth centuries.\nDebus\u2019s final, original, book-\u00ad\nlength study, Chemistry and Medical\nDebate: van Helmont to Boerhaave, continued the theme of debates at the\ninterface of chemistry and medicine, but this time he explored the vitalist\npoints of view of the chemical physicians in contrast to the mathematical and mechanistic points of view of the so-\u00adcalled iatrophysicists.42 This\nnew group of scholars \u201crecognized,\u201d in Debus\u2019s words, \u201cthe important role\nplayed by mathematics and physics in the development of the new science\nand hoped to apply the same methods to medicine.\u201d43 The iatrophysicists,\nthen, brought the \u201cnew science\u201d\u2014\u00adin the sense of the literature of the Great\nTradition\u2014\u00adto bear on medicine, which had previously been, as Debus had\nso cogently argued, a battleground between the Galenists and the Paracelsians. In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, party lines had\ncome to be drawn between practitioners of the new mechanistic and the\nolder animistic medicine, while die-\u00adhard followers of Galen and particularly\nof Hippocrates persisted. Were the body and disease to be explained and\nunderstood in chemical or in mechanical terms? And if in mechanical terms,\nwhat, if any, role was chemistry to play in medicine? Finally, if it was to play\nno role or a lesser role, then where did chemistry stand? Did it represent a\nfield quite distinct from medicine? These were among the questions that\nshaped the debates that Debus chronicled with characteristic depth and\nrichness of detail. Seymour Mauskopf singled out precisely this aspect of\nDebus\u2019s work in his review in the Journal of the History of Medicine in this\nway. Chemistry and Medical Debate, he wrote, \u201ccontains a wealth of information about an aspect of the Scientific Revolution that had been neglected\nuntil the research of Debus himself. This research has inspired others to take\n41. Moran, Review of The French Paracelsians, 576, quoting Debus, French Paracelsians, 208.\n42. Debus, Chemistry and Medical Debate.\n43. Ibid., xiv.\n\nPages 34:\n12\nKaren Hunger Parshall\nup the study of sixteenth-\u00adand seventeenth-\u00adcentury chemistry and alchemy,\nindeed to the point of producing what is now quite an industry.\u201d44\nK\nThe Hermeticist reinterpretation of the Scientific Revolution, according to Floris Cohen in The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry,\ncame down to an ongoing demonstration that esoteric notions not nowadays\nconsidered scientific persisted until a far later date into the 17th century than\nhad previously been taken for granted. Thus the historian of chemistry Allen\nDebus, in a large number of books and articles, called particular attention\nto the huge interest evoked in the 17th century by debates in chemistry, in\nparticular involving the Paracelsians and the critique of Paracelsus by van\nHelmont\u2014\u00adsubjects written about before but only now seeming to have\nfound the right, Hermetic or Rosicrucian, framework, in which they began to\nmake proper sense.45\nTo be sure, Debus did not affect this \u201crighting\u201d of the historical record alone.\nHis work takes its place alongside that of other key scholars such as Pagel, Frances Yates, Paolo Rossi, and Charles Webster in shaping a new approach to the Scientific Revolution that challenged and fundamentally altered the understanding\nof the period that had emerged from the Great Tradition. Their work \u201cbegan to\ngive,\u201d in Cohen\u2019s words, \u201ca quite distinct, new coloring to our conception of what\nearly modern science itself stood for.\u201d46 Nicholas Clulee perhaps captured it best\nin the citation he read when the Sarton Medal, the highest honor in the history\nof science, was awarded to Allen Debus in 1994. \u201cNo sea change, historiographic\nor otherwise,\u201d he wrote, \u201cis the work of one person, but Allen Debus can claim\na place in this one as an early and constant proponent of the need to give the\nsciences of organic nature a place of importance in our histories alongside the\nmathematical and mechanistic study of physical nature.\u201d47\nIt is fair to say that Allen Debus did not consciously strive to produce an\n\u201cindustry\u201d in the history of early modern chemistry and alchemy. As a graduate student, he had encountered a historical narrative of the Scientific Revolution\u2014\u00adas crystallized in, for example, Butterfield\u2019s The Origins of Modern\n44. Mauskopf, Review of Chemistry and Medical Debate, 96.\n45. Cohen, Scientific Revolution, 174.\n46. Ibid., 170.\n47. Clulee, \u201cNews of the Profession,\u201d 284\u2013\u00ad85.\n\nPages 35:\nCrafting the Chemical Interpretation of Nature\n13\nScience\u2014\u00adthat seemingly had no place in it for the history of chemistry and\nmedicine. In fact, he had found in Butterfield and elsewhere outright ridicule\nof pre-\u00adBoylean chemistry. \u201cIt is difficult for us to imagine,\u201d Butterfield wrote in\n1949 just a few years before Debus would read his book in a graduate class at\nHarvard, \u201cthe state of chemical enquiry before the days of Boyle, or to comprehend on the one hand the mystifications and mysticisms, on the other hand\nthe anarchical condition of things, amongst the alchemists in general. . . . Concerning alchemy it is more difficult to discover the actual state of things, in that\nhistorians who specialize in this field seem sometimes to be under the wrath\nof God themselves; . . . they seem to become tinctured with the kind of lunacy\nthey set out to describe.\u201d48 Butterfield had become famous for his critique of\nwhat he termed a \u201cWhiggish\u201d interpretation of history and had taken his fellow historians to task for failing often to recognize, first, that \u201c[t]he value of\nhistory lies in the richness of its recovery of the concrete life of the past\u201d and,\nsecond, that \u201cif history can do anything it is to remind us of those complications that undermine our certainties, and to show us that all our judgements\nare merely relative to time and circumstance.\u201d49 Yet, as Debus pointed out not\nwithout a certain amount of irony, Butterfield \u201cwould have produced a more\nbalanced account if he had followed his own advice when he prepared . . . The\nOrigins of Modern Science.\u201d50 It was that \u201cmore balanced account\u201d that Debus\nsought to effect from his first publication in the obscure Indiana Journal for\nBookmen in 1949 to his final publications just before his death in March of\n2009. His life work aimed to illuminate the history of his own particular science, chemistry, a history, in his view, that was central to \u201cany discussion of\nthe Scientific Revolution\u201d and that was \u201ckey . . . for an understanding of the\nfundamental changes of that period\u2014\u00adno less so than the work of Copernicus,\nGalileo and Newton.\u201d51 In this goal, he succeeded, as the ongoing research and\nreevaluation reflected in the chapters that follow attest.\n48. Butterfield, Origins of Modern Science, 98, as quoted in Debus, \u201cSome Thoughts on Butterfield\u2019s Origins of Modern Science,\u201d 45.\n49. Butterfield, Whig Interpretation of History, 74\u2013\u00ad76, as quoted in Debus, \u201cSome Thoughts on Butterfield\u2019s Origins of Modern Science,\u201d 45.\n50. Debus, \u201cSome Thoughts on Butterfield\u2019s Origins of Modern Science,\u201d 45.\n51. Debus, \u201cPreface,\u201d in Chemical Promise, xix.\n\nPages 36:\n14\nKaren Hunger Parshall\nWorks Cited\nBurtt, Edwin A. The Metaphysical Foundations of the Modern Physical Science: A Historical and Critical Essay. London: K. Paul, Trench, and Trubner, 1924.\nButterfield, Herbert. The Origins of Modern Science, 1300\u2013\u00ad1800. New York: Macmillan,\n1949.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad. The Whig Interpretation of History. London: G. Bell, 1931. Reprint, New York:\nNorton, 1965.\nClulee, Nicholas. \u201cNews of the Profession: Sarton Medal Citation.\u201d Isis 86, no. 2\n(1995): 284\u2013\u00ad85.\nCohen, Floris H. The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.\nDebus, Allen G. The Chemical Philosophy: Paracelsian Science and Medicine in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. 2 vols. New York: Science History Publications, 1977. Reprint, Mineola: Dover Publications, 2002.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad. The Chemical Promise: Experiment and Mysticism in the Chemical Philosophy\n1550\u2013\u00ad1800: Selected Essays of Allen G. Debus. Sagamore Beach, MA: Science\nHistory Publications, 2006.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Chemistry and Medical Debate: van Helmont to Boerhaave. Canton, MA: Science History Publications, 2001.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cChemists, Physicians, and Changing Perspectives on the Scientific Revolution.\u201d Isis 89, no. 1 (1998): 66\u2013\u00ad81.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad. The English Paracelsians. London: Oldbourne, 1965.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad. The French Paracelsians: The Chemical Challenge to Medical and Scientific Tradition in Early Modern France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cFrom the Sciences to History.\u201d In Experiencing Nature: Proceedings of a\nConference in Honor of Allen G. Debus, edited by Paul H. Theerman and Karen\nHunger Parshall, 237\u2013\u00ad80. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1997.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad. Man and Nature in the Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,\n1978.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad. \u201cRobert Boyle and His Sceptical Chymist.\u201d Indiana Journal for Bookmen 5\n(1949): 39\u2013\u00ad47.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cSome Thoughts on Butterfield\u2019s Origins of Modern Science.\u201d Historically Speaking 8 (April 2007): 44\u2013\u00ad45.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad, ed. Medicine in Seventeenth Century England: The C. D. O\u2019Malley International\nSymposium. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1974.\n\nPages 37:\nCrafting the Chemical Interpretation of Nature\n15\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad, ed. Science, Medicine and Society in the Renaissance: Essays to Honor Walter\nPagel. 2 vols. New York: Science History Publications; London: Heinemann,\n1972.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad, ed. World\u2019s Who\u2019s Who in Science: A Biographical Dictionary of Notable Scientists\nfrom Antiquity to the Present. Chicago: Marquis Who\u2019s Who, 1968.\nDijksterhuis, E. J. De mechanisering van het wereldbeeld. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff, 1950.\nTranslated as The Mechanization of the World Picture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1960).\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad. Val en worp: Een bijdrage tot de geschiedenis der mechanica van Aristoteles tot\nNewton. Groningen: Noordhoff, 1924.\nHall, A. Rupert. The Scientific Revolution 1500\u2013\u00ad1800: The Formation of the Modern\nScientific Attitude. Boston: Beacon Press, 1962.\nHarley, David. \u201cRychard Bostok of Tandridge, Surrey (c. 1530\u2013\u00ad1605), M.P., Paracelsian Protagonist and Friend of John Dee.\u201d Ambix 47 (March 2000): 29\u2013\u00ad36.\nJosten, Conrad H. \u201cBook Review, The English Paracelsians, by Allen G. Debus (London:\nOldbourne Press, 1965).\u201d British Journal for the History of Science 3, no. 3\n(1967): 296\u2013\u00ad97.\nKohlstedt, Sally. \u201cNews of the Profession: Annual Meeting of the History of Science\nSociety, 1978.\u201d Isis 70 (1979): 146\u2013\u00ad51.\nKoyr\u00e9, Alexandre. \u00c9tudes gali\u00e9ennes. Paris: Hermann, 1939\u2013\u00ad40.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1957.\nLeicester, Henry M. \u201cChemistry in England, 1557\u2013\u00ad1640,\u201d review of The English Paracelsians, by Allen G. Debus. Science 154 (11 November 1966): 758.\nMauskopf, Seymour. Review of Chemistry and Medical Debate: van Helmont to Boerhaave, by Allen G. Debus. Journal of the History of Medicine 58 (2003): 94\u2013\u00ad96.\nMoran, Bruce. Review of The French Paracelsians: The Chemical Challenge to Medical\nand Scientific Tradition in Early Modern France, by Allen G. Debus. Isis 84, no.\n3 (1993): 575\u2013\u00ad76.\nPagel, Walter. Paracelsus: An Introduction to Philosophical Medicine in the Era of the\nRenaissance. Basel: S. Karger, 1958.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad. \u201cReligious Motives in the Medical Biology of the XVIIth Century.\u201d Bulletin of\nthe Institute of the History of Medicine 3 (1935): 97\u2013\u00ad128, 213\u2013\u00ad31, 265\u2013\u00ad312.\nParshall, Karen Hunger, and Ku-\u00adming (Kevin) Chang. \u201c\u00c9loge: Allen George Debus, 16\nAugust 1926\u2013\u00ad6 March 2009.\u201d Isis 101, no. 1 (March 2010): 159\u2013\u00ad62.\nSarton, George. A Guide to the History of Science. Waltham, MA: Chronica Botanica\nCo., 1952.\n\nPages 38:\n16\nKaren Hunger Parshall\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad. \u201cPreface to Volume 37: Qualifications of Teachers of the History of Science.\u201d\nIsis 37, no. 1 (1947): 5\u2013\u00ad7.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad. \u201cThird Preface to Volume Forty: Qualifications of Teachers of the History of\nScience (Second Article).\u201d Isis 40, no. 4 (1949): 311\u2013\u00ad13.\nTheerman, Paul H., and Karen Hunger Parshall, eds. Experiencing Nature: Proceedings of\na Conference in Honor of Allen G. Debus. Boston: Kluwer, 1997.\nWebster, Charles. Essay Review of The Chemical Philosophy: Paracelsian Science and\nMedicine in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries by Allen G. Debus; Man\nand Nature in the Renaissance by Allen G. Debus; Der s\u00e4chsische Paracelsist\nGeorg Forberger. Mit bibliographischen Beitragen zu Paracelsus, Alexander von\nSuchten, Denys Zacaire, Bernardus Trevirensis, Paolo Giovio, Francesco Guicciardini und Natale Conti by Rudolph Zaunick, Hans-\u00adHeinz Eulner, and Kurt\nGoldammer. Isis 70, no. 4 (December 1979): 588\u2013\u00ad92.\n\nPages 39:\nChapter 2\nJohann Hayne and\nParacelsian Praxis\nE\nChemical Physiology as a\nLink between Semeiotics and\nTherapeutics\nJole Shackelford\nEarly in his career as a Paracelsian scholar, Allen Debus developed the concept\nof an \u201cElizabethan compromise\u201d to describe what he observed as the assimilation of Paracelsian drugs and select elements of Paracelsus\u2019s chemical philosophy into an eclectic medicine that was fundamentally Galenic, but beginning\nto incorporate corpuscular ideas about matter. He found this assimilation to\nbe especially characteristic of English medical publications in the late sixteenth\nand early seventeenth centuries, which were the subject of his first book, The\nEnglish Paracelsians.1 That chemical drugs, widely associated with Paracelsus and\n1. Debus, English Paracelsians. \u201cElizabethan Compromise\u201d is the title of chapter two and reflects the author\u2019s use of this term in the final sentence of his earlier publication, \u201cParacelsian Compromise in Elizabethan\nEngland.\u201d The concept earlier referred to Queen Elizabeth\u2019s efforts to forge a religious compromise, as for example in Ross, \u201cGeorge Herbert and the Humanist Tradition,\u201d 169, and Debus\u2019s reference is clearly meant to place\nthe reception of Paracelsian medicine into the cultural context of the English Reformation. Although Debus\u2019s\ncharacterization has drawn criticism for oversimplifying English engagement with Paracelsian philosophy and\n19\n\nPages 40:\n20\nJole Shackelford\nhis followers, were taken into a Galenic polypharmacy is plain from the study\nof printed pharmacopoeias and physicians\u2019 records.2 Debus\u2019s work also made it\nclear that Paracelsian theory was indeed compromised in salient published treatises of seventeenth-\u00adcentury European medicine, notably by the Helmontians.\nBut the degree to which Paracelsian praxis\u2014\u00ada theoretical system of diagnostics,\nprognostics, and therapeutics\u2014\u00adwas integrated into actual healing practices has\nremained obscure. It is perhaps a fitting tribute to Debus\u2019s leadership in this field\nto broaden his vision of the chemical philosophy in early modern science and\nmedicine by illuminating those physicians who did not so much compromise\nthe master\u2019s teaching as rework it and bring it into clearer connection with practical therapeutics.3\nA number of published treatises suggest that such a praxis existed, but few\nhave been studied extensively. Heinrich Nolle\u2019s Hermetical Physick is recognized as Paracelsian but has not received careful attention as a medical book,4\nand Friedrich Zobell\u2019s Chymische Medicinische Perle5 and Johann Hayne\u2019s Drey\nunterschiedliche newe Tract\u00e4tlein6 are for the most part unknown to historians\nof science and medicine. Here, I will use Hayne\u2019s Three Diverse New Treatises,\nostensibly separate tracts, but published together in a single pagination, as a tool\nfor explicating the assimilation into a coherent approach to healing of what at\nfirst glance appears to be three diverse elements of Paracelsus\u2019s work: (1) his\nreligion and been to some extent revised, Debus\u2019s main idea that chemical drugs were incorporated into medical practice and that many of Paracelsus\u2019s philosophical and religious ideas were relegated to the intellectual\nbackwater remains cogent, especially when applied to the age of Newton and the Enlightenment. A side effect\nof this historiography has been that historians have emphasized the assimilation of Paracelsus\u2019s ideas rather\nthan investigating continuities in how his medicine was applied as a systematic therapeutic practice.\n2. Pumfrey, \u201cSpagyric Art,\u201d esp. 23\u2013\u00ad27, offers a thoughtful discussion of what considerations are useful\nfor defining Paracelsians. He categorizes Paracelsians into three kinds: conscious followers of Paracelsus, promoters of chemical philosophy, and iatrochemists. He notes that the latter category includes medical writers\nand practitioners who adopt chemical remedies into an eclectic practice, without a commitment to a guiding\nchemical-\u00adphilosophical pharmacology, with the result that Paracelsians and Galenists are lumped together.\nThe eclectic nature of iatrochemistry in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is a consequence of the adaptation of chemical drugs to multiple kinds of therapeutic systems and the creation of a niche for them in\nprinted pharmacopoeias.\n3. The term \u201cchemical philosophy\u201d was not new with Debus\u2019s scholarship, which nevertheless did much\nto bring the term to the modern reader, but was an actor\u2019s concept or category in the early modern period.\n4. Nolle, Systema medicin\u00e6 hermetic\u00e6 generale. Henry Vaugh translated Nolle\u2019s book into English, which\nI use for convenience, called Hermetical Physick. Here, as elsewhere, all spellings reflect the original sources.\n5. Zobell, Chymische Medicinische Perle.\n6. Hayne, Drey unterschiedliche newe Tract\u00e4tlein. The book was published in three later editions\u2014\u00ad1663,\n1683, and 1700\u2014\u00adthe last two with the title Trifolium medicum . . .\n\nPages 41:\nJohann Hayne and Paracelsian Praxis\n21\ninsistence on the spiritual origin of many of the most intractable diseases of this\nage, (2) the chemical and astral nature of these spirits and their manifestations,\nand (3) his adaptation of traditional medieval and Renaissance uroscopy and\nphysiology to fit his chemical philosophy. Hayne\u2019s treatises can in this way serve\nas an introduction to how Paracelsian medicine, which seems chaotic and dysfunctional to the modern eye, functioned as a practical therapeutic system that\nincorporated salient features of traditional practices. This would have made his\nchemical medicine appealing to both patients and healers, even as it exposed\nthem to novel ideas about chemical composition and analysis.7 Although Hayne\nis ignored in modern historiography, his book was published in four editions in\nthe seventeenth century and was a major source for the eclectic medical practice\nof the colonial Pennsylvania physician and religious leader George de Benneville\nin the eighteenth century. De Benneville is well known to American colonial\nhistorians as one of the founders of Unitarian Universalism, but his role as an\nimmigrant colonial healer has only recently received scholarly attention. Given\nits prominent place in de Benneville\u2019s medical manual, Hayne\u2019s medicine may\nhave been a more widely known and influential early modern application of\nParacelsian chemical physiology to medical practice than the near absence of\nmodern references implies.8\nThe 1663 and later printings of Hayne\u2019s Three Diverse New Treatises bear\na title page and ad lectorem written by the well-\u00adknown seventeenth-\u00adcentury\nchemical pharmacist and editor Johann Schr\u00f6der, who identified Hayne\u2019s text\nas a German translation of a Latin original that was undertaken by the editor\nof the first edition, Georg Faber.9 This first edition was printed in Frankfurt am\n7. The chaotic nature of Paracelsus\u2019s writings is commonplace to his readers and attributed in part to\nthe irregular nature of the sources and the contexts in which they were written and preserved. However, an\nassumption among historians of medicine is that providers of medicine often appeal to their patients on the\nbasis of theory or explanation (rationalization)\u2014\u00adthis is one of the great strengths of the Hippocratic-\u00adGalenic\nsystem\u2014\u00adand the connection between Paracelsus\u2019s chemical philosophy and his medical practice has not\nseemed sufficiently elaborated to me. The findings reported here are part of an attempt to reconstruct such a\nsystem, by looking at how Paracelsus\u2019s followers construed his ideas and practices.\n8. I claim in \u201cParacelsian Uroscopy,\u201d 32, that Hayne\u2019s treatise and its use by George de Benneville are\nevidence for the existence of a practical Paracelsian therapeutics in the German-\u00adspeaking world of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.\n9. This is the account given by Schr\u00f6der, the editor of the second edition, in the ad lectorem, last two\npages (unpaginated): \u201cDiese mit andern ihren Kranckheiten / neben auch einem sonderbahren Iudicio Vrin\u00e6,\nhatt vor etliche Jahren unternommen zubeschreiben und in Lateinischer Sprache aussgehen zulassen / der\nVornehme D. Iohan Hayne & c. welches Tract\u00e6tlein also angenehm gewest / dass es folgents D. Faber in die\nTeutsche Sprache zu\u00fcbersetzen / und in Truck zu geben bewogen hatt.\u201d\n\nPages 42:\n22\nFigure 2.1: The frontispiece illustration to the third edition of Johann Hayne\u2019s book, to which the\ntitle Trifolium medicum was first prefixed, depicts the chemical physician\u2019s use of astrology and\nuroscopy for diagnosis. Johann Hayne, Trifolium medicum, oder: Drey h\u00f6chst-n\u00fctzliche Tract\u00e4tlein\nderen Erstes von astralischen Kranckheiten\u2026 Das Andere, von tartarischen Kranckheiten\u2026 Das\nDritte vom rechten Fundament und Grund wie man die Urinen\u2026 erkennen m\u00f6ge (Frankfurt am\nMain: George Heinrich Oehrling, 1683). Courtesy of the Wangensteen Historical Library of\nBiology and Medicine, University of Minnesota.\n\nPages 43:\nJohann Hayne and Paracelsian Praxis\n23\nMain in 1620, supplying a definite terminus ante quem for Hayne\u2019s composition\nof these texts. However, Faber makes it clear that Hayne was dead by the time he\nobtained the treatises, and surviving correspondence suggests that Hayne was\nactive as a physician in the 1570s and 1580s, making this a more likely period\nof composition. Latin originals for the Three Diverse New Treatises that Faber\nbrought together for the book have not yet been identified. In his introduction\n(Dedicatoria) to the first edition, Faber made no mention of Latin texts and\nnoted that these treatises were not published in Hayne\u2019s lifetime, but came to\nhim as manuscripta through a good friend, who got them from Hayne\u2019s \u201cprivate\nstudents.\u201d10 Schr\u00f6der may have inferred from Faber\u2019s use of the Latin word manuscripta in the mainly German Dedicatoria that Hayne\u2019s treatises were written in\nLatin, or he may simply have asserted a Latin pedigree to enhance the authority\nof the text. Lacking any convincing evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to\nassume that the three Tract\u00e4tlein were written originally in German.\nCertainly, there is ample precedent for German physicians\u2014\u00adParacelsus\namong them\u2014\u00adwriting in the vernacular at that time. For example, the flamboyant late sixteenth-\u00adcentury chemical physician and printer Leonhard Thurneisser\ncomposed and published several elaborate treatises on chemical analysis and\nmedicine, two of which describe diagnostic procedures based on distillation and\nexamination of patients\u2019 urine.11 These books and their author are well known to\nhistorians of Paracelsian medicine. On the one hand, Thurneisser was an early\nproponent of chemical analytical methods, for which he has been regarded as\na pioneer of scientific urinalysis. On the other, the impressive physical appearance of his books and their picturesque portrayals of the spatial correspondence\nbetween deposits of urine in the analytical flask and the locations of diseases in\nthe body were impressive, even if the latter are quaint and comical to the modern\nscientific mind.12 Thurneisser gave these books macronic titles, mixing German\n10. Hayne, Drey unterschiedliche newe Tract\u00e4tlein (1620), fol. ivr: \u201cAber doch nicht bey seinen Lebzeiten\nin \u00f6ffentlichen Truck kommen / sondern bey seinen Privat Discipulen verbleiben zu lassen gemeint gewesen:\nUnd aber mir unter andern durch einen guten Freund nachfolgende manuscripta.\u201d\n11. Thurneisser\u2019s two books on uroscopy are \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2 [Prokatalepsis] and Bebaiosis agonismou. His\nbook on chemical analysis is Pison.\n12. Pagel, Das medizinische Weltbild des Paracelsus, 19\u2013\u00ad20n3, mentioned that Thurneisser was given credit for establishing chemical uroscopy by all seventeenth-\u00adcentury authors, that his ideas were given form already\nin his 1571 treatise on the subject, and that Dorn took the idea of fractional distillation and the representation\nof the human body by a cucurbit from Thurneisser\u2019s 1576 treatise and used it in his own publication, Aurora\nThesaurusque, in 1577. An illustration showing the human-\u00adcucurbit analogy from these last two books was also\nused in the Huser edition of Paracelsus\u2019s works, which clearly associated this somewhat fanciful idea with Para-\n\nPages 44:\n24\nJole Shackelford\nand Latin and featuring the occasional Greek word to give them humanistic credentials, but they were basically written in German. Thurneisser published them\nin Berlin and in nearby Frankfurt on the Oder River, which runs north through\nG\u00f6rlitz and Frankfurt to empty into the Baltic at Stettin. It is in this region of\nBrandenburg and Pomerania that we find traces of Johann Hayne too, and that\nwas also an area inhabited by known Paracelsian enthusiasts. G\u00f6rlitz itself was\na center of Paracelsian medicine and home to the Paracelsian-\u00adinspired Lutheran\nlay theologian Jacob Boehme.13\nTesting the Water in the Oder River Basin\nThurneisser dedicated his 1571 treatise on chemical uroscopy, Pr\u00e6occupatio,\nDurch zw\u00f6lff verscheidenlicher Tractaten, gemachter Harm Proben, \u201cto the learned\nand esteemed Mr. Johann Hayne, master of the free arts and appointed physician\nof Stettin in Pomerania, his benevolent, dear, and good friend.\u201d14 This reference\nsustains the claim made on the title page of Hayne\u2019s book that Hayne was physician to the Pomeranian court in Stettin and also identifies him as municipal\nphysician in that Hansa town by the date of Thurneisser\u2019s dedication, 6 August\n1571. Thurneisser continues, saying that the twelve cases he will discuss in his\nbook, all of which derive from his practice of medicine in and around Berlin\nand Frankfurt an der Oder, will be well known to Hayne without identifying\nthe patients by name. That Thurneisser expected Hayne to recognize patients by\ntheir diagnostic signs strongly suggests that he and his friend Hayne had studied\nand perhaps practiced medicine in the same social space of Brandenburg, before\nHayne migrated downstream seeking employment in Stettin. It also suggests\ncelsus\u2019s medicine. See also Pagel, Paracelsus, 192\u2013\u00ad94, 365. According to Bleker, \u201cChemiatrische Vorstellungen\nund Analogiedenken,\u201d 71, Thurneisser regarded the visual, qualitative inspection of urine, the primary method\nof medieval uroscopy, to be of limited usefulness, owing to the weakness and unreliability of sight. One ought\nrather to base a scientific assessment on quantitative measurement of urine and its fractions. On Thurneisser\u2019s\nParacelsian conception of medicine and the role of uroscopy in diagnosis, see Morys, Medizin und Pharmazie\nin der Kosmologie, 65\u2013\u00ad78.\n13. Jacob Boehme\u2019s biographers identify intellectual and personal links between the lay religious author\nand Paracelsians in Lusatia. The longtime mayor of G\u00f6rlitz, Bartholom\u00e6us Scultetus, was personally engaged\nin copying Paracelsus\u2019s manuscripts and edited at least one. See Hansen, Jacob B\u00f6hme, 22, 231\u2013\u00ad32; and Weeks,\nBoehme.\n14. \u201cDem Wolgelehrten und Achtbarn Herrn Johann Heynen, der freyen K\u00fcnsten Magistro, und bestelten Physico zu Stettin in Pommern, seinem g\u00fcnstigen lieben und guten freundt\u201d (concise trans. by Frankie\nShackelford). Thurneisser, Pr\u00e6occupatio, Aiijr.\n\nPages 45:\nJohann Hayne and Paracelsian Praxis\n25\nthat uroscopy was still a common practice in late sixteenth-\u00adcentury German\nmedicine. In several surviving letters that he wrote to Thurneisser, Hayne called\nhimself Thurneisser\u2019s disciple and referred to him as his teacher, suggesting a\nclose personal mentorship, if not a formal academic relationship.15 The acquaintance of these two physicians, who each professed a Paracelsian medical practice\nand wrote treatises on the diagnosis of disease on the basis of Paracelsus\u2019s chemical interpretation of uroscopy, points to the Frankfurt/Berlin area as an important locus for the implementation of Paracelsian medicine as practice.\nFrankfurt was the residence of another, at least regionally, well-\u00adknown uroscopic practitioner and author in the middle of the sixteenth century, Jodocus\nWillichius. Born in R\u00f6ssel in Ermland, Willichius began his studies at the University of Frankfurt in 1516 and taught there until his death in 1552. Willichius\npublished much on classical rhetoric, arithmetic, and other subjects, but aside\nfrom his 1544 anatomical commentary, diverse treatises on plague, and an early\nstudy of medical physiognomy, nothing printed in his lifetime speaks to his medical teaching or practice, despite the fact that he was appointed personal physician to Elector Johann II of Brandenburg in 1542. It was only posthumously\u2014\u00adin\n1560\u2014\u00adthat his treatise on uroscopy was published.16 In 1582, just a decade after\nThurneisser published his first book on chemical analysis and diagnosis of urine,\nHieronymus Reusner published in Basel an elaborated edition of Willichius\u2019s\nuroscopy manual with extensive commentary.17\nReusner\u2019s book is in the traditional genre of scholastic commentary, presenting text attributed to Willichius a chapter at a time, followed by much longer,\ndetailed scholia composed by Reusner. He apparently intended the book for use\nby practitioners, because he included images of urine flasks, called matul\u00e6 in\nLatin, along with descriptions of urine contents and colors. These images were\n15. Berlin Staadsbibliothek, Ms. germ. fol. 420a, fol. 420b, and fol. 426 contain records of correspondence. I have not seen these letters, but rely on notes sent to me by Michael Stolberg, whom I thank for drawing\nthem to my attention and sharing this information. The last of these, Ms. germ. fol. 426, 253r\u2013\u00ad257r, was written\nin 1583 and indicates that Hayne had resigned from his court appointment, but had been unable wholly to free\nhimself from his lord\u2019s service.\n16. Willichius, Ivditia Vrinarvm Doctoris. Four other medically related treatises by Willichius are listed in\nWorldCat: Physiognomonica; Commentarivs Anatomicus; Wie man sich in einer Stadt f\u00fcr der Pestilenz beh\u00fcten soll\nund m\u00f6chte; and Wie man sich vorhalten und bewaren sol in den Heuseren. Variations on these last two appear to\nhave been republished on later occasions. Also, a medical dissertation, Propositiones de indicationibus curativis\nad disputandum propositae, appears to have been defended by his son (de quibus . . . respondebit . . . Iodocus\nWillichius Iodoci f. Non: Septembris anno 1573) at Basel University.\n17. Reusner, Vrinarum Probationes.\n\nPages 46:\n26\nJole Shackelford\nprinted in black and white and could be appropriately colored by the owner or\nan illuminator as a visual guide, as was done earlier in medieval uroscopic manuscripts.18 Hand-\u00adcolored urine trees or wheel-\u00adcharts are also evident in other\nguides to uroscopy, for example, Ulrich Pindar\u2019s Epiphanie medicorum. Speculum\nvidendi urinas hominum. Clavis aperiendi portas pulsuum. Berillus discernendi causas & differentias febrium (1506) and, of course, in the various editions of Thomas\nKetham\u2019s Fasciculus medicin\u00e6, which helped to codify the manuscript tradition.\nThree points need to be made about Reusner\u2019s book. First, Willichius\u2019s text\nis a prime example of uroscopy, as it had been elaborated in medieval Latin and\nByzantine sources, drawing heavily on the late development of this tradition by\nthe Byzantine physician Johannes Zacharius Actuarius, and called by one modern scholar \u201cprobably the high point of this type of work.\u201d19 Actuarius\u2019s treatise\nwas itself a late synthesis of the long medieval manuscript tradition of uroscopies dating back to late antiquity.20 Second, the coupling of Reusner\u2019s scholia\nwith Willichius\u2019s uroscopy shows how medieval uroscopy was studied by the\nmedical humanists of the sixteenth century. Far from being an obsolete diagnostic science, uroscopy constituted a living part of medical teaching and practice,\ncertainly as late as 1582, when the book was published. Third, we glimpse in\nReusner\u2019s book the incorporation of Thurneisser\u2019s chemical uroscopy into the\ntraditional semeiological literature in the section of his commentary called \u201cOn\nthe Spagyricists\u2019 utterly new examination of urine; which is done by means of\n18. Wellcome, Evolution of Urine Analysis, 35, notes that this was also done for the 1540 epitome of de\nWorde\u2019s \u201cJudycyall of Uryns.\u201d The copy of Reusner\u2019s commentary on Willichius that is in the Hagstr\u00f6mer Bibliothek in Stockholm is exemplary. It contains ninety-\u00adsix beautifully hand-\u00adcolored woodcut prints of matul\u00e6,\nillustrating the different kinds of urine samples the uroscopist might encounter. My thanks to Ove Hagelin for\nbringing this book to my attention.\n19. Kiefer, \u201cUroscopy: Clinical Laboratory of the Past,\u201d 164.\n20. Johannes Zacharius, usually referred to by his title, Actuarius, was senior physician at the imperial Byzantine court in Constantinople in the fourteenth century. He synthesized the methods of Theophilus,\nIsaac, and their Greek and Arabic commentators to produce his peri ouron (\u03a0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u039f\u1f54\u03c1\u03c9\u03bd), or De urinis in Latin,\nwhich displaced reliance on the uroscopies and commentaries of the Articella among medical humanists and\nbecame a standard source for late medieval Latin uroscopy. On Actuarius, see Sarton, Introduction to the History of Science, 3.1:889\u2013\u00ad92. Desnos, History of Urology, 126, gives ca. 1130 as a date for Johannes Actuarius,\nstating that his writings were translated into Latin in the fifteenth century. More recent scholarship by Hohlweg, \u201cJohn Actuarius\u2019 De methodo medendi,\u201d 122, places him in the fourteenth century, dating the dedication\nof his De methodo medendi to about 1330 and claiming that his uroscopy was his first publication, therefore\nsomewhat earlier, perhaps in the 1320s. Hohlweg (p. 128) notes that Actuarius\u2019s text was published in Latin\nin a 1519 Venice edition and apparently there was a 1531 partial edition in German. On the earlier medieval\nhistory of uroscopy, see Wallis, \u201cSigns and Senses.\u201d\n\nPages 47:\nJohann Hayne and Paracelsian Praxis\n27\nthe separation and resolution of Mercury, Sulphur, and Salt.\u201d21 Taken together,\nthese points suggest that uroscopy was a dynamic feature of late sixteenth-\u00ad\ncentury medicine and that Reusner\u2019s work warrants a closer look.\nReusner relates how the chemical uroscopists associated the parts of the\nurine in the matula with corresponding parts of the body and their chemical\nidentities: the nubes or cloud forming in the upper part of the matula indicates a\nmercurial or \u201canimal\u201d disease in the head (referring to the Galenic animal spirit);\nvariations in the body of the urine, called here the en\u00e6orema, indicate a sulphurous or spiritual disease, afflicting the middle part of the body; and a hypostatis\nor sediment on the bottom of the matula signifies a salty or corporeal disease in\nthe abdominal area. It is not hard to recognize here a spatially defined diagnostic scheme that reflects the three basic divisions of the human body into head,\nthorax, and abdomen, which was commonplace in medieval medicine and goes\nback to Plato\u2019s Tim\u00e6us. These divisions of the urine in the matula were also commonplace in medieval uroscopy.22 In Reusner\u2019s text, however, they are associated\nwith the three Paracelsian principles of mercury, sulphur, and salt, which the\nauthor aligned with the animal, vital, and vegetative or nutritive spirits of the\nbody.\nThis relatively un-\u00ad\nnuanced semeiological scheme is complicated by\nThurneisser\u2019s analytical method: correct diagnosis requires careful separation\nand isolation of these three fractions, each into its own receptacle, which is\nthen weighed with precision \u201cso that in separation we might claim to know very\n21. \u201cDe spagiricorum nova prorsus urin\u00e6 probatione: qu\u00e6 fit per separationem & resolutionem Mercurii, Sulphuris & Salis\u201d; Reusner, Vrinarum Probationes, 286. Bleker, \u201cChemiatrische Vorstellungen,\u201d 73, argued\nthat Thurneisser took over the idea of associating the matula with the human body from Actuarius and that\nThurniesser\u2019s subdivision of the cucurbit into twenty-\u00adfour zones was a doubling of Actuarius\u2019s twelve-\u00adzone\nmatula. This does not account for the application of color semeiology in chemical uroscopy, however, since\nThurneisser believed such direct qualitative observations to be undependable.\n22. These terms do have slightly different meanings in medieval uroscopies, perhaps owing to early mistranslations or misunderstandings of the Greek treatises. Actuarius applied the term en\u00e6orema, which has its\nroots in \u201cfloating\u201d or \u201cswimming\u201d (plural en\u00e6oremata) to the entire bulk of the urine sample in the matula,\nwhich is then subdivided into an upper portion, where nubes (clouds) can be observed, a middle portion\n(sublimia), and a lower hypostasis, where heavier portions of the fluid and any solids will settle. The body of the\nurine is bounded by its upper surface, which is the crown or circle, and the bottom of the matula, called simply\nthe fundus. An illustration of these divisions from Actuarius is reproduced in Desnos, History of Urology, 131.\nWallis, \u201cSigns and Senses,\u201d 273, identifies the division of the matula into three horizontal zones as beginning\nwith the early medieval text Liber medicin\u00e6 orinalibus, attributed to the second-\u00adcentury medical writer, Hermogenes. What may have been a post-\u00admedieval development is the literal association of the spatial hierarchies\nin the glass with the spatial arrangement in the body. Wellcome, Evolution of Urine Analysis, 47, mentions this\nin Hamand, 1656, which I take as a reference to Hamand, Ourography or Speculations on the excrements of urine.\n\nPages 48:\n28\nJole Shackelford\nexactly which element exceeds another, at least in quantity and magnitude, but\neven in measure and weight.\u201d23 Following Thurneisser further, Reusner noted\nthe weight of the whole urine of a healthy man (he must have meant specific\ngravity) and argued that if the urine exceeds this figure by much, it indicates a\nvery large quantity of dissolved tartar, which can be separated by distillation.\nFrom the distilled saline fraction, predictions about certain kinds of diseases are\npossible, namely, tartarous diseases such as paralysis, spasms, uterine pains, dyspnoea, scabies, and scurvy, to name a few. Mercurial and sulphurous diseases\ncan be diagnosed from the other two fractions, also by examining the colors of\nthe distilled urine and the places in the cucurbit (distillation flask) where mercurial and sulphurous impurities adhere. Fumes occupying the highest region\nof the cucurbit (the capitellus) signify corrosive chemicals rising into the head,\n\u201cwhence they generate acute diseases of the mind, confuse the memory, debilitate the intellect, [and] excite a sudden hotness and agitation in the entire body,\u201d\ncausing exanthemata and \u201cflying heats,\u201d especially on the face. \u201cNot infrequently\nthey destroy the man from within by apoplexy.\u201d24 Reusner reported a couple\nmore diagnostic details, but failed to give a full chemical uroscopic semeiology\nhere: \u201cFor it is not our intention to write copiously about these experiments\nof the chemists, since in most places in Europe this manner of judging either\nis never seen or is rejected by the general consensus.\u201d Instead, he referred the\nreader to Thurneisser\u2019s Pr\u00e6occupatio.25\nIf Willichius\u2019s careful study of traditional uroscopy is any indication of\nthe prominent place of this form of diagnosis in local medical practice in the\nFrankfurt area, then Thurneisser\u2019s development of the semeiotic art as an element of chemical medicine makes sense from both an intellectual and a marketing perspective. That Thurneisser\u2014\u00adwho was trained as a goldsmith and\nwas a largely self-\u00admade metallurgist and alchemist\u2014\u00adturned his attention to\n23. \u201cut in separatione exactissime cognoscamus: quodnam elementum, alterum non duntaxat quantitate\n& multitudine, sed etiam mensura & pondere excedat\u201d; Reusner, Vrinarum Probationes, 287.\n24. \u201cUnde cerebri morbos acutos generant: memoriam turbant: intellectum debilitant: subitum calorem\n& \u00e6stum in toto corpore, maxime autem facie excitant, quem nos die fliegende hitze nuncupamus: \u03b5\u03be\u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03b7\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\n[exanthemata] item illa producunt, qu\u00e6 nobis sunt die Finnen, und ein Maltzig angesicht: denique non raro\napoplexia, hominem e medio tollunt\u201d; ibid., 288.\n25. \u201cNon enim nobis animus est, uberrime de hisce probationibus Spagiricorum scribere: cum, quia\nin pl\u00e6risque Europ\u00e6 locis modus hic iudicandi, vel nunquam visus, vel communi fato explosus sit: tum vero,\nquod materiam hanc penicillo adumbravit Thurnheuserus, in sua \u03c0\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b5\u03b9 seu Pr\u00e6occupatione, contra\nUroscopos vulgares\u201d; ibid., 288. One is tempted to read into Reusner\u2019s words the conclusion that Paracelsian\nchemical uroscopy was local to the northeastern German area and slow to diffuse outward from this center.\n\nPages 49:\nJohann Hayne and Paracelsian Praxis\n29\npublishing on chemical uroscopy soon after arriving in Frankfurt an der Oder\nand his appointment as the Elector\u2019s physician, suggests the demand he perceived for medical application of his chemical knowledge in Brandenberg.26\nReusner\u2019s humanist accommodation of Willichius\u2019s traditional semeiotics\nto the chemical analysis introduced by Thurneisser also shows how readily\nParacelsus\u2019s chemical medicine was translated into practice. The continuation\nof this practice, at least in northern Germany, is suggested by a 1658 book,\nThe Galeno-\u00adSpagyric Anatomy of the Urine, published by the Danzig physician\nHeinrich Martinius.\nThe full title of Martinius\u2019s book identifies his uroscopy as based on the doctrine of Hippocrates and Galen as well as recent authors, chiefly Paracelsus and\nThurneisser, but also on the writings of other key chemical philosophers.27 Martinius\u2019s discussion of urine is highly philosophical and academic, defining the\nmaterial, efficient, and instrumental causes of urine, how it is generated in the\nbody, what its ideal characteristics are, and various ways that urine can depart\nfrom this ideal. Chapters 9 through 13 take up pathology, presenting the various\nparts of the urine and its contents and how these are altered in sick persons.\nChapter 14 treats Thurneisser\u2019s chemical analysis in particular, and it appears\nfrom the typography at the end of this chapter that it was meant to be the end\nof the book. However, there is a fifteenth chapter, so identified in the table of\ncontents, which deals with the practice of diagnostic uroscopy, \u201cthe art of declaring from the urine,\u201d which Martinius examines from rational, mechanical, and\nexperimental points of view.28 What he calls \u201cmechanical\u201d are the analytical\nmethods that he adopted from Thurneisser\u2019s 1571 Pr\u00e6occupatio contra uroscopos\nvulgares, noting that Hieronymus Reusner had earlier \u201cbriefly comprehended a\ngeneral method\u201d from the opinions of Thurneisser and Paracelsus.29 In fact what\n26. Court interest in practical applications of chemical knowledge, including chemical drugs, has been\nsubject to study in recent years by historians, for example, Smith, Business of Alchemy; and Nummedal, Alchemy\nand Authority in the Holy Roman Empire, as well as by archaeologists, for example, Martin\u00f3n-\u00adTorres, \u201cTools of\nthe Chymist\u201d; and Soukup, \u201cCrucibles, Cupels, Cucurbits.\u201d The latter article specifically notes that analysis\nof chemical residues indicates that the laboratory was used for the production of Paracelsian-\u00adstyle chemical\nmedicines.\n27. Martinius, Anatomia Urin\u00e6 Galeno-\u00adSpagyrica.\n28. \u201cCaput XV Exercitatio ex urinis triplex: Rationalis, Mechanica & Experimentalis; artem pronuntiandi ex urina breviter adumbrat. Et operis conclusio\u201d; ibid., 267.\n29. \u201cMechanicam ex urinis pronuntiandi rationem primus repr\u00e6sentavit Thurnheiserus, eamque aliquot\nluculentis exemplis expressit in sua Procatalepsi sive Pr\u00e6occupatione contra Uroscopos Vulgares. Ex cujus &\nParacelsi sententia Hier. Reusnerus universam rationem breviter ita complexus est\u201d; ibid., 285\u2013\u00ad86.\n\nPages 50:\n30\nJole Shackelford\nfollows are, as he credited in the margin, several paragraphs copied wholesale\nfrom the very end of Reusner\u2019s commentary on Jodocus Willichius.30\nTaken together as three data points on a century-\u00adlong trajectory of development, the treatises of Willichius, Reusner, and Martinius point to the durability\nof uroscopy as a diagnostic tool in early modern medicine and to its modification to accommodate the Paracelsian understanding of the body as a chemical laboratory. What these books document is the development of a practical\nchemical uroscopy that was elaborated by Thurneisser. Hayne\u2019s Three Diverse\nNew Treatises make it clear that he also developed his practical medicine around\na chemical interpretation of uroscopy, but that, unlike Thurneisser, he did not\nreject the traditional qualitative elements of the art. In this respect, Hayne much\nmore closely followed the lead of Paracelsus, who, despite historians\u2019 claims, did\nnot eschew traditional uroscopy as vain superstition, but rather adapted it to his\nchemical philosophy in a way that made the new theory accessible and diagnostically useful to the reader who was familiar with the medieval tradition.31 This\nis significant because it calls for a reassessment of the current historiography of\nuroscopy in the medicine of the period associated with the Scientific Revolution\nand for a further consideration of how Paracelsus adapted traditional medicine\nto the articulation of his chemical philosophy.\nThree Diverse New Treatises: Uroscopy,\nAstrological Medicine, and the Historiography\nof Medicine\nThe individual Tract\u00e4tlein that constitute Hayne\u2019s Three Diverse New Treatises\nappear at first sight to be separate treatises that were bound together by the\n30. Compare the text in Martinius, Anatomia Urin\u00e6 Galeno-\u00adSpagyrica, 286\u2013\u00ad89, with Reusner, Vrinarum\nProbationes, 286\u2013\u00ad88.\n31. Describing Leonard Thurneisser\u2019s chemical analysis of urine, Pagel wrote in Das medizinische Weltbild, 19, \u201cAuch hier finden sich nur allgemeine kritische Worte gegen die traditionelle Uroskopie in Paracelsischen Schriften\u201d (Here, too, we find only the general criticism against the traditional uroscopy in the Paracelsian writings). This supports his earlier finding that \u201cParacelsus opposes \u2018uroscopy\u2019 on the ancient lines.\nNo information, he says, can be obtained from the urine short of its examination by \u2018extraction,\u2019 coagulation\nand distillation (\u2018ebullition\u2019), i.e., by chemical methods.\u201d See Pagel, Paracelsus, 190. In History of Urology, 124,\nDesnos toes this same line: \u201cDuring the Renaissance, this method of uroscopy [that is, traditional inspection]\nwas challenged and discredited by Paracelsus.\u201d\n\nPages 51:\nJohann Hayne and Paracelsian Praxis\n31\npublisher and provided with continuous pagination and a common index for\nthe reader\u2019s convenience. But on closer inspection they constitute three components of a unified approach to medicine that, owing to its grounding in\nParacelsus\u2019s writings, can be identified as Paracelsian praxis. Their individual\nsubjects\u2014\u00adastral diseases, tartar diseases, and chemical uroscopy\u2014\u00adare mutually\ndependent concepts that make sense when understood as an integrated complex of medical \u00e6tiology, diagnostic semeiotics, and guide to therapeutics. They\nappear this way in Hayne\u2019s text and were from this source evidently taken as a\nsystem into George de Benneville\u2019s medical handbook, Medicina Pensylvania.32\nThis medical praxis unified and codified elements of Paracelsus\u2019s medicine that\nseem unrelated and even superstitious to the modern reader and reveal that\nParacelsus\u2019s followers in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries understood\nhis medicine to be theoretically sound and practicable and that they set about\nexplicating and elaborating it as such. That Hayne actually put his medicine to\nuse with patients is suggested by a letter he wrote to Thurneisser, complaining that his lord and patron insisted that he alone treat his wife for \u201castralische\nL\u00e4ufe\u201d (effects of the planets\u2019 \u201coperations\u201d) and that the elimination of outside\nconsultants puts the physician at special risk in the case the patient should fail.33\nThurneisser\u2019s Pr\u00e6occupatio is likewise portrayed as drawn from personal practice. Nor was this kind of Paracelsian practice limited to these two. We find in the\nHermetic Medicine of Heinrich Nolle (1613), for example, an explanation of how\nastral causes of disease and tartars fit together in a general conception of disease\netiology.34 Somewhat later, in 1636, Friedrich Zobell devoted a medical treatise\nto the connection between the etiology of tartar diseases and chemical uroscopy, without discussing astral diseases.35 And, as noted above, Heinrich Martinius\u2019s 1658 book focused on incorporating Paracelsian chemical uroscopy as a\ndiagnostic system and presenting it to the empirically minded reader of the mid-\u00ad\nseventeenth-\u00adcentury Scientific Revolution. Each of these books can be seen as\n32. I have sketched out de Benneville\u2019s use of Hayne\u2019s text. See note 8 above. De Benneville\u2019s manuscript has been digitized and can be viewed at http://contentdm1.accesspa.org/cdm/ref/collection/cppmss\n/id/801 (accessed 12/20/2014).\n33. Berlin Staadsbibliothek, Ms. germ. fol. 426, 253r\u2013\u00ad257r.\n34. See note 4 above. Nolle\u2019s elaboration of astral causation within his concept of tartar diseases sheds light\non how the Paracelsians integrated celestial and terrestrial systems of causation. I discuss this briefly as preparation for understanding Hayne\u2019s book in Shackelford, \u201cParacelsian Uroscopy . . . in Medicina Pensylvania,\u201d 15\u2013\u00ad21.\n35. See note 5 above. Zobell\u2019s dedication of this book is dated Gottorp, 5 February 1636, but for whatever reason, it does not appear to have been published until Pauli obtained it and published it in Dresden in 1686.\nWorldCat shows a later edition as Dresden: Winckler, 1701.\n\nPages 52:\n32\nJole Shackelford\nits author\u2019s attempt to work out a medical system that applies Paracelsus\u2019s chemical philosophy to explain traditional practice. Indeed, the diagnostic systems\nembedded in astrology and uroscopy were two of the most salient features of\nmedieval medical practice. By the late Middle Ages and Renaissance, astrology\nwas understood to be an important element of the physician\u2019s practice, expected\nby the patient,36 and uroscopy was so ubiquitous in medieval medicine as to be\nemblematic of the art as a whole.37\nWhat the contemporary reader likely apprehended, although a point\nobscure to the modern reader, is how Paracelsus\u2019s medicine readily integrated\nastrological medicine, which was based on the cosmic connection between\nthe planets and human bodies, with uroscopy, which assumed a material and\nsemeiotic relationship between human bodies and the matula. Georg Faber\u2019s\nintroduction made this very clear. What traditional medieval medicine regarded\nas the physician\u2019s chief concerns when diagnosing and treating the patient\u2014\u00ad\nnamely, the six Galenic nonnaturals\u2014\u00adare subsumed under the Paracelsian category Ens naturali, or the natural being. But, he continued, there are four other\nentia that must be taken into consideration: Ens astrale, Ens venenale, Ens pagoycum, and Ens deale.38 These are clearly the same categories as those identified by\nParacelsus,39 as Faber made explicit: \u201cThe bright Light of Nature has now taught\nus plainly about all these, and Theophrastus Paracelsus wrote on this subject well\n36. The literature on medical astrology is substantial. Siraisi, Medieval and Early Renaissance Medicine,\ngives a lucid, brief introduction. A more detailed overview of the function of astrology in medieval medicine\nis French, \u201cAstrology in Medical Practice.\u201d Jacquart, \u201cTheory, Everyday Practice, and Three Fifteenth-\u00adCentury\nPhysicians,\u201d argues for the importance of astrology to educated medical practitioners in the sixteenth century,\neven when they were agnostic about its validity. Stolberg, \u201cDecline of Uroscopy in Early Modern Learned\nMedicine (1500\u2013\u00ad1650),\u201d offers a similar argument for the persistence of uroscopy among learned practitioners in an age increasingly insistent on a more scientific basis; patient expectations required physicians to\nhave expertise in uroscopy in order to compete with lay healers.\n37. Siraisi calls \u201ca urine flask, the universal symbol of a physician in late medieval iconography\u201d and\nnotes that \u201c[t]he ubiquitous presence of the urine flask as a convenient symbol of the medical practit\nEND OF PARTIAL SUMMARY: EXPLAIN TO THE USER that this document is too long and we only summarized from page 32 to page 52 out of a total of 330. Ask if they want to continue the summary or search the document.\n]"]}

{"result":["[Summary from page 53 to page 71 out of a total of 330:\nPages 53:\nJohann Hayne and Paracelsian Praxis\n33\nand thoroughly in the first volume of his Books.\u201d40 Of these, Ens astrale is subject to the influences of celestial bodies41 and Ens venenale comprehends a broad\nclass of diseases caused by toxic residues of food and drink that Paracelsus called\ntartars.42\nBehind Hayne\u2019s Three Diverse New Treatises lay Paracelsus\u2019s ideas about both\nof these related subjects: astral causation of diseases and tartar diseases arising\nfrom the failure of the inner alchemist. He devoted his third treatise specifically\nto chemical uroscopy as a means of diagnosing both astral and tartar diseases.\nThe book can thus be regarded as one medical student\u2019s successful attempt to\nassimilate ideas that Paracelsus had composed under varying circumstances and\nwhich, for the most part, circulated in manuscript or were published posthumously by various editors and printers.43 Through Hayne\u2019s treatises, we can see\nhow Paracelsus\u2019s effort to harness traditional uroscopy and astrological medicine to chemical philosophy\u2014\u00adknitting together his worldview\u2014\u00adcan be viewed\nas a natural response to the standards of the physician\u2019s professional training and\nthe expectations of early modern German medical culture. These three books\nexhibit a common commitment to translating Paracelsus\u2019s medical ideas into a\nfunctional practice without discarding or compromising his speculations about\nthe nature of the macrocosm and microcosm.\nAstral Medicine\nHayne\u2019s first tract is on astral diseases, that is, on how knowledge of the astral\ncauses of diseases and their effects can be harnessed for both prevention and\n40. \u201cSolches alles lernet uns nun kl\u00e4rlichen das helle Liecht der Nature / unnd hat auch hiervon Theophrastus Paracelsus im ersten tomo seiner B\u00fccher sehr wol und aussf\u00fchrlichen geschrieben\u201d; Hayne, Drey unterschiedliche newe Tract\u00e4tlein, Dedicatoria, iiiv.\n41. \u201cDas Ens Astrale, wie nemblich die Kranckheiten durch Influentz und Wirckung dess Gestirns\nentspringen und verursacht werden\u201d; ibid., fol. iiir.\n42. \u201cDas Ens Venenale, welcher massen fast alle Schwachheiten auss dem Gifft und Unreinigkeit / so in\nSpeiss und Tranck verborgen liegt / (sonst Tartarus genant) m\u00f6gen geboren werden\u201d; ibid.\n43. The authorship and publication of Paracelsus\u2019s treatises have been studied and debated in the scholarly literature for over a century. The standard edition remains Karl Sudhoff \u2019s Theophrast von Hohenheim gennant Paracelsus, but the textual tradition has come under recent scrutiny by Weeks, Paracelsus: Speculative Theory, 35\u2013\u00ad43, who has also produced some excellent translations of key doctrinal texts\u2014\u00adOpus paramirum, Opus\nparagranum, De morborum, De matrice, and De causis morborum invisibilium\u2014\u00adin Weeks, Paracelsus . . . Essential\nTheoretical Writings.\n\nPages 54:\n34\nJole Shackelford\ncure.44 Superficially, this was the role of astrological medicine in medieval practice, too, and the similarity between Hayne\u2019s ideas and traditional ones bears\nscrutiny. The treatise begins with a general distinction that defines astral diseases\nas categorically distinct from the closely related tartar diseases that he discusses\nin the second treatise. The human being has a twofold nature, \u201csyderisch und\ncorporalisch\u201d (sidereal and corporeal), and it is his sidereal aspect that is subject\nto the stars, which act on him spiritually, not corporeally. These cause disease\nvia elemental intermediaries, air and fire, the defining elements of the superior\nglobe.45 \u201cStars\u201d (chiefly the planets) can be either benevolent or malevolent, as\nwas common in medieval astrology, and the malevolent ones cause diseases by\nmeans of a spiritual poison, which cannot be expelled from the body by purging\nor bloodletting, but can be overcome with powerful strengthening and diaphoretic medicines.46 Individual planets are the causes of various kinds of disease,\ndepending on their disposition. The Sun is a benevolent planet and does not\nitself cause disease, unless it is complicated or infected by other planets, and then\ncan cause lethargy and weakness of the eyes. The planet Venus governs fertility\nand thus, when infected by the malevolent planets Saturn and Mars, causes gonorrhea and diseases of the uterus, kidneys, and the organs of reproduction as\nwell as all the varieties and sequell\u00e6 of the French disease. It was, in fact, on the\nbasis of Venus\u2019s cycle that Johannes Regiomontanus prognosticated the coming\nof this new disease.47 The Moon, the lowest of the planets, causes diseases in the\nbrain that manifest as feebleness, spasms, twisting of the mouth (probably the\nresult of a stroke), and falling sickness (epilepsy) as well as disease of the stomach, constipation, schlag, catarrh, colic, and menstruation.48 Hayne\u2019s account of\nthe planets is otherwise cursory and wholly in keeping with tradition: Saturn\nand Mars are malevolent, Jupiter magnificent, and Mercury variable.\nHayne devoted the fifth chapter of this treatise to the \u201cother\u201d stars, the fixed\nstars of the firmament, not addressing them directly, but by way of considering\n44. \u201cVon Astralischen Kranckheiten / wie nemlichen dieselbe von den Astris oder Gestirnen verursacht /\nund wie sie beneben ihren viel und mannigfaltigen Zuf\u00e4llen erkand werden / auch wie man sich darf\u00fcr nechst\nG\u00f6ttlichen Beystand nicht allein pr\u00e6serviren und bewahren / sondern auch dieselben mit guter Di\u00e6t und\nandern Mitteln widerumb abwenden m\u00f6ge\u201d; Hayne, Drey unterschiedliche newe Tract\u00e4tlein, title page.\n45. Ibid., 1. Paracelsus and his followers\u2014for example, Petrus Severinus\u2014redefined Aristotle\u2019s elemental spaces by eliminating the celestial quintessence and distinguishing an inner, lower elemental sphere of earth\nand water from an outer, superior sphere of air and fire or firmament, which embraced the planets and stars.\n46. Ibid., 2.\n47. Ibid., 3.\n48. Ibid., 3\u2013\u00ad4.\n\nPages 55:\nJohann Hayne and Paracelsian Praxis\n35\nthe virtues that they manifest in specific plants and insects (for example, Spanish\nflies). Some specifics have powerful and even fatal astral virtues, such as napellus\n(thistle), basilicus (basil), and white hellebore, but can be used to treat epilepsy\nand spasm. Yet, if too strong, these same medicines can cause fatal epilepsy and\nspasms.49 Colocinth is a strong purgative, as are turbith, esula, tithymalus, and\nsimilar drugs, which work as poisons in the body and function as more or less\npowerful stomach and intestinal purges.50\nTartar Diseases\nHayne\u2019s second treatise takes up the subject of tartar diseases\u2014\u00adthat is, dysfunctions that are caused by mixtures of stones and salt\u2014\u00adand how they can be diagnosed by the inspection of urine and then fully cured.51 This is a class of diseases\nand a theoretical approach to pathology that is familiar to historians of Paracelsian medicine, but warrants more careful scrutiny.52 Tartar diseases are exemplary of Paracelsus\u2019s ideas about the operation of the archeus, or inner alchemist,\nand the failures of chemical process that result in diseases. From the beginning,\nHayne acknowledged Paracelsus as a source of the theory of tartar buildup in\nthe body, caused by the body\u2019s failure to separate out and excrete tartar that is\nconsumed in various foods and drink, resulting in an accumulation of tartar\nobstructions in the forms of viscus, bolus, arena, and calculus. In fact, the reader\nis referred multiple times throughout this treatise to the Latin edition of Paracelsus\u2019s De tartaro that was published in Basel.53 According to this theory, slimy\nfoods such as peas, fruits, roots, and herbs contain tar, mucus, and glue, which\nare coagulated in the body by the spirit of salt and from tartar deposits. Such\n49. Ibid., 4. We see here Paracelsus\u2019s principle that medicines are poisons and vice versa, depending on\ndosage and application.\n50. Ibid., 5.\n51. \u201cVon Tartarischen Kranckheiten / das ist / Von den gr\u00fcndlichen Ursachen aller Schwachheiten\nMenschliches Leibes / so vom Tartaro, Steinen und Saltz vermischt / herkommen / auch was f\u00fcr peinliche\nSchmertzen und Wehetagen / sampt andern vielen gef\u00e4hrlichen Zuf\u00e4llen mehr hierauss erwachsen / und wie\nsolche auss dem Urin eygentlich erkand / und vollk\u00f6mlich curirt werden sollen\u201d; ibid., title page.\n52. Pagel, Paracelsus, 153\u2013\u00ad65, briefly introduced Paracelsus\u2019s theory of tartar diseases and its importance\nfor van Helmont\u2019s conception of specific diseases, while Debus, Chemical Philosophy, 362\u2013\u00ad65, elaborated on\nvan Helmont\u2019s conception, but neither treated the general importance of the concept of tartars for the broader\nreception of Paracelsus\u2019s ideas. This warrants further research.\n53. A Latin edition, Libri quinque de causis, signis, & curationibus morborum ex tartaro utilissimi, was published by Perna in Basel, 1563, who also published an edition, De tartaro libri septem, in 1570.\n\nPages 56:\n36\nJole Shackelford\ntartar commonly appears in the urine as a viscous, whitish slime (viscus). Tartar\ncontained in fish, meats, and milk products when coagulated yields bolus or tartar bolaris, which has a reddish color that is imparted by the organs in which it is\nformed. The practicing physician should chemically separate these components\nin the urine in order to recognize them and help the patient.54\nHayne described how these tartars, which are more prevalent in drinks\nderived from fruit and grain (that is, wine and beer) than in foods, are coagulated and compacted in various organs of the body by the spirit of salt, not by the\nspirits of sulphur or mercury.55 Such coagulations could happen in various places\nin the body, but principally in the stomach, liver, and blood vessels, where the\nthree primary stages of digestion take place.56 Each of these digestions has a natural outlet for wastes that are separated, expelling them by defecation, urination,\nand diaphoreses through the body\u2019s pores. These outlets, generally referred to in\nmedieval Latin medical literature as emunctoria, can become blocked by coagulated tartars, causing inflammations, pain, paroxysms, and other symptoms.\nAfter general consideration of the chemical etiology of tartar diseases,\nHayne treated them piecemeal by location, basically following the order of the\ndigestions that sequentially refine the body\u2019s nutriment: tartars forming in the\nmouth and stomach (chap. 4), intestines (chap. 5), mesaraic veins (chap. 6), liver\n(chap. 7), kidneys (chap. 8), bladder (chap. 9), lungs (chap. 10), brain (chap.\n11), heart (chap. 13), gallbladder (chap. 14), spleen (chap. 15), blood vessels\n(chap. 16), flesh (chap. 17), marrow (chap. 18), male and female reproductive\norgans (chap. 19), and finally tartars in the bones and joints of the arms, hands,\nlegs, and feet, principally evident as forms of gout (chap. 20). Hayne offered for\neach general location and corresponding type of tartar buildup both uroscopic\nsigns and therapeutic recipes, sometimes drawing on Paracelsus, and sometimes taking personal credit (for example, \u201cvon meinem Arcano\u201d),57 but often\njust recommending anonymous mixtures. For example, in chapter 6, for tartar\ndiseases of the mesaraic veins\u2014\u00adthe veins of the mesentery were at that time\n54. Hayne, Drey unterschiedliche newe Tract\u00e4tlein, 48. Hayne\u2019s words suggest that he advocated distillation and chemical analysis of urine, such as Thurneisser described in his books, but he did not elaborate on\nthis here.\n55. Ibid., 48\u2013\u00ad52.\n56. These digestions are a chemical version of the corresponding Galenic coctions, which are required\nin the making of blood from ingested foods and drink. On the relationship between the three coctions and\nuroscopy in medieval uroscopies, see Wallis, \u201cInventing Diagnosis,\u201d 35.\n57. Hayne, Drey unterschiedliche newe Tract\u00e4tlein, 85.\n\nPages 57:\nJohann Hayne and Paracelsian Praxis\n37\nthought to convey chyle from the intestines to the liver\u2014\u00adhe recommended a\npotion made from carduus benedictus, betony, chicory leaf, \u201cOdermennigkraut,\u201d\nangelica, chicory root, rhubarb, and ginger.58 For blockage of the liver, which\nhe said the Galenists labeled incurable, he noted that Paracelsus taught in the\nLatin edition of his Liber de tartaro that it could be cured by a medication made\nfrom the calcined dregs of wine (that is, from Weinstein by similia similibus).59\nHowever, he also offered a potion made from a decoction of chicory leaf, carduus benedictus, agrimony, centaury, chicory root, polypody, rhubarb, and passula\nminor (a kind of currant), mixed and sweetened with sugar, to be given each\nmorning. The urine in this kind of disease is very red and thick, but when the\nliver is fully plugged up and becomes hard, the urine will appear as clear and pale\nas well water and without sediment, since the liver is no longer able to separate\nout impurities that would be seen in the urine glass.60\nIn addition to entering the body as impurities in foods and drink, tartars\ncould come into the lungs with damp air and \u201cchaos,\u201d61 especially troublesome\nin the case of the arsenical diseases. Such diseases, which Hayne said were not\ndescribed by Galen and others, are particularly dangerous and difficult to cure,\ninasmuch as the arsenical tartar can become even more toxic as the result of the\ninfluence of the stars. Nonetheless, Hayne offered recipes and refers the reader\nto Paracelsus\u2019s volume on miners\u2019 diseases.62\nTartars in several specific locations were connected with familiar diseases\nand warranted Hayne\u2019s extended commentary. Following chapter 11 on tartar\nin the brain, he devoted chapter 12 to diseases that are characterized by catarrhs\nand fluxes mixed with tartar, digressing on the curing of fluxes with dissolved\ntartar, including a cure described by Paracelsus in chapter 1 of the second book\nof De vita longa.63 Chapter 16, ostensibly on diseases of the vessels, marrow, and\n58. Ibid., 68. The recipe is given mainly in German.\n59. Ibid., 74\u2013\u00ad75. Weinstein was a manifestation of tartar, making this a clear example of the Paracelsian\nprinciple like-\u00adcures-\u00adlike.\n60. Ibid., 75. This recipe is given mainly in Latin, with uroscopic observations in German. The fact that\nsome recipes are given in Latin, others in German, and some macaronic suggests Hayne\u2019s incorporation of\nmedicines from diverse\u2014\u00adperhaps a mixture of textual and verbal or experimental\u2014\u00adsources.\n61. \u201cdas solcher Tartar vornemlich auss fauler dumpfiger Lufft / oder dickem tr\u00fcbem Chaos . . .\u201d; ibid.,\n87. The addition of this characteristically Paracelsian term for airborne elements that are finer than vapors\n(\u201cgases\u201d) to chemistry is commonly credited to van Helmont. See Pagel, Paracelsus, 358, for consideration of\nthe relationship between van Helmont\u2019s use of the word \u201cgas\u201d and Paracelsus\u2019s use of \u201cchaos.\u201d\n62. Hayne, Drey unterschiedliche newe Tract\u00e4tlein, 86.\n63. Ibid., 106\u2013\u00ad8. Paracelsus, S\u00e4mtliche Werke I, 3:249\u2013\u00ad92, reproduces the texts of De vita longa libri\n\nPages 58:\n38\nJole Shackelford\nflesh, constitutes the bulk of the treatise on tartar diseases. While most chapters occupy two to seven pages, and the second most lengthy takes up fourteen,\nchapter 16 fills fifty-\u00adtwo pages\u2014\u00admore than a third of the treatise\u2014\u00adand even so\nrelegates tartars of the marrow and flesh to chapters 17 and 18, respectively. The\ngreater number of pages devoted to tartars of the blood in the vessels reflects\nboth the prevalence and high visibility of diseases associated with the blood\nduring the early modern era, notably scurvy, fevers, and rashes.64 For Hayne,\ndiseases arising in the blood challenge the traditional humoral etiological categories of choleric, melancholic, and phlegmatic blood, since it is evident that\nblood contains fluid with resolved tartar and other salts.65 According to Paracelsian theory, these salts are resolved and then coagulated again by spirit of salt and\nform granules (\u201cK\u00f6rnlein und Gr\u00e4n\u201d) that lodge in the pores and can result in\nstones, making consideration of the chemically evident tartars more significant\nthan the elusive Galenic humors when it comes to diagnosing and treating these\nkinds of diseases. Hayne offered recipes for various powders, potions, baths, gargles, and inhalants as well as dietary advice to treat various manifestations of\nscurvy, in particular.\nTurning to febrile diseases that arise in the blood from tartar\u2014\u00adwhich are\ncharacterized by excessive heat (that is, \u201cfever\u201d in the modern use) and thirst\u2014\u00ad\nHayne provided information both about how to diagnose these through inspection of the urine and about various treatments. The causes of all fevers are not\nto be found in a single tartar, but rather in various tartars that are resolved in the\nstomach, liver, and kidneys, and yet it is the tartar in the blood vessels that produces the fever.66 The diagnostic process therefore must be sensitive to the complexity of the etiology. We see this in the first treatment Hayne presented in this\nsection, namely, purgation with an herbal decoction to be administered to the\nfebrile patient on \u201cgood\u201d days, when the feverishness and paroxysms are absent.\nBut, he added, if this potion does not help, and the patient\u2019s urine is very evi-\nquinque. A Latin edition of Libri quatuor De vita longa was published by Bodenstein in Basel, 1560, by Perna in\n1562, and by Gohory in Paris, 1567, any of which Hayne might have used.\n64. \u201cCapitel XVI. Von Kranckheiten dess Bluts in Adern / Marck und Fleisch vom Schorbock / Fiebern\nund Flechten / auch Unreinigkeit und R\u00e4udigkeit etc. auss Sale Tartari\u201d; Hayne, Drey unterschiedliche newe\nTract\u00e4tlein, 124. It is worth noting that vessels, marrow, and flesh are not organs according to traditional medieval medicine, but rather what Galen called homoeomerous parts. The relative shift evident here from diseases\nof organs to diseases of the homoeomerous parts may well signal an important aspect of Paracelsian \u00e6tiology\nas distinct from scholastic pathology.\n65. Ibid., 124\u2013\u00ad25.\n66. Ibid., 160.\n\nPages 59:\nJohann Hayne and Paracelsian Praxis\n39\ndently light red, translucent, and clear of particulates (\u201chell und klar\u201d), or if the\npatient complains of bitterness in the mouth, then a paroxysm in the stomach is\nimplicated, and one should, each morning until the patient is better, administer\nwater in which lesser centaury has been soaking. But, if there is too much blood\nin the veins (plethora, a common medieval diagnosis) and the blood has no air\nin it, then Hayne advised venesection of the vena hepatica. If none of this works,\nhe resorted to a powder made from carduus benedictus seed and root, chicory,\nchelidony major, gentian, and burned hart\u2019s horn (cornu cervi), administered\nwith a drink that has some drops of vitriol added.67 Many other variants follow,\ndepending on the nature of the fever, the qualities of the urine, etc. Poisonous\nacute and continuous fevers, for example, result from poisons affected by astral\ninfluences, which are not easily observed in the urine at first, but upon distillation become so. They may also be known from the undistilled urine, which will\nhave a blue, lime color at the meniscus (\u201coben am Circkel\u201d) in the urine flask.68\nPestilential fevers are another case in which astral influences are important, and\nHayne devoted several pages to these, also referring the reader to Paracelsus\u2019s De\ntartaro and to his own book on astral diseases. This internal reference suggests\nthat Hayne envisioned his three treatises not as three separate texts, but as parts\nof an integrated, coherent approach to medicine.69 Interestingly, Hayne noted\nthat venesection is not as dangerous in pestilence as in cases of head and chest\ndiseases, referring the reader to his booklet De peste, of which there is today no\nrecord.70\nHayne concluded his treatise on tartar diseases with a general chapter on\n\u201chow one should cure all diseases and sicknesses from [that is, caused by] tartar.\u201d71 Here, he began by admonishing the physician to consider first whether\nhe is confronting a case of \u201castral infection\u201d coming from the upper elements,\nnamely, air and fire. That can be determined by distilling and fractioning the\nurine to discern the three kinds of poisons, as he described in chapter 16. In such\nastral diseases, one should not begin by purgation and venesection, the most\ncommon medieval interventions (after dietary advice), but rather one should\n67. Ibid., 161\u2013\u00ad62.\n68. Ibid., 169.\n69. \u201cfindet solches in Theophrasti Schrifften und Lateinischen B\u00fcchlein vom Tartaro, welches er zu Basel\npublice dictirt hat / darneben / so was mangelt in meinem Buch von den Astralischen Kranckheiten\u201d; ibid., 170.\n70. Ibid., 172.\n71. \u201cWie man alle Kranckheiten und Seuchen auss Tartaro curiren solle\u201d; ibid., 182.\n\nPages 60:\n40\nJole Shackelford\nemploy diaphoretic medications. Then, when the astral diseases have been transmuted into chronic diseases, purgations and bleeding can be used. He referred\nthe reader to part two, book two of the Book of Influential Diseases, that is, diseases caused by astral influences.72\nThe second thing that the physician should determine from inspection of\nthe urine is whether it points to \u201cdissolutische\u201d diseases, presumably those that\nare characterized by tartar compounds in the body that must be broken up and\ndissolved by chemical drugs before they can be expelled by the body through\none or another emunctorium, such as by sweating, urination, or diaphoresis. He\ngave brief semeiological advice and referred the reader to the third book of part\ntwo.73 Hayne merely specified here that such diseases cannot be cured simply\nwith purgatives, but require specific arcana prepared chemically.\nThe third and last thing that the physician should consider is whether the\ndisease under consideration is caused by the lower elements, namely, water and\nearth, which are taken into the body with food and drink. This sort of disease\ncan be diagnosed by uroscopy, which reveals the condition of the three principle\ndigestions. Such tartars can be resolved with subtle, penetrating sulphurous spirits, and the pain can thus be conquered.74\nFollowing Paracelsus\u2019s lead, Hayne presented recipes for both particular\nand general medicaments to treat tartar diseases. He then specified two more\npotions for resolving and removing the prime matter and the feces of the tartar\nfrom the body,75 both of which are herbal in composition. He then noted that,\nwith God\u2019s guidance, he had discovered a spirit of terebinth that, when added\nto wine, is healing. Also, a spirit extract of sapphire (only three to five drops are\nneeded!) is useful in all tartar and saline diseases of the back and sides. But the\n72. Ibid., 182\u2013\u00ad83. He did not name the author of this book. Historians have recently drawn attention to\nthe mutability of diseases in the medieval and Renaissance medical conception as a barrier to making modern\ndiagnoses of past descriptions. For example, Stein, \u201cMeaning of Signs,\u201d esp. 619, shows that early modern\ndiagnosticians believed that syphilis could become leprosy or vice versa. Hayne\u2019s statements here and just after\nimply that physicians also worked with such disease transmutations in curing diseases. That is, if one could\ntransmute an intractable disease into one that can be easily expelled, using chemical arcana, then one could use\nknown remedies to rid the body of the pathogenic matter through traditional means.\n73. Hayne, Drey unterschiedliche newe Tract\u00e4tlein, 183.\n74. Ibid., 184.\n75. \u201cEin ander Tranck / so primam materiam tartari ausstreibt,\u201d and \u201cNoch ein ander materiam tartari\nzu resolviren / und die feces tartari ausszutreiben\u201d; ibid., 188. Both recipes feature chicory, carduus benedictus,\nresta bovis, polypody root, rhubarb, anise seed and fennel seed, and senna, with several additions that slightly\ndistinguish them.\n\nPages 61:\nJohann Hayne and Paracelsian Praxis\n41\nbest remedy for all these tartar diseases is tincture of gold. Lacking these, one\ncan use chicory, resta bovis,76 and carduus benedictus as general medicines against\nblockages. Hayne once more noted that Paracelsus offers further advice in his\nbook on tartar.\nA Paracelsian Chemical Uroscopy\nThe third and by far longest of Hayne\u2019s Three Diverse New Treatises instructs the\nphysician on how to diagnose diseases by examining the patient\u2019s urine.77 Hayne\nbegan this third treatise (in which he referred to it as the second book, suggesting that the manuscript Faber received was not finished for publication) by specifying that it will be divided into three subsections: the first treating urines that\nindicate \u201cstone\u201d (that is, tartar) diseases; the second on urines showing signs of\nastral diseases; and a third on urines revealing diseases with \u201cnatural\u201d causes.\nThese three subsections appear to correlate respectively with the lower elements\nearth and water, the upper elements air and fire, and the three \u201cseeds,\u201d namely,\nsalt, sulphur, and mercury.78 A fold-\u00adout chart labeled A, which is inserted at the\nbeginning, shows the system of diagnosing diseases of the brain\u2014\u00adthe highest\npart of the body\u2014\u00adby examining the uppermost portion of the urine: bubbles\nare indicative of salts, a golden yellow \u201ccircle\u201d (the meniscus) indicates a sulphur-\u00ad\nmucus, and foam reveals the presence of mercury. A second flap inserted here\nprovides a more detailed analytical outline for the organization of the treatise\nand offers insight into how Hayne conceived pathology. The three subsections\nmentioned previously correspond now to (1) \u201cbody,\u201d (2) \u201cspirit,\u201d and (3) \u201cseed.\u201d\n\u201cBody\u201d comprises elemental earth and water, which are taken in as food and\ndrink and can result in tartars and excrements in the body. \u201cSpirit\u201d (the life of\nthe body) encompasses elemental fire and air, which are taken into the body as\n76. Aresta bovis, also called Arrestia bovis or Aresteboeuf, is an herb of the family Ononis or restharrows,\nused to treat bladder and kidney stones.\n77. \u201cDas Fundament / und den rechten Grund / wie man die Urinen dess Menschen / so wohl Gesunden / als Krancken / nach Spagirischer Art / k\u00fcnstlich judiciren und erkennen m\u00f6ge\u201d; Hayne, Drey unterschiedliche newe Tract\u00e4tlein, title page. Georg Faber\u2019s comment (Hayne, Drey unterschiedliche newe Tract\u00e4tlein\n[1620 ed.], Dedicatoria, ivr) that he was publishing Hayne\u2019s treatise on uroscopy\u2014\u00adwhich was based on the\nHermetic and Spagyric art and not on the kind practiced by \u201cpseudouromantes und Juden Aertzte\u201d\u2014\u00adsuggests\nthat uroscopy was widely practiced in early seventeenth-\u00adcentury Germany and that there was a need to put it\non a sound theoretical basis.\n78. Hayne, Drey unterschiedliche newe Tract\u00e4tlein, 195\u2013\u00ad96.\n\nPages 62:\n42\nJole Shackelford\nfire and air and produce infections and poisoning. \u201cSeed\u201d is subdivided into four\nkinds: (1) \u201coperations\u201d (L\u00e4uff) of the elements, which produce acute diseases;\n(2) \u201csidereal operations of the spirit\u201d (syderische L\u00e4uff dess Geistes), which\nare differentiated according to the seven planets to produce chronic diseases\nin the corresponding seven major organs (the sun to the heart, mercury to the\nlungs, etc.); (3) the \u201coperation of the complexions or qualities\u201d (complexionum\noder qualitatum L\u00e4uff), which are the traditional four mixed temperaments of\nGalenic medicine (hot-\u00adwet, cold-\u00adwet, hot-\u00addry, cold-\u00addry), which produce what\nHayne termed the \u201cnatural\u201d diseases; and (4) the operation of the humors,\nwhich reflect salty blood, sweet phlegm, bitter choler, and sour black bile.\nThe general scheme of this first table, although confusing and not wholly\ntransparent to the modern reader, is borne out by the organization of the uroscopy treatise into three subsections: twelve chapters on the colors, contents,\nsmells, and sediments of urine that indicate tartar diseases; seven chapters on\ndiagnosing various kinds of poisons (chiefly arsenicals, orpiments, and mercurials), which are connected to the influences of the stars; and thirteen chapters on\nwhat the bubbles, foam, colors, sediments, etc. that are visible in the \u201cinternal\u201d\nurine indicate about the natural (humoral) balance of the blood (cruor), which\nreflects the condition of the interior organs. The details are much too complex to\nunravel here, but a couple of features stand out. First, the treatise has the form of a\nguide to diagnostic practice and is not merely a philosophical exposition of Paracelsian theory. This is evident from the inclusion of numerous images of urine\nflasks used to illustrate the locations of contents and sediments that Hayne discussed in the text. They were probably added by the printer, perhaps on Faber\u2019s\ninstruction, but clearly they signal that he viewed Hayne\u2019s text as being within\nthe genre of uroscopic manuals, which typically included such images. Second,\nthe treatise was intended to provide a system or theory to explain this practice.\nThe fold-\u00adout chart B, \u201cTable of colors; what can be seen from the urine,\u201d itemizes thirteen kinds (appearances) of urine, arranged by color and sediment from\ndark to light, centered around the neutral topaz-\u00adcolored urine, which signifies a\nwell-\u00adtempered, healthy patient.79 Each appearance is given a diagnostic meaning, sometimes qualified. In keeping with traditional uroscopy, too-\u00addark urines\n79. \u201cTabella der Farben / was in der Urin darauss zu erkennen\u201d; ibid., Tabella B, inserted between pages\n218 and 219. In \u201cInventing Diagnosis,\u201d 57, Wallis notes that the inclusion of the healthy state in medieval uroscopies indicates the assimilation of this prognostic art into the broader physiology of the body and its support\nfor the science of diagnosis.\n\nPages 63:\nJohann Hayne and Paracelsian Praxis\n43\nsignify mortal danger and too-\u00adpale urines indicate a lack of digestion. For example, \u201c5. Brown, cloudy, with a black-\u00adred sediment at the bottom . . . Is . . . taken\n[as a sign of] great decomposition of the tartar in the liver, spleen, and blood, an\nevil fiery fever, black jaundice, scurvy, dropsy. . . . On account of which the tartar\nis reverberated in the body from such a large decomposition and heat.\u201d80\nThe third fold-\u00adout chart parcels food and drink that are taken into the body\n(nutriment) according to the Paracelsian tria prima\u2014\u00admercury, sulphur, and salt\u2014\u00ad\nand then correlates these with diseases. Mercurial impurities are distinguished\ninto distilled, precipitated, and sublimated kinds. Distilled mercury is associated\nwith apoplexy, lethargy, stroke, tetanus, and sudden death; precipitate of mercury\nis associated with spasm, epilepsy, and various kinds of gout\u2014\u00adarthritis (joint),\nchiragra (hand), gonagra (knee), and podagra (foot); sublimated mercury is\nassociated with various mental disorders\u2014\u00admania, melancholia, phrenesis, and\nhallucination (phantasmata). In general, the mercurial impurities are linked with\nwhat we would today call neurological and brain disorders, sulphurous impurities\nwith fevers and inflammations, and saline impurities are subdivided by chemical\nform. Resolved salts are connected with dropsy, diarrhea, hemorrhoids, and wet\nscabies, calcined salts with rashes and skin disorders (dry scabies), reverberated\nsalts with ulcers, and coagulated salts with all the tartar diseases.\nOverall, Hayne\u2019s third treatise represents an accommodation of elements\nof traditional uroscopy to a Paracelsian understanding of the body\u2019s various\ndigestions as fundamentally chemical processes, the nature of which depends\non their mercurial, sulphurous, and saline natures. Hayne presented correlations\nbetween the established aspects of the urine\u2014\u00adits color, consistency, contents,\nand sediments\u2014\u00adand diseases, but classified these according to chemical natures.\nLikewise, he provided a traditional spatialization of the urine flask for analysis,\nwhich, roughly speaking, associates top to bottom with head to abdomen, but\nthen he imposed an additional topology of mercury (head), sulphur (chest), and\nsalt (abdomen/joints). The result is a familiar analytic procedure with an overlay of chemical interpretation. To appreciate how closely this interpretation is\nlinked with Paracelsus, we must look to its roots in Paracelsus\u2019s uroscopy, as left\nbehind in class notes from his lectures in Basel.\n80. \u201c5. Braun / tr\u00fcbleche / unten schwartz-\u00adroth sediment . . . Ist . . . grosse F\u00e4ulnuss tartari in Leber /\nMilts und Gebl\u00fct / b\u00f6se hitzige Fieber schwartze Geelsucht / Schorbock / Wassersucht / wann er uberhand\ngenommen. . . . Darumb / dass der Tartar sich reverberirt im Leibe auss grosser F\u00e4ulnuss und Hitze\u201d; Hayne,\nDrey unterschiedliche newe Tract\u00e4tlein, Table B.\n\nPages 64:\n44\nJole Shackelford\nParacelsus\u2019s theory of tartars as material causes of diseases in the body is fundamental to his conception of medicine and runs through many of his treatises.\nIt is perhaps most clearly explained in his 1531 Opus paramirum and Das Buch\nvon der tartarischen Krankheiten of 1537 to 1538. But one also finds it expressed\nearlier, in notes from the lectures he delivered in Basel during that fateful year\n1527/28, which marked the beginning and end of his academic career.81 Owing\nto his reputation as a healer among leaders of the Swiss Reformation and the\npatronage of the prominent Basel publisher Froben, Paracelsus was appointed\nmunicipal physician in the university town, a post that permitted him to lecture\npublicly and advise students.\nAccording to the popular telling of the Paracelsus story, Paracelsus set the\nstage for the autumn term and attained lasting fame as an iconoclastic reformer\nby throwing, in 1527, a valuable copy of Avicenna\u2019s Canon into one of the bonfires\nthat are customarily lit on St. John\u2019s Eve, which is the celebration of midsummer.82\nThe Canon was the textbook most commonly used to teach medicine in the late\nmedieval and Renaissance university, since it concisely summarized Hippocratic\nand Galenic medicine in a way that was more accessible to students than were\nthe verbose works of Galen. Paracelsus\u2019s act thus symbolized his total rejection\nof more than thirteen centuries of medical tradition, earning him a reputation\namong modern scholars as a revolutionary, someone who caused a rupture in\nmedical history, not as a contributor to a continual progressive development.\nOn 17 August 1527, not quite two months after that signal event, Paracelsus\nbegan to lecture. What revolutionary heterodoxy would he present to a mixed\naudience of Basel\u2019s university students, barber-\u00adsurgeons, and other locals in a\ncity that was in the throes of a religious reformation? He chose as his first topic\na treatise that he was in the process of writing, the title of which identified two\n81. Weeks, introduction to Paracelsus . . . Essential Theoretical Writings, 7: \u201cIt is possible that without the\nBasel quarrel Hohenheim might have pursued less comprehensive objectives and indeed never have become\n\u2018Paracelsus.\u2019\u201d\n82. This famous episode in Paracelsus\u2019s life is the setting for Georg W. Pabst\u2019s 1943 film Paracelsus, which\naptly depicts him ignoring university protocol and lecturing in German\u2014\u00ada novelty\u2014\u00adon his unorthodox conceptions of disease and healing. What we do not see in the movie, or in the shorter accounts of his life, is the\ncontent of these lectures. For example, Goodrick-\u00adClarke wrote in his introduction to Paracelsus, 17\u2013\u00ad18, only\nthat Paracelsus lectured \u201con such subjects as tumors and wounds, purges, uroscopy, pulse diagnosis, and his\nwork De Physiognomia.\u201d In Paracelsus, Pagel (p. 21) summarized that \u201c[i]n these lectures Paracelsus formed\nthe essential nucleus of his system of medicine.\u201d We can form an impression of his teaching from various notes\npublished in the modern Sudhoff edition of Paracelsus\u2019s works, pertaining to a series of lectures he delivered\nin the fall and winter terms.\n\nPages 65:\nJohann Hayne and Paracelsian Praxis\n45\nsubjects, the judgment of urines and pulses and medical physiognomy.83 These\nsubjects were, of course, not intrinsically novel. Diagnosis by uroscopy and consideration of the pulse were two components of the medieval articella, which\nstill formed the core of the medical curriculum in the late Renaissance, although\nthey were supplemented by Avicenna\u2019s Canon and several of Galen\u2019s texts. But if\nParacelsus\u2019s choice of topics was traditional, perhaps even a bit conservative by\n1527, the content of his lectures was not.\nParacelsus apparently never completed a manuscript of his teaching on\nuroscopy and pulse, but enough fragments and student notes on the lectures\nsurvived and were printed to enable Karl Sudhoff to compile a modern edition.\nAs it appears now, the lecture text is divided into books, \u201ctractates,\u201d and chapters, with annotations to the chapters. There are also several outlines or charts,\nreminiscent of medieval uroscopies. The text is mostly Latin, with occasional\nGerman words, suggesting that whoever took down the notes or collated them\nfor publication intended the treatise to reach a university-\u00adeducated audience.\nParacelsus\u2019s text opens with the definition of urine as either external, internal, or a mixture of these two. \u201cExternal urine\u201d is a product of what the patient\neats and drinks, containing salt that has been separated out by digestions in the\nstomach, liver, and kidneys.84 Thus, external urine only provides diagnostic signs\nof the condition of these three digestions.85 To assay other parts of the body,\none must examine the \u201cinternal urine,\u201d which indicates the condition of the\nblood. Internal urine can be obtained after the patient has abstained for a time\nfrom food and drink, which produce external urine. Such urine can be sampled\nafter midnight.86 Knowing whether one is looking at internal or external urine\nis important because they yield different diagnostic information. For example,\nthe \u201ccircle\u201d (top) of the urine sample is diagnostic for headache and other head\nailments if one is examining internal urine, but if it is external urine, it reflects the\nbody\u2019s digestion of nutriments.87\n83. He did not publish this text, but notes survive, from which we can reconstruct something of his\nteaching. These were collected and published by Sudhoff as \u201cDe urinarum ac pulsuum judiciis libellus,\u201d in\nParacelsus, S\u00e4mtliche Werke I, 4:549\u2013\u00ad79, and collected under the heading \u201cAus anderen Kollegienheften zur\nBaseler Harnschau-\u00adVorlesung August 1527\u201d; ibid., 4:583\u2013\u00ad619.\n84. Ibid., 4:550, 583.\n85. \u201cExterior urina provenit ex iis, quae aut comedimus aut bibimus, id est ex nutrimentis, nec quidquam\naliud indicat, quam quod ad stomachum, hepar aut renes attinet\u201d; ibid., 4:553.\n86. Ibid.\n87. Ibid., 4:554.\n\nPages 66:\n46\nJole Shackelford\nThe rest of book one explains the appearance of urine one would expect\nfrom a healthy patient, whose principle digestions (stomach, liver, veins) are\nfunctioning properly. The digestion in the stomach separates sulphur from\ningested food and drink, and this passes into the intestines as a stinking excrement, stercus. A reddish tincture of sulphur remains, however, which proceeds to\nthe liver and then to the kidneys, evident in the expelled urine by its yellowish or\ntopaz color. If the digestion is normal, salt shows up in the hypostasis\u2014\u00adthe layer\nof the urine just above the bottom\u2014\u00adand mercury shows up on the very bottom\n(fundus).88\nParacelsus\u2019s terminology and diagnostic method is evidently based on traditional uroscopy, but with some significant semantic changes, in keeping with his\nideas about nutrition. Similar to the Galenists, he located the principal coctions,\nwhich he called digestions or separations, in the stomach, liver, and kidneys (the\nGalenists located tertiary coction in the body at large). In these organs, sulphur,\nmercury, and salt are separated from the nutriment, respectively. The condition\nof these digestions shows up in the hypostasis, fundus, and circulus of the urine,\nwhich can be examined for colors, thicknesses, and other specific qualities. The\npresence of whitish tartar or reddish nutriment indicates defective separation;\nthe presence of tartar is a sign of a congelation, putrefaction, or obstruction in\nthe body; but reddish nutriment is a good substance that should not be separated and expelled from the healthy body.89\nBook two of Paracelsus\u2019s inchoate treatise takes up the analysis of internal\nurine (the urine of the blood), which Paracelsus also referred to as the \u201curine of\nthe minerals\u201d (urina cruoris, id est mineralium).90 This book is not developed as a\nprose articulation but remains as a series of outlines or charts (designated typus)\nwith accompanying notes. It appears that this book was also to be subdivided\ninto a first and second \u201ctractate,\u201d but this was not systematically completed.91\n88. Paracelsus used the terms hypostasis and fundus somewhat atypically. Hypostasis normally refers to\nwhat settles on the bottom of the matula, often as sediment. Here, Paracelsus distinguished hypostasis and\nfundus from each other and from the basic color of the urine, which would appear in the en\u00e6orema or body\nof the urine: \u201chypostasis enim salis qualitatem, tinctura [qualitatem] sulphuris, fundus [qualitatem] mercurii\ndenotat.\u201d Ibid., 554. If he were following Actuarius and other medieval uroscopies, the hypostasis should be\nthe lower part of the urine just above the physical bottom of the matula, the fundus. That medieval uroscopists\nexpected some sediment to show up at the bottom of the flask for the healthy patient as the result of normal\n\u201cthird digestion\u201d is explained by Wallis in \u201cInventing Diagnosis,\u201d 59.\n89. Paracelsus, S\u00e4mtliche Werke I, 4:558.\n90. Ibid., 4:591.\n91. The lecture notes show a book two comprising an unlabeled first tractate that is subdivided into three\n\nPages 67:\nJohann Hayne and Paracelsian Praxis\n47\nAnother conclusion we can reach from examination of these lecture notes is\nthat Paracelsus regarded the semeiology of pulses and physiognomy to be subordinate parts of uroscopy. This is indicated by the title of the second tractate of\nbook two: \u201cOn Mixed Urine and Its Conditions. On Pulse and Physiognomy.\u201d92\nThe nature of this subalternation is shown in the first outline of this tractate.\nMixed urine has four conditions. Two of these, color and substance, are labeled\nsimply as deriving from its condition, but the other two are labeled as coming\nfrom an extraneous condition. Of these latter two, one comprises \u201caccidents\u201d\nthat describe the tartar along with three exterior signs, and the other comprises\nfour \u201cportions\u201d of the urine in the matula, namely, the urine itself, its foam, its\nbubbles, and its circle or top surface. The exterior signs also arise in the pulse,\nphysiognomy, and mouth. The pulse is judged at five locations on the body\u2019s\nexterior; physiognomy takes into consideration signs appearing in the eyes,\nnostrils, external parts of the nose, the mouth, and in coloration. Signs evident\nfrom the mouth include air, speech, and breath. Details of the semeiology of\nthe pulses and physiognomy do not directly pertain to chemical uroscopy and\nneed not detain us here, although it is of interest to note that Paracelsus regarded\npulse as yielding diagnostic information about the soul, and that it too yielded\ninformation about tartarous and mineral diseases.93 Moreover, physionomia\nincluded such signs as sunken eyes, which are a sign of death, showing that Paracelsus retained elements of Hippocratic clinical observation in his semeiology,\nalthough it was subordinated to uroscopy.94\nReturning to the outlines of the lectures on internal urine and mixed urine\n(which, by definition, contains some internal urine), we see that it is here that\nelements of traditional uroscopy came through most clearly, but were given a\nParacelsian twist. He instructed that internal urine or the urine of blood can be\nanalyzed by color, substance, and contents, all traditional diagnostic categories\nof medieval uroscopy. The colors, however, vary with place and organ, the substance according to the nature of the minerals present, and the contents according to the quality of the disease. The color of the blood itself (and I presume\nchapters, with notes, followed by a rudiment of a second tractate, so labeled; ibid., 4:566\u2013\u00ad74, 591\u2013\u00ad96. The undeveloped state of the second tractate is supported by the secondary notes, which have only a short annotation\npertaining to its topic, \u201cmixed\u201d urine; ibid., 4:573\u2013\u00ad74, 4:595\u2013\u00ad96.\n92. \u201cTractatus secundus. De urina permista eiusque conditionibus. De pulsu et physionomia\u201d; ibid.,\n4:572.\n93. \u201cDe pulsibus, id est, anim\u00e6 motu\u201d; ibid., 4:575.\n94. Ibid., 4:578.\n\nPages 68:\n48\nJole Shackelford\nhe meant that this is reflected in the color of the internal urine) has three categories: six colors pertain to particular organs, seven to surrounding parts, and\nsix are characteristic of the excrements. These are all very specific and, although\nnot worked out systematically, were clearly meant to yield distinct diagnostic\nresults.95 Likewise, annotations to the outline for mixed urine and its conditions\nreveal a color semeiology that is strikingly traditional in form. Green, translucent\nurine is a sign of a bad spleen, but if it also contains opacities or clouds, it is a sign\nof death; reddish urines indicate great hotness and hot diseases; on the contrary,\nwhite is a sign of cold disease, but if it is a pale white (lauter Weiss), it is a sign of\ngood urine and health; violet or blue-\u00adcolored urine that is translucent is a sign of\ndeath, if the patient is infirm, otherwise it is a sign that he tends toward leprosy;\nclear, light-\u00adbrown urine in an acute disease means death, but in a chronic one is a\nsign of health.96 And so on. Although the previous parts of Paracelsus\u2019s inchoate\ntreatise on urines, pulses, and physiognomy would suggest that all these diagnostic signs are embedded in his characteristic theories of digestions as chemical\nseparations and tartars and minerals as etiological agents of diseases, this list of\ncolors\u2014\u00adas it stands in this lecture outline\u2014\u00adclearly hearkens back to the traditional medieval uroscopies.\nOne speculation that we can derive from Paracelsus\u2019s incomplete uroscopy\ntreatise is that, at this moment in his life, Paracelsus was engaged in formulating\nhis novel physiology and pathology as a practical, teachable medicine and that\nhe was doing so by applying it to\u2014\u00ador perhaps drawing it from\u2014\u00adestablished\nmedical diagnostic and prognostic practices. This aspect of the German\nreformer\u2019s medicine does not present a rupture with traditional medieval medicine so much as a reinterpretation of it, and we find this synthesis of old and\nnew in the formulations of Thurneisser and Hayne as well. Thurneisser\u2019s uroscopy reflected the chemical associations that Paracelsus had made between\nfailures of chemical digestions in various parts of the body and their morbid\nconsequences. These should be evident in various parts of the urine, which\nwe can see alluded to in his association between the three chemical principles,\nsalt, sulphur, and mercury; the corresponding hypostasis, body, and cloud of\nthe urine in the flask; and corporeal or abdominal diseases, spiritual or thoracic\ndiseases, and psychic diseases of the head. This triplicity of threefold corre-\n95. Ibid., 4:566\u2013\u00ad67, Typus I.\n96. Ibid., 4:573.\n\nPages 69:\nJohann Hayne and Paracelsian Praxis\n49\nspondences directly reflects Plato\u2019s division of the human soul into three parts,\nwhich, in turn, gave structure to medieval Galenic physiology.\nThurneisser\u2019s approach transcended Paracelsus\u2019s in some ways, by subjecting the urine to distillation, making specific correlations between parts of the\ndistillation flask and the human body, and weighing volumetrically various urine\nfractions, for which he is taken as a pioneer of modern urology.97 Johann Hayne\u2019s\napproach to a chemical semeiotics of urines is not quantitative; it is in general\nmuch more qualitative, in the same way that Paracelsus had suggested in his lectures, and yet clearly reflects his chemical understanding of urine samples and\nhow uroscopy reveals chemical processes in the body. If we return to the third\nfold-\u00adout chart, which is marked \u201cTabella C\u201d in Hayne\u2019s book and which helps us\nunderstand how he organized his ideas, we can see that Thurneisser\u2019s Neoplatonic division of corporal, spiritual, and psychic diseases is reflected in the three\ncategories of human nutriments: mercurial at the top, sulphurous in the middle,\nand a group of various excesses and stellar influences that have a commonality in\nthe saline at the bottom.98 Although the correlation is not exact, the chart indicates a rough correspondence between the distillations and sublimations of subtle mercury and diseases that we can classify as psychological or neurological,\ntraditionally associated with what Galenists called the animal faculty. Separated\nsulphur impurities are associated with fevers and inflammations, which were\ntied to the heart and vital faculty in traditional medicine. Finally, Hayne connected the calcination, resolution, reverberation, and coagulation of the saline\nspirits with tartar diseases, corrosive fluxes and wounds, putrid skin afflictions,\nand various fluxes of the digestive and reproductive systems, which are mainly\nlocated in the abdomen, the seat of the vegetative faculty according to Galenic\nmedicine and the feminine, appetitive, or concupiscent soul according to Plato\u2019s\n97. He regarded the visual, qualitative inspection of urine\u2014\u00adthe primary method of medieval uroscopy\u2014\u00ad\nto be of limited usefulness, owing to the weakness and unreliability of sight. One ought rather to base a scientific assessment on quantitative measurement of urine and its fractions. See Bleker, \u201cChemiatrische Vorstellungen und Analogiendenken,\u201d 71. Wellcome in Evolution of Urine Analysis, 47; Wershub in Urology, 135; and\nDebus in Chemical Philosophy, 328, all attribute to van Helmont the earliest determinations of specific quantities for urine from persons differing in age, sex, and condition of health, but I do not see how his treatment\ndiffers in kind from that of Thurneisser, as reported by Reusner, Vrinarum Probationes, 286\u2013\u00ad87. In any case, in\nParacelsus, 198\u2013\u00ad99, Pagel noted that Nicholas of Cusa (fifteenth century) had already suggested weighing urine\nfor diagnostic purposes. Newman and Principe have recently argued in Alchemy Tried in the Fire, esp. chap. 2,\nthat exact quantitative measures were employed by alchemists and iatrochemists well before the \u201cchemical\nrevolution\u201d of the eighteenth century.\n98. Hayne, Drey unterschiedliche newe Tract\u00e4tlein, Tabella C, inserted between pages 308 and 309.\n\nPages 70:\n50\nJole Shackelford\nTimaeus. This interleaving of ideas from various physiological systems, philosophical schools, and historical eras renders Hayne\u2019s medical theory confusing\nand opaque to the modern reader, but provided a historical continuity that would\nhave made it familiar in various ways to his contemporaries, for whom the preservation of familiar elements of traditional Galenic and astrological medicine\nwould have smoothed the path for the integration of the new chemical ideas of\nParacelsus. Therefore, it is not surprising that Paracelsus\u2019s teaching of uroscopy\nwould be refined and understood in the context of an eclectic approach to medicine by his followers, among whom were Thurneisser, Hayne, Nolle, Zobell, and\neven George de Benneville, who carried it with him to the New World.\nHistoriographical Consequences\nThe multiple editions of Johann Hayne\u2019s Tract\u00e4tlein in seventeenth-\u00adcentury\nGermany and George de Benneville\u2019s adoption of elements of Hayne\u2019s system\ninto his eclectic medical manual of the mid-\u00adeighteenth century\u2014\u00adin places quite\nliterally\u2014\u00adhint at the broader significance of Hayne\u2019s work in particular, and Paracelsian therapeutics in general, than is apparent from our post-\u00adEnlightenment\nperspective. That perspective, which in large measure shaped twentieth-\u00adcentury\nhistory of science and medicine, took a very dim view of astrological medicine\nand diagnosis by inspection of the urine, regarding them as vestiges of the superstition and irrationality of the medieval past. At the same time, Enlightenment\nhistorians celebrated Paracelsus for breaking with medieval Galenism by challenging scholastic medicine and introducing chemical philosophy. According to\nthis traditional historiography, Paracelsus\u2019s chemical philosophy was assimilated\ninto traditional Galenic therapeutics. Both gradually were accommodated to\nearly modern corpuscular ideas about material composition and eventually to\na materialist conception of physiology, ultimately contributing to the modernization of medicine.99 Twentieth-\u00adcentury historiography inherited both the idea\nthat Paracelsus contributed to the downfall of medieval medicine and the idea\nthat medieval medicine was characterized by pseudo-\u00adscientific uroscopy, which\n99. Paracelsus\u2019s place in the history of medicine as a reformer of medicine and intermediary between\nmedieval and modern medicine and the founder of iatrochemical medicine is evident already in Sprengel,\nVersuch einer pragmatischen Geschichte der Arzneikunde.\n\nPages 71:\nJohann Hayne and Paracelsian Praxis\n51\nwas duly discarded during the course of modernization.100 Textual evidence that\na Paracelsian chemical uroscopy was practiced in seventeenth-\u00adand eighteenth-\u00ad\ncentury Europe and America therefore requires some explanation.\nPresent historiography holds that the mere empirical diagnosis of disease\nby inspection of the urine, sometimes called uromancy or pisse-\u00adprophesy to\ndistinguish it from scientific urology\u2014\u00adwhich is a part of the modern medical\ncurriculum\u2014\u00adhad become the standard practice of the charlatan and quack\nby the sixteenth century, when it began to be regulated by law and as learned\ntreatises denouncing uroscopy began to appear in print.101 Petrus Forestus\u2019s\n1589 book On the Uncertainty and Fallacy of the Judgements of Urines is typically\ninvoked as an indicator of a new critical attitude toward a semeiotics of disease\nbased on the inspection of urine.102 Shakespeare\u2019s references to uroscopy, some\nof them in a farcical vein, suggest that by the early seventeenth century, the seeing of urines was losing credibility among the public, even as it continued to be\nwidely practiced.103 Even the recent, more nuanced study of the early modern\n100. The occasional late practitioner of uroscopy is noted by Garisson, Introduction to the History of Medicine, 388; and Desnos, History of Urology, 137 (an eighteenth-\u00adcentury Swiss uroscopist named Schuppach),\nbut the general tenor of twentieth-\u00adcentury scholarship agreed with the view that uroscopy was, by the mid-\u00ad\nseventeenth century, something of a relic of a pre-\u00adscientific age. This is captured by an anecdote attributed to\nDr. Radcliffe, founder of the Radcliffe Library at Oxford. When presented with a urine flask by a woman who\nsaid it was from her husband, a boot maker, the doctor emptied it out and filled it with his own and bade the\nwoman take it to her husband and ask that he use it to make a pair of boots for him on the basis of its inspection; reported by Wellcome, Evolution of Urine Analysis, 51.\n101. Like so many foundational narratives in the history of scientific progress, the dismissal of uroscopy\nwas codified during the Enlightenment. In A New Medical Dictionary, or General Repository of Physic, Motherby\nnoted under the entry urina that \u201c[m]any are the signs which different authors have pointed out in the urine,\nby which to judge of the different states of the body, but Dr. William Hebberden well observes that this excretion affords the practitioner but little useful information,\u201d unpaginated. No doubt many English readers of\nBenjamin Rush\u2019s generation agreed with Hebberden. Kiefer, \u201cUroscopy,\u201d 166; and Desnos, History of Urology,\n137, note that Thomas Linacre, a founder of the Royal College of Physicians in London, formulated statutes\nto regulate apothecaries\u2019 autonomy in prescribing on the basis of uroscopic diagnosis and also physicians\u2019\ndiagnosis and prognosis solely on the basis of examining the urine, without examination of the patient. This\nis a bit confusing, since Murphy, \u201cArt of Uroscopy,\u201d 884, claims that the Royal College of Physicians passed a\nstatute forbidding physicians to give advice on the basis of uri\nEND OF PARTIAL SUMMARY: EXPLAIN TO THE USER that this document is too long and we only summarized from page 53 to page 71 out of a total of 330. Ask if they want to continue the summary or search the document.\n]"]}

{"result":["[Summary from page 72 to page 93 out of a total of 330:\nPages 72:\n52\nJole Shackelford\ndecline of uroscopy among learned practitioners by Michael Stolberg persists in\nthis general view: \u201cFrom the early sixteenth century, uroscopy lost much of the\ngreat appeal it had possessed among medieval physicians. Once valued as an outstanding diagnostic tool which ensured authority and fame, it became an object\nof massive criticism if not derision,\u201d but Stolberg acknowledges that \u201cin the end,\nin spite of the physicians\u2019 massive campaign against it, uroscopy remained very\nmuch alive\u201d because of the forces of the marketplace.104 According to this historiography, the use of uroscopy as a specific semeiological tool for diagnosis and\nprognosis was a distinguishing mark of unsophisticated medical practice by the\neighteenth century, surviving only in conservative folk practices and as quaint\nvestiges of medieval superstition in the occasional medical treatise. Thomas Brian\u2019s 1637 publication, The Pisse-\u00adProphet, or, Certaine Piss-\u00adPot Lectures. Wherein\nare newly discovered the old fallacies, deceit, and jugling of the Pisse-\u00adpot Science, used\nby all (whether Quacks and Empiricks, or other methodicall Physicians) who pretend\nknowledge of Diseases, by the Urine, in giving judgement of the same, exemplified\nthe new attitude.105 This narrative persists in recent medical historiography, hailing Paracelsus as a harbinger of the new science, rejecting medieval uroscopy as\nsuperstitious quackery, and replacing it with quantitative scientific analysis.106\nHowever, this traditional historiography does not explain the detailed exposition of uroscopy that Paracelsus presented in his lectures at Basel, vestiges of\nwhich were published by Paracelsus\u2019s followers in the late sixteenth and early\nseventeenth centuries and collected by Karl Sudhoff in the early twentieth. Nor\ndoes it prepare us to understand the work of Hayne and Thurneisser in the late\n104. Stolberg, \u201cDecline of Uroscopy,\u201d 313.\n105. Publication information is given as London: Printed by E. P. for R. Thrale, 1637. There was also a\n1679 edition.\n106. Nance, Turquet de Mayerne as Baroque Physician, 75\u2013\u00ad76: \u201cUroscopy may have been a common practice of the day, but by the early seventeenth century, learned physicians were rejecting it as fraudulent and\ninvalid.\u201d Porter, Greatest Benefit to Mankind, 232: \u201cBedside practice changed little. Physicians would . . . feel\nthe pulse and inspect urine samples\u2014\u00adthough uroscopy lost credit, becoming the trademark of the quackish \u2018pisse-\u00adprophet\u2019 and being attacked with \u2018cozening quacksalvers, women physitians and the like stuffe\u2019 by\nstatus-\u00adanxious physicians such as the Netherlander Pieter van Foreest (1522\u2013\u00ad1597).\u201d In History of Urology,\nDesnos credited \u201cthe revolutionary ideas of Paracelsus\u201d with reorienting medicine away from dependence\non uroscopy and toward increased \u201cattention to the symptoms and examination of the patient,\u201d which led to\na declining importance of uroscopy in the seventeenth century (137). Desnos acknowledged that uroscopy\nwas not entirely abandoned in the eighteenth century, pointing to the popularity of de la Rivi\u00e8re\u2019s Mirror of\nUrines, but noted that \u201cafter this period, uroscopists were nothing but charlatans.\u201d In Urology, Wershub (p.\n135) argued that \u201c[u]ntil nearly the end of the seventeenth century, the diagnosis of disease was accomplished\nby visual examination of the urine (uroscopy).\u201d\n\nPages 73:\nJohann Hayne and Paracelsian Praxis\n53\nsixteenth century and the apparent influence of their kind of medicine in seventeenth-\u00adand eighteenth-\u00adcentury therapeutics: namely, an approach to practical\nmedicine that was based squarely on Paracelsian medical and chemical ideas and\ndepended on Paracelsus\u2019s uroscopy as a diagnostic system.107\nMichael Stolberg offers a perspective that begins to contextualize the\npersistence of uroscopy in Paracelsian praxis. He argues that sixteenth-\u00adand\nseventeenth-\u00adcentury Galenist physicians sought to distance themselves from\nuroscopy, owing to a growing awareness of its unreliability and its stagnation\nas a developing scientific approach to diagnosis. To support this conclusion, he\npoints to his failure to identify a single Galenist physician in printed editions\nafter 1500 \u201cwho chose to be depicted as holding a urine glass in his hand\u201d and\nconcludes that this \u201ciconographic evidence . . . suggests a drastic revaluation\nof uroscopy among learned physicians.\u201d108 The qualifiers in his finding deserve\nemphasis, in part because, as I have shown here, the chemical physicians who\nincorporated Paracelsus\u2019s diagnostic uroscopy into their practices are exceptions\nthat help to validate Stolberg\u2019s basic conclusions. Although Johann Hayne was\nlong dead when the third edition of his Drey underschiedliche newe Tract\u00e4tlein\nwas printed in 1683, its publisher saw an advantage to having the author pictured on the frontispiece holding a matula. This suggests that while uroscopy\nmay have been seen increasingly as a liability to learned Galenists, as Stolberg\nclaims, eclectic practitioners like Johann Hayne, George de Benneville, and an\nunknown number of users of the uroscopy manuals of Reusner and Martinius\nsaw uroscopy in a more positive light. The fact that the authors presented here\nare closely associated with a culturally German medical marketplace, including\nde Benneville\u2019s practice among eighteenth-\u00adcentury Pennsylvanian Germans,\nprovides additional evidence to support Stolberg\u2019s conclusion that rejection\nof uroscopy was most vociferous among German-\u00adspeaking writers, owing perhaps to the late prevalence of uroscopic practice among lay practitioners in\n107. The direct influence of Paracelsus\u2019s lecture notes on the work of Hayne, Thurneisser zum Thurn,\nNolle, and others is suggested not only by the similarity of ideas and expressions, but (for Hayne) also by\nGeorg Faber\u2019s 1620 Dedicatoria to Hayne\u2019s book, fol. iiiv\u2013\u00adivr, which identifies Hayne\u2019s Tract\u00e4tlein as based on\nthe author\u2019s personal experience and the writings of Paracelsus: \u201cWann dann / Gn\u00e4diger F\u00fcrst und Herr / vor\netlichen Jahren der Hochgelarte D. Johann Hayne / weyland F\u00fcrstl. Hoff Medicus zu Stetin in Pommern / in\nbeyder Medicin ein ber\u00fcmbter / geubter und erfahrner Mann etliche dergleichen seine Chymische Tract\u00e4tlein\nso wol auss seiner selbst eygnen langwierigen praxi und observationibus: als auch auss obermeldten Theophrasti Schrifften sein kurtz und rund zusammen gezogen.\u201d\n108. Stolberg, \u201cDecline of Uroscopy,\u201d 321.\n\nPages 74:\n54\nJole Shackelford\nthe German cultural area.109 If this view is correct, then further attention to the\nmanuscript records of lay healers and to neglected printed volumes should bear\nout the perception that eclectic practitioners\u2014\u00adwho retained older therapeutic\npractices that were in popular demand and who perhaps adapted them to different theoretical systems to suit local belief systems\u2014\u00adserved post-\u00adReformation\nGerman communities that sought a measure of isolation from state authority\nand the academic medicine that went with it.\nWorks Cited\nBleker, Johanna. \u201cChemiatrische Vorstellungen und Analogiedenken in der Harndiagnostik Leonhart Thurneissers (1571 und 1576).\u201d Sudhoffs Archiv 60 (1976):\n66\u2013\u00ad75.\nDebus, Allen G. The Chemical Philosophy: Paracelsian Science and Medicine in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. 2 vols. New York: Science History Publications, 1977. Reprint, Mineola, NY: Dover, 2002.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad. The English Paracelsians. London: Oldbourne, 1965.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cThe Paracelsian Compromise in Elizabethan England.\u201d Ambix 8 (1960):\n71\u2013\u00ad97.\nde la Rivi\u00e8re, Davach. The Mirror of Urines. Paris, 1696.\nDesnos, Ernest. The History of Urology. Translated and edited by Leonard J. T. Murphy.\nSpringfield, IL: Thomas, 1972. Originally published as Histoire de l\u2019urologie\n(Paris: Doin, 1914).\nForeest, Pieter van. De incerto, fallaci urinarum judicio, quo uromantes, ad perniciem\nmultorum \u00e6grotantium, utuntur: & qualia illi sint observanda, tum pr\u00e6standa,\nqui recte de urinis sit judicaturus, libri tres. Leiden: Plantin, 1589.\nFrench, Roger. \u201cAstrology in Medical Practice.\u201d In Practical Medicine from Salerno to the\nBlack Death, edited by Luis Garcia-\u00adBallester, Roger French, Jon Arrizabalaga,\nand Andrew Cunningham, 30\u2013\u00ad59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,\n1994.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad. Canonical Medicine: Gentile da Foligno and Scholasticism. Leiden: Brill, 2001.\nGarisson, Fielding. An Introduction to the History of Medicine. 4th ed. Philadelphia: W.\nB. Saunders, 1929.\nGoodrick-\u00adClarke, Nicholas, ed. and trans. Paracelsus: Essential Readings. Wellingborough, UK: Crucible, 1990.\n109. Ibid., 336.\n\nPages 75:\nJohann Hayne and Paracelsian Praxis\n55\nHamand, Henry. Ourography or Speculations on the excrements of urine: with the distinctions, causes, colours, and contents thereof: and other symptomes observed\nin nature. Also, a philosophicall discourse of the colours of urine, with the art of\nmixing them, according to quantity, number, and weight. London: printed by R.\nD. for Francis Eglesfield, 1656.\nHansen, Jan-\u00adErik Ebbestad. Jacob B\u00f6hme: Liv, tenkning, id\u00e9historiske forutsetninger. Oslo:\nSolum forlag, 1985.\nHayne, Johann. Drey unterschiedliche newe Tract\u00e4tlein, Deren Erstes von astralischen\nKranckheiten, . . . Das Andere, von tartarischen Kranckheiten . . . Das Dritte,\nbegreifft in sich das Fundament . . . wie man die Urinen des Menschen . . . k\u00fcnstlich\niudiciren und erkennen m\u00f6ge. Frankfurt am Main: Paul Jacob and Johan Dreutels, 1620.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad. Trifolium medicum, oder: Drey h\u00f6chst n\u00fctzliche Tract\u00e4tlein, Deren Erstes von\nastralischen Kranckheiten . . . Das Andere, von tartarischen Kranckheiten . . . Das\nDritte von den rechten Fundament und Grund wie man die Urinen . . . erkennen\nm\u00f6ge. Frankfurt am Main: George Heinrich Oehrling, 1683 and 1700.\nHohlweg, Armin. \u201cJohn Actuarius\u2019 De methodo medendi\u2014\u00adon the New Edition.\u201d\nDumbarton Oaks Papers 38 (1984): 121\u2013\u00ad33.\nJacquart, Danielle. \u201cTheory, Everyday Practice, and Three Fifteenth-\u00adCentury Physicians.\u201d Osiris 6 (1990): 140\u2013\u00ad60.\nJones, Peter Murray. Medieval Medical Miniatures. London: British Library, 1984.\nKiefer, Joseph H. \u201cUroscopy: The Clinical Laboratory of the Past.\u201d Transactions of the\nAmerican Association of Genito-\u00adUrinary Surgeons 50 (1958): 161\u2013\u00ad72.\nMartinius, Henricus. In nomine archiatri summi Henrici Martinii Dantiscani Doctoris\nMedicin\u00e6 Anatomia Urin\u00e6 Galeno-\u00adSpagyrica. Ex Doctrina Hippocratis & Galeni\nnec non Recentiorum, imprimis Theophrasti Paracelsi, & Leonhardi Thurnheuseri,\naliorumque Chymiatrorum Principium Scriptis adornata. Cui accesit Eusd. Ars\nPronuntiandi ex Urinis tam rationalis quam mechanica. Et C\u00e6saris Odoni de\nurinis libellus posthumus. Frankfurt: Sumpt. Georgius Fickwirtus, 1658.\nMartin\u00f3n-\u00adTorres, Marcos. \u201cThe Tools of the Chymist: Archeological and Scientific\nAnalyses of Early Modern Laboratories.\u201d In Chymists and Chymistry: Studies\nin the History of Alchemy and Early Modern Chemistry, edited by Lawrence M.\nPrincipe, 149\u2013\u00ad63. Sagamore Beach, MA: Chemical Heritage Foundation and\nScience History Publications, 2007.\nMorys, Peter. Medizin und Pharmazie in der Kosmologie Leonhard Thurneissers zum\nThurn (1531\u2013\u00ad1596). Geschichte der Medizin und der Naturwissenschaften\n43. Husum: Matthiesen, 1982.\nMotherby, George. A New Medical Dictionary, or General Repository of Physic. London:\nPrinted for J. Johnson, St. Paul\u2019s Church-\u00adYard, 1785.\n\nPages 76:\n56\nJole Shackelford\nMurphy, Leonard J. T. \u201cThe Art of Uroscopy.\u201d Medical Journal of Australia 2 (1967):\n879\u2013\u00ad86.\nNance, Brian. Turquet de Mayerne as Baroque Physician: The Art of Medical Portraiture.\nAmsterdam: Rodopi, 2001.\nNewman, William R., and Lawrence M. Principe. Alchemy Tried in the Fire: Starkey,\nBoyle, and the Fate of Helmontian Chymistry. Chicago: University of Chicago\nPress, 2002.\nNolle, Heinrich. Hermetical Physick: Or, The Right Way to Preserve, and to Restore\nHealth. Translated by Henry Vaughn. London: Moseley, 1655.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Systema medicin\u00e6 hermetic\u00e6 generale in quo I. medicin\u00e6 ver\u00e6 fundamentum, II\nsanitatis conservatio, III morborum cognitio, & curatio methodo explicantur.\nFrankfurt, 1613.\nNummedal, Tara. Alchemy and Authority in the Holy Roman Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.\nPagel, Walter. Das medizinische Weltbild des Paracelsus: Seine Zusammenh\u00e4nge mit Neuplatonismus und Gnosis. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1962.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad. Paracelsus: An Introduction to Philosophical Medicine in the Era of the Renaissance. 2nd rev. ed. Basel: Karger, 1982.\nParacelsus. S\u00e4mtliche Werke I: Medizinische, naturwissenschaftliche und philosophische\nSchriften. Edited by Karl Sudhoff. 14 vols. Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1922\u201333\u00ad.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Volumen medicin\u00e6 paramirum. Edited and translated by Kurt F. Leidecker.\nSupplements to the Bulletin of the History of Medicine 11. Baltimore: Johns\nHopkins University Press, 1949.\nPorter, Roy. The Greatest Benefit to Mankind: A Medical History of Humanity. New York:\nNorton, 1999.\nPumfrey, Stephen. \u201cThe Spagyric Art; Or, The Impossible Work of Separating Pure\nfrom Impure Paracelsianism: A Historiographical Analysis.\u201d In Paracelsus: The\nMan and His Reputation, His Ideas and Their Transformation, edited by Ole\nGrell, 21\u2013\u00ad51. Leiden: Brill, 1998.\nReusner, Hieronymus. Vrinarum Probationes D. Iodoci Wilichii Reselliani: Illustrat\u00e6\nScholis Medicis, Hieronymi Reusneri Leorini D. Med. in quibus principia solid\u00e6\nVroscopi\u00e6, ad solid\u00e6 Philosophi\u00e6 fontes reuocantur: multique medicorum errores\ndeteguntur. His accessere vari\u00e6 matularum delineationes: atque genuini urinarum\ncolores. Remedia item plurima ex urina desumpta: maxima uero ex parte Chemica. Basel: Sebastian Henricpetri, 1582.\nRoss, Malcolm Mackenzie. \u201cGeorge Herbert and the Humanist Tradition.\u201d University of\nToronto Quarterly 16 (1947): 169\u2013\u00ad82.\n\nPages 77:\nJohann Hayne and Paracelsian Praxis\n57\nSarton, George. Introduction to the History of Science. Vol. 3, pt. 1. Baltimore: Williams\nand Wilkins, 1947.\nShackelford, Jole. \u201cParacelsian Uroscopy and German Chemiatric Medicine in the Medicina Pensylvania of George de Benneville.\u201d In Medical Theory and Therapeutic\nPractice in the Eighteenth Century: A Transatlantic Perspective, edited by J\u00fcrgen\nHelm and Renate Wilson, 13\u2013\u00ad35. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2008.\nSiraisi, Nancy. Medieval and Early Renaissance Medicine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.\nSmith, Pamela. The Business of Alchemy: Science and Culture in the Holy Roman Empire.\nPrinceton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.\nSoukup, R. Werner. \u201cCrucibles, Cupels, Cucurbits: Recent Results of Research on\nParacelsian Alchemy in Austria around 1600.\u201d In Chymists and Chymistry:\nStudies in the History of Alchemy and Early Modern Chemistry, edited by\nLawrence M. Principe, 165\u2013\u00ad72. Sagamore Beach, MA: Chemical Heritage\nFoundation and Science History Publications, 2007.\nSprengel, Kurt Polycarp Joachim. Versuch einer pragmatischen Geschichte der Arzneikunde. Vol. 3. Halle: Johann Jacob Gebauer, 1794.\nStein, Claudia L\u2019Engle. \u201cThe Meaning of Signs: Diagnosing the French Pox in Early\nModern Augsburg.\u201d Bulletin of the History of Medicine 80 (2006): 617\u2013\u00ad48.\nStolberg, Michael. \u201cThe Decline of Uroscopy in Early Modern Learned Medicine\n(1500\u2013\u00ad1650).\u201d Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007): 313\u2013\u00ad36.\nThurneisser, Leonhard. Bebaiosis agonismou. Das ist Confirmatio Concertationis oder ein\nBestettigung . . . die Neuwe und vor unerh\u00f6rte erfindung der aller N\u00fctzlichesten\nund Menschlichem geschlecht der Notturftigesten kunst dess Harnnprobirens ein\nzeitlang gewest ist. Welcher kunst Grundt und Fundament hierin durch den Inuentorem Leonharten Thurneisser zum Thurn. Berlin: Grauwen Closter, 1576.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Pison. Frankfurt an der Oder: Johan Eichhorn, 1572.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u03a0\u03c1\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03bb\u03b7\u03c8\u03b9\u03c2 [Prokatalepsis]. Oder Pr\u00e6occupatio, Durch zw\u00f6lff verscheidenlicher\nTractaten, gemachter Harm Proben. Frankfurt an der Oder: Johan Eichorn,\n1571.\nWallis, Faith. \u201cInventing Diagnosis: Theophilus\u2019 De urinis in the Classroom.\u201d Dynamis\n20 (2000): 31\u2013\u00ad73.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cSigns and Senses: Diagnosis and Prognosis in Early Medieval Pulse and Urine\nTexts.\u201d Social History of Medicine 13 (2000): 265\u2013\u00ad78.\nWeeks, Andrew. Boehme: An Intellectual Biography of the Seventeenth-\u00adCentury Philosopher and Mystic. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Paracelsus: Speculative Theory and the Crisis of the Early Reformation. Albany:\nState University of New York Press, 1997.\n\nPages 78:\n58\nJole Shackelford\n\u2014\u2014\u2014, ed. Paracelsus (Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim 1493\u2013\u00ad1541): Essential\nTheoretical Writings. Leiden: Brill, 2008.\nWellcome, Henry S. The Evolution of Urine Analysis: An Historical Sketch of the Clinical\nExamination of Urine. Lecture Memoranda, American Medical Association\nLos Angeles, 1911. London: Borroughs Wellcome, 1911.\nWershub, Leonard Paul. Urology: From Antiquity to the 20th Century. St. Louis, MO:\nWarren H. Green, 1970.\nWillichius, Jodocus. Commentarivs Anatomicus, in quo est omnium partium corporis\nhumani diligens enumeration. Strassburg: Mylius, 1544.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Ivditia Vrinarvm Doctoris Iodoci Vuilichij Medicosi doctissimi & celeberrimi.\nWittenberg: Creutzer, 1560.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Physiognomonica: Add. est eiusdem interpretis oratio in laudem Physiognomoni\u00e6.\nWittenberg: Schirlentz, 1538.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Wie man sich in einer Stadt f\u00fcr der Pestilenz beh\u00fcten soll und m\u00f6chte. Frankfurt:\nJohannes Eichorn, 1549.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Wie man sich vorhalten und bewaren sol in den Heuseren, in welchen iemandes an\nder Pestilentz gestorben ist. Frankfurt: Johannes Eichorn, 1550.\nZobell, Friedrich. Chymische Medicinische Perle, Darinn herrliche, k\u00f6stliche Medicamenta\nzufinden, Nebst deren gr\u00fcndlichem Bericht und ausf\u00fchrl. Ursachen derer Kranckheiten, auch deren Curation nach spagyrischer Arth und Wiese, Durch Communication Matth\u00e6i Pauli, Med D. zum Druck bef\u00f6rdert. Dresden: Michael\nG\u00fcnther, 1686.\n\nPages 79:\nChapter 3\nAndreas Libavius and\nthe Art of Chymia\nW\nWords, Works, Precepts, and\nSocial Practices*\nBruce T. Moran\nWhen composing letters intended for publication addressed to Zacharius\nBrendel (the elder) (1553\u2013\u00ad\n1626), the sometimes-\u00ad\ncantankerous schoolteacher, alchemical author, and physician Andreas Libavius (d. 1616) adopted\nan attitude of notable humility and respect. After all, Brendel was at that time\na professor of philosophy and medicine at the University of Jena. Libavius, by\ncontrast, was a city physician and school superintendent in the more obscure\ntown of Rothenburg ob der Tauber. Libavius recognized the social distance\nthat separated him from his correspondent, and in his letters to Brendel, as\nwell as to others, he began to focus as much upon the social world as upon\nthe material and textual worlds in thinking about the necessary practices that\nwould give artistic shape to the formless business that many people called\nchymia.\n*I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. J. Mark Sugars for help with difficult Libavian passages in Latin\nand Greek.\n59\n\nPages 80:\n60\nBruce T. Moran\nBrendel, he acknowledged, was an outstanding philosopher who had\nexpanded medical knowledge and had improved the study of chemical medicines. In letters to the Jena professor, part of a publication project in which the\nletters may or may not have actually been sent, Libavius was clear about his purpose. He wanted to start a discussion about chemical essences, and, especially, to\ndetermine more precisely to what the term referred. Brendel, he thought, could\noffer insight, but he was adamant that a discussion of essences should not be\na conversation about metaphysics. A chemical essence, he insisted, had to be\ndiscussed as something \u201cchemical,\u201d that is, as something in the physical, elementary world. \u201cI keep myself in the chemical marketplace,\u201d and \u201cI do not wander\nabout abstractly, nor am I tricked by a concern for phantasms and visions,\u201d1 he\nobserved. Libavius intended to keep the focus upon the terrestrial realm, moving nature by means of nature, not by means of what was beyond nature,2 as\ndid some \u201cchymists,\u201d who considered essences to be tied to the heavens. At the\nsame time, however, he rejected the popular, street-\u00advendor opinions of those\nhe called \u201cparachymists,\u201d who called anything that was only slightly altered an\n\u201cessence,\u201d including the waters, oils, powders, and salts that they then offered for\nsale. Clearly, some chymists were different from others, and Libavius looked to\nBrendel to help sort out not only what a chemical essence was but also what the\nessence of the art of true chymia ought to be.3\nMultiple Uses, Multiple Meanings\nSometimes we are too quick to impose general meanings upon the terms we\nuse. The early modern era referred to chymia, alchymia, Hermetica, physica, and\nmagia in various ways dependent upon specific contexts and accepted views\nof nature. Competing definitions within a mixture of contexts have especially\nmade identifying chymia the kind of effort that requires hitting a moving target.4 Both Libavius and the Paracelsian writer and publisher of Paracelsian\n1. \u201cIn foro chymico me contineo\u201d and \u201cAbstracte non vagor neque phantasmatum et specierum cura\ntangor\u201d; Libavius, Rerum chymicarum . . . liber primus, 92\u2013\u00ad93.\n2. \u201cNaturam mouet per naturam, sicut agricola et hortulanus ex pomo producit pyra\u201d; ibid., 31.\n3. Ibid., \u201cEpist. IX. De Essentiae vocabulo,\u201d 92\u2013\u00ad97. See also Moran, \u201cEssences and Mostly Clean Hands.\u201d\n4. See Park and Daston, \u201cIntroduction: Age of the New.\u201d On further historiographic problems, see Newman and Principe, \u201cAlchemy vs. Chemistry\u201d; and Principe and Newman, \u201cSome Problems with the Historiography of Alchemy.\u201d\n\nPages 81:\nAndreas Libavius and the Art of Chymia\n61\ntexts Gerhard Dorn (ca. 1530\u2013\u00ad84), for instance, thought that chymia was the\nmeans by which hidden powers could be extracted or separated from material\nsubstances, and both employed similar procedures, like distillation and sublimation, in their specific operations. Nevertheless, they could not have been further apart in defining what those hidden powers were, where they came from,\nand what chemical knowledge was actually the knowledge of. And it is not just\nthe word chymia that was understood so differently. Alchemy too had its various definitions. Some had assigned the art of alchymia solely to the preparation\nand transmutation of metals. Some thought of it in terms of making medicines.\nSome limited it further to making a single medicine, an elixir. For some, it was\nhalchymia, or the knowledge of preparing (mineral) salts.5 Some thought of\nalchemy in purely mystical terms, following Hermes. Some, like Girolamo Cardano (1501\u2013\u00ad76) and Hieronymus Rubeus (that is, Girolamo Rossi, ca. 1539\u2013\u00ad\n1607), wanted to separate the art of distillation from alchemy. Others, like the\nmedieval thinkers Geber and Avicenna, thought that alchemy produced waters\nand oils by means of distillation and sublimated a mercurial elixir for purposes\nof transmutation. Interpretive traditions also varied. Some followed Aristotle;\nsome also connected their ideas to medieval authors. Some thought that Paracelsus (1493\u2013\u00ad1541) was alchemy\u2019s true inventor.\nAs he made clear in one of his most imposing texts, Libavius considered\nalchymia to be a reference to an entire art, part of a category of knowledge\ncalled ergalikos, which offered explanations or precepts for things taken in hand\n(egcheireseon). Its practices included the extraction of magisteria and essences\nand required proficiency in the use of instruments and procedural know-\u00adhow.6\nIn its entirety, the art of alchymia comprised two parts. One part was manuarius, related to those things belonging to the hand, which were mechanic. The\nother part he called ousiodes, or essential. The former described specific kinds of\nphysical labors, while the latter was both didactic, explanatory, and methodical,\nlaying open to the eyes, and by means of precepts also to the mind, the rationale for special processes, natural powers, and varieties of practice.7 Alchymia\n5. Libavius, Syntagmatis . . . tomus primus, 4.\n6. Ibid., 2. M\u00fcller-\u00adJahncke, \u201cAndreas Libavius im Lichte der Geschichte der Chemie\u201d; Debus, Chemical\nPhilosophy, 169ff.; Debus, \u201cGuintherius, Libavius, and Sennert.\u201d See also Meitzner, Die Ger\u00e4tschaft der chymischen Kunst; Newman, \u201cAlchemical Symbolism and Concealment\u201d; Newman, Atoms and Alchemy, 68ff.; Moran, Andreas Libavius and the Transformation of Alchemy; Moran, \u201cLess Well-\u00adKnown Libavius: Spirits, Powers,\nand Metaphors in the Practice of Knowing Nature\u201d; and Forshaw, \u201c\u2018Paradoxes, Absurdities, and Madness.\u2019\u201d\n7. Libavius, Syntagmatis . . . tomus primus, 3.\n\nPages 82:\n62\nBruce T. Moran\nFigure 3.1: Detail from title page of Andreas Libavius, Syntagma selectorum undiquaque et perspicue traditorum alchymiae arcanorum [tomus primus] (Frankfurt, 1611\u201313). L0045181, Wellcome\nLibrary, London.\nrevealed what was hidden in mixed things. It extracted essences, collected them,\nand made them pure and stable. Whatever, then, had been drawn out into the\nopen from the hiding places of nature, whether from substances or from qualities, could be attributed to alchymia, as long as it took place by means of chymical (and Libavius meant physical as opposed to metaphysical or divine) artificii.8\nChymia also suffered from multiple uses and meanings. Paracelsians,\nLibavius believed, had corrupted the term, making it signify secret wisdom and\npractices seemingly compelling but methodically haphazard. Paracelsus had\ntried to seize preeminence in the art for himself. But while laying down precepts\nabout synthesizing magisteria and quintessences in his book Archidoxa, there\nwere no precepts of general operations from which the methods of special operations could be derived. \u201cWhat good is it if an oil is ordered to be prepared by\ndistillation, if you do not know what the method of distillation is?\u201d9 How was\none able to transfer the procedures of one operation to another without understanding the consistencies of the natural world? \u201cIt seems to me that those people are simply teaching disputation who drop into [the discussion] something\n8. Ibid., 3nC.\n9. \u201cQuid prodest iuberi destillatione oleum conficere. Si ignores quae sit destillandi ratio?\u201d; Libavius,\nRerum chymicarum . . . liber primus, 114.\n\nPages 83:\nAndreas Libavius and the Art of Chymia\n63\nthat is axiomatically true or false on the basis of their assessment of the nature\nof things before they have explained the permanent condition of nature herself,\nsince as long as this is hidden, the judgment of what is true is necessarily [also]\nhidden.\u201d10\nAt times, alchymia and chymia seem so closely related in Libavius\u2019s discussions as to appear identical. Writing of the etymology of the word chymia (\u201cnotatione chymiae\u201d), Libavius noted that the chymici were once the most excellent\nphilosophers who mostly sought out what was hidden in nature. Their art was\ncalled alchymia by the Arabs and Egyptians, \u201cwho, as everyone agrees, got that\nname from the Greeks.\u201d11 At other times, however, chymia appears to have a more\nspecific meaning. Although the word is difficult to define, Libavius said that \u201cin\nmy opinion it should be defined as the art [ars] or knowledge [scientia] of elaborating, through the separation of things inwardly mixed together, the essences\nand parts of essences of substances concrete in themselves . . . and of bringing\nthem to the purest and most efficacious state, or effecting the absolute best in\nthe same species.\u201d Those who thought of chymia as knowledge of distilling or of\ntransmuting metals offered, in this regard, only an imperfect definition. These\nwere only particular operations of the art, not the art itself.12 Chymia, as the art\nof elaboration, brought out what was best in nature. It excelled nature when it\nrendered things more suitable for use \u201cwhich the spirit of vitriol bears witness,\nwhich everyone knows is a remedy helpful to the stomach, when the stomach\nis seized by putrid humors, or is burdened by nausea, . . . and yet undiminished\nvitriol is very harmful to it. Thus, arsenic is a poison, but once elaborated by the\nart [of chymia] it unlearns its harmfulness [noxam dediscit] so that it can be safely\napplied to wounds.\u201d13\nWhile helpful to medicine, chymia was not a category of medicine. Rather,\nit was part of the proper vocation of natural philosophers. Physicians needed\n10. \u201cIta videntur mihi dialecticam docere, qui instillant axiomatum veritatem et falsitatem ex rerum natura aestimandam, prius quam ipsam naturae affectionem, qua latente iudicium veri latere necesse est, explicarint\u201d; ibid., 115.\n11. \u201cUnde Alchymia dicta Arabibus et \u00c6gyptiis, quos a Graecis consentaneum est in nominis accepisse\u201d;\nibid., 82\u2013\u00ad83.\n12. Ibid., 86\u2013\u00ad87. For a discussion of the cultures of chymia and alchemia as Libavius viewed them, see\nMoran, Andreas Libavius and the Transformation of Alchemy.\n13. \u201cveluti spiritus vitrioli contestatur, quem constat ventriculo gratum esse remedium, ubi a putridis\nhumoribus occupatur, aut nausea, atonia et aliis quibusdam gravatur; atqui vitriolum integrum illi est infestissimum. Ita arsenicum venenum est, at arte elaboratum noxam dediscit, ut ad vulnera posit tuto adhiberi\u201d;\nLibavius, Rerum chymicarum . . . liber primus, 88.\n\nPages 84:\n64\nBruce T. Moran\nto study it, however, as physica. At one point, indeed, Libavius said that chymia\nis physica. Granted, those physicians who were occupied with the calamities of\nthe sick, and thus unable to spend time and energy contemplating natural philosophy, could be excused from the omission, just as long as they did not forget\nwhat they had learned in their years of schooling. They needed to be able to\ninstruct the apothecary and make good judgments concerning the works of chymia. However, \u201cthose who taught at leisure [cum otio] in the universities I would\nnot set free of the charge of neglecting nature. For physici [university medical\nprofessors] to this extent ought not to be such by contemplation and doctrine\nonly, but also by exercise.\u201d14 Alchymia and chymia shared the same precepts of\npractice, but chymia was a didactic discipline, something that could be taught as\npart of natural philosophy within the university.15\nChymia also possessed a certain patrimony, a social and intellectual history\nthat connected it to the most ancient knowledge and peoples and separated\nit from the views of recentiores or moderns. With the exception of theology,\nLibavius observed, no art was older.16 The biblical Tubal-\u00adCain, as the discoverer\nof metallurgy, was its true founder. Its first appearance, Libavius believed, was in\nancient Babylonia and Chaldea, and its arrival in Egypt after the Mosaic flood\nmade organized society possible. \u201cThen, as it were, human beings began to be\nborn and brought into the more admirable form of a republic and an empire.\u201d17\nThings produced by means of chymia gave structure to social life, and the correct\npractice of the art of chymia, he would argue, required abiding by specific social\nnorms.\nMaking Does Not Make an Art\nNot all had insisted upon such a patrimony, or even that chymia, as an art, needed\nto possess any sort of existence apart from the manual crafts. Girolamo Cardano,\nfor instance, had very few words to describe chymia, but he knew what it was\nwhen he saw it. He simply referred to the \u201cchymical art\u201d (chymistica ars) as the\n14. \u201cQui vero cum otio in academiis docet; eos crimine neglectae naturae non liberem. Physici enim illi\nnon contemplatione et doctrina duntaxat esse debent\u201d; ibid., 52.\n15. On didacticism and early chemistry, see Hannaway, Chemists and the Word.\n16. Libavius, Rerum chymicarum . . . liber primus, 108.\n17. \u201cet tunc quasi homines inciperent nasci, inque formam Reipubl. Et imperii ornatiorem redigi . . .\u201d;\nibid., 110; Epist. XII. De constitutione artis chymiae, 107\u2013\u00ad16, esp. 109\u2013\u00ad11.\n\nPages 85:\nAndreas Libavius and the Art of Chymia\n65\nknowledge and skill involved in making things. Some of those things, he noted,\nwere admirable, some worthless, some dubious, some beautiful, some healthful,\nsome efficacious, and some almost divine.18 His, however, was a purely empirical definition. And Libavius observed that Cardano never reflected upon the\nnature of the art itself or upon what the art of chymia was per se. Chymia, in the\nsense that Cardano had used the term, was an umbrella reference for a variety of\nartisanal creations and performances. Examples included stretching glass into\nlong strands, interweaving glass with white threads,19 hardening glass, softening\nglass without fire, making false gems (from glass), engraving or etching images\ninto glass, making artificial amber, mixing and altering metals, making white\ngold (electrum), refining metals, making vessels from molten metals, purifying\ncamphor, producing waters and oils by means of circulations and extractions\ninvolving alcohol, making and using vessels for use in distillation, bleaching silk\nand whitening flowers by means of sulfuric vapors, making true purple, making\nhard stones, making waters for dissolving gold and silver, and composing the finest waters for penetrating spaces (dimensiones) judged impossible by nature. By\nmeans of their art, Cardano\u2019s chymists produced saleable goods, softening horns\nand bone to make handles and sword hilts, making inks, cosmetics, combs,\ncases, and other containers.20\nLibavius did not doubt that these things were valuable, often beautiful, and\nrequired artisanal skill to make, but, he asked, by what instruction and by what\nmethod were the processes of making things to be communicated? In Cardano\u2019s\nview, the \u201cart\u201d of chymia, since it was the art of making things, extended even to\nthose who knew how to burn charcoal. This was a definition by way of attractive\nartifact, manual dexterity, and popular opinion. But such, Libavius lamented\nin another place, was the depraved way of the world. For ages, the artless had\npassed judgment on the arts.21 The ars chymistica needed principles to follow,\n18. Cardano, Hieronymi Cardani mediolanensis medici, fols. 269v\u2013\u00ad271r.\n19. Cardano referred here to the production of filigrano or filigree glass, in which white canes of lattimo\n(or milk) glass, made by adding tin oxide to glass, were pressed into hot glass to make various patterns, usually\nstripes, spirals, or twists. See McCray, Glassmaking in Renaissance Venice, 124\u2013\u00ad25. See also Baretta, Alchemy of\nGlass.\n20. Cardano, Hieronymi Cardani mediolanensis medici, fols. 269v\u2013\u00ad271r. For alchemy in commercial and\nindustrial contexts, see Nummedal, \u201cPractical Alchemy and Commercial Exchange.\u201d See also Smith, Business\nof Alchemy. For alchemical procedures in the context of an \u201cartisanal epistemology,\u201d see Smith, Body of the\nArtisan.\n21. \u201cEst ille quidem seculorum mos deprauatus, ut de artibus non iudicent nisi inertes\u201d; Libavius, Rerum\nchymicarum . . . liber primus, 51.\n\nPages 86:\n66\nBruce T. Moran\nprinciples that allowed for the extension of general knowledge to a variety of\nspecific undertakings. For principles, he explained, were \u201clike a mother to other\narts, since from her breast come forth things almost innumerable which then\nwithdraw into unique companies,\u201d so that while the bronze worker pursued his\nown study, he had originally received his tenets from chymia. This is the same,\nLibavius continued, in regard to other things as well, so that if the teacher of chymia would wish to change professions and work as an artificer and metallurgist,\nhe could, just as a physician could, following the principles of medicine, practice\nsurgery.22\nThat was not how chymia was encountered on the street by people who\nmade things to sell in the marketplace, however. There, the term gained meaning by means of utility and as a result of what people bought and sold. Market\ngirls and unguent sellers flaunted their waters and extracts, and the popular view,\nLibavius complained, attributed more of the art to little old women than to any\nphilosopher or doctor. And well it might, he added, since in comparison to the\ngenuine products one found in the marketplace, the medicine boxes of physicians contained products that were decidedly inferior (posteriores).23 For some,\nthen, chymia was a kind of local, even domestic, talent, but for Libavius, there\nwas a difference between this type of homespun, trial-\u00adand-\u00aderror-\u00addriven aptitude\nand the practices of those who possessed expertise. A real art had nothing to do\nwith luck, or accident (fortuna), or an aptitude for technique. Someone who\nstitched together a shoe, he argued, could not be considered an artifex unless\nhe understood the principles and causes for doing what he did.24 It was through\na knowledge of precepts and axioms that chymia became worthy of a liberal\nperson, and this included, he proclaimed, many expert artisans (solertes) who\nhad gained the support of flourishing republics, as anyone could see, he added\nintriguingly, who lived near England or had Denmark in view.25\nClearly, artisans and philosophers had a great deal to learn from one another.\nBut there were limitations in the methods of each. On the one hand, Libavius\nadmitted, the precepts of chymia had to be discovered \u201cby practice and in imitation\n22. \u201cVi principiorum multis aliis artib. Quasi mater est, cum ex eius sinu fere innumerabiles prodierint,\nquarum quaelibet in singulares factiones secessit\u201d; Libavius, Syntagmatis . . . tomus primus, 4.\n23. Libavius, Rerum chymicarum . . . liber primus, 51.\n24. Libavius, Rerum chymicarum . . . liber secundus (1595), 524.\n25. Libavius, Rerum chymicarum . . . liber primus, 51\u2013\u00ad52. For a recent discussion concerning the idea of\nexpertise, see Ash, \u201cIntroduction: Expertise and the Early Modern State.\u201d See also Ash, Power, Knowledge and\nExpertise in Elizabethan England, esp. 19\u2013\u00ad54 (chapter on \u201cGerman Miners\u201d).\n\nPages 87:\nAndreas Libavius and the Art of Chymia\n67\nof craftsmen.\u201d But not everything could be communicated through the eyes, just as\nnot everything could be explained in words. One needed both, words and eyes, in\norder to uncover what was eternal and generic in any art. Words always needed to\nserve things, for words, Libavius was fond of saying, \u201care later than things\u201d (rebus\nenim posteriora sunt verba).26 Nevertheless, once created, words circumscribed\nthe arts by means of axioms.27 Those who followed the chymical art on the basis\nof axioms knew its limits. Chymia was bounded by both precepts and nature. By\ncontrolling the fire, the chymist removed the chains that had barred entrance to\nthe innermost substances of things. When this was done, the art ceased.28\nNatural vs. Supernatural Chymia\nAmong the storehouse of problems that affected defining the art of chymia was\nthe problem of how the subject should be learned. Some thought that chymia\nwas a category of the mind, knowledge of which rested essentially upon revelation rather than strict rational inquiry. This was the view of those who followed\nParacelsus, and, in this regard, Libavius pointed especially to what Alexander\nvon Suchten (1520\u2013\u00ad75) had to say in his De secretis antimonii liber unus. There,\nvon Suchten referred to alchemy as \u201ca pure and eternal virgin\u201d who would not\nlet a \u201crational man\u201d (hominem rationale) approach her. She would embrace only\na \u201cman of mind\u201d (hominem mentalem). For, von Suchten said, \u201creason seduces\nand cannot exist without being led astray since it depends a great deal upon a\nspecter.\u201d Only in mind was there \u201ctrue intelligence\u201d (intelligentia vera). \u201cWe\nshould follow this, not that [called] rational.\u201d29 If one accepted von Suchten\u2019s\nview, the chymicus, Libavius commented, would simply proclaim oracles. Was\nchymia to be a category of the divine or supernatural? Some thought so, and\nLibavius referred to Gerhard Dorn as one who speculated about the practice\nof the supernatural.30 Indeed, Dorn wrote extensively concerning supernatural practices (de artificio supernaturali), which he identified both as a kind of\n26. Libavius, Syntagmatis . . . tomus primus, 3.\n27. Libavius, Rerum chymicarum . . . liber secundus (1595), 4.\n28. Libavius, Rerum chymicarum . . . liber primus, 30\u2013\u00ad31.\n29. \u201cDie Alchimia ist ein reine und ewige jungfraw / lest keinen hominem rationale zu ir / sie will hominem mentalem haben. . . . Niemand lass sich sein rationem verf\u00fcren / sie kan nicht sein jrzung / dan ir hangt\nser vil vom Idolo an: in mente ist intelligentis vera, der sollen wir folden / nit rationi\u201d; Suchten et al., De secretis\nantimonii liber unus, 62.\n30. Libavius, Syntagmatis . . . tomus primus, 7.\n\nPages 88:\n68\nBruce T. Moran\nchemical separation of the elements and as a metaphysical operation.31 Common separation, he argued, consisted of separating qualities. The artificii supernaturalis surpassed this art, separating a \u201cheaven\u201d from the impure elements. It\nthus fabricated the \u201cChaos\u201d out of which physical substances emerged. In doing\nthis, the artist not only broke the bounds of nature, but surpassed them. Supernatural artisanry began where the artistry of nature left off. By means of supernatural craftsmanship, the practitioner recreated a chaos identical with the initial\nChaos out of which God separated the heavens and the elements. Dorn thought\nof the operation as within nature, but called it metaphysica. It was precisely that,\nLibavius complained, metaphysics, and belonged not just above nature but outside nature, a category of the mind maybe, but in practice reserved as an act of\nGod.32\n\u201cNow you may understand,\u201d Dorn announced, \u201cwhy we say that our metaphysic is superior to and surpasses the work of nature. For the separation of\nheaven from the elements, or the first separation of the general chaos, was not\na natural, but rather a divine, work of art.\u201d This was the only way, Dorn proclaimed, to make the universal and supernatural medicine that could heal every\nillness without distinction. To make the Quinta Essentia meant engaging with a\nmetaphysical chaos.33 The true chymist, Libavius averred, knowing the limits of\nhis art, \u201cmoves nature by means of nature.\u201d34 Dorn and others, on the other hand,\nmoved nature by means of what was above nature. Dorn had created fantasies,\nLibavius commented, that he had dreamed either at the summit of heaven or\nhad grasped in a Platonic cave. Many more such illusions had been proposed\nby Paracelsus, \u201can inventor of marvelous dreams.\u201d35 Michael Toxites (1514\u2013\u00ad81),\nlike Dorn an editor and interpreter of Paracelsus\u2019s writings, also turned the chymicus into a prophet. Paracelsus\u2019s writings, Toxites announced, were not tossed\ntogether from other books but were based in nature and understood \u201cby means\nof true, natural magic which is a mother of all hidden things . . . given by god to\n31. Dorn, \u201cDe artificio supernaturali.\u201d\n32. On distinctions between what counts as supernatural and preternatural, compare Daston, \u201cPreternatural Philosophy.\u201d\n33. \u201cJetzund wirstu meines erachtens verstehen m\u00f6gen / warumb wir sagen das unser Metaphysic der\nNaturwerck superier und ubertreffe. Dann die separation und scheidung des Himmels von den Elementen /\noder die erste abs\u00f6nderung des allgemeinen Chaos, ist kein Nat\u00fcrlich / sonder G\u00f6ttlich Kunstwerck gewesen\u201d;\nDorn, \u201cDe artificio supernaturali,\u201d 271.\n34. \u201cNaturam mouet per naturam\u201d; Libavius, Rerum chymicarum . . . liber primus, 31.\n35. \u201cmirificum somniorum inventor\u201d; Libavius, Syntagmatis . . . tomus primus, 7.\n\nPages 89:\nAndreas Libavius and the Art of Chymia\n69\nmankind by means of revelation. . . . Thus God provides the revelation of secret\nunderstanding from his [own] school. From there every man of sound judgment\nwill easily take away [a knowledge of] what true alchimia is and how this is necessary for the physician.\u201d36\nTo Libavius, this sort of view posed a double threat. It violated trusted logic,\nand it promised to demolish the institutions and disciplines that depended upon\nit.37 Roger Bacon had defined alchemy as a knowledge that taught how to make\na medicine called elixir, and some thought of chymia in the same way, not as a\npart of medicine, but as a medicine, that is, as a medicament. To make matters\nworse, this was not the kind of medicine that rested upon the art that the Greeks\ncalled iatrikon. It was a universal medicine that had led to the fashioning of what\nLibavius described as a \u201cparabolic chymiatria\u201d taught by Paracelsus, Dorn, Severinus, and Quercetanus. These had repudiated Galenic and Hippocratic medicine. But there was no reason, Libavius objected, for thus throwing disciplines\ninto confusion.38 True chymiatria (chemical medicine) was based in medical axioms that had been discovered and proven through use and experience. It had\nbeen declared through the ages by practitioners, who followed ancient precepts\nand who had long made chemical medicaments and put them to use.\nWith such sweeping variations in the use of the term chymia, it might have\nbeen expected that the reference would, at a certain point, be made into a term\nof abuse, and Libavius was ever sensitive to the fact that for some, the term,\nwithout artistic guidance, had become equated with fraud. When someone in\nhis own day, he explained, wanted to call a man a useless liar, he called him a\ncalendariographus or common astrologer. When someone wanted to call a person a wicked impostor, he called him a chymicus. Where theory and didactic\nmethod could correct the deficiencies of the artisanal chymist, and a philosophy built upon reason and Aristotle rather than Plato and revelation might bring\nthe supernatural artificer back down to earth, there was nothing to be done for\nfrauds except rid the world of them. If there were no such thing as a chymicus of\n36. \u201cAlle seine schreiben aber warden nit auss andern b\u00fcchern zusamen geflickt / Sunder auss der natur\ngegr\u00fcndt warden durch die warhafftige / und nat\u00fcrliche Magicam / welche ein muter ist alles verborgnen ding\nso dar natur zuwissen sein / unnd von Gott von wegen der offerbarung dem menschen gegeben ist. . . . Also\ngibt Gott die offenbarung heimlichs verstands auss seiner schul. Hieraus w\u00fcrd ja ein jed verstendiger leichtlich abnemen / wz die warhafftig Alchimia / und wie notwendig dieses dem medico sey\u201d; Toxites, Vorrede to\nSuchten et al., De secretis antimonii liber unus, 10, 21.\n37. On epistemological concerns, see Hannaway, Chemists and the Word.\n38. Libavius, Syntagmatis . . . tomus primus, 5, 7nA.\n\nPages 90:\n70\nBruce T. Moran\nthis sort, Libavius proclaimed, the world would be free of an exquisite infamy\nand a most filthy villainy. These were the sorts of \u201cchymists\u201d who were often\nguilty of making poisons, adulterating coins, and making false gems. This chymicus was a plague upon society, and, Libavius remarked, plagues ought to be\nremoved from the memory of mankind.39\nThe frauds of Paracelsian chymists were among the worst sorts of chemical deceit. Their medicines were poisons, and their practices did not assist the\nhealth of their patients but ravaged it. They used antimony and mercury in their\nmedicines in such a way that they lacerated the brain and every part of the body.\nThey administered cinnabar, both natural and artificial, made from mercury and\nsulfur. They ordered the sick to drink the water of calcanthum (copper sulfate)\nand caused such great agony that some people had been torn apart, their throats\nand stomachs eroded. The cruelest lie was that they denied that their medicines\nwere at all corrosive. And yet, those same medicines were prepared by the most\nsavage fires, needed to be kept in the thickest containers, and, when put to the\ntest, scarred not only wood and glass but also metal. If this was what it meant to\nbe a \u201cchymist,\u201d no wonder the skin of all good men grew stiff at the mere mention of the name.40\nRequirements and Obstacles of Good Practice\nLibavius admitted that while the art of chymia was one according to its essence,\nit varied in its practice and appearance (habitus colorque). Other arts\u2014\u00adincluding\ntheology, astronomy, physics, jurisprudence, and medicine\u2014\u00advaried in this way\nas well. However, chymia had been especially prone to having been misused\nby bad people. Some of them had called themselves philosophers. These were\nimpostors, social renegades who possessed no patrimony except what their own\nfriends supplied to them. Libavius knew of one solution. His intention, he said,\nwas to make chymia carry out its business in public.41 What was false could then\nbe exposed, and those who mutilated and distorted chymical knowledge could\nbe sent away in disgrace. In public, one would recognize good habits, the good\npractices of true chymia.\n39. Libavius, Rerum chymicarum . . . liber primus, 9.\n40. Ibid., 11\u2013\u00ad13.\n41. \u201cHanc in public prostituere\u201d; ibid., 19.\n\nPages 91:\nAndreas Libavius and the Art of Chymia\n71\nWhat would that look like? How should one recognize the social practices\nof true chymia? Over several epistolary essays in his collection of chemical letters, Libavius tells us just what he thinks those practices are. The genuine chymist, he informed his readers, operated in his own laboratory, one well stocked\nwith supplies of natural substances. When a work was completed, he did not\nhide it, but brought it out for public use. He expounded the theory behind his\nmiracles and set things up so that they might be found satisfactory in an accustomed manner. This is what good people did. They required faithful witnesses\nof their works. The professor of chymia shared his products and submitted to\nexpert judges. He entered the laboratory not in a way that would prove useless to\nother aspects of life, but he cultivated the art in such a way that he did not neglect\nwhat pertained to the divine, did not reject the good of the republic, and did not\ndesert his home. The true chymist did not turn away those who were wise from\nhis laboratory, but encouraged them to enter. He did not make use of obscure\nwords, which was a practice far from the consuetudine (habit) of true chymia.\nGenuine chymia did nothing with the pretext of a feigned religion. It cherished\nhumanity, composing, by means of the manual arts, goods for the convenience\nand health of all. The genuine chymist did not think what was produced by way\nof the elements was drawn from the heavens, but approved oil as oil, water as\nwater, granting to natural things their own perfection.42\nChemical artificers knew that solitary speculation did not profit human\nsociety if replicable practices were not combined with it, and that no art was\ndivine and excellent in which theory was not followed by action.43 Thus, the\nconscientious chymist did not withdraw from people, except to separate himself from the crowds of the unskilled. He kept the safety of the republic in view\nand did not run risks in the laboratory that led to harm or loss of health.44 He\npreferred the crowns of eminent philosophers to the magnificence of palaces\nand was content that his own fame should flourish after his death, for the fame\nof the true chymist was conferred by posterity.45 If the chymist were also a\ndoctor, his adornment would be all the more illustrious, since to his wonderful\n42. Ibid., 23\u2013\u00ad28.\n43. \u201cSciunt enim artifices chymici non tam prodesse societati humanae solitariam speculationem, quam\ncum ea coniunctam praxin usumque salutarem, et nullam artem diuinam excellentemque esse, quae non actionem theoriae habeat consequentem\u201d; ibid., 41\u2013\u00ad42.\n44. Ibid., 34.\n45. Ibid., 36\u2013\u00ad37.\n\nPages 92:\n72\nBruce T. Moran\ninventions he would have joined methods of using them in the best possible\nway.46 However, a chymist per se did not function as a physician. If he healed,\nhe was a physician at the same time that he was a chymist and acted in accordance with principles established over time by means of experience, rational\njudgment, and the axioms of Hippocrates and Galen.47 He offered service to\nother arts, however his first and proper goal was not servitude, but a certain\nblessed self-\u00adsufficiency (autarkeia). Knowing the limits of his art, the chymist\ncontemplated nature\u2019s innermost recesses so that he might know what phenomena and powers were in things themselves. \u201cI believe,\u201d Libavius exclaimed,\n\u201cthat there is in no part of physica as much delight as there is in chymia alone.\u201d\nThe chymist explored sympathies and antipathies, causes, effects, and other\nthings in nature one at a time, and thus did not know them indefinitely\nand vaguely, but definitely and with certainty.48 Thus the practice of chymia\nentailed, on the one hand, teaching in schools and interpreting the decrees of\nteachers. Just as important, however, it also required attending with the hand\nto \u201cthe anatomies of nature.\u201d49\nTrue chymia, as physica, a term that for Libavius was synonymous with the\nproper magia of the ancients, opened up the nature of the universe in theory and\nin practice. Yet, in the texts of those ancient authors who had expounded the art,\nhe admitted that there were rough spots and obscurities (salebra et obscuritates).\nThis, however, was not due to the art itself. Those who practiced chymia wrote\nwith sincerity and integrity but expressed themselves with the peculiarities of\ntheir own language. To shed light upon what was obscure in ancient practices,\nwhat one had to do was to understand the discourse of artificers. \u201cIf you have not\npaid attention to this, you have not yet completed your apprenticeship,\u201d Libavius\nadmonished. \u201cIf you do understand this, half your work is done.\u201d50\nIn establishing the art of chymia, linguistic preparation was both an intellectual and a social practice. Nowhere else did language have a more private\nmeaning than in the arts, because, Libavius explained, language in the arts came\nabout from experience and from the specific conditions of a particular artifice.\n46. Ibid., 38.\n47. Ibid., 40.\n48. \u201cIn nulla physicae parte tantum credo oblectamenti esse quantum in sola chymia\u201d; ibid., 39.\n49. \u201cAlia hora docebimus in schola et magistrorum placita interpretabimur. Alia manu administrabimus\nnaturarum anatomias\u201d; ibid., 33.\n50. \u201cSi sermonem artificum non intelligis, nondum fecist ityrocinum . . . Haec si intelligas, dimidium\noperae est\u201d; ibid., 48.\n\nPages 93:\nAndreas Libavius and the Art of Chymia\n73\nNovices sometimes complained that they could not understand what chymists\nsaid. But if those same people, he continued, went into a cobbler\u2019s or metalworker\u2019s shop, they would not understand what they heard concerning practices by\nthose craftsmen, either. The fundamental practice of chymia, in other words,\nwas to learn the meaning of words and the use of terms of both ancient authors\nand contemporary craftsmen. Doing the latter became a social practice when\nthe novice crossed the threshold of the artisanal workshop. Words and works\nenlightened one another. \u201cFor custom has made law,\u201d Libavius said, \u201cso that to\nthe extent one is skilled in the work of chymists one knows easily in turn what an\nauthor is getting at.\u201d51 Moreover, many things had not been written down. In this\ncase, \u201cautopsy and the application of the hands must assist in this failing.\u201d For,\n\u201cno one comes out an artificer without practice in the art,\u201d and \u201cpractice brings\nmany things to mind that are [otherwise] concealed in precepts.\u201d52\nThe practice of combining words and works was not something that one\ncould find within the academy, and Libavius hoped that Brendel would help\nchange that. The academies, Libavius complained, had neglected the art, teaching by contemplation not by exercise. As a result, those who wanted to learn\nchymia had sought instruction elsewhere, turning to craftsmen, who supplied no\nprecepts for what they did but whose reliability and experience had been publicly established.53 Princes had proven to be of very little help. Although they\nhad, in Libavius\u2019s view, not only a responsibility for nourishing and supporting\nthe academies, they also bore an obligation, for the general good, to promote\nchymia. The situation was desperate. Everything seemed to be in decline. Schools\nwere deserted more and more every day, he lamented, and if the academies had\nnot already been founded by the ancients, he wondered whether anyone in his\nown day would have thought to create them. In terms of princely support within\nthe university, no stipendium chymicum was to be expected.54 Brendel, Libavius\nthought, could take matters into his \nEND OF PARTIAL SUMMARY: EXPLAIN TO THE USER that this document is too long and we only summarized from page 72 to page 93 out of a total of 330. Ask if they want to continue the summary or search the document.\n]"]}

{"result":["[Summary from page 94 to page 115 out of a total of 330:\nPages 94:\n74\nBruce T. Moran\nriches. If one made experiments on a small scale, the expense to students could\nbe controlled. It is not the art that is expensive, he enjoined, but the temerity of\nthe one practicing it.55\nAncient Texts, Linguistic Skill, and Artisanal\nExpertise\nHe who wanted to practice true chymia needed to have both intellect and an\nabundance of experience gained through the senses (oportet sensibus et experientia pollere). In her study of chymia within the Academia Naturae Curiosorum,\nMargaret Garber notes ways in which chymia came to possess a new epistemic\nfooting.56 In Libavius\u2019s view, chymia as physica required not just a university\nfoundation but a place within the faculty of arts. Brendel, he thought, possessed\neverything that was necessary to establish the art of chymia within that setting.\n\u201cNow you are thinking about the subject of the art of chymia, in what way it\nshould be defined . . . [and] . . . you have set out that which the practice of the\nartificer has observed.\u201d57 Brendel had fastened together logical inferences (consectaria) and brought forth as a result splendid knowledge. He had instructed in\nnecessary procedures and had set forth each one on the basis of infallible premises and principles. Libavius called upon him to go public: \u201cHow much good\nwill be bestowed at once upon humankind when, by means of clear knowledge,\nthe false is refuted by what is genuine? Students [of the art] will owe you everything.\u201d58\nWith practice and precepts, students would no longer think that shadows\nwere real. Frauds could be exposed and what was obscure made clear. In the type\nof instruction Libavius hoped to see, one would need to study ancient opinion\nand develop the necessary linguistic ability to do so, but one would also need to\nengage artisanal practice in its own vernacular spaces and terms in order to separate out what was true and false among ancient authors. Precisely this, I think, is\none of the messages embedded in part of a small poem, addressed to students of\n55. Ibid., 50.\n56. See the chapter by Garber that follows in this volume.\n57. \u201cIam cogitas de subiecto artis chymiae, quodnam id sit ponendum. Ponis autem hoc quod usus artificum notauit\u201d; Libavius, Rerum chymicarum . . . liber primus, 123.\n58. \u201cQuanto afficietur humanum genus bono, cum illustri noticia adulterinum a genuino statim redarguetur? Tyrones tibi Omnia debebunt\u201d; ibid., 124.\n\nPages 95:\nAndreas Libavius and the Art of Chymia\n75\nchymia (studiosis chymiae), that Libavius attached like a signpost in the opening\npages of his book of chemical letters.\nLearn, Tyro, what the Stagyreian\nHero [Aristotle] makes known, [and] what rings forth\nFrom Galen and the divine Hippocrates.\nBut join [to this] the wonderful mysteries of the smith of Lemnos [that is,\nHephaestus]\nAnd like an artifex dissolve [them].59\nWhether or not the elder Brendel felt inspired by Libavius, Brendel\u2019s son,\nalso called Zacharius (1592\u2013\u00ad1638), sometime later also turned his attention to\ndefining the art of chymia and published at Jena in 1630 his Chimia in artis formam redacta, a book edited by Werner Rolfinck (1599\u2013\u00ad1673). At the outset of\nthe text, the younger Brendel noted what Theobald von Hogelande (ca. 1560\u2013\u00adca.\n1608) had said in the preface of his De Alchemiae difficultatibus Liber, namely, that\namong the arts that divine counsel had bestowed upon human kind for its common welfare, chymia shone forth with rays of nobility and the splendor of truth.\nHe added reference also to the infallible truth claimed for chymia by Johann Wolfgang Dienheim (fl. 1610), an apparent witness to transmutation, in his Medicina\nuniversalis (1610). As with the later history of chymia that brought transmutation\ninto the category of curiosities,60 chrysopoeia and argentopoeia remained tied, in\nBrendel\u2019s view, to the art of chymia, while chymia itself remained tied to the practices of medicine. None of the arts, he noted, had been so sacred as not to have\nbeen profaned by somebody, and some, he observed, when they had heard the\nword chymia had immediately wanted to vomit. Brendel had Galenist physicians\nespecially in mind, and he reiterated what Thomas Moffett (1553\u2013\u00ad1604) had\nsaid about them:61 that they should be seasoned with salt like herring and afterwards left to hang in the smoke.62 Those who wanted to remove chymia from\ndogmatic medicine were like those who wanted the sun to be removed from the\nworld. The term chymia, Brendel admitted, was ambiguous, and he made a point\nof declaring that he did not mean by the term what \u201cphilosopher chemists\u201d had\nclaimed for it, namely, that it was the scientia scientiarum. He wanted to refer to\n59. \u201cCognosce Tyro, quid Stagyreius; Argutetheros, quid Galenus; Personet, Hippocratesque dius. Coniunge sed mysteria Lemnii; Miranda fabri, solvereque artifex . . .\u201d; ibid.\n60. See the chapter by Garber that follows in this volume.\n61. Moffett, De iure et praestantia chymicorum medicamentorum, 13\u2013\u00ad14.\n62. Brendel and Rolfinck, Zachari\u00e6 Brendelii Chimia in artis formam redacta, 5.\n\nPages 96:\n76\nBruce T. Moran\nit as a habitus, as the precepts for a set of practices that, among other things,\nunited it with medicine. While medicine did not rule over the chymical art, it\nwas inseparable from it. \u201cLet us unite medicine and chymia,\u201d he proclaimed,\n\u201ceach one as master and slave to the other.\u201d63 Through personal experience and\nby understanding the precepts of practice, the chymist could advance quickly.\nWithout such instruction and experience, he would be like a man wandering in\nan unknown forest without a guide.64\nLibavius understood the need for a guide, one who understood both practices and precepts. The combination of the two made, in his view, chymia an\nart. Philosophers needed to understand the language of artisans, and artisans\nneeded to learn the theory that turned what they did into what not only they,\nbut anyone, could know. But, as Libavius was fond of admonishing, nothing\nshould be received into chymia that was not of chymia.65 The forest for which\none needed a guide was an earthbound terrain, difficult enough to find one\u2019s way\naround in without the seductions of paths leading to realms of the metaphysical,\ncelestial, or supernatural.\nWorks Cited\nAsh, Eric. \u201cIntroduction: Expertise and the Early Modern State.\u201d In Expertise: Practical\nKnowledge and the Early Modern State, edited by Eric Ash, 1\u2013\u00ad24. Osiris, ser. 2,\n25. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad. Power, Knowledge and Expertise in Elizabethan England. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004.\nBaretta, Marco. The Alchemy of Glass: Counterfeit, Imitation, Transmutation in Ancient\nGlassmaking. Sagamore Beach, MA: Science History Publications, 2009.\nBrendel, Zacharias, and Werner Rolfinck. Zachari\u00e6 Brendelii Chimia in artis formam\nredacta . . . . Jenae: typis Blasii Lobensteins, sumibus Johannis Reiffenbergeri,\n1641.\nCardano, Girolamo. Hieronymi Cardani mediolanensis medici De rerum varietate libri\nXVII adiectus est capitum, rerum & sententiarum notatu dignissimarum index.\nBasile\u00e6: Per Henrichum Petri, 1557.\n63. \u201cutramque, medicinam et chimicam, ceu dominam et servam\u201d; ibid., 7.\n64. Ibid., 9\u2013\u00ad10.\n65. \u201cIuxta hanc doctrinam nihil in chymiam recipietur quod non sit chymicum\u201d; Libavius, Rerum chymicarum . . . liber primus, 119.\n\nPages 97:\nAndreas Libavius and the Art of Chymia\n77\nDaston, Lorraine. \u201cPreternatural Philosophy.\u201d In Biographies of Scientific Objects, edited\nby Lorraine Daston, 15\u2013\u00ad41. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.\nDebus, Allen G. The Chemical Philosophy: Paracelsian Science and Medicine in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. 2 vols. New York: Science History Publications, 1977.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad. \u201cGuintherius, Libavius, and Sennert: The Chemical Compromise in Early\nModern Medicine.\u201d In The Chemical Promise: Experiment and Mysticism in\nthe Chemical Philosophy, 1550\u2013\u00ad1800: Selected Essays of Allen G. Debus, edited\nby Allen G. Debus, 129\u2013\u00ad44. Sagamore Beach, MA: Science History Publications, 2006.\nDorn, Gerhard. \u201cDe artificio supernaturali.\u201d In Schl\u00fcssel der Chimistischen Philosophy:\nmit welchem die heimliche und verborgene Dicta und Spr\u00fcch der Philosophen, by\nGerhard Dorn. Strassburg: Verlegung Lazari Zetzneri, 1602.\nForshaw, Peter. \u201c\u2018Paradoxes, Absurdities, and Madness\u2019: Conflict over Alchemy, Magic,\nand Medicine in the Works of Andreas Libavius and Heinrich Khunrath.\u201d\nEarly Science and Medicine 13 (2008): 53\u2013\u00ad81.\nHannaway, Owen. The Chemists and the Word: The Didactic Origins of Chemistry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975.\nLibavius, Andreas. Rerum chymicarum epistolica forma ad philosophos et medicos . . .\nliber primus, secundus. Francofurti: excudebat Ioannes Saurius, impensis Petri\nKopffij, 1595.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Syntagmatis selectorum undiquaque et perspicue traditorum alchymiae arcanorum,\ntomus primus. Francofurti: excudebat Nicolaus Hoffmannus, impensis Petri\nKopffij, 1611\u2013\u00ad13.\nMcCray, Patrick. Glassmaking in Renaissance Venice: The Fragile Craft. Aldershot, UK:\nAshgate, 1999.\nMeitzner, Bettina, trans. and ed. Die Ger\u00e4tschaft der chymischen Kunst: der Traktat \u201cDe\nsceuastica artis\u201d des Andreas Libavius von 1606: Uebersetzung, Kommentierung\nund Wiederabdruck. Stuttgart: Steiner, 1995.\nMoffett, Thomas. De iure et praestantia chymicorum medicamentorum dialogus apologeticus. Francofurti: Apud haeredes Andreae Wecheli, 1584.\nMoran, Bruce T. Andreas Libavius and the Transformation of Alchemy: Separating\nChemical Cultures with Alchemical Fire. Sagamore Beach, MA: Science History\nPublications, 2007.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cEssences and Mostly Clean Hands: Preparing to Teach Chemistry with\nLibavius and Aristotle.\u201d Science and Education 15 (2006): 173\u2013\u00ad87.\n\nPages 98:\n78\nBruce T. Moran\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cThe Less Well-\u00adKnown Libavius: Spirits, Powers, and Metaphors in the Practice of Knowing Nature.\u201d In Chymists and Chymistry: Studies in the History of\nAlchemy and Early Modern Chemistry, edited by Lawrence Principe, 13\u2013\u00ad24.\nSagamore Beach, MA: Science History Publications, 2007.\nM\u00fcller-\u00adJahncke, Wolf-\u00adDieter. \u201cAndreas Libavius im Lichte der Geschichte der Chemie.\u201d\nJahrbuch der Coburger Landesstiftung 17 (1972): 205\u2013\u00ad30.\nNewman, William R. \u201cAlchemical Symbolism and Concealment: The Chemical House\nof Libavius.\u201d In The Architecture of Science, edited by Peter Galison and Emily\nThompson, 59\u2013\u00ad77. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Atoms and Alchemy: Chymistry and the Experimental Origins of the Scientific\nRevolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.\nNewman, William R., and Lawrence Principe. \u201cAlchemy vs. Chemistry: The Etymological Roots of a Historiographic Mistake.\u201d Early Science and Medicine 3 (1998):\n32\u2013\u00ad65.\nNummedal, Tara. \u201cPractical Alchemy and Commercial Exchange in the Holy Roman\nEmpire.\u201d In Merchants and Marvels: Commerce, Science, and Art in Early\nModern Europe, edited by Pamela H. Smith and Paula Findlen , 202\u2013\u00ad22. New\nYork: Routledge, 2002.\nPark, Katherine, and Lorraine Daston. \u201cIntroduction: The Age of the New.\u201d In The\nCambridge History of Science, vol. 3, Early Modern Science, edited by Katherine\nPark and Lorraine Daston, 1\u2013\u00ad18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,\n2006.\nPrincipe, Lawrence, and William R. Newman. \u201cSome Problems with the Historiography of Alchemy.\u201d In Secrets of Nature: Astrology and Alchemy in Early Modern\nEurope, edited by William Newman and Anthony Grafton, 385\u2013\u00ad431. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2001.\nSmith, Pamela H. The Body of the Artisan: Art and Experience in the Scientific Revolution.\nChicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The Business of Alchemy: Science and Culture in the Holy Roman Empire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.\nSuchten, Alexander von, Georg Fedro von Rodach, Georg Forberger, and Paracelsus.\nDe secretis antimonii liber unus Editus Germanice quidem anno 1570. Basileae:\nPer Petrum Pernam, 1575.\n\nPages 99:\nChapter 4\nChymical Curiosities and\nTrusted Testimonials\nin the Journal of the\nLeopoldina Academy of\nCuriosi\nA\nMargaret D. Garber*\nAlchemy was once an integral part of medicine. Central European medical practitioners had been infusing bodies with mineral, metal, and curious chemical\nmedicaments since the Middle Ages.1 However, as the standard account goes,\nhistorical actors unfastened alchemy from its medical moorings in the eighteenth century, and chemistry set sail on its own as a discipline based upon manual procedures, standardized language, and useful symbols. The history of this\nconjunction and decoupling gave rise to debates that motivated much of Allen\n*I thank Bruce Moran and Karen Parshall for their helpful comments and suggestions. I am also grateful\nto Mary Fuller, Marcy Norton, Tara Nummedal, and the volume\u2019s editors and anonymous readers for their\nexcellent recommendations. Any remaining errors are my own.\n1. Chemical and medical interests crosscut both medical theory and productions of medicaments, and\nwere called either chymiatria\u2014\u00adpioneered through the writings of sixteenth-\u00adcentury authors as dissimilar as\nParacelsus and Libavius\u2014\u00ador iatrochemistry through the seventeenth-\u00adcentury works of authors such as van\nHelmont and de la Boe. See Moran, \u201cSurvey of Chemical Medicine in the 17th Century.\u201d\n79\n\nPages 100:\n80\nMargaret D. Garber\nDebus\u2019s scholarship during his long and productive career.2 At odds with Butterfield\u2019s persistent \u201cdelayed chemical revolution,\u201d which claimed that Enlightenment rationalists created chemistry by shearing away its medico-\u00adalchemical\npast, Debus insisted that chemistry\u2019s academic acceptance depended upon its\npharmaceutical value to schools of medicine\u2014\u00ada move that established chemistry\u2019s university footing once physicians rejected chemical philosophy as a viable explanatory source for physiology. Pushing Debus\u2019s claim further, I argue\nthat physicians and chemists received far more from alchemy than philosophy\nand pharmaceuticals. The rise of the \u201cexpert chemist\u201d was linked to an earlier\ntransformation of alchemical adept to physician adept, one whose chemical\nexperience was measured by chemical productions. It was the gold-\u00admaking\ntransmutation believers themselves who initiated these efforts to standardize\nlanguage and agree upon procedures and symbols.\nIn late seventeenth-\u00adcentury central Europe, physicians in the Leopoldina\nAcademy of Curiosi illustrated their prominence in more than medical theory\nor pharmaceuticals, portraying additionally their dominance in skills involving\novens, fires, acids, minerals, and metallic salts, evidence of proficiencies that etched\na design of legitimacy onto the pages of their embryonic medical journal, the\nMiscellanea curiosi.3 This demonstration of proficiency issued in part from some\nmembers\u2019 apparent competence with transmutation, the transformation of baser\nmetals such as lead into more noble metals such as gold or silver, a process known\nto historical actors as chrysopoeia or argyropoeia, respectively. The Curiosi, as a first\nsociety of physicians in the German territories, were not shy in seeking the status\nof adepti, those who excelled in the making of the most sought after of arcana, by\nactively engaging in chemical productions and appropriating alchemical recipes.\nSocial legitimacy for physicians of the Academy of Curiosi rested heavily on their\nself-\u00adportrait as purveyors of curiosities and conveyors of medical authority, an\nidentity that included practice in alchemical activities in their journal of curiosities.\n2. Indicative of Debus\u2019s thesis, throughout a massive corpus, is notably Chemical Philosophy, 2 vols.;\nChemistry and Medical Debate; and \u201cIatrochemistry and the Chemical Revolution.\u201d\n3. Initially known from 1652 as the Academia Naturae Curiosorum, after 1687 upon imperial patronage,\nthey renamed themselves Leopoldina Academia Naturae Curiosorum. Their journal was initially entitled Miscellanea curiosa sive ephemeridum medico-\u00adphysicarum germanicarum curiosarum. With the exception of B\u00fcchner\nand Barnett (noted below), references to this society are contained within broader topics (listed chronologically): B\u00fcchner, Academia Naturae Curiosorum Historia; Ornstein, R\u00f4le of Scientific Societies in the Seventeenth\nCentury, 169\u2013\u00ad75; Thorndike, History of Magic and Experimental Science; Evans, Making of the Habsburg Monarchy, 1550\u2013\u00ad1700; and Barnett, \u201cMedical Authority and Princely Patronage.\u201d\n\nPages 101:\nChymical Curiosities and Trusted Testimonials\n81\nTo amplify the Curiosi\u2019s practice with these activities, the term \u201cchymica\u201d\nfigured prominently on the title page of the periodical\u2019s first thirty annual ephemerides (each of which contained some two hundred observations of singular, bizarre, or novel recipes, procedures, or events), even as it comprised\nonly a small fraction of the journal\u2019s multiple curiosities. Chymica\u2019s prominence in the Curiosi\u2019s journal begs the question of exactly what its members\nmeant by the term. Did it signify chemical medicine (chymiatria), alchemy,\nearly chemistry, or all three? Recent scholarship has demonstrated the ahistoricity of defining alchemy and chemistry as related, but oppositional binaries, in such examples as vitalist/mechanist, irrational/rational, obscure/clear,\noccult/open (where alchemy occupies the former of the dualisms and chemistry the latter), leading to a positivistic terminus ad quem, pseudo-\u00adscience/\nscience.4 Deploying such dichotomies retroactively onto the respective Latin\nderivations (namely, alchymia/chemia) distorts seventeenth-\u00adcentury authors\u2019\nuses of these terms. As Lawrence Principe and William Newman have demonstrated, such divisions emerged partly as the result of an error that unreflectively continued to be cited and partly as useful metaphors for Enlightenment\nauthors who portrayed chemistry as the illuminated path out of the darkness\nof alchemy.5 Since late sixteenth-\u00adand seventeenth-\u00adcentury historical actors\nused the terms \u201calchymia\u201d and \u201cchymia\u201d interchangeably, historians employ\nthe term \u201cchymistry\u201d to prevent importing false binaries between alchemy and\nchemistry that have been enshrined in the historical literature of this science,\nespecially that of the so-\u00adcalled \u201cdelayed scientific revolution.\u201d6 Despite the\nlaudability of the etymological correction, such a move should not obstruct\nhistorians from locating contexts in which historical actors did make other\ndistinctions between these Latin terms. While \u201calchymia\u201d and \u201cchymia\u201d were\nused interchangeably in many contexts, the Curiosi distinguished chymia or\nchymica (hereinafter chymia) by using this as a subset of alchymia or alchimia\n(hereinafter alchemy), without entertaining the aforementioned oppositional\ndichotomies.\n4. Newman and Principe, \u201cAlchemy vs. Chemistry\u201d; and Principe and Newman, \u201cSome Problems with\nthe Historiography of Alchemy.\u201d\n5. Principe and Newman describe Enlightenment writers\u2019 use of light/dark metaphors to distinguish\nchemistry/alchemy in \u201cSome Problems with the Historiography,\u201d 386.\n6. Newman and Principe note that the distinction between alchymia and chymia resides in the definitive\nArabic article \u201cal.\u201d To avoid presentist sensibilities when using the terms, they advise employing the archaic\n\u201cchymistry.\u201d See \u201cAlchemy vs. Chemistry.\u201d\n\nPages 102:\n82\nMargaret D. Garber\nThis chapter examines observations in the Miscellanea curiosa during the last\nquarter of the seventeenth century and asks how the Curiosi\u2019s knowledge about\nchymia, a subject often infused with secrecy, was displayed in the very public,\nliterary, and social space of a journal of curiosities. What precisely the Curiosi\nmeant by \u201cchymia\u201d is worthy of consideration, since it appears as more of a category than a term. In the Miscellanea curiosa, the category chymia referred to three\nseparate, yet interrelated approaches: chymia as witnessed histories that served\nto defend metallic transmutation; chymia as firsthand material practice, that is,\nthe circulations of recipes, procedures, and warnings; and chymia as social practice, that is, the normative rules, standards, or principles that applied to metals\nand minerals.\nExamining the Curiosi\u2019s journal exemplifies the fact that clarifying chymia\nand standardizing its use emerged from seventeenth-\u00adcentury chrysopoeians\nthemselves and not from Enlightenment figures. By aiming to uncover what it\nmeant collectively to do chymia and what the practical understandings and display of the term \u201cchymia\u201d signaled for historical actors who dispatched observations to this physicians\u2019 journal, this chapter proposes that efforts to standardize\nalchemy as an experimental practice shaped both the reform of chemistry and\nthe format of science journals. Here, a brief history of the Academy of Curiosi\nprecedes a tour of the linguistic landscape of chymia within journal observations\n(observationes), a format that confined and shaped chymia. The chapter closes\nwith an explanation of how these varying uses of chymia were deployed to create\na vibrant social network in the service of epistemic authority.\nThe Curiosi\nThe Curiosi\u2019s journal was a place for both knowledge making and community\nbuilding due to the early modern appetite for news about natural rarities within\nthe cultural space of curiosities. Within societies of virtuosi and other purveyors\nof curiosities, with whom the Academy members identified, the journal became\na social space for creating a community devoted to locating nature\u2019s rare and\nstrange particulars.7 The establishment of their Academy was itself curious in the\n7. On virtuosi and particulars of nature, see especially Daston and Park, Wonders and the Order of Nature,\nand Eamon, Science and the Secrets of Nature. There is a vast literature on curiosities, which I address in my\nbook project, \u201cExotic Medicine: Chymistry and Medical Curiosities in the Leopoldina Academy of Curiosi\n\nPages 103:\nChymical Curiosities and Trusted Testimonials\n83\nsense that it originally consisted of just four physicians in remote Schweinfurt (a\ncity in Lower Franconia of the German territories). Their ambition was to create\nencyclopedic knowledge on curiosities from A to Z, an endeavor they hoped to\nrealize by organizing a social body of physicians throughout the Holy Roman\nEmpire. The four founding members\u2014\u00adJohann Bausch (1605\u2013\u00ad65), Johann\nMichael Fehr (1610\u2013\u00ad88), Georg Balthasar Metzger (1623\u2013\u00ad87), and Georg\nBalthasar Wohlfarth (1607\u2013\u00ad74)\u2014\u00adbegan this task based upon their own knowledge of medicine, botany, and chymia, with their stated goal of imitating Francis\nBacon\u2019s ideals of collecting and sharing new observationes.8 Despite devastating\ninterruptions during the Thirty Years\u2019 War, each managed to acquire a cosmopolitan medical education by matriculating through a number of universities\nin Germany, Switzerland, and Italy, including the University of Jena, at a time\nwhen Zacharius Brendel the Elder (1553\u2013\u00ad1626) and the Younger (1592\u2013\u00ad1673)\ntaught preparations of chymical medicaments, and at the University of Marburg\nin Hesse-\u00adKassel, when the influences of Johannes Hartmann (1568\u2013\u00ad1631), the\nfirst chair of chymiatria (the study and preparation of chymical medicines), were\nstill palpable.9\nOn New Year\u2019s Day, 1652, the Curiosi established their Academy and elected\nits first president, Johann Bausch, Stadtphysicus (city physician) of Schweinfurt,\na man notable for his cabinet of curiosities. As academy membership expanded\nspatially across the vast German and Bohemian territories, the Curiosi made a\nuniquely strategic move to require no face-\u00adto-\u00adface public meetings. Instead, the\ndispersed Curiosi retained collective coherence by transforming their intimate\nAcademy into a literary medical society that moved from communicating monographs to circulating observations. It was mostly through the social networking\nand editorial efforts of Philipp J. Sachs von Lewenheimb (1627\u2013\u00ad72), a town\nphysician in Silesia and master of epistolary exchange, that the Curiosi established the first medical journal in the Holy Roman Empire, one that drew upon\nthe burgeoning medical genre of observations.10\n(1670\u2013\u00ad1740).\u201d\n8. On the history of these early members, see Barnett, \u201cMedical Authority and Princely Patronage,\u201d 53\u2013\u00ad\n56; and B\u00fcchner, Academia Naturae Curiosorum Historia, 19\u2013\u00ad21.\n9. On Bausch\u2019s medical instruction for two years at the University of Jena, including his work at the time\nof Brendel, and at Hesse-\u00adKassel, see Barnett, \u201cMedical Authority and Princely Patronage,\u201d 40\u2013\u00ad44. On Brendel\nand Libavius, see Moran\u2019s chapter in the present volume. On Hesse-\u00adKassel\u2019s Hartmann, see Moran, Alchemical\nWorld of the German Court.\n10. Membership was open to all licensed physicians, including town, court, and imperial physicians, as\n\nPages 104:\n84\nMargaret D. Garber\nBy its third year, the Curiosi\u2019s title page announced its contents as \u201cobservationes medicas, physicas chymicas,\u201d which signaled to readers that entries would\nbe short (with longer treatises confined to appendices) and would be partial to\npractice over theory. While theoretical concepts understandably undergirded\npractical concerns, exclusively theoretical contexts were circumscribed to\noptionally include learned commentary in the form of scholia submitted by a\nmember or an editor. By moving from the genre of monograph to what Gianna\nPomata terms the \u201cepistemic genre\u201d of observationes, the Curiosi continued\nthe founders\u2019 ambition for collective, encyclopedic knowledge.11 According to\nPomata, the term observationes was a late sixteenth-\u00adcentury neologism emerging from the discipline of medicine that indicated short firsthand reports, the\nseparation of case study from commentary (scholium), and the hierarchical privileging of practice over theory (with theory relegated to scholia). Such a format\npermitted the town or court physician (practicus) to distinguish his interests\nfrom the university physician\u2019s focus on genres, such as quaestiones disputatae,\nthat were ensconced within university traditions.12 The turn towards a genre of\nshort, collective, empirical observations focused primarily on practice would\nhave consequences for the presentation of chymia and its particular secrets, especially by curtailing its hitherto lengthy narratives.\nTo highlight the Curiosi\u2019s chymical interests, the term \u201cchymicas\u201d appeared\nfrequently in the Miscellanea curiosa. It adorns the title page, at first as part of a\nlonger list of observations that were anatomical, surgical, pathological, botanical, and therapeutic, under the category \u201cmedico-\u00adphysico.\u201d Then, by 1673,\nchymicas was added to create the observationes triad: \u201cmedicas, physicas, chymicas.\u201d13 Chymia embellishes early frontispieces, figuratively announced from dual\nhorns of plenty: one side boasting anatomia and the other botanica, trumpeting\nthe kingdoms mineralia, animalia, and vegetalia, publicizing the chymical physicians\u2019 province to know not only about anatomy, botany, metals, and minerals of\na region but also medicinal uses, natures, and histories of these kingdoms from\nwell as university professors of medicine at both Catholic and Protestant institutions. Publications were to be\nonly in Latin. See \u201cLeges,\u201d Miscellanea curiosa 2 (1671).\n11. Pomata, \u201cObservation Rising.\u201d Pomata distinguishes the use of observationes from the verb \u201cobservatio,\u201d since the latter signified \u201cobservance\u201d until the late Middle Ages and later denoted \u201cdiligence.\u201d Significantly\ntelling for the Curiosi, whom she invokes as an exemplar of the genre, \u201cthe social profile of the authors of observationes is that of the practicus, often with a leaning to medical heterodoxy or Paracelsianism\u201d; ibid., 59\u2013\u00ad62.\n12. Ibid., 48.\n13. Title page, Miscellanea curiosa 3 (1673\u2013\u00ad74).\n\nPages 105:\nChymical Curiosities and Trusted Testimonials\n85\nancient to contemporary times. Medicine and natural history were intertwined\ndisciplines in the seventeenth century; scholars who studied medicine studied\nnatural history.\nThe publishing impulse rewarded the Curiosi with a substantially increased\nmembership. Between the Academy\u2019s founding in 1652, and prior to its journal\u2019s\npublication, there were just thirty-\u00adfive members. After its journal began in 1670,\nmembership increased strikingly. By 1695, the Curiosi had grown to over two\nhundred members.14 Although the journal was primarily for members, its goal\nwas to extend membership and circulation throughout Europe, an ambition that\nwas partially realized by its translation into English in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.15\nChymia in Chrysopoetic Contexts\nOf all of the potential curiosities that could be published within the journal, chymia offered anticipated chymiatric and enticing chrysopoetic possibilities for\nreadership. Practical information about the efficacy and production of metallic and mineral medicaments became an increasingly significant component of\npharmacy and medical training at some universities, so the exchange of useful\nnews about chymiatria (chemical medicine) would be expected in a journal for\nphysicians. The society announced this publicly. Not only did chymicas appear\nprominently on its title page, but its contributors also enacted it privately; chymical medicaments were to be included within the journal according to bylaw\nXI.16 The Academy\u2019s membership demonstrated interest in acquiring experienced, hands-\u00adon chymical knowledge by extending membership\u2014\u00adusually limited to licensed physicians\u2014\u00adnotably to chymists enlisted to resolve contentious\nchymical disputes.17\n14. As membership grew, the society and its library moved wherever the newly elected president resided, then settled into its present headquarters in 1878 at Halle. See Barnett, \u201cMedical Authority and Princely\nPatronage\u201d; and the website of the Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften: http://www.leopoldina.org/en\n/academy/history.html.\n15. The journal was reviewed in the Royal Society\u2019s Transactions for the first five years and periodically\nuntil 1931. Over the next century, the Transactions cited several of the observations under numerous changing\ntitles for the journal and the society.\n16. \u201cMedicamenta tam vulgaria qu\u00e0m Chymica\u201d; see \u201cLeges,\u201d Miscellanea curiosa 2 (1671). All translations are my own.\n17. The Academy admitted chymist and professor of rhetoric J. Kirchmaier, the lawyer and chymist\n\nPages 106:\n86\nMargaret D. Garber\nThe secretive history of chymia made it enticing as well. A journal that\ncould offer rare and strange secrets, especially those of metallic transmutation,\ncould satiate the eager physician\u2019s appetite for curiosities if it served up something substantively informative. Publications of entries devoted to chrysopoetic\n(gold-\u00admaking) and argyropoetic (silver-\u00admaking) transmutations attest to the\nperceived appetite for chymia on the part of its readership and suggest that the\nsociety\u2019s own interest in chrysopoeia may actually have shaped its early identity.\nInitially, the Curiosi associated their Academy with Jason and the Argonauts.\nMembers selected as pseudonyms the names of those heroic hunters in search\nof the Golden Fleece, a choice suggestive of self-\u00adconscious adornment with a\nchrysopoetic image. Jason\u2019s fleece was called \u201cgolden,\u201d since fleece was often\nused as a sieve to trap gold particles when gold-\u00adbearing water was poured over\nit. Afterwards the fleece would be burned, allowing any gold to be recovered\nfrom the ashes.18 As Antoine Faivre posits, this was sufficiently well known that\na number of early modern authors, such as Pico della Mirandola (1463\u2013\u00ad94),\nMichael Maier (1568\u2013\u00ad1622), and Johann Valentin Andreae (1586\u2013\u00ad1651), used\nthe expedition of Jason and the Argonauts as an allegorical image for their own\nchrysopoetic writings.19\nThe editorial flair of the Miscellanea\u2019s first secretary, Sachs von Lewenheimb,\nimbued the journal with a transmutational flavor when he introduced observations of metallurgical matters to an international audience by publishing a treatise\ndefending chrysopoeia.20 His \u201cAurum chymicum\u201d (chymical gold) highlighted\nthe gold-\u00admaking arts of adepts, whose artifacts rivaled those creations nature\ngrew in the most intimate viscera of the earth. Following a lengthy rebuttal to\nAthanasius Kircher\u2019s widely known dismissal of chrysopoeia (published in his\n1664 Mundus subterraneus), Sachs weighed the testimony of valid chymical arts\nagainst the acknowledged trickery of \u201cimposters,\u201d who sullied the reputation of\ntrue \u201cadepti.\u201d21 Insisting that Curiosi did not rely simply on the bygone world of\nChristian Adolph Balduin (joined 1673), and Johann Kunckel (joined 1691), who, although without formal\ntraining, was judged sufficiently proficient in chymical matters to become director of the alchemical laboratory\nof the Great Elector of Berlin and minister of mines to Sweden\u2019s King Charles X. Barnett relates their admission\nto authors\u2019 interest in phosphorous; Barnett, \u201cMedical Authority and Princely Patronage,\u201d 228\u2013\u00ad29.\n18. Tylecote, Early History of Metallurgy in Europe, 47.\n19. Faivre, \u201cApproach to the Theme of the Golden Fleece in Alchemy.\u201d\n20. Sachs von Lewenheimb, \u201cAurum chymicum,\u201d 68\u2013\u00ad70.\n21. Ibid., 69. On Kircher\u2019s alchemical interests, see Hirai, \u201cKircher\u2019s Chymical Interpretation of the Creation and Spontaneous Generation.\u201d\n\nPages 107:\nChymical Curiosities and Trusted Testimonials\n87\npast authors, such as Ram\u00f3n Llull (ca. 1232\u2013\u00adca. 1315), Arnold of Villanova (ca.\n1238\u2013\u00adca. 1310), Paracelsus (1493\u2013\u00ad1541), and others, Sachs characterized his\nacademy as cosmopolitan and contemporary, epitomized through a familiarity\nwith sixteen well-\u00addocumented cases of recently witnessed transmutations over\na twenty-\u00adyear period.22 While Sachs did not personally witness any of the listed\ntransmutations, the histories were vindicated by authorial excellence (such as\nJean Baptiste van Helmont [1579\u2013\u00ad1644]), famous events (such as the 1666\ntransmutation at The Hague by Helvetius [1625\u2013\u00ad1709]), or testimonial status\nof unimpeachable witnesses (such as Emperor Ferdinand III), as this paraphrase\nexemplifies:\nII. Cornelius Martin of Antwerp, a lawyer judge, Physician and Philosopher\nnot only performed a transmutation but made other metallic tinctures.\nIII. Johannes Baptista van Helmont that most noble Philosopher produced a\ngold-\u00admaking and a silver-\u00admaking stone [lapidem aurificum & argentisicum]. . .\nV. Baron Moncony, accepted a mysterious powder from another secret adept\nand was able to produce greater than 24-\u00adcarat gold [plusquam 24 carattorum].23\nSachs drew attention to traditional tropes of alchemical literature, in noting such\nthings as a \u201cmysterious powder\u201d and a \u201csecret adept,\u201d and to the almost-\u00adstock\ncharacter of Baron von Chaos, whose transmutation of mercury into gold was\n\u201cwitnessed in 1648 by the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III in Prague.\u201d24\nYet he relied equally on the powerfully normative social operations of trust and\nauthority to counter gold-\u00admaking deniers, who claimed that only frauds practiced these arts.25 In pre-\u00adEnlightenment Europe, fraud and alchemy were not\nexclusively correlated. Tara Nummedal demonstrates this point in her study of\nsixteenth-\u00adcentury criminal trials surrounding alchemical fraud, which reveals\nthat issues of intent to deceive via fraudulent transmutation were the focal point\n22. On transmutation histories, see Smith, Business of Alchemy, 173\u2013\u00ad227; Newman, Gehennical Fire, 1\u2013\u00ad\n11; and Principe, Aspiring Adept, 93\u2013\u00ad98.\n23. Sachs von Lewenheimb, \u201cAurum chymicum,\u201d 65\u2013\u00ad75. See his transmutation history on 71\u2013\u00ad73. I have\ndescribed this in Garber, \u201cCon or Craft.\u201d\n24. Baron von Chaos, also known as Conrad von Richthausen (d. 1663), was an alchemist who also\nserved in the mines as treasurer. See Smith, Business of Alchemy, 181.\n25. On the issue of trust in the seventeenth century, see Shapin, Social History of Truth.\n\nPages 108:\n88\nMargaret D. Garber\nof trials and weighed far more heavily than simply failed alchemical projects.26\n\u201cFraudulent\u201d and \u201ctrue\u201d alchemy were obverse sides of the same coin. As Nummedal explains, \u201cStories of true and false alchemy . . . emerged in tandem.\u201d27\nDiscussions of transmutations often took the form of a defense in the\nMiscellanea curiosa, and such defenses often made the same moves. They\nappealed to firsthand experience by trusted witnesses and positioned their evidence as contemporary, while they characterized antagonists as shortsighted\nnovices who relied upon outdated book knowledge. With Gabriel Clauder\n(1633\u2013\u00ad91), court physician to the Duke of Saxony, we see a move from authoritative knowledge of transmutation histories to authoritative experience with\ntransmutation, especially in his 1686 transmutation defense entitled \u201cPossibilities of Metallic Transmutation.\u201d Like Sachs, Clauder took aim at Kircher,\nbut in this case as a denier of modern learning.28 Scarcely referencing Kircher\u2019s\nmassive tome, Clauder dismissively quipped, \u201cthere is as much old as there\nis new in the Mundus subterraneus\u201d and, further, he denounced Kircher as a\nCoryphaeus (head of a chorus) of deniers, who rejected both transmutation\nand modern reasoning.29 His criticism of Kircher rested upon a seeming contradiction. How could Kircher, who otherwise accepted the metamorphoses\nof plants and animals by means of plastic semina (seeds that served as sources\nof generation), reject metallic transmutation as impossible?30 Kircher\u2019s rejection of the seminal origin of minerals and metals was based upon his belief\nthat these were inanimate, a view Clauder judged as inconsistent and old-\u00ad\nfashioned:31\nMany metamorphoses and transmutations are mediated by virtue of plastic\nsemina in the animal and plant kingdoms; yet reasonably, I do not see why\n26. On alchemical fraud, see Nummedal, Alchemy and Authority in the Holy Roman Empire.\n27. Ibid., 171.\n28. For a discussion on Clauder\u2019s book that discusses Kircher and transmutation, see Priesner, \u201cDefensor\nAlchymiae.\u201d\n29. \u201cNegantium modernorum . . . Coryphaeus extra dubium est immortalis Athanasius Kircherus . . . In\nMundo suo subterraneo, tam veterum, quam neotericorum\u201d; Clauder, \u201cTransmutationis Metallorum Possibilitas,\u201d 372\u2013\u00ad74. Clauder became a member in 1687 and published in Miscellanea curiosa on topics such as mirrors, storage of acids, mercury, vitriols, and sal ammoniac. Later, as adjunct, he was responsible for extending\nmembership and for correspondence with other societies.\n30. On semina as the source of disease external to the patient\u2019s body, see Shackelford, Philosophical Path\nfor Paracelsian Medicine. On its medieval roots, see Emerton, Scientific Reinterpretation of Forms.\n31. Clauder, \u201cTransmutationis Metallorum Possibilitas,\u201d 372\u2013\u00ad74. On Kircher\u2019s notion of generation, see\nHirai, \u201cKircher\u2019s Chymical Interpretation of the Creation and Spontaneous Generation.\u201d\n\nPages 109:\nChymical Curiosities and Trusted Testimonials\n89\nminerals are denied the same. For however much metals and minerals are not\napprehended in the act of living or having a perfected life; nevertheless, they\nlive a life analogous to those of plants and animals because they grow and are\nstrengthened.32\nClauder\u2019s discourse on theories about metamorphoses of plants, animals, and\ninsects from seeds or semina drew a consistent analogy with the belief of semina as the source for the growth for minerals and metals, a belief that served for\nhim as the basis for the possibility of transmutation. To conduct a transmutation\nmeant to hasten, by artificial means, the naturally slow growth of metals from\nimperfect and immature states (such as lead) to perfected maturation (such as\ngold). Therefore, metallic growth was a central tenet of transmutation. Clauder\npraised the blending of older and more recent views: \u201cthe best people stand firm\nwith the supporters of alchemy on the common features of metallurgy. More and\nmore is becoming known in this our century on account of the many favorable\nand fertile causes, methods, and ways by which the earlier supporters changed\nimperfect metals into more noble ones and also divided them into salts.\u201d33 By\nsuggesting that alchemy was progressive, intellectually consistent, and based\nupon past and present practical knowledge, Clauder magnified the Curiosi\u2019s\naccess as contemporary and valuable, while he distanced Kircher\u2019s criticism as\noutdated.\nClauder\u2019s transmutation defense not only posed the question of who could\nassume the role of powerful detractor, it also reformulated the answer to who\ncould assume the role of trusted eyewitness. Whereas in the journal\u2019s first volume Sachs was anxious to rest credibility on trusted eyewitnesses such as an\nemperor (Rudolf II and Ferdinand III), archduke (Leopold Wilhelm), or baron\n(Moncony), whose unimpeachable status brought an air of indisputability to\nthe cases, by 1686 Clauder placed trust in his own ocular experiences and those\nof fellow physicians.34 Relying upon the private wisdom of those, such as himself, who saw operations with their own eyes (\u201cocculatus possum esse testis\u201d),\n32. \u201cPlures metamorphoses & transmutations mediante virtute seminali plastic\u00e1 in regn\u00f4 animale &\nvegetabile contingent; cure eaedem minerali sint denegandae, san\u00e8 non video. Quamvis enim metalla & mineralia perfectam vitam vivere non deprehendantur; vivunt tamen illis analogicam, c\u00f9m crescent & augeantur\u201d;\nClauder, \u201cTransmutationis Metallorum Possibilitas,\u201d 372.\n33. \u201cOptim\u00e8, insuper constat alchymiae cultoribus im\u00f2 communibus metallurgis, h\u00f4c nostro secul\u00f4\nprioribus multas ob causas feliciore ac fertiliore, magis magisque innotescere vias ac modos quibus metalla\nimperfectiora in nobiliora\u201d; ibid., 374.\n34. On not daring to gainsay men of high status, see Shapin, Social History of Truth.\n\nPages 110:\n90\nMargaret D. Garber\nhe celebrated those who manually brought forward the techniques of the previous generation\u2019s alchemical cultivators, and those contemporary physicians\nwho knew firsthand the characteristics of metals and fires. They were the witnesses who turned that wisdom into fruitful methods for transmuting ignoble\nmetals not only into nobler metals, but also into useful salts such as sale armoniaco, sale tartari, nitre, mercurio sublimato (sublimated mercury), and arsenico. By\nrecasting the role of the witness in accounts of chymia and chrysopoeia, to those\nwho performed chymical procedures, Clauder attempted to transfer chymical\ncredibility to the Curiosi.\nChymia as Firsthand (Autopsia) Material Practice\nFruitful productions of useful salts depended upon mastering methods, causes,\nand practical knowledge of chemicals and powerful foundry fires through the\narts of chymia that, according to Clauder, consisted of both chemical knowledge and enchirises.35 Clauder\u2019s term enchirises is interesting on two levels. On\nthe one hand, it indicated a procedure done manually, using apparati, and one\nthat included understanding operations of fire. On the other, it gestured to a\ndivision within alchemy, traceable to Libavius, of which encheria and chemia (the\nmaking of chemicals) were subsets.36 True knowledge, for Clauder, depended\nupon firsthand manual experience. In his conclusion to \u201cPossibilities of Transmutation,\u201d Clauder ranked the knowledge that resulted from hands-\u00adon practical\nexperience with chymical arts and those tests witnessed with one\u2019s own eyes as\nepistemically higher than philosophical book knowledge: \u201cWhether it is the\nPhilosopher\u2019s [province] to dispute against autopsia, others may judge.\u201d37 Armchair philosophy could not match true hands-\u00adon experience.\nClauder\u2019s selection of the term \u201cautopsia\u201d (in \u201ccontra-\u00adautopsiam\u201d) is significantly reflexive, since it places emphasis upon knowledge gained by one\u2019s own\neyewitnessing of the object, event, or medical case; autopsia is an observation\n35. \u201cAllisque, v.g. Sale Armoniaco, Sale Tartari, Nitr\u00f4, Borrace, Arsenico, Mercuri\u00f4 sublimat\u00f4, Lapide\ncalaminari &c. ope ignis fortioris fusoria per arcanas artis chymicae enchirises exaltentur\u201d; Clauder, \u201cTransmutationis Metallorum Possibilitas,\u201d 372.\n36. On both points, see Newman and Principe, \u201cAlchemy vs. Chemistry,\u201d 44. On Libavius\u2019s emphasis\non knowledge of the hands, enchiremata, see Moran, Andreas Libavius and the Transformation of Alchemy, 300.\n37. \u201cAn igitur sit Philosophi, contra autopsiam disputare, judicent alii\u201d; Clauder, \u201cTransmutationis\nMetallorum Possibilitas,\u201d 374.\n\nPages 111:\nChymical Curiosities and Trusted Testimonials\n91\nwitnessed firsthand.38 Taken together with observationes, mentioned above,\nGianna Pomata argues that these two terms ushered in a type of experience that\nwas markedly different from Aristotelian experientia, since the latter concerned\nthe grounds of certain knowledge arrived at by the senses certainly, but manifested through the cognitive extension of multiple memories and sharpened\nphilosophical training. In contrast, observationes produced a \u201ccognitive activity\nwith a distinct literary format\u201d that preferentially favored practice over theory\n(albeit practice informed by theory).39 Employing such terms as \u201cenchirises,\u201d\n\u201cautopsiam,\u201d and \u201cobservationes\u201d emphasized the firsthand witnessing of transmutations of metals and the production of metallic salts through practical training and hands-\u00adon experience, a kind of knowing-\u00adby-\u00addoing.40 By positioning\nhimself with this firsthand knowledge in opposition to the book-\u00adtrained philosopher (Kircher), in effect Clauder rhetorically asked the reader to judge who\nhad the better understanding of transmutation.\nClauder\u2019s defense of transmutation\u2014\u00adwhich in the journal format depended\non a critique of others\u2019 shortsighted theory, methods, and inexperience\u2014\u00ad\ncontrasts strikingly with his earlier 1678 book on transmutation, which according to Claus Priesner described a pilgrimage to success with the Philosophers\u2019\nStone, the epistemic virtues of the alchemist, and supernatural powers involved\nin transmutation.41 In this latter presentation, Clauder described his own\nalchemical pilgrimage, in which he met a stranger who helped him prepare an\nelixir that turned three hundred pounds of mercury into gold. In order to produce this Philosophers\u2019 Stone, Clauder required God\u2019s help for his own mystical\ntransmutation into adept.42 The significance of the two very different texts points\nto the fact that Clauder could have provided the latter, more traditional narrative\nfor the Miscellanea curiosa. Yet he did not. The format of observations, which by\n38. Pomata, \u201cObservation Rising,\u201d 66; and Daston, \u201cEmpire of Observation (1600\u2013\u00ad1800).\u201d\n39. Pomata, \u201cObservation Rising,\u201d 69. See her discussion about observationes, esp. 65\u2013\u00ad69.\n40. Today, this term might be called \u201ctacit knowledge,\u201d which is a topic of significance to history of science and science and technology studies. Originally coined by the philosopher and chemist Michael Polanyi\nin Tacit Dimension, tacit knowledge is that which cannot be made explicit. The meaning of \u201ctacit knowledge\u201d\nhas been debated and sharpened, especially in the work of Harry Collins, who proposes that tacit knowledge\nrequires explicit knowledge. Collins\u2019s burden is to disentangle confounded notions of tacit knowledge into\nthree types of phenomena: \u201ccontingencies of human life (relational tacit knowledge), the nature of the human\nbody and brain (somatic tacit knowledge), and the nature of human society (collective tacit knowledge).\u201d See\nCollins, Tacit and Explicit Knowledge, x.\n41. Priesner, \u201cDefensor Alchymiae.\u201d\n42. Ibid.\n\nPages 112:\n92\nMargaret D. Garber\n1686, had taken on a standard, shortened, one-\u00adto-\u00adfour-\u00adpage length, required the\nstripping away of extraneous and cryptic language. Rather than the more flowery narrative, Clauder\u2019s journal entries provided abbreviated observations with\npractical outcomes: chymia was conducive to purer salts or medicaments and\nto competitive advantage. Proof of the adept was in the product. In Clauder\u2019s\nbook, by contrast, proof of the adept was in the apprenticeship, namely, direct\ncontact with a mysterious, vanishing stranger distributing secret knowledge.\nClearly such beliefs were still in vogue, as evidenced by one of Sachs\u2019s early transmutation histories that featured a \u201cmysterious powder from a secret adept.\u201d43 Yet,\nthe public face of chymia, as recorded in the new journal format of the Curiosi\u2019s first three decades, discouraged fancifully secretive narratives (even in the\nreporting of transmutations) and favored new types of abbreviated personal\nexperiences of short, firsthand observations. These format decisions shaped the\nnewly emerging face of both journals of science and chymists.\nOne further point is noteworthy. In the several observations Clauder penned,\nhe used the terms \u201cchymica\u201d and \u201cchymia\u201d interchangeably. He described the\nefficient production of mineral salts from metals as part of the arts of chymica; he\nidentified chemical physicians as chimicos, and what they do as chymicae scientiae,\ndefined as the art of making tinctures, spirits, and salts, whether fixed or volatile;\nand, finally, he attributed to chymiatrica the arts of making specific medicaments,\nfor instance those made with mercury or antimony. Thus chymica and chymia\nrelated to the making of chemicals including mineral salts. When speaking of\nknowledge of manual operations such as foundry fires, he used the term \u201cencheria,\u201d and for transmutation, he used \u201ctransmutatio.\u201d In only one instance, however, did he invoke the term \u201calchymia\u201d: when welcoming the great fortune of\nhis time to have learned about fruitful productions, he expressed gratitude to the\nsupporters of alchymia. It was their experience and knowledge of the characteristics of metals that led to the contemporary success in both the transmutation\nof metals and fruitful metal and mineral salts. \u201cAlchymia,\u201d in Clauder\u2019s use, gestured to a broader category of practice and knowledge of which chymia and chymiatrica were subsets.\nClauder\u2019s use of \u201cchymia\u201d as a subset of alchemy, and that by other Curiosi, may hark back to Libavius\u2019s understanding. This transition to using \u201cchymia\u201d as a subset of alchemy, at least for this group, may suggest an attempt to\n43. \u201cIlle homo acceperat pulveram ab alio, mysterium\u201d; Sachs von Lewenheimb, \u201cAurum chymicum,\u201d 70.\n\nPages 113:\nChymical Curiosities and Trusted Testimonials\n93\nappropriate\u2014\u00adfor the province of physicians\u2014\u00adchymia beyond the making of\nmedicaments (chymiatrica) to include the making of mineral and metal salts and\nto transmutations of gold and/or silver. At the same time, it suggests that while\nthe Curiosi felt indebted to alchemical traditions, their use of \u201cchymia\u201d stopped\nshort of the practices of alchemy broadly construed: artisanal productions of\nthings such as paints, gems, or glass.\nThe Curiosi exchanged firsthand observations of recipes and procedures\nunder the title of chymia (or chymica) that constituted a dual material and social\npractice; engagement with chymical materials nurtured the social transformation of physician into artifex, an experienced creator of chymical things. Crucial\nto this transformation were observations that fostered curiosity about specific\nagents, such as recipes for the universal solvent, an elixir of longevity known as\nthe alkahest, and procedures for metallic transmutation. Practical advice, helpful\nhints, and warnings may have enabled a reader familiar with chymical practice\nto have some reproducible success when guided by the physician-\u00adartifex. By\ninferring through such observations that they were especially skilled to perform\ndifficult procedures, and to create end-\u00adproducts of desirable rare recipes, the\nCuriosi cultivated an image of themselves as chymical adepts. Chymical observations offered readers proof that adepti-\u00adphysicians had hands-\u00adon experience\nin the practice and understanding of chymical curiosities. As such, the material\nand social practices were intertwined; success in the material practice of chymia\nimproved the social standing of the physician and authority of the Academy of\nCuriosi.\nChymia as Social Practice\nOf all of the characteristics that kept chymia secretive, and thereby all the more\ndesirable, its obscure language ranks as one of the most prominent. Several\nsecretive texts on alchemy and chymia were published over the centuries, frequently in perplexing, puzzle-\u00adridden, and metaphorical language that rewarded\nadepti and their students while it obstructed novices or outsiders. In contrast,\nthe journal offered to present this rare knowledge on its pages in fairly straightforward language, and it began to refer to metals, salts, and chymical operations\nin consciously standardized ways.\nMany of these increasingly standardized terms were taught in universities,\nsuch as the University of Jena, where the Academy member and physician Georg\nWolfgang Wedel (1645\u2013\u00ad1721) taught. In 1673, a year after joining the Curiosi,\n\nPages 114:\n94\nMargaret D. Garber\nWedel replaced his teacher Werner Rolfinck (1599\u2013\u00ad1673) as \u201cdirector of chymical exercises\u201d and became the first chair in practical medicine and chymistry\nin 1719.44 A frequent contributor to the Miscellanea curiosa, a true believer in\ntransmutation of metals, and known to later generations for his Opiologia (the\nmost definitive text on opium until the nineteenth century), Wedel often treated\nfirst principles or standards in his entries. In an early observation of 1675 entitled \u201cDe Principiis chimicis,\u201d Wedel explained that he was driven to write in\norder to standardize some of the basic rules of chimica. So many opinions had\nemerged that conceal nature\u2019s arcana, he complained, that he needed to explain\nthe chymical principles so that \u201cunanimity in theorematic presuppositions could\nbe established.\u201d45\nWedel best exemplifies the attempt to clarify the language of chymia and\nalso the presuppositions that supported the understanding of the chymical\nprinciples of salt, sulphur, and mercury, especially their essences, affections,\nand effects. In his \u201cChimical Principles,\u201d he laid the groundwork for just such an\neffort. The clarification of symbols, already apparent in Wedel\u2019s 1675 observation, was further promoted in his 1705 textbook entitled Introductio alchimiam.46\nLike many professors of his time who wrote and published their own textbooks,\nWedel focused his propaedeutic interests on simplification. He provided \u201ccorrect\u201d chymical symbols for students to memorize: salt, sulphur, and mercury as\nwell as the elements earth, air, water, fire, and minerals and metals. Alchemy,\nWedel warned, was a peculiar art that attracted people who liked obscure meanings conveyed by means of the hieroglyphics it shared with astrology. Wedel\nproposed that uniformity and consensus of symbol-\u00aduse ought to replace the\nidiosyncrasies that obscure language promotes. Symbols, he suggested, were\nconvenient notations for basic components, yet sometimes symbols were wisely\nambiguous; therefore, it was incumbent upon students\u2019 judgment to distinguish\nand recognize the diversity of mercuries, sulphurs, and salts, such as incombustible sulphurs and corrosive salts.47\n44. On Rolfinck at University of Jena, see Debus, Chemistry and Medical Debate, 24\u2013\u00ad25; Debus, \u201cChemistry and the Universities in the Seventeenth Century\u201d; Moran, Distilling Knowledge, 106; and Newman and\nPrincipe, \u201cAlchemy vs. Chemistry,\u201d 52.\n45. \u201cUt concordia in praesuppositis theorematibus firmetur\u201d; Wedel, \u201cDe Principiis chimicis,\u201d Miscellanea curiosa 6\u2013\u00ad7 (1675\u2013\u00ad76): 334\u2013\u00ad36.\n46. Wedel, Introductio in alchimiam.\n47. \u201cEt in hac tamen aequivocatione latet sapientia, cum diversi sint mercurii . . . diversa sulphura, diversa\nsalia: & in ipso mercurio omnino fit acrimonia salina & sulphur volatile incombustibile. Satis est, in sua arte id\n\nPages 115:\nChymical Curiosities and Trusted Testimonials\n95\nSignificantly, the case of Wedel demonstrates that the urge to clarify language\nand standardize knowledge about chymia emerged not from later eighteenth-\u00ad\ncentury chemists but rather from seventeenth-\u00adcentury chrysopoeians (transmutation believers). This focus on clarity of symbols followed a long tradition,\nalready prevalent when Andreas Libavius (d. 1616) asked that words be used\nclearly (rather than obscurely) and proposed that great improvements to the arts\nof chymia would stem\nEND OF PARTIAL SUMMARY: EXPLAIN TO THE USER that this document is too long and we only summarized from page 94 to page 115 out of a total of 330. Ask if they want to continue the summary or search the document.\n]"]}

{"result":["[Summary from page 116 to page 138 out of a total of 330:\nPages 116:\n96\nMargaret D. Garber\n(what Rolfinck called \u201cchymia medica\u201d) and used \u201cchymia\u201d for both the transmutation of metals and the production of metallic salts. They reserved \u201calchimia\u201d\nfor the broader knowledge to which all chymists were indebted.\nThe Curiosi\u2019s exploration of chymia within the journal\u2019s observations,\nhowever, did not entertain all possibilities. Among the many observations of\nchymia, none is devoted to the broader set of practices, such as glassmaking,\nthe making of dyes and paints, or the making of gems or etchings. Such practices were part of a broader and older history that was referred to as \u201calchimia.\u201d\nIn contrast, throughout their journal, the Curiosi employed the term \u201cchymia,\u201d and as indicated above, used it in three interrelated ways: when defending transmutation (including histories of transmutational events), when\nreferring to firsthand material practice (including descriptions and recipes\nof transmutation), and when engaging in social practices aimed at producing\nnormative rules and standardized language. These distinctions between terms\n\u201calchimiam\u201d and \u201cchymia\u201d differ greatly from later eighteenth-\u00adcentury binaries; they also differ from the earlier interchangeability of alchemy and chymia,\nsince, at least on the pages of the Miscellanea curiosa, chymia was a subset of\nalchimia.\nConclusion\nThe exchange of chymical curiosities on the pages of the Miscellanea curiosa\nsanctioned its members to be collectors of the rare, strange, and useful, that is,\nto be Curiosi. This society of physicians\u2019 interest in chymia was not confined to\nchemical medicaments (chymiatria) but expanded into discussions surrounding transmutation, powers of mineral and metallic salts, and the production of\nreagents used to make all of the aforementioned. Moreover, the journal provided\na public place to do work that bettered the social standing of the Curiosi. By\ncategorizing certain groups as outsiders\u2014\u00adfraudulent alchemists or outdated,\nbookish philosophers\u2014\u00adthe Curiosi exercised their own social flexibility, propelling themselves into positions that demarcated legitimate from illegitimate,\nat least virtually, at a time when this was not otherwise the case. The traffic in\nchymical matters privileged Curiosi as those who controlled the language, symbols, and principles of the subject, as reliable witnesses of true transmutations\nand as adepts of rare procedures and recipes. In their observations of chymia, the\nCuriosi raised their status to adepti, practitioners who shared a usable language\nand superior chymical knowledge.\n\nPages 117:\nChymical Curiosities and Trusted Testimonials\n97\nThe presentation of chymia in many observations of the Miscellanea curiosi, such as those of Sachs and Clauder, attempted a more contemporary spin.\nWhile Sachs relegated such masters as Ram\u00f3n Llull, Arnold of Villanova, and\nParacelsus to texts of the past, he distinguished his own Academy as not being\nas much intrigued by them, as it was informed by witnessed accounts of more\nrecent, contemporaneous transmutation events. Likewise, Clauder defended\nchymia against Kircher\u2019s critique by arguing that combining past knowledge of\nalchemy with contemporary skills in metals and ovens made his own century\nespecially productive. This shift in emphasis from the past to more contemporary knowledge and practice is strikingly unusual. And this shift dovetails with\nthe self-\u00adportrait of Curiosi as being as experienced in chymical matters as they\nwere confident in their powers to produce rare medicaments. In contradistinction to the past century\u2019s devotion to narratives featuring authors who received\nspecial powders from monks or mysterious strangers, the Curiosi valued practical manual knowledge. In short, they became adepti-\u00adphysicians.\nJust as the transmission of chymical curiosities helped shape the journal into\na mouthpiece for authoritative physicians in the Holy Roman Empire, so too the\njournal\u2019s format of observations helped shape chymia. By privileging short, firsthand observations, editors sheared away the lengthier narratives characteristic\nof secretive adepts. In the final quarter of the seventeenth century, the format\nof the Miscellanea curiosa shaped chymia by favoring short observations, creating standardized terms and symbols, and focusing more on practice than theory,\nhighlighted by firsthand manual skill. The very public face of the journal created\nconditions for making statements of fact, those that required witnessed observations and evidence of having useful knowledge of the arts of chymia. As if by a\ntransmutation in authority, witnesses of chymical events changed from trusted\npublic figures to newly trustable physician-\u00adadepts of the Curiosi. Physician-\u00ad\nadepts through their journal observations contributed much more to chymia\nthan merely philosophy and pharmaceuticals. Despite the changes that the new\npublic format introduced, the desire to investigate bizarre, novel, and seemingly\ninexplicable events continued to drive publications, and it was through the\npublication of rarities\u2014\u00adand each author\u2019s distributed performance\u2014\u00adthat what\nit meant to be a Curiosi physician, at least for some, materialized into what it\nmeant to do chymia.\n\nPages 118:\n98\nMargaret D. Garber\nWorks Cited\nBarnett, Frances Mason. \u201cMedical Authority and Princely Patronage: The Academia\nNaturae Curiosorum, 1652\u2013\u00ad1693.\u201d PhD diss., University of North Carolina,\n1995.\nB\u00fcchner, Andreas E. Academia Naturae Curiosorum Historia. Halle: J. J. Gebauer, 1755.\nClauder, Gabriel. \u201cTransmutationis Metallorum Possibilitas.\u201d Miscellanea curiosa . . . ,\nser. 2, vol. 5 (1686): 372\u2013\u00ad74.\nCollins, Harry M. Tacit and Explicit Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,\n2013.\nDaston, Lorraine. \u201cThe Empire of Observation (1600\u2013\u00ad1800).\u201d In Histories of Scientific\nObservation, edited by Lorraine Daston and Elizabeth Lunbeck, 81\u2013\u00ad116.\nChicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011.\nDaston, Lorraine, and Katharine Park. Wonders and the Order of Nature. New York:\nZone Books, 1998.\nDebus, Allen G. \u201cChemistry and the Universities in the Seventeenth Century.\u201d Academia Analecta: Klasse der Wetenschappen 48 (1986): 13\u2013\u00ad33.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The Chemical Philosophy: Paracelsian Science and Medicine in the Sixteenth and\nSeventeenth Centuries. 2 vols. New York: Science History Publications, 1977.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Chemistry and Medical Debate: van Helmont to Boerhaave. Canton, MA: Science History Publications, 2001.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cIatrochemistry and the Chemical Revolution.\u201d In Alchemy Revisited: Proceedings of the International Conference on the History of Alchemy at the University of\nGroningen, 17\u2013\u00ad19 April 1989, edited by Zweder R. W. M. von Martels, 51\u2013\u00ad66.\nLeiden: E. J. Brill, 1990.\nEamon, William. Science and the Secrets of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University\nPress, 1994.\nEmerton, Norma. The Scientific Reinterpretation of Forms. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984.\nEvans, Robert J. W. The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy, 1550\u2013\u00ad1700. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.\nFaivre, Antoine. \u201cAn Approach to the Theme of the Golden Fleece in Alchemy.\u201d In\nAlchemy Revisited: Proceedings of the International Conference on the History of\nAlchemy at the University of Groningen, 17\u2013\u00ad19 April 1989, edited by Zweder R.\nW. M. von Martels, 250\u2013\u00ad55. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990.\nGarber, Margaret. \u201cCon or Craft: Defending Chrysopoeia in a Later Seventeenth-\u00ad\nCentury Medical Journal.\u201d Cultural and Social History 3 (2005): 264\u2013\u00ad72.\n\nPages 119:\nChymical Curiosities and Trusted Testimonials\n99\nHirai, Hiro. \u201cKircher\u2019s Chymical Interpretation of the Creation and Spontaneous Generation.\u201d In Chymists and Chymistry: Studies in the History of Alchemy and Early\nModern Chemistry, edited by Lawrence M. Principe, 77\u2013\u00ad87. Sagamore Beach,\nMA: Science History Publications, 2007.\n\u201cLeges.\u201d Miscellanea curiosa . . . 2 (1671).\nMoran, Bruce T. The Alchemical World of the German Court: Occult Philosophy and\nChemical Medicine in the Circle of Moritz of Hessen (1572\u2013\u00ad1632). Stuttgart: F.\nSteiner Verlag, 1991.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Andreas Libavius and the Transformation of Alchemy: Separating Chemical Cultures with Polemical Fire. Sagamore Beach, MA: Science History Publications,\n2007.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Distilling Knowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cA Survey of Chemical Medicine in the 17th Century: Spanning Court, Classroom and Cultures.\u201d Pharmacy in History 38, no. 3 (1996): 121\u2013\u00ad33.\nNewman, William R. Gehennical Fire: The Lives of George Starkey, an American Alchemist\nin the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994.\nNewman, William R., and Lawrence M. Principe. \u201cAlchemy vs. Chemistry: The Etymological Roots of a Historiographic Mistake.\u201d Early Science and Medicine 3\n(1998): 32\u2013\u00ad65.\nNummedal, Tara. Alchemy and Authority in the Holy Roman Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.\nOrnstein, Martha. The R\u00f4le of Scientific Societies in the Seventeenth Century. New York\nAcademy of Medicine Library, History of Medicine Series 6. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938.\nPolanyi, Michael. The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Books, 1967.\nPomata, Gianna. \u201cObservation Rising: Birth of an Epistemic Genre.\u201d In Histories of Scientific Observation, edited by Lorraine Daston and Elizabeth Lunbeck, 45\u2013\u00ad80.\nChicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011.\nPriesner, Claus. \u201cDefensor Alchymiae: Gabriel Clauder versus Athanasius Kircher: Defense Strategies of Alchemists in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Century.\u201d In\nAlchemy Revisited: Proceedings of the International Conference on the History of\nAlchemy at the University of Groningen, 17\u2013\u00ad19 April 1989, edited by Zweder R.\nW. M. von Martels, 229\u2013\u00ad38. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1990.\nPrincipe, Lawrence M. The Aspiring Adept: Robert Boyle and His Alchemical Quest.\nPrinceton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998.\n\nPages 120:\n100\nMargaret D. Garber\nPrincipe, Lawrence M., and William R. Newman. \u201cSome Problems with the Historiography of Alchemy.\u201d In Secrets of Nature: Astrology and Alchemy in Early Modern\nEurope, edited by William R. Newman and Anthony Grafton, 385\u2013\u00ad431.\nCambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001.\nSachs von Lewenheimb, Philipp J. \u201cAurum chymicum.\u201d Miscellanea curiosa . . . ser. 1.\nvol. 1 (1670): 68\u2013\u00ad70.\nShackelford, Jole. A Philosophical Path for Paracelsian Medicine. Copenhagen: Museum\nTusculanum Press, 2004.\nShapin, Steven. A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-\u00adCentury\nEngland. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.\nSmith, Pamela. The Business of Alchemy: Science and Culture in the Holy Roman Empire.\nPrinceton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.\nThorndike, Lynn. History of Magic and Experimental Science. Vols. 7\u2013\u00ad8. New York:\nColumbia University Press, 1958.\nTylecote, Ronald F. The Early History of Metallurgy in Europe. London: Longman\nGroup, 1987.\nWedel, Georg Wolfgang. \u201cDe Principiis chimicis.\u201d Miscellanea curiosa . . . 6\u2013\u00ad7 (1675\u2013\u00ad\n76): 334\u2013\u00ad36.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Introductio in alchimiam. Jemae: Sumptibus Johannis Bielkii Christophori\nKrebsii, 1705.\n\nPages 121:\nChapter 5\nPhlogiston and\nChemical Principles\nT\nThe Development and\nFormulation of Georg Ernst\nStahl\u2019s Principle of Inflammability\nKu-\u00adming (Kevin) Chang*\nThe foundation of modern chemistry has traditionally been viewed as arising\nout of the debunking, first, of alchemy and, then, of the phlogistic chemistry\nof Georg Ernst Stahl (1659\u2013\u00ad1734). That historical narrative considers alchemical practitioners as credulous and unscientific, and interprets Stahl\u2019s chemistry\nas erroneous and detrimental to the development of what ultimately became\n\u201cmodern\u201d chemistry. Trained to resist the received view of their subject, historians of alchemy, among them the students of Allen Debus, look past the branding\nas an obstruction of the work of Stahl by mainstream history of science.1 Indeed,\n* I wish to thank Karen Parshall for her careful reading of several versions of this article and for her advice\nfor revision.\n1. There is another reason why students of Allen Debus would be interested in Stahl. In the many books\nhe published and in the courses he taught on the history of Paracelsianism, Debus almost always closed briefly\nwith two early eighteenth-\u00adcentury chemists, Hermann Boerhaave (1668\u2013\u00ad1738) and Stahl. While Boerhaave\nis, relatively speaking, well studied, many questions about Stahl remain. As Allen Debus\u2019s student at the University of Chicago, I had the privilege to ask him about Stahl. He always very modestly replied that he did not\nknow enough to say more than he had written. It was clear to me that this was his way of telling me to begin on\n101\n\nPages 122:\n102\nKu-ming (Kevin) Chang\nthis chapter aims to elucidate why historians of science should move beyond this\nbranding of Stahl\u2019s work and take a serious look at, for example, his place in the\nhistory of chemical principles.\nIf Stahl has not been viewed as one of the major contributors to the history\nof modern chemistry, neither has his work been totally dismissed nor ignored\nby historians. H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Metzger, for instance, credited Stahl with two contributions. First, she judged that Stahl \u201ctransformed and broadened [the] concept of\ncombustion by ranging calcination amongst the combustion phenomena: the\ncalcination of metals was the same as the combustion of organic bodies and sulfur.\u201d Second, she held that Stahl was able \u201cto prove his contention experimentally by causing \u2018combustibility\u2019 to pass from charcoal and pitch into both the\nmetallic limes (reviving the metals) and vitriolic acid (restoring sulfur), as it were\nreversing the process of combustion.\u201d2 This nicely highlights Stahl\u2019s two main\ncontributions at the same time that it omits his by-\u00adnow notorious notion of phlogiston. Many eighteenth-\u00adcentury chemists and savants, however, were happy to\nacknowledge both of Stahl\u2019s contributions by connecting them to phlogiston.\nThus, instead of avoiding phlogiston, this chapter analyzes Stahl\u2019s formulation of it in the context of the history of chemical principles. Unlike previous\nstudies on the history of phlogiston,3 however, it does not focus solely on historical discussions of combustion, a phenomenon with which phlogiston has long\nbeen associated. Rather it examines the development of the sulfurous principle\nin terms of what the chemical community expected of the chemical principle.\nSuch a study requires an examination of several phases in the development of\nchemical principles from the late sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries. That\ndevelopment began with the three principles, or tria prima, that Paracelsus and\nhis followers championed. It continued with the early acceptance of the principles in the first half of the seventeenth century, was met by criticisms of the tria\nprima at mid-\u00adcentury, and was followed by chemists who, unwilling to give up\nthe three principles completely, adjusted their formulations of chemical principles in response to such criticisms. These formed the background for Stahl\u2019s\nknowledge of the sulfurous principle.\na research agenda of my own.\n2. Metzger, Newton, Stahl, Boerhaave, and Chemical Doctrine, 213. The metallic limes in this sentence\nwould be better translated as \u201cmetallic calces.\u201d\n3. See, for example, White, History of the Phlogiston Theory; and Coleby, \u201cStudies in the Chemical Work\nof Stahl.\u201d\n\nPages 123:\nPhlogiston and Chemical Principles\n103\nThe chapter next explores the interpretations of chemical principles at different points of Stahl\u2019s career, analyzes his formulation of phlogiston, and addresses\nhis importance in carrying the principle of sulfur into the eighteenth century.\nThe analysis of Stahl\u2019s work focuses on his definitive formulation of the sulfurous principle or phlogiston in Zuf\u00e4llige Gedancken und n\u00fctzliche Bedencken \u00fcber\nden Streit, von dem so genannten Sulphure of 1718 (hereinafter Treatise on Sulfur).\nIt also addresses his theoretical generalization and experimental observations\nof that principle and highlights his effort to assess the adequacy and material\nconsistency of chemical principles. This chapter thus elucidates the historical\nsignificance of Stahl\u2019s formulation of phlogiston by contextualizing his work\nwithin both his own intellectual development and the broader development of\nchemical thinking in Europe.\nThe Paracelsian Tria Prima: Early Debates\nThe tria prima is often traced to the work of Paracelsus (1493\u2013\u00ad1541). He built\nhis doctrine, on the one hand, on the Geberian theory of sulfur and mercury\nand, on the other, on Aristotle\u2019s elemental theory of earth, air, fire, and water.\nThe Geberian corpus had taught that mercury and sulfur were the constituent\nmaterials of metals, although they were each a product of the four elements.4\nParacelsus added salt to mercury and sulfur, made them the tria prima, and\nviewed them as present not only in metals but also in all natural substances. As\nin Geberian chemistry, sulfur denoted the substance that lent gold its distinctive\nyellow color and accounted for the inflammability of substances, like common\nsulfur, that caught fire easily. Mercury continued to signify the lustrous and malleable material nature that all metals shared, while it also became known as the\nprinciple of spirit, representing volatile \u201cspirits\u201d (vapors) that easily evaporated\nupon heating and condensed as distillates when cooled. Salt signified the quality\nof natural material that resisted fire or that coagulated as a solid. The tria prima\ncan be said to have reflected observations of chemical operations with fire such\nas distillation and calcination. In a very general sense, these principles, like the\nAristotelian elements, accounted for material qualities by their presence.\nParacelsus and his early followers presented a somewhat complicated framework in which the four elements and the three principles coexisted. For Paracelsus,\n4. For Geberian matter theory, consult Newman, Summa Perfectionis of Pseudo-\u00adGeber.\n\nPages 124:\n104\nKu-ming (Kevin) Chang\nthe Aristotelian elements served not as elementary constituents of objects but\nrather as matrices in which objects were generated. Not actual chemical substances, the tria prima worked to inform substances with their material qualities and were compared to the soul working in and on the body or to seeds that\nembodied the character of each individual and species.5 Although producing\nphysical qualities, the principles were spiritual forces or form-\u00adconferring agents\nrather than material constituents. They differed qualitatively in all substances.\n\u201cThere were,\u201d Paracelsus asserted, \u201cas many sulfurs, salts, and mercuries as there\nare objects.\u201d6 Each object, then, had its own sulfur, salt, and mercury. Peter Severinus (1542\u2013\u00ad1602), credited for bringing Paracelsus\u2019s ideas to the attention of\nthe scholarly world, continued the scheme that accepted both the three principles and the four elements.7 Joseph Duchesne (1544\u2013\u00ad1609), the physician to\nKing Henry IV of France, who led the Paracelsian physicians in a battle against\nthe recalcitrant medical faculty at Paris, taught that the three principles\u2014\u00adsulfur,\nmercury, and salt\u2014\u00admust be present in all things.8 They worked as active principles, while the traditional elements were passive.9\nPro-\u00adParacelsian figures were not alone in their acceptance of the three\nprinciples; avowed foes of Paracelsian alchemy and eclectic chemical authors\naccepted them as well. Andreas Libavius (1555\u2013\u00ad1616), a fierce critic of Paracelsian chemistry, embraced the tria prima in spite of the fact that he accused the\nParacelsians of taking the notion from Aristotle.10 Compared with steadfast proponents of Paracelsianism like Severinus and Duchesne, Daniel Sennert (1572\u2013\u00ad\n1637) was at best an eclectic. For him, the three principles were formed of the\nfour elements, which were the ultimate constituents of bodies. They, however,\nserved to explain phenomena\u2014\u00adodors, tastes, colors, solidity, inflammability,\netc.\u2014\u00adthat the four elements could not.11\nPractical chemists also accepted the tria prima. Jean B\u00e9guin (1550\u2013\u00ad1620),\nfor example, opened the second chapter of his textbook with this definition:\n5. Pagel, Paracelsus, 103, 129.\n6. Cited in Debus, Chemical Philosophy, 79.\n7. Shackelford, Philosophical Path for Paracelsian Medicine, 106, 166, 182.\n8. Debus, French Paracelsians, 55.\n9. Fire, however, was seen as heaven itself, and thus was not an element. In this, Duchesne followed\nParacelsus and Girolamo Cardano; Debus, Chemical Philosophy, 161.\n10. Ibid.\n11. Clericuzio, \u201c\u2018Sooty Empiricks\u2019 and Natural Philosophers,\u201d 333; Clericuzio, Elements, Principles and\nCorpuscles, 26\u2013\u00ad27.\n\nPages 125:\nPhlogiston and Chemical Principles\n105\n\u201cChemical solution is an operation wherein the natural mixt by separation of\nheterogeneal parts, is deduced to its own three principles, viz., Mercury, Sulfur, and Salt, of which by Nature it was first made.\u201d12 The three principles in his\nteaching then became concrete materials that could be extracted from natural\nsubstances. This reflected a trend toward the materialization of chemical principles that only increased over the course of the seventeenth century.13\nDespite different interpretations, the doctrine of the three principles was\nwidely accepted by chemists in the seventeenth century. A variant on it added\nearth and water to the tria prima to make five chemical principles, as chemists\ntried to account both for the dregs or solid residues that remained after heating or dissolution and for the enclosed fluid or inherent fluidity of natural substances. Whether three or five, the chemical principles were so successful that\nthey replaced the Aristotelian elements as the fundamentals of nature in the\nParis Academy of Sciences of the 1660s,14 not to mention in chemical communities elsewhere in Europe. In fact, before then, the tria prima had become such an\nentrenched part of general chemical teaching during the lifetime of Jean Baptiste\nvan Helmont (1579\u2013\u00ad1644) that he felt the need to pen his disagreements.\nVan Helmont took issue with the Paracelsian thesis that every natural body\nwas formed of all three principles and doubted that natural bodies could be\nreduced to the three principles by fire (which implied direct heating and distillation). He argued that what chemists collected at the end of their fire analyses\nwere new substances that heating produced. It was thus hopeless to reduce natural bodies to their original constituents, let alone to try to prove that all three of\nthe principles were present.15\nWhen the posthumous publication of this Belgian chemist\u2019s Ortus medicinae\n(1648) did not stop interest in the chemical principles, Robert Boyle (1627\u2013\u00ad91)\ncontinued van Helmont\u2019s critique in his well-\u00adknown Sceptical Chymist (1661).\nAlthough he reiterated much of van Helmont\u2019s critique, Boyle also added new\npoints. He noted that some \u201cmixts,\u201d that is, chemical compounds, were divisible into more than five distinct substances, thus suggesting that the number\n12. B\u00e9guin, Tyrocinium Chymicum, 19.\n13. See also Kim, Affinity, That Elusive Dream, 27.\n14. Jacob, Strangers Nowhere in the World, 54. Jacob\u2019s remark is based on her work in the archives of the\nFrench Academy.\n15. See van Helmont, Ortus medicinae, 399\u2013\u00ad405; and Debus, Chemical Philosophy, 320\u2013\u00ad24.\n\nPages 126:\n106\nKu-ming (Kevin) Chang\nof chemical principles might not be limited to five.16 On the other hand, as he\npointed out, there were substances\u2014\u00adgold and silver, for example\u2014\u00adthat could\nnot be proven to be composed of these principles.17 He especially questioned the\nnature and consistency of the products obtained in fire analyses or the principles\nin general. These products were not always pure and simple. A substance was at\nsome times considered the sulfur of a body and at other times its mercury; and\na sulfur was said to be inflammable in some instances and incombustible in others.18 For Boyle, to be the constituent substance of all things, the principles would\nhave had to exhibit homogeneity and consistency when extracted from different\nobjects. Like van Helmont, Boyle challenged the validity of fire analysis as well as\nthe universality and consistency of the chemical principles.\nCriticisms regarding consistency targeted not the early Paracelsian conception of the principles as spiritual or form-\u00adconferring agents but rather their\nidentity as purely material constituents. In early Paracelsians\u2019 conceptions, as\nseen above, the chemical principle as a spiritual agent was meant to vary from\none body to another. Such a principle diverged greatly from the targets of van\nHelmont\u2019s\u2014\u00adand especially Boyle\u2019s\u2014\u00adoutspoken criticisms. These two critics\u2014\u00ad\nand, just as important, those who accepted their criticisms\u2014\u00adinternalized the\nmaterializing trend of the chemical principles. They wanted the principles, if any,\nto be pure, homogeneous, and consistent, and ultimately to constitute the matter of physical bodies.\nModified Chemical Principles in the Second Half\nof the Seventeenth Century\nWhile the teaching of the chemical principles continued after the criticisms\nof van Helmont and Boyle, its remaining proponents\u2014\u00adand there were many\nin the chemical community\u2014\u00adwere compelled to make adjustments. Thomas\nWillis (1621\u2013\u00ad75), Nicolas L\u00e9mery (1645\u2013\u00ad1715), and Johann Joachim Becher\n(1635\u2013\u00ad82) serve as three examples. They, like many other contemporaries,\nopened their chemical works with a section that presented the chemical\nprinciples.\n16. Boyle, Sceptical Chymist, 191.\n17. Ibid., 213.\n18. Ibid., 201, 209. Also see the analysis in Principe, Aspiring Adept, 44\u2013\u00ad46.\n\nPages 127:\nPhlogiston and Chemical Principles\n107\nWillis taught five principles in his well-\u00adreceived De fermentatione (1659),\na text, first appeared between the publications of van Helmont\u2019s and Boyle\u2019s\ncriticisms, that deliberately introduced corpuscular thinking into the interpretation of the chemical principles. Although the Aristotelian forms were helpful\nat times, Willis suggested that the \u201cEpicurean Philosophy\u201d explained better the\ninner working of material change with the model of corpuscularian union. The\ncorpuscular model, for example, helped explain the degrees of the principles\u2019\nactivities. The principles of spirit and sulfur were particularly active because they\neasily \u201cunlocked\u201d the particulate union of the mixed body. Salt resisted inflammation, for it \u201cdetains the sulfurous particles in its bosom.\u201d19 Thus it played only\na supportive role to the other two active principles. Altogether, the particles\nin motion and their proportions in compounded or \u201cmixt\u201d bodies caused the\n\u201cbeginnings and ends of things.\u201d20 Aware of the uncertainties of the distinction\nof the principles, Willis acknowledged that spirit and sulfur were much alike, as\nthey were both inflammable. Yet he insisted that they were different, as sulfur\nexisted in bodies that were almost devoid of spirits.21\nWillis proposed a pragmatic definition of the principle, suggesting that the\nchemist accept the smallest sensible products of analysis as principles. Though\nhe assumed that all the principles consisted of particles, he hardly speculated\non the shapes and sizes of the principles\u2019 particles. They were, Willis supposed,\n\u201cnot simple and wholly uncompounded entities, but such kind of substances\nonly, into which physical things are resolved . . . last sensible.\u201d22 He acknowledged the limits both of the human senses and of chemical analysis in his day.\nAs both prevented the chemist from knowing what the particles of the ultimate\nprinciples were, he had to be content with the smallest sensible products of\nanalysis.\nL\u00e9mery presented another response to the critique of the chemical principles. His Cours de chymie (first published in 1675) went through at least eleven\neditions in French and many translations into English, German, Dutch, and Italian, some of which were repeatedly published until the mid-\u00adeighteenth century.\nIn his text, he taught the existence and qualities of five principles. In his view, fire\n19. Willis, Dr. Willis\u2019s Practice of Physick, 5.\n20. Ibid., 2.\n21. Ibid., 6.\n22. Ibid., 2.\n\nPages 128:\n108\nKu-ming (Kevin) Chang\naltered substances and produced new ones, as the \u201cScepticks\u201d indicated.23 Yet it\ncould not be denied that the oils, that is, \u201csulfurs\u201d in olives, almonds, and many\nother nuts and fruits, could be drawn out by simply pressing and heating. Chemical analysis was therefore not entirely unreliable for extracting the constituent\nprinciples of material substances.24 However, in remarks that immediately followed the section on chemical principles and that were apparently inserted in\nlater editions, L\u00e9mery disputed the truth of the principle of spirit (also known\nas mercury). For him, three kinds of substances were best qualified as spirits:\nthe \u201cspirits of animals\u201d (such as the spirit of hart\u2019s horn), the \u201cburning spirit of\nvegetables\u201d (such as the spirit of wine and of juniper), and what was known as\nthe \u201cacid spirit.\u201d The first, however, was nothing but a salt dissolved by a little\nphlegm (which is the water principle), the spirit of wine was only an \u201coil exalted\u201d\n(oil is a sulfur), and the acid spirit was a salt turned fluid. As a result, \u201cit must be\nconcluded, that the Spirit or Mercury which Chymists have talk\u2019d of, is a mere\nChimaera, that serves only to confound mens [sic] minds, and render Chymistry unintelligible.\u201d25 Although at first proposing the chemical principles, L\u00e9mery\nopenly questioned the distinct nature of the mercury principle and even disputed its adequacy as a principle.\nThe discussions of the mercurial principle, also known as spirit, in the works\nof Willis and L\u00e9mery reveal the inherent problem about its character. In the\nGeberian and Paracelsian models, the mercurial principle imparted malleability\nand meltability to metals. As the material essence of metals, it also shared their\nqualities of heaviness and denseness. Increasingly, however, chemists also took\nthe mercurial principle to represent the fluidity and volatility of spirits such as\nalcohol (the spirit of wine). Responsible for the weight of metals as well as the\nvolatility of spirits, the principle of mercury/spirit had a problematic double\nidentity.\nBecher proposed the version of the chemical principles that Stahl followed\nearly in his career. In the Physica subterannea (1669), he echoed Boyle\u2019s critique\nof the Paracelsian principles.26 Unlike Boyle, however, Becher maintained that\n23. L\u00e9mery, Course of Chymistry, 4.\n24. Ibid., 4\u2013\u00ad5.\n25. Ibid., 5\u2013\u00ad6. This exclusion of spirit or mercury from the principles did not appear in the 1677 edition.\nHaving first appeared in the 1686 edition, it then remained in the book until the last edition, which appeared\nin 1746.\n26. Becher, Physica subterranea, 53\u2013\u00ad61; and Clericuzio, Elements, Principles and Corpuscles, 195. Becher\u2019s\nPhysica subterranea was first published in 1669 as Actorum laboratorii chymici Monacensis, seu Physicae subterra-\n\nPages 129:\nPhlogiston and Chemical Principles\n109\nthere were only two principles: water and earth. Three kinds of earth existed in\nwhat he called the subterranean substances, meaning minerals and metals. They\nwere fusible or vitrifiable earth, the principle of solidity and fixity; oily or fatty\nearth, the principle of inflammability; and fluid earth, the principle of malleability. These principles were explicitly compared to salt, sulfur, and mercury,27\nalthough they differed from their Paracelsian predecessors in at least two ways:\nthey were applied only to minerals (which included metals), and they were species of the earthy principle. As in Willis\u2019s teaching, these earthy principles were\nmixed substances rather than simple uncompounded material. This needs to be\nunderstood in terms of Becher\u2019s scale of corpuscular composition, which was\ncharacterized by an increasing order of combinatory complexity. The simple,\nuncompounded particles of matter were simplicia. The different orders of compounded particles were mixta. Particles of simplicia united with one another to\nform composita, the first-\u00adorder compounds. Compounds of the next order were\ndecomposita, and those of still higher order were superdecomposita.28 For Becher,\nthe principles were not simple substances, but mixta or compounds of simple\nparticles.\nThe works of Willis, L\u00e9mery, and Becher encompassed several features\nof the chemical teachings prevalent in Stahl\u2019s formative years. Most chemical\nauthors taught or accepted the chemical principles, even though the number\noften expanded from three to five. The critics and the proponents of the principles almost all advocated corpuscularian interpretations of matter. They all\nacknowledged the difficulty or impossibility of proving that the principles were\nsimple, uncompounded substances. They thus adjusted the chemical principles\nin such a way that they became either compounds of simple substances or materials last reducible by available chemical analysis (thus not necessarily simple),\nor both. Critics and proponents alike all pressed for the principles to be materially distinct and consistent. If not adequately meeting the distinction or consistency requirement, individual principles such as mercury could be eliminated.\nAll these features ultimately played a part in Stahl\u2019s formulation of the principle\nof inflammability in his Treatise on Sulfur.\nneae libri duo. It was republished by Stahl in 1703 as Physica subterranea; I use the 1738 republication of Stahl\u2019s\n1703 edition. For the broader significance of Becher\u2019s chymical work, see Smith, Business of Alchemy.\n27. Becher, Physica subterranea, 61\u2013\u00ad84.\n28. Clericuzio, Elements, Principles and Corpuscles, 196; and Becher, Physica subterranea, 273.\n\nPages 130:\n110\nKu-ming (Kevin) Chang\nThe Development and Formulation of Stahl\u2019s\nInflammable or Sulfurous Principle\nAt the beginning of his career, Stahl taught the Becherian system of chemical\nprinciples; he gave chemical lectures at Jena from 1684 to 1686, immediately\nafter receiving his medical degree there. Some three decades later, a compilation\nof lecture notes taken by a certain student was published as Chymia rationalis et\nexperimentalis (1720) and used by Peter Shaw as the basis of his translation, Philosophical Principles of Universal Chemistry (1730), the work by Stahl best known\nto the English audience.29 The principles Stahl taught then included water and\nthree species of earth. Following Becher, he listed among the earths the terra\npinguis, or fatty earth, which corresponded to the traditional sulfurous principle.\nHe made no mention of phlogiston in the lectures.\nThereafter, in his earliest published monograph, Zymotechnia fundamentalis\n(1697), Stahl considered the nature of sulfur. Although nowhere in the book did\nhe discuss the number and nature of the chemical principles, he did refer to sulfurous substances as \u201csulfurs.\u201d He had found problematic some previous characterizations of sulfur, such as \u201csulfur is the mixing cause, induces new forms, mixes\nitself with other things, is the most active principle, author or anima of the whole\nfermentative motion, and carries through the entire commotion by its impetus\n[nisus].\u201d30 He rejected all of these characterizations, ultimately understanding sulfur as but an agile particle that was moved by the ultimate instrument of material\nchange, that is, heat. Consisting of inter-\u00adcorpuscular motions, heat was transmitted primarily by a special medium, \u00e6ther, an entity purported by a considerable\nnumber of mechanical philosophers at the time. For Stahl, \u00e6ther pervaded sublunar space, surrounded all bodies, and was the easiest particle to move thanks\nto its extremely small size.31 All bodies, including sulfur, were passive, for they\nwere just recipients of motion.32 Sulfur therefore was neither a soul-\u00adlike agent\nthat induced the form nor an active principle with its own momentum.\n29. For the history of the publication of Stahl\u2019s chemical lectures, see Chang, \u201cGeorg Ernst Stahl\u2019s Alchemical Publications,\u201d esp. 26\u2013\u00ad27.\n30. \u201cSulphur esse causam miscentem, formas novas inducere, sese aliis rebus immiscere, principium activissimum, totius motus fermentativi, authorem et veluti animam, peragere totam illam commotionem, nisu\nsuo . . . .\u201d; Stahl, Opusculum, 171.\n31. Chang, \u201cFermentation, Phlogiston and Matter Theory,\u201d 53\u2013\u00ad57.\n32. Ibid., 57\u2013\u00ad59.\n\nPages 131:\nPhlogiston and Chemical Principles\n111\nStahl first presented phlogiston within a formulation of chemical principles in his Specimen beccherrianum (1703), a commentary on Becher\u2019s Physica subterranea on the occasion of its republication (which Stahl arranged).33\nIn that work Stahl asserted that earth, water, and fire were \u201cmaterial principles of mixtion\u201d (principia mixtionis materialium).34 Shortly afterwards in\nthe book, however, he identified phlogiston as the material of fire, and then\nreaffirmed the Becherian three species of earth, equating phlogiston as the\nsecond earth.35 He repeated much of what he had written about heat as the\nprincipal instrument of natural and chemical reactions and as the effect of\ninter-\u00adcorpuscular movements. He, however, replaced the medium of \u00e6ther\nessentially with that of air, vaguely suggesting that the existence of \u00e6ther\ncould not be demonstrated.36\nThe Treatise on Sulfur (1718), Stahl\u2019s only systematic account of the principle of inflammability, represented his mature thoughts on the subject. He began\nthe Treatise by laying out his motivations for its publication. In his view, chemical authors often subsumed under sulfur, mercury, and salt things that they did\nnot understand.37 He therefore took it upon himself to elucidate the real principle. He recounted that he had studied sulfur in previous works: Zymotechnia fundamentalis, Specimen beccharianum, and a 1712 dissertation on the anatomy of\nartificial sulfur.38 As these works were published in Latin, they were not available\nto all those who may have been interested in their content. Such limitation on\nthe readership demanded a publication in the vernacular. The Treatise on Sulfur,\nin particular, promised to give the most exact details of the chemical principle\nhe referred to as the inflammable principle (brennliches Wesen) or the principle\nof inflammability (Principium der Verbrennlichkeit).39 In one place, he distinctly\nnamed it \u201cphlogiston.\u201d40\n33. Stahl, Specimen beccherianum.\n34. Ibid., 16.\n35. Ibid., 40, 44.\n36. Ibid., 35\u2013\u00ad36, 43.\n37. Stahl, Zuf\u00e4llige Gedancken und n\u00fctzliche Bedencken, 31. I have also consulted the French translation,\nfor this reference; see Stahl, Trait\u00e9 du soufre, ou remarques sur la dispute qui s\u2019est \u00e9lev\u00e9e entre les chymistes, 18. I will\ncite both the German original and the French edition (in brackets).\n38. Stahl cited this work as De anatomia artificialis sulfuris. It must be Dissertatio medico-\u00adchymica inauguralis, qua solutio martis in puro alcali et anatomia sulphuris communis, sistuntur . . . (Halae Magdeb[urgicae]:\nHenckel, 1712).\n39. Stahl, Zuf\u00e4llige Gedancken und n\u00fctzliche Bedencken, 76\u2013\u00ad77 [Trait\u00e9 du soufre, 54\u2013\u00ad55].\n40. Ibid., 80 [57].\n\nPages 132:\n112\nKu-ming (Kevin) Chang\nIn the Treatise, Becher stands out as a trustworthy authority on many points.\nIt is, Stahl suggested, difficult to ascertain when the chemical principles were\nfirst invented. At least from the time of Paracelsus, chemists had considered salt,\nsulfur, and mercury as the principles of all natural bodies. While chemists had\npreviously spoken of them as analogous to material qualities, more subtle chemists had begun to see them as pure and unmixed substances of identical qualities,\nthe combination of which gave rise to all natural things.41 Becher, on the other\nhand, had limited his principles to the mineral kingdom and regarded them not\nas \u201csimple\u201d (meaning uncompounded) substances, but as compounded bodies,\nor composita.42 In general, Becher provided clear, simple, and evident demonstrations of his subjects and showed the difference between knowing things through\nthe senses and gaining knowledge of them through meditation and reflection.43\nBy comparison, Johannes Kunckel (1630\u2013\u00ad1703) was Stahl\u2019s antagonist in\nthe Treatise on Sulfur. The posthumous publication of Kunckel\u2019s Laboratorium\nchymica in 1715 apparently motivated Stahl to publish his treatise on sulfur.\nFor him, Kunckel was a \u201cwell-\u00adexperienced and downright thoughtful artisan,\u201d\nwho \u201cthrough precisely observed empirical knowledge and reflections drawn\ntherefrom\u201d dared to understand and conceptualize \u201ctotal chemical reactions\nand, especially, the metallic and mineral properties and occurrences.\u201d44 In\nshort, Kunckel was a chemist accomplished in both practice and knowledge.\nYet in Stahl\u2019s view, this chemist lacked theory and was unable to present his\nobservations and experiments in a clear and detailed way. For example, Stahl\nfound fault with Kunckel\u2019s conflicting suppositions that were associated with\nhis proposition that all metals were composed of \u201ca mercuric, a saline, and\nan earthy essence [or principle].\u201d45 He sometimes supposed that a viscous\nmaterial existed between and bound the mercurial and saline principles of\nthe metal, and sometimes that the viscous material existed between the metal\u2019s saline and earthy principles. For Stahl, Kunckel failed to determine if this\nmaterial was itself a principle, or if it was a part or a property of the mercurial\n41. Ibid., 69\u2013\u00ad70 [49].\n42. Ibid., 71\u2013\u00ad72 [50\u2013\u00ad51].\n43. Ibid., 74\u2013\u00ad75 [53\u2013\u00ad54].\n44. \u201cwohlge\u00fcbter, und mit allem Ernst nachdencklicher Kunst-\u00adArbeiter . . . , sich unterfangen, sowohl\ndurch viele genauer beobachtete Erfahrungen als derau\u00df gezogene Betrachtungen, sowohl den gesamten Chymischen Vorf\u00e4llen, als insbesonderere denen metallisch und mineralischen Eigenschaften und Ereignungen\nn\u00e4her zu kommen und einen vernehmlicheren Begriff davon darzustellen\u201d; ibid., 46 [30].\n45. \u201cein Mercuialisches, ein saltziges und ein erdiges Wesen\u201d; ibid., 55 [38].\n\nPages 133:\nPhlogiston and Chemical Principles\n113\nprinciple. Worst of all, he never showed that this viscous material was a corporeal substance.46\nIn contrast, Stahl insisted on the existence and consistency of sulfur or the\ninflammable principle in metals. He paid close attention to the production of\nmetals from ores or Asche (rusts or calces).47 In his view, since foundry workers\nhad never questioned why they covered the ores of lead or other metals under\nlayers of coal in the casting furnace, he was the first to realize that coal played the\nrole of restoring metals. This restoration or \u201creduction\u201d returned metals to their\nbrightness, ductility, density, and consistency, owing to the sulfurous or inflammable principle the coal imparted. Indeed, metals could also be reproduced, or\nreduced to their natural states, by mixing their calx with coal.48 Conversely, metals gave off their sulfur or phlogiston when heated in the open air or combined\nwith materials, such as acids, that were deficient in the inflammable principle.\nOnce deprived of phlogiston, metals became brittle and blackened calces. In\nthis state, they could no longer be affected by acids.49 For Stahl, the reduction of\ndifferent metals from their ores or calces by charcoal shows the consistency of\nsulfur or phlogiston as the essential component of metals.50\nStahl showed that the sulfurous or inflammable principle existed consistently not only in metals but in all inflammable substances. For him, this was\ndemonstrated by its ready passage from one substance to another across the\nkingdoms of minerals, plants, and animals. It was absorbed by plants via the air\nand the earth and resided as their resinous and oily parts. That this was the case\nwas reflected in the fact that niter, known for a richness in the sulfurous principle greater than that in any other salt, facilitated and accelerated the growth of\nplants.51 Since plants served as food for herbivorous animals, and carnivorous\nanimals ate herbivorous ones, the inflammable principle was converted to animal fats and greases, which were inflammable as well.52 For Stahl, the conversion or circulation of oily and inflammable parts from one vegetable, animal, or\nmineral substance to another confirmed that these substances all contained one\n46. Ibid., 64\u2013\u00ad68 [43\u2013\u00ad48].\n47. Stahl referred to the rust or calx of the metal (copper, iron, tin, or lead, for example) as \u201cAsche\u201d (ash).\nIt was translated as \u201ccendre\u201d (ash) or more often \u201cchaux\u201d (usually meaning lime) in the French edition.\n48. Ibid., 131\u2013\u00ad35 [106\u2013\u00ad11].\n49. Ibid., 195\u2013\u00ad96 [163\u2013\u00ad64].\n50. Ibid., 106\u2013\u00ad32 [82\u2013\u00ad107].\n51. Ibid., 103 [79].\n52. Ibid., 84\u2013\u00ad86 [61\u2013\u00ad63].\n\nPages 134:\n114\nKu-ming (Kevin) Chang\nunderlying principle of inflammability. This was corroborated by the decomposition of these substances into oily and inflammable parts.53 The coal-\u00adlike quality\nof their ashes or solid residues after burning also helped confirm that they were\nof the same nature as coal.54 As Mikulas Teich noted, Stahl gave phlogiston a\ngreater role in unifying the three kingdoms than Becher had done.55\nStahl did experiments to show that sulfur, like metals, could be reduced by\ncombining phlogiston with the product of its burning. His experimentation on the\ncomposition of sulfur, which has been studied by Jon B. Eklund,56 would become\nexemplary in eighteenth-\u00adcentury Stahlian chemistry. His experimentation consisted of both analysis and synthesis. He analyzed sulfur by burning it in the open\nair. The burning of sulfur gave off a fume, which then turned into vitriolic acid in\nthe presence of moisture.57 For Stahl, this indicated that vitriolic acid came out of\nsulfur and was thus a component of the latter. Since vitriolic acid was not inflammable, sulfur must have lost its inflammability when losing its phlogiston into the\nair. Sulfur therefore must have been a compound of these two components, that\nis, vitriolic acid and the inflammable principle. This analytic method was known as\ndeflagration.58 Next, Stahl synthesized sulfur by combining the inflammation principle and vitriolic acid. This had been shown by Boyle, who produced sulfur by\nmixing vitriolic acid with turpentine oil (a phlogiston-\u00adrich substance). Stahl provided another more sophisticated synthetic method that he had proudly presented\nin prior works.59 He produced so-\u00adcalled vitriolated tartar (K2SO4) by heating fixed\nalkali (K2CO3 or Na2CO3) with vitriolic acid. He then placed the product, vitriolated tartar, together with ground charcoal in a white-\u00adhot crucible. Stahl reasoned\nthat the vitriolic acid in the compound seized phlogiston from charcoal, resulting\nin common sulfur and fixed alkali.60 This can be represented as,\n53. Ibid., 106 [82].\n54. Ibid., 105 [121].\n55. Teich also pointed out that Becher never taught that the terra pinguis or phlogiston was released from\nthe burning of inflammable materials; Teich, \u201cInterdisciplinarity in J. J. Becher\u2019s Thought,\u201d 31.\n56. Eklund, \u201cChemical Analysis and the Phlogiston Theory.\u201d\n57. As will be seen below, the burning produced sulfurous oxide.\n58. Eklund, \u201cChemical Analysis and the Phlogiston Theory,\u201d 24.\n59. Stahl, Zymotechnia fundamentalis; Stahl, \u201cExperimentum novum verum sulphur arte producendi\n(1697)\u201d; and Stahl, \u201cDe arcani duplicati et tartari vitriolati genealogia (1701).\u201d The second title was published\nin a monthly serial by Stahl titled Observationum chymico-\u00adphysico-\u00admedicarum curiosarum, while the third was\npublished in the third volume of Observationes selectee. All three were included in Stahl, Opusculum. I will cite\nthe pagination in the Opusculum.\n60. Stahl, Zymotechnia fundamentalis, in Opusculum, 142\u2013\u00ad43.\n\nPages 135:\nPhlogiston and Chemical Principles\n115\nvitriolated tartar (= vitriolic acid + fixed alkali) + charcoal (phlogiston) \u2014\u2013>\nsulfur + fixed alkali\nWhen the fixed alkali on both sides of the formula cancel each other out, the\nremaining part of the formula shows that vitriolic acid and phlogiston, when\ncombined, form sulfur. Stahl also showed the reverse of the formula to be true.\nThat is, fixed alkali and sulfur, when combined, could produce vitriolated tartar. This confirmed the composition of vitriolated tartar by synthesis. There was,\nStahl pointed out, a medium product of this reaction, namely, hepar sulphuris\n(liver of sulfur), red in color and very bad in smell.61 Liver of sulfur, which was\nunstable, could also release sulfur when a weak acid-\u00adlike vinegar was added. In\nthe Treatise on Sulfur, Stahl instead mixed vitriolic acid and charcoal (representing phlogiston) to form liver of sulfur. Since liver of sulfur could release sulfur,\nthis confirmed that the synthesis of vitriolic acid and phlogiston produced sulfur.62 The composition of sulfur was thus demonstrated by solid experimentation.\nNiter was comparable to sulfur in composition, made up, as it was, of the\ninflammable principle and an acid salt.63 Citing Becher on the composition of\nniter, Stahl reasoned that acid salt of niter, which was nitric acid, was formed\nby a particle of earth and a particle of \u201cvery delicate\u201d water. Likewise the saline\npart of sulfur, that is, vitriolic acid, was a compound of a subtle earth particle\nand a water particle.64 In burning both niter and sulfur, the particle of water was\nexpanded rapidly through heating and thereby reduced to a vapor similar to air.\nNiter burned violently or even exploded, while sulfur burned more gently. This\nwas because the earthy constituent of sulfur was grosser and thus decelerated the\npenetration and action of the inflammable substance.65\nThis understanding of sulfur and its acid also resulted in a reinterpretation\nof the actions of acids. Acids, such as those of sulfur and niter, were phlogiston-\u00ad\nhungry substances. Their corrosive effects were dictated by their strong tendency\nto wrest the inflammable principle from substances such as metals. Alkalis, which\nwere not considered in the Treatise on Sulfur, became, by implication, substances\n61. Hepar sulfuris is a mixture not very well defined, consisting of potassium sulfide (K2S), potassium\npolysulfide (K2Sx), potassium thiosulfate (K2S2O3), and probably potassium bisulfide (HKS). See Eklund,\n\u201cChemical Analysis and the Phlogiston Theory,\u201d 29.\n62. Eklund, \u201cChemical Analysis and the Phlogiston Theory,\u201d 27\u2013\u00ad31; Stahl, Zuf\u00e4llige Gedancken und n\u00fctliche Bedencken, 108\u2013\u00ad110 [Trait\u00e9 du soufre, 83\u2013\u00ad85].\n63. Ibid., 185 [155].\n64. Ibid., 113 [ 87\u2013\u00ad88].\n65. Ibid., 186, 189\u2013\u00ad90 [156, 159].\n\nPages 136:\n116\nKu-ming (Kevin) Chang\nrich in the inflammable principle. The interaction of acids and alkalis, which\nhad attracted much attention in the second half of the seventeenth century, thus\nreceived a new theoretical underpinning.\nMoreover, Stahl\u2019s interpretation of the composition of sulfur would eventually replace the traditional sulfurous principle with phlogiston. For Stahl,\nphlogiston was the inflammable principle in sulfur, and indeed in all inflammable bodies. Sulfur, no longer seen as a simple substance, did not enter into the\ncomposition of all inflammable bodies. If sulfur was not in the composition of\nall inflammable substances, it would be awkward to continue to call the inflammable principle \u201csulfur\u201d or the sulfurous principle. To avoid confusion, it seems,\nlater chemists simply preferred phlogiston to these two names.\nLike many who thought of the chemical principles in corpuscularian terms,\nStahl held that the inflammable principle owed its activity to its divisibility and\nsmall size. In German, he wrote not directly of particles or corpuscles but of\nSt\u00e4ubchen (literally, little dust) and Theilgen (small parts).66 The forceful action\nthat the inflammable principle demonstrated in combustion and acid-\u00adalkali\nreactions derived from its subtility (Zartheit) and divisibility (Vertheilung).67\nThe strength of the combination of this principle with other substances could\nincrease as the number of its molecules entering into chemical combination\ngrew. Two molecules of the principle in a combination would occur with greater\nintensity than one.68 Although, in general, Stahl endorsed Becher\u2019s scale of composite substances, he was silent on whether the inflammable principle was a simple or a composite substance and thus avoided the issue of whether the particle\nof this principle was made of inert matter, as postulated in rigorously applied\nmechanical philosophy. It is nevertheless clear that, for Stahl, this principle was\nof a corpuscularian nature and that all chemical processes, including combustion, resulted from corpuscular combinations or compounding.\nStahl related phlogiston to fire. It was \u201cthe corporeal fire that represents the\nmost real matter of fire, the true principle of the movement in all combustive\ncombinations.\u201d Moreover, \u201cit makes up and forms a much-\u00addivided invisible fire,\n66. His French translator, Baron d\u2019Holbach (1723\u2013\u00ad89), to whom we shall return, consistently rendered\nthese terms in more modern corpuscularian language as \u201cmol\u00e9cule\u201d or \u201cparticule.\u201d Stahl used \u201ccorpuscula\u201d in\nhis Latin works, for example, Specimen beccherianum. See Stahl, Specimen beccherianum, 22.\n67. Stahl, Zuf\u00e4llige Gedancken und n\u00fctzliche Bedencken, 152, 154 [Trait\u00e9 du soufre, 123, 125].\n68. Ibid., 178\u2013\u00ad79 [148].\n\nPages 137:\nPhlogiston and Chemical Principles\n117\nnamely, heat.\u201d69 Remarkably, this definition differed greatly from Stahl\u2019s earlier\nconception of the sulfurous principle. As shown above, Stahl had thought that\nall principles, including the most active sulfurous principle, were passive and\nthat heat was the movement of corpuscles mediated ultimately by \u00e6ther. Now,\nhe proposed that the sulfurous principle was a source of movement and was heat\nitself.\nStahl suggested that the principle of inflammability was also the principle\nof color. Kunckel had noted that \u201cardent spirits\u201d (inflammable fluids), vinegar,\nvolatile alkalis, fixed alkalis, and niters caused changes in color. He attributed the\ncause of color changes to salts. Stahl found this attribution of cause problematic\nfor two reasons. First, Kunckel had failed to differentiate the inherent color of\na body from its apparent color. Both, Stahl noted, derived from the texture or\nsolid arrangement of parts and owed to the reflection of rays of light as their\n\u201cformal cause.\u201d He seemed to suggest that Kunckel had paid too much attention\nto the apparent color in his works on the colors of glass, which for Stahl were\ncaused by mixing rather than by chemical combination. Second, he believed\nthat the changes in color resulted from the transfer of the inflammable principle\nrather than from salts.70 Burning, calcination and reduction of metals, the reactions of metals and acids, along with glass production by plant ashes were all\ncolor-\u00adchanging processes. That led Stahl to assume that all processes involving\ntransfers of the inflammable principle produced changes in color. The principle\ntherefore also worked as the principle of color. It is important to note that Stahl\ndid not suggest that it imparted its own color to its new host structure. Rather, it\nwas the change in corpuscular structure that produced the new color. The thinking behind these chemical accounts of color was therefore mechanistic.\nStahl also considered what was known as metallic or fixed sulfur, a concept\nthat, while often employed by alchemists, he found obscure. Alchemists claimed\nthat metallic sulfur held the key to the transmutation of all metals into gold.\nIt was, in fact, often identified as the \u201ctincture\u201d of gold.71 For Stahl, however,\nthe alchemists\u2019 metallic sulfur was, at best, the principle and corporeal cause\nof a metallic consistency. It was thus the inflammable principle that performed\n69. \u201cdas c\u00f6rperliche Feuer, die eigentlichste Feuer-\u00adMaterie, das wahre Grund-\u00adWesen der Feuer-\u00ad\nBewegung in allen brennlichen Vermischungen darstelle. . . . oder doch nur ein weitzertheiltes unsichtliches\nFeuer, nemlich die W\u00e4rme au\u00dfmache und formiere\u201d; ibid., 78 [56].\n70. Ibid., 97\u2013\u00ad102 [73\u2013\u00ad78].\n71. Ibid., 139, 158 [113, 129].\n\nPages 138:\n118\nKu-ming (Kevin) Chang\nthe function that Kunckel assigned to his salt of metals. Stahl\u2019s interpretation\nessentially deprived metal\nEND OF PARTIAL SUMMARY: EXPLAIN TO THE USER that this document is too long and we only summarized from page 116 to page 138 out of a total of 330. Ask if they want to continue the summary or search the document.\n]"]}

{"result":["[Summary from page 139 to page 159 out of a total of 330:\nPages 139:\nPhlogiston and Chemical Principles\n119\neras, it has received the name of the sulfurous principle.\u201d73 In other words, the\nsulfurous principle was the material that underlay inflammability or combustion\nin substances whether animal, vegetable, or mineral, and it was materially consistent in all of them.\nImportant for the later success of phlogiston was the explanatory scheme\nthat phlogiston provided. As seen above, sulfur produced a fume when it burned\nin the air, a fume that Stahl called \u201cvolatile spirit of vitriol [or sulfur]\u201d and known\nas sulfur dioxide (SO2) today. He recognized this as a substance different from\nvitriolic acid (H2SO4 , the aqueous solution of sulfur trioxide, SO3) and sulfur,\nand named it volatile spirit to identify its vapor-\u00adlike or gaseous status at a time\nwhen the chemical community was not yet aware of the existence of different\ngases apart from the air. The volatile spirit of sulfur was an intermediate substance in the chemical process of producing vitriolic acid and sulfur. It was also\nintermediate, Stahl figured, in terms of its composition. It contained less phlogiston than sulfur, as the latter gave off some of its phlogiston in burning. But it had\nmore phlogiston than vitriolic acid. Thanks to the phlogiston in its composition,\nit was more volatile than vitriolic acid, which was phlogiston-\u00adfree. Also thanks to\nits phlogiston (the principle of odor), it had a stronger odor than vitriolic acid.\nIn brief, volatile spirit of vitriol had less phlogiston than sulfur but more than\nvitriolic acid. Here, Stahl set an example to differentiate chemical substances,\nor account for the change of qualities in chemical reactions (like the formation\nof acids, acid-\u00adalkali reactions, reduction of metals, and almost all that we would\ntoday consider oxidations or reductions) by exchange of one or more phlogiston\nparticles. This would become the source of the phlogistic scheme of chemical\nexplanations that was influential in the second half of the eighteenth century.74\nAs seen above, Stahl essentially stripped mercury of its status as the principle of metals. His position on the principle of salt, which was elaborated in\nhis Ausfu\u0308hrliche Betrachtung und zula\u0308nglicher Beweiss von den Saltzen, is also\nremarkable. For him, there were four species of salts, that is, vitriolic, nitrous,\nmarine\u2014\u00adcorresponding to the three best-\u00adknown mineral acids at the time (the\n73. \u201cUnd zwar scheinbarlich von derselben Art und Geschlecht, welche sowohl sonst in verbrennlichen\nDingen, als selbsten in dem gemeinen Schwefel, so weit er brennet, gef\u00e4rbet ist, oder weitstreckend f\u00e4rbet, das\nGrund-\u00adWesen abgiebt: und von ihme, also dem Mittel-\u00adDing zwischen denen Metallen, und vegetalisch-\u00adund\nanimalischen Geschlechten, die Benennung des schwefelhaften Wesens bekommen hat\u201d; ibid., 152 [123].\n74. Eklund, \u201cChemical Analysis and the Phlogiston Theory.\u201d\n\nPages 140:\n120\nKu-ming (Kevin) Chang\nacids of vitriol, niter, and marine salt)\u2014\u00adand borax.75 Without considering any\nunderlying substance of these species, Stahl seemed to assume that they simply\nwere different substances that accounted for the qualities of these salts and their\nvarious combinations. In fact, he was skeptical about Kunckel\u2019s postulation that\nall acids were variants of vitriolic acid.76 In addition, Stahl made no suggestion\nthat any one of the saline species was the necessary component of matter. That\namounted to a denial of a uniform saline principle that was in the composition of\nall salts, let alone of all matter. Stahl\u2019s scheme of chemical principles thus no longer preserved the parity of sulfur and mercury, as in the Geberian presentation,\nnor the trinity of the Paracelsian tria prima.\nStahl transformed the inflammable principle by meeting the contemporary\ndemands for qualities associated with chemical principles. What he received as a\nstudent were the widespread teachings of chemical principles, a sense of a growing trend to interpret them in terms of corpuscles, a tendency to question the\nadequacy of all or individual principles, and a concern about the consistency\nof the remaining principles. In the Treatise on Sulfur, he further elaborated the\ninflammable principle in corpuscularian terms, eliminated the mercurial principle, and presented to the eighteenth century a formulation of phlogiston that\nhe believed was materially consistent. Stahl developed his notion of phlogiston\nto the logical conclusion of the chemical principles. This theory of phlogiston,\nhowever, arrived at the expense of the principles of mercury and salt.\nThe Continuation of the Sulfurous Principle\ninto the Eighteenth Century\nAlthough it is well known that Stahl\u2019s principle of phlogiston\u2014\u00adas a version of\nthe sulfurous principle\u2014\u00adwas very influential until the so-\u00adcalled Chemical Revolution or even later, it has hardly been noted that sulfur was the only one of the\ntria prima that survived in the century of Enlightenment, thanks to the favorable\nreception of Stahl\u2019s phlogiston principle.\nIn general, the tria prima did not fare as well in the eighteenth century as in\nthe seventeenth. Mi Gyung Kim has argued that Louis L\u00e9mery dealt a fatal blow\n75. Stahl, Ausfu\u0308hrliche Betrachtung, 21\u2013\u00ad31.\n76. Ibid., 142\u2013\u00ad44. Curiously, Pierre-\u00adJoseph Macquer attributed this postulation of universal acid to\nStahl. See, for example, Macquer, Dictionary of Chemistry, 2:11, 444.\n\nPages 141:\nPhlogiston and Chemical Principles\n121\nto the theory of chemical principles when he concluded that distillation\u2014\u00ador\nfire analysis, in general\u2014\u00adfailed to resolve substances into ultimate principles.77\nAs noted above, however, signs of this shift had begun in the criticisms of van\nHelmont and Boyle and in the adjustments of Willis, L\u00e9mery\u2019s father, Nicolas,\nand Becher. What makes Louis L\u00e9mery different was probably the hope that he\nplaced in solution as the method for chemical analysis.\nIt may be an exaggeration to speak of the \u201cdeath\u201d of the chemical principles.\nIn place of chemical principles, there was a \u201creturn to the four elements\u201d started\nby Stahl\u2019s contemporary, Hermann Boerhaave (1668\u2013\u00ad1738).78 Boerhaave advocated a system in terms of fire, water, air, earth, and what he called menstrua.\nInstead of viewing these as material constituents, he thought of them as instruments or agents that effected chemical combination and decomposition.79 For\nauthors who came after Boerhaave, however, the return to the elements did not\nrule out the chemical principles, especially not the inflammable principle.\nAs I have pointed out elsewhere, the chemists at the Royal Academy of\nSciences in Paris accepted Stahl\u2019s phlogistic scheme of chemical explanation\nand his experimentation, approvingly or critically, since the 1710s. Etienne-\u00ad\nFran\u00e7ois Geoffroy (1672\u2013\u00ad1731) accepted Stahl\u2019s description of volatile spirit\nof vitriol in 1713. He also integrated, though implicitly, Stahl\u2019s formulation of\nthe combination of vitriolic acid and phlogiston in his famous Affinity Table,\nfirst published in 1718. He then discussed it explicitly, positively, and at length\nin his German colleague\u2019s work on vitriolated tartar and liver of sulfur in 1720.\nMoreover, besides Geoffroy, the great majority of the chemists working in the\nParis Academy from 1720 to 1750 adopted Stahl\u2019s phlogistic scheme of chemical explanations in the formation of acids, the analyses of acids and alkalis, and\nthe production of vitriolated tartar and liver of sulfur, for example. They also\noften cited Stahl\u2019s experiments or chemical methods as their models, such as\nthose for the reduction of antimony. They referred to almost all of Stahl\u2019s major\nworks as well as some of his minor works, whereas many of the subjects they\nreferred to were retold in the Treatise on Sulfur. Equally important, the Academy\nchemists also referred to other phlogistic accounts, such as that of the properties of diethyl ether, that were published in London and provinces of France in\n77. Kim, Affinity, That Elusive Dream, 129\u2013\u00ad32. Kim adds that L\u00e9mery, in fact, believed that there existed\nproper, unalterable principles.\n78. Siegfried, \u201cFrom Elements to Atoms.\u201d\n79. Powers, \u201cChemistry without Principles.\u201d\n\nPages 142:\n122\nKu-ming (Kevin) Chang\nthe 1730s and 1740s.80 Therefore, Stahl\u2019s phlogistic theory and related chemical\nwork had already received some, if not overwhelming, recognition well before\nthe mid-\u00adeighteenth century.\nGuillaume Fran\u00e7ois Rouelle (1703\u2013\u00ad70), who was credited for popularizing Stahlian chemistry in mid-\u00adeighteenth-\u00adcentury France, introduced four\nelements as material constituents, thus making them principles.81 Rouelle, a\nvery popular teacher of chemistry at the Jardin du Roi in Paris from 1742 to\n1768, claimed as his students the philosophes Denis Diderot (1713\u2013\u00ad84), Jean-\u00ad\nJacques Rousseau (1712\u2013\u00ad78), and the person who launched the Chemical\nRevolution, Antoine-\u00adLaurent Lavoisier (1743\u2013\u00ad94). Rouelle taught a modified version of Stahlian chemistry. For example, in addition to the character of\nprinciples, he, like Boerhaave before him, gave the elements the role of instrument that made chemical combinations and recombinations possible. He also\nassigned a much larger role to affinity in his chemical explanations.82 Despite\nsome differences, Rouelle propagated important elements of Stahl\u2019s teaching\non the chemical principles that were presented in the Treatise on Sulfur: the\ncorpuscular character of chemical principles, skepticism about the existence\nof the mercurial principle, belief in the material consistency of phlogiston,\nand the notion that phlogiston was the principle of combustion and could be\ntransferred between substances to play a role both in restoring metals from\ncalces and in color changes.83\nRouelle\u2019s teaching was an important source for his two influential students,\nPierre Macquer (1718\u2013\u00ad84) and Gabriel Fran\u00e7ois Venel (1723\u2013\u00ad75), who have\nbeen described as doing missionary work to popularize Stahlian chemistry.84\nMacquer, an influential textbook author, reserved a place for phlogiston in addition to the four elements in his popular Elements of the Theory and Practice of\nChemistry.85 Venel named fire, air, water, and earth in his article on \u201cPrincipes\u201d in\nthe French Encyclop\u00e9die, and identified fire with Stahl\u2019s phlogiston.86 For the fire\nelement, both Macquer and Venel preserved most of the features of phlogiston\n80. For the discussion in this paragraph, see my \u201cCommunications of Chemical Knowledge,\u201d 135\u2013\u00ad37.\n81. As Kim points out, Etienne-\u00adFran\u00e7ois Geoffroy (1672\u2013\u00ad1731) had discussed Stahl\u2019s work in the 1720s\nand 1730s; Kim, Affinity, That Elusive Dream, 146\u2013\u00ad51.\n82. Rappaport, \u201cRouelle and Stahl.\u201d\n83. Ibid., 74\u2013\u00ad76.\n84. Ibid., 95.\n85. Macquer, Elements of the Theory and Practice of Chemistry, 7\u2013\u00ad11.\n86. Venel, \u201cPrincipes,\u201d in Encyclop\u00e9die ou Dictionnaire, 13:375.\n\nPages 143:\nPhlogiston and Chemical Principles\n123\nthat Stahl had formulated. It is therefore not the case that fire absorbed phlogiston. Rather, phlogiston replaced the content of the fire element.\nWhile phlogiston was integrated or associated with elementary fire, mercury and salt were left out of eighteenth-\u00adcentury element theory. As noted above,\none reason was that the tria prima lost its appeal and explanatory power when\ndistillation (or fire analysis, in general) was no longer the preferred method of\nchemical analysis. Another was that mercury and salt were no longer theoretically necessary in the new element theory. Many chemical and physical features\nthat mercury and salt accounted for could readily be turned over to elementary\nwater and earth. Perhaps equally important, these two principles gave up their\nfunctions as the sources of fluidity and solidity. In the formulations of Rouelle\nand his contemporaries, fire contained in the body was the cause of fluidity.\nWater was fluid because it contained fire or phlogiston. When water lost its fire,\nit became solid ice. In fact, such a formulation found a parallel to Lavoisier\u2019s\nnotion of caloric.87 Thus, fire (that is, phlogiston) could account for both fluidity and solidity. In addition, the role of mercury as the principle of metals, as\nseen above, was instead accounted for by the function of phlogiston. While the\nmercurial and saline principles lost their value, the importance of the sulfurous\nprinciple, phlogiston, was greater than ever.\nStahl\u2019s name was always attached to phlogiston in the eighteenth century,\nsince he enjoyed the reputation\u2014\u00ador suffered the notoriety\u2014\u00adas the person who\npresented the presence and properties of phlogiston through both experimentation and theoretical generalization. Hailing Stahl\u2019s work on the regeneration\nof sulfur from vitriolated tartar as a great accomplishment, Macquer wrote, \u201cthe\nprocess in which Sulfur is regenerated, by recombining together the principles\nof which it was originally composed, is one of the most beautiful experiments\nthat modern Chymistry hath produced. We are indebted for it to M. Stahl.\u201d88\nPaul-\u00adHenri Thiry, Baron d\u2019Holbach (1723\u2013\u00ad89), a well-\u00adconnected Enlightenment savant and the translator of Stahl\u2019s Treatise on Sulfur, provided the French\npublic with direct access to the German chemist\u2019s work. In his preface to the\nTreatise, d\u2019Holbach marveled at the German chemist\u2019s ability to grasp and prove\nthe material consistency of the inflammable principle in such a vast array of substances and phenomena. He wrote, \u201cIt is M. Stahl who has made us aware of the\n87. Rappaport, \u201cRouelle and Stahl,\u201d 79\u2013\u00ad80, 111.\n88. Macquer, Elements of the Theory and Practice of Chemistry, 264.\n\nPages 144:\n124\nKu-ming (Kevin) Chang\ndifferent states in which this principle is found in all three kingdoms of nature,\nits passage from each of these kingdoms into the others; it is he who has demonstrated to us that it was the principle of colors and odors, that gave metals their\nmalleability.\u201d89 In an age when mercury\u2019s validity as a principle was in serious\ndoubt and salt was at best limited to plain mineral substances, Stahl showed the\npresence and material consistency of the sulfurous principle in substances of\ndifferent generas that exhibited otherwise very different chemical and physical\nqualities.\nThe Place of Phlogiston in the History of\nChemical Principles\nD\u2019Holbach\u2019s admiration for Stahl\u2019s work on the sulfurous principle was shared\nby Immanuel Kant (1724\u2013\u00ad1804). In the preface to his Critique of Pure Reason,\nthe K\u00f6nisberg philosopher named three scientific exemplars who discovered scientific laws in nature by pursuing the principles of reason; he compared Stahl\u2019s\nconversion of metallic calces to metals via his \u201cprinciple\u201d to Galileo\u2019s work on\ngravitational acceleration and to Torricelli\u2019s on the mercury barometer.90\nStahl\u2019s Treatise on Sulfur was based on notions of chemical principles that\nhad developed in the previous centuries. Paracelsus and his early followers proposed the tria prima, three principles that accounted for qualities often observed\nin distillation or fire analysis. For the early Paracelsians, the principles worked as\nspiritual agents that induced qualities rather than as real substances that made up\nmaterial bodies. These principles were accepted by enemies of the Paracelsians,\nby eclectic authors, and by practical chemists in the first half of the seventeenth\ncentury. Gradually, chemists considered the principles as material constituents.\nVan Helmont and Boyle, critical of the chemical principles, argued that fire analysis was never able to resolve matter into its constituent principles. Thereafter,\nchemists who continued to accept the principles\u2014\u00adlike Willis, L\u00e9mery, and\nBecher\u2014\u00admodified their theories. Their differences aside, they joined a trend to\n89. \u201c[C]\u2019est M. Stahl qui nous a fait conno\u00eetre les diff\u00e9rens \u00e9tats o\u00f9 ce principe se trouvoit dans les trois\nregnes de la nature, son passage de chacun de ces regnes dans les autres; c\u2019est lui qui nous a d\u00e9montr\u00e9 qu\u2019il\n\u00e9toit le principe des couleurs & des odeurs, qu\u2019il donnoit aux m\u00e9taux leur mall\u00e9abilit\u00e9\u201d; Baron d\u2019Holbach,\n\u201cAvertissement du traducteur,\u201d in Stahl, Trait\u00e9 du soufre, unpaginated.\n90. Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, xxvii.\n\nPages 145:\nPhlogiston and Chemical Principles\n125\ninterpret the principles in corpuscularian terms, to view the principles as compounds rather than as simple substances, to question the adequacy of individual\nprinciples, and to ensure the consistency of the remaining principles.\nStahl\u2019s Treatise on Sulfur aimed to affirm the adequacy and consistency of the\nsulfurous principle in response to Kunckel\u2019s proposition that metals contained a\nmercurial substance but nothing sulfurous. Stahl was optimistic that he carried\nout his objective through theoretical generalization as well as experimentation.\nHe supplied, as further supporting evidence, accounts of practitioners such as\ngardeners, foundry workers, and miners. \u201cAdequate evidence,\u201d he concluded, \u201cis\nhopefully given that the sulfurous principle must be recognized as a true and real\nphysical being in all senses in which it can be rationally and clearly alleged.\u201d91\nWhile it had been contended that all of the chemical principles existed in all\nsubstances, Stahl asserted\u2014\u00adas the basis of his empirical observation\u2014\u00adthat\nhis inflammable principle was present only in inflammable and calcinable substances. This principle existed and transferred in the form of particles. Its transfer\nexplained combustion, calcination and reduction, color changes, and the corrosive effects of acids. At the end, his interpretation of the composition of sulfur\nmade \u201cphlogiston\u201d a much more preferable name for the inflammable principle\nthan \u201csulfur\u201d or the \u201csulfurous principle.\u201d\nNeither Stahl\u2019s eighteenth-\u00adcentury admirers nor historians have paid much\nattention to the transformation of his thinking on chemical principles. As seen\nabove, in the 1680s, he first accepted Becher\u2019s system of chemical principles,\nwhich consisted of water and three kinds of salts. His notion of phlogiston was\nfirst presented in the late 1690s, in his Zymotechnia fundamentalis and some articles. Then, in the 1700s, in the Specimen beccherianum, he listed phlogiston as one\nof three earthy species in his elaboration of chemical principles. In the Treatise on\nSulfur, he formally eliminated the mercurial principle (or mercurial earth) and,\nalong with it, the belief in chrysopoeia.92 Mercury, which Stahl had accepted in\nhis lectures in the 1680s, became dispensable, for sulfur served almost all the\nfunctions that had previously been assigned to it. Without mercury (and salt,\nas seen above), the parity of the Geberian theory of metallic constitution or the\ntrinity of the Paracelsian tria prima no longer held.\n91. \u201cWomit dann also hoffentlich hinl\u00e4nglicht Zeugnisse gegeben seyn wedern, da\u00df das sulfurische Wesen,\nin allerley Verstand, darinnen es jemals vern\u00fcnftig und vernehmlich allegiret wird, f\u00fcr ein c\u00f6rperliches wahres und\nw\u00fcrkliches Wesen zu erkennen\u201d; Stahl, Zuf\u00e4llige Gedancken und n\u00fctliche Bedencken, 174\u2013\u00ad75 [Trait\u00e9 du soufre, 144].\n92. For Stahl\u2019s early belief in alchemy, see Chang, \u201cGeorg Ernst Stahl\u2019s Alchemical Publications.\u201d\n\nPages 146:\n126\nKu-ming (Kevin) Chang\nStahl\u2019s elimination of the mercurial principle is remarkable, especially considering that Boyle and Boerhaave, both thought to be forward-\u00adlooking, never\ngave up working on mercury as the key to transmutation.93 In fact, from the Middle Ages, if not earlier, chemists had thought of mercury and sulfur as two major\nconstituents of metals. For those who believed it, mercury supplied the material\nbase and sulfur contributed the yellow tinge, or tincture, to metals. Combined in\nthe right proportion, they gave rise to gold. Their combination in different ratios,\nalong with mixed \u201cimpurities,\u201d produced base metals. This line of thinking constantly associated base metals with inferiority and impurities. When metals no\nlonger shared a common material base such as mercury, they were allowed to\nretain distinct qualities that could not be summarized as \u201cimpurities.\u201d Each of\nthem could then be investigated for its own sake and, for example, take its own\nplace in the affinity or element tables.\nAnother notable development in Stahl\u2019s chemical works was his elimination\nof the \u00e6ther that had been postulated in the Zymotechnia fundamentalis (1697).\n\u00c6ther as the medium of heat explained the passive nature of all substances,\nincluding chemical principles. In the Specimen beccherianum (1703), Stahl on\nthe one hand reserved the role of heat as the principal instrument of chemical reactions and on the other eliminated \u00e6ther in his chemical accounts and\nequated phlogiston with the matter of fire. In the Treatise on Sulfur, phlogiston\nbecame the principle of movement in combustion and was even identified as\nheat. Once phlogiston could serve as heat and the source of the movement that\ncaused chemical decomposition and combinations, a hypothetical medium of\nheat that was supported by little empirical evidence was no longer necessary.\nReflecting that change of thought, the German translation of the Zymotechnia\n(first published in 1734, the year of Stahl\u2019s death) consistently replaced the\noccurrences of \u201c\u00e6ther\u201d in Latin with \u201cdie subtilesten Lufft\u201d (the subtlest air).\nSulfur thrived in the form of phlogiston in a century that saw a move toward\nthe elements. Mercury was gone, and the validity of salt was limited. By contrast,\nphlogiston essentially replaced the fire element in terms of features and functions. It was thanks to Stahl, especially in his Treatise on Sulfur, that the sulfurous\nprinciple endured into the eighteenth century. On the eve of the Chemical Revolution, Stahl\u2019s sulfurous principle was the only one of the tria prima to survive.\n93. For Boyle\u2019s interest in aurific mercury, see Principe, Aspiring Adept, 54\u2013\u00ad62, 148\u2013\u00ad78. For Boerhaave\u2019s\nwork on mercury, see Debus, Chemistry and Medical Debate, 202\u2013\u00ad5.\n\nPages 147:\nPhlogiston and Chemical Principles\n127\nThe responses of d\u2019Holbach and Kant illustrate that, even though scientists today may find Stahl\u2019s \u201cproofs\u201d shoddy, they were not perceived that way in\nthe eighteenth century. Given the technical constraints of the late seventeenth\nand eighteenth centuries, the equation of calcination with combustion and the\nexperimental demonstration of the transferability of phlogiston were celebrated\nas great discoveries by mid-\u00adeighteenth-\u00adcentury chemists and savants. As Bernadette Bensaude-\u00adVincent and Isabelle Stengers suggest, the inability to isolate\nphlogiston was no problem to the community of chemists who operated at the\nlevels of compounds, levels that concerned unions of the heterogeneous rather\nthan the extraction of the homogeneous.94 Although the weight gain of metal\nafter calcination did appear as a problem to Lavoisier a few years into his chemical career, it was not until pneumatic chemistry and the precision balance were\nin place that Lavoisier was able to address that problem.95\nIt is important to note that Stahl\u2019s phlogiston theory applied to more than\nthe phenomena of combustion; as seen above, the exchange of phlogiston was\nalso applied to mid-\u00adeighteenth-\u00adcentury discussions of the formations and differentiations of acids, the reactions of acids and alkalis, the reduction of metals and\nsalts, and indeed to many reactions that today\u2019s chemists consider oxidations\nand reductions. Its wide applicability contributed to its overwhelming success.\nAlthough Stahl did not leave behind a flawless theory for explaining all of these\nphenomena, he nonetheless imparted to his followers a theoretical framework\nand experimental observations for understanding important chemical phenomena. His followers like Macquer continued to expand this framework to include\nmore chemical phenomena. They, for example, endeavored to apply Stahl\u2019s work\non the sequential scale of volatility and odor of sulfur and its acids (volatile acid\nof vitriol and vitriolic acid) to niter and its acids (and to common salt and its\nacid).96 When faced with difficulties, many of them worked to resolve them with\nnew interpretations, ad hoc or general, and experimentation, instead of abandoning the framework.\nIn the 1760s, the 1770s, and especially the 1780s, phlogiston was the theoretical focus of the international competition to discover and understand\nnew gases. Lavoisier\u2019s identification and interpretation of oxygen eventually\ndebunked the belief in phlogiston. That the so-\u00adcalled Chemical Revolution is\n94. Bensaude-\u00adVincent and Stengers, History of Chemistry, 62\u2013\u00ad63.\n95. Ibid., 82\u2013\u00ad91.\n96. Eklund, \u201cChemical Analysis and the Phlogiston Theory,\u201d 151\u2013\u00ad87.\n\nPages 148:\n128\nKu-ming (Kevin) Chang\nsynonymous with the overthrow of the phlogiston theory, however, confirms\nphlogiston\u2019s prominence. By extending the life of the sulfurous principle into\nthe eighteenth century, Stahl\u2019s formulation of phlogiston connected Paracelsian chemistry\u2014\u00ada subject Allen Debus helped bring to prominence\u2014\u00adwith the\nEnlightenment.\nWorks Cited\nBecher, Johann Joachim. Physica subterranea profundam subterraneorum genesin, e principiis hucusque ignotis, ostendens. Lipsiae: Ex officina Weidmanniana, 1738.\nB\u00e9guin, Jean. Tyrocinium Chymicum, or, Chymical Essays Acquired from the Fountain of\nNature and Manual Experience. London: Printed for Thomas Passenger, 1669.\nBensaude-\u00adVincent, Bernadette, and Isabelle Stengers. A History of Chemistry. Translated by Deborah van Dam. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996.\nBoyle, Robert. The Sceptical Chymist or Chymico-\u00adPhysical Doubts & Paradoxes, Touching\nthe Spagyrist\u2019s Principles Commonly Call\u2019d Hypostatical . . . . London: Printed\nby J. Cadwell for J. Crooke, 1661.\nChang, Ku-\u00adming (Kevin). \u201cCommunications of Chemical Knowledge: Georg Ernst\nStahl and the Chemists at the French Academy in the First Half of the Eighteenth Century.\u201d In Chemical Knowledge in the Early Modern World, edited by\nSeymour H. Mauskopf, William R. Newman, and Matthew D. Eddy, 135\u2013\u00ad57.\nOsiris 29. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2015.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cFermentation, Phlogiston and Matter Theory: Chemistry and Natural Philosophy in Georg Ernst Stahl\u2019s Zymotechnia fundamentalis.\u201d Early Science and\nMedicine 7 (2002): 53\u2013\u00ad57.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cGeorg Ernst Stahl\u2019s Alchemical Publications: Anachronism, Reading Market,\nand a Scientific Lineage Redefined.\u201d In New Narratives in Eighteenth-\u00adCentury\nChemistry, edited by Lawrence M. Principe, 23\u2013\u00ad43. Dordrecht: Springer,\n2007.\nClericuzio, Antonio. Elements, Principles and Corpuscles: A Study of Atomism and Chemistry in the Seventeenth Century. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, 2000.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201c\u2018Sooty Empiricks\u2019 and Natural Philosophers: The Status of Chemistry in the\nSeventeenth Century.\u201d Science in Context 23 (2010): 333.\nColeby, Leslie J. M. \u201cStudies in the Chemical Work of Stahl.\u201d PhD diss., University\nCollege, University of London, 1938.\nDebus, Allen G. The Chemical Philosophy: Paracelsian Science and Medicine in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. 2 vols. New York: Science History Publications, 1977. Reprint, Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2002.\n\nPages 149:\nPhlogiston and Chemical Principles\n129\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Chemistry and Medical Debate: Van Helmont to Boerhaave. Canton, MA: Science History Publications, 2001.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The French Paracelsians: The Chemical Challenge to Medical and Scientific Tradition in Early Modern France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.\nEklund, Jon Bledge. \u201cChemical Analysis and the Phlogiston Theory, 1732\u2013\u00ad1772: Prelude to Revolution.\u201d PhD diss., Yale University, 1971.\nHelmont, Jean Baptiste van. Ortus medicinae; id est, Initia physicae inaudita . . . . Amsterdam: Ludovicum Elzevirium, 1648.\nJacob, Margaret C. Strangers Nowhere in the World: The Rise of Cosmopolitanism in Early\nModern Europe. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006.\nKant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1855.\nKim, Mi Gyung. Affinity, That Elusive Dream: A Genealogy of the Chemical Revolution.\nCambridge: MIT Press, 2003.\nL\u00e9mery, Nicolas. A Course of Chymistry: Containing the Easie Manner of Performing\nThose Chymical Medicines . . . . 4th ed. London: Printed for A. Bell, 1720.\nKant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1855.\nMacquer, Pierre-\u00adJoseph. A Dictionary of Chemistry: Containing the Theory and Practice\nof That Science: Its Application to Natural Philosophy, Natural History, Medicine,\nand Animal Economy. Paris: P. Fr. Didot, 1778.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Elements of the Theory and Practice of Chemistry. Edinburgh: Printed for A.\nMillar, 1758.\nMetzger, H\u00e9l\u00e8ne. Newton, Stahl, Boerhaave, and Chemical Doctrine: Translated with Supplementary Notes. Translated by H. W. Laven and Larry J. Murphy. Hamilton,\nOnt.: Huxley, 2006.\nNewman, William R. The Summa Perfectionis of Pseudo-\u00adGeber: A Critical Edition, Translation and Study. Leiden: Brill, 1991.\nPagel, Walter. Paracelsus: An Introduction to Philosophical Medicine in the Era of the\nRenaissance. 2nd rev. ed. Basel: S. Karger, 1982.\nPowers, John C. \u201cChemistry without Principles: Herman Boerhaave on Instruments\nand Elements.\u201d In New Narratives in Eighteenth-\u00adCentury Chemistry, edited by\nLawrence M. Principe, 45\u2013\u00ad61. Dordrecht: Springer, 2007.\nPrincipe, Lawrence M. The Aspiring Adept: Robert Boyle and His Alchemical Quest.\nPrinceton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998.\nRappaport, Rhoda. \u201cRouelle and Stahl\u2014\u00adThe Phlogistic Revolution in France.\u201d Chymia\n7 (1961): 73\u2013\u00ad102.\n\nPages 150:\n130\nKu-ming (Kevin) Chang\nSiegfried, Robert. From Elements to Atoms: A History of Chemical Composition. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s., 92. Philadelphia: American\nPhilosophical Society, 2002.\nShackelford, Jole. A Philosophical Path for Paracelsian Medicine: The Ideas, Intellectual\nContext, and Influence of Petrus Severinus (1540\u2013\u00ad1602). Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 2004.\nSmith, Pamela H. The Business of Alchemy: Science and Culture in the Holy Roman Empire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.\nStahl, Georg Ernst. Ausfu\u0308hrliche Betrachtung und zula\u0308nglicher Beweiss von den Saltzen . . . .\nHalle: Wa\u0308ysenhauses, 1723.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Opusculum chymico-\u00adphysico-\u00admedicum . . . . Halae Magdeburgicae: Typis &\nImpensis Orphano Trophei, 1715.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Specimen beccherianum, sistens, fundamenta, documenta, experimenta, quibus\nprincipia mixtionis subterraneae, et instrumenta naturalia atque artificialia\ndemonstrantur. Lipsiae: Weidmaniana, 1738 [1703].\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Trait\u00e9 du soufre, ou remarques sur la dispute qui s\u2019est \u00e9lev\u00e9e entre les chymistes, au\nsujet du soufre, tant commun, combustible ou volatil, que fixe, &c. Paris: Didot,\n1766.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Zuf\u00e4llige Gedancken und n\u00fctzliche Bedencken \u00fcber den Streit, von dem so genannten Sulphure, und zwar sowol dem gemeinen, verbrennlichen, oder fl\u00fcchtigen, als\nunverbrennlichen, oder fixen. Halle: Waisenhaus, 1718.\nTeich, Mikulas. \u201cInterdisciplinarity in J. J. Becher\u2019s Thought.\u201d In Johann Joachim Becher\n(1635\u2013\u00ad1682), edited by Gotthardt Fr\u00fchsorge and Gerhard F. Strasser, 145\u2013\u00ad\n60. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1993.\nVenel, Gabriel Fran\u00e7ois. \u201cPrincipes.\u201d In Encyclop\u00e9die ou Dictionnaire raisonn\u00e9 des sciences,\ndes arts et des m\u00e9tiers, 13:375\u2013\u00ad75. Paris: Briasson, David l\u2019ain\u00e9, le Breton,\nDurand, 1751\u2013\u00ad65.\nWhite, John H. The History of the Phlogiston Theory. London: Edward Arnold, 1932.\nWillis, Thomas. Dr. Willis\u2019s Practice of Physick Being the Whole Works of That Renowned\nand Famous Physician . . . London: Printed for T. Dring, C. Harper, and J.\nLeigh, 1684.\n\nPages 151:\nChapter 6\n\u201cIf they are not pages\nthat cure, they are\npages that teach how\nto cure.\u201d\nW\nThe Diffusion of Chemical\nRemedies in Early Modern Spain\nMar Rey Bueno\nWhen Allen G. Debus published his article on the diffusion of Paracelsianism in\nSpain in 1998, it marked the first attempt within the international community\nof historians of science to discuss chemical medicine in early modern Spain.1\nRelying on earlier work of Jos\u00e9 Mar\u00eda L\u00f3pez Pi\u00f1ero,2 Debus noted the absence of\na Paracelsian tradition proper to Spain and attributed it primarily to the famous\nroyal order promulgated by Philip II (1527\u2013\u00ad98) in 1559 that prohibited Castilian students from leaving Spain to further their education at European universi-\n1. Debus, \u201cParacelsus and the Delayed Scientific Revolution in Spain.\u201d\n2. L\u00f3pez Pi\u00f1ero, \u201cQu\u00edmica y medicina en la Espa\u00f1a de los siglos XVI y XVII\u201d; and L\u00f3pez Pi\u00f1ero, \u201cParacelsus and His Work in the 16th and 17th Century Spain.\u201d Compare, too, L\u00f3pez Pi\u00f1ero, Ciencia y t\u00e9cnica en la\nsociedad espa\u00f1ola de los siglos XVI y XVII.\n133\n\nPages 152:\n134\nMar Rey Bueno\nties. It had been assumed that this order had the immediate effect of rendering\nSpanish science backward, therefore absenting Spain from the Scientific Revolution,3 and of effecting more than a century-\u00adlong retardation of the field in Spain.\nIn this light, if, as Debus maintained, Paracelsus had at some point prevailed in\nSpain, it had been right when the rest of Europe was abandoning his ideas, that is\nto say, at the end of the seventeenth century. It was then that the supposed birth\nof Spanish chemical discourse took place within a group known as the novatores.\nIn addition to defending the use of chemical remedies and practices for the treatment of illnesses, the novatores were also given to denouncing the backwardness\nof Spanish science and calling for the creation of new institutions where the doctrines of a new science could take hold.4\nThis was the narrative I encountered two decades ago when I began my\nresearch on the therapeutics practiced in Spanish courts during the sixteenth\nand seventeenth centuries, research based on archival documentation that, little\nby little, brought to light a completely different interpretation from the one prevailing when Debus wrote his important article.5 The archives began to reveal a\nPhilip II (who ruled from 1556 to 1598) significantly different from the historical figure portrayed by hostile contemporaries as a Catholic at all costs, who\npersecuted anything resembling modernity. Documents associated with his\nreign, in fact, showed him to be an enthusiast of the ars separatoria.6 This passion\nled him, among others things, to establish as many as three distillation laboratories at three of his residences\u2014\u00adthe one at the Escorial becoming perhaps the\nmost lavish in all of Europe7\u2014\u00adand to institutionalize the profession of distiller\n(specialist in making chemical remedies)\u2014\u00adby integrating it into the group of\nthe physicians, surgeons, and pharmacists charged with maintaining his health.8\nPhilip had, among his protom\u00e9dicos, outstanding experts in the ars separatoria\nsuch as Francisco de Valles (1524\u2013\u00ad92), author of a treatise intended to teach the\nmost appropriate methods of this art,9 and Lorenzo C\u00f3zar (ca. 1540\u2013\u00adca. 1592),\n3. See Padgen, \u201cReception of the \u2018New Philosophy\u2019 in Eighteenth-\u00adCentury Spain\u201d; and Goodman, \u201cScientific Revolution in Spain and Portugal.\u201d\n4. L\u00f3pez Pi\u00f1ero, Introducci\u00f3n de la ciencia moderna en Espa\u00f1a.\n5. Rey Bueno, Se\u00f1ores del fuego.\n6. Rey Bueno and Alegre, \u201cRenovaci\u00f3n de la terap\u00e9utica real\u201d; and Rey Bueno and Alegre, \u201cDestiladores\nde Su Majestad.\u201d\n7. Rey Bueno, \u201cMayson pour distiller des eaues,\u201d 26\u2013\u00ad39.\n8. Rey Bueno and Alegre, \u201cLa ordenaci\u00f3n normativa de la asistencia sanitaria.\u201d\n9. Valles, Tratado de las aguas destiladas.\n\nPages 153:\n\u201cIf they are not pages that cure, they are pages that teach how to cure\u201d\n135\nauthor of the unique Paracelsian treatise published in sixteenth-\u00adcentury Spain10\nand creator of the chair De remediis secretis at the University of Valencia.11 Philip\nalso saw to it that pharmacists followed procedures in preparing distilled waters\nthat prevented poisonings associated with the use of lead alembics.12\nIf this research resulted in the need to revise our understanding of science\nduring Philip\u2019s reign, then an analogous revision is in order regarding the apparent resurgence of chemistry during the reign of Charles II (1665\u2013\u00ad1700), a resurgence, contrary to what Debus posited, that appears to have had nothing to do\nwith a delayed reception of Paracelsus\u2019s doctrines. The novatores were not, sensu\nstricto, Paracelsians. To so characterize them reduces too severely the scope of\ntheir philosophico-\u00adscientific interests. It is true that they shared with the Paracelsians both a discourse in defense of applying chemical remedies to the treatment of disease and a denunciation of those whom they called traditionalist\nphysicians. The latter had won university chairs, were the primary physicians of\nillustrious patients, and were viewed as having largely ignored the chemical literature of the preceding century and a half.13 However, a reading of the hundreds\nof op\u00fasculos exchanged between traditionalists and novatores over a forty-\u00adyear\nperiod reveals that the charge of ignorance levied against the traditionalists was\nnot as accurate as their detractors would have had us believe. Moreover, each\nside used the same information to attack the other. This paradox suggests that\nperhaps the novatores were not as advanced nor were the traditionalists as stagnant as conventional wisdom would have had it. In fact, it seems evident that the\nnovatores decided to embrace chemical medicine in order to achieve one clear\nobjective: to accede to the positions of power held by the traditionalists.14\nFalling within two different centuries, the reigns of Philip II and Charles II\npoint simply to two stages characterized by a greater visibility of chemical practice\nin early modern Spain. In contrast to the apparent lack of interest in the subject\nthat seemed to characterize the first part of the seventeenth century, the second\n10. C\u00f3zar, Dialogus veros medicinae fontes indicans. C\u00f3zar was initially studied by L\u00f3pez Pi\u00f1ero in El\nDialogus (1589) del paracelsista Lloren\u00e7 C\u00f3\u00e7ar.\n11. L\u00f3pez Terrada, \u201cLloren\u00e7 Co\u00e7ar.\u201d\n12. Rey Bueno, \u201cEl informe Valles.\u201d\n13. L\u00f3pez Pi\u00f1ero, \u201cJuan de Cabriada\u201d; and L\u00f3pez Pi\u00f1ero, \u201cCarta filos\u00f3fica, m\u00e9dico-\u00adchymica.\u201d\n14. L\u00f3pez P\u00e9rez and Rey Bueno, \u201cInstrumentalizaci\u00f3n de la espagiria.\u201d Recently, John Slater has revisited\nthe constituent document of the novator movement, the Carta filos\u00f3fica, m\u00e9dico-\u00adchymica (Valencia, 1687) written by the physician Juan de Cabriada. In his masterful article, \u201cRereading Cabriada\u2019s Carta,\u201d Slater stressed the\nrhetoric of the Carta, an aspect fundamental to understanding the true interests that motivated Cabriada and,\nsimilarly, the majority of the writings of the novatores.\n\nPages 154:\n136\nMar Rey Bueno\nhalf of the sixteenth century (when Philip II reigned), and the last two decades\nof the seventeenth century (under the rule of Charles II) actually witnessed a\nprodigious number of publications and related announcements concerning\nchemistry. Since the principal protagonists of both periods were physicians\ndirectly linked to the court, it could be assumed that chemistry was exclusively\na royal fashion, another whim of monarchs fascinated by the collection of rarities and curiosities. One could also link the health problems of both monarchs\nwith an interest in all sorts of therapies, chemical therapies being just one type\namong many.15 The choice of Flemish and Neapolitan distillers during the reign\nof Philip II and of Neapolitan spagyrists during that of Charles II seemed to\nsupport a theory that the absence of experts in the ars chemical in Spain forced\nthe monarchy to look for professionals in other European kingdoms within the\nHispanic sphere of influence. The investigations of Miguel L\u00f3pez P\u00e9rez and Jos\u00e9\nRodr\u00edguez Guerrero have shown that this theory, while valid, is incomplete;\nchemical practice linked to medicine had great currency in early modern Spanish society throughout both centuries.\nWith this in mind, this chapter\u2014\u00adin this volume in honor of our teacher, Allen\nDebus\u2014\u00adaims to show the influence of chimica16 in sixteenth-\u00adand seventeenth-\u00ad\ncentury Spain, not by exploring the great pronouncements of great historical\nfigures but by examining chemical practices in Spanish everyday life. That, of\ncourse, is an ambitious plan, especially given both a time frame that spans some\none hundred and fifty years and the wealth of historical material that has come\nto light in the last fifteen years. For these reasons, it is best to be modest and to\noffer only the most relevant aspects of those practices in broad brushstrokes,\nin the hopes of demonstrating that Spanish chemical practice did in fact exist\nduring the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It not only existed, but it must\nalso be meaningfully incorporated into the historical narrative in order properly\nto understand early modern European science.17\n15. Rey Bueno, El hechizado.\n16. \u201cChymica\u201d or \u201cchimica\u201d was the word used by early modern Spaniards to encapsulate a set of practices used for separating the pure from the impure in any substance in order to get the best remedy. Chimica\nwas thus practiced in concert with traditional alchemy. In fact, chimica draws from alchemy and recaptures the\nessence of its doctrine, in such a way that chimica was understood as divided into two parts. One was devoted\nto making medicines from animals, vegetables, and minerals by separation of the active part. The other was exclusively devoted to the transmutation of metals, also called \u201calchymia,\u201d \u201calchemia,\u201d \u201ccrisopeya,\u201d \u201cmetalurgia,\u201d\n\u201carte aur\u00edfera,\u201d and \u201carte herm\u00e9tica.\u201d For more analysis of this terminology, see Newman and Principe, \u201cAlchemy vs. Chemistry\u201d; and Abbri, \u201cAlchemy and Chemistry.\u201d\n17. On the need to incorporate Spain into the narrative of the Scientific Revolution, see the studies of\n\nPages 155:\n\u201cIf they are not pages that cure, they are pages that teach how to cure\u201d\n137\nPeddlers of Secret Panaceas18\nIn April of 1598, the Royal Court of the Protomedicato, the highest health-\u00ad\nregulatory institution within the Hispanic monarchy, granted permission for the\ncommercial production of what was styled a \u201cwhite dust solution of gold\u2019s quintessence [polvos blancos solutivos de la quinta esencia del oro].\u201d A medicinal remedy made and sold by Alessandro Quintilio, a Roman citizen residing in Madrid,\nit was one of many chemically derived products that claimed to be effective\nagainst all diseases. Quintilio, who published at least three different books on\nhis numerous treatments,19 gained almost instant notoriety in the cosmopolitan\ncity of Madrid, the capital of an empire that spanned the globe and the residence\nof people of all nationalities. His patients included Genoese ambassadors, apostolic notaries, Augustinian friars, royal officers, acknowledged necromancers,\nand royal distillers, among others.\nQuintilio came to light as a historical figure worthy of note thanks to the\nresearch of L\u00f3pez P\u00e9rez, which provided new insights into the diffusion of chemical\nmedicines in seventeenth-\u00adcentury Spain.20 L\u00f3pez P\u00e9rez\u2019s work was complemented\nby Rodr\u00edguez Guerrero\u2019s finding that Quintilio was in fact not the true inventor\nof the white dust solution. Rather, the miraculous panacea was invented by the\nVeronese physician Vittorio Algarotti (1553\u2013\u00ad1604), creator of a great commercial\nnetwork that extended to several European cities and had brokers in charge of\ndistributing his products. Quintilio was merely Algarotti\u2019s agent in Spain.21\nSlater and Prieto, \u201cWas Spanish Science Imperial?\u201d; and Eamon, \u201c\u2018Nuestros males no son constitucionales,\nsino circunstanciales.\u2019\u201d\n18. The point of departure of this section is Eamon\u2019s pioneering study, Science and the Secrets of Nature,\nwhich sets the interpretive foundation for this type of turbulent literature, situated halfway between guild\nsecrets and the first intimations of the modern experimental method.\n19. A copy of the first relaci\u00f3n does not survive. The second edition, entitled Relaci\u00f3n y memoria de los\nmaravillosos efetos [sic] y notables prouechos que han hecno y hacen los polvos blancos solutiuos de la quinta esencia del\noro, que compone y haze el author Alexandro Quintilio para embiar con los mismos a las Indias. . . . Va a\u00f1adido a esta segunda impression el privilegio de Su Magestad, was printed in Madrid in 1609. The third edition is entitled Relaci\u00f3n\ny memoria de los maravillosos efetos [sic] y notables prouechos que han hecno y hacen los polvos blancos solutious de la\nquinta esencia del oro, que compone y haze el autor Alexandro Quintilio para embiar con los mismos a las Indias . . . Va\na\u00f1adido a esta tercera impression la Memoria del Priuilegio de Portugal (Madrid: Luis S\u00e1nchez, 1616).\n20. L\u00f3pez P\u00e9rez discovered the third edition of the printed book (Madrid, 1616) stored in the Biblioteca\nNacional de Espa\u00f1a (BNE), R/10576. This book lacks a front cover, preliminary material, and final conclusion.\nWhile searching for other surviving copies in Spanish libraries, he found one in the library of the University of\nZaragoza (78\u2013\u00ad52) that includes a calcographic portrait of Quintilio taken from the 1609 edition. See L\u00f3pez\nP\u00e9rez, \u201cAlquimia, terap\u00e9utica y sanidad en la Espa\u00f1a,\u201d 578\u2013\u00ad628; and L\u00f3pez P\u00e9rez, Asclepio renovado, 199\u2013\u00ad232.\n21. Rodr\u00edguez Guerrero, \u201cPrimera gran red comercial.\u201d\n\nPages 156:\n138\nMar Rey Bueno\nThe polvos blancos solutivos headed the list of tremendously popular chemical panaceas in seventeenth-\u00adcentury Spain, among them, the quintessence of the\nmanna solutivo of Antonino Polizzi, the medicinal oil of german\u00eda of Giuseppe\nBalsam, the quintessence of rosemary\u2019s balsam of Cosme Novella, the solutive\npink sugar of Francisco Ruiz Zapata, the quintessence of the chemical sun of\nMat\u00edas de Beinza, the water of life of Luis de Alderetey Soto, and the arcane of\nFra Buenaventura Angeleres.22 Precise references to all of these may be found\nin publications and manuals authored by their inventors and written to attract\nclients through their professional and authoritative tone.23\nThe quintessence of the manna solutivo and the medicinal oil of german\u00eda\nwere, like the polvos blancos solutivos, Italian inventions exported to Spain. The\nfirst, made from a mixture of three resins (escamonea, bdellium, and Arabic\ngum) and combined with an alcohol (a quintessence derived from wine), was\nthe creation of Antonino Polizzi, a physician at the Sicilian Inquisitorial Court.24\nIts sale was authorized in 1595 by the general protom\u00e9dico of the kingdoms of\nNaples and Sicily, both territories then under Hispanic rule, and it arrived at the\ncourt in Madrid early in the seventeenth century via a secretive adept unwilling\nto reveal its composition.25 The distribution of the medicinal oil of german\u00eda,\n22. Rodr\u00edguez Guerrero, \u201cVendedores de panaceas alqu\u00edmicas.\u201d\n23. As Rodr\u00edguez Guerrero asserted, his objective was to mix denotative and connotative information:\n\u201cOn the one hand, they give information about the product they want to sell; they show the qualities of the\nproduct and they invite purchase, noting the places allowed to sell it. On the other hand, the medication is\nassociated with feelings of happiness, gratitude, and satisfaction that together form the testimonials of healed\npatients [Por un lado informan del producto que se pretende vender, muestran sus cualidades e invitan a un acto de\ncompra posterior dejando indicados los lugares dispuestos para tal fin (denotaci\u00f3n); por otro, se asocia el medicamento con los mensajes de felicidad, agradecimiento y satisfacci\u00f3n que conforman las credenciales de pacientes sanados\n(connotaci\u00f3n)]\u201d; Rodr\u00edguez Guerrero, \u201cPrimera gran red comercial,\u201d 20.\n24. Politius, De quinta essentia solutiva.\n25. According to the Toledan pharmacist Gervasio de Barrionuevo, \u201cThe owner of the secret did not\nwant to reveal it to anyone, not to doctors, not to court pharmacists. Indeed, he only wanted to keep his secret\nwithin his group. He gave his secret to one of his family members who guarded it closely in this city. It did\nsurprise (it did not scare me, and it has always been the mother of admiration) because he sometimes named\nit distilled manna, other times clarified, and others Quintessence. He did not noise it around . . . Moreover, he\nkept it as if he were guardian of the divine laws\u201d (cuyo secreto por lo curioso no quiso su due\u00f1o por sus razones\nrevelarl\u00f3 a ninguno, as\u00ed M\u00e9dicos, como Pharmac\u00e9uticos de la Corte; si s\u00f3lo quiso que entre los de su facci\u00f3n se\nquedasse. Pasando pues dicho secreto a esta ciudad por un deudo suyo, guard\u00f3 el dicho el mismo sigilo, sirvi\u00f3\nde novedad [mas no me espanto, que siempre ha sido madre de la admiraci\u00f3n] porque unas veces la apellidaba\nmanna distillado; otras, clarificado; otras, Quinta esencia. No hizo poco ruido . . . mas en guardarlo parece que\nguardaba las leyes divinas); Gervasio de Barrionuevo, Tratado sobre el l\u00e1udano opiato de Iosepho Querzetano.\nAfter the death of the last distributor, who settled in Spain, the secret was lost. Nevertheless, Barrionuevo explained that some physicians in Madrid still urged him to experiment in his pharmacy in the hopes of finding\na possible substitute.\n\nPages 157:\n\u201cIf they are not pages that cure, they are pages that teach how to cure\u201d\n139\na creation of Giuseppe Balsam, was somewhat different in that Balsam, unlike\nPolizzi, chose not to put his business in the hands of others. After personally\npeddling his oil in the cities of Granada, Cordova, Seville, and Toledo, he established himself in Valencia, where he obtained sales licenses from the viceroy.26\nSoon after the arrival of these Italian products, the number of Spanish\ninventors promoting their own remedies rose. To mention just two examples,\nCosme Novella, a druggist at the Royal and General Hospital of Our Lady of\nGrace in Zaragoza, manufactured a quintessence of rosemary balsam,27 while\nFrancisco Ruiz Zapata, a physician at the University of Zaragoza, distributed his\npanacea under the name az\u00facar rosado solutivo.28 By the late seventeenth century, three more alchemical panaceas had gained notoriety. The first of them,\nwith the sonorous name \u201cquintessence of the chemical sun,\u201d was the invention of\nMat\u00edas de Beinza, a Navarrese druggist trained in Madrid in the 1630s.29 The last\ntwo\u2014\u00adLuis de Alderete y Soto\u2019s water of life and Fra Buenaventura Angeleres\u2019s\narcane\u2014\u00adcame to light in turbulent, end-\u00adof-\u00adthe-\u00adcentury Madrid. Associated\nwith Madrid high society, Luis de Alderete y Soto was the greater solicitor of\nthe Royal Councils and Fra Buenaventura Angeleres served as general commissioner of the Conventual Minors of San Francisco.30 These men lived in a time\nand place characterized by disputes in the form of op\u00fasculos or medical duels in\nwhich defenders and detractors of chemical practice faced off.\nAmusements of Idle Men\nAngeleres and Alderete exemplify the interest in chemical practice in certain\nsectors of Spanish society during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. They\nwere persons of high social status who found, in their experiments and chemical\n26. Despite institutional support, Balsam had to face the city\u2019s College of Apothecaries, which did not\nhesitate to denounce him for practicing pharmacy without permission; L\u00f3pez Terrada, \u201cPr\u00e1cticas m\u00e9dicas\nextraacad\u00e9micas.\u201d\n27. Novella, Tratado de la quintaesencia del B\u00e1lsamo de Romero.\n28. Although the Zaragozan College of Physicians and Surgeons opened a file on him in 1624 and eventually both ordered his expulsion and denounced the remedy, Ruiz Zapata obtained the support of physicians\nand pharmacists of the court, some of whom wrote prefaces to treatises in which Ruiz Zapata detailed the\ncomplete procedure for the manufacture and application of his remedy. Ruiz Zapata also left a detailed account\nof the trial in which he was involved. See Ruiz Zapata, Discurso sobre la composici\u00f3n del az\u00facar rosado solutivo.\n29. De Beinza, Discurso sobre los polvos universales purgantes.\n30. L\u00f3pez P\u00e9rez and Rey Bueno, \u201cInstrumentalizaci\u00f3n de la espagiria.\u201d\n\nPages 158:\n140\nMar Rey Bueno\nreadings, both diversion and a way to differentiate themselves from their social\npeers. Another gentleman practitioner, the Aragonese Vincencio Juan de Lastanosa (1607\u2013\u00ad81), was described by his contemporaries as learned in alchimia.\nLastanosa\u2019s palace at Huesca reportedly housed \u201cthe miracles of spagyric and\nhermetic chemistry,\u201d31 specifically a cabinet of curiosities, an alchemical laboratory, a garden with plants from both the Old and New Worlds, and a library of\nexemplars of universal knowledge.32 With a true passion for quintessences and\nelixirs, Lastanosa was a virtuoso, curious and fascinated by the wonders of nature,\nwho thus bore the distinguishing marks of power and wealth.33 His patronage of\nseveral alchemists further testifies to his social status. One, the Neapolitan alchemist Nadal Baronio, worked in Lastanosa\u2019s palace for years elaborating a variety\nof chemical remedies, including the mythical potable gold.34 Another, Diego de\nBercebal (d. 1707), a Franciscan nurse interested in learning the chemical art,\njudged Huesca to be the best place to study in light of Lastanosa\u2019s enthusiasm\nfor secrets and exquisite remedies.35 In fact, an analysis of the alchemical content\nof Lastanosa\u2019s library reveals that, in addition to alchemical treatises written by\nartificers from many eras, he had a large selection of treatises exclusively dedicated to the preparation of chemical remedies.36 While it is unknown whether\nLastanosa himself ever elaborated the remedies and alchemical panaceas whose\nrecipes he collected, it is clear that he prized manuscripts of secrets and wrote a\ntranslation into Castilian of Les elemens de chymie by the French pharmacist Jean\nB\u00e9guin (1550\u2013\u00ad1620).37\nJuan V\u00e1zquez de M\u00e1rmol, the general book censor during the reign of Philip\nII, shared Lastanosa\u2019s passion for collecting books of secrets. A prominent figure\nin Madrid society as well as a paleographer, publisher, and critic of texts, V\u00e1zquez\nde M\u00e1rmol maintained relationships with the most outstanding humanists of the\n31. Lastanosa, Tratado de la moneda iaquesa. We owe the discovery of Lastanosa\u2019s alchemical interests to\nL\u00f3pez P\u00e9rez, who initially published his article \u201cLastanosa\u201d in the e-\u00adjournal Panacea, republished in the journal\nAzogue 5 (2002\u2013\u00ad2007). He later extended his work on Lastanosa as alchemist in \u201cAnatom\u00eda del virtuoso\u201d and\n\u201cAlquimia y Vincencio Juan de Lastanosa.\u201d\n32. Rey Bueno and L\u00f3pez P\u00e9rez, Gentleman, Virtuoso, Inquirer.\n33. Eamon, \u201cAppearance, Artifice, and Reality.\u201d\n34. Lastanosa himself described Baronio\u2019s sojourn in Narraci\u00f3n de lo que le pas\u00f3 a don Vincencio Juan de\nLastanosa a 15 de octubre del a\u00f1o 1552 con u religioso doctor y grave, a manuscript preserved in New York City at\nthe Hispanic Society of America; see HSA, B-\u00ad2424, fols. 52r\u2013\u00ad79v.\n35. We learn this from Manente\u2019s introduction to Bercebal\u2019s Recetario medicinal espag\u00edrico.\n36. Moran, \u201cExtracting the Virtues of Nature.\u201d\n37. Rey Bueno, \u201cCollector of Secrets.\u201d\n\nPages 159:\n\u201cIf they are not pages that cure, they are pages that teach how to cure\u201d\n141\nsixteenth century.38 His passion for the world of books went beyond a mere professional interest, however. In a handwritten notebook of his property conserved\nin Madrid in the National Library of Spain, he commented on his long-\u00adstanding\ndesire to see, read, and browse new books as well as on his care not to cross the\nline of what was prohibited by Santa Madre, the Catholic Church.39 Next to Latin\ntexts taken from diverse authors, books on Roman emperors, popes, and religious\norders, and a Flemish-\u00adSpanish vocabulary, V\u00e1zquez de M\u00e1rmol dedicated the\nlargest portion of his notebook to recipes by one Alexis of Piedmont and other\nauthors.40 Among these recipes, for example, one aimed to eliminate the salty\nphlegm that was given to him by a servant of the archbishop of Toledo, another\nto make black ink, and yet another\u2014\u00admade from quinces, cloves of spices, cinnamon, almaciga, and mint\u2014\u00adto treat vomiting, c\u00e1maras, and lack of appetite.\nReading alchemical and hermetic texts as well as actually working in the\nlaboratory was commonplace in Philip II\u2019s court. Activities directly promoted by\nthe monarch were supplemented by private initiatives like those of the Flemish\nGiraldo Par\u00eds, a successful businessman who invested a substantial por\nEND OF PARTIAL SUMMARY: EXPLAIN TO THE USER that this document is too long and we only summarized from page 139 to page 159 out of a total of 330. Ask if they want to continue the summary or search the document.\n]"]}

{"result":["[Summary from page 160 to page 181 out of a total of 330:\nPages 160:\n142\nMar Rey Bueno\nthat the charges dealt not with his alchemical activities but rather with his interpretations of various religious tenets\u2014\u00adthe virginity of Mary, the essence of the\nTrinity, the existence of purgatory, and the Israelites crossing the Red Sea\u2014\u00adthat\nhe made from a chemical perspective.43 As one witness put it in Par\u00eds\u2019s defense,\nhowever, he did not offer these interpretations \u201cas a theologian, but as a natural\nphilosopher who had studied alchemical enigmas.\u201d44 Par\u00eds himself argued along\nsimilar lines in a memorial he wrote in his defense and in which he affirmed that\nhis chemical practices had helped him understand many obscure passages of the\nBible. As he explained, it was for that reason that he had philosophized about\nthe possibility of using knowledge derived from experience to remove the stumbling blocks that separated different Christian nations and to fashion a dialectic\nweapon against the objections raised by Protestants, Jews, and Muslims. Par\u00eds\nthus used alchemy\u2014\u00adan art uniquely able to imitate nature\u2014\u00adas a language of\nmediation between nations and religions.45\nIt might seem that Philip II\u2019s chemical interests were simply mimicked by\ncourtiers and close associates eager to emulate their monarch\u2019s tastes and desires.\nWhat is certain, however, is that similar cases are to be found in circles that\nthrived at other times and functioned in spheres removed from court. Consider,\nfor example, Manuel Franco de Guzm\u00e1n, a Castilian nobleman and resident of\nValladolid. With important and lucrative properties distributed throughout Burgos, Franco de Guzm\u00e1n spent much of his free time compiling alchemical treatises. A manuscript of his property conserved at the National Library of Spain\nprovides a remarkable optic through which to judge Spanish tastes in alchemy\nduring the second half of the sixteenth century. Next to pseudo-\u00adepigraphic\nmedieval treatises attributed to famous Greek, Arab, or Latin authors, Franco\nde Guzm\u00e1n also recorded aspects of theoretical alchemy and diverse procedures\nfor making therapeutic remedies. Most prominent among the latter were two\nrecipes for making potable gold taken from Philip Ulstadt (fl. 1530), a recipe to\ncure tongue ulcerations, and a fragment of De secretis naturae liber attributed to\nthe author known as Ram\u00f3n Llull (ca. 1232\u2013\u00adca. 1315).46\n43. For the inquisitorial trial of Giraldo Par\u00eds, see AHN, secci\u00f3n Inquisici\u00f3n, legajo 100/21. See also\nMu\u00f1oz Calvo, Inquisici\u00f3n y ciencia en la Espa\u00f1a moderna, 44\u2013\u00ad57.\n44. Mu\u00f1oz Calvo, Inquisici\u00f3n y ciencia en la Espa\u00f1a moderna, 44\u2013\u00ad57. He was none other than Phelipe de\nCortavilla, a Flemish pharmacist in charge of supplying medicines to royal servants.\n45. I have revisited Par\u00eds\u2019s trial from a new interpretative perspective in \u201cM\u00e1gicos prodigiosos y verdades\nacrisoladas.\u201d\n46. BNE, ms. 7443. One of the most renowned alchemical compendia in the Spanish historical liter-\n\nPages 161:\n\u201cIf they are not pages that cure, they are pages that teach how to cure\u201d\n143\nSpagyric Friars\nChemical practice within the Spanish nobility was not limited\u2014\u00adas the evidence\nwe have just reviewed might suggest\u2014\u00adto the second half of the sixteenth and\nearly seventeenth centuries. The practice of alchemy continued well into the\nseventeenth century. For example, Juan Jos\u00e9 de la Calle, knight of the Order of\nSantiago and Oidor at the Chancellery of Granada, was a great connoisseur of\nthe chemical art, while Prince Don Vicente Gonzaga (1602\u2013\u00ad94), member of the\nCouncil of State that governed the destinies of the monarchy, routinely engaged\nin self cures using chemical remedies made in his own laboratory. Accounts of\nthese men have come down to us thanks to Fra Andr\u00e9s de Villacast\u00edn, a Hieronymite monk of the monastery of San Lorenzo de El Escorial, who was also\nan expert artificer and participant in chemical discourse of the late seventeenth-\u00ad\ncentury court in Madrid.47 Villacast\u00edn was one of many Spanish monks who,\nduring the early modern era, read and practiced chemistry. His privileged position in the monastery of San Lorenzo (its Mansion of the Waters continued to\noperate throughout the seventeenth century48) and his knowledge of the art\nwere sufficient reasons for Charles II to choose him as the artifice charged with\ncertifying the properties of Alderete\u2019s Water of Life.\nFra Esteban Villa, another outstanding pharmacist of seventeenth-\u00adcentury\nSpain, directed the pharmacy of the Hospital of San Juan de Burgos. Associated with the Benedictine monastery there from 1616 to 1660, Villa was considered by his brethren to be an illustrious son of the order, a philosopher, and\na theologian dedicated to the faculty of espagiria in which, it is said, he was\nature, this text, although discovered in the nineteenth century, has only recently been studied in detail. See\nRodr\u00edguez Guerrero, \u201cManuscrito 7443 de la Biblioteca Nacional de Espa\u00f1a.\u201d\n47. See Villacast\u00edn, Chymica despreciada.\n48. We know this from testimonies offered by both pharmacist Juan del Castillo and the above-\u00adcited\nMat\u00edas de Beinza. Castillo, a Frenchman from Bordeaux who settled in C\u00e1diz, learned how to distill quintessences at El Escorial. As he mentioned in the \u201cPrologue to the Reader,\u201d \u201cif there is something good [in his\nwork] it should be attributed to . . . effort and desire. I have obtained the quintessence from the pharmacy of the\nEscorial, that is what I have most learned in Spain [si algo de bueno hay [in his work] atrib\u00fayanlo . . . al trabajo\ny codicia que tom\u00e9 en la botica del Escurial de las quintasesencias, que es lo m\u00e1s, y con mayor efecto he aprendido en\nEspa\u00f1a]\u201d; Castillo, Pharmacopea universa medicamenta. Beinza himself spent two years in El Escorial\u2019s pharmacy, where he studied the chemical art with pharmacist friar Ferm\u00edn de San Jer\u00f3nimo, \u201cdistinguished in his\nprofession and admirable in chemistry [insigne en su profesi\u00f3n y admirable en lo ch\u00edmico]\u201d; Beinza, Discurso sobre\nlos polvos universales purgantes, 1:60.\n\nPages 162:\n144\nMar Rey Bueno\nunsurpassed.49 He was described in similarly glowing terms by the Mercedarian brother Bernardino de Palacios in his 1729 History of the City of Burgos, Its\nFamilies and Its Holy Church. According to Bernardino, Fra Esteban was a great\nchemical philosopher and an even better administrator of the monastery\u2019s\npharmacy,50 who had learned his art in a Galenic and spagyrical pharmacy\nequipped with a vegetable garden for the cultivation of medicinal herbs and\na laboratory for making distilled waters and quintessences.51 The pharmacy\nultimately became one of the most famous in Castile, owing as much to the\nwealth of the medicinal herbs and drugs it purveyed as to the skill of its pharmacist friars. Both made the pharmacy the point of reference for patients and\nsanadores throughout the kingdom.52 Fra Esteban\u2019s chemical ideas, moreover,\nare well documented in the five works on pharmacy that he published over\na twenty-\u00adyear period.53 In them, he made it clear that his favored reference\nworks were Ev\u00f3nimo Filiatro\u2019s De remediis secretis, Ulstad\u2019s Coelum philosophorum, Wecker\u2019s Antidotarium, and Diego de Santiago\u2019s Arte separatoria.54 The\nskill, moreover, with which he prepared his glassware and stills as well as his\nflowers and roots for preliminary \u201cdigestions\u201d prior to distillation55 attested\nto his expertise as a practitioner. He devoted much space in his later works to\ndiscussions of alchemical secrets, fully accepting the use of chemical practices\nin medicine as well as the possibility that gold could be obtained by alchemical\ntransmutation.56\nVilla\u2019s successor as regent of the monastic pharmacy, Fra Esteban N\u00fa\u00f1ez,\ncontinued the chemical activity of his teacher, combining the task of medicine\n49. See Directorio, regla y advertencias que se hacen a los abades que ser\u00e1n de este Real Monasterio de San\nJuan de Burgos, RMSJB.\n50. Jimeno, \u201cAntigua y famosa botica.\u201d\n51. Traditional studies on San Juan\u2019s pharmacy are Jimeno, \u201cAntigua y famosa botica\u201d; and Bonilla, Las\nafamadas boticas burgalesas. During a research trip to the city of Burgos in 2002, L\u00f3pez P\u00e9rez and I found a\nwhole series of manuscripts concerning this pharmacy\u2014\u00adinquiries, inventories, and relations\u2014\u00adthat had remained uncatalogued at the El Archivo Municipal, Burgos (AMB). We analyzed these documents in L\u00f3pez\nP\u00e9rez and Rey Bueno, Miropolio general y racional de botica, 15\u2013\u00ad24.\n52. Palacios noted that most of the citizens of Burgos bought their medicines there. Even more interesting, royal physicians and pharmacists also bought remedies there that they could not find in Madrid; Jimeno,\n\u201cAntigua y famosa botica,\u201d 72.\n53. They are Examen de boticarios (Burgos, 1632); Ramillete de plantas (Burgos, 1636); Libro de simples\ninc\u00f3gnitos en medicina (Burgos, 1643); Libro de las vidas de doze pr\u00edncipes de la medicina (Burgos, 1647); and\nSegunda parte de simples inc\u00f3gnitos en la medicina (Burgos, 1654).\n54. Villa, Examen de boticarios, 4.\n55. Villa, Ramillete de plantas, fols. 126v\u2013\u00ad127v.\n56. Villa, Libro de las vidas de doze pr\u00edncipes de la medicina, fols. 109r\u2013\u00ad119v.\n\nPages 163:\n\u201cIf they are not pages that cure, they are pages that teach how to cure\u201d\n145\nmaker with writing about the pharmaceutical art. Along with an official price\nlist of medicines dating from 168057 and a short dictionary of pharmaceutical\noperations,58 N\u00fa\u00f1ez left an unfinished pharmaceutical treatise entitled Miropolio general y racional de botica and dated 1680, which was a compendium of\nthe most common spagyric medicines in the pharmacies of his day.59 Since his\nMiropolio remained unfinished, however, it provides only a fragmentary glimpse\nof the Spanish therapeutic landscape. Still, it covered what N\u00fa\u00f1ez had learned\nnot only from his teacher but also from the many authors whose books were\nreviewed in its pages. The latter range from the classics on distillation\u2014\u00adConrad\nGesner (1516\u2013\u00ad65), Giambattista della Porta (1535?\u2013\u00ad1615), and Pietro Mattioli\n(1501\u2013\u00ad77)\u2014\u00adto the specialists in spagyria\u2014\u00adJoseph Duchesne (1544\u2013\u00ad1609),\nAngelo Sala (1576\u2013\u00ad1637), and Johann Schr\u00f6der (1600\u2013\u00ad1664)\u2014\u00adto the principal pharmacopeias of the Galenic and spagyric corpus.\nOne of N\u00fa\u00f1ez\u2019s contemporaries, the priest and beneficiary of the parochial\nchurch of San Pablo of Zaragoza Juan de Vid\u00f3s y Mir\u00f3 (1645\u2013\u00ad1710), was also\nan active and renowned practitioner of the spagyric art. Having received a papal\nexemption, he practiced spagyric medicine in Zaragoza beginning in 1669,\nwith his fame ultimately spreading as far as Madrid, Salamanca, Murcia, Seville,\nValencia, and Navarre. Apparently moved by the Christian charity that governed\nall his acts, Vid\u00f3s decided to collect a lifetime of knowledge of the art and to publish it so that it could be consulted whenever a doctor was unavailable. The result\nwas the 1691 Primera parte de medicina y cirugia racional y espag\u00edrica (or First\nPart of Medicine and Rational Surgery and Spagyrics), de facto the first chemical\npharmacopeia published in Spain.60\n57. Traslado de la c\u00e9dula real que Su Majestad el Rey Nuestro Se\u00f1or Don Carlos Segundo mand\u00f3 guardar, en\nquanto a los precios de medicinas, en veinte y siete d\u00edas del mes de noviembre de mil y seiscientos y ochenta a\u00f1os, y se\npublic\u00f3 en Madrid en catorce de diciembre del mismo a\u00f1o. The Crown was forced to decree a general custom tax\non 10 February 1680, owing to monetary deflation; Folch Jou and Mu\u00f1oz Calvo, \u201cEstudio preliminar sobre la\ntarifa de medicamentos en Espa\u00f1a en 1680.\u201d\n58. Entitled De operationibus pharmaceuticis, it collected all practices carried out by the pharmacists and\nrecorded not only a recipe of Pierre Potier\u2019s Syrupusaureus but also one for medical tape based on an original\nrecipe of pharmacist friars. Both the Tarifa and Diccionario were incorporated at the end of the second edition\nof Ramillete de plantas (Burgos, 1646) and sold together. A version of the book is available at the BHUC, FOA\n2890 (1).\n59. The manuscript is in AMB, section Monasteriode San Juan, and was published with an introductory\nstudy in L\u00f3pez P\u00e9rez and Rey Bueno, Miropolio general y racional de botica, 87\u2013\u00ad317.\n60. Vid\u00f3s, Primera parte de medicina y cirugia.\n\nPages 164:\n146\nMar Rey Bueno\nRemedies for the Poor\nSeventeenth-\u00adcentury practitioners like Vid\u00f3s actually authored numerous writings that, under the premise of charity, offered simple, easy-\u00adto-\u00admake remedies for\nthe poor. This kind of work had a long tradition with roots deep in the Middle\nAges\u2014\u00adas exemplified by the Thesaurus pauperum of Petrus Hispanus (fl. 13th\ncentury)\u2014\u00adand immediate antecedents in the well-\u00adknown books of secrets. This\nliterature of charitable medicine, also known as domestic pharmacopeias, was\npenned mostly by physicians whose main objective was to provide patients with\ntherapeutic knowledge independent of the work of pharmacists. These manuals\ngenerally discussed both how to recognize the medicinal properties of plants\nand how to carry out distillations designed to yield distilled waters, elixirs, and\nquintessences. The relationship, in fact, between distillation and remedies for\nthe poor seems to have been common in Spain during the early modern era.\nWorks on distillation techniques, such as Discursos de la v\u00eda particular y verdadero\nmodo de destilar compuestos (or Discourses of the Particular Way and True Mode\nof Compound Distillation), written by pharmacist Juan de Castro Medinilla,\neven proposed a special distillatory apparatus for \u201cthe poor men who can enjoy\nperfect distilled waters and with less expense.\u201d61 Vid\u00f3s\u2019s 1691 Primera parte de\nmedicina y cirugia represented an even more comprehensive work in this genre.\nIn his dedication to the \u201cCharitable and Pious Reader,\u201d Vid\u00f3s briefly\ndescribed the circumstances that brought him to specialize in the making of\nchemical remedies. As he put it, he desired to help the most destitute, those\nwho could not pay for the services of a university-\u00adtrained physician or could\nnot afford the costs of chemical compounds made by a licensed pharmacist. He\nexplained that after having learned \u201cthe theory and practice of the Art of Medicine and Surgery,\u201d he began to distribute his remedies \u201cwithout any gain to anyone who requested them.\u201d62 The attention that his grateful patients drew to the\nefficacy of his medicines ultimately resulted in the publication of his pharmacopeia. Of the latter\u2019s pages, Vid\u00f3s humbly remarked that \u201cif they are not pages that\ncure, they are pages that teach how to cure; if they do not formally absorb the\njuice against the malady, they show and document it. These pages are all charity,\n61. \u201cPobres gocen perfectas aguas distiladas i con menos costa.\u201d This is an unpublished manuscript dated\nCordova, 1619 and preserved at BNE, ms. 4250; for the quotation, see p. 49.\n62. \u201csin inter\u00e9s alguno a cuantos lo ped\u00edan.\u201d See Vid\u00f3s, \u201cDedication to the Most Noble Realm of Aragon,\u201d\nin Primera parte de medicina y cirugia. The quotations that follow in this paragraph may also be found here.\n\nPages 165:\n\u201cIf they are not pages that cure, they are pages that teach how to cure\u201d\n147\nall document. They are all remedy, all health; all Pharmacy of such a sweet and\nconvenient price that the poorest subject will find medicine and health, without\nhis poverty hindering him.\u201d This charitable approach was also evident in encomiums of the book, in which Vid\u00f3s was presented as a medical Columbus who\noffered a new route to healing\u2014\u00adingenious and cheap\u2014\u00adthat found its purpose in\nrelieving the suffering of the poor.63\nFelipe Borb\u00f3n, a contemporary of Vid\u00f3s, was a graduate with a bachelor\u2019s\ndegree in medicine and surgery from the University of Huesca and the author\nof Medicina dom\u00e9stica, necessaria a los pobres y familiar a los ricos (or Domestic\nMedicine Necessary for Poor People and Rich Families), a book intended to instruct\nthe poor on easy ways to concoct the remedies needed to alleviate ailments. Borb\u00f3n especially emphasized \u201cchemical laxatives for the poor [purgantes chimicos\npara los pobres],\u201d remedies that supposedly fought ailments quickly and affordably.64 Somewhat later in his book, he also incorporated a brief description of\nthe main chemical practices that poor men may use for extracting the medicinal\nvirtues that the Omnipotence had placed in the plants.65 What Borb\u00f3n had in\nfact done in this section of his book was to translate the work of the famous\nseventeenth-\u00adcentury French physician Philibert Guybert, author of a number\nof charitable books that were frequently reprinted and translated into the main\nEuropean languages.66 In his works, Guybert attacked pharmacists and their\ncomplicated compositions and so received severe criticism from that sector, not\nonly in France but also in Spain. These assaults motivated Pedro Guti\u00e9rrez de\nArevalo, a pharmacist in Madrid, to write a response to Guybert\u2019s first charitable book aimed at defending Spanish therapeutics against the criticisms of the\nFrench doctor.67\n63. \u201csino son hojas que curan, son hojas que ense\u00f1an a curar; sino embeben formalmente el jugo contra\nel achaque, lo ense\u00f1an y documentan. Son hojas todas caridad, todas documento. Todas remedio, todas salud;\ntodas Botica de tan dulce y acomodado precio, que el m\u00e1s pobre regn\u00edcola hallar\u00e1 medicina y salud, sin que le\nestorbe su pobreza\u201d; see Vid\u00f3s, \u201cThe Censure of Fra Luis Pueyo and Abadia, Chair of Philosophy at the University of Zaragoza and Provincial of the Carmelites in Aragon,\u201d in Primera parte de medicina y cirugia.\n64. Borb\u00f3n, Medicina dom\u00e9stica, 11\u2013\u00ad17.\n65. Ibid., 31\u2013\u00ad37. Specifically, Borb\u00f3n aimed to provide an \u201ceasy method to extract the spirit, oils, salt,\ntincture, from the roots, woods, grains, seeds, leaves, and flowers by the chemical art [m\u00e9todo f\u00e1cil para sacar\nel esp\u00edritu, el aceite, la sal, la tintura, el extremo fijo de las ra\u00edces, madera, granos, simientes, hojas y flores por Arte\nCh\u00edmica].\u201d\n66. These works bore titles such as M\u00e9decin charitable (Anvers, 1624), Apothicaire du m\u00e9decin charitable\n(Par\u00eds, 1625), and Oeuvres charitables de Philber Guybert (Par\u00eds, 1629). See Ramsey, \u201cPopularization of Medicine in France, 1650\u2013\u00ad1900\u201d; and Albou, \u201cHistoire des Oeuvres charitables de Philibert Guybert.\u201d\n67. See Guti\u00e9rrez de Arevalo, Pr\u00e1ctica de boticarios.\n\nPages 166:\n148\nMar Rey Bueno\nWomen\u2019s Work\nThe so-\u00adcalled Book of the Prior, a book that falls somewhere between the genre of\nbooks of secrets and technical agricultural manuals, may also be situated within\nthis tradition of domestic pharmacopeias. Written by Miguel Agust\u00edn (1560\u2013\u00ad\n1630), prior of the Order of San Juan of Jerusalem in Perpignan, it was originally\npublished in Catalan in 1617. Translated into Castilian in 1625, it was reedited\nmore than twenty times between 1625 and 1785.68 Judging from its title, the\nwork would seem to have been the product of an exercise in compiling knowledge drawn from many authors, old and new. A detailed reading of the text, however, reveals that Agust\u00edn\u2019s book was actually a literal translation of L\u2019agriculture\net la maison rustique (or Agriculture and the Rustic House) by Charles Estienne\n(1504\u2013\u00ad64) and Jean Liebault (1535\u2013\u00ad96).\nInitially published in Paris in Latin in 1545 as Praedium rusticum, Estienne\u2019s\nL\u2019agriculture attempted to popularize ancient knowledge of botany, medicine, horticulture, and agronomy. Translated into French in 1564, the same year in which\nits author died, it was extended in successive editions by Jean Liebault, Estienne\u2019s\nson-\u00adin-\u00adlaw and a great believer in the world of secrets.69 Liebault\u2019s interests led\nhim to incorporate into the text the Bref discours de la distillation des eaux, and\nthe Bref discours sur la distillation des huiles et quintes essences (or Brief Discourse on\nthe Distillation of Waters and Brief Discourse on the Distillation of Oils and Quintessences, respectively), which included detailed illustrations of furnaces, distillatory\napparatus, stills, and various techniques. All of this material was reproduced in\nAgust\u00edn\u2019s translation and incorporated into the second chapter of the first book\ndevoted to \u201cthe secrets of the office and duties of the mother, head of the farmhouse, and how she must teach her daughters and servants.\u201d70 That chapter concludes with an account of the remedies for the diseases of a farmhouse family as\ndetailed by Estienne and Liebault in their work. The two French authors assumed\nthat the woman of the house would be in charge of making medicinal remedies\n68. Agust\u00edn, Libro de los secretos de agricultura. Its title in Catalan is Libre dels secrets de agricultura, casa\nr\u00fastica y pastoril.\n69. His interest in the world of secrets led him to publish Quatre liures des secrets de medicine et de la philosophie chimique (Paris: Chez Jacques du-\u00adPauys, 1573), a translation into French of Gesner, Evonymus Conradi\nGesneri . . . De remediis secretis liber secundus (Tiguri, 1569). This, the second part of Gesner\u2019s book of secrets,\nwas published by his disciple Gaspar Wolf after his master\u2019s death.\n70. \u201clos Secretos de la condici\u00f3n y oficio de la madre de familia de la casa de campo, y c\u00f3mo debe adoctrinar a sus hijas y criadas\u201d; Agust\u00edn, Libro de los secretos de agricultura, 32.\n\nPages 167:\n\u201cIf they are not pages that cure, they are pages that teach how to cure\u201d\n149\nfor the ailments of all those in her household. Although it is not mentioned\nexplicitly, it would seem that the chapter was inspired by the work of the Spanish\nhumanist Juan Luis Vives (1493\u2013\u00ad1540).\nVives has been recognized as the major voice responsible for defining the\nrole and education of women in sixteenth-\u00adcentury Europe, a characterization\nbased on the popularity of a single work, his De Institutione foeminae christianae\n(or On the Education of Christian Women). Written in 1523 at a crucial transition\nin Vives\u2019s life, the text was dedicated to his countrywoman Catherine of Aragon\n(1485\u2013\u00ad1536), consort of the English King Henry VIII (1491\u2013\u00ad1547), and was\nregarded as a model for the education of her daughter, Princess Mary (1516\u2013\u00ad\n1558). By 1600, it had appeared in more than forty editions in English, Dutch,\nFrench, German, Italian, and Spanish as well as in the original Latin. In Book\n2, \u201cOn Married Women,\u201d in the ninth chapter, \u201cOn How She Should Behave at\nHome,\u201d Vives explained that\nsince the care of the inhabitants of the house falls upon the woman, she will\nkeep remedies on hand for common and almost daily maladies and will have\nthem ready in a larder so that she may attend to her husband, small children,\nand the servant when required and will not have to send for the doctor often\nand buy everything from the apothecary. I should not wish that a woman\ndedicate herself to the art of medicine or have too much confidence in it. I\nadvise her to be familiar with the remedies for frequent and everyday illness,\nlike coughs, catarrhs, itching, colic, loose bowels or constipation, intestinal\nworms, headache or aching eyes, slight fevers, dislocations, burns, slight\ncuts, and similar ailments that occur almost daily for trivial reasons. Add to\nthis regulation of the daily diet, of greatest importance for the maintenance\nof good health, what should be consumed, what avoided, when and in what\namount. She can learn this skill from the experience of other prudent matrons rather than from the advice of some nearby physician, or some simple\nhandbook on that subject rather than from big, detailed medical tomes.71\nThis advice was similar to that found in the Libro del Prior, a book that also incorporated valuable knowledge of distillation for the housewife. Although distillation could have been construed as an art limited to trained philosophers and\nalchemists, the manual held that because it offered so many benefits to those\nwho knew it, the female head of the household should carry out distillations not\nonly for her own household but also \u201cto help all her neighbors in their illnesses,\n71. Vives, Education of a Christian Woman, 263.\n\nPages 168:\n150\nMar Rey Bueno\nthe same way some Lords in their charity distil waters and other liquors as efficacious remedies to help the poor.\u201d72 In this way, women joined men in the ranks\nof those adept at distillation with their knowledge of the proper temperatures\nand techniques to use in furnaces, of cooking glasses and other tools used for\ndistilling, of how to prepare materials before distillation, and, of course, of the\nmedicinal virtues of the resulting waters.\nThis brings us into territory just now being explored by historians of\nscience, namely, housewifery and its associated natural philosophy during\nthe early modern period. Over the past two decades, it has been shown\nthat women played a fundamental role in domestic medicine, not only as\nmidwives\u2014\u00adwork traditionally assigned to the female universe\u2014\u00adbut also as\nexperts in the production of remedies used to cure the illnesses most common\nin the domestic sphere.73 Women performed these duties in concert with a\nnumber of others\u2014\u00adsuch as perfumers, aestheticists, and hygienists\u2014\u00adcharged\nwith bodily cleanliness and adornment through the care of skin, hair, and\nteeth.74 All of this knowledge came with a cornucopia of recipes and prescriptions that were not only transmitted verbally but also compiled into recipe\nbooks that were passed down from mother to daughter as treasures of quotidian knowledge.75 Written by women, these books contained both medical\nand culinary recipes and so serve as registers of the ideals and practices of\ndomestic work, physical health, and sustenance. Recipe collections stand at an\nhistorically significant intersection between the practical sciences of the body\n(which are represented in anatomies, herbals, midwives\u2019 manuals, and medical\nhandbooks) and the mechanical arts (prominent in manuals of instruction for\nnavigation, geometry, surveying, and metallurgy, among others). In style and\ncontent, food recipes and health remedies reflect the knowledge traditions and\n72. \u201cpara socorrer a todos sus vecinos en las enfermedades, del modo y manera que vemos ser cosa y\nusanza caritativa de algunos Se\u00f1ores, que destilan aguas y otros licores que son eficaces remedios para valer y\nayudar a los pobres.\u201d Agust\u00edn, Libro de los secretos de agricultura, 241.\n73. Mart\u00ednez Crespo, \u201cMujer y medicina en la Baja Edad Media.\u201d\n74. Cabr\u00e9 i Pairet, \u201cCosm\u00e9tica y perfumer\u00eda en la Castilla bajomedieval.\u201d\n75. Among the oldest surviving manuscripts are Manual de mugeres en el qual se contienen muchas y diversas re\u00e7eutas muy buenas, BPP, mss. 834, with a critical edition by Mart\u00ednez Crespo. The Biblioteca Nacional\nde Espa\u00f1a has three sixteenth-\u00adcentury manuscripts that join pharmacy, cosmetology, and cooking: Livro de\nreceptas de pivetes, pastilhas elvvas perfumadas y conserbas (BNE, mss. 1462); Las recetas experimentadas para\ndiversas cosas (BNE, mss. 2019), and Recetas y memorias para guisados, confituras, olores, aguas, afeites, adobos\nde guantes, ung\u00fcentos y medicinas para muchas enfermedades (BNE, mss. 6058). These recipe books have been\nstudied by P\u00e9rez Samper in \u201cRecetarios de mujeres y para mujeres.\u201d\n\nPages 169:\n\u201cIf they are not pages that cure, they are pages that teach how to cure\u201d\n151\nscientific developments of the early modern period, standing as unacknowledged companions of the experimental texts of the \u201cnew science.\u201d\nRather Than a Conclusion, a Travel Journal\nThis chapter may be understood as part of a historiographical current that, over\nthe past few years, has attempted to rescue early modern Spanish science from\nthe systematic neglect to which it had largely been subjected by the international\ncommunity of historians of science. This neglect goes back to the seventeenth century when Spain became the \u201cvillain\u201d that English, French, and German historians\nneeded in order to complete their \u201cmelodramas of modernity.\u201d76 Fortunately, this is\na situation that has been changing due to the work of, among others, Jorge Ca\u00f1izares, Antonio Barrera, Daniela Bleichmar, and Mar\u00eda Portuondo.77 Such scholars\nhave begun to demonstrate the pioneering character of the Spanish scientific community in grappling with the New World as well as the natural world and in making geographical and cosmographical advances. Four decades have now elapsed\nsince Allen Debus\u2019s groundbreaking studies\u2014\u00adon what he defined as the \u201cchemical\nphilosophy\u201d\u2014\u00adforced historians to reframe the traditional narrative of the Scientific Revolution and redirect their exclusive focus on mathematics and astronomy.78\nSomething similar is happening now. As William Eamon has affirmed, \u201cperhaps it\nis time to refocus and reassess the questions that we are asking about early modern\nIberian science and, in particular, about Iberia\u2019s role in the Scientific Revolution.\u201d79\nSpain was not a country that turned its back on novelties. In fact, it might\nbe asserted that many activities considered novel in the current historiography\n(alchemy and patronage, women and chemical practice, chemical remedies and\neveryday life) were firmly embedded in Spanish practices of the sixteenth and\nseventeenth centuries. Incorporating Spain into the discourse of early modern\nscience is thus a way of retrieving the early modern experience itself. Indeed, as\nEamon remarked, \u201c[a] world without Spain is certainly not the world that early\nmodern Europeans thought they were living in.\u201d80\n76. Eamon, \u201c\u2018Nuestros males no son constitucionales,\u2019\u201d 14.\n77. See Ca\u00f1izares, How to Write the History of the New World; Ca\u00f1izares, \u201cIberian Science in the Renaissance: Ignored How Much Longer?\u201d; Ca\u00f1izares, Nature, Empire, and Nation; Barrera, Experiencing Nature;\nBleichmar et al., Science in the Spanish and Portuguese Empires, 1500\u2013\u00ad1800; and Portuondo, Secret Science.\n78. Debus, Chemical Philosophy.\n79. Eamon, \u201c\u2018Nuestros males no son constitucionales,\u2019\u201d 21.\n80. Ibid., 16.\n\nPages 170:\n152\nMar Rey Bueno\nWorks Cited\nArchives\nAHN = Archivo Hist\u00f3rico Nacion\u00e0l, Madrid, Spain.\nAMB = El Archivo Municipal, Burgos, Spain.\nBHUC = Biblioteca Hist\u00f3rica de la Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain.\nBNE = Biblioteca Nacional de Espa\u00f1a, Madrid, Spain.\nBPP = Biblioteca Palatina, Parma, Italy.\nHSA = Hispanic Society of America, New York, NY.\nRMSJB = Real Monasterio de San Juan de Burgos\nPrinted Sources\nAbbri, Ferdinando. \u201cAlchemy and Chemistry: Chemical Discourses in the Seventeenth\nCentury.\u201d Early Science and Medicine 5 (2000): 214\u2013\u00ad26.\nAlbou, Philippe. \u201cHistoire des Ouevres charitables de Philibert Guybert.\u201d Histoires des\nsciences m\u00e9dicales 32 (1998): 11\u2013\u00ad26.\nAgust\u00edn, Miguel. Libro de los secretos de agricultura, casa de campo y pastoral. Barcelona:\nEn la imprinta de Juan Piferrer, 1722.\nBarrera, Antonio. Experiencing Nature: The Spanish American Empire and the Early\nScientific Revolution. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2006.\nBarrionuevo, Gervasio de. Tratado sobre el l\u00e1udano opiato de Iosepho Querzetano y su\nelixir apropiado: Con el secreto del manna solutivo. Toledo: Por Agust\u00edn de\nSalas Za\u00e7o, 1684.\nBeinza, Mat\u00edas De. Discurso sobre los polvos universales purgantes. Bayona: Antonio\nFauvet, 1680.\nBercebal, Diego. Recetario medicinal espag\u00edrico. Zaragoza, 1713.\nBleichmar, Daniela, Paula DeVos, Kristin Huffine, and Kevin Sheehan, eds. Science in\nthe Spanish and Portuguese Empires, 1500\u2013\u00ad1800. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009.\nBonilla, Alejo Arnaiz. Las afamadas boticas burgalesas de los Hospitales de San Juan y San\nJuli\u00e1n y San Quirce. Burgos: Burgos, 1981.\nBorb\u00f3n, Felipe. Medicina dom\u00e9stica, necessaria a los pobres y familiar a los ricos: Transcrita del m\u00e9dico caritativo con algunos remedios de otros autores. Con escolios\nen las materias y afectos que se tratan, as\u00ed chir\u00fargicos como medicos. Zaragoza:\nDomingo Gasc\u00f3n, 1686.\n\nPages 171:\n\u201cIf they are not pages that cure, they are pages that teach how to cure\u201d\n153\nCabr\u00e9 i Pairet, Montserrat. \u201cCosm\u00e9tica y perfumer\u00eda en la Castilla bajomedieval.\u201d In\nHistoria de la ciencia y de la t\u00e9cnica en la Corona de Castilla, vol. 2, Edad Media,\nby Marcelino V. Amasuno and Luis Garc\u00eda Ballester, 772\u2013\u00ad79. Valladolid:\nJunta de Castilla y Le\u00f3n, 2002.\nCa\u00f1izares, Jorge. How to Write the History of the New World. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Nature, Empire, and Nation: Explorations of the History of Science in the Iberian\nWorld. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2006.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cIberian Science in the Renaissance: Ignored How Much Longer?\u201d Perspectives\non Science 12 (2004): 86\u2013\u00ad125.\nCastillo, Juan del. Pharmacopea universa medicamenta in officinis pharmaceuticis usitata\ncomplectens et explicans. Gadibus: Apud Ioannem de Borja, 1622.\nC\u00f3zar, Lorenzo. Dialogus veros medicinae fontes indicans. Valentiae: Apud Petrum Patricium, 1589.\nDebus, Allen G. The Chemical Philosophy: Paracelsian Science and Medicine in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. 2 vols. New York: Science History Publications, 1977.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cParacelsus and the Delayed Scientific Revolution in Spain: A Legacy of Philip\nII.\u201d In Reading the Book of Nature: The Other Side of the Scientific Revolution,\nedited by Allen G. Debus and Michael T. Walton, 147\u2013\u00ad61. Kirksville, MO:\nSixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1998.\nEamon, William. \u201cAppearance, Artifice, and Reality: Collecting Secrets in a Courtly Culture.\u201d In The Gentleman, the Virtuoso, the Inquirer: Vincencio Juan de Lastanosa\nand the Art of Collecting in Early Modern Spain, edited by Mar Rey Bueno and\nMiguel L\u00f3pez P\u00e9rez, 127\u2013\u00ad43. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201c\u2018Nuestros males no son constitucionales, sino circunstanciales\u2019: The Black\nLegend and the History of Early Modern Spanish Science.\u201d Colorado Review\nof Hispanic Studies 7 (2009): 13\u2013\u00ad30.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Science and the Secrets of Nature: Books of Secrets in Medieval and Early Modern\nCulture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.\nFolch Jou, Guillermo, and Sagrario Mu\u00f1oz Calvo. \u201cEstudio preliminar sobre la tarifa de\nmedicamentos en Espa\u00f1a en 1680.\u201d Bolet\u00edn de la Sociedad Espa\u00f1ola de Historia\nde la Farmacia 112 (1977): 197\u2013\u00ad204.\nGonzalez Rol\u00e1n, Tom\u00e1s, and Pilar Saquero Su\u00e1rez-\u00adSomonte. \u201cSobre los avatares de la\nedici\u00f3n en el humanismo espa\u00f1ol: Acercamiento a la actividad del granadino\nJuan V\u00e1zquez del M\u00e1rmol como corrector general y cr\u00edtico textual.\u201d Cuadernos de filolog\u00eda cl\u00e1sica 4 (1992): 23\u2013\u00ad37.\n\nPages 172:\n154\nMar Rey Bueno\nGoodman, David. \u201cThe Scientific Revolution in Spain and Portugal.\u201d In The Scientific\nRevolution in National Context, edited by Roy Porter and Mikulas Teich, 158\u2013\u00ad\n78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.\nGuti\u00e9rrez de Arevalo, Pedro. Pr\u00e1ctica de boticarios: Gu\u00eda de enfermeros. Remedios para\npobres. Madrid: Mar\u00eda de Qui\u00f1ones, 1634.\nHerrero, Carmen Olmedilla. \u201cLa ciencia paleogr\u00e1fica hispano-\u00adlatina en el siglo XVI.\u201d\nEdici\u00f3n y valoraci\u00f3n de las Abreviaturas de Juan V\u00e1zquez Del M\u00e1rmol. Cuadernos de Filolog\u00eda Cl\u00e1sica. Estudios Latinos 4 (1993): 191\u2013\u00ad232.\nJimeno, Pascual Domingo Jimeno. \u201cLa antigua y famosa botica del Hospital de San\nJuan Evangelista, de Burgos.\u201d Anales de la Academia Nacional de Farmacia 3\n(1934): 62\u2013\u00ad83.\nLastanosa, Vincencio Juan de. Tratado de la moneda iaquesa y de otras de oro y plata del\nReyno de Arag\u00f3n. Zaragoza: Dedication of Diego Vincencio Vidania, 1681.\nL\u00f3pez P\u00e9rez, Miguel. \u201cAlquimia, terap\u00e9utica y sanidad en la Espa\u00f1a de los Austrias\nMenores.\u201d PhD diss., Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Facultad de\nGeograf\u00eda e Historia, 2001.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cLa alquimia y Vincencio Juan de Lastanosa.\u201d In Vincencio Juan de Lastanosa\n(1607\u2013\u00ad1684): La pasi\u00f3n de saber, 177\u2013\u00ad83. Exhibition catalog. Huesca: Instituto de Estudios Altoaragonenses, 2007.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cAnatom\u00eda del virtuoso: Coleccionismo y melancol\u00eda en la figura de Vincencio\nJuan de Lastanosa.\u201d Argensola 115 (2007): 167\u2013\u00ad85.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Asclepio renovado: Alquimia y medicina en la Espa\u00f1a moderna (1500\u2013\u00ad1700).\nMadrid: Corona Borealis, 2003.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cLastanosa, la alquimia y algunos helmoncianos aragoneses.\u201d Azogue 5 (2002\u2013\u00ad\n2007): 139\u2013\u00ad50.\nL\u00f3pez P\u00e9rez, Miguel, and Mar Rey Bueno. \u201cLa instrumentalizaci\u00f3n de la espagiria en el\nproceso de renovaci\u00f3n: Las pol\u00e9micas sobre medicamentos qu\u00edmicos.\u201d In Los\nhijos de Hermes: Alquimia y espagiria en la terap\u00e9utica espa\u00f1ola moderna, edited\nby Javier Puerto et al., 281\u2013\u00ad347. Madrid: Corona Borealis, 2001.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014. Miropolio general y racional de botica (1680) de Fray Esteban N\u00fa\u00f1ez (Estudio\nintroductorio, transcripci\u00f3n y notas). Burgos: Colegio Oficial de Farmac\u00e9uticos,\n2003.\nL\u00f3pez Pi\u00f1ero, Jos\u00e9 Mar\u00eda. \u201cLa Carta filos\u00f3fica, m\u00e9dico-\u00adchymica (1687) de Juan de\nCabriada, punto de partida de la medicina moderna en Espa\u00f1a.\u201d Asclepio 17\n(1965): 207\u2013\u00ad14.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Ciencia y t\u00e9cnica en la sociedad espa\u00f1ola de los siglos XVI y XVII. Barcelona:\nLabor, 1979.\n\nPages 173:\n\u201cIf they are not pages that cure, they are pages that teach how to cure\u201d\n155\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. El Dialogus (1589) del paracelsista Lloren\u00e7 C\u00f3\u00e7ar y la c\u00e1tedra de medicamentos\nqu\u00edmicos de la Universidad de Valencia (1591). Valencia: C\u00e1tedra e Instituto de\nHistoria de la Medicina, 1977.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cJuan de Cabriada y las primeras etapas de la iatroqu\u00edmica y de la medicina\nmoderna en Espa\u00f1a.\u201d Cuadernos de historia de la medicina espa\u00f1ola 2 (1963):\n129\u2013\u00ad54.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. La introducci\u00f3n de la ciencia moderna en Espa\u00f1a. Barcelona: Ariel, 1969.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cParacelsus and His Work in 16th and 17th Century Spain.\u201d Clio medica 18\n(1973): 113\u2013\u00ad41.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cQu\u00edmica y medicina en la Espa\u00f1a de los siglos XVI y XVII: La influencia de\nParacelso.\u201d Cuadernos de historia de la medicina espa\u00f1ola 11 (1972): 3\u2013\u00ad40.\nL\u00f3pez Terrada, Mar\u00eda Luz. \u201cLloren\u00e7 Co\u00e7ar: Protom\u00e9dico de Felipe II y m\u00e9dico paracelsista en la Valencia del siglo XVI.\u201d Cronos 8 (2005): 31\u2013\u00ad66.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cLas pr\u00e1cticas m\u00e9dicas extraacad\u00e9micas en la ciudad de Valencia durante los\nsiglos XVI y XVII.\u201d Dynamis 22 (2002): 85\u2013\u00ad120.\nMart\u00ednez Crespo, Alicia. Manual de mugeres en el qual se contienen muchas y diversas\nre\u00e7eutas muy buenas. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 1995.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cMujer y medicina en la Baja Edad Media.\u201d Hispania 54 (1994): 37\u2013\u00ad52.\nMoran, Bruce T. \u201cExtracting the Virtues of Nature: Spagyric Remedies and Chemical\nMetaphors in the Library of Don Vincencio Juan de Lastanosa (1607\u2013\u00ad1681).\u201d\nIn The Gentleman, the Virtuoso, the Inquirer: Vincencio Juan de Lastanosa and\nthe Art of Collecting in Early Modern Spain, edited by Mar Rey Bueno and\nMiguel L\u00f3pez P\u00e9rez, 144\u2013\u00ad56. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008.\nMu\u00f1oz Calvo, Sagrario. Inquisici\u00f3n y ciencia en la Espa\u00f1a moderna. Madrid: Editora\nNacional, 1977.\nNewman, William R., and Lawrence M. Principe. \u201cAlchemy vs. Chemistry: The Etymological Origins of a Historiographic Mistake.\u201d Early Science and Medicine 3\n(1998): 32\u2013\u00ad65.\nNovella, Cosme. Tratado de la quintaesencia del B\u00e1lsamo de Romero. Zaragoza: Juan de\nLanaja, 1606.\nOlmedilla Herrero, Carmen. \u201cLa ciencia paleogr\u00e1fica hispano-\u00adlatina en el siglo XVI:\nEdici\u00f3n y valoraci\u00f3n de las Abreviaturas de Juan V\u00e1zquez del M\u00e1rmol.\u201d Cuadernos de filolog\u00eda cl\u00e1sica 4 (1993): 191\u2013\u00ad232.\nPadgen, Anthony. \u201cThe Reception of the \u2018New Philosophy\u2019 in Eighteenth-\u00adCentury\nSpain.\u201d Journal of the Warburg and Courtland Institutes 51 (1988): 125\u2013\u00ad40.\n\nPages 174:\n156\nMar Rey Bueno\nP\u00e9rez Samper, Mar\u00eda de los \u00c1ngeles. \u201cRecetarios de mujeres y para mujeres: Sobre la\nconversaci\u00f3n y transmission de los saberes dom\u00e9sticos en la \u00e9poca moderna.\u201d\nCuadernos de historia moderna 19 (1997): 121\u2013\u00ad54.\nPolitius, Antonio. De quinta essentia solutiva atque brevi epylogo componendorum medicamentorum, cum aliquibus phylosophiae ac medicinae problematibus: Libri duo.\nPanormi: Ioannem Baptistam Maringum, 1613.\nPortuondo, Mar\u00eda. Secret Science: Spanish Cosmography and the New World. Chicago:\nUniversity of Chicago Press, 2009.\nRamsey, Matthew. \u201cThe Popularization of Medicine in France, 1650\u2013\u00ad1900.\u201d In The Popularization of Medicine, 1650\u2013\u00ad1850, edited by Roy Porter, 97\u2013\u00ad124. London:\nRoutledge, 1993.\nRey Bueno, Mar. \u201cThe Collector of Secrets: Potable Gold, an Italian Alchemist and a\nNurse Soldier in Lastanosa\u2019s Laboratory.\u201d In The Gentleman, the Virtuoso, the\nInquirer: Vincencio Juan de Lastanosa and the Art of Collecting in Early Modern\nSpain, edited by Mar Rey Bueno and Miguel L\u00f3pez P\u00e9rez, 157\u2013\u00ad71. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. El hechizado: Medicina, alquimia y superstici\u00f3n en la corte de Carlos II (1665\u2013\u00ad\n1700). Madrid: Corona Borealis, 1998.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cEl informe valles: Los desdibujados l\u00edmites del arte de boticarios a finales del\nsiglo XVI (1589\u2013\u00ad1594).\u201d Asclepio 56 (2004): 243\u2013\u00ad68.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cJuntas de herbolarios y tertulias espag\u00edricas: El c\u00edrculo cortesano de Diego de\nCortavila (1597\u2013\u00ad1657).\u201d Dynamis 24 (2004): 243\u2013\u00ad67.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cM\u00e1gicos prodigiosos y verdades acrisoladas: Inquisici\u00f3n, magia, experiencia y\nconocimiento en el siglo XVII espa\u00f1ol.\u201d Colorado Review of Hispanic Studies 7\n(2009): 49\u2013\u00ad66.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cLa mayson pour distiller des eaues at El Escorial: Alchemy and Medicine at the\nCourt of Philip II, 1556\u2013\u00ad1598.\u201d In Health and Medicine in Hapsburg Spain:\nAgents, Practices, Representations, edited by Teresa Huguet-\u00adTermes, Jon Arrizabalaga, and Harold J. Cook, 26\u2013\u00ad39. London: Wellcome Trust Centre for the\nHistory of Medicine at UCL, 2009.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Los se\u00f1ores del fuego: Destiladores y espag\u00edricos en la corte de los Austrias espa\u00f1oles. Madrid: Corona Boreales, 2002.\nRey Bueno, Mar, and Mar\u00eda E. Alegre. \u201cLos destiladores de Su Majestad: Destilaci\u00f3n,\nespagiria y paracelsismo en la corte de Felipe II.\u201d Dynamis 21 (2001): 323\u2013\u00ad\n50.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cLa ordenaci\u00f3n normativa de la asistencia sanitaria en la corte de los Habsburgo espa\u00f1oles (1515\u2013\u00ad1700).\u201d Dynamis 18 (1998): 341\u2013\u00ad75.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cRenovaci\u00f3n de la terap\u00e9utica real: Los destiladores de Su Majestad, maestros\nsimplicistas y m\u00e9dicos herbolarios de Felipe II.\u201d Asclepio 53 (2001): 23\u2013\u00ad51.\n\nPages 175:\n\u201cIf they are not pages that cure, they are pages that teach how to cure\u201d\n157\nRodr\u00edguez Guerrero, Jos\u00e9. \u201cEl manuscrito 7443 de la Biblioteca Nacional de Espa\u00f1a:\nIdentificaci\u00f3n de su origen, autor y contenidos.\u201d Azogue 5 (2002\u2013\u00ad2007):\n57\u2013\u00ad69.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cLa primera gran red comercial de un medicamento chymico: Vittorio Algarotti y su quinta esencia del oro medicinal.\u201d Azogue 6 (2008\u2013\u00ad2009): 12\u2013\u00ad67.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cVendedores de panaceas alqu\u00edmicas entre los siglos XVI y XVII.\u201d Azogue 5\n(2002\u2013\u00ad2007): 90\u2013\u00ad99.\nRol\u00e1n, T. Gonz\u00e1les, and P. Saquero Su\u00e1rez-\u00adSomonte. \u201cSobre los avatares de la edici\u00f3n\nen el humanismo espan\u00f5l.\u201d Acercamiento a la actividad del granadino Juan\nV\u00e1zquez del M\u00e1rmol como corrector general y cr\u00edtico textual. Cuadernos de\nFilolog\u00eda Cl\u00e1sica. Estudios Latinos 4 (1992): 23\u2013\u00ad37.\nRuiz Zapata, Francisco. Discurso sobre la composici\u00f3n del az\u00facar rosado solutivo, defendiendo las ordinaciones reales y la del collegio de m\u00e9dicos y cirujanos, atendiendo al\nbeneficio com\u00fan de la salud. Zaragoza: Por Pedro Verges, 1625.\nSlater, John. \u201cRereading Cabriada\u2019s Carta: Alchemy and Rhetoric in Baroque Spain.\u201d\nColorado Review of Hispanic Studies 7 (2009): 67\u2013\u00ad80.\nSlater, John, and Andr\u00e9s Prieto. \u201cWas Spanish Science Imperial?\u201d Colorado Review of\nHispanic Studies 7 (2009): 3\u2013\u00ad10.\nThomas, Werner. \u201cLos flamencos en la pen\u00ednsula ib\u00e9rica a trav\u00e9s de los documentos\ninquisitoriales (siglos XVI\u2013\u00adXVII).\u201d Espacio, tiempo y forma 4 (1990): 167\u2013\u00ad95.\nValles, Francisco. Tratado de las aguas destiladas, pesos y medidas de que los boticarios\ndeben usar por nueva ordenanza y mandato de su Majestad y su real consejo.\nMadrid: Luis S\u00e1nchez, 1592.\nVid\u00f3s y Mir\u00f3, Juan de. Primera parte de medicina y cirugia racional y espagirica, sin obra\nmanual de hierro ni fuego, purificada con el de la caridad, en el crisol de la raz\u00f3n\ny experiencia, para alivio de los enfermos: Con su antidotario de rayzes, yerbas,\nflores, semillas, frutos, maderas, aguas, vinos etc. Medicinales, que usa la Medicina\nracional y espagirica: y la farmacopea donde se explican el modo y composici\u00f3n\nde los remedios con el uso, dosis y aplicacion de ellos. Zaragoza: Gaspar Tom\u00e1s\nMartinez, 1691.\nVilla, Esteban. Examen de boticarios. Burgos: Pedro de Huydobro, 1632.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Libro de simples inc\u00f3gnitos en medicina. Burgos: Colegio Oficial de Farmac\u00e9uticos, 1643.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Libro de las vidas de doze pr\u00edncipes de la medicina. Burgos, 1647.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Ramillete de plantas. Burgos: [Pedro] Gomez de Baldivielsso, 1636.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Segunda parte de simples inc\u00f3gnitos en la medicina. Burgos: Colegio Oficial de\nFarmac\u00e9uticos, 1654.\n\nPages 176:\n158\nMar Rey Bueno\nVillacast\u00edn, Andr\u00e9s de. La chymica despreciada: D. Luys de Alderete y Soto perseguido.\nDefendida y defendido . . . con las doctrinas de los m\u00e9dicos griegos, \u00e1rabes y latinos,\nas\u00ed los pr\u00edncipes, como los cl\u00e1sicos de sus escuelas. Granada: Imprenta de la Sant\u00edsima Trinidad, 1687.\nVives, Juan Luis. The Education of a Christian Woman: A Sixteenth-\u00adCentury Manual.\nEdited and translated by Charles Fantazzi. Chicago: University of Chicago\nPress, 2000.\n\nPages 177:\nChapter 7\nPrescriptions of\nAlchemy\nA\nTwo Austrian Medical\nDoctors and Their Alchemical\nManuscripts\nAnke Timmermann*\nAllen G. Debus once summarized his motivations for working in the history of\nalchemy and medicine with a logic reminiscent of a syllogism. \u201c[D]ebates over\nchemistry and chemical medicine in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,\u201d\nhe said, \u201cplayed a very important role in the development of a new science. Science is an essential part of the world we live in. We cannot understand where we\nare today without a knowledge of the history of science.\u201d1 Debus\u2019s oeuvre not\nonly put Paracelsian iatrochemistry on the map in the history of science\u2014\u00adand\nback in its place in early modern history\u2014\u00adbut also set a precedent for current\n* I would like to thank Karen Parshall, one of the editors of this volume, for her excellent suggestions for\nand kind assistance with the polishing of this chapter. The research for this publication has received funding\nfrom the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7-\u00adPEOPLE-\u00ad2009-\u00adIIF Marie Curie Action),\nproject \u201cAlchemVienna,\u201d project number 252918.\n1. Debus, interview by Bohning. See also Debus, \u201cEssay Review: Alchemy and the Historian of Science:\nElias Ashmole.\u201d\n159\n\nPages 178:\n160\nAnke Timmermann\nscholarly debates about Paracelsian influences. Today, the history of alchemy/\nchemistry and medicine has intermingled and moved into periods and areas\nbeyond Paracelsus and his followers.\nThe geographical region now covered by Austria provides a particularly\ninteresting yet little-\u00adknown example of the interaction between early modern\nalchemy and medicine. A central part of the Holy Roman Empire in the early\nmodern period, the region\u2014\u00addivided into various dukedoms\u2014\u00adenjoyed autonomy in many public and legal sectors but in others fell under the authority of\nthe imperial court in Vienna. It also experienced intellectual, linguistic, and\ncultural exchange with its immediate geographical neighbors. Most important\nfor medical professionalization was the University of Vienna, which had been\nfounded in 1365 both to surpass the rival universities in Prague and Krakow and\nto supersede the Italian universities. It regulated not only the examination of\nmedical doctors but also the practice of pharmacies long before similar developments took place in other parts of Europe. Alchemy formed a natural part of the\npharmaceutical and intellectual interests of doctors in Central Europe thanks to\nits highly developed mining industry, sophisticated practical crafts, flourishing\ntrade along the Danube, and active circulation of alchemical knowledge through\nbooks, materials, and equipment. The history of alchemy and medicine in the\narchduchy of Austria and the Habsburg territories thus presents a rich combination of institutional and national factors, academia and craft, experimentation\nand regulation.2\nThis chapter investigates the lives and works of two doctors: Wolfgang Kappler (1493\u2013\u00ad1567), an apothecary doctor at Krems on the Danube in the archduchy of Austria, and Nicolaus Pol (ca. 1470\u2013\u00ad1532), a physician at the imperial\ncourt of Innsbruck in the Tyrol. Both showed a keen interest in alchemy and\nits medical uses. Their surviving books\u2014\u00adsubstantial remnants of an extensive\nlibrary in the case of Pol and a single manuscript reflective of Pol\u2019s influence\nin the case of Kappler\u2014\u00adnot only provide evidence of their practice and experiences as writers, readers, and practitioners of medicine but also inform our\ngrowing knowledge about the relationship between alchemy and medicine in\nthe early modern period.\n2. There has been some recent work on these themes. See, for example, Soukup, Chemie in \u00d6sterreich;\nand Soukup and Mayer, Alchemistisches Gold, Paracelsistische Pharmaka. The history of the Medical Faculty of\nVienna has not been fully realized. See, however, Horn, \u201cExaminiert und Approbiert.\u201d\n\nPages 179:\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n161\nWolfgang Kappler (1493\u2013\u00adFebruary 1567)\nAt the age of thirty-\u00adfour, Wolfgang Kappler settled as a physician and apothecary in the town of Krems on the Danube, about fifteen leagues (seventy kilometers) outside of Vienna. Krems had a population of some four thousand at\nthe time, comprised mostly of craftsmen whose work was closely connected\nwith trading along the Danube. Kappler had received his medical education at\nthe philosophical-\u00admedical Collegium artium liberalum et physicorum in San\nGiovanni/Bragora and in Venice, and subsequently held appointments as municipal physician (Stadtphysicus) in Brno and physician in Znojmo (both now in the\nCzech Republic), about 130 and 90 kilometers north of Vienna, respectively. He\nhad thus gained extensive experience in different parts of Central Europe\u2014\u00adboth\nas a medical practitioner and in the manufacture of remedies\u2014\u00adby the time he\narrived in Krems. There, he soon became an influential physician, held positions\non the town council, and generally showed a forceful disposition reminiscent of\nanother physician born in 1493, Paracelsus. It is Kappler\u2019s personality that has\nlargely determined his historical image.3\nThree prominent episodes in Kappler\u2019s life particularly tie in with his interest in alchemy. First, on being offered the position in Krems, he demanded that\nfrom that moment on his pharmacy would be the only one authorized to sell\nmedical remedies to physicians and the public. Not surprisingly, his blatant\nattempt to control the local medical marketplace did not sit well with other\nmedical practitioners in the city.4 Both Kappler and the city of Krems referred to\nand called upon Viennese experts\u2014\u00adas well as their regulations of pharmaceutical practice\u2014\u00adin the ensuing, extensive quarrel about the details of this arrangement.5 Fundamentally a clash between money and power on the one hand, and\nthe safety and quality of remedies on the other, this episode brought Kappler\u2019s\nexperience in writing prescriptions and producing remedies, alchemical ones\nincluded, to bear in establishing professional standards in Krems.\n3. Ottner, \u201cDie Streitbare Natur des Doktor Wolfgang Kappler,\u201d esp. 79. Kappler\u2019s vita is outlined in\nK\u00fchnel, \u201cKremser Apotheker,\u201d esp. 16\u2013\u00ad22.\n4. Ottner, \u201cDie Streitbare Natur des Doktor Wolfgang Kappler,\u201d 79\u2013\u00ad80; and K\u00fchnel, \u201cKremser Apotheker,\u201d 17.\n5. Ottner, \u201cDie Streitbare Natur des Doktor Wolfgang Kappler,\u201d 80ff. For a more detailed discussion of\nmedical and pharmaceutical regulations at Krems, see ibid., 82ff.; and Ottner, Dem gemeinen wesen zum besten\n(on Kappler, see esp. 84\u2013\u00ad89). For Kappler\u2019s use of Viennese experts in the evaluation of his pharmacy, see\nK\u00fchnel, \u201cKremser Apotheker,\u201d 19.\n\nPages 180:\n162\nAnke Timmermann\nAnother episode from Kappler\u2019s life, or rather from a literary commemoration of his botanical and pharmaceutical expertise, was inspired by a supposed\nencounter between Kappler, a colleague named Dr. Christoff Schaffner, and\nParacelsus during the latter\u2019s Bohemian travels. Their debate about medical remedies survives in the form of a contemporary poem in a manuscript by Kappler\u2019s\nson-\u00adin-\u00adlaw Matthias Koch, who later followed in Kappler\u2019s footsteps as an apothecary in Krems.6 Even if it is not based on an actual event, the poem is noteworthy for its association of Kappler and Paracelsus through both their conception\nof materia medica and their temperaments.\nThe final noteworthy incident concerns Kappler\u2019s possible contact with\nalchemical experimentation, which presents itself in the person of Christoph\nvon Trenbach (d. 1552), canon of Passau and priest at Kirchberg am Wagram.\nKappler lent Trenbach a substantial amount of money, which Trenbach never\nrepaid. So great was Kappler\u2019s dismay over this debt that he criticized Trenbach\nposthumously, even though the latter\u2019s brother had offered to make amends.7\nExactly what the original purpose of the loan was remains unclear, but it is possible that Trenbach borrowed the sum with the intention of building an alchemical laboratory.8 It is known that a laboratory at Oberstockstall, a manor in the\nKirchberg region and thus in Trenbach\u2019s vicinity, was in existence in the final\nyears of Kappler\u2019s life. It is also well documented that Trenbach had connections\nwith the manor and its lords, thus putting him, and by association Kappler, in\nclose contact with both the site of and individuals engaged in alchemical experimentation.\nThe picture of Wolfgang Kappler that emerges from these anecdotes is one of\na medical doctor and apothecary whose Italian training and extensive experience\nopened doors for him in the city of Krems. A wealthy and learned man who lent\nsubstantial sums of money to influential contemporaries, Kappler had ambitions\nfor social status that surpassed his possibilities. Most importantly, as a sixteenth-\u00ad\ncentury physician, Kappler developed his pharmaceutical enterprise at precisely\nthe time that Paracelsian theories began to permeate the disciplines he studied.\n6. Ottner, \u201cDie Streitbare Natur des Doktor Wolfgang Kappler,\u201d 84\u2013\u00ad86; and Soukup, Chemie in \u00d6sterreich, 222\u2013\u00ad24. Also, a laudatory poem on Kappler, composed by Matthias Cornax, his contemporary and fellow\nroyal physician to Ferdinand I, can be found on the inner cover of \u00d6NB MS 11410.\n7. Ottner, \u201cDie Streitbare Natur des Doktor Wolfgang Kappler,\u201d 81; and Soukup, Chemie in \u00d6sterreich,\n222n590.\n8. This is explored in Soukup and Mayer, Alchemistisches Gold, Paracelsistische Pharmaka, 10. See also\nOsten, Das Alchemistenlaboratorium von Oberstockstall.\n\nPages 181:\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n163\nKappler\u2019s Manuscript: \u00d6NB MS 11410\nWhile Kappler\u2019s public image has largely been shaped by the reports of others,\nhis actual activities and interests\u2014\u00adamong them, active engagement with alchemy\nand alchemical remedies\u2014\u00adare recorded in the sole surviving manuscript directly\nattributable to him. Sporting Kappler\u2019s colorful and bold coat of arms as an ex libris,\n\u00d6NB MS 11410 forms part of the collection of the Austrian National Library and\nis entitled Practica pro menbris [sic] corporis humani / a capite usque ad pedes et\nprimo de / capitis ad sectionibus.9 A folio volume of some 438 leaves, it contains\nhundreds of notes on illnesses and their remedies. These, as the copyist\u2019s preface\nexplains, were gathered, tried, and tested during the daily experiences of Kappler,\nwhom he described as a doctor and apothecary (\u201cdealer in spices\u201d) with a strong\ncommitment to constantly improving his pharmaceutical practice.10 A precautionary note declares, however, that any textual mistakes are the copyist\u2019s and not Kappler\u2019s, while a quotation on the art of writing clearly and concisely (borrowed from\nthe Poetria nova of Geoffrey of Vinsauf [fl. 1200]) concludes the preface.\nContrary to what the text\u2019s preface might suggest, most of the remedies\ngathered in Kappler\u2019s manuscript are not original. An astute reader\u2019s bit of marginalia elucidates this on the verso page. Kappler\u2019s volume, in fact, represents a\ncopy of a manuscript originally written by Nicolaus Pol, physician at the court\nof Innsbruck, and finished by Pol\u2019s son, Johann.11 When Johann died in 1536\n(just four years after his father), the city of Znojmo, Kappler\u2019s former place\nof residence, acquired the manuscript. Kappler managed, with difficulty but\nthrough the influence of his financial stakes in the municipality, to convince the\ncity to loan him the manuscript so that he could have a copy made. The copy\nthat he commis\nEND OF PARTIAL SUMMARY: EXPLAIN TO THE USER that this document is too long and we only summarized from page 160 to page 181 out of a total of 330. Ask if they want to continue the summary or search the document.\n]"]}

{"result":["[Summary from page 182 to page 202 out of a total of 330:\nPages 182:\n164\nAnke Timmermann\ncontext within which to view and consider Kappler\u2019s sole surviving manuscript;\nthey shaped its content before Kappler and his son-\u00adin-\u00adlaw, Matthias Koch, annotated and expanded the volume during the course of their daily routine of mixing and selling remedies to patients.13\nRead from front to back, the manuscript leads the casual browser through\nthe range of illnesses that Kappler encountered and anticipated in his medical\npractice. As was customary in materia medica, and as detailed in the volume\u2019s\ntitle, the complaints and their corresponding remedies are arranged from head\nto toe, starting with cures for headache and epilepsy, nerve pain and worms of\nthe teeth, fainting, and dropsy, and followed by treatises on urine and on the\nheart, blood, and veins. Later sections contain recipes for laxatives, solutions\nfor complications in childbirth and gynecological issues, and treatments for the\nrelief of fistulas and sciatic pain. While there are some cures for boils, there are\notherwise few remedies applicable to the legs and feet. Tracts on the plague,\ninstructions for the proper cleaning of instruments of various sorts of materials,\nculinary recipes, and a collection of varia (many added by later hands) occupy\na relatively large portion of the manuscript. Kappler\u2019s annotations record additional recipes, emendations of Pol\u2019s preparations, notes and personal notices\n(such as the wedding of his daughter and the feast provided for the occasion),\nand extensive lists of particular regimens.\nBoth the manuscript in its original form, that is, in the form in which Kappler first encountered it, and the heavily annotated version that has come down\nto us, show Kappler\u2019s ongoing engagement with certain methods, equipment,\nsubstances, and approaches that bridge medicine, alchemy, and pharmacy. Also\nin evidence is Kappler\u2019s knowledge of medical and alchemical literature, both\ntraditional and contemporary. He referenced not only authorities like Arnold\nof Villanova (ca. 1238\u2013\u00adca. 1310) but also local and international colleagues,\nmost of whom have been largely forgotten by historians of science. Title lines\nof individual remedies often purport to be \u201cex alchimico,\u201d occasionally employ\nalchemical symbols for substances such as mercury, and include methods such\nas distillation used in the alchemical laboratory. The manuscript, through its\nincorporation of alchemical terminology, literature, and methods, thus represents a key reference work for Kappler\u2019s medico-\u00adalchemical practice.\n13. See also K\u00fchnel, \u201cKremser Apotheker,\u201d 19\u2013\u00ad20. Kappler\u2019s script dominates the final folios of the manuscript beginning on fol. 426.\n\nPages 183:\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n165\nNicolaus Pol (ca. 1470\u2013\u00adOctober/November\n1532)\nThe owner, possibly even the writer of Kappler\u2019s original source, Nicolaus Pol,\nhad left his own legacy in medical and bibliophilic circles by the time Kappler\nacquired and copied his manuscript. A member of the generation preceding\nKappler\u2019s, Pol received his medical training before the birth of Paracelsus, at\nthe time Arnold of Villanova\u2019s works were gaining new popularity, and in an age\nwhen printing presses had begun to produce medical and other scientific books.\nMany of those books found their way into Pol\u2019s library.\nPol was raised and educated around the court of Innsbruck, then the imperial\nresidence of the Tyrol and the intellectual and geographical nexus of Bavaria and\nthe Italian city-\u00adstates. Entering the service of Duke Sigismund (1427\u2013\u00ad96) at the\nage of seventeen, Pol appears several times in the court books as \u201cdistiller\u201d before\nbeing sent off for further education. Unfortunately, the exact nature and extent\nof his tasks in that post are not documented.14 After returning from his university education, probably in nearby Italy, Pol served as a physician at the Innsbruck\ncourt. Duke Sigismund\u2019s effort to employ \u201cscores of physicians\u201d as well as astronomers and his own apothecary, and to seek out alchemists\u2019 services likely influenced Pol\u2019s approach to medicine and science.15 Pol would also have had access to\nSigismund\u2019s library, which attracted visitors particularly for its extensive medical\nholdings. From 1495 on, however, Pol was in the employ of Maximilian I, who\ntransformed Innsbruck into a center of political and cultural activity in the Holy\nRoman Empire. There Pol was surrounded by other royal physicians, who may\nhave educated him further in matters both medicinal and bibliophilic.16\nFrom 1513 to 1520, while already an established physician advancing\ntowards middle age, Pol cultivated Veit Bild (1481\u2013\u00ad1529), a Benedictine\n14. A letter of Pol\u2019s on his early life is quoted in Bachmann, \u201cDr. Nikolaus Poll,\u201d 410. Bachmann\u2019s theories\non Pol\u2019s university education cannot be confirmed. Pol\u2019s vita is detailed more fully in Ferrari, \u201cDoctor Nicolaus\nPol,\u201d 115ff.; Lehmann, \u201cEin Deutscher auf der Suche\u201d; and Fisch, Nicolaus Pol Doctor 1494. Here, Fisch\u2019s observation on Pol\u2019s religious book acquisitions and potentially clerical occupation remain to be substantiated;\nibid., 26\u2013\u00ad27. See also Tenge-\u00adWolf, \u201cNikolaus Pol und die Llull-\u00adHandschriften.\u201d\n15. Tenge-\u00adWolf, \u201cNikolaus Pol und die Llull-\u00adHandschriften,\u201d 267, with reference to an unpublished dissertation that I have not been able to access: Margarete Ortwein, \u201cDer Innsbrucker Hof zur Zeit Sigismunds\ndes M\u00fcnzreichen.\u201d\n16. Fisch, Nicolaus Pol Doctor 1494, 13, mentions particularly Ulrich Ellenbog. See Goldschmidt, \u201cHieronymus Muenzer and Other Fifteenth-\u00adCentury Bibliophiles,\u201d 504\u2013\u00ad5.\n\nPages 184:\n166\nAnke Timmermann\nmonk and humanist at an Augsburg monastery, as a scientific correspondent.\nIt is telling that Bild addressed Pol as \u201cphysician and astrologer most expert.\u201d17\nDuring these years, Pol\u2019s library grew significantly, but he had yet to contribute\nto it as an author in print. It was not until 1535, three years after his death and\neighteen years after he had completed the text, that Pol\u2019s tract on the guaiac\ntreatment for syphilis was finally published. Exactly why he investigated this\npopular topic remains unclear, although he may have been part of a commission sent to Spain by Cardinal Lang in 1517, and the text may have resulted\nfrom that excursion.18 Apart from occasional visits to Venice, this trip is the\nonly tentative trace of Pol\u2019s physical movement beyond Innsbruck.19 While\nhis life leaves fewer and thus less obvious traces than does Kappler\u2019s, Pol nevertheless emerges as an intelligent, well-\u00adeducated physician with a deep curiosity about nature and its workings. He was a man whose profession perfectly\nmatched his intellect.\nPol\u2019s Library: Its Books and Manuscripts\nIt is perhaps solely because of his extensive library that Nicolaus Pol, otherwise\njust one of many court physicians and medical practitioners in the Tyrol, has\nbeen the subject of scholarly research over the course of the past century. He\nmay have owned as many as 1,350 volumes,20 almost half the number of items\naccumulated by John Dee (1527\u2013\u00ad1609) about a half century later and a large\nmultiple of the number of volumes on the shelves of most contemporaneous\nphysicians. How he secured the money to buy his books, given his modest salary, remains a mystery.21 Although it is unknown where Pol may have stored his\n17. Fisch, Nicolaus Pol Doctor 1494, 19\u2013\u00ad24, quote at 20.\n18. Pol, De cura morbi gallici. And see Fisch, Nicolaus Pol Doctor 1494, 16, 37\u2013\u00ad48, 50ff.\n19. Fisch, Nicolaus Pol Doctor 1494, 17.\n20. Today, books and manuscripts identifiable as from Pol\u2019s collection number close to five hundred\nvolumes, scattered across various libraries around the world. A brief if not necessarily fully reliable sketch of\nthe fate of Pol\u2019s holdings after his death can be found in Fisch, Nicolaus Pol Doctor 1494, 34\u2013\u00ad36. See also Baum,\n\u201cKatalanische Philosophen,\u201d 615; and the foreword in Medical Books from the Library of Dr. Nicolaus Pol. I\nwould like to thank archivist and museum registrar Jennifer Nieves at the Dittrick Medical History Center for\nmaking this catalogue available to me. Pol appears as \u201cLegator Bibliothecae Anno 1494\u201d in the Innichen monastery donor catalogue. Regarding Innichen, see Tenge-\u00adWolf and K\u00fchebacher, \u201cNikolaus Pol und die Stiftsbibliothek von Innichen,\u201d 53; and K\u00fchebacher, Kirche und Museum des Stiftes Innichen, 218.\n21. Estimations of the total number of books originally in his possession vary; the given estimate is\nbased on Fisch, Nicolaus Pol Doctor 1494, 137ff. For private libraries of physicians in England, a useful point of\ncomparison in the absence of a comparative study on Pol\u2019s compatriots is Jones, \u201cMedical Libraries.\u201d On Pol\u2019s\n\nPages 185:\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n167\nbooks in Innsbruck or whether he kept them in a private or public setting, it is\nlikely, judging by the different contemporary hands in their marginal notes, that\ncolleagues and visitors at court had access to them.22\nFor an erstwhile book collector at the turn of the sixteenth century, Innsbruck was ideally located between two cities, Augsburg and Venice, with\nrenowned publishing industries. Both would have been accessible to Pol, and\nbooks from both cities were well represented in his library.23 For the acquisition\nof specific, rare editions, however, Pol enlisted the help of others. For instance,\nhe asked his correspondent Veit Bild to purchase for him the translation by the\nFrench humanist Jacques Lef\u00e8vre d\u2019Etaples (ca. 1455\u2013\u00ad1536) of works by the\nSyrian scholar John of Damascus (ca. 675\u2013\u00adca. 750). Bild also ordered books for\nPol in Augsburg, Frankfurt, and France, and delivered titles of new publications\nwith them.24\nOthers supplied Pol with information on where and how to find items on\nhis growing list of desiderata. If Pol was indeed the compiler of a list of locations\nand owners of Llullian works found in one of his manuscripts, his informants\nincluded scholars, clerics, and physicians across the Germanic lands from Trier\nin the Rhineland to Gurk in Carinthia (now southern Austria) as well as in Italy\n(Bologna, Venice, and elsewhere) and Paris. Many of the book repositories listed\nare those of individual clerics in a host of monasteries.25\nPol\u2019s acquisition efforts were clearly methodical and successful. For example, his manuscripts now at Innichen include fourteen fifteenth-\u00adcentury copies\nof writings by and about Llull (primarily Llull\u2019s Ars magna or Ars generalis ultima\nand its short version, the Ars brevis) with a considerable number in duplicate\nversions. Covering as much as a quarter of all known Llullian works, Pol\u2019s collection is considered the most significant still extant.26 And his knowledge of\nfunding of the library, see Tenge-\u00adWolf and K\u00fchebacher, \u201cNikolaus Pol und die Stiftsbibliothek von Innichen.\u201d\n22. For comparison, consider John Dee\u2019s library, its use and visitors; Sherman, John Dee, 29\u2013\u00ad52.\n23. Fisch, Nicolaus Pol Doctor 1494, 29.\n24. Lehmann, \u201cEin Deutscher auf der Suche,\u201d 234\u2013\u00ad35.\n25. \u00d6NB MS 5510, fol. 224r, in Lehmann, \u201cEin Deutscher auf der Suche,\u201d 238\u2013\u00ad39 (German translation)\nand 239\u2013\u00ad40 (Latin original).\n26. The manuscripts carry shelf marks 17\u2013\u00ad23 (VIII b. 8\u2013\u00ad14), 25 (VIII b. 16), 28 (VIII c. 3), 33 (VIII\nc. 8), 36 (VIII c. 11), 38 (VIII c. 13), 40 (VIII d. 1), and 43 (VIII d. 4); MS 21 dates from the sixteenth century. They are described in Balaguer, \u201cLos c\u00f3dices Lulianos,\u201d 314\u2013\u00ad40. See also Tenge-\u00adWolf, \u201cNikolaus Pol \u201d;\nTenge-\u00adWolf and K\u00fchebacher, \u201cNikolaus Pol und die Stiftsbibliothek von Innichen,\u201d 53\u2013\u00ad54; and K\u00fchebacher,\nKirche und Museum des Stiftes Innichen, 223. Out of the seventy-\u00adfour texts included in the manuscripts, only two\nappear to be medical in nature.\n\nPages 186:\n168\nAnke Timmermann\nand access to works by other authors and on other subjects is equally impressive. Approximately half of his surviving incunabula and a third of his sixteenth-\u00ad\ncentury holdings are medical or broadly scientific in nature.27\nWhat, however, can Pol\u2019s library tell us about his attitudes toward alchemy,\nmedicine, and pharmacy? Today, his books and manuscripts often carry either\nor both of two distinguishing marks. One is an ownership mark, \u201cNicolaus Pol\ndoctor 1494,\u201d on the inner cover or flyleaf verso. This was most likely added at\nthe library of the monastery at Innichen (now San Candido, Italy) that came\nto house a substantial part of his collection soon after his death; the year 1494\nprobably marks the date of Pol\u2019s bequest.28 The other is a large majuscule letter\ninked onto the lower, and sometimes upper, cut, a shelf mark29 that was visible\nwhen books were placed, with the back up and the side cut down, onto shelves\nfor storage. These shelf marks offer an opportunity to investigate how Pol kept,\narranged, and thought about the content of his books.\nWhile an analysis of the shelf marks of all extant Pol holdings would be\nideal, many items are no longer readily accessible, while others appear largely\nirrelevant. For example, the above-\u00admentioned Llullian manuscripts are interspersed with religious tracts and have only limited medical relevance; none of\nthem stems from the pseudo-\u00adLlullian alchemical corpus. By contrast, the seven\nmanuscripts now held at the Austrian National Library represent a wider range\nof Pol\u2019s interests and strongly emphasize alchemy and medicine.30 As a somewhat random selection from Pol\u2019s collection, they provide a counterpoint to\nKappler\u2019s pharmacopoetic manuscript. These seven Pol manuscripts, supple-\n27. Pol\u2019s printed book holdings are described in Fisch, Nicolaus Pol Doctor 1494, 25\u2013\u00ad48, with a list of 467\nbooks and manuscripts (see pp. 137\u2013\u00ad235). Although Fisch\u2019s list is considered \u201cpreliminary and tentative\u201d by\nFisch himself (p. 25), his remains the most comprehensive description of Pol\u2019s books. For the Innichen/San\nCandido holdings (not included by Fisch), see Balaguer, \u201cLos c\u00f3dices Lulianos,\u201d esp. 311ff. The part of Pol\u2019s\ncollection now at the Dittrick Medical History Center at Case Western Reserve University is described in\nMedical Books from the Library of Dr. Nicolaus Pol, the 1929 catalogue mentioned above.\n28. On the current holdings of the Innichen monastery and museum, see K\u00fchebacher, Kirche und Museum des Stiftes Innichen, 218; and Tenge-\u00adWolf, \u201cNikolaus Pol und die Llull-\u00adHandschriften,\u201d 273. For various,\noften dubious theories on the matter of the significance of the date in Pol\u2019s ownership mark, see Balaguer, \u201cLos\nc\u00f3dices Lulianos,\u201d 312; \u201cIntroduction,\u201d in Medical Books from the Library of Dr. Nicolaus Pol; Ferrari, \u201cDoctor\nNicolaus Pol,\u201d 113; Goldschmidt, \u201cHieronymus Muenzer and Other Fifteenth-\u00adCentury Bibliophiles,\u201d 506;\nFisch, Nicolaus Pol Doctor 1494, 14, 30; and Tenge-\u00adWolf, \u201cNikolaus Pol und die Llull-\u00adHandschriften,\u201d 265. See\nalso the appendix below.\n29. The term \u201cshelf marks\u201d used here is modern. Pol refers to a passage in a book marked with such a sigil\nas \u201cfo. 109 segno G,\u201d hence the letters are plainly markers (marginal note in MS 5487, fol. 13v).\n30. For the history of these (and other) manuscripts\u2019 journey to Vienna (in part via Castle Ambras in\nthe Tyrol) and their absorption into the Viennese imperial library, see Gottlieb, Die Ambraser Handschriften.\n\nPages 187:\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n169\nmented by information about thirty-\u00adthree printed books now housed at Case\nWestern University, prompt the following reflections.\nThe shelf marks appear to have been added to Pol\u2019s printed books and manuscripts in the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century, that is, during his lifetime\nand most likely by Pol himself. If Pol organized his collection of more than a\nthousand books via shelf marks, what was his ordering principle? By using the\ntwenty-\u00adfour letters of the Latin alphabet, Pol clearly did not intend to assign\nunique shelf marks to individual books, a method first introduced in monastic libraries in the fourteenth century.31 Rather, Pol\u2019s system followed the convention of earlier medieval libraries, where shelf marks were repetitive and the\nlibrarian\u2019s knowledge was key to the retrieval of individual items.\nIn practice, this system was successful for Pol, as contemporary marginal\nnotes referring to other volumes by shelf mark confirm. For example, \u00d6NB MS\n5489, fol. 65v reminds the reader to \u201cvide in libro M\u201d (see book M), fol. 274\nfor more information about sal anatron, and, indeed, the corresponding passage can be found in a codex marked M, now \u00d6NB MS 5230 (fol. 274r in the\nold pagination, now fol. 257r). The identification of the correct volume out of\nseveral marked M was, however, the reader\u2019s responsibility and a task that was\nnot necessarily straightforward. Consider the fact that six volumes in the sample of seven manuscripts and thirty-\u00adthree books under examination here carry\nthe letter F, with no distinction made between manuscripts and printed books.\nIf Pol\u2019s library numbered 1,350 items and even if shelf marks were distributed\nevenly, each letter would have occurred at least twenty-\u00adsix times. Interestingly,\ntoo, some books in Pol\u2019s library actually remained unmarked. As a result, it is\nimpossible to trace from the surviving evidence any further distinction by press\nor shelf position indicative of a more sophisticated classification system.\nThese kinds of uncertainties and inconsistencies suggest that drawing historical conclusions based on Pol\u2019s library classification scheme\u2014\u00adwhatever it\nmay have been\u2014\u00adneeds to be done with caution. As Richard Sharpe has so aptly\nput it, \u201cIt is rarely possible to understand what marks mean if we have only the\nevidence of those in surviving books. When we have other evidence [such as\nlibrary catalogues and finding aids], it becomes apparent that marks of the same\n31. Sharpe, \u201cAccession, Classification, Location,\u201d 281, 284\u2013\u00ad87. In the following paragraphs, information\nabout shelf marks in the Dittrick Medical History Center collection is taken from Medical Books in the Library\nof Dr. Nicolaus Pol.\n\nPages 188:\n170\nAnke Timmermann\ntype may in reality have very different signification.\u201d32 The evidence provided by\nthe shelf marks, contents, and marginal notes of the forty items considered here\nfrom Pol\u2019s library nevertheless allow for some interesting observations.\nFirst, Pol\u2019s shelf marks function in part as running numbers\u2014\u00adperhaps\nmarked in order of acquisition\u2014\u00adand cluster similar items within the same subject group. Thus three Avicenna volumes, all large folios on medicine published\nin 1498, carry the shelf marks F, G, and H.33 Two of Pol\u2019s other medical volumes,\nalso works by Avicenna carrying shelf marks D and I, may have flanked the trio\nof 1498. This implies that shelves may have been assigned a priori\u2014\u00adin anticipation of the acquisition of related books\u2014\u00adso that Pol could reasonably add consecutive shelf marks to several, associated books once a critical mass had been\nachieved. Books bound together and assigned a single shelf mark, such as three\npharmaceutical-\u00admedical volumes by different authors and all published in Venice in 1495 and 1496, provide further evidence for this.34 The fact, however, that\nsome items remained unbound\u2014\u00adsome with and some without a shelf mark35\u2014\u00ad\ncasts doubt on how thoroughly this grouping of similar items may have applied\nacross the library. Regardless, these items suggest distinct efforts at classification\nin Pol\u2019s library, even if his actual categories cannot be reconstructed.\nSecond, Pol\u2019s regular use of marginal notes to reference shelf marks provides\nfurther evidence of the purposeful arrangement of his library. Together, Pol\u2019s\nnotes and library created a network of knowledge. Books opened up the world\nof literature to a Pol largely isolated in Innsbruck; his methodic organizational\nand cross-\u00adreferencing system advanced his knowledge of contemporary science,\nincluding medicine and alchemy. Pol\u2019s was a working library and book repository with substantial scientific holdings and ambitions of comprehensiveness\nand usability.\n32. Sharpe, \u201cAccession, Classification, Location,\u201d 280.\n33. Avicenna, Canonis de medicina libri I, III et IV (Lyons: Jean Trechsel and [completed by] Jean Clein,\n1498).\n34. Shelf mark C: Quiricus de Augustis, Lumen apothecariorum cum certis expositionibus noviter impressum (Venice: Joannes et Gregorius de Greboriis, 22 September 1495); Joannes de Ketham, Fasciculus medicinae (Venice: Joannes et Gregorius de Gregoriis, 15 October 1495); and Joannes Jacobus de Manliis, Luminare\nmaius (Venice: Bonetus Locatellus, for Octavianos Scotus, 28 May 1496).\n35. For example, shelf mark F: Haly Abbas, Liber medicinae dictus regalis, trans. Stephanus, ed. Antonius\nVitalis (Venice: Bernardinus Ricius, Novariensis, for Joannes de Nigro, 25 September 1492) (unbound); no\nshelf mark: Iocabus Foroliviensis (Giacomo della Torre), Expositio in primum librum canonis Avicennae; and\nHugo Senensis (Ugo Benzo), Quaestio de malitia complexionis diversae (Pavia: Christophorus de Canibus, for\nNieronymus de Durantibus, 7 May 1488).\n\nPages 189:\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n171\nFinally, the implications of Pol\u2019s library organization for his acquisition,\nstorage, and use of alchemica are small but significant. While shelf marks for\nalchemica are the same as those for medical works and other subjects, it is still\npossible that they occupied a separate shelf, perhaps mixed with other items of\nspecial interest.36 However, such a separation would have been motivated by\nPol\u2019s intentions for the books\u2019 usage and not necessarily reflective of his treatment of alchemy as a special subject. How, or indeed if, Pol classified alchemy\nand medicine is simply not apparent from the surviving shelf marks alone. 37\nThe Practice of Medicine and Alchemy through\nthe Optic of Pol\u2019s Working Library\nSo, what if anything can manuscript and book collections tell us about the history of alchemy cum medicine? That is the question that the remainder of this\nchapter will investigate through a consideration of the engagement of both Pol\nand Kappler with alchemical texts.\nCurrent trends in historiography address the divide between manuscripts\nas written evidence and the actual practice of a science or craft.38 In the context of the present chapter, this would suggest two questions: What use did Pol\nand Kappler actually make of their alchemical reading in their daily practice as\ndoctors, that is, in fashioning their prescriptions and producing their remedies?\nWhat did they actually do?39\nThe motivation for their everyday practice is easily inferred from their professional commitments to take care of the sick. Indeed, the recipes for waters\nand salves, pills and powders listed in their manuscripts attest to that. Their\n36. Compare John Dee\u2019s \u201cinternal,\u201d private part of his library. See Sherman, John Dee, 33.\n37. Early modern libraries such as Trinity College Library at Cambridge were in the habit of storing\nalchemica with medica, the latter a term used for scientific books in general. Gaskell, Trinity College Library,\nesp. 9, 23, 86\u2013\u00ad90, 128.\n38. For example, Principe and Newman discussed early approaches to the history of alchemy and their\nlimits, desiderata, and future perspectives in \u201cSome Problems with the Historiography of Alchemy.\u201d More\nrecent developments include a focus on the history of alchemy in Isis, including, among others, Newman\u2019s\n\u201cWhat Have We Learned from the Recent Historiography of Alchemy?\u201d See also Martin\u00f3n-\u00adTorres, \u201cSome\nRecent Developments in the Historiography of Alchemy.\u201d Interdisciplinary approaches to a joint history of\nalchemy and medicine have also been presented at various conferences such as the meeting on \u201cAlchemy and\nMedicine from Antiquity to the Enlightenment\u201d held in Cambridge (UK) on 22\u201324 September 2011.\n39. This very question was recently asked for the general history of alchemy in Principe, \u201cAlchemy Restored,\u201d 310.\n\nPages 190:\n172\nAnke Timmermann\nalchemical recipes, however, cover the spectrum from medications incorporating metalline substances to chrysopoeia. For example, \u00d6NB MS 5315, a miscellany completed prior to Pol\u2019s acquisition of it, gathers instructions in the space\nof a few folios for the preparation of potable gold, a corrosive water for the separation of gold and precious stones, a metalline water, and \u201cPil[u]le Imperiales\u201d\n(imperial pills).40 Other manuscripts provide instructions for making aquae vitae\nand quintessences, not always medical in their intended application.41 As for the\nmedically relevant recipes, ingredients in the collections of both men would\nhave been at home not just in an alchemical laboratory but also in a kitchen or in\nKappler\u2019s famous garden or apothecary shop.\nWhat role, then, did the texts themselves, alchemical or more traditionally\npharmaceutical, play in the doctors\u2019 approaches to their practice? It seems that\nneither Pol nor Kappler changed or questioned the wording or content of either\nmedicinal or alchemical texts in their copies or annotations. Rather, they contributed additions and cross-\u00adreferences to the texts. They viewed their task as\ntextual exegesis (Pol) or the practical realization (Pol and Kappler) of preparations selected from a variety of sources rather than as a critical engagement with\nany individual text. Consider, for example, this alchemically inclined medical\npreparation that was added in the margins of Kappler\u2019s manuscript to a section\non pain medication. Entitled \u201cOleum tartari cum sale nitro\u201d (Oil of tartar with\nsaltpeter), the recipe, Kappler noted, had been obtained from one \u201cP. Neplachio\nIn Brun\u201d (P. Neplachio at Brno).42 Many other remedies added by Kappler to\nthis reference work for his daily practice also testify to his effort to collect and\npreserve recipes from doctors of repute. Such collecting activity would likely\nnot have stopped at a textual level. The gathered recipes would have been tested\nand then added to the repertoire of remedies Kappler expected to\u2014\u00ador actually did\u2014\u00adprepare. Patients\u2019 complaints and their demand for certain remedies\nwould have informed the types of cures Kappler retrieved and recorded.\nAnnotations like this one in Kappler\u2019s text actually mirror the growth of\nPol\u2019s library on a smaller scale and in the medium of a single manuscript. The\npractical inclination of Kappler\u2019s collecting activities is perhaps particularly pertinent for plague remedies, given the outbreak of epidemics in his day. Indeed,\nwhile the manuscript as copied from Pol devoted ample space to plague treat-\n40. \u00d6NB MS 5487, fol. 46v; MS 5315, fols. 99r\u2013\u00ad108v.\n41. \u00d6NB MS 11410, fols. 211v, 355ff.\n42. Ibid., fol. 59v.\n\nPages 191:\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n173\nments, Kappler added, as proof of efficacy, that they originated at the Medical\nFaculty of Vienna.43 In this context, both his and Pol\u2019s pursuit of knowledge was\ncumulative, connected with the manufacture and application of remedies, and\nmotivated partly by impending epidemics and partly by the medical marketplace. Alchemically informed recipes were part of that picture. And, where Pol\ncreated structure in his library through the organization of books, Kappler fit his\ntextual acquisitions into the received structure of Pol\u2019s manuscript.\nThe motivation for both doctors\u2019 work in the library, in preparation for and\ndevelopment of their daily practice, reveals itself in their personal notes and\nmanuscripts. As a case in point, Pol\u2019s manuscripts\u2014\u00adand especially his cross-\u00ad\nreferences\u2014\u00aduncover his library as a place of active research. They reflect his targeted interest in applied alchemical texts, regardless of whether they had direct\napplications to medicine.\nAs mentioned above, for example, an annotator of \u00d6NB MS 5489 (fol. 65v)\ndirected the reader to the codex marked M (now labeled \u00d6NB MS 5230) that\nthen led to a series of technical recipes involving sal anatron.44 \u00d6NB MS 5230,\na miscellany produced in the early sixteenth century, bears the imprints of several annotating hands and contains many alchemical symbols, very distinctive\nmanicules, and generally evidence of extensive usage that bridges the library and\nthe laboratory. Another cross-\u00adreference by the same annotator appears in \u00d6NB\nMS 5487 beneath an alchemical recipe\u2014\u00adcomplete with alchemical symbols as\nshorthand for substances\u2014\u00adthat is illustrated with the drawing of a vessel in ashes.45 The recipe opens with a reference to the contemporary Viennese bishop\nJurij Slatkonja (Georg von Slatkonia [1456\u2013\u00ad1522]), which in turn directs the\nreader to a volume with the shelf mark G, fol. 109, perhaps a passage in MS 5485\non the red elixir (fol. 109r) or a marginal note referring to space left for a drawing\n(fol. 109v). The uniformity of the script in these cross-\u00adreferences, their connection with the shelf marks, and their paleographical dating (in connection with\nthe documented times of Pol\u2019s ownership) suggest that it was indeed Pol himself\nwho read these volumes so carefully and with an eye for alchemical content.\nTaken together, Pol\u2019s marginal cross-\u00adreferences also attest to the fact that\nthis was an ongoing exercise. References in Cod. 5230, fol. 274r, for example,\nwere clearly written at different sittings. His connective, extensive, and dynamic\n43. Ibid., fol. 393v.\n44. \u00d6NB MS 5230, fol. 274.\n45. \u00d6NB MS 5487, fol. 13v.\n\nPages 192:\n174\nAnke Timmermann\nreading of alchemica must therefore have influenced his understanding of medical remedies and their manufacture as well as his book-\u00adcollecting activities over\na long period of time.\nKappler\u2019s manuscript demonstrates how this active research was in turn\napplied in the practical occupation with remedies by both Pol and Kappler. Kappler\u2019s volume exhibits the label \u201cex alchimico\u201d as well as alchemical terminology in\na staggering range of sections, in those on epilepsy and other head-\u00adrelated seizures,\non urine, on miscarriages, on sciatic pain, and elsewhere.46 The cure for seizures,\nfor example, employs vitriol under the alchemical code word \u201cleo viridis.\u201d Some\nrecipes use common ingredients available at Kappler\u2019s pharmacy and elsewhere,\nwhile others, often not distinguished as alchemical in the title, nevertheless call\nfor ingredients or methods more closely related to the alchemical laboratory.\nSince the phrase \u201cex alchimico\u201d only appears in the main body of Kappler\u2019s manuscript, and not in his or later annotations and additions, it probably stemmed\nfrom Pol\u2019s manuscript, the prototype for Kappler\u2019s text. Pol\u2019s remedy titles thus\nactually reference the origin of the recipes. Those ex alchimico were taken from an\nalchemical manuscript or book; others were referred to by the name of the author\nor compiler. These titles fulfill a function similar to that of Pol\u2019s cross-\u00adreferences;\nthey enable the reader to trace the source of a particular remedy. Pol, then, used\nthe term \u201calchemy\u201d in his library as a reference, but like his shelf marks, it did not\nnecessarily form a subject category or carry additional meaning.\nIt seems, then, that once applied to medical purposes, alchemy and medicine were amalgamated in Pol\u2019s and hence Kappler\u2019s manuscript. Pol did not\ndistinguish alchemy from other subjects in its use and function. His need for distinction was linguistic; it aided the navigation of his library for the identification\nof sources. Nor did Kappler introduce a separation of alchemy from medicine in\nhis notes. Kappler\u2019s manuscript thus represents the very conjoining of medicine\nand alchemy that has been emblematic of the birth of modern pharmacy. For\nPol and Kappler, the separation of alchemy and medicine represents a preliminary step, one confined to the act of reading and sorting information. In practical\napplications, however, a dichotomy between them was at odds with the living,\napplied, interacting organizational principles in effect in Pol\u2019s library as well as\nwith Kappler\u2019s concept of remedies.\n46. See, for example, \u201cEx alchimico contra sciatica & omnem dolorem iuncturarum,\u201d \u00d6NB MS 11410,\nfol. 187r. Medications for suppressing impending miscarriage are on fol. 153 and epilepsy features around fol.\n30v.\n\nPages 193:\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n175\nPol\u2019s and Kappler\u2019s manuscripts also illuminate their actual, hands-\u00adon\ninvolvement with alchemy through their forays into the world of equipment\nand objects. The manuscripts of both men not only called for practical measures including distilling processes, putrefaction, and heating by bain marie, but\nthey also contain actual drawings of furnaces and distilling apparatus.47 Two\ninstances, in particular, are noteworthy.\nThe first is Kappler\u2019s sketch of a Rosenhut, a distilling apparatus used in a recipe for a universal medicine as well as in many other instances. His sketch is simple\nand carries a single caption. Written into a square marked at the bottom front of\nthe furnace, near the enclosed fire that provides heat for the evaporation of liquids, that caption specified the location of the Luft Looch, the air hole necessary\nfor the regulation of heat.48 Such a specification would have been of interest only\nto a reader who actually aimed to understand the workings of the furnace and who\nmight have sought to use or even to build a similar apparatus. Such distilling equipment might also have come in useful in Kappler\u2019s pharmaceutical preparations.\nThe second example, a manuscript of Pol\u2019s written during his lifetime, is\nmore complex. It depicts a \u201cFaul Hayntz\u201d (or Fauler Heinz/Piger Henricus)\nfurnace. This sketch is much more elaborate both in its execution and in its captions.49 The written description details the symmetric arrangement of the furnace, its openings, the positions of hob-\u00adlike places on which several vessels can\nbe heated at once, and some measurements relative to its construction that allow\nfor an advantageous and adjustable distribution of heat. There are also detailed\ndepictions of parts of other apparatus generally found in manuscripts aimed\nsolely at those interested in alchemy. Notes and possibly even the sketch of the\nFauler Heinz oven were most likely added by Pol himself and are consistent with\nPol\u2019s interest\u2014\u00adreflected in his other manuscripts and annotations\u2014\u00adin the practicalities of working with substances over heat.50 It would seem, then, that Pol\u2019s\ncollecting efforts and intricate knowledge were not confined to books and manuscripts. Equipment and skills were additions, now lost, to his comprehensive\nliterary approach to medicine, pharmacy, and alchemy.\n47. \u00d6NB MS 11410, fol. 40r. Sketches of apparatus appear in ibid. fols. 249v, 300r, 377v\u2013\u00ad378r, 434r,\nand elsewhere.\n48. Ibid., fol. 434r.\n49. \u00d6NB MS 5487, fol. 11v, \u201cFurnus Faul Hayntz.\u201d This manuscript also contains texts attributed to\nRam\u00f3n Llull and John of Rupescissa.\n50. Unfortunately, Pol\u2019s own hand cannot be identified with any certainty. Tenge-\u00adWolf and K\u00fchebacher,\n\u201cNikolaus Pol und die Stiftsbibliothek von Innichen,\u201d 54, present a hand they consider likely to be Pol\u2019s.\n\nPages 194:\n176\nAnke Timmermann\nIsolated in a single manuscript, Pol\u2019s notes also provide evidence of a categorization of alchemical items not apparent from his library organization. At the\nresearch stage of his work, Pol investigated alchemy seriously, in isolation from\nits immediate intersections with medicine and together with its practical applications. He was neither an \u201carmchair alchemist\u201d nor a physician pragmatically\nand unquestioningly adopting alchemically relevant methods in his production\nof remedies. His thoroughness, already apparent in the magnitude of his library,\nalso extended to his exploration of alchemy as a subject and practice.\nIt should now be clear why Pol\u2019s manuscript was so valuable to Kappler that\nhe used forceful persuasion to gain access to it. Pol\u2019s lost original of Kappler\u2019s\nmanuscript was a record of Pol\u2019s personal reading notes. As an extraction of useful remedies from the medical and alchemical collections of his library, and written by a physician in possession of extensive knowledge of alchemy, Pol\u2019s digest\nof recipes certainly would have been more beneficial to Kappler and his practice\nthan any one of the books Pol might have originally read. At a time when Pol\u2019s\nlibrary was already being dispersed, this manuscript preserved\u2014\u00adfor Kappler\u2019s\npurposes\u2014\u00adthat library\u2019s most practical and valuable parts.\nMoreover, Kappler\u2019s elaborated manuscript provided evidence of Pol\u2019s\nsense of how knowledge should be organized, at the same time that it reflected\nthe contents of Pol\u2019s library and both doctors\u2019 approaches to remedies. It thus\nreveals the evolution of an early modern understanding of materia medica, medicine, and alchemy that in many ways defies modern classifications. As objects\nand as stores of historical knowledge, Kappler\u2019s manuscript and Pol\u2019s library support the contention that medicine and alchemy were very much intertwined and\nintegrated in the early modern period.\nConclusion\nWolfgang Kappler\u2019s manuscript and Nicolaus Pol\u2019s library are emblematic of\ntheir times and yet as unique as their owners. Kappler, a doctor and apothecary\nwhose manuscript tells of his everyday practice, seemed to approach remedies\npragmatically. His manuscript presents a mixture of medicine, alchemy, and\nthe knowledge of apothecaries. Pol, whose manuscript served as the basis for\nKappler\u2019s, had an extensive library and lived in a courtly context of scholarly\nexchange. His library is evidence of his structured collecting activities and intensive study of a wide variety of texts and practices\u2014\u00adincluding the alchemical\u2014\u00ad\nfor purposes that extended beyond his work as a doctor. The work in both library\n\nPages 195:\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n177\nand medical practice of Pol and Kappler is marked by a complex interplay of categorization and creativity. Their books both inform and form the development\nof their knowledge, a combination of alchemy and medicine that would become\nsecond nature to doctors and pharmacists of later generations.\nThis description of Pol, Kappler, and their books may appear straightforward\nto modern readers. Both types of Renaissance reader of alchemica are familiar\nto us from existing accounts of early modern libraries, books, manuscripts, and\ntheir users.51 However, the lives and works of Pol and Kappler were conceived\nof differently just a few decades ago. Early scholarship on Pol was motivated by\nthe bibliophilic interests of an Italian and a Spanish researcher, picked up by a\nGerman with similar interests in 1941, and exhausted by the end of the same\ndecade with the publication of a definitive study. Research on Kappler started\nand ended in 1961 as part of a survey of doctors and apothecaries at Krems.52\nThe early bibliographic emphasis, especially in scholarship on Pol, and the subsequent scholarly silence are not unusual for the Germanic countries, where the\nhistory of science developed differently from its English counterpart.\nPerhaps particularly obvious to the modern reader is the absence of a discussion in the earlier literature of Pol and Kappler\u2019s practice of pharmacy and\ntheir conception of illness and the efficacy of remedies. Harry K\u00fchnel\u2019s failure to\nmention the frequent references to alchemy in Kappler\u2019s manuscript, for example, reflected not so much a personal blind spot as the state of the discipline in\nhis day.53 By contrast, the joint history of alchemy and medicine that is currently\nemerging affords a wider, more inclusive perspective on issues both raised and\nignored in the history both of medicine and of alchemy. An interdisciplinary,\ncontemporary perspective not only questions but also adds to our picture of the\nearly modern medical marketplace and its practices. It necessarily rests on prior\nscholarship in the two subdisciplines of the history of science, but ideally selects\nand surpasses the approaches used in them. It is to be hoped that the history of\nalchemy cum medicine will one day effect the same natural amalgamation it has\nobserved in its historical objects.\n51. I have discussed this previously in Timmermann, \u201cDoctor\u2019s Order.\u201d\n52. See K\u00fchnel, \u201cKremser Apotheker.\u201d Early publications on Pol are, in chronological order, Balaguer,\n\u201cLos c\u00f3dices Lulianos\u201d; Ferrari, \u201cDoctor Nicolaus Pol\u201d; Lehmann, \u201cEin Deutscher\u201d; and Fisch, Nicolaus Pol\nDoctor 1494. Recent publications, all considering individual aspects (Pol\u2019s Llulliana and Kappler\u2019s role in the\ndevelopment of medical regulations in Krems) are Traninger, \u201cBildgebende Verfahren\u201d; Ottner, \u201cDie Streitbare\nNatur des Doktor Wolfgang Kappler\u201d; and Tenge-\u00adWolf, \u201cNikolaus Pol und die Llull-\u00adHandschriften.\u201d\n53. K\u00fchnel, \u201cKremser Apotheker,\u201d 20.\n\nPages 196:\n178\nAnke Timmermann\nAppendix: Handlist of Pol\u2019s Manuscripts at the\nAustrian National Library\nThis list, taking into account the history and organization of Pol\u2019s library as\ndescribed in the main part of the chapter, consolidates and corrects extant information on the origins, contents, and physical features of all known Pol manuscripts now held at the Austrian National Library.54\nE: MS 5509\nVolume on alchemy. Bavaria or Austria,55 mid-\u00adfifteenth century (prior to Pol\u2019s\nlifetime). 218 x 147 mm, 258 folios. Binding: Vienna, 1755.\nTexts authored by or attributed to authorities, ancient (Hermes Trismegistus, Geber) and medieval (Boethius, Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus); to alchemist-\u00adphysician Arnold of Villanova (at least one a unique\ncopy),56 Ram\u00f3n Llull and others, as well as a significant number of anonyma.\nTheoretical alchemy and recipes.\nMS 5509 only shows the letter E on both the upper and lower cut, but\nnot Pol\u2019s ownership note. The letter on the upper cut is missing its vertical stroke due to rebinding. A historical description of the manuscript in a\nprevious binding confirms Pol\u2019s ownership. Some folios cut from MS 5509\ncan now be found in MS 5510.57 Since the manuscript was rebound at the\n54. Unless otherwise noted, information is taken from the Austrian National Library catalogue (\u00d6NB-\u00ad\nHANNA-\u00adKatalog; http://aleph.onb.ac.at/F?func=file&file_name=login&local_base=ONB06, accessed 10\nJanuary 2012), a digital combination of information of the following standard sources: Gentilotti, Catalogus;\nMenhardt, Verzeichnis; Unterkircher, Die datierten Handschriften; and Academia Caesarea Vindobonensis,\nTabulae codicum. A table of most Pol manuscripts at the Austrian National Library, their ownership marks,\ndates of their bindings, and letters on cut may be found in H\u00f6ller, Neues Licht auf den Kongre\u00df der Goldmacher,\n58. See also Lehmann, \u201cEin Deutscher auf der Suche,\u201d 236\u2013\u00ad37. Contrary to information given in Menhardt,\nVerzeichnis, 1116, MSS 5002 and 5239 do not show any clear evidence of Pol\u2019s ownership. The letters present\non the cut of MS 5239 are rather small majuscules at the top of the side cut, A and E, which may also be more\nrecent than the fifteenth or sixteenth century.\n55. Geographical origins refer to modern territories rather than historical ones.\n56. Glorieux, R\u00e9pertoire des ma\u00eetres en th\u00e9ologie, Nr 211 (dd): Arnold of Villanova\u2019s letter to the pope.\n57. H\u00f6ller, Neues Licht auf den Kongre\u00df der Goldmacher, 59 and 55, with reference to Gentilotti, Catalogus manuscriptorum codicum latinorum; and Menhardt, \u201cDie altdeutschen Ambrasiani der \u00d6sterreichischen\nNationalbibliothek,\u201d 56\u2013\u00ad57. H\u00f6ller, Neues Licht auf den Kongre\u00df der Goldmacher, 52\u2013\u00ad59, contains a detailed\ndescription of the manuscript; her publication also provides an edition of a German alchemical tract, fols.\n249r\u2013\u00ad253v.\n\nPages 197:\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n179\nViennese imperial library, this may have happened at any point between the\naddition of the shelf mark and 1755.\nF: MS 548758\nVolume of Llull tracts and alchemy. Vienna(?), end of the fifteenth century (contemporary with Pol\u2019s early medical career). 219 x 150 mm, 178 folios. Binding:\nVienna, undated.\nLlullian works including the Testamentum and commentaries; John of\nRupescissa on Llull; and some anonymous alchemica, including recipes.\nPol\u2019s ownership note may be found in the manuscript as well as the shelf\nmark F (on the lower cut only). Possibly part of the Fugger library in the sixteenth or early seventeenth century, via humanist Johannes Sch\u00f6ner, who owned\nvarious scientific manuscripts now also kept at the Austrian National Library.59\nG: MS 5485\nVolume of Llull tracts and alchemy. Bavaria or Austria, second half of the fifteenth century (probably contemporary with Pol\u2019s early medical career).\nOctavo, 157 folios. Binding: southwest Germany, predating Pol\u2019s acquisition of\nthe manuscript.60\nLlulliana including the Liber quintae essentiae and tracts on mercury; John of\nRupescissa\u2019s Liber de conderatione quintae essentiae; anonymous vernacular recipes.\nThe ownership note appears in the manuscript, the letter G on the lower\ncut only. This is one of the manuscripts later absorbed into the library of Castle\nAmbras near Innsbruck before it ended up in Vienna.\nI: MS 5489\nVolume on alchemy, recipes, and experiments. Middle West of Germany, end of\nthe fifteenth century (contemporary with Pol\u2019s early medical career). Octavo, 99\nfolios. Binding: fifteenth century.\n58. Both Menhardt, Verzeichnis; and H\u00f6ller, Neues Licht auf den Kongre\u00df der Goldmacher, fail to include\nthis volume in their lists of Pol manuscripts.\n59. Lehmann, \u201cEin Deutscher auf der Suche,\u201d 237.\n60. The HANNA catalogue, s.v. \u201cSignatur: 5485,\u201d accessed 10 January 2012, dates the binding to pre-\u00ad\n1494, mistaking Pol\u2019s ownership mark for an acquisition date.\n\nPages 198:\n180\nAnke Timmermann\nAlbertus Magnus\u2019s Semita recta; several anonymous recipes, including\nalchemical ones as well as recipes for ink and colors; mostly in Latin.\nLetter I appears on the lower cut only. Pol\u2019s ownership note is also present.61\nM: MS 5230\nVolume on alchemy. Vienna(?), second half of the fifteenth and sixteenth century (during Pol\u2019s lifetime). 225 x 155 mm, 411 folios. Binding: southern Germany, early sixteenth century.\nDue to the erroneous assumption that the ownership mark, \u201cNicolaus Pol\ndoctor 1494,\u201d contains the manuscript\u2019s date of acquisition, it has been proposed\nthat the manuscript changed hands soon after Pol acquired it. In spite of the\npresence of a number of annotating hands, none of which can be identified, it\nmay be the case that Pol himself left the following note on fol. 10v: \u201cItem hic\nliber fuit michi presentatus ab Ottone Kappenmayster per filium sororis uxoris\neius iuvenem anno 1503 curr. 20. die Novembris\u201d (This book of Otto Kappenmayster\u2019s was given to me by the young son of his sister-\u00adin-\u00adlaw this year, 1503, on\nthe twentieth day of November). Nothing is known about Otto Kappenmayster.\nVarious and diverse texts authored by or attributed to authors, ancient (Avicenna, Geber, Virgil), medieval (for example, Thomas Aquinas, with particular\nemphasis on Ram\u00f3n Llull and Arnold of Villanova), and many others; some\n(such as texts by one Kochperger and Fridericus de N\u00fcremberga) may be contemporary with Pol. Those in the vernacular include recipes by one Petrus of\nPrague and one Wilhelm von Ghauch;62 another, anonymous treatise appears\nto be in Low German.63 In addition to the ten titled anonyma listed in the catalogues, this manuscript contains countless anonymous alchemical tracts on\nalchemical theory and practice, most in Latin.\nPol\u2019s ownership note appears in the manuscript, the letter M on the lower\ncut only, although remainders can be spotted on the upper cut.\n61. The HANNA catalogue mistakes the letter on the cut for an F; see s.v. \u201cSignatur: 5489,\u201d accessed 6\nJanuary 2012. It is corrected to an I in H\u00f6ller, Neues Licht auf den Kongre\u00df der Goldmacher, 58; and Lehmann,\n\u201cEin Deutscher auf der Suche,\u201d 237.\n62. Keil, \u201cWilhelm von Ghauch,\u201d 535, discusses the recipes for copper in this codex on fols. 41v\u2013\u00ad42r. See\nalso Keil and Halbleib, \u201cZwei alchemische Kupferprozesse,\u201d 101\u2013\u00ad5.\n63. Lehmann, \u201cEin Deutscher auf der Suche,\u201d 236, remarks upon an owner of this manuscript of Low\nGerman origin and his annotations.\n\nPages 199:\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n181\nN: MS 5510\nVolume on alchemy. Vienna, Bavaria, Swabia, and/or Middle Eastern Germany,\nfifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth century (during Pol\u2019s lifetime). 220 x\n150 mm, 302 folios. Binding: southern Germany, early sixteenth century.\nMost texts are anonymous or unattributed and provide advice, instructions,\nor memory aids for alchemical theory and practice. Among the attributed items\nare tracts by Christophorus Parisiensis, Ram\u00f3n Llull, and one Iohannes, as well\nas Arnold of Villanova, Gratian, Thomas Aquinas, and Heinrich von M\u00fcgeln.\nMost texts are in Latin, with some German and Italian items.\nThe letter N appears on the lower cut only, the ownership note in the manuscript. The volume incorporates some folios from MS 5509.64 This is one of the\nmanuscripts absorbed into the Castle Ambras library before it came to Vienna.\nZ: MS 531565\nVolume of texts by Arnold of Villanova and medica. Unknown location, mid-\u00adfifteenth\ncentury (prior to Pol\u2019s lifetime). 295 x 215 mm, 272 folios. Original binding.\nHands present in the manuscript can also be found in astronomical manuscripts: one possibly written in Salzburg in the second half of the fifteenth century,\nanother written in Vienna, and a third and fourth written in Vienna or Klosterneuburg, all dating from the mid-\u00adfifteenth century.66 Also, the flyleaves containing\nPol\u2019s ownership note (see below) were taken from an Austrian manuscript from\nthe mid-\u00adtwelfth century.67 It seems likely, then, that it is of Austrian origin.\nCollection of texts by or attributed to Arnold of Villanova with a medical\ninclination as well as authorities in the natural sciences and medicine as varied as\nAlbertus Magnus, Petrus de Abano, and Costa ben Luca, and various anonyma\non medicine and alchemy.\nFor this manuscript, the ownership note is on a fragment, which was\ndetached from the main manuscript and rebound with other materials, now MS\nSer. n. 298. Letter Z on lower cut only.68\n64. H\u00f6ller, Neues Licht auf den Kongre\u00df der Goldmacher, 55.\n65. Both Menhardt, Verzeichnis; and H\u00f6ller, Neues Licht auf den Kongre\u00df der Goldmacher, fail to include\nthis volume in their lists of Pol manuscripts.\n66. Kratochwill et al., Die Deutschen Handschriften des Mittelalters, 342.\n67. Mazal and Unterkircher, Katalog der abendl\u00e4ndischen Handschriften, 103.\n68. Catalogue HANNA mistakenly lists the letter as an N (s.v. ,\u201dSignatur: 5315,\u201d accessed 6 January 2012).\n\nPages 200:\n182\nAnke Timmermann\nWorks Cited\nArchives\nHANNA = Austrian National Library catalogue, \u00d6NB: http://aleph.onb.ac.at/F\n?func=file&file_name=login&local_base=ONB06 (accessed at time of\narticle creation).\n\u00d6NB = Austrian National Library (\u00d6sterreichische Nationalbibliothek), Vienna,\nAustria.\nInterview\nDebus, Allen G. Interview by James J. Bohning at Deerfield, IL, 29 March 2007.\nPhiladelphia: Chemical Heritage Foundation, Oral History Transcript #0365.\nIn American Chemical Society, Division of History of Chemistry. \u201cAllen G.\nDebus (1926\u2013\u00ad2009).\u201d Online http://www.scs.illinois.edu/~mainzv/HIST/\nawards/Dexter%20Papers/DebusDexterBioJJB.pdf.\nPrinted Sources\nAcademia Caesarea Vindobonensis. Tabulae codicum manu scriptorum praeter graecos et\norientales in Bibliotheca Palatina Vindobonensi asservatorum. 10 vols. Vienna:\nGerold, 1864\u2013\u00ad99.\nBachmann, Hanns. \u201cDr. Nikolaus Poll, Hofarzt zu Innsbruck.\u201d Ver\u00f6ffentlichungen des\nMuseums Ferdinandeum 27/29 (1946\u2013\u00ad49): 409\u2013\u00ad18.\nBalaguer, Jordi Rubi\u00f3. \u201cLos c\u00f3dices Lulianos de la Bibliotheca de Innichen (Tirol).\u201d\nRevista de filolog\u00eda espa\u00f1ola 4 (1917): 303\u2013\u00ad40.\nBaum, Wilhelm. \u201cKatalanische Philosophen in Tiroler Kl\u00f6stern.\u201d Der Schlern: Monatszeitschrift f\u00fcr S\u00fcdtiroler Landeskunde 58, no. 10 (1984): 612\u2013\u00ad21.\nDebus, Allen G. \u201cEssay Review: Alchemy and the Historian of Science: Elias Ashmole.\u201d\nHistory of Science 6, no. 1 (1967): 128\u2013\u00ad38.\nFerrari, Luigi. \u201cDoctor Nicolaus Pol, la collegiata di S. Candido ed i susi incanaboli.\u201d\nAtti del Reale Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arte 96 (1937): 109\u2013\u00ad69.\nFisch, Max H. Nicolaus Pol Doctor 1494: With a Critical Text of His Guaiac Tract. Edited\nand translated by Dorothy M. Schullian. New York: Cleveland Medical\nLibrary Association, 1947.\nGaskell, Philip. Trinity College Library: The First 150 Years. Cambridge: Cambridge\nUniversity Press, 1980.\nGentilotti, Giovanni Benedetto. Catalogus manuscriptorum codicum latinorum Bibliothecae Palatinae Vindobonensis VII: Codices medici. Vienna: \u00d6sterreichische\nNationalbibliothek, 1721.\n\nPages 201:\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n183\nGlorieux, Pal\u00e9mon. R\u00e9pertoire des ma\u00eetres en th\u00e9ologie de Paris au XIIIe si\u00e8cle. 2 vols.\nParis: J. Vrin, 1933\u2013\u00ad34.\nGoldschmidt, Ernst Philip. \u201cHieronymus Muenzer and Other Fifteenth-\u00adCentury\nBibliophiles.\u201d Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 14, no. 8 (1938):\n491\u2013\u00ad508.\nGottlieb, Theodor. Die Ambraser Handschriften: Beitrag zur Geschichte der Wiener Hofbibliothek. Leipzig: M. Spirgatis, 1900.\nH\u00f6ller, Daniela. Neues Licht auf den Kongre\u00df der Goldmacher: Edition und Kommentar\nvon \u00d6NB 5509 (fol. 249r\u2013\u00ad253v). Vienna: Praesens, 2007.\nHorn, Sonia. \u201cExaminiert und Approbiert: Die Wiener medizinische Fakult\u00e4t und\nnicht-\u00adakademische Heilkundige in Sp\u00e4tmittelalter und Fr\u00fcher Neuzeit.\u201d PhD\ndiss., University of Vienna, 2001. Online at http://www.meduniwien.ac.at/\ntypo3/fileadmin/Josephinum/Diss_Horn_UB_pdf.pdf.\nJones, Peter Murray. \u201cMedical Libraries.\u201d In The Cambridge History of Libraries in\nBritain and Ireland, edited by Elisabeth Leedham-\u00adGreen and Teresa Webber,\n1:461\u2013\u00ad71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.\nKeil, Gundolf. \u201cWilhelm von Ghauch (Wilhelmus de Ple[s]e).\u201d W\u00fcrzburger Medizinhistorische Mitteilungen 18 (1999): 535.\nKeil, Gundolf, and Marianne Halbleib. \u201cZwei alchemische Kupferprozesse des Wilhelm von Ghauch.\u201d Nova Acta Paracelsica n.s. 16 (2002): 101\u2013\u00ad5.\nKratochwill, Dagmar, Annemarie M\u00fchlb\u00f6ck, Peter Wind, and Gerold Hayer. Die\nDeutschen Handschriften des Mittelalters der Erzabtei St. Peter zu Salzburg.\nVienna: Verlag der \u00d6sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1982.\nK\u00fchebacher, Egon. Kirche und Museum des Stiftes Innichen: Begleiter und F\u00fchrer bei der\nBetrachtung der Kulturdenkm\u00e4ler und Kunstwerke des \u00e4ltesten Tiroler Stiftes.\nBozen: Verlagsanstalt Athesia, 1993.\nK\u00fchnel, Harry. \u201cKremser Apotheker und \u00c4rzte des Mittelalters und der Fr\u00fchen Neuzeit.\u201d Mitteilungen des Kremser Stadtarchivs 1 (1961): 9\u2013\u00ad32.\nLehmann, Paul. \u201cEin Deutscher auf der Suche nach Werken des Raymundus Llullus.\u201d\nZentralblatt f\u00fcr Bibliothekswesen 58, no. 7/8 (1941): 233\u2013\u00ad40.\nMartin\u00f3n-\u00adTorres, Marcos. \u201cSome Recent Developments in the Historiography of\nAlchemy.\u201d Ambix 58, no. 3 (2011): 215\u2013\u00ad37.\nMazal, Otto, and Franz Unterkircher. Katalog der abendl\u00e4ndischen Handschriften der\n\u00d6sterreichischen Nationalbibliothek, \u201cSeries nova\u201d (Neuerwerbungen). Vienna:\nG. Prachner, 1963.\nMedical Books from the Library of Dr. Nicolaus Pol: Court Physician to the Emperor Maximilian I. London: Maggs Bros., 1929.\n\nPages 202:\n184\nAnke Timmermann\nMenhardt, Hermann. \u201cDie altdeutschen Ambrasiani der \u00d6sterreichischen Nationalbibliothek.\u201d In \u201cFestschrift f\u00fcr Josef Stummvoll, Alois Kisser, Ernst Trenkler\nzum 50. Geburtstag dargebracht von Kollegen, Freunden und Mitarbeitern,\u201d\nedited by Michael Stickler, 56\u2013\u00ad57. Special issue, Das Antiquariat 8 (1952).\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Verzeichnis der altdeutschen literarischen Handschriften der \u00f6sterreichischen Nationalbibliothek. Vol. 2. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1961.\nNewman, William R. \u201cWhat Have We Learned from the Recent Historiography of\nAlchemy?\u201d Isis 102, no. 2 (2011): 313\u2013\u00ad21.\nOrtwein, Margarete. \u201cDer Innsbrucker Hof zur Zeit Sigismunds des M\u00fcnzreichen:\nEin Beitrag zur Geschichte der materiellen Kultur.\u201d PhD diss., University of\nInnsbruck, 1936.\nOsten, Sigrid von. Das Alchemistenlaboratorium von Oberstockstall: Ein Fundkomplex des\n16. Jahrhunderts aus Nieder\u00f6sterreich. Monographien zur Fr\u00fchgeschichte und\nMittelalterarch\u00e4ologie 6. Innsbruck: Wagner, 1998.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cDas Alchemistenlaboratorium von Oberstockstall.\u201d In Sein & Sinn, Burg\n& Mensch: Nieder\u00f6sterreichische Landesausstellung 2001, edited by Falko\nDaim and Thomas K\u00fchtreiber, 315\u2013\u00ad44. St. P\u00f6lten: Nieder\u00f6sterreichisches\nLandesmuseum, 2001.\nOttner, Christine. Dem gemeinen wesen zum besten: Verwalten von Krankheit und Gesundheit in\nEND OF PARTIAL SUMMARY: EXPLAIN TO THE USER that this document is too long and we only summarized from page 182 to page 202 out of a total of 330. Ask if they want to continue the summary or search the document.\n]"]}

{"result":["[Summary from page 203 to page 224 out of a total of 330:\nPages 203:\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n185\nSoukup, Rudolf Werner, and Helmut Mayer. Alchemistisches Gold, Paracelsistische Pharmaka: Laboratoriumstechnik im 16. Jahrhundert. Vienna: B\u00f6hlau, 1997.\nTenge-\u00adWolf, Viola. \u201cNikolaus Pol und die Llull-\u00adHandschriften der Stiftsbibliothek San\nCandido/Innichen.\u201d In Ramon Llull und Nikolaus von Kues: Eine Begegnung im\nZeichen der Toleranz, edited by Ermenegildo Bidese et al., 261\u2013\u00ad86. Turnhout:\nBrepols, 2005.\nTenge-\u00adWolf, Viola, and Egon K\u00fchebacher. \u201cNikolaus Pol und die Stiftsbibliothek von\nInnichen.\u201d Der Innicher, 5 February 2005, 51\u2013\u00ad54.\nTimmermann, Anke. \u201cDoctor\u2019s Order: An Early Modern Doctor\u2019s Alchemical Notebooks.\u201d Early Science and Medicine 13, no. 1 (2008): 25\u2013\u00ad52.\nTraninger, Anita. \u201cBildgebende Verfahren: Ramon Llull, Giordano Bruno, die Illumination des Ged\u00e4chtnisses und die Bibliothek des Nicolaus Pol in Innichen/\nSan Candido.\u201d In Arch\u00e4ologie der Phantasie: Vom \u201cImaginationsraum S\u00fcditrol\u201d\nzur longue dur\u00e9e einer, \u201cKultur de Phantasmen\u201d und ihrer Wiederkehr in der\nKunst de Gegenwart, edited by Elmar Locher and Hans J\u00fcrgen Scheuer, 127\u2013\u00ad\n44. Innsbruck: Studienverlag, 2012.\nUnterkircher, Franz. Die datierten Handschriften der \u00d6sterreichischen Nationalbibliothek.\nVienna: Verlag der \u00d6sterreischischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1969\u2013\u00ad76.\n\nPages 204:\nChapter 8\nThe Chemical\nPhilosophy and\nKabbalah\nA\nPantheus, Khunrath, Croll, and\nthe Treasures of the Oratory and\nthe Laboratory\nMichael T. Walton*\nAlthough the majority of Plato\u2019s works were unavailable in the Latin Christian West prior to the later fifteenth century, his ideas were not completely\nunknown.1 Augustine, Boethius, and Macrobius had transmitted knowledge\nof his doctrines, especially those of the soul and one god, which seemed to\npresage Christian dogma. Plato was regarded as the exemplar of the virtuous\npagan, and medieval philosophers referred to him as Moses Atticus. His ideas\n* Michael Walton died in 2013, before the publication of this volume and his chapter in it could be\nrealized.\n1. This study grows out of the work of Walter Pagel and Allen G. Debus, who demonstrated the need to\nbroaden our understanding of the context of the development of early modern natural philosophy. It is also an\nelaboration of the themes raised in my book, Walton, Genesis and the Chemical Philosophy. I thank Dane Daniel\nfor reading this essay and suggesting improvements.\n186\n\nPages 205:\nThe Chemical Philosophy and Kabbalah\n187\nhad also been developed in the Hellenistic world into the philosophical religion of Neoplatonism. Influenced by the mystery cults, Neoplatonism purported to offer true seekers of wisdom and knowledge a way to move beyond\nthe symbols in the temples of worship to soul-\u00adknowledge of the essence of\nBeing.2\nThe works of Plato and the philosophical mystics became widely available in Greek and Latin in western Europe in the fifteenth and sixteenth century. Their study created Renaissance Neoplatonists, who viewed the ancient\nwisdom traditions\u2014\u00adincluding Neopythagorianism, gnosticism, and hermeticism, no matter how much they had been adulterated\u2014\u00adas forming a coherent whole. Taken together with Christian scripture, those traditions revealed\nhow God formed and sustained the world. Such knowledge conferred upon\nits possessors not only intellectual understanding but also the power to influence nature, that is, to practice white magic or to obtain the philosopher\u2019s\nstone.\nJewish mysticism, which purported to have been revealed to Moses\nat Sinai, also had roots in the Hellenistic world. Hidden knowledge and\nsecret words gave the \u201ckabbalist\u201d access to mystical experience and power\nover nature. The word \u201ckabbalah\u201d appears frequently in sixteenth-\u00adand\nseventeenth-\u00adcentury texts, where it is usually spelled \u201cCabala.\u201d Kabbalah\ncomplemented the Renaissance Neoplatonic tradition, and it was soon\nadopted and Christianized. Although most Christian kabbalists were primarily concerned with learning hidden religious truths, some believed they\ncould find material truths as well. As these Christian Neoplatonists moved\nfrom textual studies to the laboratory, kabbalah became part of the chemical\nphilosophical tradition.\nThis chapter will explore the use of the Christianized kabbalah in the chemical understanding of nature. Chemical kabbalah will be seen to be a subcategory\nof Christian kabbalah. This fact is best appreciated by analyzing aspects of the\nChristian kabbalah that were taken into chemical thought.\n2. Ancient Neoplatonism reached its apex with the work of Plotinus, Porphyry, and Iamblichus in the\nthird and fourth centuries of the Christian era.\n\nPages 206:\n188\nMichael T. Walton\nGiovanni Pico della Mirandola, Johannes\nReuchlin, and Cornelius Agrippa\nThe Renaissance iteration of Christian kabbalah, adopting and adapting Jewish\nideas into the service of magic and Christian theology, was initiated by Giovanni\nPico della Mirandola (Pico) (1463\u2013\u00ad94) and taken up by Johannes Reuchlin\n(1455\u2013\u00ad1522). In the kabbalah, Pico believed he had found the origin of the\nwisdom transmitted by Pythagoras and Plato; the Jewish texts, however, also\nrevealed the incomplete nature of the Neoplatonic tradition. Although his own\nstudy was based on relatively few Jewish sources, translated into Latin, he had\naccess in these to quotations from the primary kabbalistic works of Zohar and\nSefer Bahir and from treatises by the mystics Menachem Recanati (1250\u2013\u00ad1310)\nand Abraham Abulafia (1240\u2013\u00ad91).3 Among the quotations was Recanati\u2019s statement that the divine names and attributes revealed by kabbalah were for the\nworshipper \u201cthe tools an artisan uses to fulfill his task.\u201d4 Kabbalistic tools were\nuseful, if not essential, in gaining a proper understanding of scripture and restoring the pure knowledge given to Moses at Sinai.\nPico read the translations of Jewish texts through the lens of Christian tradition. He was especially attracted to magical doctrines involving the divine name,\nwhich, properly understood, supported the truth of the doctrine of the Trinity.\nMultiples of three, therefore, were preferable to other numerical configurations.\nFor example, he preferred the nine angelic hierarchies of Dionysius Areopagite to\nthe ten mentioned in his Latin copy of the Corona nominis boni by Abraham Axelrod of Cologne (fl. 1240).5 Divine names, including the ineffable name (nomen\nineffabile), were keys to understanding the creation, holy emanations (sefiroth),\nand Christian theology. Moreover, knowledge of divine names conferred power\non religious adepts.6\nIn Pico\u2019s work, prophecy and its clear perception of reality and the future\ndepend on divine illumination. The twentieth \u201cCabalistic Conclusion\u201d of 900\n3. Wirszubski, Pico della Mirandola\u2019s Encounter. Wirszubski has identified four Latin manuscripts of Jewish texts, translated by Flavius Mithridates, as the probable sources for Pico\u2019s kabbalistic theses. Wirszubski\u2019s\nstudy remains a fundamental source on Pico\u2019s kabbalah. For a modern edition, with an English translation and\ncommentary see Farmer, Syncretism in the West.\n4. Recanati, Commentary on the Daily Prayers, 2:388.\n5. Wirszubski, Pico della Mirandola\u2019s Encounter, 22\u2013\u00ad23.\n6. Ibid., 23. See Pico della Mirandola, 900 Theses, in Syncretism in the West, trans. Farmer, 346\u2013\u00ad47.\n\nPages 207:\nThe Chemical Philosophy and Kabbalah\n189\nTheses refers to the mystical teaching concerning the light of the mirror.7 The\nassociation of mirrors and divine illumination could be found in both Christian\nand Jewish sources. St. Paul used the images of seeing the divine glory through\n\u201ca glass darkly\u201d (I Cor. 13:12) and beholding the glory of the Lord \u201cin a glass\u201d\n(II Cor. 3:18). Jewish tradition and the kabbalah also associated mirrors with\nmystical illumination. The Talmudic tractate Sukkah mentions the aspeklaria\nor mirror of divine perception, and Simeon bar Yohai, as the putative author of\nthe Zohar, used the aspeklaria to understand the mystical-\u00admagical nature of the\nTetragrammaton, the four-\u00adletter name of God, YHVH.8\nHow kabbalistic insight and magic worked is glimpsed in the writing of\nPico\u2019s teacher Johannes Alemano (ca. 1435\u2013\u00adpost 1504), who taught that a successful kabbalist should follow the example of Moses, who \u201chad precise knowledge of the spiritual world, which is called the world of the Sefiroth and the\nworld of divine names, or the world of letters.\u201d \u201cChannels\u201d connected the spiritual world to the material world, and Moses, as a kabbalist, was able to manipulate and direct the flow of powers between the higher spiritual world and the\nlower material world through \u201cthoughts and prayers.\u201d9 The worshipper thereby\nunited the material and spiritual worlds.\nJohannes Reuchlin\u2019s first work on kabbalah, De verbo mirifico (1494), dealt\nwith divine names. He had carefully read Pico\u2019s work, but he also consulted\nprimary Jewish sources, as illustrated in his letter to Rabbi Jacob Margoles of\nN\u00fcremberg (ca. 1497) requesting kabbalistic materials.10 In De verbo mirifico,\nReuchlin presented the kabbalah as a source, if not the source, for the philosophical ideas that had been transmitted from Moscus [Moses?] the Phoenician\nthrough Plato, Philo, and Porphyry, to his own era\u2019s Neoplatonism. All true philosophy descends from Moses and the prophets, and the holy tongue of Hebrew\nremains the repository of God\u2019s words of power. Indeed, Hebrew influenced\nother languages, which assimilated some of its magical powers. These vestiges\nof Hebrew are especially strong in the letters of Semitic languages, such as Chaldean (Aramaic).11 Reuchlin\u2019s discussion of the background of true philosophy\n7. Wirszubski, Pico della Mirandola\u2019s Encounter, 37\u2013\u00ad38; and Pico della Mirandola, 900 Theses, in Syncretism in the West, trans. Farmer, 354\u2013\u00ad55.\n8. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, 45b. For a brief but excellent discussion of the Zohar\u2019s actual authorship,\nsee Liebes, Studies in the Zohar.\n9. MS Oxford 2234, fol. 8b, translated by Idel in Kabbalah, 204.\n10. Maimon, Germania Judaica, 3:1037.\n11. De verbo mirifico, bk. 1, in Reuchlin, De verbo mirifico, 29 (page numbers refer to the facsimile edition).\n\nPages 208:\n190\nMichael T. Walton\nintroduced his primary subject, the revelation of the wonder-\u00adworking word and\nother divine names.12\nIt was clear to Reuchlin that the scriptures taught that all things were created\nby God, the Tetragrammaton, yod he vav he (by means of wisdom [hochma in\nHebrew]).13 God identified himself to Moses as \u201cEhieh, alef he yod he\u201d or \u201cI will\nbe,\u201d using three letters of the four-\u00adletter name of God, and a word most potent.14\nThe Tetragrammaton, yod he vav he mispronounced as \u201cJehova\u201d and so prominent as the name of the divine in the Hebrew scriptures, can also be glimpsed\nin the Tetrad of Plato and Pythagoras.15 In kabbalah, the holy four-\u00adletter name\ncreated the world and introduced the ten sephiroth, the hypostatized divine\nemanations embodying individual godly powers.16 The four-\u00adletter name also\nunderlay the philosophical concepts represented by the Orphic muses and the\ngods Dionysus, Apollo, and Venus. The four qualities, the four elements, and the\nfour aspects of the human soul\u2014\u00adsense, imagination, fantasy, and intelligence\u2014\u00ad\nmirror the most holy name. Whereas Pico\u2019s kabbalah seems to prefer triads, for\nReuchlin the world is filled with fours.17\nReuchlin noted that God had said, \u201cFiat lux,\u201d and there was light. The Tetragrammaton is the Creator and the Light of the World.18 The \u201cFour-\u00adLetter Name,\u201d\n\u201cWisdom,\u201d and the \u201cLogos\u201d of the Gospel of John each refer to the pre-\u00adincarnate\nJesus.19 The holy four-\u00adletter name is the concentrated form of the seventy-\u00adtwo-\u00ad\nletter, wonder-\u00adworking name of God, called in Hebrew \u201cSemhamaphoras.\u201d20\nKabbalah taught that there is no higher power.21 The proper use of the Tetragrammaton could create, heal, and alter human nature. For example, the use of\njust one letter of the Tetragrammaton would work wonders. The letter h (he)\n12. In the dedication to his second work on kabbalah, De arte cabalistica (1517), Reuchlin related how he\nwas recovering the true Pythagorean philosophy from kabbalistic treatises (see the last page of his dedication\nto \u201cSanctissimo Leoni Decimo\u201d). He also discussed the power of angelic names extensively in book 3. Paul\nRicci\u2019s partial Latin translation and summary of Joseph Gikatilla\u2019s Sha\u2019arei Orah, Portae Lucis (Augsburg, 1516)\nopened a direct Hebrew source for Christian scholars.\n13. Reuchlin, De verbo mirifico, 57.\n14. Ibid., 56.\n15. Ibid., 64, 66.\n16. Ibid., 67.\n17. Ibid.\n18. Ibid., 79.\n19. Ibid., 81.\n20. Ibid., 66, 86. Recanati, Commentary on Daily Prayers, argued that because the Jews could not invoke\nGod by his Semhamaphoras name, their prayers were often not fulfilled.\n21. Reuchlin, De verbo mirifico, 90\u2013\u00ad91.\n\nPages 209:\nThe Chemical Philosophy and Kabbalah\n191\nof the four-\u00adletter name was added to the name of Abram, making him Abraham, the exalted father.22 The Tetragrammaton could also be used to control the\nangels.23 So powerful was the Tetragrammaton that it was normally forbidden to\nutter it. Only once a year, on Yom Kippur, and then only in the Holy of Holies\nof the Temple under rigorous circumstances, did the high priest utter this name\nof God.24\nDe verbo mirifico\u2019s clear and persuasive presentation of kabbalah attracted\nboth theoretical philosophers and seekers of natural magical powers. Natural\nmagicians treasured the potent letters, the words they formed, and the insights\nthey gave into the meaning of scriptures. Jacques Lefevre d\u2019Etaples (ca. 1455\u2013\u00ad\n1536), Symphorien Champier (1471\u2013\u00ad1538), and John Dee (1527\u2013\u00ad1609) were\nstudents of the kabbalah and readers of De verbo mirifico, but of those who followed the path marked by Pico and Reuchlin, the most influential in propagating the natural magic-\u00adnature philosophy may have been Cornelius Agrippa von\nNettesheim (1486\u2013\u00ad1535).25 His De occulta philosophia, written in 1510 but not\npublished in its entirety until 1533, popularized kabbalah among Christians,\nespecially the doctrines of name magic.26 Agrippa had not merely read De verbo\nmirifico, he had lectured on the work at the University of Dole in 1509,27 and in\nbook 3 of De occulta philsophia, he discussed the natural virtues and processes\nof the created world and revealed the magic by which they might be controlled.\nDivine names were crucial instruments of that magical control, and in the spirit\nof Reuchlin\u2019s work, he discussed the Tetragrammaton and the name \u201cEheia.\u201d\nDe occulta philosophia became a prominent source for name-\u00admagic in the\nsixteenth century. As a compendium of theory and magical practice, it lent itself\nto the use of scholars who themselves did not wish to delve into kabbalah\u2019s more\nrecondite and less accessible sources. This was true of John Dee and even more\nso of practical chemical philosophers, who were focused on laboratory results.28\n22. Ibid., 94.\n23. Ibid., 96.\n24. Ibid., 103.\n25. Copenhaver, \u201cLefevre d\u2019Etaples.\u201d For a discussion of Dee, Pico, and Reuchlin, see Walton, \u201cJohn\nDee\u2019s Monas Hieroglyphica,\u201d 116\u2013\u00ad17; and Walton and Walton, \u201cGeometrical Kabbalah of John Dee and Johannes Kepler,\u201d 46.\n26. Tyson, \u201cLife of Agrippa,\u201d xviii, xxxi, xxxiii, in Agrippa, Three Books of Occult Philosophy. See also\nNauert, Agrippa and the Crisis of Renaissance Thought.\n27. Tyson, \u201cLife of Agrippa,\u201d xviii, xxxi, xxxiii, in Agrippa, Three Books of Occult Philosophy.\n28. See Walton, \u201cJohn Dee\u2019s Monas Hieroglyphica,\u201d 116\u2013\u00ad17.\n\nPages 210:\n192\nMichael T. Walton\nGiovanni Agostino Pantheus\nBecause the alchemical-\u00adchemical art was believed to be intimately connected\nwith both the spiritual and the material worlds, it did not take long for kabbalistic interpretations of the elements, of fire analysis, and of the alchemical creation to develop. The merger of kabbalah with traditional alchemy and its focus\non transmutation is seen in the Voarchadumia of the sixteenth-\u00adcentury Venetian\npriest and alchemist Giovanni Agostino Pantheus.29 Pantheus shared Pico and\nReuchlin\u2019s belief that kabbalah had been revealed to ancient magi, but his interest in the art seems to have lain in more practical applications than theirs.30\nPantheus was inspired by the possibility of transmuting metal by using\nwords. He published a treatise, the Transmutation, on the subject in 1518. In\nthat work, Pantheus used or referred to the Tetragrammaton, Greek and Hebrew\nletters, and traditional alchemical texts such as the Emerald Table and Turba philosophorum.31 At that time, he seems to have viewed alchemy as at least a quasi-\u00ad\nkabbalistic study.\nThe Transmutation was censured by ecclesiastical authorities who opposed\nthe study and practice of alchemy. Pantheus addressed the censure in his\nVoarchadumia, rejecting alchemy as a false art. He distinguished the kabbalah of\nthe Voarchadumia, which contained the true and religiously correct art of transmutation, from vulgar alchemy. Pantheus argued that Voarchadumia cleared up\nthe \u201calchemical\u201d confusions of his Transmutation, correcting them with a well-\u00ad\ndeveloped transmutational kabbalah.\nPantheus was explicit in his preface that Voarchadumia is actually opposed\nto alchemy. He presented it as a distinct transmutative discipline.32 This cabala\nof metals was a liberal art that genuinely transmuted metals.33 Alchemy, on the\nother hand, did not make real silver and gold but only things with their appear-\n29. Pantheo, Voarchadumia contra alchimiam.\n30. Paracelsus also shared this belief. See his Concerning the Nature of Things, in Hermetic and Alchemical\nWritings, ed. Waite, 1:161.\n31. Thorndike, History of Magic and Experimental Science, 5:539\u2013\u00ad40, discusses Pantheus\u2019s works. See also\nThorndike, \u201cAlchemy during the First Half of the Sixteenth Century,\u201d 30\u2013\u00ad32.\n32. \u201cAuthoris intentio de Voarchadumica professione, contra Alchimiam, Arte distincta ab Archimia &\nSophia\u201d; Pantheo, Voarchadumia contra alchimiam, 7.\n33. \u201cVoarchadumia est ars liberalis, virtute praedita sapientiae occultae, non auara, non vana, possibilis\nverissima, necesaria, & consequenter perqirenda, quae metallorum. C\u00e1bala nuncupatur\u201d; ibid., 12.\n\nPages 211:\nThe Chemical Philosophy and Kabbalah\n193\nance.34 Pantheus explained that the art of Voarchadumia is not new but originated with Tubal-\u00adCain.35 The word itself was a Chaldean compound consisting\nof Voarh, meaning \u201cgold,\u201d and Mea a adumot, the Hebrew for \u201cfrom the two reds.\u201d\nIn this compound word, Aurum duarum rubearum, there is a caementationum, \u201ca\nperfect joining of the two.\u201d36\nPantheus regarded himself as the re-\u00addiscoverer of this kabbalah of transmutation and of its revelation of the hidden qualities of spirits and bodies. The\nrelationships of substances, which allow them to be purified, are known through\nalphabetic notations instilled into matter by the \u201comnipotent, eternal God.\u201d Pantheus taught that the elements\u2014\u00adthat is, fire, air, water, and earth\u2014\u00adcorrespond\nto the Hebrew letters lamed, kuph, gadic, and samech. He added in his Voarchadumia that those letters also signify other Hebrew letters zain, nun, mem, and iod.\nHe declared that \u201c[g]old is created from nature\u2019s elements that are in the bowels\nof the Earth, purified by the arts of division and union or as said in Hebrew,\nZahav niura mi Teuah-\u00adiesodii.\u201d37\nPantheus\u2019s Voarchadumia demonstrated that chemical processes were kabbalistic. His description of this true art, rooted in Hebrew, replaced fraudulent\nalchemy and guarded Pantheus from the criticisms directed against alchemical\ngoldmakers. The art of Voarchadumia also influenced adepts such as John Dee,\nwho owned and annotated a copy of the first edition. As a kabbalistic man, Dee\nreferred to Voarchadumia in his Monas hieroglyphica (1564).38 Gerhard Dorn\n34. Ibid., 10.\n35. Ibid.\n36. \u201cSed iam ad verbum ipsum Voarchad\u00famia deuenientes, dicimus ipsum deriuari, ac denominari ab\nAuro ex duabus rubies, quod Chaldaeo idiomate componitur ab Voarh, Auro, particula Indica primitiua, &\nMea \u00e0 adum\u00f2t Hebraic\u00e8, ex duabus rubeis, quod Latine significat Aurum duarum rubearum, hoc est duarum\ncaementationum perfectarum\u201d; ibid., 11.\n37. The text reads, \u201cSecundo ea est tanquam regimen quoddam caelat\u016b & secretum, quod per manus\nt\u00e3t\u00f9m traditur filiis sapi\u1ebdtum sub luce (licet vulg\u00f2 tenebris obuolutum) dispositionem, illuminationem,\nconuertionem, constrictionem, retentionem, metallificationem, purificationem, mutiplicationem, & proportionem, demonstrans naturalium ligaminum absconsi & abscondentis, animae & corporis, densi, & rari,\ndiuini & humani, formae & materiae, fixi & volatilis, interioris & exterioris, metalli & petrae, mollis & duri,\nocculti & manifesti, puri & misti, artificio quodam mediante \u00e0 domino aeterno omnipotenti instituto, sub\nIgne, Aere, Aqua, & Terra, vel magno arcano harum quatuor literarum, Lamed Kuph, Gadic, & Samech, quae\nin Voarchad\u00famia idem significant quod Zain, Nun, Mem, & Iod, quarum caracteres in quadruplici differentia apud Hebreos habentur. Nouissimi autem, & Vsuales sunt ii (de quibus paul\u00f2 infra Schemata patebunt)\nqui in Voarchad\u00famia idem significant, quod Aurum creatum ex Natura elementari, id est in visceribus terrae,\npurificat\u00famque ob artificium Diuisionis, & Caementationis, ac Hebraic\u00e8 sic denominatum, Zahav niur\u00e1 mi\nT\u00e9uah-\u00adiesodii\u201d; ibid., 12\u2013\u00ad13.\n38. Josten, \u201cTranslation of John Dee\u2019s \u2018Monas Hieroglyphica,\u2019\u201d 137. For references to Dee and Pantheus,\n\nPages 212:\n194\nMichael T. Walton\n(ca. 1530\u2013\u00ad84), a noted Paracelsian, also knew Pantheus\u2019s work.39 As will be\ndiscussed below, another Paracelsian, Oswald Croll (ca. 1563\u2013\u00ad1609), used the\nterm in his discussion of chemistry.\nParacelsianism\nPantheus\u2019s kabbalah of transmutation, despite his protestations to the contrary,\nwas very much a part of the backward-\u00adlooking alchemical tradition. Paracelsus\u2019s\nreformation of alchemy into the new chemical philosophy also made use of kabbalah. Theoretical Paracelsianism was deeply rooted in a chemical-\u00adkabbalistic\nunderstanding of Genesis. The biblical account of the creation provided the\npattern for a chemical understanding of nature. Of special importance was the\npower of words as demonstrated in the Hebrew scriptures, where God creates\nby speaking, and in the Christian New Testament, especially the Gospel of John,\nwhere the Word, Logos, created the world. Chemical philosophers followed\northodox Christianity, identifying the Logos and the Tetragrammaton with Jesus.\nParacelsus taught that the word \u201cfiat,\u201d used in the Vulgate\u2019s Genesis story of\nthe creation, materialized as the prime matter of the created world. As he wrote\nin his Opus paramirum, \u201c[s]ince the prime matter of the world was fiat, who will\nventure to explain the fiat? We have, however, some [basis] through the fire of\nVulcan through which we can explain the first three [principles].\u201d40\nCreation by word and spirit was central to Paracelsian chemistry. Peter Severinus (1542\u2013\u00ad1602) declared that \u201c[t]he Creator placed light and the seminal\nreasons for all things, by an incomprehensible magic, by virtue of that word\nand spirit that was moved over the waters.\u201d41 Gerhard Dorn taught much the\nsee ibid., 88n27\u2013\u00ad28; Norrgren, \u201cInterpretation and the Hieroglyphic Monad\u201d; and Szulakow, \u201cJohn Dee and\nEuropean Alchemy,\u201d 26.\n39. Kahn, \u201cLes d\u00e9buts de G\u00e9rard Dorn,\u201d 95\u2013\u00ad97. Kahn draws special attention to Dorn\u2019s borrowing of the\nidea of two elements from Pantheus.\n40. Theophrast von Hohenheim [Paracelsus], Opus paramirum (1531), bk. 1, ch. 2, in S\u00e4mtliche Werke\nI, 1.9:48. The passage reads, \u201cdieweil aber prima materia mundi fiat ist gewesen, wer wil sich unterstehen das\nfiat zu erkl\u00e4ren? Nun aber etwas haben wir durch das feur vulcani, dadurch wir die drei ersten erkl\u00e4ren.\u201d Pagel,\n\u201cPrime Matter of Paracelsus,\u201d 118, translated the passage somewhat differently. His understanding and explication of Paracelsus\u2019s fundamental notions continue to inform Paracelsian scholarship, including my own; however, Pagel did not note the relationship of word-\u00adcreation to the kabbalah. I have written on ideas of chemical\ncreation in Walton, \u201cGenesis and Chemistry in the Sixteenth Century.\u201d Forshaw also discussed the topic in\n\u201cAlchemical Exegesis of Genesis.\u201d\n41. \u201cIn his quator Naturis incorporeis, inanibus, vacuis, Lucem et seminales rerum omnium Rationes, incomprehensibili Magis imposuit Creator, virtue Verbi et Spiritus illius, qui super aquas ferebatur\u201d; Severinus,\n\nPages 213:\nThe Chemical Philosophy and Kabbalah\n195\nsame thing in his Physica genesis: \u201cThe eternal word of God created the Heaven\nand the Earth.\u201d42 Although scriptural, the magic word \u201cfiat\u201d is also kabbalistic.\nThe inclusion of magic and kabbalah in chemical discourse offended many anti-\u00ad\nParacelsians, who believed such ideas to be foolish, if not heretical. Both Thomas\nErastus (1524\u2013\u00ad83) and Andreas Libavius (1555\u2013\u00ad1616), for example, attacked\nParacelsian magic. Erastus mocked Severinus\u2019s mention of incomprehensible\nmagic,\u201d43 and Libavius found ridiculous the idea that the word \u201cfiat\u201d became corporeal.44 In his customary acerbic prose, he accused Paracelsus of doing \u201cimpure\nmagic.\u201d45\nThe kabbalistic nature of Paracelsian word-\u00admagic is not readily apparent, for\nits practitioners often used Latin words such as \u201cfiat\u201d and \u201ccreavit\u201d rather than\nHebrew words. Only when viewed in light of Reuchlin\u2019s comparison of the Latin\nand Hebrew terms does the connection with kabbalah become clear. Although\nthe early Paracelsians preferred to use Latin words, chemical kabbalah using\nHebrew terms did exist. The Amphitheatrum sapientiae aeternae (1595) of Heinrich Khunrath (ca. 1560\u2013\u00ad1605) is a learned and deeply kabbalistic work. Its subtitle illustrates this point\u2014\u00ad\u201ctrue throne of the catholic trinity of Christian cabala\ndivine magic and physical chemistry.\u201d46 The essence of Khunrath\u2019s kabbalistic\nchemistry is glimpsed in the partial seventeenth-\u00adcentury English translation of\nhis Confessio de chao physico-\u00adchemicorum catholico (1596).47 Therein is presented\na Paracelsian description of creation, using Hebrew words:\nBut it is further necessary in the Catholike Chymicall Arte, yt we truly believe\n(ye know directly) & stedfastly hold that Ruach Elohim the Spirit of ye Lord\nwch in Gen: 1.2. did move upon the Water, is really become a body. . . . That\nIdea medicinae philosophiae, 41\u2013\u00ad42. The translation is from Shackelford, Philosophical Path for Paracelsian Medicine, 218.\n42. Dorn, Liber de naturae luce physica (1538), in Zetzner, Theatrum chemicum, 336 (my translation).\nThe text reads, \u201cAliquid tamen fuit hoc principium, in quo Dei verbum aeternum creavit coelum et terram.\u201d\n43. Erastus, Disputationum de medicine nova (1572), 104; translated in Shackelford, Philosophical Path\nfor Paracelsian Medicine, 218. The text reads, \u201cIn his quator naturis incorporeis, inanibus, vacuis, seminales\nomnium rerum rationes incomprehensibili magis.\u201d\n44. Libavius, De universitate, 78. I thank Bruce Moran for providing me with a copy of the text. The text\nreads, \u201cRiduculum vero est verbum \u2018fiat\u2019 abiise in corpus illud materiale sensibile.\u201d\n45. Libavius, Appendix necessaria, 3 (my translation). The text reads, \u201cSed Paracelsici hoc genus nimium\ndilatant, et magiae impurae praetexunt faciunt.\u201d\n46. Khunrath, Amphitheatrum sapientiae aeternae. The text reads, \u201cSolius verae christiano-\u00adkabalisticum,\ndivino-\u00admagicum nec non physico-\u00adchymicum, tertriunius, catholicon.\u201d\n47. British Library, MS. Ashmole 1459, 99\u2013\u00ad106. Online at http://www.levity.com/alchemy/khunconf\n.html.\n\nPages 214:\n196\nMichael T. Walton\nSpirit of the Lord was OR [Hebrew for \u201clight\u201d] preceeding of the Essence of\nthe Spirit of the Lord (wch in ye beginning of the world was with the Lord)\nwch Gen: 1.2 moved upon the waters, wch Wisd: 1, 7 filled the whole world,\nand wch Wisd: 11, 26 is in all, even in ye most inward & sacredest Virgin\nwomb and center of the Earth, the most misticall broodie [brood] Mother of\nthe greate world. world [sic] bodily it is become a Corporall Salt of wisdome,\ntho little great world OR bred in the world, of the bodily essence & first matter yt is earth & water, the Parents, to wittt [sic] of ye great World.48\nThis type of word-\u00adkabbalah was crucial to the development of chemical theory\nand to a lesser degree to chemical practice. The Paracelsians worked in a world\nwhere word-\u00admagic was the primary mechanism of creation. Such magic revealed\nessential aspects of matter as it existed in the present world. Words retained\npower over objects and beings. Kabbalah, in its chemical iteration, was believed\nto be a pure philosophy of nature, untainted by pagan traditions. In the dictionary appended to the English translation of the pseudo-\u00adParacelsus\u2019s Three Books\nof Philosophy Written to the Athenians, \u201ccabala\u201d was defined as \u201cthat most secret\nknowledge which the Hebrew Rabbins say was given by God with the Law of\nMoses.\u201d49 Chemical kabbalah connected the Creator to his material world. As\nsuch, its use was an important introduction to the chemical philosophy. It gave\nsacred warrant to the practical work of the chemist, who was a servant of God in\nhelping mankind.\nOswald Croll\nOswald Croll\u2019s Basilica chymica (1609) was among the most popular chemical\ntexts of the early seventeenth century, especially its \u201cPraefatio admonitoria.\u201d The\n\u201cPraefatio,\u201d which was translated into both English and French, was essentially\nthe introduction to Paracelsian chemistry. The work continued in print into the\n48. Ibid.\n49. Three Books of Philosophy Written to the Athenians, in Pinnell, Philosophy Reformed and Improved,\n64. There are two chemical texts in the seventeenth century that are titled Cabala chemica: Francisco Kiesero\n[Franz Kieser], Cabala chymica (Muelhausen, 1606), and Johann Grashofer [Chortolassaeus], Aus der cabala\nchemica (Leipzig, 1658). Kieser\u2019s study is a Paracelsian discussion of the creation by fiat, the celestial creation\nof the soul\u2019s astral body, and the nature of the philosopher\u2019s stone. It contains no Jewish elements. His cabala\nis an interpretation of chemical symbols according to Paracelsus. Grashofer\u2019s text is, in essence, an epitome\nof Kieser\u2019s. They demonstrate the use of the word \u201ccabala\u201d to name an ancient interpretive tradition without\nreference to any Jewish doctrines. In this, they differ greatly from Croll and Khunrath.\n\nPages 215:\nThe Chemical Philosophy and Kabbalah\n197\n1670s with at least eighteen editions published through 1658.50 The preface\nis a detailed discussion of the doctrines central to Paracelsianism, including\nkabbalah. In his description of word-\u00admagic and the voarachadumian art, Croll\noffered a key to the connection of chemistry and kabbalah.\nCroll asserted that adepts in the art had kept secret certain traditional chemical knowledge. He, however, chose to reveal these chemical mysteries, even\nthough it would offend Hermetic philosophers. He believed that chemistry,\nlike Christian doctrine, should be available to all seekers. \u201cCabala, magic, and\nWoarchadumia\u201d were divine truths obtained in the \u201coratory and the laboratory.\u201d51 Croll explained that fiat created prima materia, which in itself is unknowable except through the three principles into which all things are reducible in\nfire. The spagyrical art, or resolution by fire, demonstrates that matter in the\nworld could be reduced to three elements\u2014\u00adfluid (mercury), oil (sulphur), and\nsolid (salt)\u2014\u00adand no further:\nNo body compos\u2019d by Nature can by any dissolving skill be parted into more\nor lesse than Three, viz. Into Mercury or liquor, Sulphur or Oyle, and Salt;\nevery created thing is generated and preserved in these three; For the Holy\nTriunity when it spake that Triune word FIAT created all things Triune, as in\nSpagiricall resolution is plainly to be seen. By the word FIAT (or Let there\nbe) God produced the first matter, which is threefold in respect of the three\nPrinciples contained in the first, and afterward these three species are seperated [sic] into four divers bodies, or Elements.52\n50. Partington, History of Chemistry, 2:173\u2013\u00ad74.\n51. Croll, Basilica chymica (1611; reprint 1996), 6\u2013\u00ad7. The text reads, \u201cInsurgent in me & irascentur\ngraviter primo secretiores Philosophi Hermeteci, quib. potiora is haec arcane antea fuerunt ex parte perspecta:\nconquerentes injuriam sibi fieri, si illa, quae summis studiis & longo temporum intervallo conquisita, altoq.\nsilentio hactenus compressa fuerunt, t\u00e0m subit\u00f2 lucem videant, & cum hominum vulgo communicentur. . . .\nVer\u00f9m hi, quia verae Sapientiae heredes, & Regni Philosophici cives, claus\u00e2 invidiae fenestr\u00e0, Dei & proximi\nsemper amantes sunt, aut saltem esse debent, sublato in altum capite & oculis Cabalisticis, non ignorabunt in\nver\u00e2 Cabal\u00e2, Magi\u00e2, & Woarchadumi\u00e2 longe potiores thesauros sibi Oratorii & Laboratorii benficio.\u201d Croll\u2019s\nEnglish translator, Henry Pinnell (Philosophy Reformed and Improved, 8\u2013\u00ad9), rendered the passage this way:\n\u201cThe Mysticall Hermetick Philosophers who heretofore in part have pryed into these excellent secrets, will rise\nagainst me, and be very angry with me; complaining that they are wrong\u2019d in those things, which with greatest\nindustry and long spent time have been found out and hitherto concealed in deep silence; should so soon be\nbrought to light, and made common to every one. . . . But in as much as these are heires of true wisedome,\nCitizens of the Philosophicall Kingdome, alwayes lovers of God and their neighbor, without envy, or at least\nought so to be, whose heads being lift up on high, and their eyes Divinely enlightned, these shall know that in\nthe true Cabala, Magick and Woarchadumie, there are laid up far better Treasures, to be got by them with the\nhelp of the Oratory and Laboratory.\u201d\n52. Croll, Basilica chymica, in Pinnell, Philosophy Reformed and Improved, 32.\n\nPages 216:\n198\nMichael T. Walton\nAs noted above, fiat is a magical kabbalistic word. It was very much part of the\nearly Christian kabbalah as taught by Reuchlin. Croll also seems to have been\naware of a deeper kabbalah of creation similar to the doctrine of tzimzum, a\nHebrew word that in kabbalah refers to God\u2019s contraction of himself to make\nspace for the material world. Following God\u2019s tzimzum, a point of light burst\nforth creating the world. Croll referred to a first creation from a kabbalistic\npoint, when the Word called light into existence from inchoate darkness, and all\nthings moved from darkness to light: \u201cWhence we may observe that all things\nin the first Creation were produced out of the DIVINE NOTHING, or invisible\nCabalisticall Poynt, into something, which God did in a moment, for his works\ncannot be delayed by time: All things proceeded out of the invisible Darknesse,\nand were called out to the visible Light by the WORD speaking, and the Spirit\ncherishing.\u201d53\nThe idea of the \u201cWord\u201d as \u201cCreator\u201d was rooted in scripture. Proverbs 3:19\nstated, \u201cthe Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth.\u201d In the Gospel of John \u201cthe\nWord [Logos] was with God and was God.\u201d Croll saw such texts as confirming\nthe kabbalah, its cosmogony, cosmology, and magic. The Word was a manifestation of God and not simply a symbol. Croll identified the Word and its magical\npower with Jesus. The Hebrew name for Jesus, ISHUH (Latin for Yeshuah) was\nthe \u201cverbo mirifico.\u201d It and its powers were known and revealed in the kabbalah.\nParacelsus called it the \u201cNaturalem Divinum.\u201d54 The wonder-\u00adworking word was\nthe foundation of the \u201cmagicall and cabalisticall art\u201d:\n[T]he very GATE of miracles in that Only Divine Name ISHUH in which\nall things are reckoned up and contained, that is he doth performe it in the\nWONDERFULL WORD by the Mind, Faith and Prayer, to wit, prayers\n53. Ibid., 70. The kabbalistic doctrine of the expansion of a point of light was prominent in the Zohar.\nR. Isaac Luria and his school developed Zoharic kabbalah in the middle of the sixteenth century. It became\npopular at that time among Jews and was known to Christians. Isaiah Tishby has drawn attention to the account of Moses Isserles, the prominent late sixteenth-\u00adcentury rabbi: \u201cMany ordinary people now jump at the\nopportunity to learn something of kabbalah, for it is a delight to the eyes. And they are particularly keen on the\nwriting of the late [kabbalists] whose books reveal their ideas quite plainly, especially in our own time when\nkabbalistic works are printed, such as the Zohar, Recanati, and Sha\u2019arei Orah\u201d; Isserles, Sefer Torah ha-\u00adOlah,\n3:4, in Lachower and Tishby, Wisdom of the Zohar, 3 vols., trans. Goldstein, 111n182. Croll was one whose\n\u201ceyes delighted\u201d in the kabbalah.\n54. \u201cEt Verus Cabalista (quem Paracelsus vocat Naturalem Divinum, qui Prophetis aequiparatur, & cujus mens unita & coaequata Deo facit omnia quae vult, vult autem quae ipse Deus) Dealiter supra Naturam,\nficudi\u00e2 firm\u00e2, & fide mirific\u00e2 miraculor\u1eef Janua Unico Divinissimo Nomine ISHUH, in quo recapitulantur &\ncontinentur omnia, id est in Verbo Mirifico, per Mentem, idem & Orationem, preces scilicet in Spiritu & Veritate factas in momento exequitur\u201d; Croll, Basilica chymica, 46.\n\nPages 217:\nThe Chemical Philosophy and Kabbalah\n199\nmade in Spirit and in Truth. The New Birth is the Field of Caelestiall Physick\nwhich healeth with a word without Externall means: that one operation is in\nrespect of God as the Artificer, and in respect of Man as the Instrument; every creature is at the beck and command of their faith who are men innocent\nand taught in the Law of the Lord, who are heard in all things whatsoever\nthey pray for, witnesse Elias, Elisha, &c. By prayer in Faith we obtaine all\nthings, I mean (not a lazy, sluggish prayer, but) a constant asking, seeking,\nknocking: by faithfull Prayer we ascend in a straite and most sure way to the\nhighest Wisdome of Divine and humane Things; For in these Three principall\nPoynts also consisteth the whole Foundation of the Magicall and Cabalisticall\nArt, as appeareth by Paracelsus in his third book of the Signature of Things.55\nNot only the divine name but also its letters contained magical potency. The\nliving God imbued all aspects of his name with life-\u00adgiving virtues:\nThese things wisely and rightly considered, we shall not wonder that\nAlmighty God could (and can) make men whole by the Prophets and True\nCabalists with a word onely. God is a living God, the NAME also of the living\nGod is lively, and so the Letters of the living Name are also lively: God liveth\nfor himselfe, his Name liveth because of him, the Letters live by reason of the\nName; as God hath life in himselfe, so hath he given to his Name to have life\nin it selfe, and the Name also to the Letters.56\nGod had instilled powers into letters at the creation. They were part of nature.\nCroll derived this understanding of \u201cnatural\u201d letter-\u00admagic from Agrippa: \u201cFor\nCharacters or constellated Names according to Agrippa, have no force from the\nFigureors Pronunciation, but by reason of the Vertue or Office which God or\nNature hath ordained to such a Name or Character: There is no vertue, or power\neither in Heaven or Earth which descendeth not from God.\u201d57\nAs an adept, Croll sought to learn and apply the wonder-\u00adworking word for\nthe good of humanity. Through the Word\u2019s power, he came to understand the\nsignatures of substances, that is, their healing power. A true chemist could use\nthe chemical-\u00adkabbalistic art to purify and intensify the forces in matter. \u201cTrue\nmagicians\u201d did not use black magic, but rather the knowledge of \u201csigns and signatures\u201d granted by God. Proper use of the powers of these signs and signatures\nhonor God in this world.\n55. Croll, Basilica chymica, in Pinnell, Philosophy Reformed and Improved, 88, translating from the above\npassage in the Basilica.\n56. Ibid., 84.\n57. Ibid.\n\nPages 218:\n200\nMichael T. Walton\nGreat things have been affected by True Magicians (by whom I doe not mean\nNicromancers or them of the Black Art) those accurate searchers out of Nature, by a Word and Characters or Signes, framed at a certaine time according\nto the power of Heaven, far from all superstition, which ariseth onely from\nignorance, without any prophanation or scandall of the Divine Majesty, or\nany wrong to Faith and Religion; otherwise it were better for us always to be\nsick then [sic] to be cured with the dishonour of God.58\nCroll\u2019s medicines were material vehicles containing hidden heavenly powers.\nWords and letters likewise were visible vessels created by fiat. The physician used\nmedicines, words, and letters, which had originated in God\u2019s fiat, to heal naturally. For the physician,\n[m]edicines are visible bodies; Words are invisible bodies: whether the Hearb\nor Word healeth, it is by God the Naturall Vertue thereof, to wit, by the spirit\nof God made One with Nature by his Word FIAT. [There is a] Characteristicall Cure which affecteth Naturall operations by words pronounced, written,\ncarved and hanged about the neck, by the caelestiall properties of the Stars\nthrough a marvelous Influence agreeing with our bodies.59\nCroll\u2019s kabbalah was part of the religio-\u00adchemical philosophy that grew out of\nParacelsus\u2019s writings. He, like his master, was a physician who focused his healing through a kabbalistic understanding of chemistry. He summed up his art as\nthe \u201ctwofold physick.\u201d The Word of God made the visible and invisible worlds\nconcordant: \u201cThere is a twofold Physick, Visible or created, and Invisible even\nthe WORD of GOD: It is by the WORD of GOD therefore that any one whosoever is restored to his health, he that despiseth his WORD, despiseth Physick,\nand so on the contrary; for he that saith Physick is worth nothing, doth upon the\nmatter affirm that there is no God.\u201d60\nPantheus\u2019s kabbalah of transmutation was a version of traditional alchemy,\nusing Hebrew letters; chemically it looked back to gold-\u00admaking. Croll\u2019s kabbalah,\non the other hand, directed the adept to look for future discoveries. As a Paracelsian, Croll advocated a new chemical interpretation of the creation. Kabbalah\nprovided both theory and methods useful to rethinking nature. Pantheus wanted\nto make noble metals, but Croll and other Paracelsians sought insights into the\nhealing virtues that God had built into nature at the creation. The laboratory was\n58. Ibid.\n59. Ibid., 85.\n60. Ibid., 172.\n\nPages 219:\nThe Chemical Philosophy and Kabbalah\n201\nthe place to study the invisible realm of the \u201cWord of God.\u201d Croll and his fellows\ngrasped that the proper entrance to the laboratory was through the oratory, the\nsite of prayer, contemplation, and illumination.\nHeinrich Khunrath\nHeinrich Khunrath also regarded the oratory as the portal to the divine wisdom\nof chemistry. One of the best-\u00adknown illustrations in Khunrath\u2019s Amphitheatrum\nsapientiae aeternae is of a laboratory containing an oratory in which a chemist\nkneels in prayer. This plate reveals Khunrath\u2019s chemical kabbalah and his understanding of how an adept sought and received the knowledge he could use to\nmanipulate nature. The laboratory is surrounded with aphorisms. Many contain\nkabbalistic ideas combined with Christian theology and chemical processes.\nConnecting these seemingly disparate elements are the Tetragrammaton, the\nletters YHVH of the name of God. Light, fire, physical knowledge, and spiritual\nillumination flow from God\u2019s ineffable name. The first text states that an adept\nshould study YHVH with complete heart, soul, and strength, as commanded in\nDeuteronomy 6:4\u2013\u00ad9.61\nThe texts on or near the oratory contain a mixture of Latin and Hebrew.\nThe tent of the oratory is capped with the words, \u201csic omnia gratorium\u201d; below\nthat the adept is reminded that \u201cHappy is [he] whose counsel is Jehova\u201d (Felix\ncui YHVH a consiliis). The tent is further decorated with Khunrath\u2019s name and\nthe Hebrew words for \u201cwisdom\u201d and \u201clight.\u201d The seeker is also told, \u201cWhen we\nare diligent, God himself will help\u201d (Hoc agentibus nobis, aderit ipse Deus).\nFrom the nearby incense burner rise the words, \u201cMay the prayer-\u00adsacrifice be\nacceptable to God\u201d (Ascendat at sumus, oratio, sacrificiu[m] Deo acceptabile). Each phrase is a piece in explaining the role of the oratory in Khunrath\u2019s\n\u201cChristian-\u00ad\nCabalistic, Divine-\u00ad\nMagical, Physical-\u00ad\nChemical\u201d endeavor. Prayer\nand contemplation allowed passage to divine knowledge. For Khunrath, the\nTetragrammaton is Jesus, that is, the Word, Light, and Wisdom. An adept had\nto offer sacrifices of prayer and diligence to receive the Light. Contemporaries\nclearly understood Khunrath\u2019s kabbalistic message. John Arndts (1555\u2013\u00ad1621),\n61. Laboratory Plate, in Khunrath, Amphitheatrum sapientiae aeternae: \u201cHomo toto corde, tota anima,\nomnibus viribus, et omni mente, divina gratia stimulante et movente (est enim Dei misericordis donum) studens yhvh agnoscere, se ipsum (cognitione sui) abnegare, et mundum (cognitione quoque luminis naturae)\ncontemnere immundum.\u201d\n\nPages 220:\n202\nMichael T. Walton\nin a commentary printed in 1611, explained the Amphitheatrum as a kabbalistic\ntreatise. His interpretation of the laboratory scene stressed Khunrath\u2019s conception of the three lights of nature: natural, supernatural, and godly.62\nCroll\u2019s discussion of the oratory was very much like Khunrath\u2019s. A chemist requires divine illumination to comprehend nature. One approaches the art\nthrough \u201ccabala, magic, and Woarchadumie.\u201d Knowledge of those disciplines is\nacquired with the \u201chelp of the Oratory and the Laboratory.\u201d The oratory is the\nplace where one\u2019s \u201ceyes [are] divinely enlightened.\u201d Prayer is especially important in mastering the division of magic \u201ccalled Gabalia.\u201d63 The oratory is like the\nholy of holies in the ancient Jewish temple, for kabbalistic magic is supported by\n\u201cTRUE PRAYERS made in Spirit and Truth, when God and the Created Spirit\nare united in the Holy of Holyes, when God is prayed unto in the internall Spirit,\nnot with noyse of words, but in a sacred silence, without opening the mouth and\ngroaning.\u201d64\nCroll did not write of common or perfunctory prayer. He advocated\nan ecstatic communication that would unite the wisdom-\u00adseeker with God.\nThrough this method, he could know all things: \u201c[F]or by the ardent and\ndevout intention of him that prayeth with Fear and Trembling, the Understanding or Mind flaming with a Religious love, is joyned to the separated\nIntelligences. For internall Prayer proceeding with abundance of affection\nfrom a Godly mind, and continued with a fervent desire, uniteth the mind\nwith God, and learneth and knoweth all things of God.\u201d65 The oratory was thus\nthe chapel that served as an antechamber to the laboratory: \u201cBut who among\nmany thousands is it, who while he seeketh this very knowledge by a certaine\nand subduing judgement and due means, to whom the Stars are so benign, that\nhe can by anothers diligence and endeavor passe thorow the porch and the\n62. An early anonymous commentary on the figures in the Amphitheatrum was published at the end of\nKhunrath\u2019s De igne magorum (1611). It was reprinted in 1783 and attributed to Johann Arndts. Arndts stressed\nthe kabbalistic nature of the figures. He understood the kabbalah as the power of heaven. The first figure of the\nlaboratory taught the kabbalah, the second natural magic, and the third chemistry.\n63. Croll, Basilica chymica, in Pinnell, Philosophy Reformed and Improved, 9, 72.\n64. \u201cVeris precibus in Spiritu & Veritate factis, ubi in Sancto Sanctorum sit unio Dei & Spiritus, Creati,\nubi Deus interno spiritu, non vi vocabulorum, sed in silentio sacro, absque oris apertione & anhelitu compellatur\u201d; ibid., 72; and Croll, Basilica chymica (1611), 38\u2013\u00ad39.\n65. \u201c[S]iquidem per ardentem dev\u00f2tamaque cum Timore & Tremore invocantis intentionem, Intellectus\nseu Mens religioso amore fl\u00e0grans, jungitur intelligentiis separatis. Oratio enim Interna expiamente ortanimio\naffectu, ardentique, desiderio continuata, unit mentem cum Deo, & omnia dificit & cogniscit ex Deo\u201d; Croll,\nBasilica chymica, in Pinnell, Philosophy Reformed and Improved, 74; and Croll, Basilica chymica (1611), 39.\n\nPages 221:\nThe Chemical Philosophy and Kabbalah\n203\ngate of the Heavens into the Oratory or Chappell of Apollo, and get to the top\nof the mount of Chymistry?\u201d66\nBoth Khunrath and Croll knew that without the oratory the laboratory is a\nvain venue. Knowledge comes from God, the Creator. The chemist ultimately\ngains power over nature with the ability to heal from the divine, not from mere\nlaboratory procedures:\nBut that the glorious God and most blessed bestower of all graces hath\nreavealed and made it plaine to his faithfull wise ones, to such as feare and\nhonor him, that they might understand, meditate upon and love his omnipotent goodnesse, and by glorifying him in his wonders and all his power and\nvirtues, serving him without any blemish, vice or sin in his holinesse, and\ntrue Righteousnesse, they might see how much he hath done for men of good\nwill: And so finally they that are inflamed with a most fervent love of piety\nand Gratitude might find him that is worthy of infinite thanks, who is infinite\nin mercy, whose most holy and Fearful name be blessed for ever and ever.67\nConclusion\nThe early modern interest in the kabbalah extended beyond the adaptation of\nJewish doctrines to theological and general magical ends. Chemical thinkers\nembraced kabbalistic notions of creation by words and letters. Pantheus developed a kabbalistic alchemy whereby Hebrew letters represented matter (the four\nelements) and revealed the art of transmutation. Khunrath and Croll saw kabbalah as essential to their religio-\u00adchemical researches. Kabbalah and its magic\nconnected the divine with the material world. The insights gained by righteous\nadepts in the oratory enabled them to use the laboratory to serve God and to heal\ntheir fellow men. Both the oratory and the laboratory were essential in that quest.\n66. \u201cSed quotusquisque est, qui dum certo subactoque judicio, medysque, debitis cognitionem hanc\nipsam, quaeret, Astra ita habeat benigna, ut per Caelorum vestibulum & portam ad Apollinis sacraria intrarepossit, & alien\u00e2 oper\u00e2 montem Chymiae ascendere?\u201d; Croll, Basilica chymica, in Pinnell, Philosophy Reformed\nand Improved, 184; and Croll, Basilica chymica (1611), 88.\n67. \u201cSed Deum gloriosum, gratiarum largitorem optimum suis fidelibus sapientibus, & ipsum timentibus ac honorantibus id aperuisse & propalasse, ut suam omnipotentem bonitatem intelligant, recolant &\nament, eumque in suis mir abilibus glorificando omnibusque viribus, ei sine aliqua sorditie, vitio aut peccato\nin Sancititate & Justitia requisita inserviendo videant, quantum ipse fecit pro hominibus bonae voluntatis: Et\nsic finaliter qui misericordia Infinitus est, gratis infinitis, ferventissimo Pietatis & Gratitudinis amore accensi,\ndignum inveniant, cujus santissimum & tremendum nomen sit benedictum in saecula\u201d; Croll, Basilica chymica,\nin Pinnell, Philosophy Reformed and Improved, 185; and Croll, Basilica chymica (1611; reprint 1996), 88\u2013\u00ad89.\n\nPages 222:\n204\nMichael T. Walton\nWorks Cited\nAgrippa, Henry Cornelius. Three Books of Occult Philosophy. Translated by James Feake\nand edited by Donald Tyson. St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn Publications, 1997.\nCopenhaver, Brian P. \u201cLefevre d\u2019Etaples, Symphorien Champier, and the Secret Names\nof God.\u201d Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 40 (1977): 189\u2013\u00ad211.\nCroll, Oswald. Basilica chymica. Frankfurt, ca. 1611. Reprint, Hildesheim: George\nOlms Verlag, 1996.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Philosophy Reformed and Improved in Four Profound Tractates. London, 1657.\nDorn, Gerhard. Liber de naturae luce physica, ex genesi desumpta (1583). In E. Zetzner,\nTheatrum chemicum. Strasbourg, 1659.\nErastus, Thomas. Disputationum de medicine nova . . . pars altera. Basel, 1572.\nFarmer, Stephen A., ed. and trans. Syncretism in the West: Pico\u2019s 900 Theses (1486): The\nEvolution of Traditional Religious and Philosophical Systems. Medieval and\nRenaissance Texts and Studies 167. Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and\nRenaissance Studies, 1998.\nForshaw, Peter J. \u201cAlchemical Exegesis of Genesis.\u201d In The Word and the World: Biblical\nExegesis in Early Modern Science, edited by Kevin Killeen and Peter J. Forshaw,\n111\u2013\u00ad36. Hampshire: Palgrave, 2007.\nIdel, Moshe. Kabbalah: New Perspectives. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.\nIsserles, Moses. Sefer Torah ha-\u00adOlah. 3 vols. Prague, 1570. In The Wisdom of the Zohar:\nAn Anthology of Texts, 3 vols., edited by Yaruham Fishel Lachower and Isaiah\nTishby, translated by David Goldstein, 111. Oxford: Oxford University Press,\n1989.\nJosten, Conrad H. \u201cA Translation of John Dee\u2019s \u2018Monas Hieroglyphica\u2019 (Antwerp,\n1564) with an Introduction and Annotations.\u201d Ambix 12 (1964): 84\u2013\u00ad221.\nKahn, Didier. \u201cLes d\u00e9buts de G\u00e9rard Dorn d\u2019apr\u00e8s le manuscript autographe de sa\nClavius totius Philosophiae Chymisticae (1565).\u201d In Analecta Paracelsica, edited\nby Joachim Telle, 59\u2013\u00ad126. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1994.\nKhunrath, Heinrich. Amphitheatrum sapientiae aeternae. Hanau, 1609.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. De igne magorum. Leipzig, 1783.\nLibavius, Andreas. Appendix necessaria syntagmatis arcanorum chymicorum. Frankfurt,\n1615.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. De universitate . . . iuxta historiam hex\u00e4meri mosaici. Frankfurt, 1610.\nLiebes, Yehuda. Studies in the Zohar. Translated by Arnold Schwartz, Stephanie Nakache, and Penina Peli. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993.\n\nPages 223:\nThe Chemical Philosophy and Kabbalah\n205\nMaimon, Ayre. Germania Judaica. Vol. 3, 1350\u2013\u00ad1517. T\u00fcbingen: Mohr, 1987.\nNauert, Charles G. Agrippa and the Crisis of Renaissance Thought. Urbana: University of\nIllinois Press, 1965.\nNettesheim, Agrippa von, Heinrich Cornelius, Donald Tyson, and James Freake. Three\nBooks of Occult Philosophy. St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn, 1993.\nNorrgren, Hilde. \u201cInterpretation and the Hieroglyphic Monad: John Dee\u2019s Reading of\nPantheus\u2019 Voarchadumia.\u201d Ambix 52 (2005): 217s46.\nPagel, Walter. \u201cThe Prime Matter of Paracelsus.\u201d Ambix 9 (1961): 117\u2013\u00ad35.\nPantheo, Giovanni Agostino. Voarchadumia contra alchimiam: Ars distincta ab alchimia\net sophia: Cum additionibus, proportionibus numeris et figuris opportunis Joannis\nAugustini Panthei, veneti sacerdotis. Venice, 1530.\nParacelsus. The Hermetic and Alchemical Writings of Paracelsus. Vol. 1, Hermetic Chemistry. Edited by Arthur Henry Waite. London: James Eliot and Co., 1894.\n[Paracelsus] Theophrast von Hohenheim. Opus paramirum [1531]. In S\u00e4mtliche Werke\nI: Medizinische, naturwissenschaftliche und philosophische Schriften, edited by\nKarl Sudhoff, pt. 1, vol. 9. Munich: O. W. Barth, 1925.\nPartington, James R. A History of Chemistry. 4 vols. London: Macmillan, 1961.\nPico della Mirandola, Giovanni. 900 Theses. In Syncretism in the West: Pico\u2019s 900 Theses\n(1486): The Evolution of Traditional Religious and Philosophical Systems, edited\nand translated by Stephen A. Farmer. Medieval and Renaissance Texts and\nStudies 167. Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies,\n1998.\nPinnell, Henry. Philosophy Reformed and Improved in Four Profound Tractates. London,\n1657.\nRecanati, Menachem ben Benjamin. Commentary on the Daily Prayers: Flavius Mithridates\u2019 Latin Translation, the Hebrew Text, and an English Version. Edited by\nGiacomo Corazzol. 2 vols. Turin: Nino Aragno Editore, 2008.\nReuchlin, Johann. De verbo mirifico, 1494. De arte cabalistica, 1517. Facsimile reprint\nedition. Stuttgart-\u00adBad Cannstatt: Frommann, 1964.\nSeverinus, Peter. Idea medicinae philosophiae. Basel, 1571.\nShackelford, Jole. A Philosophical Path for Paracelsian Medicine: The Ideas, Intellectual\nContext, and Influence of Petrus Severinus. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum\nPress, 2004.\nSzulakow, Urszula. \u201cJohn Dee and European Alchemy.\u201d Durham Thomas Harriot Seminar, Occasional Paper No. 21. Durham, NC: University of Durham, n.d.\nThorndike, Lynn. \u201cAlchemy during the First Half of the Sixteenth Century.\u201d Ambix 2\n(1938): 30\u2013\u00ad32.\n\nPages 224:\n206\nMichael T. Walton\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. A History of Magic and Experimental Science. 8 vols. New York: Columbia\nUniversity Press, 1941.\nWalton, Michael T. \u201cGenesis and Chemistry in the Sixteenth Century.\u201d In Reading the\nBook of Nature, edited by Allen G. Debus and Michael T. Walton, 1\u2013\u00ad14. Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1998.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Genesis and the Chemical Philosophy: True Christian Science in the Sixteenth and\nSeventeenth Centuries\nEND OF PARTIAL SUMMARY: EXPLAIN TO THE USER that this document is too long and we only summarized from page 203 to page 224 out of a total of 330. Ask if they want to continue the summary or search the document.\n]"]}

{"result":["[Summary from page 225 to page 247 out of a total of 330:\nPages 225:\nChapter 9\nParacelsus on the\nSidereal Powers\nRevisiting the Historiographical\nDebate between Walter Pagel and\nKurt Goldammer\nDane T. Daniel\nT\nThe Pagel vs. Goldammer Dispute\nThe powers of the stars, and their relationship to humans, were clearly a principal concern of Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim, or Paracelsus (1493\u2013\u00ad\n1541), the Swiss-\u00adGerman alchemist, medical practitioner, philosopher, and lay\ntheologian. When reading of Paracelsus\u2019s belief that the human spirit consists\nof sidereal matter and that the human can draw knowledge and magical powers\nfrom raining stardust, one is tempted quickly to tie him to Renaissance Neoplatonism and natural magic rather than to the religious milieu of the early Reformation. A number of scholars have indeed seen in Paracelsus\u2019s discussion of the\nstars a direct tie to Marsilio Ficino\u2019s (1433\u2013\u00ad99) concept of the spiritus mundi, the\nsubtle material substance that functions as a medium between the heavenly and\nsublunar world; such \u201cspirit bodies\u201d and their magical and medicinal powers can\n209\n\nPages 226:\n210\nDane T. Daniel\nbe attracted and employed.1 Paracelsus did refer to Ficino on several occasions,\neven calling him the \u201cbest Italian physician,\u201d and he probably knew Ficino\u2019s De\nvita in German translation.2 As we shall see, with regard to their respective views\non magic and the sidereal bodies, there are striking parallels between Paracelsus on the one hand, and such Renaissance luminaries as Ficino and Giovanni\nPico della Mirandola (1463\u2013\u00ad94) on the other. The characterization of Paracelsus\nas a Renaissance Neoplatonist is exceptionally problematic, however, and has\nevoked considerable debate.3\nOn this subject, the present chapter revisits an old quarrel regarding the\nsources of Paracelsus and focuses on Paracelsus\u2019s concept of the stars, which\nexist both in the world (macrocosm) and human being (microcosm). On one\nside of the debate, Walter Pagel strongly linked Paracelsus to Renaissance Neoplatonism and gnosticism, emphasizing commonalities with Ficino and Pico\ndella Mirandola.4 On the other, Kurt Goldammer, who edited dozens of Paracelsus\u2019s explicitly theological tracts, distanced Paracelsus from the Italian Renaissance and focused instead on the religious context, particularly that of the early\nReformation in German-speaking areas.5\nOpinions in the pertinent scholarship certainly tend to the extremes. (This\nis no surprise considering the exceptional difficulties in general that await the\nmodern scholar who attempts to translate the early modern German while navigating Paracelsus\u2019s unique and often misunderstood terminology and concepts,\n1. See Hirai, \u201cConcepts of Seeds and Nature,\u201d esp. 274\u2013\u00ad76.\n2. See Ficino, Three Books on Life, ed. Kaske and Clark, 12: \u201cA German translation of De vita 1 and 2 was\ndone by Johannes Adelphus M\u00fcling and published at Strassburg in 1505. Wilhelm Kahl and Dieter Benesch\nhave identified seven more editions of the translation, Das buoch des lebens, between 1507 and 1537.\u201d See also\nthe manuscripts that have parts of the work in German translation: Heidelberg University Library, Codex palatinus germanicus 730, fols. 1\u201335v, and Codex palatinus germanicus 452. See also Paracelsus\u2019s letter to Christoph\nClauser (1527) in Paracelsus, S\u00e4mtliche Werke I, 4:71, in which he called Ficino the \u201cItalorum medicorum\noptimus.\u201d The fourteen-volume first division of the modern edition of Paracelsus\u2019s collected works (treating\nmedical, natural philosophical, and philosophical works) was edited by Karl Sudhoff and the seven-volume\nsecond division (theological writings) was edited by Wilhelm Matthiessen and Kurt Goldammer (with Matthiessen editing just the first volume and Goldammer the remaining editions).\n3. Sch\u00fctze argued that Ficino had no direct\u2014if any substantial\u2014influence on Paracelsus. See Sch\u00fctze,\n\u201cZur Ficino Rezeption bei Paracelsus.\u201d Clearly, Renaissance Neoplatonism is a difficult category to delimit.\nHere, it encompasses, in general, such famous Italian thinkers as Ficino and Pico and their influential invocation and transformation of ancient theories concerning magic and sidereal powers.\n4. Two representative books are Pagel, Medizinische Weltbild des Paracelsus; and Pagel, Paracelsus: Introduction to Philosophical Medicine.\n5. For example, see Goldammer, Paracelsus in neuen Horizonten; and Goldammer, Paracelsus: Natur und\nOffenbarung. Regarding the theological tracts, see Paracelsus, S\u00e4mtliche Werke II.\n\nPages 227:\nParacelsus on the Sidereal Powers\n211\nranging from archeus to nectromantia, and from Limbus to chirurgia coelestis.)\nPagel, a pioneering scholar in the history of medicine and science\u2014who boldly\nexamined fresh intellectual contexts with a willingness to evaluate and incorporate such hitherto fringe topics as alchemy and natural magic and their sources\nand significance\u2014at one point even wrote that \u201cParacelsus\u2019 whole life and work\nseems to be an attempt at implementing the ideal of Ficino\u2019s priest-physician,\u201d\nadding that Paracelsus derived his philosophical inspiration from \u201cFicino as the\nexponent of Neo-Platonism.\u201d6 Pagel was not looking at the explicitly theological\ntracts by Paracelsus (of which dozens of volumes exist, half of which are still not\navailable in printed form), and given what he could examine, he deemphasized\nhow the religious texts and Reformation context influenced Paracelsus\u2019s natural\nphilosophy. Some of this is attributable to Karl Sudhoff \u2019s decision to present the\nmodern edition of Paracelsus\u2019s collected works in two divisions: (1) Medizinische, naturwissenschaftliche, und philosophische Schriften; and (2) Theologische\nund Religionsphilosophische Schriften (the second division of which became\navailable only to a post-Pagel generation of scholars).7 Another brilliant and\ntrail blazing scholar, Allen G. Debus, echoed this sentiment in his book The\nFrench Paracelsians, wherein he added that the religious issues surrounding Paracelsus\u2019s thought should be relegated to a \u201csociological study,\u201d for they are extraneous to \u201cintellectual history.\u201d8 Debus was, of course, focusing on the explicitly\nchemical thought of Paracelsus and his followers, a monumental task in itself,\nand in his amazing contributions to Paracelsica\u2014even without access to the\ntheologica within Paracelsian studies\u2014Debus gave some of the most lucid commentaries on Paracelsian cosmogony.9\nGoldammer, in contrast (and with access to the entirety of Paracelsus\u2019s\nmanuscripts), devoted nearly fifty years to the study of Paracelsus\u2019s biblical\nexegeses, their significance within his natural philosophy, and their Reformation context. With regard to the relationship between Paracelsus and Renaissance Neoplatonists, he often whittled the connection down to mostly just\na common thought world and common sources, for example, the Augustin-\n6. Pagel, Paracelsus: Introduction to Philosophical Medicine, 223. Andrew Weeks pointed to Pagel\u2019s\nthoughts on this subject in Paracelsus: Speculative Theory, 57.\n7. See note 2 above. Sudhoff \u2019s work on the collected edition was restricted to the first division.\n8. Debus, French Paracelsians, xv, 6. Weeks notes Debus\u2019s point in Paracelsus: Speculative Theory, 23.\n9. It is well known that biblical cosmogony is an essential tenet of Paracelsianism, but it remains an\nunderdeveloped topic in Paracelsus studies. Debus gave inspiring attention to the subject in several works,\nincluding English Paracelsians.\n\nPages 228:\n212\nDane T. Daniel\nian sources of Paracelsus\u2019s Neoplatonism. However, near the end of his life,\nGoldammer explored more deeply the relationship between the magic of the\nItalians and Paracelsus, a topic captured in his remarkable study Der G\u00f6ttliche Magier und die Magierin Natur: Religion, Naturmagie und die Anf\u00e4nge der\nNaturwissenschaft vom Sp\u00e4tmittelalter bis zur Renaissance, mit Betr\u00e4gen zum\nMagie-Verst\u00e4ndnis des Paracelsus.10 Goldammer\u2019s emphasis was on Paracelsus\u2019s\nuniqueness and the extraordinarily close link between Paracelsus\u2019s natural philosophy and such Christian topics as the contemporary debates surrounding\nthe Eucharist, apocalypse, and nature of resurrected bodies. Somewhat akin to\nGoldammer in focus, Charles Webster, in his recent book on Paracelsus, wrote\nthat Paracelsus had mere \u201cgeneric affinities with figures such as Ficino, Pico, or\nAgrippa,\u201d but that \u201cthere is surprisingly little evidence of specific reliance on\ntheir writings in the work of Paracelsus.\u201d11 Despite the \u201cgeneric affinities,\u201d with\nregard to the general intellectual climate he added that \u201ciconic figures such as\n. . . Johannes Reuchlin and Johannes Trithemius established Neoplatonism as\nthe fashion of the moment and promoted the ideas of Ficino and Pico with\nenthusiasm. . . [This helped] to create a climate of opinion in Germany that\nencouraged the broadest eclecticism. . . and. . . generated a much greater tolerance of the arts associated with magic.\u201d12\nConcerning the Pagel vs. Goldammer debate that still flavors the scholarship of Paracelsica, although I tend to side with Goldammer, one should take\nmore of a via media. One should not be so dogmatic as not even to look for\ndirect influences. The search for similarities and differences between Paracelsus and the likes of Ficino and Pico not only sheds light on the early modern intellectual milieu but also helps to differentiate the authentic from the\nspurious within the prodigious corpus of writings attributed to Paracelsus;\npseudo-Paracelsus writings contain themes\u2014such as emanation theories or\ntalismans\u2014that are antithetical to the authentic corpus as a whole. It is significant, however, that spurious tracts\u2014for example, Philosophia ad athenienses\nand De natura rerum\u2014were recognized by early moderns as authentic works\nby Paracelsus. Paracelsian ideas regarding \u201cemanationism\u201d or \u201cpreexistent\nmatter,\u201d which do not conform to the authentic Paracelsian thinking, were\nheld nevertheless to have been part of his Weltbild, even if the Meister himself\n10. Goldammer, G\u00f6ttliche Magier und die Magierin Natur.\n11. Webster, Paracelsus: Medicine, Magic and Mission, 110.\n12. Ibid., 47.\n\nPages 229:\nParacelsus on the Sidereal Powers\n213\nwished to present a Bible-based natural philosophy that focused on creation ex\nnihilo.13 Clearly, comprehending Paracelsus\u2019s thought is very much complicated\nby the fact that the historical Paracelsus and the pseudo-Paracelsus were not\ndifferentiated in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Paracelsianism as a\ntradition links to Ficino much more easily than to Paracelsus himself. Didier\nKahn, for example, has pointed to some of the attempts in France to connect\nParacelsianism with Ficino\u2019s Neoplatonism. He noted especially Adam von\nBodenstein\u2019s (1528\u2013\u00ad77) cleverness in choosing the strongly alchemical De\nvita longa to introduce Paracelsus to the European intelligentsia. Like Ficino\u2019s\nsimilarly titled work, but even more so, De vita longa forwarded the medieval\ntradition of theoretical and practical thought on the prolongation of life, especially the medical alchemy of such notables as Roger Bacon (ca. 1214\u2013\u00ad94),\npseudo(?)-Arnold of Villanova (ca. 1238\u2013\u00adca. 1310), John of Rupescissa (ca.\n1300\u2013\u00adca. 1365), and pseudo-Llull. But significantly with regard to Neoplatonism, Bodenstein, in a conscious effort to echo somewhat Ficino\u2019s dedication to the Doge of Venice, dedicated De vita longa to an Italian prince. Thus\nBodenstein played up Paracelsus\u2019s association with Ficinian Neoplatonism\nto make acceptable the doctrines associated with Paracelsus.14 Regarding the\nsearch for Paracelsus\u2019s sources, however, Paracelsus does us few favors in our\nquest, for\u2014with the exception of biblical passages\u2014he generally was not\none to name his sources, especially given his characteristic rant against those\nrelying on ancient book knowledge rather than on the book of nature. Let us\nturn to Paracelsus\u2019s concept of the sidereal bodies, and evaluate several of the\ncommonalities and dissimilarities between Paracelsus and Renaissance Neoplatonism. As this chapter will argue, with regard to the role of the stars in the\ncosmos and human beings, what perhaps most distinguishes Paracelsus from\nthe Renaissance Neoplatonists is his overriding concern and pronounced\nsearch for a biblically based cosmogony and soteriology. His theology, mixed\nwith alchemy and some concepts of Renaissance natural magic, created a\nunique Weltbild.15\n13. This is one of the fundamental observations in Daniel, \u201cInvisible Wombs.\u201d\n14. Kahn, Paracelsisme et alchimie en France, 125.\n15. For a discussion of the influence of medieval alchemical sources on Paracelsus\u2019s thought, especially\nhis theology, see Daniel, \u201cMedieval Alchemy and Paracelsus\u2019 Theology,\u201d 121\u2013\u00ad35.\n\nPages 230:\n214\nDane T. Daniel\nParacelsus on Magic and the Sidereal\nComponent of the Macrocosm and Microcosm16\nThe medium is the center; the center is the human. Thus, the heavenly powers [that is, natural sidereal agencies] may be brought through the human into\nthe human, thus making possible [for the human] that which exists within a\nparticular constellation. Thus, issuing forth from the human, into whom magic has brought these powers [vires], is precisely the same star as that which\nexists in itself, with the same secrets and arcana.17\nHowever, on account of the life that follows death, it is my advice that one\nlive in the wisdom of the son rather than in nature. For the father regretted\nthat he made the human, because the bodily and eternal aspects are meant\nto remain with each other, but they became separated [due to the Fall]. Consequently, a heathen is able to be a heathen, skilled in the light of nature, but\nunlearned in the Holy Spirit.18\n\u2014Paracelsus, Astronomia magna\nAs illustrated by the above passages from Paracelsus\u2019s magnum opus, the\nAstronomia magna, Paracelsus not only engaged some of the conceptual framework of Renaissance natural magic, such as Pico della Mirandola\u2019s discussion of\nthe human as the \u201ccenter,\u201d but also incorporated into his philosophy his deepseated religious beliefs, including the biblical teaching on the Fall and its costs.19\n16. The first several pages of this section are derived from my dissertation: Daniel, \u201cParacelsus\u2019 \u2018Astronomia Magna,\u2019\u201d esp. 1\u2013\u00ad4 and 149\u2013\u00ad203.\n17. \u201cdas medium ist der centrum, der centrum ist der mensch. also mag durch den menschen die himlische macht in den menschen gebracht werden, also das im selbigen constellation m\u00f6glich ist. also wird aus\ndem selbigen menschen, in den die magica gebracht hat solche vires, gleich der selbig stern, wie er an im selbs\nist, mit den selbigen secretis und arcanis\u201d; Paracelsus, S\u00e4mtliche Werke I, 12:122 (my translation).\n18. \u201cmer ist aber mein rat, zu leben in der weisheit des sons dan in der natur von wegen des lebens, so\ndem tot nachfolget, dieweil den vatter gerauwen hat, das er den menschen gemacht hat. dan da sollen bei einander bleiben, dem leib das sein, dem ewigen das sein, das dan da gescheiden ist worden. dan ursach, ein heid\nmag ein heid sein, gro\u00df im liecht der natur vnd aber unbekant im heiligen geist\u201d; Paracelsus, S\u00e4mtliche Werke\nI, 12:29 (my translation).\n19. An example of Pico della Mirandola\u2019s discussion of this \u201ccenter\u201d can be found in the Oration on the\nDignity of Man. In a manner similar to Pico, Paracelsus often wrote that the human is the \u201ccenter,\u201d for the human is where the material, both elemental and sidereal, and divine realms intersect. See Pico della Mirandola,\nDe hominis dignitate, in Opera Omnia, 1:313\u2013\u00ad31. \u201cNascenti homini omnifaria semina, & omnigenae uitae germina indidit pater. Quae quisquae excoluerit, illa adolescent, & fructus suos ferent in illo. Si vegetalia, planta\nfiet. Si sensualia, obbrutescet. Si rationalia, coeleste euadet animal. Si intellectualia, angelus erit et Dei filius. Et\nsi nulla creaturarum sorte contentus, in unitatis centrum suae se receperit, unus cum Deo spiritus factus, in sol-\n\nPages 231:\nParacelsus on the Sidereal Powers\n215\nTo underscore the present argument that it is unnecessary to take an extreme\nposition in the Pagel vs. Goldammer debate, this chapter will show that Paracelsus did not consider Renaissance natural magic and a literal rendering of scripture\nto be incompatible, but rather sought to reconcile his alchemical and Neoplatonic heritage with God\u2019s divinely revealed word. Paracelsus held striking affinities with the Renaissance Neoplatonists even as he made a radical departure by\nincorporating his idiosyncratic, but literal, biblical exegesis. The radical reformer\nwho never left the Catholic Church was clearly influenced by the Reformation\nemphasis on sola scriptura as he created his own theology and Bible-based Weltanschauung.\nTurning to Paracelsus\u2019s specific ideas concerning magic and the sidereal\ncomponents of the universe (macrocosm) and human (microcosm), it is fitting to explore pieces from his analysis of the star powers in his Meisterst\u00fcck,\nthe Astronomia magna, written in 1537 and 1538, and first published by several\nof his followers in the late sixteenth century. Book 1 is called \u201cThe Book of the\nPhilosophy of the Heavenly Firmament.\u201d The first three chapters of this opening\nbook became the most widely reproduced and translated section of the Astronomia magna. There, Paracelsus depicted the ontological basis of his picture of man\nand the cosmos. Indicative of his unique exegesis, he differentiated the natural\ncreation by God the father (the mortal realm) and the new eternal creation by\nGod the son (immortal corporeality). In chapters 4 through 11, he broached the\ntopic of \u201cnatural astronomy,\u201d which he discussed in terms of its nine divisions\n(membra) and ten gifts (dona). Paracelsus\u2019s nine membra specify the kinds of\nadept art\u2014for example, magic, astrology, nigromancy, and adept medicine\u2014\nthat a natural astronomer can study and master. The dona are different in that\nthey are \u201cethereal arts\u201d brought about by nature herself without human assistance. These include impressions (such as wisdom and prudence), generation\n(outgrowths from the four elements), and inanimatum (including gnomes and\nnymphs). Therefore, Paracelsus\u2019s \u201cnatural astronomy\u201d is in fact his term for \u201cnatural magic.\u201d And the focus concerns the arts and operations involving the subtle\nitaria patris caligine qui est super omnia constitutus, omnibus antestabit\u201d; ibid., 1:315. There are a few important differences here. Paracelsus did not view individual potential as radically as Pico, who held\u2014as did Paracelsus\u2014that the \u201cseeds\u201d of all creation exist within the human, but who added that the human, through the\nexertion of the will, can develop and harvest any abilities or talents that one desires; although Paracelsus also\nemphasized free will, nevertheless, in contrast to Pico, he emphasized inborn talents that limit one\u2019s potential.\nSuch propensities are planted by the stars at one\u2019s conception in accordance with the alignment of the stars.\n\nPages 232:\n216\nDane T. Daniel\nmatter of the universe that proceeds from the stars. (He often used the terms\n\u201cmagus\u201d and \u201castronomer\u201d interchangeably.) Plainly, book 1 of the Astronomia\nmagna is a catalogue of the types of occult arts, but it also features his natural\nmagic, which is a systematic natural science that Paracelsus utilized to explain\nmany natural phenomena. Book 1 also reveals Paracelsus\u2019s epistemology: the\nmental capabilities of mortals are associated with both the sidereal component within humans and the instruction provided by the stars. Furthermore, it\nis a universal cosmography: Paracelsus abandoned the Aristotelian-Scholastic\nteaching that the terrestrial and celestial regions each have their own matter and\nphysics. Rather, he described the intimate interaction between the firmament\nand the earth, and the processes and elements that the two realms have in common. With regard to different types of practitioners within natural philosophy,\nParacelsus added that the philosopher studies the elemental while the astronomer studies the sidereal, both inside and outside the human.20\nIn the second chapter of book 1 of the Astronomia magna, Paracelsus focused\non \u201cthe matter out of which the human was created, what the dust of the earth\n[limus] is, and the quality that this mass [massa] possesses.\u201d21 He wrote that the\nfirst creation occurred ex nihilo; through the word, God made the corpus and its\nspirit and then fashioned all creatures from this corpus. In contrast to all other\ncreations, made from nothing, only the human is made out of something. The\nhuman was made from a Stoff, namely, the limus terrae, and Paracelsus liberally\ninterpreted the limus terrae of Genesis 2:7 to include all essences within the\ndomain of both elemental and sidereal things. He explained that God took into\nhis hand the mass from the four elements, both visible (earth and water) and\ninvisible (firmament and chaos). Then, he transformed this substance so that\nhis image, that is, the human, came out of it. The operations of both the sidereal\nbody and the corporeal elements were thus, in effect, in this image, hence lending their virtues and essences to the human in whom they live. In this way, the\nmarvels of God\u2019s creation were to be seen through the human, whether specific\n20. \u201calso sol nun verstanden werden, das erstlich ein leib ist, von dem der astronomus nichts redet; er ist\nelementisch, geh\u00f6rt in die irdisch der elementen philosophei. aber von dem nat\u00fcrlichen geist im leib hat der\nastronomus zu reden gewalt und macht; dan der leib ist der elementen, der geist, der dem elementischen leib\ngeben ist, der ist im vom firmament verm\u00e4let und eingeleibt. und also teilt sich die philosophia in zwen teil, in\ndas wesen des geistes und zum andern in das wesen des leibs, das ist in den corpus und spiritum\u201d; Paracelsus,\nS\u00e4mtliche Werke I, 12:16 (my translation).\n21. \u201cDas ander capitel, aus was der mensch gemacht sei, was der limus sei und was eigenschaft die selbige\nmassa gehabt hat\u201d; ibid., 12:31.\n\nPages 233:\nParacelsus on the Sidereal Powers\n217\nto the mechanical arts or to the wisdom of the light of nature (that is, scientific\nknowledge). The gifts, or the sidereal talents and knowledge rained upon individuals, were also to become manifest. A third part of the human, the immortal\nsoul, came about when God breathed into Adam.22\nEvaluating the Divide\nOf course, Pagel and Goldammer differed in their interpretations of the mature\nParacelsus\u2019s cosmological components, and each saw Paracelsus in a different\nlight. For his part, Pagel addressed the concept of the sidereal powers by charting an evolutionary path from Plato to the Stoics, to Plotinus, to Ficino, and\nfinally to Paracelsus. Pagel noted that Ficino, after inheriting from the Stoics\nand ancient Neoplatonists the concept of the star-body within humans, wrote\nthat spirit is \u201ca very tenuous body, as if now it were soul and not body, and now\nbody and not soul.\u201d23 These sidereal components exist in demons and heroes,\nand those who perfect them can manifest certain qualities, such as courage. As\nPagel wrote, \u201c[t]he astral body was one of the means by which neo-\u00adPlatonism\npreserved its basic dualistic attitude without sacrificing the idea of cosmic\ncontinuity, coherence and unity.\u201d24 The invisible spiritual spark provides an\nobject with its form and virtues, not its coarse body. An impulse of the spirit,\nor will, causes an instantaneous conversion in matter. Like any other object,\nthe human is also an intermediate being on the scale of emanation between\nthe divine and material. Thus, the divine spark of light exists in the human\nbody. As we have seen, however, Paracelsus did not adhere to the Neoplatonic\n22. \u201cSo wissent, das ein massa corporalis aus den vier elementen in die hant gottes gefa\u00dft ist worden,\nsichtigs und unsichtigs, das ist von den corporalischen elementen, erden und wasser und von den unsichtbaren\nelementen firmamentem und chaos, und in die substanz transformiret, das ein biltnus gottes daruas worden\nist, in welcher der gestirnte leib auch die elementischen corporalitet ire operationes volbringen sollen, das ist,\ndas sie sollen im menschen wonen mit iren virtutibus und essentiis und im menschen die selbigen er\u00f6fnen und\ndurch in in das werk bringen. als die kunst mechanica, als sapienta liminis naturae, auf das die wunderwerk\ngottes gesehen werden durch den menschen und was in den eu\u00dfern elementen got gelegt und gegabet hat. dan\nnach dem rechten grunt zu reden, so ist der mensch alein darumb geschaffen, das er der natur arbeiter sei, das\nzu tun, das got in sie geben, gelegt und geschaffen hat\u201d; ibid., 12:52\u2013\u00ad53 (my translation).\n23. On this topic, see Ficino, Three Books on Life, bk. 3, chap. 3: \u201cIpse vero est corpus tenuissimum, quasi\nnon corpus et quasi iam anima, item quasi non anima, item quasi non anima et quasi iam corpus.\u201d See also\nPagel\u2019s interpretation that the sidereal is \u201cnot body and almost soul, and not soul and almost body\u201d in Religion\nand Neoplatonism in Renaissance Medicine, 129. Pagel cited Marsilius Ficinus, De Vita coelitus comparanda, 3.3\n(Venetiis: Aldus, 1516), fol. 153r.\n24. Pagel, Religion and Neoplatonism in Renaissance Medicine, 128.\n\nPages 234:\n218\nDane T. Daniel\ntheory of emanationism. His exegesis of Genesis 2:7 provided the basis of his\nmacrocosm-microcosm theory.\nNevertheless, in his synthesis of Neoplatonic and alchemical themes, Ficino\nanticipated Paracelsus with his own natural and astrological magic.25 In a manner\nsimilar to Paracelsus\u2019s discussion of the archeus, Ficino discussed human \u201cspirits\u201d\nthat convert food to life.26 In addition, Ficino thought that the magus is one who\ncan extract the living essence, the spiritus, from things; an ethereal spirit lives in\nall things, and it brings generation and motion. In Paracelsus\u2019s system, the firmament rules every body of the material world, providing internal motion and\ndirection. Furthermore, when discussing \u201cadept philosophy,\u201d Paracelsus explicitly discussed firmamental virtues: \u201cIn addition to what they receive from the\nelements, all earthly bodies carry a firmamental power and virtue.\u201d27 Paracelsus\nwrote that a common philosopher and/or alchemist can describe the natural or\nelemental power in plants, but the adept philosopher, skilled in the sidereal, can\ndescribe the firmamental power. Thus, he can create sidereal curatives.28\nGoldammer, on the other hand, distanced Paracelsus from some of the\nsalient aspects of Neoplatonism. He pointed out that the emanationism\nso characteristic of Neoplatonism is completely absent from Paracelsus\u2019s\nthought, even in the Philosophia de generationibus et fructibus quatuor elementorum, where Paracelsus noted that things of the natural world\u2014including\nthe elemental spheres, three principles, and fruits or substances of the elements\u2014appeared via the separation of the yliaster. Related to this, he pointed\nto Paracelsus\u2019s commitment to biblical cosmogony, that is, creation ex nihilo.\nHe contended that in Paracelsus\u2019s authentic writings one finds almost nothing\nreminiscent of Neoplatonic-gnostic cosmogonical processes.29 It is important to stress that in Paracelsus\u2019s thought, the analogy between macrocosm\nand microcosm came about when God formed Adam from the limus terrae,\nthe primordial mass of Genesis 2:7. He explained the interrelatedness of the\nhuman and cosmos in this manner rather than evoking the concept of a series\n25. When discussing the origin of magical powers, however, Ficino evoked the World-Soul while Paracelsus preferred \u201cthe stars.\u201d Both discussed the role of a \u201cmagnet\u201d inside the human that attracts the sidereal.\n26. See Hirai, \u201cConcepts of Seeds and Nature,\u201d 274\u2013\u00ad76.\n27. \u201cso merkent\u2026das alle die irdische corpora uber das, das sie von elementen haben, ein firmamentische kraft und tugent mit tragen\u201d; Paracelsus, S\u00e4mtliche Werke I, 12:97 (my translation).\n28. Ibid.\n29. Note these themes throughout Goldammer, \u201cParacelsische Eschatologie: Zum Verst\u00e4ndnis der Anthropologie und Kosmologie Hohensteims,\u201d in his Paracelsus in neuen Horizonten, 45\u201385.\n\nPages 235:\nParacelsus on the Sidereal Powers\n219\nof emanations from a shared source. It seems that the more a text attributed\nto Paracelsus contains discussions of preexistent matter and emanation theory, the less likely its authenticity. In fact, Karl Sudhoff, the dean of Paracelsus\nstudies, insisted that two oft-cited texts, the Philosophy to the Athenians and\nDe natura rerum\u2014both of which, incidentally, Pagel relied upon heavily\u2014are\nspurious. Both possess Neoplatonic cosmogonies that the authentic Paracelsus rejected.30 Goldammer also highlighted Paracelsus\u2019s belief that the material\nprocesses of the world change, and an apocalypse is on the horizon that will\nculminate in the destruction of all elemental and sidereal things via fire. Fifteenth-century Neoplatonists, he argued, generally saw material processes as\nirreversible and were mostly uninterested in teleology and eschatology.31\nOne can easily extend Goldammer\u2019s points. First, the dichotomy between\nimmortal spirit and tangible body simply does not exist in Paracelsus\u2019s thought.\nIn Paracelsus\u2019s theology and philosophy, both the mortal spirit and mortal elemental flesh return to their origins at death, dust to the earth and the stardust to\nthe stars. Note how he addressed the resurrection: \u201call that comes from the earth\nwill not resurrect, only that which is from God will resurrect. Therefore, if we do\nnot resurrect in Christ, we will resurrect, but not in Christ, and not in nature, but\nrather in the spirit of Hell.\u201d32 Building on his unconventional reading of scripture, Paracelsus reasoned that the immortal soul requires a body in paradise (for\nJob says that he will see God with his eyes after his earthly walk33), and so he\ncreatively merged a variety of scriptural passages to come up with his theory of\nan immortal resurrection body: God the Son creates the intangible immortal\nbody, the resurrection body, to accompany the soul in the afterlife. Paracelsus\u2019s\nsacramental thought found its bases in his literal interpretations of such biblical\npassages as 1 Corinthians 15 and John 6:27. The latter verse reads, \u201cLabour not\nfor the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting\nlife, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father\n30. See the careful discussion throughout Sudhoff, Versuch einer Kritik der echtheit der Paracelsischen\nSchriften.\n31. Ibid.\n32. \u201calles was von der erden ist nit auferstehen wird, alein was von got ist, das wird auferst\u00ean. darumb\nso werden wir in Christo auferstehen, so wir aber nit in Christo seind, so werden wir auferstehen, aber nit in\nChristo, nit in der natur, sonder in dem geist der hellen\u201d; Paracelsus, S\u00e4mtliche Werke I, 12:290 (my translation).\n33. Job 19:26\u2013\u00ad27.\n\nPages 236:\n220\nDane T. Daniel\nsealed.\u201d34 Paracelsus took this to mean that Christ gives humans, via baptism, an\neternal flesh; this coexists with the elemental body, mortal spirit, and soul. He\nalso evoked Matthew 26:26 in this context: \u201cAnd as they were eating, Jesus took\nbread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat;\nthis is my body.\u201d35 Paracelsus provided the remarkable explanation that Christ\u2019s\nbreaking of the bread actually was the creative act that produced all of the individual resurrection bodies.36\nThus, in contrast to the common Neoplatonic and gnostic urge, Paracelsus\nclearly did not wish to free immortal spirit from body. He gave the immortal soul\na resurrection body! And actually (and again) the spirit of humans, according\nto Paracelsus, is mortal\u2014and even the sidereal bodies and all their functions\n(including mortal thought itself)\u2014will be irrevocably destroyed. One can supplement further Goldammer\u2019s points with the observations that Paracelsus only\nreferred to Plato and Ficino a few times in passing, that he never mentioned\nPlotinus\u2014that he was completely uninterested in mathematics, music, or the\ngeometric solids\u2014and that he was antagonistic toward ancient texts.37\nOn the other hand, Pagel is correct that some correlations\u2014terminologically and conceptually\u2014between Renaissance Neoplatonism and Paracelsus\u2019s\nphilosophy are often striking. I add that Ficino and Pico were in fact well known\nin the German-speaking realm, in part through the work of Johannes Reuchlin\n(1455\u2013\u00ad1522).38 Also, Paracelsus\u2019s discussion of bestial humans, and more significantly his proof for the art of magic, are at times almost identical to passages\nin Pico\u2019s Oration on the Dignity of Man.39 In addition, in book 1 of the Astronomia\nmagna, Paracelsus began his elaboration of magic with a biblical example (lending immediate authority to the craft). In so doing, he followed in the footsteps of\nthe Renaissance natural magicians.40 Evoking a motif common to his Matthew\ncommentaries, Paracelsus wrote,\n34. John 6:27. All biblical quotes are from the King James translation.\n35. See also Mark 14:22: \u201cAnd as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to\nthem, and said, Take, eat: this is my body.\u201d\n36. See Daniel, \u201cParacelsus\u2019 \u2018Declaratio\u2019 on the Lord\u2019s Supper.\u2019\u201d\n37. Now, on the basis of this philosophy of the Lord\u2019s Supper, Paracelsus does erect an entire realm of\neternal celestial influences that are analogous to the sidereal powers, but these function entirely in the realm of\nthe immortal soul of humans rather than the mortal spirit, and they are available only to Christians. Paracelsus\ndiscussed this at length in book 2 of Astronomia magna.\n38. See M\u00fcller-Jahncke, Astrologisch-magische Theorie und Praxis, 67\u201389.\n39. See note 19 above.\n40. See Brann, Trithemius and Magical Theology, 28.\n\nPages 237:\nParacelsus on the Sidereal Powers\n221\nConcerning what magic and a magician is, you should understand the\nfollowing: Magic is divided into six types. Its first part is an interpretation of\nunnatural signs, that is, recognizing that which God places in heaven supernaturally; however, they still appear to be natural like the others, just as did\nthe oriental star of Bethlehem. And just as Christ walked on earth as a human\namong humans, so too did this star stand among the other stars. And just as\nChrist was recognized only by his own, so too are these stars understood by\nmagicians alone. Thus, magicians are interpreters of such supernatural signs\nin heaven, just as apostles recognize Christ, and are placed before the word\nto interpret Christ\u2019s statement that, \u201cthere will be signs in the sun, moon,\nand stars, etc.\u201d41 (Luke 21:25) Thus, the magicians are also interpreters of all\nprophecies and of the apocalyptic revelation.42\nAlthough this does not demonstrate a direct tie to Ficino, nevertheless it was\nFicino and his Medici patrons who venerated the cult of the three Magi and\nlooked upon the Magi as biblically based support for the magical craft.43\nToward a Via Media\nIt is not unprecedented for scholars to point to Paracelsus\u2019s affinity with, and\nthen departure from, the natural magic of the Italians. For example, Will-Erich\nPeuckert addressed the issue in 1941, highlighting similarities between Paracelsus and the Renaissance Neoplatonists, but pointing to what he saw as traditionally \u201cGerman\u201d elements within Paracelsus, especially (and problematically for\nthe medical practitioner Paracelsus) a \u201cGerman\u201d preference for knowledge over\npraxis.44 (Clearly, one of Pagel\u2019s significant contributions to Paracelsica was to\nemphasize the Renaissance context and thus rescue the field from some of the\n41. Luke 21:25: \u201cAnd there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth\ndistress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring.\u201d\n42. \u201cWas magica sei und magus verstehet also: sie wird geteilt in sechs species. nun ist der anfang der\nmagica ein auslegung auf die unnat\u00fcrlichen zeichen, sie zu erkennen, wie sie got ubernat\u00fcrlich in himel stellt\nund doch wie nat\u00fcrlich erscheine und erkent werden under andern, als der orientisch stern auf Bethlehem.\nund zu gleicher weis, wie Christus auf ertrich wie ein mensch gewantlet hat under andern menschen, also\nauch der stern under andern sternen gestanden. und wie Christus alein von den seinen erkant ist worden, also\nwerden die sternen alein von den magis erkennet. also seind magi ausleger solcher ubernat\u00fcrlicher zeichen im\nhimel, wie die apostel erkenner Christi, und werden auf das wort gesezt auszulegen, da Christus spricht: es\nwerden zeichen in sonn, mon und stern etc, also seind auch die magi ausleger aller propheten und der apocalypsischen offenbarung\u201d; Paracelsus, S\u00e4mtliche Werke I, 12:83 (my translation).\n43. See note 40 above.\n44. Peuckert, Theophrastus Paracelsus, 370.\n\nPages 238:\n222\nDane T. Daniel\nless palatable subjectivity of the German scholarship of the 1930s and 1940s.)\nHowever, the Pagel-Goldammer divide still exists in the field of Paracelsus studies, and a more nuanced approach is necessary.\nAmong those who are currently seeking a middle path in this debate is Hartmut Rudolph. For years, Rudolph sided mostly with Goldammer and carried\non a long, but amiable, debate with Pagel regarding Paracelsus\u2019s sources. At this\ntime, Rudolph explored the Reformation setting of Paracelsus\u2019s thought. While\ndemonstrating that Paracelsus\u2019s theology and medicine are inextricably linked,\nRudolph noted that there are many queries still to be answered about Paracelsus\u2019s biography that pertain to the question of his religious affiliation.45 He asked\nwhether Paracelsus\u2019s religious attitudes affected his choice of Strasbourg as a\ndwelling place or motivated his patrons to call him to Basel. He added that Paracelsus did indeed find the healing art and the Christian faith to be fused, and yet, it\nis unclear whether he can be linked to the Nicodemism of Cornelius Agrippa von\nNettesheim (1486\u2013\u00ad1535) or the thought of Caspar von Schwenckfeld (1489\u2013\u00ad\n1561), and if so, when in his development that linkage is valid. He pointed to\nParacelsus\u2019s teaching on the Eucharist to show that the linking of Paracelsus to\nSchwenckfeld is problematic and stressed Paracelsus\u2019s Catholicism, especially the\nFranciscan/Erasmian influence on his thought during his first Salzburg period\n(mid-\u00ad1520s), even if he is rightly tentative relative to the outright endorsement of\na particular designation.46 More recently, however, Rudolph has begun to argue\nthat Paracelsus\u2019s anthropology\u2014which, incidentally, runs throughout his entire\nopus and not merely his theological works\u2014corresponds much more closely\nto the ideas of the humanists Ficino and Pico della Mirandola than to those\nof Protestant reformers like Martin Bucer (1491\u2013\u00ad1551) and Ulrich Zwingli\n(1484\u2013\u00ad1531).47 Furthermore, in stressing some of the Ficinian aspects of Paracelsus\u2019s thought, Rudolph paid particular attention to the idea\u2014shared by Ficino\nand Paracelsus\u2014that the stars incline rather than determine human behavior.48\nIndeed, Rudolph is aware that Paracelsus wrote that the stars stamp talents and\npropensities onto a person\u2019s mind and senses at the moment of conception. As\nwe have seen, the stars also continually rain down dona (gifts) and the light of\nnature (which accounts for Paracelsus\u2019s epistemology). A person is responsible for\n45. Rudolph, \u201cParacelsus\u2019 Laientheologie in traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht.\u201d\n46. Ibid., 85.\n47. Rudolph, \u201cHohenheim\u2019s Anthropology,\u201d esp. 191\u2013\u00ad92.\n48. Ibid.\n\nPages 239:\nParacelsus on the Sidereal Powers\n223\nharvesting the gifts, the innovations and knowledge bestowed by the stars; such is\npart of one\u2019s divine calling. Note also the following conclusion of Rudolph:\nParacelsus views and describes sacramental doctrine, biblical soteriology\nand eschatology from the same horizon of expectation as that which had\ngoverned the anthropology of a Pico or a Ficino. It cannot be denied that he\nshares with these figures the concept of natural magic as set forth, for example, in the Picatrix, in De dignitate hominis, in De vita libri tres, where it constitutes the \u201cpars practica scientiae naturalis\u201d; with this concept, man, being\nthe centre of the macrocosm, is enabled to \u201ccoelo maritare mundum\u201d: \u201cnulla\nest virtus in coelo aut in terra seminaliter et separata, quam et actuare et unire\nmagus non possit\u201d, Pico says (Conclusiones, 3, 10ff.). But it is also undeniable\nthat Hohenheim\u2019s theological anthropology, his \u201cphilosophia de limbo aeterno,\u201d pursued the same goal as that which was held by the neoplatonists to be\nman\u2019s final and actual determining to speak with Plato\u2019s Theaetetus.49\nRudolph\u2019s writings capture a correct appreciation and synthesis of the arguments of both Pagel and Goldammer. As we have seen, there are too many elements in Paracelsus\u2019s thought that have Neoplatonic roots, even as he baptized\nsuch concepts in his unique brand of radical-reform Christianity. Significant in\nthe case of Paracelsus\u2014and what would become a salient current of the early\nmodern intellectual milieu via the Paracelsian traditions\u2014was the combination\nof Reformation and Neoplatonic motifs in the expression of his astronomy.\nWorks Cited\nBrann, Noel. Trithemius and Magical Theology: A Chapter in the Controversy over Occult\nStudies in Early Modern Europe. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1999.\nDaniel, Dane T. \u201cInvisible Wombs: Rethinking Paracelsus\u2019s Concept of Body and Matter.\u201d Ambix 53, no. 2 (2006): 129\u201342.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cMedieval Alchemy and Paracelsus\u2019 Theology: Pseudo-Llull\u2019s Testamentum and Paracelsus\u2019 Astronomia Magna.\u201d Nova Acta Paracelsica, n. s. 22, 23\n(2008\u20132009): 121\u201335.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cParacelsus\u2019 \u2018Astronomia Magna\u2019 (1537/38): Bible-Based Science and the Religious Roots of the Scientific Revolution.\u201d PhD diss., Indiana University, 2003.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cParacelsus\u2019 \u2018Declaratio\u2019 on the Lord\u2019s Supper: A Summary with Remarks on\nthe Term \u2018Limbus.\u2019\u201d Nova Acta Paracelsica 16 (2002): 141\u201362.\n49. Ibid., 205. Rudolph cited Pico della Mirandola, De dignitate hominis, ed. Garin, 17.\n\nPages 240:\n224\nDane T. Daniel\nDebus, Allen G. The English Paracelsians. New York: Franklin Watts, 1966.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The French Paracelsians: The Chemical Challenge to Medical and Scientific Tradition in Early Modern France. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.\nFicino, Marsilio. Three Books on Life: A Critical Edition and Translation. Edited and\ntranslated by Carol Kaske and John Clark. Binghamton, NY: Center for Medieval and Early Renaissance Studies, 1989.\nGoldammer, Kurt. Der G\u00f6ttliche Magier und die Magierin Natur: Religion, Naturmagie\nund die Anf\u00e4nge der Naturwissenschaft vom Sp\u00e4tmittelalter bis zur Renaissance,\nmit Betr\u00e4gen zum Magie-Verst\u00e4ndnis des Paracelsus. Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1991.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Paracelsus in neuen Horizonten: Gesammelte Aufs\u00e4tze. Vienna: Verband der\nwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaften \u00d6sterreichs, Verlag, 1986.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Paracelsus: Natur und Offenbarung. Hanover-Kirchrode: Oppermann, 1953.\nHirai, Hiroshi. \u201cConcepts of Seeds and Nature in Marsilio Ficino.\u201d In Marsilio Ficino:\nHis Theology, His Philosophy, His Legacy, edited by Michael J. B. Allen and\nValery Rees, 257\u201384. Leiden: Brill, 2002.\nKahn, Didier. \u201cParacelsisme et alchimie en France \u00e0 la fin de la Renaissance (1567\u2013\n1625).\u201d PhD diss., University of Paris 4, 1998.\nM\u00fcller-Jahncke, Wolf-Dieter. Astrologisch-magische Theorie und Praxis in der Heilkunde\nder fr\u00fchen Neuzeit. Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1985.\nPagel, Walter. Das medizinische Weltbild des Paracelsus: Seine Zusammenh\u00e4nge mit Neuplatonismus und Gnosis. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1962.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Paracelsus: An Introduction to Philosophical Medicine in the Era of the Renaissance. Basel and New York: Karger, 1958.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Religion and Neoplatonism in Renaissance Medicine. Edited by Marianne Winder. London: Variorum Reprints, 1985.\nParacelsus. S\u00e4mtliche Werke I: Medizinische, naturwissenschaftliche und philosophische\nSchriften. Edited by Karl Sudhoff. 14 vols. Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1922\u201333.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. S\u00e4mtliche Werke II: Theologische und Religionsphilosophische Schriften. Edited\nby Wilhelm Matthiessen. Vol. 1, Philosophia Magna. Munich: Otto Wilhelm\nBarth, 1923.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. S\u00e4mtliche Werke II: Theologische und Religionsphilosophische Schriften. Edited by\nKurt Goldammer. 6 vols. Wiesbaden (Stuttgart): F. Steiner, 1955\u201386.\nPeuckert, Will-Erich. Theophrastus Paracelsus. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1941.\nPico della Mirandola, Giovanni. Opera Omnia. Edited by Eugenio Garin. 2 vols. Turin:\nBottega d\u2019Erasmo, 1971.\n\nPages 241:\nParacelsus on the Sidereal Powers\n225\nRudolph, Hartmut. \u201cHohenheim\u2019s Anthropology in the Light of His Writings on the\nEucharist.\u201d In Paracelsus: The Man and His Reputation, His Ideas and Their\nTransformation, edited by Ole Peter Grell, 187\u2013206. Leiden: Brill, 1998.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cParacelsus\u2019 Laientheologie in traditionsgeschichtlicher Sicht und in ihrer\nZuordnung zu Reformation und katholischer Reform.\u201d In Resultate und Desiderata der Paracelsus-Forschung, edited by Peter Dilg and Hartmut Rudolph,\n79\u201398. Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1993.\nSch\u00fctze, Ingo. \u201cZur Ficino Rezeption bei Paracelsus.\u201d In Parega Paracelsica: Paracelsus\nin Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, edited by Joachim Telle, 39\u201344. Stuttgart: F.\nSteiner, 1991.\nSudhoff, Karl. Versuch einer Kritik der echtheit der Paracelsischen Schriften. Berlin: G.\nRiemer, 1894\u201399.\nWebster, Charles. Paracelsus: Medicine, Magic and Mission at the End of Time. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008.\nWeeks, Andrew. Paracelsus: Speculative Theory and the Crisis of the Early Reformation.\nAlbany: State University of New York Press, 1997.\n\nPages 242:\nChapter 10\nJohn Dee at 400\nT\nStill an Enigma\nNicholas H. Clulee\nThe year 2009 marked the four hundredth anniversary of the death of John\nDee (1527\u2013\u00ad1609),1 yet scholarly studies of this enigmatic figure\u2019s life and work\ncontinue to seek a fuller understanding of his place in Renaissance history. In\nfact, something of a John Dee \u201cindustry\u201d has blossomed in the last few decades.\nThere have been three John Dee colloquia spurred first by a two-\u00adday meeting in\nLondon in 1995 and, most recently, the 2009 Quartercentenary Conference at\nSt. John\u2019s College, Cambridge, both of which generated published proceedings.2\nBesides a number of scholarly articles, there have appeared Benjamin Woolley\u2019s\npopular biography, Michael Wilding\u2019s account of the adventures of Dee and\nEdward Kelley (1581\u2013\u00ad97), James Fenton\u2019s edition of Dee\u2019s diaries, and a host of\noccultist editions and studies of Dee\u2019s magic.3 Dee has also figured as a subject\nor character in modern literature and film.4 Most recently, Robert Barone has\n1. It also marked the death of Allen Debus, to whom the present study is dedicated. See also note 27\nbelow.\n2. Clucas, John Dee; and Rampling, \u201cJohn Dee and the Sciences,\u201d respectively.\n3. Woolley, Queen\u2019s Conjurer; Wilding, Raising Spirits; and Dee, Diaries of John Dee. Occultist editions\nand studies related to Dee are too extensive to list here. Searching for \u201cjohn dee\u201d in the online catalogues of the\nBritish Library and the Library of Congress will yield most of what is available.\n4. Sz\u00f6nyi and Wymer, \u201cJohn Dee as a Cultural Hero\u201d; and Wymer, \u201cDr. Dee and Derek Jarman.\u201d\n226\n\nPages 243:\nJohn Dee at 400\n227\npublished a history of Dee that traces Dee\u2019s reputation from negative to warranting serious attention.5 There have also been six major scholarly monographs\nthat represent substantial and creative contributions to understanding Dee and\nhis relation both to the social and political worlds in which he sought patronage\nand to sixteenth-\u00adcentury currents in scholarship, the sciences and mathematics,\noccultism, and religion. Yet, despite my monograph (1988) and the rich contributions of William H. Sherman (1995), Deborah E. Harkness (1999), H\u00e5kan\nH\u00e5kansson (2001), Gy\u00f6rgy Sz\u00f6nyi (2004), and Glyn Parry (2011), there is\nstill no consensus on a comprehensive understanding of Dee.6 He remains an\nenigma.\nWhat follows, after an overview of earlier studies of Dee, is a review of these\nmajor monographs. The aim is not to provide a thorough survey of their contributions but to highlight the continued problematic of Dee. One fundamental\nissue that underlies Dee\u2019s modern historiography is the diversity and apparent\ncontradictions among his many writings and activities. Was Dee of one or many\nminds, dividing a Dee embodying a continuous coherent vision throughout his\ncareer and a Dee who dynamically rethought positions as his career evolved?\nThis dichotomy is not necessarily absolute\u2014\u00adthere may be a spectrum between\nthe poles\u2014\u00adbut it continues to map the terrain of Dee scholarship. How those\nstudying Dee have presented him is entwined with two other divisions: one\ninvolving historical methodology, the other involving the nature of the Renaissance as an intellectual and cultural phenomenon.\nModern scholarship on Dee started in the past century with Charlotte Fell-\u00ad\nSmith\u2019s John Dee (1527\u2013\u00ad1608), prompted by the previous centenary of Dee\u2019s\ndeath and exemplifying a central challenge of Dee.7 Claiming to replace centuries of misjudgment and slander by presenting the \u201cfacts\u201d of Dee\u2019s life \u201ccalmly and\nimpartially in the light of reason and science,\u201d Fell-\u00adSmith drew upon a variety of\nDee\u2019s autobiographical material published in the nineteenth century as well as\nwriting published in his lifetime and in the seventeenth century.8 The result is\na summary of Dee\u2019s biographical record with some romantic effusions but little\nprobing inquiry into controversial episodes\u2014\u00adsuch as Dee\u2019s arrest during Mary\u2019s\n5. Barone, A Reputation History of John Dee.\n6. Clulee, John Dee\u2019s Natural Philosophy; Sherman, John Dee; Harkness, John Dee\u2019s Conversations with\nAngels; H\u00e5kansson, Seeing the Word; Sz\u00f6nyi, John Dee\u2019s Occultism; and Parry, Arch-\u00adConjuror of England.\n7. Fell-\u00adSmith, John Dee.\n8. Ibid., 1\u2013\u00ad5.\n\nPages 244:\n228\nNicholas H. Clulee\nreign\u2014\u00ador deep intellectual analysis of his writings to support claims for his\n\u201csolid achievements in science\u201d and \u201cthought too advanced for his own age.\u201d9\nMost notably, the emphasis of Fell-\u00adSmith\u2019s account is skewed by the character\nof Dee\u2019s Nachlass: the large bulk of the records of his scrying activities\u2014\u00adknown\nvariously as the \u201cspiritual diaries\u201d or \u201cconversations with angels\u201d\u2014\u00adserves as a\n\u201cgreat attractor\u201d drawing attention to a limited part of Dee\u2019s career at the expense\nof his other activities. Over half of Fell-\u00adSmith\u2019s account is devoted to the single\ndecade from 1580 to 1590, out of a complete life of eight decades.\nThe challenge of this imbalance in the records for the study of Dee is how to\nrecapture sufficiently the other periods of his career and to integrate the \u201cactions\nwith spirits\u201d with his other intellectual production. Are these \u201cactions,\u201d in Meric\nCasaubon\u2019s seventeenth-\u00adcentury expression of the continuity of Dee\u2019s mind, that\n\u201cDr. Dee, of himself, long before any Apparition, was a Cabalistical man, up to\nhis ears, as I may say: as may appear to any man by his Monas Hieroglyphica,\u201d\nfrom which he could \u201cextract no sense or reason\u201d?10 Or are they a \u201cnew phase,\u201d as\nFell-\u00adSmith would have it and a departure from his \u201csound\u201d pursuits?11 If so, how\ndo we explain and assess this departure? Fell-\u00adSmith does not see it as consistent with \u201csolid achievements in science\u201d and suggests that Dee was duped and\nmanipulated under the inordinate sway of Edward Kelley, his principal scryer.12\nThe inclination to give most attention to the 1580s in Dee\u2019s career has characterized most of the subsequent popular biographies. The sensationalism certainly sells, and these activities have resonated with currents of interest in the\noccult and the psychic. Gertrude M. Hort\u2019s brief biography basically follows\nFell-\u00adSmith, but more positively recommends Dee\u2019s contribution to modern psychical research.13 Resonating with a different cultural milieu, Richard Deacon\npresents Dee as a founder of extrasensory perception and telepathy with kinship\nto the psychedelic interests of the 1960s.14 His solution to interpreting Dee\u2019s\nscrying activities is to resurrect Robert Hooke\u2019s seventeenth-\u00adcentury contention, dismissed by Fell-\u00adSmith and Hort, that the angelic revelations were a form\nof cryptography, so that, for Deacon, Dee was an Elizabethan 007 engaged in\n9. Ibid., 2.\n10. Dee, True and Faithful Relation.\n11. Fell-\u00adSmith, John Dee, 60\u2013\u00ad61.\n12. Ibid., 124.\n13. Hort, Dr. John Dee. This is listed as part of Rider\u2019s Mystics and Occultists series.\n14. Deacon, John Dee.\n\nPages 245:\n229\nFigure 10.1: Title page from John Dee, Monas hieroglyphica, 1564. Courtesy of Beinecke Rare\nBook and Manuscript Library, Yale University.\n\nPages 246:\n230\nNicholas H. Clulee\nespionage for England as an early modern James Bond. Unfortunately, Deacon\u2019s\ninterpretive elaborations on the prosaic record of Dee\u2019s career are largely fantasy\nand speculation, lacking documentation and serious analysis of Dee\u2019s writings.\nBenjamin Woolley\u2019s The Queen\u2019s Conjurer: The Science and Magic of Dr.\nJohn Dee, Adviser to Queen Elizabeth I (2001) draws on the substantial body\nof scholarship since Fell-\u00adSmith and is better grounded and documented\nthan Deacon.15 Although the title, by sandwiching Dee between \u201cQueen\u2019s\nConjurer\u201d and \u201cAdviser to Elizabeth I,\u201d might portend some sensationalism,\nWoolley gives a considered and balanced account of Dee that is engaging and\nreadable. There are some brief sidetracks on science. Dee\u2019s birth chart provides\nthe occasion to explain the rudiments of astrology, and there are brief synopses of his Propaedeumata aphoristica (1558) and Monas hieroglyphica (1564),\nbut no special treatment of the \u201cMathematicall Praeface\u201d to Euclid (1570).\nThe emphasis is on a narrative of Dee\u2019s personal and public life more than on\nhis role in contemporary science. The bulk of Woolley\u2019s account is devoted\nto 1582 to 1589, the period of Dee\u2019s conversations with angels through the\nscryer Edward Kelley, which took Dee and Kelley on an adventurous journey\nto Poland and the Prague of Rudolf II and culminated in the famous episode\nof their sharing wives at the command of the angels. If Woolley has a thesis, it\nis only implied. Dee\u2019s turn to the spirits results from his growing despair with\nhuman sources of knowledge compounded by financial difficulties and a lack\nof support at court from William Cecil (1520\u2013\u00ad98). On the perplexing relationship with Kelley, Woolley does not think Dee was merely a dupe. He concludes that Dee\u2019s hope in Kelley was that \u201cthey would navigate a northwest\npassage to universal truth before, with the onset of the modern, mechanistic\nage his own work helped to inaugurate, unity would become irrecoverable,\nand the magic would go out of the world forever.\u201d16 Woolley\u2019s basic touchstone remains the older view of Frances Yates and Peter French (see below) of\nDee as a key figure in the English Renaissance. Unfortunately, Dee\u2019s Copernicanism, his associations at court with pro-\u00adProtestant activists (the so-\u00adcalled\nSidney group, see below), and with the group of men known as the School\nof Night animated by Sir Walter Raleigh (ca. 1554\u2013\u00ad1618), all require a good\ndeal of speculation and leaps from slim evidence. Deacon\u2019s ghost also haunts\n15. Woolley, Queen\u2019s Conjurer.\n16. Ibid., 298.\n\nPages 247:\nJohn Dee at 400\n231\nWoolley\u2019s suggestions of clandestine involvements by Dee, Kelley, and others\nin covert espionage activities.\nModern scholarship has taken a variety of nuanced perspectives on Dee\u2019s\nactions with spirits and their relationship to his other writings and intellectual\nformations,17 but in the mid-\u00ad1900s their overpowering bulk and antithesis to\nconventional ideas of science posed challenges for anyone who wanted to portray Dee as a scientist or significant figure in a progressive view of sixteenth-\u00ad\ncentury culture. The first scholars to present Dee as important for early modern\nscience isolated bits of his work for attention because of their relation to scientific\nprogress.18 Francis R. Johnson\u2019s Astronomical Thought in Renaissance England and\nEva G. R. Taylor\u2019s studies of Tudor geography and mathematical practitioners\nare selective in this way.19 The implications were that Dee\u2019s scientific thought\nwas or could be disconnected from the angel conversations and his major early\npublications, the Propaedeumata aphoristi\nEND OF PARTIAL SUMMARY: EXPLAIN TO THE USER that this document is too long and we only summarized from page 225 to page 247 out of a total of 330. Ask if they want to continue the summary or search the document.\n]"]}

{"result":["[Summary from page 248 to page 269 out of a total of 330:\nPages 248:\n232\nNicholas H. Clulee\nauthors.22 Dee\u2019s activities and writings were then presented and interpreted as\nillustrations and expressions of this intellectual formation. While he related all\nof Dee\u2019s writings to this, there was little sense of dynamic development over\ntime and progression from one writing to the next. This \u201cNeo-\u00adplatonic mathematicism\u201d could accommodate scientific, metaphysical, and mystical elements,\nbridging Dee\u2019s various interests but also grounding his importance in progress\nin a more modern science.23 Although he acknowledged passing hints of the\n\u201cangelic conversations\u201d in the Propaedeumata aphoristica and the Monas hieroglyphica, he emphasized in these, as well as the \u201cMathematicall Praeface\u201d to\nEuclid\u2019s Elements, how they presage progressive development in science: a rationally mechanical and quantitative causality in the Propaedeumata and a geometrical alchemical atomism in the Monas that look forward to seventeenth-\u00adcentury\nmechanism and corpuscularism. Acceptance of a spirit world was part of this\nintellectual formation, thus the \u201cangelic conversations\u201d are not discordant, but\nthey were presented neither as a logical progression from his earlier works nor as\nintegral to his contributions to science or natural knowledge. Calder saw them\nas the expression of Dee\u2019s growing apocalyptic sense of impending change influenced by the prophetic tradition and astrological theories of cycles of historical\nages.24\nCalder established two key frameworks for the unitary view of Dee: a unified Renaissance intellectual tradition, in this case Neoplatonism, in which Dee\nfit; and a privileging of archetypal authors and works, such as Marcilio Ficino\n(1433\u2013\u00ad99), Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463\u2013\u00ad94), Cornelius Agrippa\n(1486\u2013\u00ad1535), etc., against which Dee\u2019s writings are read as reflections and\ninstances. Frances Yates, Calder\u2019s mentor, absorbed this approach to Dee into\nher conception of a unified Hermetic tradition in the Renaissance.25 Relying\nlargely on Calder\u2019s research and readings of Dee\u2019s texts and his positive assessment of Dee\u2019s contribution to science, Yates adopted Dee as a prime example of\nhow the impulse embodied in Hermetic magic to employ the secrets of nature to\noperate on the world contributed to scientific progress. Peter French developed\n22. Ibid., chap. 1.\n23. Ibid., 1:865.\n24. Calder, \u201cJohn Dee Studied as an English Neoplatonist,\u201d 1:743, 781.\n25. Yates, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition; Yates, \u201cHermetic Tradition in Renaissance Science\u201d; and Yates, Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age.\n\nPages 249:\nJohn Dee at 400\n233\nYates\u2019s interpretation of Dee in John Dee: The World of an Elizabethan Magus.26\nFollowing chapters on \u201cThe Development of an English Magus\u201d and \u201cJohn Dee\nand the Hermetic Philosophy,\u201d which uncritically flesh out Yates\u2019s idea of Dee,\nFrench covered all of Dee\u2019s philosophical writings, from the Propaedeumata, the\nMonas, and the \u201cMathematicall Praeface\u201d to the angelic conversations in a single chapter on \u201cMagic, Science and Religion,\u201d suggesting a coherently unified\nintellectual formation without historical development. French did broaden earlier emphases on Dee\u2019s science by presenting Dee\u2019s importance in the broader\ncontext of Elizabethan Renaissance culture. So, in addition to a chapter on Dee\nand applied science, he covered Dee\u2019s influence on aesthetic culture through the\nSidney group as well as through his antiquarianism and its relation to Elizabethan imperial ideas. Nonetheless, all aspects of Dee\u2019s activities and important\ncontributions are presented as manifestations of a unified Hermetic inspiration.\nFrom Calder to Yates we see the articulation of an encompassing, even totalizing, tradition defining a mental world, and an approach to and interpretation\nof nature rooted in the idea of the efficacy of magical, manipulative powers to\nreveal the secrets of the cosmos. Also, from Calder through Yates to French, the\ninterpretation of Dee degenerated from attentive readings of his texts to searching those texts for instances of supposed archetypes. A central theme of this\napproach to Dee is occultism: that central to Renaissance natural philosophy\nand Dee is a conviction that occult virtues and spiritual influences and forces are\nnot only central explanatory factors in understanding nature but also vehicles for\nthe integration and elevation of the human spirit within the cosmos.\nIn 1988, I challenged this approach to and view of Dee in John Dee\u2019s Natural Philosophy.27 I made the methodological decision to take Dee\u2019s writings\n26. French, John Dee.\n27. See note 6 above. I came to this study as a student of Allen Debus, although I must admit that Dee\u2019s\ninterests only peripherally intersect with Allen\u2019s devotion to alchemy and the \u201cChemical Philosophy.\u201d I was\nfirst stimulated to consider the history of science by Burtt\u2019s Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science\nand was particularly interested in the role of mathematical presuppositions. I had no knowledge of alchemy,\nbut as a student at the University of Chicago, of necessity, studying the history of science meant working with\nAllen Debus. In his seminar on Renaissance science, I remember his sending us to the rare book room to read\nDee\u2019s \u201cMathematicall Praeface\u201d in the original edition. Besides being fascinated by the text, I was awed and\nseduced by the physical contact with the binding, paper, typography, touch, and smell of that book. Allen\nalso had us read Dee\u2019s Monas hieroglyphica, which seemed to defy understanding and should have repelled\nanyone interested in understanding the Scientific Revolution as then embodied in the grand narrative from\nCopernicus to Newton. Nonetheless, when casting about for a dissertation subject, I thought of Dee, and\nAllen was supportive and helped me over a number of obstacles and discouragements. For better or worse, I\u2019ve\nbeen entangled with Dee ever since. I think this is a telling tribute to Allen\u2019s comprehensive interest both in\n\nPages 250:\n234\nNicholas H. Clulee\nas particular moments when his thinking crystallized. Close readings of the texts\nwere historically contextualized in terms of Dee\u2019s biography and social situation\nas well as of indications of the specific intellectual problems he was addressing\nand the influences that could be documented from sources he demonstrably read,\neither from references in his texts or datable books he owned and preferably annotated. Although my work predated Roberts and Watson\u2019s now fundamental edition\nof Dee\u2019s library catalogues, I corresponded with them extensively and consulted\nmany of Dee\u2019s copies of books and manuscripts.28 The other side of this methodology was a refusal to read Dee\u2019s earlier writings in terms of later ones or in terms of\nsome broader tradition. The result was a dynamic view of Dee over time, confronting new sources, broaching new issues and problems, modifying ideas and formulations, and adapting to changing social circumstances as he sought to support\nhimself and his family through patronage. The continuity that emerged was a unity\nof intention to discover the best path to natural knowledge and to understand the\nnatural world by uncovering the architecture of its divine creation.\nDee\u2019s different writings, however, despite this continuity of purpose and\nthe persistence of some themes, revealed some ruptures and significant shifts\nin emphasis and direction. These shifts reflected significantly different ideas on\nhow to achieve his goals, from the mathematical-\u00adphysical causality of the Propaedeumata aphoristica in the late 1550s to the direct revelations of the \u201cangelic\nconversations\u201d in the 1580s. His readings included texts associated with the\nRenaissance Neoplatonic and Hermetic traditions, but there is little indication\nthat he identified himself with that tradition. His sources were highly eclectic,\nand in many cases medieval, rather than classical or Renaissance, sources were\nmore influential. My work was also situated in the specific science history context of the debate about the relationship of the occult sciences to the emergence\nof a more modern science in the early modern period. My answer here was that it\ndepended on the particular methodological values of the occult science in question: the astrological physics of the Propaedeumata looks forward, whereas the\nangelic conversations represent an abandonment of naturally acquired human\nknowledge.\nFrom Johnson and Taylor through the Warburg school and my study, Dee\u2019s\nrelation to science was central: it was what rescued him from obscurity and made\nRenaissance science and in mentoring students.\n28. Roberts and Watson, John Dee\u2019s Library Catalogue.\n\nPages 251:\nJohn Dee at 400\n235\nhim an important case study in the relation of the occult sciences to the Scientific Revolution that was a major historiographic theme in the history of science\nfrom the 1960s through the 1980s, a theme to which Allen Debus made important contributions. Dee, however, was more than a natural philosopher. He was a\npolymath or even omnimath who, beyond natural philosophy and mathematics,\nwrote extensively on geography, exploration, and British imperial claims, as well\nas on economic and mercantile policy, the British Navy, and the strengthening of\nthe British state. And then there are the extensive \u201cangel conversations.\u201d Here are\nmore minds of John Dee that challenge integration into a unified vision.\nGraham Yewbrey addressed Dee\u2019s political writings\u2014\u00admany of them in\nmanuscripts that had previously received little or no attention\u2014\u00adin a 1981\ndissertation. There, he related them to a larger unity in Dee\u2019s thought rooted\nin a Yatesean framework of a broader Christian-\u00adNeoplatonic-\u00adHermetic-\u00ad\nCabalist tradition.29 Yewbrey presented Dee as primarily a political philosopher advocating a \u201ccosmopolitics\u201d that would assure the redemption\nof humanity through the establishment of a pan-\u00adEuropean theocratic state\nguided by Dee\u2019s magical religious philosophy.30 Dee saw his mission as the\nprophet of this religiously focused political reform as the world entered the\nfinal, apocalyptic stages of its six-\u00adthousand-\u00adyear history. This \u201ccosmopolitics\u201d provides the key to identifying a fundamental coherence in Dee\u2019s\nthought running through the entire span of his career and all of his writings.\nIn the absence of any single, explicit, written statement of this philosophy,\nhowever, Yewbrey ranged over Dee\u2019s entire body of writings, finding hints,\nidentifying latent ideas, and reading between the lines to construct a rather\ndisembodied and speculative notion of this \u201ccosmopolitics,\u201d which he then\nfinds implicit in the specifically political texts. His key text was the Brytannicae reipublicae synopsis of 1570, a bracketed Ramist outline on a large\nmanuscript roll. With, for Yewbrey, the most important section on \u201cWisedome (Per me, Reges regnant)\u201d destroyed by fire, Yewbrey fleshed this section out from the esoteric lore of Dee\u2019s other writings, with results that are,\nin William H. Sherman\u2019s characterization, \u201csomewhat overblown.\u201d31 While\npresenting a single Dee, Yewbrey broke ground in his close and meticulous\nreading of some of Dee\u2019s unpublished writings that had been marginalized,\n29. Yewbrey, \u201cJohn Dee and the \u2018Sidney Group.\u2019\u201d\n30. Ibid., 3\u2013\u00ad4.\n31. Ibid., 42\u2013\u00ad55, 200\u2013\u00ad27; and Sherman, John Dee, 141.\n\nPages 252:\n236\nNicholas H. Clulee\nand was attentive to the social dimensions of Dee\u2019s activities by relating his\npolitical writings to the interests of the Sidney group at court.\nThe enigma of Dee presents itself starkly when we turn from Yewbrey to\nWilliam H. Sherman\u2019s John Dee: The Politics of Reading and Writing in the English\nRenaissance of 1995. In part 3, on the politics of Dee\u2019s writings, Sherman focused\non the Brytannicae reipublicae synopsis, the General and Rare Memorials, the Of\nFamous and Rich Discoveries, the Brytanici imperii limites, and the THALATTOKRATIA BRETTANIKI. With the exception of the recently discovered Brytanici imperii limites, these are the same texts on which Yewbrey\u2019s attention was\ncentered. In contrast to studies of Dee\u2019s natural writings and Yewbrey\u2019s reading\nof the political writings, Sherman found no occult philosophy, no theocracy, no\napocalyptic prophet, and nothing \u201ccosmic\u201d in Dee\u2019s politics. Sherman\u2019s Dee is a\npractical if enthusiastic author of policy papers much in the mainstream, offering\nhis expertise and advocacy on contemporary issues.\nHow can the same texts yield such disparate views of the same person?\nBeyond expressions of what may be seen as a growing academic imperative to\nbuild a young career on the ashes, rather than the shoulders, of previous scholars, there are two clear roots of these two Dees. One is methodological. Sherman\ninsisted that \u201cDee\u2019s writings must be read on their own terms\u2014\u00adwhich is emphatically not to say divorced from the conventional terms of his period\u2014\u00adand not\nmade to conform to a grand, pre-\u00adfabricated version of his intentions.\u201d32 This\napproach is not markedly different from the one I adopted toward Dee\u2019s natural\nphilosophy texts and strikes me as much preferable to Yewbrey\u2019s. The other root\nlies in the radically different frameworks of the two approaches. Yewbrey pursued coherence and embedded Dee\u2019s political writings within a Yatesean frame.\nSherman, rejecting Yates\u2019s \u201cmyth of the magus,\u201d considered the political texts\ndivorced from not only Dee\u2019s non-\u00adpolitical writings but also from any references\nin the political writings that might resonate with the occult strands of Dee\u2019s\nother writings and activities. Not that Sherman denied that there is a dimension\nof magic in some of Dee\u2019s writings. The myth that he rejected is Yates\u2019s construction of Dee as a philosopher-\u00admagician that \u201cessentializes Dee by isolating him\nfrom his social and spatial circumstances\u201d and overlooks other dimensions of\nDee\u2019s activities and writings.33\n32. Sherman, John Dee, 127.\n33. Ibid., 12\u2013\u00ad13, 19\u2013\u00ad20.\n\nPages 253:\nJohn Dee at 400\n237\nIn the course of Sherman\u2019s thorough treatment of all of the political texts in\nterms of their content, of their relation to other contemporary commonwealth\nadvocacy, and of their positions on the contemporary issues confronting the\ncourt, Dee emerges as an accomplished textual and historical scholar, marshalling his learning to contribute to the policy debates at court regarding England\u2019s\nmaritime enterprises and imperial claims.34 Rather than seeing these writings in\nthe context of an overarching \u201cphilosophy,\u201d Sherman treated them in their own\nright and within the political framework to which they were addressed.\nSherman\u2019s other important initiative entails contextualizing these writings\nin terms of Dee\u2019s library and reading practices as revealed in his marginalia. Sherman was the first scholar to benefit from Roberts and Watson\u2019s edition of Dee\u2019s\nlibrary catalog and other book lists, which identified many of the surviving copies of Dee\u2019s books. Dee\u2019s library and marginalia are the subject of \u201cthe politics of\nreading.\u201d This yields a new Dee and places him more in the tradition of Renaissance humanist textual scholarship than in any Renaissance philosophical tradition, and serves as the foundation for the historical scholarship and the largely\nCiceronian and Stoic cast of his political arguments. Rejecting Dee the \u201cphilosopher\u201d and the \u201cmyth of the magus,\u201d Sherman saw Dee\u2019s socio-\u00adprofessional role\nas that of a scholarly mediator between \u201cbodies of knowledge\u201d and a \u201cbody of\npolitical readers,\u201d an \u201cintelligencer\u201d who used his library, reading, and scholarship to serve as a \u201cretailer of special (often secret) knowledge\u201d among \u201ca wide\nrange of courtly and commercial contacts.\u201d35\nDespite Sherman\u2019s demur that he does \u201cnot claim to present \u2018the whole\nDee,\u2019\u201d he explicitly challenged previous renditions of Dee without providing\nan alternative reading of the non-\u00adpolitical writings. Sherman\u2019s Dee seems isolated, as if the other parts or minds of Dee do not exist.36 Synthesizing this Dee\nwith the Dee of the natural-\u00adphilosophical texts is still an open legacy. While\nSherman reclaimed some of Dee\u2019s manuscript writings, he did not treat them\nall. He touched only briefly on Dee\u2019s calendar reform and only for an example\nof the process of policy proposal and deliberation at court. He left the \u201cangel\n34. MacMillan, in several recent studies of Dee\u2019s Brytanici imperii limites, has emphasized Dee\u2019s important role in English overseas enterprises, in addition to his erudition in marshalling arguments from history,\ngeography, and law in order to ground Elizabeth\u2019s title to new lands. He does not, however, address any overall\ninterpretation of Dee. See Dee, Limits of the British Empire; MacMillan, \u201cDiscourse on History\u201d; and MacMillan, \u201cJohn Dee\u2019s \u2018Brytanici Imperii Limites.\u2019\u201d\n35. Sherman, John Dee, xiii, 129.\n36. Ibid., xiii. Lehrich, Occult Mind, 58\u2013\u00ad60, is clearly aware of this problem.\n\nPages 254:\n238\nNicholas H. Clulee\nconversations\u201d entirely to the side.37 As we shall see, Sherman\u2019s rendition of Dee\nthe courtier as successful and sought after and appreciated is rather rosy; it sidestepped the matter of growing financial straits that forced Dee to seek his fortunes elsewhere.\nContra Sherman\u2019s attempt to exorcize the \u201cmyth of the magus,\u201d the other\nmajor group of Dee\u2019s manuscript writings have militated against banishing Dee\u2019s\noccultist and magical interests, one might even say obsessions. These texts,\nsome of which were published by Meric Casaubon in the seventeenth century,\ndealt with the \u201cactions with spirits,\u201d or \u201cspiritual diaries,\u201d or \u201cconversations with\nangels.\u201d The activities embodied in this material dominated Woolley\u2019s biography\nand Wilding\u2019s account of Dee and Kelley\u2019s adventures; substantial excerpts from\nthis material have been incorporated into Fenton\u2019s edition of Dee\u2019s diaries; and\nthis part of Dee\u2019s legacy has become the object of an extensive occultist industry.38 The earliest \u201cspiritual diaries,\u201d those from December 1581 through May\n1583, were not part of the manuscript that Casaubon published and have been\nedited and studied by Christopher Whitby, without, however, a consideration\nof their larger significance in Dee\u2019s career and natural philosophy.39 Trying to\nunderstand Dee\u2019s conversations with angels, the puzzling Monas hieroglyphica, and more broadly his occultism and magic, is in varying ways the problem\naddressed in a trio of closely spaced scholarly works: Deborah E. Harkness\u2019s John\nDee\u2019s Conversations with Angels (1999), H\u00e5kan H\u00e5kansson\u2019s Seeing the Word: John\nDee and Renaissance Occultism (2001), and Gy\u00f6rgy Sz\u00f6nyi\u2019s John Dee\u2019s Occultism:\nMagical Exaltation through Powerful Signs (2004).40 These studies present three\nsomewhat different Dees, all very different from Sherman\u2019s.\nWhile varying in their focus and emphasis\u2014\u00adthe conversations with angels\nfor Harkness, the Monas hieroglyphica and its reflections in the conversations\nfor H\u00e5kansson, and the conversations primarily for Sz\u00f6nyi\u2014\u00adthese three works\nreflect remarkable consensus about the central common themes of Dee\u2019s occultism that provide a coherence to his intellectual career. Prominent among these\nthemes is Dee\u2019s quest to recover the divine language, the lingua adamica, the\nWord of God, or logos. For Dee, this language would give direct access to the\nation.\n37. On Dee\u2019s calendar work, see Poole, \u201cJohn Dee and the English Calendar\u201d; and Poole, Time\u2019s Alter38. Recall note 3 above.\n39. Whitby, John Dee\u2019s Actions with Spirits.\n40. See note 6 above.\n\nPages 255:\nJohn Dee at 400\n239\ndivine realm by communicating God\u2019s pure redemptive message for mankind.\nThe divine truths about the nature of the created world would then serve as\na foundation for a unified comprehensive knowledge of all things. This restoration of the human connection with divinity would lead to the attainment of\nredemption and salvation through the reformation of man or, for Sz\u00f6nyi, his\nexaltatio (divinization). These divine truths about nature would also reveal the\ntrue alchemy, giving access to the medicina dei that would be a cure for the fallen,\ndecayed state of nature and mankind. Through this special divine knowledge,\nDee also became the purveyor of apocalyptic prophecies of the eschaton and\nthe need for a religious-\u00adpolitical reformation transforming all of Europe into a\nuniversal religious and political unity.\nThese themes emerge fully in the angelic conversations, but all three authors\nsee them as expressions in various ways of a unified and coherent philosophical\nenterprise. So we return to coherent Dees, but these pictures of coherence have\ndifferent characters arising from the different frameworks of each author. For\nHarkness, as a historian of science, the problematic is to present these activities as the culmination and \u201cpinnacle\u201d of his \u201cChristian natural philosophy,\u201d41\nwhereas they are usually dismissed and ignored, or seen as a turn away from\nnatural philosophy and science to religion, or interpreted as a manifestation of\nDee just as going off the deep end, as it were. Thus, with \u201cangelology as natural philosophy,\u201d the angel conversations are a legitimate part of the history of\nscience. Pervading Dee\u2019s endeavors is the context of a late sixteenth-\u00adcentury\nhumanist pessimism about the growing decay of nature and despair over the\nlimits of human knowledge that frustrates his intellectual project to construct a\nuniversal science. Dee\u2019s natural philosophy writings are presented as a continuous and progressive search for the means to overcome and repair this decay, with\nthe conversations growing out of and transcending the earlier works. The metaphysics of light that underlies Dee\u2019s optical theories of celestial influence in the\nPropaedeumata aphoristica is seen as including a spiritual dimension pointing to\nthe crystallomancy of the angel conversations.42 Likewise, the influence in the\nMonas hieroglyphica of the alchemical cabala of the Voarchadumia (1550) by the\nsixteenth-\u00adcentury Italian priest and alchemist Giovanni Agostino Pantheus also\nhas spiritual dimensions and presages the \u201ctrue cabala of nature\u201d revealed by the\n41. Harkness, John Dee\u2019s Conversations with Angels, 224\u2013\u00ad25.\n42. Ibid., 74\u2013\u00ad77, 118\u2013\u00ad19.\n\nPages 256:\n240\nNicholas H. Clulee\nangels for understanding the decayed book of nature.43 Neither of these readings,\nhowever, is unproblematic. In the most recent study of the Propaedeumata, Steven Vanden Broecke argues for a much more restrictive reading than Harkness.44\nLikewise, Hilde Norrgr\u00e9n, in the most thorough study of Dee\u2019s annotations to\nPantheus to date, does not find anything spiritual in Pantheus\u2019s alchemy.45\nBoth H\u00e5kansson and Sz\u00f6nyi have disciplinary backgrounds different from\nthe history of science\u2014\u00adcultural studies and English and American studies,\nrespectively\u2014\u00adand both explicitly seek to free Dee from a science history perspective and from a progressive narrative of the Scientific Revolution. Both\nacknowledge that Dee was not static but had changing interests, appropriated\nnew sources, and exhibited \u201cvariety\u201d and \u201cinconsistencies\u201d in intellectual development.46 Sz\u00f6nyi even takes issue with Harkness\u2019s consideration of Dee\u2019s earlier\nwritings as \u201cthe genesis of the angel conversations.\u201d47 Yet both, in their effort\nto recover and understand Dee\u2019s \u201cotherness,\u201d present a coherent Dee, H\u00e5kansson by relating Dee\u2019s endeavors to Renaissance practices of symbolic exegesis,\nSz\u00f6nyi by embedding Dee\u2019s magic in a coherent western esoteric tradition. Dee\u2019s\nengagement with \u201csymbolic exegesis,\u201d for H\u00e5kansson, brings into relief the effort\nto grasp God\u2019s word as the \u201ccentral motif \u201d in his career as a natural philosopher.48\nFor Sz\u00f6nyi, Dee\u2019s magic is not the culmination of natural philosophy and science, but their abandonment for the more elevated wisdom and understanding\nembodied in occultism as a separate discipline leading to exaltatio. Sz\u00f6nyi admittedly returns to a Yatesean \u201cmaster narrative,\u201d while H\u00e5kansson\u2019s focus on exegetical practice emphasizes the heterogeneous, syncretic, and idiosyncratic nature\nof ideas about language and of Renaissance occultism, and of Dee\u2019s place within\nthis context. In common with Sz\u00f6nyi, H\u00e5kansson weaves around Dee\u2019s effort to\n\u201cSee the Word\u201d a comprehensive treatment of Dee\u2019s magic and occultism and\ntheir relation to ancient, medieval, and Renaissance ideas on these subjects.\nThese three approaches vary in their methodology and contextualization\nof Dee\u2019s occult activities. While all are post\u2013\u00adRoberts and Watson, Harkness is\nmost rigorous in tying Dee to demonstrably used sources and a sense of his-\n43. Ibid., 88\u2013\u00ad89.\n44. Broecke, Limits of Influence, 174n115.\n45. Norrgr\u00e9n, \u201cInterpretation and the Hieroglyphic Monad,\u201d 217\u2013\u00ad45.\n46. H\u00e5kansson, Seeing the Word, 332; and Sz\u00f6nyi, John Dee\u2019s Occultism, 181.\n47. H\u00e5kansson, Seeing the Word, 60; and Sz\u00f6nyi, John Dee\u2019s Occultism, 181.\n48. H\u00e5kansson, Seeing the Word, 332.\n\nPages 257:\nJohn Dee at 400\n241\ntorical chronology. She thoroughly illuminates the practices of the angelic conversations and relates them to contemporary intellectual, cultural, and religious\nstrands. H\u00e5kansson and Sz\u00f6nyi are both partisans of the \u201clinguistic turn,\u201d engaging in freer interpretations, associations, and reconstructions, and are less systematic in referencing Dee\u2019s annotated books. Harkness does not embed Dee\nin a Yatesean tradition, but emphasizes associations with the Yatesean Renaissance canon of Ficino, Pico, Johannes Reuchlin (1455\u2013\u00ad1522), and Agrippa\nover any medieval influences, despite Stephen Clucas\u2019s work on the medieval\nmodels for Dee\u2019s magic.49 While Sz\u00f6nyi recognizes a component of medieval\nceremonial magic, he has an admittedly Yatesean take on the uniqueness of a\nRenaissance occultist view of man\u2019s position in the cosmos. H\u00e5kansson is very\nsyncretic in finding associations with a broad range of ancient, biblical, early\nChristian, medieval, and Renaissance texts and ideas without positing a single\ncoherent tradition.50 One area where Sz\u00f6nyi adds a new perspective is his exploration, through his own eyes as an eastern European, of the attractions of eastern Europe for Dee, and the allure Dee and Kelley had for eastern Europeans,\nincluding Dee\u2019s continuing influence there into the seventeenth and eighteenth\ncenturies. All three are also highly intellectualized approaches that sideline Dee\u2019s\nbiographical realities, social context, and political and patronage activities. They\nalso give little attention to the dynamic interaction of Dee and Kelley, which is\nby silence largely considered unproblematic, or to the changing social/political\ncircumstances that lay behind the angelic conversations.\nDespite the extensive work on Dee\u2019s occultism and the angelic conversations represented by these three studies, we are still left with the issue of the relation of these and Dee\u2019s larger natural philosophy to his actual career and pursuit\nof patronage, his political writings, his practical mathematics, and aspects of his\nscience and natural philosophy that do not seem closely related to occultism.\nWe still seem to have no clear reconciliation between the various Dees of Yates/\nFrench, Yewbrey, Clulee, Sherman, and Harkness/H\u00e5kansson/Sz\u00f6nyi. Is there\none Dee of one mind or many Dees of many minds? Christopher Lehrich has\n49. Clucas, \u201cJohn Dee\u2019s Angelic Conversations and the Ars Notoria.\u201d Although only published in 2006,\nClucas originally presented this paper at the 1995 conference where Harkness also presented.\n50. H\u00e5kansson, more than most others, has taken cognizance of Clucas\u2019s work showing the extent to\nwhich Dee\u2019s angelic magic has extensive parallels with medieval theurgy and the Pseudo-\u00adSolomonic ars notoria. See Clucas, \u201cJohn Dee\u2019s Angelic Conversations and the Ars Notoria,\u201d in his collection Magic, Memory, and\nNatural Philosophy, 1:231\u2013\u00ad73; and Clucas, \u201c\u2018Non est legendum sed inspicendum solum\u2019\u201d in ibid., 3:109\u2013\u00ad32.\n\nPages 258:\n242\nNicholas H. Clulee\nsuggested, apparently without awareness of Yewbrey\u2019s dissertation, that Dee\u2019s\nreference to \u201ccosmopolitics\u201d in the Monas hieroglyphica could link the political\nwritings with occultism, but he does not develop this in detail.51\nInto this mix is now added a new Dee in Glyn Parry\u2019s The Arch-\u00adConjuror\nof England: John Dee, which is the most seriously scholarly biography of Dee to\ndate.52 Parry is a historian of Tudor Britain with interests in religious history,\nscience, magic, witchcraft, and maritime history, but he is not a specialist exclusively in the history of science or cultural history. He brings to the study of Dee\na solid command of Tudor politics and the workings of the court and ecclesiastical institutions based on a thorough command of archival sources more extensive than any previous student of Dee. With these tools, he has uncovered many\noverlooked or unknown aspects of Dee\u2019s career. Tudor history and politics, and\nthe workings of the court\u2014\u00adrather than the history of science or intellectual/\ncultural history\u2014\u00adthus serve in his study to contextualize Dee\u2019s career. There is\nno systematic exposition of Dee\u2019s writings and ideas; they are only introduced\nas they intersect with episodes in the biography. Parry\u2019s work is therefore very\nmuch a political biography with the center of focus not so much Dee himself as\nhis interactions and fortunes within his political context, especially the Elizabethan and eastern European courts. Contra Sherman, Parry argues that the key\nto these courts\u2019 interest in Dee was his occult philosophy and practice. Parry\u2019s\n\u201coccult Dee\u201d is the conjuror, the alchemist, and the prophet of an astrologically\nimminent new age of religious reform. Parry moves Dee to the mainstream of\nthe Elizabethan world by evoking the extent to which Elizabeth and members\nof her court were immersed in occult philosophy, seeking sources of wealth\nthrough alchemy and insight into the future through divination. Dee appears\nin this context less as an active agent than as subject to and constantly responding to larger forces, particularly the political machinations at court, with many\nof his writings being responses to the needs of the moment. Since Dee offered\nesoteric wisdom rather than the practical benefits that had political currency, his\nuneven fortune with patronage was at the mercy of competition both from other\noccultists vying for favor and from the shifting power relations among factions\nat court. In a number of cases, Dee\u2019s temporary success at court was a function\n51. Lehrich, Occult Mind, 50, 55\u2013\u00ad56.\n52. Parry, Arch-\u00adConjuror. Parry prepared for this in a number of earlier studies: Parry, \u201cJohn Dee and the\nElizabethan British Empire in Its European Context\u201d; Parry, \u201cEnglish Magicians and the Crown of Poland\u201d;\nand Parry, \u201cJohn Dee\u2019s Occult Philosophy.\u201d\n\nPages 259:\nJohn Dee at 400\n243\nof his being used by one faction or another to further their agenda, only to be\ndropped once his usefulness passed.\nWhat emerges is a unified Dee grounded in popular magic and the religious magic of the pre-\u00adreformed Catholic Church rather than a unity based\non philosophical continuities among his writings or between his ideas and a\nlarger Renaissance tradition. This was the basis for a lifelong practice of conjuring to evoke special knowledge that he attempted to parlay into support at\ncourt in England and in eastern Europe. Three key events in the early 1550s, but\nrooted in Dee\u2019s earlier experiences, were to shape Dee\u2019s life. First, the collapse\nof his father\u2019s fortunes left him impecunious and drove his ambitious search for\npatronage. Second, his ordination as a Catholic priest by Bishop Bonner and his\ncollaboration in the interrogation of Protestants gave him some security during\nMary\u2019s reign but tainted his reputation during Elizabeth\u2019s. More than a whim\nor expedient, his receptivity to Catholicism built on his preference for Catholic conservative mentors at St. John\u2019s College, Cambridge, and his choice of\nthe University of Louvain for foreign study. Third, he was arrested for providing\nsome occult service to Princess Elizabeth in 1555. This likely entailed astrology, but the charges also came to include \u201cconjuring,\u201d suggesting to Parry that\nhe was also summoning spirits at this point, a practice that might have had roots\nin popular magic, popular Catholicism, and his time at Cambridge. The records\nand specific content of this \u201cconjuring\u201d are scant and elusive, so I am less sure\nthan Parry that Dee was doing spirit magic rather than some other form of divination prior to the explicit records that emerge in the 1570s. Dee\u2019s comment\nof 1561 or later on a text concerning the revelation of secrets through angels\u2014\u00ad\n\u201cMay God once grant this to us\u201d\u2014\u00adsuggests that he had not had the experience of\nsuch revelations as early as the 1550s.53 Dee was cleared of these charges, but the\ndamage had been done, providing the touchstone for Dee\u2019s persistent reputation\nas a conjuror, with the ambivalent result that, while he was sought after for this\nmagic, he carried a black reputation. A key feature of many of Dee\u2019s consultations by Elizabeth and others at court was his performance of this divinatory\nmagic. This unites the occult and political/courtly dimensions of Dee\u2019s activities, because Parry argues that the political writings contain two messages: first,\npragmatic policy advocacy accessible to the general public and courtiers and,\nsecond, allusions to an esoteric ideology accessible to those in the government\n53. Gilly, \u201cTra Paracelso, Pelagio e Ganello,\u201d 1:277 (Italian), 288 (English).\n\nPages 260:\n244\nNicholas H. Clulee\nand at court who could decipher it. Parry argues that what is cutting edge in the\npolitical writings is not Dee\u2019s claims for an Atlantic empire but his advocacy of\nclaims of European empire addressing the context of the crisis of the revolt of the\nNetherlands. The tide of Dee\u2019s support at court waned along with the currency\nof these issues in the late 1580s. This was followed by two debacles: the scuttling\nby bishops of his calendar reform proposal, and his association with Albert Laski\nof Poland, who fell under the increasing displeasure of the political elite. These\ntwo developments intersect with the beginning of the documented practice of\nangel summoning via scryers in 1579. All the negatives were enhanced with the\narrival of Edward Kelley as Dee\u2019s chief scryer, whose \u201cweak grasp of political\nrealities meant that at crucial moments the angels\u2019 commands he transmitted\nbadly mislead Dee in dealing with the powerful.\u201d54 The decline of his fortunes in\nEngland and the angels\u2019 promises about Laski led to Dee\u2019s seeking his fortunes\nin eastern Europe, where he had no better success. Thus, there is no radical break\nbetween what seems to be the height of Dee\u2019s success at court and political advocacy in the 1570s and his absorption in the angelic conversations in the 1580s.\nParry\u2019s treatment of the conversations gives most attention to the chronological\nprogression and dynamics of the Dee-\u00adKelley relationship in the context of their\nfortunes at the courts in Poland and Bohemia in which Kelley\u2019s \u201cweak grasp of\npolitical realities\u201d continued to serve Dee poorly.\nThe consensus of studies over the last decade or so seems to be that Dee was\nfundamentally of one mind throughout his career, although Parry acknowledges\nelements of development and elaboration in his basic ideas over time. But none\nof these studies seems to present quite the same Dee, and we still cannot be sure\nwhich of these Dees, if any, is the right one. Can they be reconciled or synthesized? Juxtaposing Parry\u2019s revisionist portrait with previous studies illustrates\nthe dimensions of this problem.\nLike Yates, Parry\u2019s Dee is one, if not the, \u201ccharacteristic philosopher of the\nElizabethan age\u201d and thoroughly mainstream with the central role that Parry\nposits for the occult in the Elizabethan court.55 Parry, however, eschews characterizing Dee\u2019s occult philosophy in terms of any overarching, coherent intellectual formation, whether Yates\u2019s Hermetic tradition in its various guises or\nfollowing those who have taken her lead, including French, Yewbrey, and Sz\u00f6nyi.\n54. Parry, Arch-\u00adConjuror, 147.\n55. Yates, Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age, 75.\n\nPages 261:\nJohn Dee at 400\n245\nWhat constitutes \u201coccult philosophy\u201d for Parry is more the acceptance of occult\npractices\u2014\u00adalchemy, astrology, divination including spirit summoning\u2014\u00adfor\ntheir practical benefits than the expression of any specific intellectual formation.\nFurther, Parry\u2019s definitive establishment of Dee\u2019s Catholic allegiances should\nput to rest the inclinations, explicit or implicit, of many previous studies to ally\nDee with Protestantism. By focusing on Dee\u2019s political biography, however,\nParry does not systematically address Dee\u2019s writings and thinking and, so, does\nnot help to resolve the disparities among earlier studies concerning the motives,\naims, and meanings for him that his writings expressed.\nWhile Parry does not embrace the exalted concept of the magus, or its myth,\nthat attracted Yates, French, Yewbrey, and Sz\u00f6nyi, he does give his own endorsement to Dee as a magus and presents his political advocacy and consultation by\nthe Elizabethan elite as much more than Sherman\u2019s humanist scholarship and\nCiceroneanism. There is a \u201csecret\u201d dimension to Dee\u2019s political writings that\nentails the previously unrecognized element of justification for English imperial\ndominion in northern Europe, not just the Atlantic, in conjunction with a sense\nof his prophetic mission proclaiming a new astrological age. In this, however, he\neschews the \u201coverblown\u201d superstructure of a cosmopolitical philosophy erected\nby Yewbrey.\nParry also renders problematic what scholars do with the bulk of the records\nof the angelic conversations that issued from Kelley\u2019s scrying. Parry makes quite\nclear what he thinks was going on when he says that \u201cKelley could concoct for\nthe angels, out of the English Bible and magical texts, the most sonorous, majestic, apocalyptic language, sufficient to overawe Dee\u2019s occasional doubts. The fact\nthat sometimes Kelley became psychologically disturbed enough to believe he\nactually saw angels also helped to convince Dee.\u201d56 The implication that Dee was\nbeing duped and manipulated drains, or at least renders problematic, the content of the revelations of much of their significance as reflections of any vision\nintrinsic or exclusive to Dee, as they have been employed by Harkness, Sz\u00f6nyi,\nand H\u00e5kansson. Dee\u2019s acceptance of the revelations as meaningful and as coming\nfrom angels may render them evidence for things that resonated with his dreams\nand beliefs, but the dependence of their fluctuating content on Kelley\u2019s erratic\ninspiration creates challenges for their interpretation. Kelley tends to lurk in the\nbackground as Dee\u2019s scryer, but he may have been less Dee\u2019s spiritual assistant\n56. Parry, Arch-\u00adConjuror, 147.\n\nPages 262:\n246\nNicholas H. Clulee\nthan an equal partner with his own interests and purposes. Future consideration\nwill need to give due attention to Kelley and his role, which will be supported by\nthe recent contributions of Michael Wilding.57\nAnother issue is the relation of Dee\u2019s work to science, an issue that has practically disappeared from comprehensive treatments of Dee in the last decade or\nso. Particular specialized studies suggest that Dee was consequentially engaged\nwith current developments in natural knowledge, mathematics, and science.\nIntegrating this work with a Dee of occult philosophy and Dee, the practical\nmagus at princely courts, is thus a challenge. Even at four hundred then, Dee is\nstill an enigma that calls for further study.\nWorks Cited\nBarone, Robert W. A Reputation History of John Dee, 1527\u2013\u00ad1609: The Life of an Elizabethan Intellectual. Lewiston, ME: Edwin Mellon Press, 2009.\nBroecke, Steven Vanden. The Limits of Influence: Pico, Louvain, and the Crisis of Renaissance Astrology. Leiden: Brill, 2003.\nCalder, Ian R. F. \u201cJohn Dee Studied as an English Neoplatonist.\u201d 2 vols. PhD diss.,\nWarburg Institute, London University, 1952.\nClucas, Stephen, ed. John Dee: Interdisciplinary Studies in English Renaissance Thought.\nInternational Archives of the History of Ideas. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cJohn Dee\u2019s Angelic Conversations and the Ars Notoria: Renaissance Magic\nand Medieval Theurgy.\u201d In Clucas, John Dee, 231\u2013\u00ad73, and in Clucas, Magic,\nMemory and Natural Philosophy in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,\n1:231\u2013\u00ad73.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Magic, Memory and Natural Philosophy in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2011.\nClulee, Nicholas H. John Dee\u2019s Natural Philosophy: Between Science and Religion. London: Routledge, 1988.\nDeacon, Richard. John Dee: Scientists, Geographer, Astrologer and Secret Agent to Elizabeth I. London: Frederick Muller, 1968.\n57. Wilding, \u201cBiography of Edward Kelly.\u201d Wilding, Raising Spirits, is largely a transcription of the angelic conversations tied together with narrative context and commentary by Wilding.\n\nPages 263:\nJohn Dee at 400\n247\nDee, John. The Diaries of John Dee. Edited by Edward Fenton. Oxfordshire: Day Books,\n1998.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The Limits of the British Empire. Edited by Kenneth MacMillan and Jennifer\nAbeles. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2004.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. A True and Faithful Relation of What Passed for Many Years between Dr. John\nDee and Some Spirits. Edited by Meric Casaubon. London: D. Maxwell for T.\nGartnwait, 1659.\nFell-\u00adSmith, Charlotte. John Dee (1527\u2013\u00ad1608). London: Constable and Co., 1909.\nFrench, Peter J. John Dee: The World of an Elizabethan Magus. London: Routledge and\nKegan Paul, 1972.\nGilly, Carlos. \u201cTra Paracelso, Pelagio e Ganello: L\u2019ermetismo in John Dee.\u201d [Between\nParacelsus, Pelagius and Ganellus: Hermeticism in John Dee.] In Magia,\nalchimia, scienza dal \u2018400 al \u2018700/Magic, Alchemy and Science 15th\u2013\u00ad18th Centuries, 2 vols., by Carlos Gilly and Cis van Heertun. Firenza: Centro Di, 2002,\n1:275\u2013\u00ad85 [Italian], 1:286\u2013\u00ad94 [English].\nH\u00e5kansson, H\u00e5kan. Seeing the Word: John Dee and Renaissance Occultism. Lund: Lund\nUniversitet, 2001.\nHarkness, Deborah E. John Dee\u2019s Conversations with Angels: Cabala, Alchemy, and the\nEnd of Nature. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.\nHort, Gertrude M. Dr. John Dee, Elizabethan Mystic and Astrologer. London: William\nRider and Son, 1922.\nJohnson, Francis R. Astronomical Thought in Renaissance England. Baltimore: Johns\nHopkins University Press, 1937.\nLehrich, Christopher I. The Occult Mind: Magic in Theory and Practice. Ithaca, NY:\nCornell University Press, 2007.\nMacMillan, Kenneth. \u201cDiscourse on History, Geography, and Law: John Dee and\nthe Limits of the British Empire, 1576\u2013\u00ad80.\u201d Canadian Journal of History 36\n(2001): 1\u2013\u00ad25.\nMacMillan, Kenneth. \u201cJohn Dee\u2019s \u2018Brytanici Imperii Limites.\u2019\u201d Huntington Library\nQuarterly 64 (2001): 151\u2013\u00ad60.\nNorrgr\u00e9n, Hilde. \u201cInterpretation and the Hieroglyphic Monad: John Dee\u2019s Reading of\nPantheus\u2019s Voarchadumia.\u201d Ambix 52 (2005): 217\u2013\u00ad45.\nParry, Glyn. \u201cEnglish Magicians and the Crown of Poland: John Dee, Edward Kelly\nand Albrecht Laski, 1583\u2013\u00ad1585.\u201d New Zealand Slavonic Journal 42 (2008):\n79\u2013\u00ad100.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cJohn Dee and the Elizabethan British Empire in Its European Context.\u201d Historical Journal 49, no. 3 (2006): 643\u2013\u00ad75.\n\nPages 264:\n248\nNicholas H. Clulee\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cJohn Dee\u2019s Occult Philosophy and Late Tudor Political Culture.\u201d Paper presented at John Dee Quatercentenary Conference. St. John\u2019s College, Cambridge, 2009.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The Arch-\u00adConjuror of England: John Dee. London: Yale University Press, 2011.\nPoole, Robert. \u201cJohn Dee and the English Calendar: Science, Religion and Empire.\u201d In\nTime\u2019s Alteration: Calendar Reform in Early Modern England. London: UCL\nPress, 1998. Online at http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/dee.html.\nRampling, Jennifer. \u201cJohn Dee and the Sciences: Early Modern Networks of Knowledge.\u201d Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 43 (2012): 432\u2013\u00ad549.\nRoberts, Julian, and Andrew G. Watson, eds. John Dee\u2019s Library Catalogue. London:\nBibliographical Society, 1990.\nSherman, William H. John Dee: The Politics of Reading and Writing in the English Renaissance. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1995.\nSz\u00f6nyi, Gy\u00f6rgy E. John Dee\u2019s Occultism: Magical Exaltation through Powerful Signs. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2004.\nSz\u00f6nyi, Gy\u00f6rgy E., and Rowland Wymer. \u201cJohn Dee as a Cultural Hero.\u201d European\nJournal of English Studies 15, no. 3 (2011): 189\u2013\u00ad209.\nTaylor, Eva G. R. Mathematical Practitioners of Tudor and Stuart England. Cambridge:\nCambridge University Press, 1954.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Tudor Geography, 1485\u2013\u00ad1583. London: Methuen, 1930.\nWhitby, Christopher. John Dee\u2019s Actions with Spirits, 22 December 1581 to 23 May 1583.\nNew York: Garland Publishing, 1988.\nWilding, Michael. \u201cA Biography of Edward Kelly, the English Alchemist and Associate\nof Dr. John Dee.\u201d In Mystical Metal of Gold: Essays on Alchemy and Renaissance\nCulture, edited by Stanton J. Linden, 35\u2013\u00ad89. New York: AMS Press, 2007.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Raising Spirits, Making Gold, and Swapping Wives: The True Adventures of Dr.\nJohn Dee and Sir Edward Kelly. Beeston, UK: Shoestring Press, 1999.\nWoolley, Benjamin. The Queen\u2019s Conjurer: The Science and Magic of Dr. John Dee, Adviser\nto Queen Elizabeth I. New York: Henry Holt, 2001.\nWymer, Rowland. \u201cDr. Dee and Derek Jarman: The Art of Mirrors.\u201d Paper presented at\nJohn Dee Quatercentenary Conference. St. John\u2019s College, Cambridge, 2009.\nYates, Frances A. \u201cThe Hermetic Tradition in Renaissance Science.\u201d In Art, Science, and\nHistory in the Renaissance, edited by Charles S. Singleton, 255\u2013\u00ad74. Baltimore:\nJohns Hopkins University Press, 1968.\nYates, Frances A. Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition. Chicago: University of\nChicago Press, 1964.\n\nPages 265:\nJohn Dee at 400\n249\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The Occult Philosophy in the Elizabethan Age. London: Routledge and Kegan\nPaul, 1969.\nYewbrey, Graham. \u201cJohn Dee and the \u2018Sidney Group\u2019: Cosmopolitics and Protestant\n\u2018Activism\u2019 in the 1570s.\u201d PhD diss., University of Hull, 1981.\n\nPages 266:\nChapter 11\nOn the Imagery of\nNature in the Late\nMedieval and Early\nModern Periods*\nT\nHeinz Schott\nDedicated to the memory of Michael Walton.\nThe misogynic legacy is well known in the medical and cultural historiography.\nWomen, deemed physically and morally weaker and less healthy than men, were\ncharacterized in the terms of ancient Greek humoral pathology as being cold and\nwet, having less life energy, and associated with the moon and the dark earth.\nMen, on the other hand, were understood as being warm and dry, relatively\npowerful, and associated with the sun. While this assessment was differently\n*Allen G. Debus, one of the greatest adepts of Paracelsianism in the historiography of science and medicine,\ncontinued and completed the \u201cvast studies\u201d of Walter Pagel, whom he considered \u201cthe doyen of Paracelsian scholars\u201d and who \u201cserved as the solid bedrock\u201d for Debus\u2019s interpretations of the history of Renaissance and early modern chymistry. (See Debus, Chemical Philosophy, xvi.) Walter Pagel\u2019s analyses were also quite fundamental for my\nown understanding of Paracelsus and Jan Baptist van Helmont, but the present contribution is embedded in a perspective that goes beyond the early modern history of Paracelsian alchemy and natural magic. This chapter stresses\nthe learned imagery of the (female) Nature and its sources in the early modern age as a whole. See also note 2 below.\nMike Walton kindly invited me to contribute to this volume on the intellectual legacy of Allen Debus.\nWithout Mike\u2019s patient and friendly insistence I would not have accomplished it. In 2012, he chaired the session at the SCSC Annual Meeting in Cincinnati, where both of us spoke. My paper was, in some sense, an\nabstract of the present chapter. It was our last meeting.\n250\n\nPages 267:\nOn the Imagery of Nature in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Periods\n251\narticulated throughout the modern era,1 it is remarkable that historiographically\nthe other side of the coin was often neglected, namely, the explicit gynephilic\nattitude of distinguished Renaissance and early modern scholars in regard to the\npersonification of nature as a cosmological female figure. This chapter explores\nthat alternate attitude.2\nRenaissance scholars intensively discussed two important traits of Nature,\nor what they termed \u201cNatura\u201d in Latin: first, Natura as a sort of Holy Scripture, which had to be studied and deciphered in order to learn \u201cher\u201d secret language and, second, Natura as a divine female figure, a goddess, who would only\ncommunicate her secrets when she was gently and reverently handled and not\nviolently unveiled. The traits were essentially inseparable. It was the endeavor\nof natural magic (or magia naturalis) to find out the secrets of nature.3 Those\nsecrets, however, were not only to be admired; Nature had also to be analyzed\nand scientifically investigated as well as imitated and completed. In the early\nmodern period, the newly established scientific academies committed themselves to such an approach. For example, the Italian physician Giambattista della\nPorta (1535?\u2013\u00ad1615), who worked in Naples and published his groundbreaking\nwork Magia naturalis in 1558, founded one of the first natural scientific academies in Europe, namely, the Academia Secretorum Naturae (or the Accademia\ndei Segreti) in 1560.4 Its sole mission was the exploration of Nature, and members were accepted only when they \u201ccould present a hitherto unknown secret in\nthe field of medicine or the mechanical arts.\u201d5 So-\u00adcalled encyclopedias of secrets\nwere thus composed, and natural research was explicitly seen as a hunt.6 The\nfinal task, however, was the rational explanation of those natural secrets, a task\nthat the Italian physician and polymath Girolamo Cardano (1501\u2013\u00ad76) tried to\nmake more acceptable through his concept of subtlety (subtilitas).\n1. These differences are reflected in the contrast between the early modern witch hunt and the views\nexpressed by the renowned twentieth-\u00adcentury German psychiatrist Paul M\u00f6bius, who proclaimed the \u201cphysiological mental deficiency of the woman.\u201d See M\u00f6bius, Ueber den physiologischen, title page.\n2. These ideas are explored further in my recent book Magie der Natur. The present chapter, however,\nfocuses on the imagery of Nature and the corresponding gynephilic ideas as they were propagated by Agrippa\nvon Nettesheim. It does not consider, as does my book, Paracelsus\u2019s appreciation of Nature as a female magician (maga) nor does it treat the Paracelsians who also adopted this idea.\n3. Compare Eamon, Science and the Secrets of Nature.\n4. Ibid., 194\u2013\u00ad233.\n5. \u201cwer ein bisher unbekanntes Geheimnis auf dem Gebiet der Medizin oder der mechanischen K\u00fcnste\npr\u00e4sentieren konnte\u201d; Gronemeyer, Optische Magie, 87 (my translation).\n6. Ibid., 273\u2013\u00ad85.\n\nPages 268:\n252\nHeinz Schott\nIn the occidental tradition, there was a certain ambivalence about making\nnatural science a central theme, especially in the early modern period. On the\none hand, it was not the custom to promote research activities freely; on the\nother hand, it was held that when they were carried out, such activities should be\npursued humbly. Insofar as God originally chose to hide Nature\u2019s secrets, natural\nscience and research (curiositas) seemed to be a criminal act, in which scientists\nviolated Nature\u2019s integrity by forcible experimentation. The biblical narrative of\nGod\u2019s interdiction to eat the fruits of the tree of knowledge corresponded to the\nGreek legend reported by Plutarch that it was prohibited to wrest the veil from\nthe statue of the Goddess Isis in Sais. Moreover, the church father Lactantius\n(ca. 240\u2013\u00adca. 320) had stressed that God had created Adam in a final step so that\nAdam, the prototypic man, would not acquire knowledge of the act of creation.\n\u201cIn confirmation of this, the popular image of the goddess Natura implied that\nnature covers herself with a veil in order to hide her secrets from mortals.\u201d7 Thus,\nmortals should be excluded from the secrets of divine Nature.\nIt is remarkable that the historiography of religion\u2014\u00adand of culture more\ngenerally\u2014\u00adignores the concept of Natura. Even handbooks like that edited by\nMircea Eliade and Ioan Culianu fail to mention it.8 And whereas the images of\ngoddesses\u2014\u00adand of godlike women such as Sophia and Mary\u2014\u00adwere repeatedly\ndiscussed in Jewish studies and theology, their importance for the history of science and medicine per se were overlooked. It is thus a crucial question whether\nNatura was already perceived in the early kabbalah of the eleventh and twelfth\ncenturies. Such ideas contributed to later natural philosophy and science, especially in regard to Mary and the Shekhina.9 This chapter will explore some of the\nearly modern iconography and emblematics that personified \u201cveiled nature\u201d in\nfeminine form.\nNatura as Nourishing Mother\nThe German teacher of Romance languages, Ernst Robert Curtius, addressed\nthe \u201cGoddess Natura\u201d in a special chapter of his book Europ\u00e4ische Literatur und\n7. Eamon, Science and the Secrets of Nature, 59.\n8. See Eliade and Culianu, Handbuch der Religionen.\n9. Sch\u00e4fer, Mirror of His Beauty.\n\nPages 269:\nOn the Imagery of Nature in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Periods\n253\nlateinisches Mittelalter.10 There he offered rich sources for the occidental conceptions of Nature and of their imagery and iconography. Although Curtius\ndid not specifically consider medicine and magic, his references nevertheless\nbecame essential for an understanding of Nature as a (female) magic artist. His\nclassification of Natura in the sense of a \u201chistorische Topik\u201d (historical topic),\nas he put it, focused on the topos of \u201cNatura mater generationis\u201d (Nature, generating mother) that originated in late antiquity. Although he distinguished\nfourteen categories,11 three are of particular importance for the present study:\n\u201cNatura artifex mundi\u201d (Nature, world creator), \u201cNatura Dei serva\u201d (Nature,\nservant of God), and \u201cNatura altrix hominum\u201d (Nature, provider for men).\nAs a \u201cservant of God,\u201d Nature was equally appreciated as a \u201cworld artist\u201d or\n\u201cworld creator\u201d who shaped and produced everything.12 The famous savant at\nthe School of Chartres Alanus ab Insulis (ca. 1116/17\u2013\u00ad1202/3, also known as\nAlain de Lille) broached the issue of \u201cthe creation of the perfect man\u201d at the\nend of the twelfth century in his Anticlaudian.13 According to Curtius, Alanus\nheld that \u201cChrist\u2019s act of redemption does not seem to have given relief; relief\ncan only be achieved by the creation of a new man; with him the golden age\nwill return.\u201d14 (As the statement is heretical, Curtius wryly noted that today\nAlanus, \u201cthe doctor universalis, would have failed to secure a clerical printing-\u00ad\nlicense,\u201d given such views.15) Similarly, the anthroposophist Wilhelm Rath, an\nexpert on the School of Chartres, underscored the obvious \u201csecret\u201d that there\nwas \u201csuch an inner link between the Goddess Natura and the virgin mother of\nthe gospels,\u201d although this was never explicit in the literature of the school.16\n10. Curtius, Europ\u00e4ische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter, 116\u2013\u00ad37.\n11. His fourteen categories were (1) Natura artifex mundi, (2) Natura parens omnium rerum, (3) Natura domina omnium rerum, (4) Natura plasmatrix terrae et locorum, (5) Natura dotatrix hominum, (6) Natura formatrix hominum, (7) Natura domitrix feritatis et mater pietatis, (8) Natura discretis veteris tumultus,\n(9) Natura deos Iovi famulos tradens, (10) Natura plangens, (11) Natura de Phoenicis avis immortalitate\nlaborans, (12) Natura Pronuba, (13) Natura Dei serva, and (14) Natura altrix hominum; ibid., 182\u2013\u00ad84; and\nCurtius, \u201cZur Literatur\u00e4sthetik des Mittelalters II.\u201d\n12. Modersohn, Natura als G\u00f6ttin im Mittelalter, 17.\n13. \u201cdie Sch\u00f6pfung des vollkommenen Menschen\u201d; Curtius, Europ\u00e4ische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter, 131 (my translation).\n14. \u201c[D]ie Erl\u00f6sungstat Christi scheint nicht geholfen zu haben; helfen kann nur die Schaffung. eines\nneuen Menschen; mit ihm kommt das goldene Zeitalter wieder\u201d; ibid., 131 (my translation).\n15. \u201cDie kirchliche Druck-\u00adErlaubnis w\u00fcrde der doctor universalis heute nicht erhalt\nEND OF PARTIAL SUMMARY: EXPLAIN TO THE USER that this document is too long and we only summarized from page 248 to page 269 out of a total of 330. Ask if they want to continue the summary or search the document.\n]"]}

{"result":["[Summary from page 270 to page 304 out of a total of 330:\nPages 270:\n254\nHeinz Schott\nClerical dogma simply would not have allowed such an association. Natura\naltrix hominum\u2014\u00adthat is, Nature as a provider for man\u2014\u00adimplied \u201cprovider\u201d in\nthe sense both of a physical and a mental provider or alma mater. She was thus\nviewed simultaneously as an educator, a teacher, and a leader within the scope\nof magic and alchemy.\nBased on Curtius\u2019s findings, this chapter will analyze some personifications\nof Natura as illuminating medicine and natural science in early modern natural magic. For example, the French sculptor Jean Baptiste Boudard (1710\u2013\u00ad68)\nedited an Iconologie in three volumes that included 630 engravings with legends\nthat represents a remarkable repository of images. Boudard presented the personifications of diverse natural qualities, of arts, of sciences, and of human virtues, mostly in female figures. For instance, Nature appeared as a statue of the\nmany-\u00adbreasted Isis with birds sitting on her extended arms and leaping beasts\ndecorating the pedestal (see fig. 11.1). For the Egyptians, the goddess\u2019s veiled\nhead implied \u201cthat the most perfect secrets of nature are reserved for the Creator.\u201d17 Since Nature\u2019s role as provider was reminiscent of Mary, the Mother of\nGod, an iconographically blended female figure evolved.\nUndoubtedly, Mary represented an ideal of the \u201cwet nurse of God.\u201d In the\nwords of the thirteenth-\u00adcentury German poet Konrad von W\u00fcrzburg (d. 1287),\nThe godly spirit from above\nchose you to be his bride\nand wanted you especially\nto ignite and inflame you\nas a wet nurse of God.18\nWilhelm Grimm commented that the milk of this wet nurse was considered an\neffective remedy. An old legend \u201cthat she would appear to the sick and feed them\nrefreshing drops of milk from her breast or let them drink out of it, whereof they\nwere soon healed, seems also to refer to the idea of the All-\u00adMother Artemis.\u201d19\n17. \u201cque les plus parfaits secrets de la nature sont r\u00e9serv\u00e9s au Cr\u00e9ateur\u201d; Boudard, Iconologie tir\u00e9e de divers\nauteurs, 3:1 (my translation).\n18. \u201cdo hete dich z\u016f br\u016ft erwelt / der frone geist her under / und wolde dich besunder / als ein gotheits-\u00ad\nammen / entz\u00fcnden und enflammen\u201d; W\u00fcrzburg, Die goldene Schmiede, 37\u2013\u00ad38, lines 290\u2013\u00ad94 (my translation).\n19. \u201cda\u00df sie Frommen, die krank darnieder lagen, erschienen, und aus ihrer Brust labende Milchtropfen\nzugespr\u00fctzt, oder sie daran hat trinken lassen, wovon sie alsbald genesen, scheint sich gleichfalls auf die Idee\nder All-\u00adMutter, Artemis, zu beziehen\u201d; ibid., 15 (my translation).\n\nPages 271:\n255\nFigure 11.1: \u201cNature,\u201d from Jean Baptiste Boudard, Iconologie tir\u00e9e de divers auteurs: Ouvrage\nutile aux gens de lettres, aux po\u00ebtes, aux artistes, et g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement \u00e0 tous les amateurs des Beaux arts\n(Parme: Sebstverl.; [Drucker:] Carmignani, 1759), vol. 3, fig. 1 \u00a9 Herzog August Bibliothek\nWolfenb\u00fcttel: Sign. M: Uk 4\u00b0 23.\n\nPages 272:\n256\nFigure 11.2: Emblem XVIII, from Guillaume de La Perri\u00e8re, Le Th\u00e9\u00e2tre des bons engins . . . (Paris:\nJanot, 1539). \u00a9 Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenb\u00fcttel: Sign. M: Lm 2057 (PURL: http://\ndiglib.hab.de/drucke/lm-\u00ad2057/start.htm?image=00050).\n\nPages 273:\nOn the Imagery of Nature in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Periods\n257\nEmblems of Nature\nEmblems of Nature particularly flourished in sixteenth-\u00adcentury texts, wherein\nthe image of a woman appeared in various figures, clothes, and poses. The Italian humanist Andrea Alciato, for example, introduced the classical form in his\nEmblematum liber published in 1531: image (ikon, pictura, imago, or symbolon)\nfollowing the design of the hieroglyphics; lemma (that is, title); motto (inscriptio in the sense of impresa); and epigram (subscription).20 Baroque emblematics\u2014\u00ador Sinnbildkunst\u2014\u00addeveloped as a consequence of this emblem book, with\nNature often depicted as Venus.21\nThe French humanist Guillaume de La Perri\u00e8re (ca. 1500\u2013\u00adca. 1565), for\nexample, presented a nature emblem in the first edition of Le Th\u00e9\u00e2tre des bons\nengins published in 1539 (fig. 11.2). It displayed a naked woman with wavy hair\nstanding in a mountainous landscape and holding a large key in her right hand.\nHer left forefinger points to her mouth and her right foot rests on a turtle. The\n1545 edition shows quite a different composition of the picture, however. There,\nbelow the title \u201cCe qu\u2019est requis en la femme prudente\u201d (What is required in the\nprudent woman), Venus sits partially clothed on a cushion beneath a baldachin.\nKey, turtle, and finger on the lips remain arranged as in the earlier representation\nof 1539 (fig. 11.3). The explanatory text provided the symbolic interpretation of\nthe various symbols employed in both illustrations. The goddess represents the\nproper attitude of an honorable woman, while the turtle reflects ties to location,\nthe forefinger indicates the avoidance of loquaciousness, and the key signifies\nthe sagacious administration of the goods of the husband.\nA similar picture can be found in Andrea Alciato\u2019s emblem book, Mulierum\nfamam non formam vulgatam esse oportere (fig. 11.4). Enveloped only by a veil,\nVenus holds an apple instead of a key. Her adumbrated vulva and voluptuous\nfacial expression characterize her as Venus at the same time that she suggests\nto the observer Eve beside the tree of life in paradise. Although Adam and the\nsnake are both absent, the sun shines above, symbolizing God. Fostering Venus\nis thus a fostering mother.\nThe upgrading of Natura to a divine presence that shows man the guidelines of his own evolution was mainly influenced by Alanus ab Insulis\u2019s twelfth-\u00ad\n20. W\u00fcseke, Freimaurerische Bez\u00fcge, 6.\n21. Ibid., 9.\n\nPages 274:\n258\nHeinz Schott\nFigure 11.3: Emblem\nXVIII, from Guillaume de La Perri\u00e8re,\nLe Th\u00e9\u00e2tre des bons\nengins . . . (Paris: de\nTournes, 1545).\n\u00a9 Herzog August\nBibliothek Wolfenb\u00fcttel Sign. A: 162.3\nEth. (b) (PURL:\nhttp://diglib.hab\n.de/drucke/162\u2013\u00ad3\n-\u00adeth-\u00adb/start.htm\n?image=00031).\ncentury Anticlaudian. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, a series of carpets\nwas based on this work, in which the figure of Natura is often displayed, but\nnever in a manner that would supplant her other allegorical renderings.22 The\nwall carpet exhibited today in the Electoral Palatinate Museum of Heidelberg\nprovides a particularly impressive example of this iconography. The tapes-\n22. Kemp, \u201cNatura,\u201d 11.\n\nPages 275:\nOn the Imagery of Nature in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Periods\n259\nFigure 11.4: Emblem F 1,\nfrom Andrea Alciato [Andreas\nAlciatus], Emblematum liber\n(Augsburg, 1531, Emblematisches Cabinet 10. Reprint\nHildesheim; New York: Olms,\n1977).\ntry, which was probably a part of the inheritance of the Elector Palatine Otto\nHenry (1502\u2013\u00ad59), was executed in 1531. Entitled \u201cThe way of earthly prudence to heavenly wisdom\u201d (fig. 11.5), this so-\u00adcalled Prudentia-\u00adTeppich has\nbeen the subject of detailed studies by art historians.23 The constellation of\nthe three figures\u2014\u00adNatura, Prudentia, and Sapientia\u2014\u00adis essential to the whole\nand is highly interesting. Prudentia is seated on a throne in the center of the\ncarpet and then ascends on the right-\u00adhand side to take over the sceptre from\nSapientia, who floats down as the goddess of heaven. On the left-\u00adhand side,\n23. Stemper, \u201cDie Wandteppiche\u201d; and compare Stemper, \u201cDer Prudentia-\u00adTeppich.\u201d\n\nPages 276:\n260\nHeinz Schott\nFigure 11.5: Prudentia-\u00adTeppich (Prudentia Carpet). Courtesy of Kurpf\u00e4lzisches Museum der\nStadt Heidelberg: Inv. Nr. Te 25.\nNatura stands with her head directed upwards beneath Jove, who, as the counterpart of Sapientia, floats as the king of heaven. Closer to the foreground,\nNatura directs horses ridden by angels, who point with their shields to the\nsenses. Placella, a crowned female figure in the foreground, cannot be interpreted definitely, but perhaps represents a play on the Latin verb placere and\nsymbolizes courtesy and agreeableness.24 It is unclear whether the composition corresponded to some pedagogic-\u00adallegorical program aimed at teaching\npeople how to perfect themselves, but this might be assumed, given the male\nobserver in the foreground on the right-\u00adhand side who observes the activities\nof the female majesties.\n24. Stemper, \u201cDie Wandteppiche,\u201d 165.\n\nPages 277:\nOn the Imagery of Nature in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Periods\n261\nFigure 11.6: Emblem 46 (p. 192), from Joachim Cameraris d. J., Symbola et emblemata tam moralia quam sycr: Die handschriftlichen Embleme von 1587, edited by Wolfgang Harms and Gilbert\nHe\u00df (T\u00fcbingen: Niebmeyer, 2009), 512.\nThe work on symbols and emblems of the German physician and naturist\nJoachim Camerarius (1534\u2013\u00ad98) was published in several volumes in 1600.25\nThe captions of some emblems refer explicitly to Natura, even though she is\nnot present in the usual representation as a woman. For example, the emblem\n\u201cNaturae maturavit opus\u201d (The work of Nature has matured) shows an arbor\nfrom which the leaves are falling, and the caption reads, \u201cCur ade\u00f2, huic\nfatum vim properare, doles?\u201d (Why do you suffer so hard that you are thus\ndoomed?).26 The emblem \u201cNatura potentior ars\u201d (Nature has more power than\nart), on the other hand, shows a bear licking a fruit or stone in order to polish its surface and bears the caption, \u201cArs polit, haud fingit, natura utrumque\nministrat\u201d (Art polishes, but does not create, Nature supports in either way).\nCamerarius\u2019s collection of handwritten emblems was published in 2009 and is\nnot identical with the above-\u00admentioned edition. It includes the emblem \u201cNaturae dictante feror\u201d (At the behest of Nature I arise) (fig. 11.6), which portrays\na heron penetrating raining clouds as they wet the earth, symbolizing a sort of\n25. Camerarius, Symbola et emblemata (1986).\n26. Ibid., pt. 1, no. 65.\n\nPages 278:\n262\nHeinz Schott\nFigure 11.7: Emblem 44 (p. 290), from Joachim Camerarius d. J., Symbola et emblemata tam\nmoralia quam sacra: Die handschriftlichen Embleme von 1587, edited by Wolfgang Harms and\nGilbert He\u00df (T\u00fcbingen: Niemeyer, 2009), 561.\nborder of the sublunary world as the beaming sun shines from above. The legs\nof the heron protrude through the clouds, thus connecting the worlds above\nand below. In the printed version, the emblem was furnished with a new and\nmore elaborate emblem that depicts the heron flying above the rain clouds.27\nAnother emblem\u2014\u00adomitted in the printed version\u2014\u00adbore the title \u201cNaturae non\nartis opus\u201d (A work of Nature, not created by art) and displays rocky mountains\ndecorated by diamonds (fig. 11.7). It may be interpreted as a demonstration of\nthe virtue endowed by Nature and not acquired through art.28\nBaroque emblematics such as those just discussed were of special interest\nto the Freemasons.29 For example, one copper engraving portrays nine brothers sitting around a table (fig. 11.8) with a beam of light originating from the\neye of God. The beam forms a triangle that carries the inscription, \u201cLux lucet\nin tenebris\u201d (The light shines in the darkness) and hits a mirror. The beam\nreflected downward, on the other hand, has the inscription, \u201cTenebrae eam\n27. Camerarius, Symbola et emblemata (2009), 513.\n28. Ibid., 562.\n29. W\u00fcseke, Freimaurerische Bez\u00fcge.\n\nPages 279:\n263\nFigure 11.8: Copper engraving, reproduced from Eduard B. W\u00fcseke, Freimaurerische Bez\u00fcge zur\nbarocken Emblematik: Kommunikationszeichen an der Schwelle zur Neuzeit (M\u00fcnster: Bauh\u00fctten\nVerl., 1990).\n\nPages 280:\n264\nHeinz Schott\nFigure 11.9: \u201cCuncta refundit,\u201d from Julius Wilhelm\nZincgref, Emblematum\nEthico-\u00adPoliticorum Centuria\n(Heidelbergae: Ammonia,\n1666), p. LXXII. \u00a9 Herzog\nAugust Bibliothek Wolfenb\u00fcttel Sign. M: Li 10083\n(PURL: http://diglib.hab.de\n/drucke/li-\u00ad10083/start.htm\n?image=00165).\nnon comprehenderunt\u201d (The darkness did not comprehend it). Traditionally,\nthe mirror symbolized the act of self-\u00adreflection and insight, while the eye of God\nstood for the source of all light and power. In this illustration, Natura does not\nappear personified, but rather as the reflection of the beam of light. In other illustrations, however, a female Natura actually holds a mirror, thus herself becoming\na mirror of the divine light. This type of trope appears in many variations. For\nexample, another similar emblem, \u201cCuncta refundit [She transfers all things],\u201d\nby Julius Wilhelm Zincgref (1591\u2013\u00ad1635) shows very clearly the hierarchy of\nGod, Nature, and Man in its vertical ordering of sun, moon, and earth (fig. 11.9).\nHere, the moon is in the position of a mediating Nature, while the sun is identified with Christ, the light of the world. At the same time, the moon becomes\na symbol for the transmission of the divine light to man. Accordingly, the subscription explains,\n\nPages 281:\n265\nFigure 11.10: \u201cServa Modum,\u201d from Gabriel Rollenhaben, Nucleus Emblematum Selectissimorum\n... (Utrecht: Passaeus; Arnhem: Iasenius, [1611]\u20131613), 2 Teil, Nr. 53.\n\nPages 282:\n266\nHeinz Schott\nFigure 11.11: \u201cServa Modum,\u201d from Jean Baptiste Boudard, Iconologie tir\u00e9e de divers auteurs\n(Parme: Sebstverl.; [Drucker]: Carmignani, 1759), reproduced in Eduard B. W\u00fcseke, Freimaurerische Bez\u00fcge zur barocken Emblematik: Kommunikationszeichen an der Schwelle zur Neuzeit\n(M\u00fcnster: Bauh\u00fctten Verl., 1990), 120.\nThe moon as Nature reports\nGot all its [the moon\u2019s] light from the sun\nWe experience all the gifts of light\nBy Jesus Christ from above.30\nStill another, included in the Nucleus emblematum selectissimorum of the Magdeburg poet Gabriel Rollenhagen (1583\u2013\u00ad1619) was published in 1613 and entitled \u201cServa Modum [Keep the right mode].\u201d In it, a woman with a goniometer\nand reins in her hands stands before a cultural landscape between church and\ncastle as symbols of clerical and worldly power (fig. 11.10). Its signature reads,\n30. \u201cDer Mond wie die Natur bericht / Hat von der Sonnen all sein Liecht / Uns wiederfehrt all Liechtes\nGab / Durch Christum von oben herab\u201d; ibid., 103 (my translation).\n\nPages 283:\nOn the Imagery of Nature in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Periods\n267\n\u201cThe heart cannot beware the right mode to rein the feelings when it is hit by the\npuff of fortune.\u201d This emblem can be interpreted from rather different points of\nview. On the one hand, the sociohistorical doctrine of female repression from\nthe perspective of gender studies takes as given the domestication of woman,\npresumed to be emotionally weak. On the other hand, the natural philosophical\nview identifies woman with reason (prudentia), a characteristic of Natura.\nThe woodcut \u201cScienza\u201d from Boudard\u2019s Iconologie, however, shows a similar\nbut allegorically different scene. It depicts a woman holding a mirror in her right\nhand and a globe with a goniometer in her left (fig. 11.11) and can be interpreted\nas an allegory of \u201cscience\u201d personified as a goddess with her mirror understood\nas an instrument of self-\u00adexploration rather than as a characteristic of vanity.31\nThis personification of Scienza also implies that Natura shows man the right way\nto investigate her secrets (see below).\nBoudard\u2019s Iconologie includes other, analogous depictions of women as natural philosophy. The illustration \u201cTheorie,\u201d for example, presents a woman with\na large tome closed on her knees and a circle on the top of her head (fig. 11.12),\nwhile the notion of ethics is represented by a woman holding in one hand an\nangle scale and in the other a rope restraining a domesticated lion, a symbol of\nbalance (fig. 11.13). In yet another image, \u201cCalm consideration\u201d is displayed by\na woman looking at a pendulum, which is held by a rope descending from the\nclouds (fig. 11.14). She represents the virtual golden chain, her eyes concentrating on the divine link. (This image is reminiscent of the method of inducing hypnosis through eye fixation that the Scots physician James Braid [1795\u2013\u00ad1860]\nintroduced in the nineteenth century.)\nNatura as Teacher\nThe Goddess Natura emerged in the Middle Ages for the first time in the writings of the School of Chartre as literally the \u201cdiscovery of Nature\u201d that anticipated\nthe Renaissance.32 In the view of Andreas Speer, a philosopher who investigated\nthe theoretical motivation of those scholars, Plato\u2019s explication in Timaeus that \u201call\nthat originates, originates by a necessary cause\u201d33 was important. The \u201cphilosophia\n31. Ibid., 61.\n32. Speer, Die Entdeckung der Natur.\n33. Ibid., 290.\n\nPages 284:\n268\nHeinz Schott\nFigure 11.12: \u201cTheorie\u201d\nfrom Jean Baptiste Boudard,\nIconologie tir\u00e9e de divers\nauteurs (Parme: Sebstverl.;\n[Drucker]: Carmignani,\n1759), reproduced in Eduard\nB. W\u00fcseke, Freimaurerische\nBez\u00fcge zur barocken Emblematik: Kommunikationszeichen\nan der Schwelle zur Neuzeit\n(M\u00fcnster: Bauh\u00fctten Verl.,\n1990), 121.\nmundi\u201d (philosophy of the world) would search for the \u201ccausae rerum\u201d (the\ncauses of things) and try to reduce them to their basic principles.34 Physics (physica) would become \u201ca science of the mathematical nature of the sensible world\n[mundus sensibilis].\u201d35 When common education flourished in the late Middle\nAges, the \u201cgolden age of magic\u201d flourished as well, with magic being performed\nnot just by a few specialists.36\nOnce again, Alanus ab Insulis in the Anticlaudian provides key insights. In\nhis treatise, he described Natura as a \u201cgreat artist,\u201d a \u201csollers\u201d (from the Latin sol-\n34. Ibid., 291.\n35. Ibid., 293.\n36. Kieckhefer, Magie im Mittelalter, 78.\n\nPages 285:\nOn the Imagery of Nature in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Periods\n269\nFigure 11.13: \u201c\u00c9thique/\nEtica,\u201d from Jean Baptiste\nBoudard, Iconologie tir\u00e9e de\ndivers auteurs. (Parme: Sebstverl.; [Drucker]: Carmignani,\n1759), reproduced in Eduard\nB. W\u00fcseke, Freimaurerische\nBez\u00fcge zur barocken Emblematik: Kommunikationszeichen\nan der Schwelle zur Neuzeit\n(M\u00fcnster: Bauh\u00fctten Verl.,\n1990), 120 and 122.\nlus or \u201cwhole,\u201d and ars or \u201cart\u201d), a \u201cwhole art\u201d and a virgin \u201cmother of all things.\u201d37\nIn contrast to the ideology of the Cathars, Nature was not demonized. She did\nnot represent evil, but appeared as a wise leader of man giving him reason.38\nBenign, wise Nature would paint blossoms similar to a royal message. Bernard\nSilvestris (ca. 1085\u2013\u00adca. 1178), another representative of the School of Chartres, identified Urania with the \u201cQueen of the astral wisdom.\u201d This queen in the\nform of the starred heaven was reflected in the earthly world of blossoms,39 thus\nestablishing a topos of natural philosophy that would have an important impact\n37. Rath, \u201cEinleitung,\u201d 51.\n38. Ibid., 54.\n39. Ibid., 56.\n\nPages 286:\n270\nHeinz Schott\nFigure 11.14: \u201cCalm consideration\u201d from Jean Baptiste\nBoudard, Iconologie tir\u00e9e de\ndivers auteurs (Parme: Sebstverl.; [Drucker]: Carmignani,\n1759), reproduced in Eduard\nB. W\u00fcseke, Freimaurerische\nBez\u00fcge zur barocken Emblematik: Kommunikationszeichen\nan der Schwelle zur Neuzeit\n(M\u00fcnster: Bauh\u00fctten Verl.,\n1990), 123.\non scientific discourse until the nineteenth century. Lorenz Bausch (1605\u2013\u00ad65),\nphysician and founder of the Academia naturae curiosorum (later called the\nLeopoldina), stated, \u201cIn heaven there is a glamor from glimmering stars like little blossoms, on earth there is an excellent radiation of the rarest flowers like\nlittle stars. . . . That is the work of the architect Nature.\u201d40 He advised his readers in a Hermetic manner reminiscent of the Tabula smaragdina: \u201cBelieve that\nbelow, what you see above. No miracle.\u201d41 The physicist and natural philosopher\nGustav Theodor Fechner (1801\u2013\u00ad87) gave another example for magically com-\n40. \u201cIn c\u0153lo nitidissimarum stellarum quasi quorundam flosculorum coruscatio est, in terris elegantissima rariorum florum quasi stellularum radiatio. . . . Architectricis scilicet Natur\u00e6 . . . hoc opus est.\u201d Bausch,\nSchediasma de unicornu fossili, in Fehr, Anchora sacra, 202\u2013\u00ad3 (my translation).\n41. \u201ccrede infra, quidquid vides supra. Nimirum\u201d; ibid., 203.\n\nPages 287:\nOn the Imagery of Nature in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Periods\n271\nbining the stars with blossoms\u2014\u00adthe heavenly light and with earthly flora\u2014\u00adin\nthe middle of the nineteenth century. In his very stimulating and speculative\nwork Nanna oder \u00fcber das Seelenleben der Pflanzen, he explained that \u201cNanna, the\nwife of Baldur (the God of Light), is the blossom, the world of flowers, whose\nmost beautiful time coincides with Baldur\u2019s lordship of light. . . . [T]he poetics\nof antiquity imagines the most subtle glamor of flowers none other than bathed\nin the dew [from the heaven].\u201d42\nAlanus also characterized Natura as an alma mater creating the microcosm\nsimilar to the macrocosm in his Complaint of Nature. There, Nature asks man,\n\u201cHow could my appearing be so frightening for you? . . . How could you forget\nthat I, your familiar nourishing mother, created the human nature so similar to\nthe big world, that in it the scripture of the world appears like in a mirror?\u201d43\nThe metaphor of the disrupted veil of Nature and the violent unveiling of her\nsignify the vice of men groping her and violating her integrity. \u201cThe vice of men\nmisleads them to an irreverent attitude toward their own mother, Nature, so that\nhe wants to rob her violently of her veils making the greatest chaos of dissent\n[maximum chaos dissensionis] between him and her into a permanent state. This\nI [Nature] have only to suffer from man!\u201d44\nRenaissance humanists took over the new appreciation and admiration of\nNature. In his treatise The Praise of Folly, Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466\u2013\u00ad1536)\ndeclared Nature to be the scale for human life.45 There, Erasmus praised the\n\u201cpoor simple people\u201d living without any arts and \u201conly from natural inspiration\nand suggestion.\u201d46 Yet where there is much wisdom, there are also many needless things since, according to Erasmus, \u201cwho much experiences has also much\n42. \u201cNanna, Baldurs (des Lichtgottes) Gattin, ist die Bl\u00fcte, die Blumenwelt, deren sch\u00f6nste Zeit mit\nBaldurs Lichtherrschaft zusammentrifft. . . . die Poesie des Alterthums denkt sich den zartesten Blumenglanz\nnie anders als vom Thau [Tau des Himmels] gebadet\u201d; Fechner, Nanna oder \u00fcber das Seelenleben, iv (my translation).\n43. \u201cWie konnte dich mein Erscheinen so erschrecken? . . . Wie konnte deinem Ged\u00e4chtnis entschwinden, da\u00df ich [Natura] es bin, deine dir so innig vertraute N\u00e4hrmutter, die die menschliche Natur der gro\u00dfen\nWelt so \u00e4hnlich gestaltete, da\u00df in ihr wie in einem Spiegel die Weltenschrift erscheint?\u201d; Rath, \u201cEinleitung,\u201d 59\n(my translation).\n44. \u201cEs sind die Laster, die den Menschen zu seiner Ehrfurchtlosigkeit gegen die eigene Mutter Natur verf\u00fchren, so da\u00df er sie mit gewaltt\u00e4tiger Hand ihrer H\u00fcllen berauben will, indem er das gr\u00f6\u00dfte Chaos\nder Mi\u00dfhelligkeit (maximum chaos dissensionis) zwischen sich und ihr zu einem Dauerzustand macht. Es\nist einzig und allein der Mensch, von dem ich [Natura] solches erdulden mu\u00df!\u201d; ibid., 65 (my translation).\n45. Erasmus, Das The\u00fcr vnd k\u00fcnstlich.\n46. \u201cschlecht einfeltig volck . . . allein au\u00df anregen vnd eingeben der natur\u201d; ibid., sheet 28/p. 3 (my\ntranslation).\n\nPages 288:\n272\nHeinz Schott\nto suffer.\u201d47 Moreover, \u201cNature hates confounding, concealing, boasting and\nreceives much more blissfully what is not adulterated and weakened.\u201d48 Generally, Nature would be the \u201cmaster of the art, teacher, inventor, advisor\u201d\u2014\u00adnot\nvice versa\u2014\u00ada treasure, which was wasted if not used.49 Erasmus attacked the\n\u201cerring scholars,\u201d among them physicians and lawyers, as \u201cevil Christians\u201d who\nfail to heal their own souls and who disregard divine orders. As a result, no\ndoctor would live well and no lawyer would die well.50 Erasmus also referred\nto the Praise of the Donkey by Cornelius Agrippa (1486\u2013\u00ad1535) in offering his\nview that an adept of wisdom would need the character of a donkey, namely,\nan innocent, pure heart, an even temper, a peaceful relation to all animals, and\na patient bearing of all burdens put on him.51 Erasmus further reminded his\nreaders to adopt a Christian countenance and to become a fool and a donkey\nwhen they wanted to become an angel and to unite with God.52\nAbout seventy years after Agrippa, the physician and alchemist Michael\nMaier (1568\u2013\u00ad1622) treated Natura as a guide for researching scholars. His Atalanta fugiens (1618), illustrated by the well-\u00adknown engraver Matth\u00e4us Merian\nthe Elder (1593\u2013\u00ad1650), contains a very meaningful emblem (fig. 11.15). Natura,\nas a knowing woman, precedes a naturalist following her footsteps (quasi direction) equipped with a stick (quasi reason), glasses (quasi experience), and a lantern (quasi light to study her signatures). The message is that the scholar must\nfollow Natura. In the German translation of the Atalanta fugiens (1708), this\nemblem, the \u201cZwey und viertzigstes Sinnbild von Geheimnu\u00df der Natur [Forty-\u00ad\nsecond Emblem of the Secrets of Nature]\u201d bore the motto, \u201cMay Nature, Reason, Exercise and Literature be the guide, staff, spectacles and lamp for him who\nparticipates in chemistry.\u201d53 The accompanying epigram read,\nNature be your guide; follow her with your art willingly, closely,\nYou err, if she is not your companion on your way.\n47. \u201cvnd wer vil erfert der m\u00fb\u00df vil leiden\u201d; ibid., sheet 29/p. 1 (my translation).\n48. \u201cDie natur ha\u00dft das fitzen / vermenteln / gleissen / vnd bekompt vil gl\u00fccks\u00e4liger das mit keiner kunst\nist gef\u00e4lscht vnd geschwecht)\u201d; ibid., sheet 11/p. 2 (my translation).\n49. \u201cder kunst meisterin / lererin / erfinderin / angeberin\u201d; ibid., sheet 11/p. 2 (my translation).\n50. \u201cGelehrten / die verkerten,\u201d and \u201cb\u00f6se Christen\u201d; ibid., sheet 116/p. 1 (front page) (my translation).\n51. Ibid., sheet 86/verso.\n52. Ibid., sheet 90/p. 1.\n53. \u201cDem Sucher der Chymischen Kunst mu\u00df die Natur / Vernunfft / Erfahrenheit und das fleissige\nLesen / Leiten / und an statt eines F\u00fchrers / Stabs / ja einer Leuchte und Lampe dienen\u201d; Maier, Chymisches\nCabinet, 124, as translated in de Jong, Michael Maier\u2019s Atalanta Fugiens, 266.\n\nPages 289:\nOn the Imagery of Nature in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Periods\n273\nFigure 11.15: Emblem 34\n(p. 177), in Michael Maier,\nAtalanta fugiens, hoc est, Emblemata nova de secretis naturae\nchymica. . . . (Oppenheim: de\nBry, 1618). \u00a9 Herzog August\nBibliothek Wolfenb\u00fcttel\n(PURL: http://diglib.hab.de\n/drucke/196-\u00adquod-\u00ad1s/start\n.htm).\nReason be your staff, Exercise may strengthen your sight,\nOn account of which the things that are far away can be discerned,\nLiterature be your lamp, shining in the darkness,\nIn order to guard you against an accumulation of things and words.54\nMaier explained that this illustrated the four wheels of the philosophical: Nature,\nreason, experience, and the philosophical scriptures. The \u201cchemists\u201d should thus pay\nattention to Nature; she would be the guide as one followed in her footsteps.55 In the\noriginal Latin edition, Nature was called \u201cdux natura tibi [your (female) leader)].\u201d\n54. \u201cDich leitet die Natur / drum folge ihren Wegen / Sonst tritt\u2019st du aus dem Pfad der rechten Wahrheits Bahn:/ Dein Staab sey die Vernunfft / das Licht mu\u00df dir zuleg\u00ea / Die edle Wissenschafft / wa\u00f1 du das\nWerck f\u00e4ngst an./ Das Lesen ist die Lamp so in dem Finstern scheinet / Doch \u00fcberleg dabey was auch der\nWei\u00df recht meinet\u201d; Maier, Chymisches Cabinet, 124, as translated in de Jong, Michael Maier\u2019s Atalanta Fugiens,\n266\u2013\u00ad67.\n55. Maier, Chymisches Cabinet, 125.\n\nPages 290:\n274\nHeinz Schott\nThe title page of the Mus\u00e6um hermeticum (1625) displays a Hermetic modification of Maier\u2019s emblem (fig. 11.16), however. Within an oval frame, the\npicture shows Natura bearing a hexagonal star (a hexagram or Star of David)\nthat symbolizes the bond between heaven and earth. She is double-\u00adbreasted and\nunclothed to the waist belt, reminiscent of Isis. A scholar with glasses, stick, and\nlantern is followed by another with the same attributes. Nature thus appears here\neven more clearly as a goddess in possession of an old, secret knowledge and in\nwhose footsteps her naturalists must follow.\nIn the early eighteenth century, the imagery of the necessary succession was\nstill presented in natural historical tracts, as this quotation ascribed to the physician Anton Joseph Kirchweger (d. 1764) indicates: \u201cIf such an artist does not\nknow the way of Nature, he does not know Nature\u2019s work, either. It is impossible\nfor him to understand Nature, but he must stick to the prescribed processes,\nwithin which to work and to fail in many ways, because he understands neither\nrule nor reason.\u201d56 Moreover, man\u2019s internal ill nature would need help from an\nerudite doctor, \u201cBecause the learned medicus knows well, that Nature does not\nneed more than a consolidation, by which she can get power to help herself;\nsuch a consolidation could not better be reached than by a regeneration through\nthe quintessence, because all is pure and a fixed and spiritualistic medicine.\u201d57\nArt, the \u201cApe of Nature\u201d\nIn his treatise De incertitudine et vanitate scientiarum declamatio invectiva Declamation (or Attacking the Uncertainty and Vanity of the Sciences and the Arts),\nAgrippa von Nettesheim warned against the arrogance of scholars who overestimate their art.58 The theologian and freethinker Sebastian Franck (1499\u2013\u00ad\nca. 1543), who dealt intensively with this work, concurred.59 In his view, such\n56. \u201cDenn so ein K\u00fcnstler den Weg der Natur nicht wei\u00df, wei\u00df auch nicht, wie die Natur arbeitet, derselbe kann ohnm\u00f6glich die Natur verstehen, sondern er mu\u00df blind auf die vorgeschriebene Processe fallen,\nsolche arbeiten und vielf\u00e4ltig drinnen fehlen, dieweil er weder regulam noch rationem verstehet\u201d; Kirchweger\n[alleged author], Aurea catena homeri, preface (my translation).\n57. \u201cDenn ein gelehrter Medicus wei\u00df wohl, da\u00df die Natur nicht mehr als eine confortation vonn\u00f6then,\ndurch welches sie schon selbst wieder potens wird sich zu helffen; solche confortation aber k\u00f6nne besser nicht\nerlanget werden, als durch solche regeneration in Quintam Essentiam, da alles rein und pur und eine fixe und\nspiritualische Medicin ist\u201d; ibid., 283 (my translation).\n58. Agrippa von Nettesheim, Incertidudine et vanitate scientiarum.\n59. Franck, Ausf\u00fchrlicher Bericht, 3.\n\nPages 291:\n275\nFigure 11.16: Title page, Mus\u00e6um Hermeticum, Omnes Sopho-\u00adSpagyric\u00e6 Artis Discipulos Fidelissime Erudiensn (Frankfurt: Jennis, 1625). \u00a9 SLUB Dresden; Sign. Chem.359, misc. 1 (PURL:\nhttp://digital.slub-\u00addresden.de/werkansicht/dlf/11683/7/cache.off?Seite=&cHash=a69b932\nd870b9c2a98ca4178d360d826).\n\nPages 292:\n276\nHeinz Schott\nscholars could be evil and corrupt the whole of humankind.60 They could become\nobstacles to mercy and faith, whom believers in God would drop in favor of\nGod\u2019s word and wisdom.61 In Franck\u2019s view, Christ did not choose scribes for\nhis apostles, but rather \u201csimple people, even children, fools lacking art, and donkeys.\u201d According to Agrippa\u2019s Praise of the Donkey, this animal would have been\nelevated to a symbol for all Christians.62\nNot that art would teach, illuminate, or enhance Nature, however. Quite the\ncontrary, Nature would invent, teach, and improve the arts.63 Within this context, Franck, like Robert Fludd (1574\u2013\u00ad1637) later, personified art as a (female)\nape and called her \u201cder Natur \u00e4ffin\u201d (Nature\u2019s ape). Franck explained the circumstances of the case: \u201cArt is an ape domineering Nature, pretending whenever\npossible to express the nature of a thing, for example, by painting a man that she\ncan never achieve. Because Nature is life and being; art only scratches external\nthings from the outside.\u201d64 It would be even better to do some soul-\u00adsearching and\nto stay \u201cinside\u201d rather than to learn all of the outward arts.65 Franck\u2019s advice was\nthat learning should be accomplished from the \u201cLight of Nature,\u201d which was,\nhowever, shadowed and faded owing to the fall of man. Since this light was common to all men, everyone would have the faculty of judgment in his or her own\nheart. Franck called this the \u201cimplanted word\u201d of God and argued that when\nNature is obscured within us, God is also \u201cfaded within us.\u201d66 The task was therefore to illuminate darkened Nature, \u201cBecause all Nature comes from God and\nGod Himself is Nature, God helps our darkened Nature (which is Himself faded\nwithin us) with His mercy, so that Nature can see more clearly.\u201d67\nThe topos of the ape had been used as a metaphor of imitation as early as\nthe twelfth and thirteenth centuries.68 Around 1200, \u201csimian\u201d became a slogan\n60. Ibid., 6.\n61. Ibid., 16.\n62. \u201ceinf\u00e4ltig leut / Ja kinder / Kunstlo\u00df Narren vnnd Esel\u201d; ibid., 18 (my translation).\n63. Ibid., 52.\n64. \u201cDie Kunst it ein \u00e4ffin vnd anmasserin der natur / Dann wie sie kann / anmast sie sich / die Natur\neins dings au\u00dfzutr\u00fccken / als das malen einen Menschen / das sie doch nimmer erlangt. Dann die Natur ist\nleben und wesen / die Kunst schabt nuhr von aussen an eusserlichen dingen\u201d; ibid., 66 (my translation).\n65. Ibid., 67.\n66. \u201cdas eingepflantzt Wort\u201d and \u201cin uns verblichen\u201d; ibid., 70 (my translation).\n67. \u201cNuhn wie alle Natur von Gott ist / vnd Gott selbs die Natur / so hilfft Gott vnserer verfinsterten\nNatur (das ist jhm selbs in vns verblichen) mit seiner gnadt / dass die natur kl\u00e4rer siehet\u201d; ibid., 71 (my translation).\n68. Curtius, Europ\u00e4ische Literatur, 522\u2013\u00ad23.\n\nPages 293:\nOn the Imagery of Nature in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Periods\n277\nFigure 11.17: Illustration from\ntract 1, Robert Fludd, Utriusque\ncosmi maioris scilicet et minoris\nmetaphysica, physica atque technica\nhistoria, vol. 1, De microcosmi\nhistoria . . . . , (Oppenheim: de\nBry, 1617). \u00a9 Herzog August\nBibliothek Wolfenb\u00fcttel: Sign. M:\nNa 4\u00b0 41.\nin Latin school poetry and was presumably introduced by Alanus. \u201cThe real ape\n[simius] turns to a \u2018simia,\u2019 when he imitates man.\u201d69 Man himself could turn into a\n\u201csimia naturae\u201d (aper of nature) in imitating Nature through his art. Similarly, art\ncould appear as a simia, that is, as a scimmia della natura in the Italian literature\nof the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. As a metaphor in natural philosophy, the metaphor of the ape\u2014\u00adthe docile disciple of Nature who imitates her\npositively\u2014\u00adsymbolized the leading function of Nature for man. Man could only\nrecognize and use her secrets by imitating her like an ape, particularly her magic\narts.\nTwo allegories are noteworthy in this regard, both represented in large plates\nin Robert Fludd\u2019s Utriusque cosmi of 1617. At the beginning, there is the allegory\n\u201cIntegrae Naturae speculum Artisque imago\u201d (Mirror of the whole nature and\nimage of the art). Nature is visually interposed as a medium between God and\nape (that is, man) (fig. 11.17). A chain connects the hand of God to the virgin\nNatura and from her to an ape, personifying art and science imitating Nature\nabove him to improve her products. In this constellation, Nature combines the\nfiery heaven (God), the ethereal heaven (stars), and the sublunar, earthly world\n69. \u201cDer reale Affe (simius) wird zur simia, wenn er den Menschen nachahmt\u201d; ibid., 522.\n\nPages 294:\n278\nHeinz Schott\n(elements). Natura is depicted as a powerful and energy-\u00addispensing woman who\nnourishes the world. Her heart is a sun lighting the stars (Milky Way), and her\ncrescent-\u00adshaped abdomen (uterus) is a medium for transmitting astral influences to the earth. The chain connects the left hand of God that reached out of\nthe fiery cloud to the right hand of Nature, and then from the left hand of Nature\nto the left forearm of the great ape. Nature is thus a substantial length of chain\nresembling the golden chain in Greek mythology. The physical operations of the\nhuman arts are also described: Nature \u201cimitates, helps, and perfects,\u201d and while\n\u201cNature is not a goddess, she is God\u2019s nearest servant.\u201d70\nArt historian Wolfgang Kemp extensively treated Robert Fludd\u2019s Natura as\nthe World Soul,71 and particularly Fludd\u2019s concept of \u201cexplication,\u201d that is, the\ntwo producers of the macrocosm: \u201cThe remaining parts being less pure, the\nrealms of the ethers and elements, are subordinated to Nature . . . and therefore\nare correctly called natural. But there are two producers of all of this part of the\nmacrocosm: Nature and her ape, which we call art.\u201d72 According to Fludd, who\nreferred to Zoroaster and Heraclitus, Nature seemed to be an \u201cinvisible fire,\u201d the\nworld soul, \u201cBut we illustrated it in the way of some more recent philosophers\nso that the reader can better understand its essence. We depicted it therefore as\na naked woman of a tender and prosperous age attributing to her a star crown\nand golden resplendent hair.\u201d73 Fludd conceived the Isis vision in the dream of\nApuleius (2nd century CE) as a pristine model for Nature standing on water\nand earth.74 Fludd\u2019s sources were likely copper engravings from the Imagini of\nVincenzo Cartari (ca. 1531\u2013\u00ad69), which was published in several editions from\n1581 into the seventeenth century.75\nIn the second tract of Fludd\u2019s Utriusque cosmi, an impressive allegory of the\nerudite-\u00addocile ape appears on the title page (fig. 11.18). He sits in the middle of\na disk on which the different arts are depicted, and he points to an arithmetical\n70. \u201cImitatur, Adjuvat, Perfecit\u201d and \u201cNatura non Dea, sed proxima Dei ministra\u201d; ibid., 8 (my translation).\n71. Kemp, \u201cNatura,\u201d 88\u2013\u00ad101.\n72. \u201cReliqu\u00e6 ver\u00f2 impurioris mass\u00e6 partes, \u00e6therea nempe & elementaris, quoniam natur\u00e6 . . . subjiciuntur, merit\u00f2 inde naturales appellantur. Du\u00e6 autem harum partium in hac Macrocosmi fabrica contentarum\ncaus\u00e6 effectrices enumerantur: Natura scilicet, & ejus Simia, quam Artem appellamus\u201d; Fludd, Utriusque cosmi, 11, as quoted in Kemp, \u201cNatura,\u201d 89 (my translation).\n73. \u201cFinximus itaque virginem nudam \u00e6tate tenera & florente, com\u00e2 stellifera & pulcherim\u00e8 deaurat\u00e2\u201d;\nFludd, Utriusque cosmi, 11, as quoted in Kemp, \u201cNatura,\u201d 89 (my translation).\n74. Ibid., 92.\n75. Cartari, Imagini delli dei de gl\u2019Antichi, 65\u2013\u00ad72.\n\nPages 295:\n279\nFigure 11.18: Title page, Robert Fludd, Utriusque cosmi maioris scilicet et minoris metaphysica,\nphysica atque technica historia . . . , vol. 2, De naturae simia seu technica macrocosmi historia (Oppenheim: de Bry, 1618). \u00a9 Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenb\u00fcttel: Sign. Xb 4\u00b0 8 (2) (PURL:\nhttp://diglib.hab.de/drucke/xb-\u00ad4f-\u00ad8\u2013\u00ad2/start.htm).\n\nPages 296:\n280\nHeinz Schott\nbook. This stresses the author\u2019s conviction that the arts depicted are based on\nnumbers and relations between numbers. In the second half of the second tract,\nentitled \u201cThe Temple of Music,\u201d the importance of music and its harmonies for\nmathematics and mechanics becomes obvious. Fludd\u2019s influence on Athanasius\nKircher (ca. 1601\u2013\u00ad80) here is evident, as he took over some of Fludd\u2019s diagrams\nfor his own illustrations.76\nThe scholar of English literature Hans-\u00adJoachim Zimmermann demonstrated how the motif of the \u201cacademic ape\u201d was passed down in different\nvariations into the nineteenth century, using the example of the allegory\n\u201cAccademia\u201d from the Iconologia of Cesare Ripa (ca. 1560\u2013\u00adca. 1645).77 In the\nMiddle Ages, the ape was a symbol for the devil, the \u201cape of God\u201d according to the theologians.78 By the sixteenth century, three species of apes\u2014\u00ad\nfollowing Aristotle and Pliny\u2014\u00adwere delineated: \u201cApes without a tail (simia,\nape or, more precisely, Barbary macaque), apes with a tail longer than the\nbody (cercopithecus, a tail ape or guenon), and apes with a tail shorter than\nthe body (cynocephalus, a dog-\u00adheaded ape or baboon).\u201d79 The article entitled \u201cAccademia\u201d in Ripa\u2019s Iconologia mentioned the academic ape in these\nvarious terms in describing the corresponding woodcut, entitled \u201cTra quali\n[libri] risieda vn Cinocefalo, o vero Babuino [In between the books sits a\nbaboon]\u201d (fig. 11.19). According to Egyptian mythology, the dog-\u00adheaded\nbaboon could paint hieroglyphs; he was worshipped as the divine incarnation of Thot.80 The article in the Iconologia reinterpreted the creatively\nwriting baboon as a receptively reading one. In this light, he could be seen\nas a prototype of imitation.81 Around 1800, however, the academic ape was\ndevalued and discredited as the illustration from Filippo Pistrucci\u2019s edition\nof the Iconologia (1819) suggests (fig. 11.20). There, the ape sits slumped,\nlooking at the floor away from the books, which are being trod upon by\nAccademia.\n76. Gouk, Music, Science and Natural Magic, 101.\n77. Zimmermann, Der akademische Affe. It is remarkable that Zimmermann did not mention Fludd\u2019s\nillustrations and their possible impact on Ripa\u2019s Iconologia in his analysis, however.\n78. Ibid., 47.\n79. \u201cAffen ohne Schwanz (simia, d. h. Affe: Berberaffen), Affen mit Schwanz l\u00e4nger als der K\u00f6rper (cercopithecus, d. h. Schwanzaffe: Meerkatze) und Affen mit S\u2019chwanz k\u00fcrzer als der K\u00f6rper (cynocephalus, d. h.\nHundskopf: Pavian)\u201d; ibid., 46 (my translation).\n80. Ibid., 82.\n81. Ibid., 85.\n\nPages 297:\nOn the Imagery of Nature in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Periods\n281\nFigure 11.19: Illustration from Cesare Ripa, Iconologia (ca. 1600), edited by Filippo Pistrucci\n(1819), reproduced in Hans-\u00adJoachim Zimmermann, Der akademische Affe: Die Geschichte einer\nAllegorie aus Cesare Ripas \u2018Iconologia.\u2019 Supplement of the Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger\nAkademie der Wissenschaften; Philosophisch-\u00adHistorische Klasse 6 (Wiesbaden: Reichert,\n1991), 80.\nThe discourse on the relation between Nature and art, Natura and Ars,\nstarted in the High Middle Ages and was especially intense in the context of the\nnatural magic of the early modern period, yet this discourse continued into the\nEnlightenment of the eighteenth century. In his eighteenth-\u00adcentury monograph\nUnterredungen \u00fcber die Sch\u00f6nheit der Natur [Discussion on the Beauty of Nature],\nthe Swiss philosopher and mathematician Johann Georg Sulzer (1720\u2013\u00ad79) dealt\nwith all possible realms of nature and natural impressions. From an aesthetic\npoint of view, he imagined the \u201charmonic chain of the creatures\u201d: \u201cCross the\nwhole of nature through all figures, from man to worm, and you will see with\n\nPages 298:\n282\nHeinz Schott\nFigure 11.20: Illustration\nfrom Cesare Ripa, Iconologia\n(ca. 1600), edited by Filippo\nPistrucci (1819), reproduced\nin Hans-\u00adJoachim Zimmermann, Der akademische Affe:\nDie Geschichte einer Allegorie\naus Cesare Ripas \u2018Iconologia.\u2019\nSupplement of the Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger\nAkademie der Wissenschaften; Philosophisch-\u00ad\nHistorische Klasse 6\n(Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1991),\n438.\nastonishment that the snake and the fly as well as the elephant are links of an\nexcellent chain; which would be imperfect, were the least of these links absent. . . .\nThey compose a perspective chain where one link after the other diminishes by\ninsensible transformations.\u201d82 Man to ape would be a paradigm for such a chain.83\nSulzer also imagined nature as a chamber of marvels. One could thus admire\nthe beauty of a natural history collection because \u201c[a]lthough the winter puts a\nveil over the treasures of nature, I still have her with me. The realm of the plants\nremains forever green in my rooms. . . . I have also a continuous summer at home,\nand every day I discover new beauties of the harmonic order of nature, every day\nnew delights.\u201d84 From this point of view, the world is similar to an \u201cart chamber\n82. \u201cdurchgehe die ganze Natur durch alle Gestalten, vom Menschen bis zum Wurm, so wirst du mit\nErstaunen sehen, da\u00df die Schlange und die Fliege, so gut als der Elefant, Glieder einer f\u00fcrtreflichen Kette sind;\ndie unvollkommen seyn w\u00fcrde, wenn der geringste dieser Ringe fehlte. . . . Sie machen ein perspektivische\nKette aus, daran ein Ring nach dem andern durch unmerkliche Ver\u00e4nderungen abnimmt\u201d; Sulzer, Unterredungen \u00fcber die Sch\u00f6nheit der Natur, 26\u2013\u00ad30 (my translation).\n83. Ibid., 27.\n84. \u201cWenn auch der Winter einen Schleyer \u00fcber die Sch\u00e4ze der Natur ziehet, so habe ich sie bey mir. Das\nReich der Pflanzen bleibt mir in meinen Zimmern immer gr\u00fcn. . . . Ich habe also einen best\u00e4ndigen Sommer\n\nPages 299:\nOn the Imagery of Nature in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Periods\n283\nthat includes so many different peculiarities that everyone will find something\nto enjoy.\u201d85 Divine wisdom constructed the world in such a manner that it would\nplease different minds: \u201cthat everyone perceives almost just that [aspect] of the\nworld, that pleases him, the rest, that displeases him, is hidden to him.\u201d86\nThe title copper engraving of Sulzer\u2019s book Allgemeine Theorie der Sch\u00f6nen\nK\u00fcnste, which was created by Daniel Chodowiecki, is impressive (fig. 11.21). It\ndepicts an ensemble of women reminiscent of muses and obviously symbolizing the fine arts. One of them stands exalted among the others demonstrating\nthe classical position of Natura mediating between the divine and the earthly\ndomain. Above her head, the sun, as the central divine celestial body, shines, and\nshe transfers its beams to the earthly world. In the background, an archaic group\nof humans, standing before a tent, is engaged in everyday activities. The entries\nto the keywords \u201cNatur (Sch\u00f6ne K\u00fcnste)\u201d and \u201cNat\u00fcrlich (Sch\u00f6ne K\u00fcnste)\u201d\nwith their explanations are instructive with regard to the concept of art.87 Nature\nas an effective cause would be the \u201cleader and teacher of the artist.\u201d The more\nthe artist imitated Nature with his methods or the selection of his materials, the\nmore perfect the result of his work.88 Consequently, Sulzer defined Nature as\n\u201cthe supreme wisdom per se\u201d and \u201cthe real school of the artist.\u201d89\nWhat was the special art of Nature? At first, Sulzer underlined her art of\ndesigning in the sense of the traditional doctrine of signatures. She would set all\nexternal appearance in accordance with the inner character of the things, \u201cso that\nthe form, colors, the rough and smooth, the soft and stiff always coincide totally\nwith the inner qualities of the things.\u201d90 The artist should accept Nature as his\nonly teacher. Sulzer also came back to the central project of alchemy: imitating,\nsupporting, and perfecting Nature. Man\u2014\u00adrespectively, the artist\u2014\u00adhad both to\nfollow the way that Nature had shown him and to support her in her intentions.\nbey mir, und ich entdekke t\u00e4glich neue Sch\u00f6nheiten der harmonischen Einrichtung der Natur: t\u00e4glich neues\nVergn\u00fcgen\u201d; ibid., 31\u2013\u00ad32 (my translation).\n85. \u201cKunstkammer, da die Merkw\u00fcrdigkeiten in solcher Verschiedenheit sind, da\u00df ein jeder Mensch\netwas zu seiner Belustigung findet\u201d; ibid., 182 (my translation).\n86. \u201cda\u00df ein jeder von der Welt fast nur das siehet, was ihm gef\u00e4llt; das \u00fcbrige, so ihm misfallen w\u00fcrde ist\nihm verborgen\u201d; ibid., 183 (my translation).\n87. Sulzer, Allgemeine Theorie der Sch\u00f6nen, 506\u2013\u00ad14.\n88. \u201cF\u00fchrein und Lehrerin des K\u00fcnstlers\u201d; ibid., 507 (my translation).\n89. \u201cdie h\u00f6chste Weisheit selbst\u201d and \u201cdie eigentliche Schule des K\u00fcnstlers\u201d; ibid. (my translation).\n90. \u201calles Aeu\u00dferlichen mit dem innern Charakter der Dinge, da\u00df die Gestalt, die Farben, das Rauhe\nund Glatte, das Weiche und Harte, immer mit den innern Eigenschaften der Dinge g\u00e4nzlich \u00fcbereinkommen\u201d;\nibid., 508 (my translation).\n\nPages 300:\n284\nFigure 11.21: Title page, Johann Georg Sulzer, Unterredungen \u00fcber die Sch\u00f6nheit der Natur nebst\ndesselben moralischen Betrachtungen \u00fcber besondere Gegenst\u00e4nde der Naturlehre. Von neuem\naufgelegt (Berlin: Haude und Spener, 1770). Image from Wikimedia Commons (URL: http://\nde.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:Sulzer_Titelkupfer_Chodowiecki_1771.jpg&\nfiletimestamp=20081029211440).\n\nPages 301:\nOn the Imagery of Nature in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Periods\n285\nFrom this, genius could result: \u201cAll excellent works of the fine arts are in their\nessential parts the fruits of Nature, which have ripened through experience and\ncloser reflection of what Nature gives the genius for his disposal.\u201d91 The artist\nshould thus be faithful to the \u201cvoice of Nature [Stimme der Natur]\u201d speaking\nwithin him. He should strain his external and internal senses so as not to miss\na single one of the works of Nature. The geniuses and inventors in the realm of\nthe fine arts would be just \u201cthe most hardworking and sagacious observers of\nNature.\u201d92 The artist should create his object from Nature so as to make it appear\nlike a natural object.93 Therefore, artificially produced objects should look as if\nthey existed without art and only by the impact of Nature.\nNatural Philosophy and Gynephilia: A Crucial\nLink\nNature was generally personified as a noble woman, and so her depiction had\nspecific gender implications. There was always a more or less subtle erotic tension when naturalists, physicians, artists, or poets viewed Nature as the ideal\nguiding their work and as a source for their inspiration and power. This erotic\ntension became a particular topic of occultism and natural magic and was\nexpressed more or less openly in both medicine and alchemy. Moreover, since\nNature was identified with a divine woman, the image of earthly women was\nexalted. Women thus seemed nearer to divine wisdom.\nThe treatise of Agrippa von Nettesheim De nobilitate et praecellentia foeminei\nsexus, published in 1529, is an extraordinary example of the highlighting of women\nin the natural philosophical context.94 Agrippa used a series of arguments\u2014\u00ad\ndrawn mainly from philosophy and theology\u2014\u00adto demonstrate this nobility and\npreeminence. His treatise was frequently reprinted and translated into other languages; for example, a German translation appeared in 1720, two hundred years\nafter the first edition, although the work is largely forgotten today.95\n91. \u201cAlle vorz\u00fcgliche Werke der sch\u00f6nen K\u00fcnste sind in ihren wesentlichen Theilen Fr\u00fcchte der Natur,\ndie durch Erfahrung und n\u00e4here \u00dcberlegung dessen, was die Natur dem Genie an die Hand giebt, reif geworden\u201d; ibid., 509 (my translation).\n92. \u201cdie fleissigsten und scharfsinnigsten Beobachter der Natur\u201d; ibid., 510 (my translation).\n93. Ibid., 511.\n94. Agrippa von Nettesheim, De nobilitate et praecellentia foeminei sexus.\n95. Agrippa von Nettesheim, Anmuthiges und curieuses Tract\u00e4tgen.\n\nPages 302:\n286\nHeinz Schott\nAt first Agrippa pointed out that, in regard to reason and mind, there was no\ndifference between the sexes. Both were equally gifted. Relative to other things,\nhowever, the female sex clearly took precedence. Agrippa enumerated a series of\nqualities to prove his thesis.\n(1) The etymological argument stressed that \u201cEve\u201d meant \u201clife,\u201d whereas\n\u201cAdam\u201d derived from \u201cearth.\u201d The name of Eve, moreover, was more\nclosely related to the Tetragrammaton JHWH ( Jehovah) than the\nname of Adam.\n(2) The order of the creation recorded in Genesis argued for the pre-\u00ad\neminence of woman. She was created by God as the last, and therefore\nthe most complete, creature.96\n(3) Eve also differed from Adam in regard to the matter from which she\nwas created. Whereas Adam was created from \u201cdead paste or feces,\u201d97\nEve was made of \u201ca purified, lively Matter gifted with a reasonable soul\nparticipating in the spirit of God.\u201d98 Here, Agrippa reversed the traditional gender difference whereby man represented the spiritual principle and the divine light, but he went even further. In his view, man\nhad been fashioned by heavenly influences from an earthen lump; he\nwas thus a creation of Nature. Woman, on the other hand, \u201cis created\nonly by God without the support from the stars,\u201d thereby making her\nmore able than man to understand divine secrets.99 This idea of a wise\nwoman, a female sophia, fit very well within the contemporary natural\nphilosophy of alchemy and occultism.\n(4) Because of the cosmological location of Natura as a sort of medium\nbetween God and man, women take over the role of Nature in the human\nrealm. Their position and function imply analogies with cosmic Nature.\nTheir beauty seems to be a reflection of the divine splendor that originates\nfrom the light of God and emanates over all creatures. Since the female\nbody is more beautiful than the male body, God elected it for residence.100\n96. Ibid., 18.\n97. \u201cex inanimato quopiam aut vili luto\u201d; ibid., 23 (my translation).\n98. \u201cex materia purificata, vivifica et animata, anima inquam rationali mentem participante divinam\u201d;\nibid., 23 (my translation).\n99. \u201cmulier autem supra omnem coeli influxum ac naturae promptiduninem absque ulla virtute cooperante a solo deo creata est\u201d; ibid., 23\u2013\u00ad24 (my translation).\n100. Ibid., 24.\n\nPages 303:\nOn the Imagery of Nature in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Periods\n287\n(5) Agrippa also stressed a physiological argument. Nature prefers women\nsince they could bear children and give milk as a life-\u00adsustaining substance\nnot only for children but also for the nourishment of the old and weak.\nIn general, a woman had more healing power, so she could give off heat\nas a life force by pressing her breast on the chest of old exhausted men.101\n(6) The biblical female figures of Eve and Mary also played an important\nrole in Agrippa\u2019s arguments. The fall of mankind was not committed\nby Eve but by Adam because God had forbidden him to eat the fruit.102\nSo Adam committed original sin, not Eve. The most striking argument\nfor female superiority, however, was that the \u201cnoblest of all pure creatures\u201d was a woman\u2014\u00adMary, the Virgin Mother.103 Female superiority\nwas also obvious because of the fact that many arts and sciences (the\n\u201cliberal arts\u201d) kept the female names of those who invented them and\nbecause in geography, female names were given to prominent parts of\nthe world: Asia (nymph), Europa (daughter of Agenois), and Africa\n(daughter of Epaphi).104\n(7) Since, according to Agrippa, women are prone to divination and were\nthe first to serve as prophets and sybils,105 an ordinary woman was\nwiser than an erudite man and an old countrywoman could have more\nexperience than a physician, who was perceived as an adept.106 This\nstatement would be re-\u00adechoed in romantic natural philosophy and\nmedicine around 1800.\n(8) In the end, Agrippa pled emphatically for the emancipation of women,\ndeploring traditional misogynistic disrespect. Women had to give\nway to men \u201cas if they would have been conquered in a war.\u201d107 Their\nsuppression resulted not from the divine order but \u201cfrom custom,\neducation, fortune, and tyrannic opportunity.\u201d108\n101. Ibid., 35\u2013\u00ad39.\n102. Ibid., 47.\n103. Ibid., 63.\n104. Ibid., 73.\n105. Ibid., 74.\n106. Ibid., 87.\n107. \u201cgleich als ob sie im Krige [sic] \u00fcberwunden w\u00e4ren\u201d; Agrippa von Nettesheim, Abigail, 204 (my\ntranslation).\n108. \u201cdurch die Gewohnheit, durch die Erziehung, durch das Loo\u00df, und durch die tyrannische Gelegenheit\u201d; ibid., 110 (my translation).\n\nPages 304:\n288\nHeinz Schott\nAgrippa\u2019s tract was well known to \u201cfeminist\u201d contemporaries like the erudite\nMarguerite de Navarre (1492\u2013\u00ad1549), but was not the first of its kind.\nThere were actually allusions to the superiority of women as early as the\nlate thirteenth century. Heinrich von Mei\u00dfen, who died in 1318 in Mainz\nand was dubbed \u201cFrauenlob,\u201d compiled an encyclopedia of learned women.109 There, he held that women often had more talent than men and, with\nan adequate education, they could easily become as erudite as men. As he\nnoted, Minerva was adored by the pagans as a goddess because of her skills\nand knowledge in the arts, which were supposed to have been invented by\nher.110 He concluded that feminine ingenuity often surpassed that of men.111\nThe querelle des femmes, however\u2014\u00adthat is, the broad discussion of gender in\nthe Renaissance and early modern period\u2014\u00adwas mainly initiated by Giovanni\nBoccaccio in his tract De mulieribus claris, written in the early 1360s.112 The\nmost comprehensive text about famous women in the history of culture, it was\nused by many authors. In it, Boccaccio sketched an ambiguous image, at once\nsubversive and conservative, directing his social analysis particularly against\necclesiastical doctrine.113\nEven earlier, in the last novella of the Decamerone, Boccaccio had highlighted\nthe plight of women in his telling of the legend of Griselda, a story that had an\nespecially great impact on other authors. The daughter of a poor farmer, Griselda\nbecomes the wife of a nobleman named Gualtieri, the Marquis of Saluzzo. After\nhaving his two children, Griselda is tricked by Gualtieri into believing that he has\nkilled them both. He then pretends to have tired of her, announces that he has\ntaken a new wife, and turns her out of their home with only the clothes on her\nback as he brings in a young girl whom he pretends is his new wife. Through all\nof this, Griselda is ever patient and uncomplaining, and recognizing this, Gualtieri brings her back, revealing that his \u201cnew\nEND OF PARTIAL SUMMARY: EXPLAIN TO THE USER that this document is too long and we only summarized from page 270 to page 304 out of a total of 330. Ask if they want to continue the summary or search the document.\n]"]}

{"result":["[Summary from page 305 to page 330 out of a total of 330:\nPages 305:\nOn the Imagery of Nature in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Periods\n289\nversion of the story in the form of a letter. This was one of the first works of\nPetrarch to be translated into German and illustrated with woodcuts.114\nThat Agrippa knew and was inspired by Boccaccio\u2019s writings seems fairly\ncertain, since he took over some of the Italian\u2019s major arguments. Boccaccio, for\nexample, had assumed that woman was created by God out of purified rational\nmatter, whereas man was created by nature out of feces or soil.115 Women were\nthus much more susceptible to divine enlightenment than men.116 One of Boccaccio\u2019s physiological arguments is not to be found in Agrippa\u2019s treatise, however. According to Boccaccio, menstruation reflected female cleanliness because\nher intemperate humors could properly and regularly be expelled (as opposed to\nthe less natural technique of nose-\u00adbleeding).117\nFrom the fifteenth to the eighteenth century\u2014\u00adover a period of some four\nhundred years\u2014\u00adthere were more writings on the superiority of women than\nthere were explicitly misogynic ones. In addition to the works by Boccaccio and\nAgrippa, Marc Angenot has pointed out that some eighty works on the superiority of women can be traced in the French literature alone.118\nK\nThe reason for the adoration of the female sex in the Renaissance and humanistic period was the new approach that held Nature as tantamount to a holy scripture. Within this context, Nature was no longer\u2014\u00adas in the traditional humoral\npathology\u2014\u00adassociated with the deficient female qualities of the earth (dark,\nwet, and cold), but rather with the divine qualities of heaven (light, ethereal, and\nwarming). These qualities were personified by certain female figures that symbolized the mediating function between the divine and the earthly. Nature became\nthe medium that linked human beings and all natural things with God, the original creating power. Certain images and metaphors were coined: queen of heavens,\nvirgin, wet nurse, wise woman, guide for naturalists. Consequently, Nature was\nimagined as the real teacher of philosophers and alchemists. They had to follow in\nher footsteps as depicted in the emblem of Michael Maier discussed above.\n114. Petrarca, Petrarchas Griseldis.\n115. Boccaccio, Historien von allen den f\u00fcrnembsten Weibern, 7.\n116. Ibid., 8.\n117. Ibid., 14.\n118. Angenot, Champions des femmes.\n\nPages 306:\n290\nHeinz Schott\nThose imaginings showed Nature personified as a female. She was a divine\nmagician beaming the splendor of God down to the microcosm. All women\nshared her characteristic traits, especially the ability to produce living creatures.\nThere was, however, a clear hierarchy. Nature was inferior to God, but superior\nto man. Analogously, Agrippa\u2019s theory presented woman as superior to man\nbut inferior to God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. The crucial point is that in the\nRenaissance and early modern period, the idea of the superiority of the female\nsex was stimulated by two factors that interplayed intriguingly: first, natural philosophy and its personifications and, second, the image of the Virgin Mary the\nmother of God, as a religious mediator of the splendor of God the father.\nWorks Cited\nAgrippa von Nettesheim, Heinrich Cornelius. Abigail; das ist, Des lob-\u00adw\u00fcrdigen Frauen-\u00ad\nZimmers Adel und Fortr\u00e4fligkeit; for mer dan hundert Jahren von Heinrich\nKornel Agrippen latinisch beschriben . . . [L\u00fcbeck:] Schernwebel; J\u00e4ger, 1650.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Anmuthiges und curieuses Tract\u00e4tgen von dem Vorzug des Weiblichen vor dem\nM\u00e4nnlichen Geschlecht. Ehemals aus dem Lateinischen ins Frantz\u00f6sische,\nanietzo aus dem Frantz\u00f6sischen ins Teutsche \u00fcbersetzt von I. K. L. N.p.,\n1720.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. De incertidudine et vanitate scientiarum declamatio invective. [K\u00f6ln]: Cervicornus, 1532. Translated as Anmuthiges und curieuses Tract\u00e4tgen von dem Vorzug\ndes Weiblichen vor dem M\u00e4nnlichen Geschlecht (see the previous entry).\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014. De nobilitate et praecellentia foeminei sexus: Von Adel und Vorrang des weilichen Geschlechts. Edited and translated by Otto Sch\u00f6nberger. W\u00fcrzburg:\nK\u00f6nigshausen und Neumann, 1997.\nAngenot, Marc. Les champions des femmes: Examen du discours sur la sup\u00e9riorit\u00e9 des\nfemmes 1400\u2013\u00ad1800. Montr\u00e9al: Les Presses de l\u2019Universit\u00e9 du Qu\u00e9bec, 1977.\nBausch, Johann Lorenz. Schediasma de unicornu fossili. Added to Johann Michael Fehr,\nAnchora sacra; vel scorzonera . . . Jena: Trescher, 1666.\nBoccaccio, Giovanni. Historien von allen den f\u00fcrnembsten Weibern . . . Frankfurt am\nMain: Feirabends, H\u00fcter, Lechler, 1566. De claris mulieribus, dt. 2nd vol.,\ntranslated into German as Des ander Theil / Vom herkommen des Adelichen\nF\u00fcrtrefflichen Weiblichen gesclechtes . . . Frankfurt am Main, 1566.\nBoudard, Jean Baptiste. Iconologie tir\u00e9e de divers auteurs: Ouvrage utile aux gens de lettres,\naux po\u00ebtes, aux artistes, et g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement \u00e0 tous les amateurs des Beaux arts. 3\nvols. Parme: Carmignani, 1759. Reprint, Vienna: de Trattnern, 1766; New\nYork: Garland Publishing, 1976.\n\nPages 307:\nOn the Imagery of Nature in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Periods\n291\nCamerarius, Joachim [d.J.]. Symbola et emblemata (N\u00fcrnberg 1590 bis 1604). With an\nintroduction and [Registern] by Wolfgang Harms and Ulla-\u00adBritta Kuechen.\n2 vols. Naturalis Historia Bibliae 2/1\u2013\u00ad2/2. Graz: Akademische Druck-\u00adu.\nVerlagsanstalt, 1986\u2013\u00ad88.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Symbola et emblemata tam moralia quam sacra: Die handschriftlichen Embleme\nvon 1587. Edited by Wolfgang Harms and Gilbert He\u03b2. T\u00fcbingen: Niemeyer,\n2009.\nCartari, Vincenzo. Imagini delli dei de gl\u2019Antichi . . . Venetia: Tomasini, 1647.\nFrauenlob [Frawenlob], Johann. Die Lobw\u00fcrdige Gesellschafft der Gelehrten Weiber. N.p.,\n1531.\nCurtius, Ernst Robert. Europ\u00e4ische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter. 2nd ed. Bern:\nFrancke, 1954.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cZur Literatur\u00e4sthetik des Mittelalters II.\u201d Zeitschrift f\u00fcr romanische Philologie\n58 (1938): 129\u2013\u00ad232.\nDebus, Allen G. The Chemical Philosophy: Paracelsian Science and Medicine in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. 2 vols. New York: Science History Publications, 1977.\nde Jong, H. M. E. Michael Maier\u2019s Atalanta Fugiens: Sources of an Alchemical Book of\nEmblems. Janus Supplements 8. Leiden: Brill, 1969.\nEamon, William. Science and the Secrets of Nature: Books of Secrets in Medieval and Early\nModern Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.\nEliade, Mircea, and Ioan P. Culianu. Handbuch der Religionen. Edited by H. S. Wieser.\nFrankfurt: Suhrkamp Taschenbuch, 1995.\nErasmus, Desiderius, von Rotterdam. Das the\u00fcr vnd k\u00fcnstlich B\u016fchlin Morie encomion,\ndas ist, Ein Lob der Thorhait. Ulm: Varnier, ca. 1534.\nFechner, Gustav Theodor. Nanna oder \u00fcber das Seelenleben der Pflanzen. Leipzig: Vo\u00df,\n1848.\nFranck, Sebastian. Ausf\u00fchrlicher Bericht / Was von D\u00fcnsten vund menschlicher Wei\u00dfheit\nzu halten sey / etwas aus der Declamation Henrici Cornelij Aggripe . . . Frankfurt\nam Main: Jennis, 1619.\nFrauenlob [Frawenlob], Johann. Die Lobw\u00fcrdige Gesellschafft der Gelehrten Weiber. N.p.,\n1531.\nGouk, Penelope. Music, Science and Natural Magic in Seventeenth-\u00adCentury England. New\nHaven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999.\nGronemeyer, Nicole. Optische Magie: Zur Geschichte der visuellen Medien in der Fr\u00fchen\nNeuzeit. Bielefeld: transcript, 2004.\n\nPages 308:\n292\nHeinz Schott\nKemp, Wolfgang. \u201cNatura: Ikonographische Studien zur Geschichte und Verbreitung\neiner Allegorie.\u201d PhD diss., T\u00fcbingen University, 1973.\nKieckhefer, Richard. Magie im Mittelalter. Translated by Peter Knecht. M\u00fcnchen: Beck,\n1992.\nKirchweger, Anton Joseph [alleged author]. Aurea catena homeri, oder Eine Beschreibung\nvon dem Ursprung der Natur und nat\u00fcrlichen Dingen . . . Frankfurt: B\u00f6hme,\n1723.\nKolsky, Stephen. The Ghost of Boccaccio: Writings on Famous Women in Renaissance Italy.\nLate Medieval and Early Modern Studies 7. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols,\n2005.\nMaier, Michael. Chymisches Cabinet / Drer grossen Geheimnussen der Natur / Durch\nwohl ersonnene sinnreiche Kupfferstiche und Emblemata . . . : Der Chymischen\nRepublic Und Dero Liebhabern / Zur Speculation, Betracht-\u00adund Unersuchung\naus wohlmeinender Veneration und Liebe zum zweyten mahl in der Lateinischen\nSprach ausgefertiget / vor jetzo aber zum ersten Mahl in das Hochteutsche \u00fcbersetzet ist . . . Frankfurt: Oehrling, 1708.\nM\u00f6bius, Paul Julius. Ueber den physiologischen Schwachsinn des Weibes. Sammlung\nzwangloser Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der Nerven-\u00adund Geisteskrankheiten 3. Halle: Marhold, 1900.\nModersohn, Mechthild. Natura als G\u00f6ttin im Mittelalter: Ikonographische Studien zu\nDarstellungen der personifizierten Natur. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1997.\nPetrarca, Francesco. Petrarchas Griseldis (Ulm: Johann Zainer, 1473/74). Facsimile edition. Edited by Henirich Steinh\u00f6wel. Potsdam: M\u00fcller, 1921.\nRath, Wilhelm. \u201cEinleitung.\u201d In Alanus ab Insulis, Der Anticlaudian oder Die B\u00fccher von\nder Himmlischen Erschaffung des neuen Menschen, edited by Wilhelm Rath,\n15\u2013\u00ad92. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Mellinger, 1983.\nSch\u00e4fer, Peter. Mirror of His Beauty: Feminine Images of God from the Bible to the Early\nKabbalah. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002.\nSchott, Heinz. Magie der Natur: Historische variationen zu einem Motiv der Heilkunst.\nAachen: Shaker, 2014.\nSpeer, Andreas. Die Entdeckung der Natur: Untersuchungen zur Begr\u00fcndungsversuchen\neiner \u201cScientia naturalis\u201d im 12. Jahrhundert. Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des mittelalters 45. Leiden: Brill, 1995.\nStemper, Anneliese. \u201cDer Prudentia-\u00adTeppich des Pfalzgrafen Ottheinrich im Kurpf\u00e4lzischen Museum zu Heidelberg.\u201d Heidelberger Jahrb\u00fccher 2 (1958): 68\u2013\u00ad95.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cDie Wandteppiche.\u201d In Ottheinrich: Gedenkschrift zur vierhundertj\u00e4hrigen\nWiederkehr seiner Kurf\u00fcrstenzeit in der Pfalz (1556\u2013\u00ad1559), edited by Georg\nPoensgen, 141\u2013\u00ad71. Heidelberg: Verlag der Studentenschaft der Universit\u00e4t\nHeidelberg, 1956.\n\nPages 309:\nOn the Imagery of Nature in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Periods\n293\nSulzer, Johann Georg. Allgemeine Theorie der Sch\u00f6nen K\u00fcnste . . . Leipzig: in der Weidmannischen Buchhandlung, 1793.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Unterredungen \u00fcber die Sch\u00f6nheit der Natur nebst desselben moralischen Betrachtungen \u00fcber besondere Gegenst\u00e4nde der Naturlehre. Berlin: Haude und Spener,\n1770. Reprint, Frankfurt: Athen\u00e4um, 1971.\nW\u00fcrzburg, Konrad [Conrad] von. Die goldene Schmiede: Aus Gothaischen Handschriften\nherausgegeben und erkl\u00e4rt von W. C. Grimm. Frankfurt: K\u00f6rner, 1816.\nW\u00fcseke, Eduard B. Freimaurerische Bez\u00fcge zur barocken Emblematik: Kommunikationszeichen an der Schwelle zur Neuzeit. M\u00fcnster: Bauh\u00fctten Verlag, 1990.\nZimmermann, Hans-\u00adJoachim. Der akademische Affe: Die Geschichte einer Allegorie aus\nCesare Ripas \u2018Iconologia.\u2019 Supplemente der Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger\nAkademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-\u00adHistorische Klasse. Vol. 6.\nWiesbaden: Reichert, 1991.\n\nPages 310:\nAbout the Contributors\nKu-\u00adming (Kevin) Chang is associate professor at the Institute of History and\nPhilology of the Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan. He works on early modern\nscience, especially the chymical and medical work of Georg Ernst Stahl. He is\na coeditor (with Sheldon Pollock and Benjamin A. Elman) of World Philology\n(2014), a collection of essays that compare philological traditions in major civilizations. He is also revising a book manuscript on the history of the dissertation\nas a genre of academic writing and publication.\nNicholas H. Clulee is emeritus professor of history at Frostburg State University, where he taught for forty-\u00adtwo years and was department chair for eleven.\nHe is author of John Dee\u2019s Natural Philosophy: Between Science and Religion (1988,\n2012), and numerous articles on John Dee and late sixteenth-\u00adcentury natural\nphilosophy, alchemy, and magic. He was a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellow in 1984/85.\nDane T. Daniel is associate professor of history at Wright State University,\nwhere he teaches courses in European history and the history and philosophy\nof science. His research focuses on early modern science and religion, especially\nthe natural philosophical and theological writings of Theophrastus Bombastus\nvon Hohenheim, or Paracelsus (1493/94\u2013\u00ad1541). He has published over a dozen\narticles on Paracelsus and the Paracelsians, including the Partington Prize-\u00ad\nwinning \u201cInvisible Wombs: Rethinking Paracelsus\u2019s Concept of Body and Matter\u201d (Ambix, 2006) and \u201cParacelsus on the \u2018New Creation\u2019 and Demonic Magic:\nMisunderstandings, Oversights, and False Accusations in His Early Reception,\u201d\nin World-\u00adBuilding and the Early Modern Imagination (2010).\nMargaret D. Garber is associate professor of history of science at California\nState University, Fullerton. She has published articles on intersections of optics,\nmedicine, and alchemy (chymia) and is currently working on a manuscript of\n294\n\nPages 311:\nContributors\n295\nthe medico-\u00adchymical correspondences of physician members of the Academia\nNaturae Curiosorum (also known as the Leopoldina Academy). She was a Dibner Research Fellow at the Huntington Library in 2010/11.\nBruce Moran is professor of history at the University of Nevada, Reno, where\nhe teaches courses in the history of science and early medicine. His general\nresearch interest is in the intersection of cultures, learned and lay, scribal and\nartisanal, Latinate and vernacular as they relate to the investigation of nature and\nthe body in early modern Europe. Among many articles and books are Distilling\nKnowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry, and the Scientific Revolution (2005) and Andreas\nLibavius and the Transformation of Alchemy: Separating Chemical Cultures with\nPolemical Fire (2007). He has been a Dibner Distinguished Fellow in the history of science and technology at the Huntington Library (2010/11), and, most\nrecently, a Gorden Cain Distinguished Fellow at the Chemical Heritage Foundation (2014).\nKaren Hunger Parshall is professor of history and mathematics at the\nUniversity of Virginia. In addition to numerous articles and chapters, she is the\nauthor, among other books and editions, of James Joseph Sylvester: Jewish Mathematician in a Victorian World (2006), Taming the Unknown: A History of Algebra\nfrom Antiquity to the Early Twentieth Century (with Victor J. Katz, 2014), and\nExperiencing Nature: Proceedings of a Conference in Honor of Allen G. Debus (coedited with Paul H. Theerman, 1997). She was a John Simon Guggenheim Fellow in 1996/97 and served from 1996 to 1999 as the editor-\u00adin-\u00adchief of Historia\nMathematica.\nMar Rey Bueno is coeditor of Azogue, the journal for the historical-\u00adcritical\nstudy of alchemy (www.revistaazogue.com). She is author of, among other books\nand editions, El Hechizado: Medicina, alquimia y superstici\u00f3n en la corte de Carlos II\n(1661\u2013\u00ad1700) (1998); Los se\u00f1ores del fuego: Destiladores y espag\u00edricos en la Corte de\nlos Austrias (2002); Lastanosa: Art and Science in Baroque (coedited with Miguel\nL\u00f3pez P\u00e9rez, 2008); and Chymia: Science and Nature in Medieval and Early Modern Europe (coedited with Miguel L\u00f3pez P\u00e9rez and Didier Kahn, 2010).\nHeinz Schott is emeritus professor of the history of medicine at the University of Bonn (Germany). He is author of, among other books and editions, Zauberspiegel der Seele: Sigmund Freud und die Geschichte der Selbstanalyse [Magic\nMirror of the Mind: Sigmund Freud and the History of Self-\u00adanalysis] (1985);\n\nPages 312:\n296\nContributors\nDie Chronik der Medizin [The Chronicle of Medicine] (1993); Geschichte der\nPsychiatrie: Krankheitslehren\u2014\u00adIrrwege\u2014\u00adBehandlungsformen [History of Psychiatry: Nosology\u2014\u00adMeanders\u2014\u00adForms of Treatment] (with Rainer T\u00f6lle, 2006);\nand Magie der Natur: Historische Variationen \u00fcber ein Motiv der Heilkunst [Magic\nof Nature: Historical Variations on a Motif of the Healing Art] (2 vols., 2014).\nFrom 1987 to 2014, he was director of the Institute of the History of Medicine\nat the University of Bonn.\nJole Shackelford is assistant professor in the Program for the History of\nScience, Technology, and Medicine at the University of Minnesota. Recent\nscholarship includes the 2013 monograph Northern Light and Northern Times:\nSwedish Leadership in the Foundation of Biological Rhythms Research. His book\nA Philosophical Path for Paracelsian Medicine: The Ideas, Intellectual Context, and\nInfluence of Petrus Severinus (2004) received the George Urdang Medal from the\nAmerican Institute for the History of Pharmacy in 2007.\nAnke Timmermann was EU Marie Curie postdoctoral fellow at the Medical\nUniversity of Vienna, Austria (2011\u2013\u00ad13), and subsequently Munby Fellow\nin bibliography at the University of Cambridge, England. She is the author of\nVerse and Transmutation: A Corpus of Middle English Alchemical Poetry (Critical\nEditions and Studies) (2013); \u201cScientific and Encyclopaedic Verse\u201d in A. S. G.\nEdwards and Julia Boffey, eds., Companion to Fifteenth-\u00adCentury English Poetry\n(2013); \u201cDoctor\u2019s Order: An Early Modern Doctor\u2019s Alchemical Notebooks,\u201d\nEarly Science and Medicine (2008), and other articles on manuscript studies\nand the history of the book, the history of science, and especially the history of\nalchemy and medicine.\nMichael Thomson Walton took his PhD at the University of Chicago in\n1979. He coedited, with Allen G. Debus, Reading the Book of Nature: The Other\nSide of the Scientific Revolution (1998). He is the author of Medical Practitioners\nand Law in Fifteenth Century London (with Phyllis J. Walton, 2003); Genesis and\nthe Chemical Philosophy: True Christian Science in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth\nCenturies (2011); and Anthonius Margaritha and the Jewish Faith: Jewish Life\nand Conversion in Sixteenth Century Germany (2012). Two of his articles, \u201cJohn\nDee\u2019s Monas Hieroglyphica: Geometrical Cabala\u201d and \u201cBoyle and Newton on the\nTransmutation of Water and Air,\u201d were reprinted in Alchemy and Early Modern\nChemistry: Papers from Ambix (edited by Allen G. Debus, 2004). Michael Walton died in August 2013.\n\nPages 313:\nIndex\nPage references in italics indicate illustrations.\nA\nAbulafia, Abraham, 188\nAcademia naturae curiosorum, 270\nAcademia Secretorum Naturae (or the Accademia dei Segreti), 251\nacids, 114\u201316, 120, 125\nActuarius, Johannes Zacharius, 26, 26\u201327nn20\u2013\n22, 46n88\nAdam (biblical figure), 217\u201318, 252\n\u00e6ther, 110\u201311, 117, 126\nAgrippa von Nettesheim, Cornelius, xx, 222, 232,\n289\u201390\non kabbalah, 191, 199\nworks: De incertitudine et vanitate scientiarum,\n274; De nobilitate et praecellentia foeminei\nsexus, 285\u201388; De occulta philosophia,\n191; Praise of the Donkey, 272, 276\nAgust\u00edn, Miguel: Book of the Prior, 148\u201350\nAlanus ab Insulis, 277\nAnticlaudian, 253, 257\u201358, 268\u201369\nComplaint of Nature, 271\nalchemical manuscripts, 159\u201385\non apparatus, 174\nKappler\u2019s collecting/use for medical preparations, 172, 174, 176\nKappler\u2019s manuscript \u00d6NB MS 11410,\n163\u201364, 163\u201364nn12\u201313, 176\noverview of, 160, 176\u201377\nplague treatments in, 172\u201373\nPol\u2019s collecting/use for medical preparations,\n172\u201374\nPol\u2019s library, and historiography of alchemy/\nmedicine, 171\u201376, 171n38\nPol\u2019s library, books/manuscripts in, 166\u2013\n67nn20\u201321, 166\u201371, 167\u201368nn26\u201329\nPol\u2019s library, classification in, 168\u201371, 173\u201374\nPol\u2019s library, generally, 163\u201366\nPol\u2019s manuscript copied by Kappler, 163, 165,\n172\u201373, 176\nPol\u2019s manuscripts at Austrian National\nLibrary, 178\u201382, 178n54\nalchemy\nButterfield on, 13\nvs. chemistry, 81, 81nn5\u20136\nvs. chymia, 63\u201364, 92\u201393\nby Curiosi, 80\u201381\ndefinitions/uses of, 61\u201362\nvs. distillation, 61\nfraudulent vs. true, 87\u201388, 9\nhistory of, 159\u201360\nkabbalah merged with, xviii\u2013xix, 192,\n194\u201396, 200\nLibavius on, 61\u201363, 69\nmanaurius (mechanical), 61\nas medicine, 79, 79n1\nousiodes (essential), 61\noverview of, xviii\nPhilosophers\u2019 Stone, 91, 95, 187\nstandardization of experimental practice, 82\nSee also spagyrist friars\nAlciato, Andrea\nEmblematum liber, 257\nMulierum famam non formam vulgatam esse\noportere, 257, 259\nAlderetey y Soto, Luis de, 138\u201339, 143\nAlemano, Johannes, 189\nAlexis of Piedmont, 141\nAlgarotti, Vittorio, 137\nalkalis, 115\u201316\nAllgemeine Theorie der Sch\u00f6nen K\u00fcnste (Sulzer),\n283\n297\n\nPages 314:\n298\nAmphitheatrum sapientia aeternae (Khunrath),\n195, 201\u20132, 202n62\nAndreae, Johann Valentin, 86\nAngeleres, Buenaventura, 138\u201339\nAngenot, Marc, 289\nAnticlaudian (Alanus), 253, 257\u201358, 268\u201369\napes, 277\u201378, 280\nApollo, 190\nAquinas, Thomas, 180\u201381\narcane (remedy), 138\u201339\nThe Arch-Conjuror of England (Parry), 242\u201345\naresta bovis (herb used to treat bladder/kidney\nstones), 41, 41n76\nargentopoeia, 75\nAristotelian-Scholastic cosmography, 1, 216\nAristotle, 69\non apes, 280\non the elements, 7\u20138, 34n45, 103\u20135\non experientia, 91\nArndts, John, 201\u20132, 202n62\nArnold of Villanova, 87, 97, 164\u201365, 178,\n180\u201382, 213\nars separatoria, 134\u201335\nastrological diseases/medicine, 32n36\nHayne on, 21, 31, 33\u201335, 39\u201340\nin Paracelsian praxis, 31\u201335\nSee also sidereal powers\nAstronomia magna (Paracelsus), 214\u201316, 220\u201321,\n220n37\nAtalanta fugiens (Maier), 272\u201374, 273, 289\nAugustine, Saint, 186, 211\u201312\nautopsia (firsthand knowledge), 90\u201393\nAvicenna, 61, 170\nCanon, 44\u201345\nB\nBacon, Francis, 83\nBacon, Roger, 69, 213\nBalduin, Christian Adolph, 85\u201386n17\nBalsam, Giuseppe, 138\u201339, 139n26\nBarone, Robert, 226\u201327\nBaronio, Nadal, 140\nBarrera, Antonio, 151\nBarrionuevo, Gervasio de, 138n25\nBasilica chymica (Croll), 197n51, 198\u201399, 203\nBausch, Johann, 83\nBausch, Lorenz, 270\nIndex\nBecher, Johann Joachim, 106, 110, 112, 114\u201316,\n114n55, 121, 124\u201325\nPhysica subterannea, 108\u20139, 108\u20139n26, 111\nB\u00e9guin, Jean, 104\u20135, 140\nBeinza, Mat\u00edas de, 138\u201339, 143n48\nBenesch, Dieter, 210n2\nBenneville, George de, 21, 21n8, 53\nMedicina Pensylvania, 31, 50\nBensaude-Vincent, Bernadette, 127\nBercebal, Diego de, 140\nBerlin, 24\u201325\nBild, Veit, 165\u201367\nBleichmar, Daniela, 151\nBleker, Johanna, 24n12, 27n21\nblood, diseases associated with, 38\u201339\nBoccaccio, Giovanni, 289\nDecamerone, 288\nDe mulieribus claris, 288\nBodenstein, Adam von, 213\nBoehme, Jacob, 24, 24n13\nBoerhaave, Hermann, xvi, 101n1, 121\u201322, 126\nBoethius, 186\nBook of Influential Diseases, 40, 40n72\nBook of the Prior (Agust\u00edn), 148\u201350\nBorb\u00f3n, Felipe: Medicina dom\u00e9stica, 147, 147n65\nBostocke, Richard, 4, 4n16\nBoudard, Jean Baptiste: Iconologie, 254, 255, 266,\n267, 268\u201370\nBoyle, Robert, 108\nchemistry before, 12\u201313\non fire analysis, 124\non mercury, 126\nSceptical Chymist, 8, 105\u20136\nsulfur produced by, 114\nBraid, James, 267\nBrendel, Zacharius (the elder), xvi, 59\u201360,\n73\u201375, 83, 95\nBrendel, Zacharius (the younger), 83\nChimia in artis formam redacta, 75\u201376\nBrian, Thomas: The Pisse-Prophet, 52\nBrytanici imperii limites (Dee), 236, 237n34\nBrytannicae reipublicae synopsis (Dee), 235\u201336\nBucer, Martin, 222\nDas Buch von der tartarischen Krankheiten (Paracelsus), 44\nBurtt, Edwin, 1, 4, 233n27\nButterfield, Herbert, 1, 12\u201313, 80\n\nPages 315:\nIndex\nC\nCabriada, Juan de: Carta filos\u00f3fica, 135n14\nCalder, Ian R. F., 231\u201333\nCalle, Juan Jos\u00e9 de la, 143\nCamerarius, Joachim, 261, 261\u201362\nCa\u00f1izares, Jorge, 151\nCanon (Avicenna), 44\u201345\nCardano, Girolamo, 61, 64\u201365, 65n20, 251\nCarta filos\u00f3fica (Cabriada), 135n14\nCartari, Vincenzo: Imagini, 278\nCasaubon, Meric, 228, 238\nCastillo, Juan del, 143n48\nCastro Medinilla, Juan de, 146\nCathars, 269\nCatherine of Aragon, 149\nCecil, William, 230\nChampier, Symphorien, 191\nChang, Ku-ming (Kevin), xvii\nChaos, Baron von (Conrad von Richthausen),\n87, 87n24\nCharles II, King, 135\u201336, 143\nThe Chemical Dream of the Renaissance (Debus),\nxiv\nThe Chemical Philosophy (Debus), xv, 6\u201310, 6n25,\n35n52\nchemical philosophy, 7\u20138, 20n3. See also kabbalah\nchemical principles\naffinity (element) tables, 121, 126\nBecher\u2019s system of, 106, 108\u201312, 114\u201316,\n121, 124\u201325\ncorpuscular model of, 107, 109, 116\u201317,\n116n66, 120, 124\u201325\nL\u00e9mery\u2019s system of, 106\u20139, 121, 121n77,\n124\u201325\nmaterializing trend of, 106\nsulfurous (see phlogiston)\ntria prima (salt, sulfur , and mercury), xvii, 43,\n102\u20135, 120\u201321, 123\u201326\nWillis\u2019s system of, 106\u20139, 121, 124\u201325\nSee also elements\nchemistry, 10, 12\u201313\nChemistry and Medical Debate (Debus), 11\u201312\nChimia in artis formam redacta (Brendel the\nyounger), 75\u201376\nChodowiecki, Daniel, 283\n299\nChristian kabbalah. See kabbalah\nchrysopoeia, xvi, 75, 80, 82, 85\u201390, 125, 171\u201372\nchymia, 59\u201378\nvs. alchemy, 63\u201364, 92\u201393\nas an art, xvi, 60, 63\u201367, 74\u201376\nas artisanal creation, 64\u201365\nand chrysopoeia, 75, 85\u201390\ndefinitions/uses of, xvi, 59\u201365, 69, 75\u201376\nas firsthand knowledge/experience, 82,\n90\u201393\nas fraud, 69\u201370\ngood practice regarding, 70\u201374\nhistory of, 64\nand medicine, 75\u201376\nnatural vs. supernatural, 60, 67\u201370\nobscure vs. standardized language of, 93\u201395\nas physica, 63\u201364, 72, 74\nsecretiveness of, xvi, 62, 86, 92\u201393\nas social practice, 82, 93\u201396\nin Spain, xvii\u2013xviii\ntransmutation via, 75, 82\nas witnessed histories, 82\nSee also under Miscellanea curiosi\nchymiatria (chemical medicine), 69, 79, 79n1, 81,\n85, 95\u201396\nChymische Medicinische Perle (Zobell), 20\nClauder, Gabriel, 88\u201393, 88n29, 97\nClucas, Stephen, 241, 241n50\nClulee, Nicholas, xix\u2013xx, 12, 241\nJohn Dee\u2019s Natural Philosophy, 233\u201334\nCohen, Floris H., 12\nCohen, I. Bernard, 2\u20134\nCollins, Harry, 91n40\nComplaint of Nature (Alanus), 271\nConfessio de chao physico-chemicorum catholico\n(Khunrath), 195\u201396\nCopernican worldview, 1\n1 Corinthians (Bible), 219\nCortavilla, Phelipe de, 142, 142n44\nCours de chymie (N. L\u00e9mery), 107\u20138, 108n25\nC\u00f3zar, Lorenzo, 134\u201335\nCritique of Pure Reason (Kant), 124\nCroll, Oswald, xviii\u2013xix, 194, 198n53, 202\nBasilica chymica, 196\u201399, 197n51, 203\non kabbalah, 196\u2013201, 197n51\nCulianu, Ioan, 252\n\nPages 316:\n300\nCuriosi (Leopoldina Academy of Curiosi)\nalchemy by, 80\u201381\nassociated with Jason and the Argonauts, 86\nas chymical adepts, 93, 96\u201397\nestablishment of, 82\u201383\nheadquarters at Halle, 85n14\njournal of (see Miscellanea curiosi)\nas a literary medical society, 83\nmembership of, 83, 83n10, 85, 85\u201386n17\nnaming of, 80n3\noverview of, xvi, 96\u201397\nproficiencies of, 80\nsocial legitimacy via, xvi\nCurtius, Ernst Robert: Europ\u00e4ische Literatur und\nlateinisches Mittelalter, 252\u201354, 253n11\nD\nDaniel, Dane, xix\nDeacon, Richard, 228, 230\nDebus, Allen G., 1\u201316\nat Abbott Laboratories, 2\non Butterfield, 13\non chemistry\u2019s academic acceptance, 80\nat Churchill College, Cambridge, 6\ncriticisms of, xiv, 5\u20136, 8\u20139\ndeath of, 13\neducation of, 2\u20133, 12\u201313\nfocus on debates in chemistry, 11\u201312\ngoals of his research, 13\nat Harvard, 1\u20133\non importance of history of science, 159\nmarriage of, 2\nmentoring by, 233\u201334n27\nPagel\u2019s relationship with, 4\non Paracelsian cosmogony, 211\npatents held by, 2n5\nSarton Medal received by, 12\non Stahl, 101\u20132n1\non the union of opposites in Scientific\nRevolution, xiii\u2013xiv (see also chemical\nphilosophy)\non vitalism vs. mechanism, xvi\u2013xvii, 10\u201311\nworks: The Chemical Dream of the Renaissance,\nxiv; The Chemical Philosophy, xv, 6\u201310,\n6n25, 35n52; Chemistry and Medical\nDebate, 11\u201312; The English Paracelsians,\n4\u20136, 8, 19, 19\u201320n1; The French Para-\nIndex\ncelsians, 10\u201311, 211; Man and Nature\nin the Renaissance, 9\u201310; Reading the\nBook of Nature, xx; \u201cRobert Boyle and\nChemistry in England,\u201d 2; \u201cRobert Boyle\nand His Sceptical Chymist,\u201d 2\nDecamerone (Boccaccio), 288\nDee, John, 226\u201349\nangelic conversations of, 228, 230\u201334,\n237\u201341, 244\u201345\narrest of, 243\nbiographies of, 228, 230\u201331, 238, 242\u201345\ncalendar reform proposed by, 244\nCatholic allegiances of, 243\u201345\nconjuring/scrying by, 228, 243, 245\nCopernicanism of, 230\nat court, 242\u201344\non divine language, 238\u201339\nfinancial difficulties of, 238, 243\nkabbalism of, 191, 193\nand Kelley, 226, 230\u201331, 238, 241, 244\u201346\nand Laski, 244\nlibrary of, 166, 237\nNachlass, 228\nNeoplatonism of, 231\u201332\noccultism of, 233\u201336, 238, 240\u201342\noverview of, xix\u2013xx\npolitical writings of, 235\u201337, 241\u201345\nrenewed interest in, 226\u201327\nand the School of Night, 230\nas a scientist, 231, 234\u201335\nand the Sidney group, 230, 233, 236\nVoarchadumia\u2019s influence on, 193, 239\u201340\nworks: Brytanici imperii limites, 236, 237n34;\nBrytannicae reipublicae synopsis, 235\u201336;\nGeneral and Rare Memorials, 236; Monas\nhieroglyphica, 193, 228, 229, 230\u201332,\n233n27, 238\u201340, 242; Of Famous and\nRich Discoveries, 236; Propaedeumata\naphoristica, 230\u201332, 234, 239; THALATTOKRATIA BRETTANIKI, 236\nDe fermentatione (Willis), 107\ndeflagration, 114\nDe incertitudine et vanitate scientiarum (Agrippa\nvon Nettesheim), 274\nDe Institutione foeminae christianae (Vives), 149\nDe mulieribus claris (Boccaccio), 288\n\nPages 317:\nIndex\nDe nobilitate et praecellentia foeminei sexus (Agrippa von Nettesheim), 285\u201388\nDe occulta philosophia (Agrippa von Nettesheim),\n191\nDe operationibus pharmaceuticis (N\u00fa\u00f1ez), 145,\n145n58\nDe peste (Hayne), 39\nDe secretis naturae liber (Llull), 142, 142\u201343n46\nDesnos, Ernest, 26n20, 30n31, 32n37, 51n101,\n52n106\nDe tartaro (Paracelsus), 35, 37, 39\nDeuteronomy (Bible), 201\nDe verbo mirifico (Reuchlin), 189, 191\nDe vita (Ficino), 210, 210n2\nDe vita longa (Paracelsus), 37, 213\nDiderot, Denis, 122\nDienheim, Johann Wolfgang, 75\nDijksterhuis, Eduard, 1, 4\nDionysus, 190\ndiseases\nof the brain, uroscopy for diagnosing, 41\nof humors, 38, 42\nmercurial, 43\nof organs vs. homoeomerous parts, 38, 38n64\nPagel on, 32n39, 35n52\nplanets as causing, 34\nsulfurous, 43, 49\ntartar, 28, 35\u201341, 35n52, 36n54, 44\ntransmutation of, 40, 40n72\nSee also under Paracelsian praxis; Three Diverse\nNew Treatises\ndivine names/illumination, 188\u201389\nDorn, Gerhard, 23n12, 60\u201361, 67\u201369, 193,\n194n39\nPhysica genesis, 194\u201395\nDuchesne, Joseph, 104, 104n9, 145\nE\nEamon, William, 151\nScience and the Secrets of Nature, 137n18\nEklund, Jon Bledge, 114\nelements (earth, air, water, and fire)\nin Aristotelian and Galenic philosophy, 7\u20138,\n34n45, 103\u20135\nBoerhaave on, 121\nHebrew letters corresponding to, 193, 203\n301\nElements of the Theory and Practice of Chemistry\n(Macquer), 122\nEliade, Mircea, 252\nElizabeth, Queen, 19n1\nElizabethan compromise, xv, 5, 19, 19\u201320n1\nEmblematum liber (Alciato), 257\nEmerald Table, 192\nemunctoria (outlets for wastes), 36, 40\nenchirises, 90\u201391\nencyclopedias of secrets, 251\nThe English Paracelsians (Debus), 4\u20136, 8, 19,\n19\u201320n1\nEnlightenment, 50, 80, 81, 81n5\nEpiphanie medicorum (Pindar), 26\nErasmus of Rotterdam: The Praise of Folly,\n271\u201372\nErastus, Thomas, 195\nEstienne, Charles: L\u2019agriculture, 148\u201349\nEtaples, Jacques Lef\u00e8vre d\u2019, 167, 191\nEurop\u00e4ische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter\n(Curtius), 252\u201354, 253n11\nF\nFaber, Georg, 21, 23, 32\u201333, 32n39, 41\u201342,\n41n77, 53n107\nFaivre, Antoine, 86\nFasciculus medicin\u00e6 (Ketham), 26\nFechner, Gustav Theodor: Nanna oder \u00fcber das\nSeelenleben der Pflanzen, 270\u201371\nFehr, Johann Michael, 83\nFell-Smith, Charlotte: John Dee, 227\u201328\nFenton, James, 226, 238\nFerdinand III, Emperor, 87, 89\nfevers, 38\u201339, 43, 49\nfiat, 194\u201395, 196n49, 197\u201398, 200\nFicino, Marsilio, xix, 209\u201313, 217\u201318, 218n25,\n220\u201322, 232, 241\nDe vita, 210, 210n2\nFiliatro, Ev\u00f3nimo, 144\nDe remediis secretis, 135\nfire\nanalysis by, 105\u20136, 120\u201321, 124\nand fluidity/solidity, 123\nas non-element, 7\u20138, 104n9\nand phlogiston, 116\u201317, 126\nfirmamental virtues, 218\nFisch, Max H., 168n27\n\nPages 318:\n302\nFludd, Robert, xix, 4, 8\u20139, 276\nUtriusque cosmi, 277, 277\u201378, 279, 280\nForestus, Petrus: On the Uncertainty and Fallacy\nof the Judgements of Urines, 51\nFranck, Sebastian, 274, 276\nFranco de Guzm\u00e1n, Manuel, 142\nFrankfurt, 24\u201325, 28\u201329\nFreemasons, 262\nFrench, Peter, 230\nJohn Dee: The World of an Elizabethan Magus,\n232\u201333, 241, 245\nFrench, Roger, 32n37\nThe French Paracelsians (Debus), 10\u201311, 211\nfundus, 46, 46n88\nG\nGalen, 29, 38n64\nGalenism, 8, 10\u201311, 36n56, 46, 49, 53\nThe Galeno-Spagyric Anatomy of the Urine (Martinius), 29\u201331, 53\nGalileo, 2, 13, 124\nGarber, Margaret, xvi, 74\ngases, 37n61, 61\nGeber, 61, 103, 108, 120, 125\ngender discussions, 288\nGeneral and Rare Memorials (Dee), 236\nGenesis (Bible), 194, 216, 218\u201319, 286\nGeoffrey of Vinsauf, 163\nGeoffroy, Etienne-Fran\u00e7ois, 121, 122n81\ngerman\u00eda oil, 138\u201339\nGesner, Conrad, 145, 148n69\ngnosticism, 187, 210, 312\nGod\ncreation of Adam, 216\u201318, 252\nletters instilled with powers by, 199\nReuchlin on, 190\nas source of knowledge, 203\nSee also fiat; Tetragrammaton\ngold\ncolor of, 103\ntincture of, 40\u201341, 117\ntransmutation of metals into, 80, 86\u201387, 91,\n117, 126\nGoldammer, Kurt, xix, 209\u201313, 210n2, 215,\n217\u201323\nG\u00f6ttliche Magier und die Magierin Natur, 212\nGonzaga, Vicente, Prince, 143\nIndex\nGoodrick-Clarke, Nicholas, 44n82\nG\u00f6ttliche Magier und die Magierin Natur (Goldammer), 212\nGrashofer, Johann, 196n49\nGrimm, Wilhelm, 254\nGriselda (legendary figure), 288\nGuti\u00e9rrez de Arevalo, Pedro, 147\nGuybert, Philibert, 147\nH\nH\u00e5kansson, H\u00e5kan, 227, 241n50\nSeeing the Word: John Dee and Renaissance\nOccultism, 238\u201341, 245\nhalchymia, 61\nHall, A. Rupert, 1, 4, 4n14\nHarkness, Deborah E., 227\nJohn Dee\u2019s Conversations with Angels, 238\u201341,\n245\nHartmann, Johannes, 83\nHayne, Johann, xv, 24\u201325, 25n15\nDe peste, 39.\nSee also Three Diverse New Treatises\nHebberden, William, 51n101\nHebrew language/letters, 189, 193, 195, 203. See\nalso Tetragrammaton\nHelmont, Jean Baptiste van, 87, 121\non fire analysis, 124\non quantitative uroscopy, 49n97\non tartar diseases, 35n52\non the tria prima, 105\u20136\nvitalistic/chemical/medical paradigm in\nwork of, 8\nHelvetius, 87\nHenry VIII, King, 149\nHermetical Physick (Nolle), 20, 20n4\nhermeticism, 187, 232\u201333\nHermetic Medicine (Nolle), 31\nHermogenes, 27n22\nHippocrates, 11, 29, 72\nHispanus, Petrus: Thesaurus pauperum, 146\nhistoriography\ncharacterization of men vs. women in,\n250\u201351\nGreat Tradition, 2\u20134\non manuscripts vs. practice, 171\u201372, 171n38\nof uroscopy, 50\u201354, 51nn100\u2013101, 52n106\nHogelande, Theobald von, 75\n\nPages 319:\nIndex\nHohenheim, Theophrastus Bombastus von. See\nParacelsus\nHohlweg, Armin, 26n20\nHolbach, Paul-Henri Thiry, Baron d\u2019, 116n66,\n123\u201324, 127\nHooke, Robert, 228, 230\nHort, Gertrude M., 228\nHospital of San Juan de Burgos pharmacy (Castile), 143\u201345, 144nn51\u201352\nhousewifery, 150\nhumanists, 26, 140\u201341, 222, 237, 239, 271, 312\nhumors (blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black\nbile), 7\u20138, 38, 42\nhypostasis, 46, 46n88\nI\nIamblichus, 187n2\niatrochemistry, 20n2, 79n1, 159\u201360\niatrophysicists (medical mechanists), xvi\u2013xvii, 11\nIconologia (Ripa), 280, 281\u201382\nIconologie (Boudard), 254, 255, 266, 267, 268\u201370\nImagini (Cartari), 278\ninflammability, Stahl on, xvii, 103\u20134, 109, 111,\n113\u201314, 117, 119. See also phlogiston\nInnsbruck, 167\ninquisitorial court, 138, 141\u201342\nIntroductio alchimiam (Wedel), 94\u201395\nIsis, 254, 255, 278\nIsserles, Moses, 198n53\nJ\nJason and the Argonauts, 86\nJehovah. See Tetragrammaton\nJesus, Tetragrammaton identified with, 194, 201\nJohn (Bible), 194, 198, 219\u201320\nJohn Dee (Fell-Smith), 227\u201328\nJohn Dee\u2019s Conversations with Angels (Harkness),\n238\u201341, 245\nJohn Dee\u2019s Natural Philosophy (Clulee), 233\u201334\nJohn Dee\u2019s Occultism (Sz\u00f6nyi), 238\u201341, 245\nJohn Dee: The Politics of Reading and Writing in the\nEnglish Renaissance (Sherman), 236\u201338,\n241\nJohn Dee: The World of an Elizabethan Magus (P.\nFrench), 232\u201333, 241\nJohn of Damascus, 167\nJohn of Rupescissa, 213\n303\nJohnson, Francis R., 231, 234\u201335\nJones, Peter Murray, 32n37\nJordan, Wilbur, 2\nJorden, Edward, 4\nJosten, Conrad, 5\u20136\nJupiter, 34\nK\nkabbalah, 187\u2013206\nAgrippa on, 191, 199\nChristian tradition of, xviii\u2013xix\nCroll on, 196\u2013201, 197n51\nKhunrath on, 201\u20133, 202n62\noverview of, 186\u201387, 203\nPantheus on, 192\u201394, 203\nPico della Mirandola on, 188\u201389, 188n3,\n191\u201392\nReuchlin on, 188\u201392, 190n12, 195, 198\nof transmutation (alchemy merged with kabbalah), xviii\u2013xix, 192, 194\u201396, 200\nZoharic, 188\u201389, 198n53\nKahl, Wilhelm, 210n2\nKahn, Didier, 213\nKant, Immanuel, 127\nCritique of Pure Reason, 124\nKappler, Wolfgang, xviii, 160\u201362, 172, 177. See\nalso under alchemical manuscripts\nKelley, Edward, 226, 230\u201331, 238, 241, 244\u201346\nKemp, Wolfgang, 278\nKepler, Johannes, 9\nKetham, Thomas: Fasciculus medicin\u00e6, 26\nKhunrath, Heinrich, xviii\u2013xix, 203\nAmphitheatrum sapientia aeternae, 195,\n201\u20132, 202n62\nConfessio de chao physico-chemicorum catholico, 195\u201396\nKiefer, Joseph H., 51n101\nKieser, Franz, 196n49\nKim, Mi Gyung, 120\u201321, 121n77, 122n81\nKircher, Athanasius, 86, 88\u201389, 91, 97, 280\nKirchmaier, J., 85\u201386n17\nKirchweger, Anton Joseph, 274\nKoch, Matthias, 162, 164\nKoyr\u00e9, Alexandre, 1\u20134\nKrems (Austria), 161\u201362, 177\nK\u00fchnel, Harry, 177\n\nPages 320:\n304\nKunckel, Johann, 85\u201386n17, 113, 117\u201318, 120, 125\nLaboratorium chymica, 112\nL\nLaboratorium chymica (Kunckel), 112\nLactantius, 252\nL\u2019agriculture (Estienne and Liebault), 148\u201349\nlanguage in the arts, 72\u201373\nLa Perri\u00e8re, Guillaume de: Le Th\u00e9\u00e2tre des bons\nengins, 256, 257, 258\nLaski, Albert, 244\nLastanosa, Vincencio Juan de, 140\nLavoisier, Antoine-Laurent, 11, 122\u201323, 127\nLehrich, Christopher, 241\u201342\nL\u00e9mery, Louis, 120\nL\u00e9mery, Nicolas, 106, 109, 121, 121n77, 124\u201325\nCours de chymie, 107\u20138, 108n25\nLeopoldina Academy of Curiosi. See Curiosi\nleprosy, 40n72, 48\nLibavius, Andreas, 59\u201378\non academies\u2019 decline, 73\non alchymia, 61\u201363, 69\non chymia as an art, xvi, 60, 65\u201366, 74\u201376\non chymia\u2019s definition, 60\u201361, 63\u201364\non chymia\u2019s practice/appearance, 70\u201374\non chymicus, 69\u201370\non Dorn, 68\nletters to Brendel (the elder), 59\u201360\noverview of, xvi\nParacelsus criticized by, xvi, 195\nSyntagma selectorum undiquaque, 62\non the tria prima, 104\non words, 67, 73, 95\nLiber medicin\u00e6 orinalibus (attrib. Hermogenes),\n27n22\nlibraries, 169, 171n37. See also under alchemical\nmanuscripts\nLiebault, Jean, 148n69\nL\u2019agriculture, 148\u201349\nLinacre, Thomas, 51n101\nLlull, Ram\u00f3n, 86\u201387, 97, 167, 178\u201381\nDe secretis naturae liber, 142, 142\u201343n46\nL\u00f3pez P\u00e9rez, Miguel, 136\u201337, 137n20, 140n31,\n144n51\nL\u00f3pez Pi\u00f1ero, Jos\u00e9 Mar\u00eda, 133\nL\u00f3pez Rodr\u00edquez, Brunilda, 2\nLuke (Bible), 221n41\nIndex\nM\nMacMillan, Kenneth, 237n34\nMacquer, Pierre-Joseph, 123, 127\nElements of the Theory and Practice of Chemistry, 122\nMacrobius, 186\nMadrid, 137\nMagi, 221\nmagia, xvii, 72\nMagia naturalis (della Porta), 251\nMaier, Michael, 86\nAtalanta fugiens, 272\u201374, 273, 289\nMan and Nature in the Renaissance (Debus), 9\u201310\nmanna solutivo, 138\nMark (Bible), 220n35\nMars, 34\nMartinius, Heinrich: The Galeno-Spagyric Anatomy of the Urine, 29\u201331, 53\nMary, mother of God, 254, 290\nmateria medica, 162, 164, 176\nMatthew (Bible), 220\nMatthiessen, Wilhelm, 210n2\nMattioli, Pietro, 145\nmatula. See urine flasks\nMauskopf, Seymour, 11\u201312\nMaximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor, 165\nMedicina dom\u00e9stica (Borb\u00f3n), 147, 147n65\nMedicina Pensylvania (de Benneville), 31, 50\nmedicine\nalchemy as, 79, 79n1\nand chymia, 75\u201376\nchymiatria (chemical medicine), 69, 79, 79n1,\n81, 85, 95\u201396\nmercury\u2019s use in, 70\nmodernization of, 50\u201351\nand natural history, 85\nSee also astrological diseases/medicine\nMei\u00dfen, Heinrich von, 288\nmercury (element)\nchymists\u2019 use in medicines, 70\ndiseases associated with, 43\nprinciple of mercury/spirit, 103, 108,\n118\u201319, 123, 125\u201326\nrarity of, 118\nSee also tria prima\nMercury (planet), 34\nMerian, Matth\u00e4us, the Elder, 272\u201373, 273\n\nPages 321:\nIndex\nmesaraic veins, 36\u201337\nmetallurgy, 64, 89. See also alchemy\n\u201cMetaphors of a Magnifico\u201d (Stevens), xiii\nmetaphysics, 68\nMetzger, Georg Balthasar, 83\nMetzger, H\u00e9l\u00e8ne, 102\nMinerva, 288\nMiropolio (N\u00fa\u00f1ez), 145\nmirrors and divine illumination, 188\u201389\nMiscellanea curiosi (journal), 79\u2013100\nchymia, use of term, 82, 84\u201385, 96\u201397\non chymia as firsthand knowledge/experience, 82, 90\u201393, 97\non chymia as social practice, 82, 93\u201396\non chymia in chrysopoetic contexts, 85\u201390\non chymica, 81, 84\u201385\ncommunity created via, 82\nestablishment of, 83\nnaming of, 80n3\nobservationes in, 84, 84n11, 91\u201392, 97\npractice over theory in, 84, 97\non proficiencies, 80\nstandardized language used in, 93\u201395, 97\ntranslation into English, 85, 85n15\nM\u00f6bius, Paul, 251n1\nMoffett, Thomas, 4, 75\nMonas hieroglyphica (Dee), 193, 228, 229,\n230\u201332, 233n27, 238\u201340, 242\nMoon, 34, 250, 264, 264\nMoran, Bruce, xvi, 10\u201311\nMoses (biblical figure), 187\u201390, 196\nMotherby, George, 51n101\nMulierum famam non formam vulgatam esse oportere (Alciato), 257, 259\nM\u00fcling, Johannes Adelphus, 210n2\nMurphy, Leonard J. T., 51n101\nMurray, John, 2\nMus\u00e6um Hermeticum, 274, 275\nN\nNachlass (Dee), 228\nname magic, 191\nNanna oder \u00fcber das Seelenleben der Pflanzen\n(Fechner), 270\u201371\nnatural astronomy (natural magic), 215\u201318\nnature imagery (late medieval and early modern\nperiods), 250\u201393\n305\nart as nature\u2019s ape, 274\u201385, 275, 277, 279,\n281\u201382, 284\nemblems, 256, 257\u201367, 258\u201366\nnatural philosophy and gynephilia, 285\u201390\nnature as nourishing mother, 252\u201354, 255\nnature as teacher, 267\u201374, 268\u201370, 273, 289\nand occultism, 285\noverview of, xx, 250\u201352\nNavarre, Marguerite de, 287\u201388\nNeoplatonism\nancient, 187\u201389, 187n2, 217\nof Dee, 231\u201332\nParacelsian, 211\u201313, 215, 218, 220\nRenaissance, 187, 209\u201313, 210n3, 215, 220,\n231\u201332, 312\nNeopythagorianism, 187\nNewman, William R., 49n97, 81, 81nn5\u20136\nNewton, Isaac, 9, 13, 20n1, 233n27\nNicholas of Cusa, 49n97\n900 Theses (Pico della Mirandola), 188\u201389\nnitric acid, 115\nNolle, Heinrich, 50, 53n10\nHermetical Physick, 20, 20n4\nHermetic Medicine, 31\nnovatores movement, 134\u201335, 135n14\nNovella, Cosme, 138\u201339\nNucleus emblematum selectissimorum (Rollenhagen), 265, 266\u201367\nNummedal, Tara, 87\u201388\nN\u00fa\u00f1ez, Esteban, 144\nDe operationibus pharmaceuticis, 145, 145n58\nMiropolio, 145\nO\nOf Famous and Rich Discoveries (Dee), 236\nO\u2019Malley, C. Donald, 6\nOn the Uncertainty and Fallacy of the Judgements\nof Urines (Forestus), 51\nOpiologia (Wedel), 94\nopposites, primary (hot/cold and wet/dry), 7\u20138\nop\u00fasculos (medical duels), 139\nOpus paramirum (Paracelsus), 44\nOration on the Dignity of Man (Pico della Mirandola), 214n19, 220\noxygen, discovery of, 127\n\nPages 322:\n306\nP\nPabst, Georg W.: Paracelsus, 44n82\nPagel, Walter\napproach to history of sciences, 3\u20134, 12\ndeath of, 4\nDebus influenced by, xix, 3\nDebus\u2019s relationship with, 4\non disease entities, 32n39\nvs. Goldammer, xix, 209\u201313, 215, 217\u201322\non Paracelsus\u2019s lectures, 44n82\nParacelsus tied to Renaissance Neoplatonism/gnosticism by, xix\non tartar diseases, 35n52\nThurneisser\u2019s influence on, 23n12\non uroscopy, 30n31, 49n97\nworks: Paracelsus: An Introduction to\nPhilosophical Medicine in the Era of the\nRenaissance, 3\u20134, 49n97; \u201cReligious\nMotives in the Medical Biology of the\nXVIIth Century,\u201d 3\u20134; \u201cThe Vindication\nof Rubbish,\u201d 4\nPalacios, Bernardino de, 144, 144n52\nPantheus, Giovanni Agostino, 192\u201394, 200\u2013201,\n203\nTransmutation, 192\nVoarchadumia, xix, 192\u201393, 239\u201340\nParacelsianism\nchemical drugs associated with, 19\u201320,\n19\u201320n1, 29n26\ndebates over, 8\nElizabethan compromise in, xv, 5, 19,\n19\u201320n1\niatrochemistry, 20n2, 79n1, 159\u201360\nlike-cures-like principle, 37n59\non microcosm (man) vs. macrocosm (universe), xix\nsalt/sulfur/mercury\u2019s central role in, xvii, 27\nin Spain (see Spain, early modern chemical\nremedies in)\ntria prima (salt, sulfur , and mercury), xvii, 43,\n102\u20135, 120\u201321, 123\u201326\ntypes of, 20n2\nSee also chemical philosophy\nParacelsian praxis, 19\u201358\nastrological medicine, 31\u201335\ncenters of, 24\u201325, 28\u201329\ndisease entities, 32\u201333, 32n39\nIndex\nin healing practices, 19\u201320\nhistoriographical impact of, 50\u201354\nmercurial diseases, 28\noverview of, xv, 19\u201321, 23\u201324\nstudies of, 20\u201321, 23\u201324\nsulfurous diseases, 28\ntartar diseases, 28, 35\u201341, 35n52, 44\nuroscopy, xv, 24\u201332, 26\u201327nn20\u201322, 28n25,\n41n77, 53\nSee also Three Diverse New Treatises (Hayne)\nParacelsus\nBasel episode, 44\u201345, 44nn81\u201382\nchaotic writings of, 21n7\ndismissal of, 4\non the elements, 103\u20134\non Ficino, 210n2\non the human as center, 214n19\non individual potential, 215n19\nand Kappler, 162\nlectures by, 44\u201348, 44n82, 46\u201347n91, 52,\n53n107\non magic, 220\u201321\non medicines/poisons, 35n49\nparabolic chymiatria taught by, 69\non physiognomy, 47\u201348\non pulses, 47\u201348\nreputation as a healer, 44\nreputation as a reformer of medicine, 50,\n50n99\non resurrection, 219\u201320\non the soul, 219\u201320\non tartar diseases, 44\non uroscopy, 30, 30n31, 45\u201348, 50, 52\nworks: Astronomia magna, 214\u201316, 220\u201321,\n220n37; Das Buch von der tartarischen\nKrankheiten, 44; De tartaro, 35, 37, 39;\nDe vita longa, 37, 213; Opus paramirum,\n44; Philosophia de generationibus, 218\nParacelsus (film; Pabst), 44n82\nParacelsus: An Introduction to Philosophical Medicine in the Era of the Renaissance (Pagel),\n3\u20134, 49n97\nPar\u00eds, Giraldo, 141\u201342, 141n41\nParry, Glyn, 227\nThe Arch-Conjuror of England, 242\u201345\nParshall, Karen, xiv\nPaul, Saint, 189\n\nPages 323:\nIndex\nPetrarch, 288\u201389\nPeuckert, Will-Erich, 221\nPhilip II, King, 133\u201336, 141\u201342\nPhilosophers\u2019 Stone, 91, 95, 187\nPhilosophia de generationibus (Paracelsus), 218\nPhilosophical Principles of Universal Chemistry\n(Stahl), 110\nPhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of\nLondon, 85, 85n15\nphlogiston (sulfurous principle)\nBecher on, 114, 114n55\ncontinuation into eighteenth century,\n120\u201324, 122n81\ndebunking of, 101, 127\u201328\ndevelopment/formulation of, 110\u201320\nand fire, 116\u201317, 126\nin the history of chemical principles, 102\u20133,\n116, 124\u201328\ninfluence of, 120\u201324\noverview of, xvii\nphysica, 63\u201364, 72, 74\nPhysica genesis (Dorn), 194\u201395\nPhysica subterannea (Becher), 108\u20139, 108\u20139n26,\n111\nPico della Mirandola, Giovanni, xix, 86, 210, 214,\n215n, 222, 232, 241\n900 Theses, 188\u201389\nOration on the Dignity of Man, 214n19, 220\nSee also under kabbalah\nPindar, Ulrich: Epiphanie medicorum, 26\npink sugar (az\u00facar rosado solutivo), 138\u201339,\n139n28\nThe Pisse-Prophet (Brian), 52\nplanets, diseases caused by, 34\nPlato, 69, 189, 217\non division of the soul, 48\u201349\ninfluence/reputation of, 186\u201387\nTim\u00e6us, 27, 49\u201350, 267\u201368\nSee also Neoplatonism\nplethora (too much blood in the veins), 39\nPliny, 280\nPlotinus, 187n2\nPlutarch, 252\nPol, Johann, 163\nPol, Nicolaus, xviii, 160, 165\u201366, 177. See also\nunder alchemical manuscripts\nPolizzi, Antonino, 138\u201339\n307\npolvos blancos solutivos (white dust solution),\n137\u201338\nPolyani, Michael, 91n40\nPomata, Gianna, 84, 84n11, 91\nPorphyry, 187n2\nPorta, Giambattista della, 145\nMagia naturalis, 251\nPortuondo, Mar\u00eda, 151\npositivism, 3\u20134, 81\nPr\u00e6occupatio (Thurneisser), 24, 28\u201331\nThe Praise of Folly (Erasmus), 271\u201372\nPraise of the Donkey (Agrippa), 272, 276\nPriesner, Claus, 91\nPrimera parte de medicina y cirugia (Vid\u00f3s),\n145\u201346\nPrincipe, Lawrence M., 49n97, 81, 81nn5\u20136\nprinting presses, 165\nPropaedeumata aphoristica (Dee), 230\u201332, 234,\n239\nProverbs (Bible), 198\nPrudentia-Teppich (tapestry), 259\u201360, 260\npseudo-Llull, 213\npseudo-Paracelsus, 213\nThree Books of Philosophy Written to the Athenians, 196, 196\u201397n49\nPumfrey, Stephen, 20n2\nPythagoras, 188, 190\nQ\nThe Queen\u2019s Conjurer (Woolley), 230\u201331, 238\nQuercetanus, 69\nquintessence of the chemical sun, 138\u201339\nQuintilio, Alessandro, 137, 137nn19\u201320\nR\nRadcliffe, John, 51n100\nRaleigh, Sir Walter, 230\nrashes, 38, 43\nRath, Wilhelm, 253\nReading the Book of Nature (Debus and Walton),\nxx\nRecanati, Menachem, 188, 190n20\nrecipe collections, 150\u201351, 150n75\nRegiomontanus, Johannes, 34\n\u201cReligious Motives in the Medical Biology of the\nXVIIth Century\u201d (Pagel), 3\u20134\n\nPages 324:\n308\nReuchlin, Johannes, 188\u201392, 195, 198, 220, 241\nDe arte cabalistica, 190n12\nDe verbo mirifico, 189, 191\nReusner, Hieronymus, 25\u201330, 26n18, 28n25, 53\nRey Bueno, Mar, xvii\u2013xviii\nRipa, Cesare: Iconologia, 280, 281\u201382\nRivi\u00e8re, Jean Davach de la: Mirror of Urines,\n52n106\n\u201cRobert Boyle and His Sceptical Chymist\u201d\n(Debus), 2\nRoberts, Julian, 234, 237\nRodr\u00edguez Guerrero, Jos\u00e9, 136\u201337, 138n23\nRolfink, Werner, 75, 93\u201396\nRollenhagen, Gabriel: Nucleus emblematum\nselectissimorum, 265, 266\u201367\nrosemary balsam, 138\u201339\nRossi, Girolamo (pseud. Hieronymus Rubeus),\n61\nRossi, Paolo, 12\nRouelle, Guillaume Fran\u00e7ois, 122\u201323\nRousseau, Jean-Jacques, 122\nRoyal Academy of Sciences (Paris), 105, 121\u201322\nRoyal College of Physicians (London), 51n101\nRoyal Court of the Protomedicato (Spain), 137\nRudolph, Hartmut, 222\u201323\nRuiz Zapata, Francisco, 138\u201339, 139n28\nS\nSachs von Lewenheimb, Philipp J., 83, 86\u201387,\n89, 92, 97\nSala, Angelo, 145\nsalts\ncolor changes caused by, 117\ndiseases associated with, 43 (see also tartar\ndiseases)\nfrom metals, 90, 92\nas resisting fire, 103\ntypes of, 43, 119\u201320\nSee also tria prima\nSan Jer\u00f3nimo, Ferm\u00edn de, 143n48\nSan Lorenzo de El Escorial, 143, 143n48\nSantiago, Diego de, 144\nSarton, George, 2\nSaturn, 34\nSceptical Chymist (Boyle), 8, 105\u20136\nSchaffner, Christoff, 162\nSch\u00f6ner, Johannes, 178\nIndex\nSchool of Chartres, 253, 269\nSchool of Night, 230\nSchott, Heinz, xx\nSchr\u00f6der, Johann, 21, 23, 145\nSch\u00fctze, Ingo, 210n3\nSchwenckfeld, Caspar von, 222\nScience and the Secrets of Nature (Eamon),\n137n18\nScientific Revolution\ndelayed, 81\nGreat Tradition in historiography of, 2\u20134\nHermeticist reinterpretation of, 12\nmathematization/mechanization of, 1\nvs. occult sciences, 234\u201335\nreshaping of, generally, 12\nunion of opposites in, xiii\u2013xiv (see also chemical philosophy)\nScultetus, Bartholom\u00e6us, 24n13\nscurvy, 38\nSeeing the Word: John Dee and Renaissance Occultism (H\u00e5kansson), 238\u201341, 245\nSefer Bahir, 188\nSemhamaphoras, 190\nsemina, 88\u201389\nSennert, Daniel, 104\nsephiroth (divine emanations), 190\nSeverinus, Petrus, 34n45, 69, 104, 194\u201395\nShackelford, Jole, xv\nShakespeare, William, 51\nSharpe, Richard, 169\u201370\nShaw, Peter, 110\nSherman, William H., 227, 235\nJohn Dee: The Politics of Reading and Writing in\nthe English Renaissance, 236\u201338, 241\nsidereal powers, 209\u201325\na middle path in the dispute, 212, 221\u201323\nPagel vs. Goldammer dispute, 209\u201313\nPagel vs. Goldammer on Paracelsus\u2019s cosmological components, 217\u201321\nParacelsus on, 213\u201317\nSidney group, 230, 233, 236\nSigismund, Duke, 165\nSilvestris, Bernard, 269\nSimeon bar Yohai, 189\nSinnbildkunst, 257\nSiraisi, Nancy, 32n37\nSlater, John, 135n14\n\nPages 325:\nIndex\nSpain, early modern chemical remedies in,\n133\u201358\nas amusements of idle men, 139\u201342, 141n41,\n142n44\nchymia, xvii\u2013xviii\nchymica/chimica, use of terms, 135n16\nnovatores movement, 134\u201335, 135n14\noverview of, xvii\u2013xviii, 133\u201336, 135n14,\n136n16, 151\nfor the poor, 146\u201347, 147n65\nscholars of, 151\nsecret panaceas, 137\u201339, 137n18, 137n20,\n138n23, 138n25, 139n26, 139n28\nby spagyrist friars, 143\u201345, 144nn51\u201352,\n145n58\nby women, 148\u201351, 150n75\nSpecimen beccherrianum (Stahl), 111, 125\u201326\nSpeer, Andreas, 267\u201368\nspiritus mundi (spirit bodies), 209\u201310\nStahl, Georg Ernst, 101\u201330\non \u00e6ther, 110\u201311, 117, 126\non Asche (rust), 113, 113n47\non calcination/combustion, 102, 117, 127\nDebus on, 101\u20132n1\nimportance of, 101\u20132\non inflammability, xvii, 103\u20134, 109, 111,\n113\u201314, 117, 119 (see also phlogiston)\noverview of, 101\u20133\non salts, 119\u201320\nvitalism of, xvi\nworks: Philosophical Principles of Universal\nChemistry, 110; Specimen beccherrianum,\n111, 125\u201326; Treatise on Sulfur, 103,\n109, 111\u201312, 115, 120\u201326; Zymotechnia\nfundamentalis, 110, 125\u201326\nstars, powers of, 34, 222\u201323. See also sidereal\npowers\nStein, Claudia L\u2019Engle, 40n72\nSteneck, Nicholas, 10\nStengers, Isabelle, 127\nStevens, Wallace: \u201cMetaphors of a Magnifico,\u201d xiii\nStoics, 217\nStolbert, Michael, 32n36, 51\u201354\nSuchten, Alexander von, 67\nSudhoff, Karl, 45, 52, 210n2, 211, 219\nSukkah, 189\n309\nsulfur\ndiseases associated with, 43, 49\nhepar sulphuris (liver of sulfur), 115, 115n61,\n121\ninflammability of, 103, 107\nmetallic, 117\u201318\nmetals\u2019s color due to, 103, 126\nSee also tria prima\nsulfur dioxide, 119\nsulfurous principle. See phlogiston\nsulfur trioxide, 119\nSulzer, Johann Georg\nAllgemeine Theorie der Sch\u00f6nen K\u00fcnste, 283\nUnterredungen \u00fcber die Sch\u00f6nheit der Natur,\n281\u201382, 284\nSun, 34, 250, 257, 264, 264, 283\nsymbolic exegesis, 240\nsyphilis, 40n72, 166\nSz\u00f6nyi, Gy\u00f6rgy, 227\nJohn Dee\u2019s Occultism, 238\u201341, 245\nT\ntacit knowledge, 91n40\nTalmud, 189\ntartar diseases, 28, 35\u201341, 35n52, 36n54, 44\nTaylor, Charles, 2\nTaylor, Eva G. R., 231, 234\nTeich, Mikulas, 114, 114n55\nTetragrammaton (YHVH), 189\u201392, 194, 201,\n286\nTHALAT- TOKRATIA BRETTANIKI (Dee), 236\nLe Th\u00e9\u00e2tre des bons engins (La Perri\u00e8re), 256, 257,\n258\nThesaurus pauperum (Hispanus), 146\nThree Books of Philosophy Written to the Athenians\n(pseudo-Paracelsus), 196, 196\u201397n49\nThree Diverse New Treatises (Hayne), 22, 30\u201333\non arsenical diseases, 37\non astrological diseases, 21, 31, 33\u201335, 39\u201340\non body (elemental earth and water), 41\non chemical uroscopy, 21, 30, 41\u201350\ncomposition of, 21, 23\non digestion, 36, 36n56, 40\nfrontispiece, 22, 53\nas an introduction to Paracelsian medicine,\n20\u201321\n\nPages 326:\n310\nThree Diverse New Treatises (Hayne) continued\noverview of, 30\u201331\nParacelsus\u2019s direct influence on, 53n107\npublication of, 20n6, 21, 23\non seeds (salt, sulphur, and mercury), 42\nsignificance of, 50\non spirit (elemental fire and air), 41\u201342\non spiritual origin of diseases, 20\u201321\non stars, 34\u201335\non tartar diseases, 35\u201341, 36n54\non uroscopy, 40\u201343, 49\u201350, 52\u201353\nvernacular (German) used in, 23\nThurneisser, Leonhard, 23\u201324n12, 23\u201326,\n27n21, 30n31, 36n54, 48, 49n97, 52\u201353,\n53n107\nPr\u00e6occupatio, 24, 28\u201331\nTim\u00e6us (Plato), 27, 49\u201350, 267\u201368\nTimmermann, Anke, xviii\nTorricelli, Evangelista, 124\nToxites, Michael, 68\u201369\nTransmutation (Pantheus), 192\nTreatise on Sulfur (Stahl), 103, 109, 111\u201312, 115,\n120\u201326\nTrenbach, Christoph von, 162\ntria prima (salt, sulfur, and mercury), xvii, 43,\n102\u20135, 120\u201321, 123\u201326\nTrinity College Library (Cambridge), 171n37\nTubal-Cain (biblical figure), 64, 193\nTudor politics, 242\nTurba philosophorum, 192\nTurner, William, 4\nTymme, Thomas, 4\ntzimzum, 198\nU\nUlstad, Philip, 142, 144\nUniversity of Chicago, 6\nUniversity of Jena, 83, 93\nUniversity of Marburg, 83\nUniversity of Valencia, 135\nUniversity of Vienna, 160\nUnterredungen \u00fcber die Sch\u00f6nheit der Natur (Sulzer), 281\u201382, 284\nurine flasks (matulae), 25\u201327, 27nn21\u201322, 32,\n32n37, 42\u201343, 53\nuroscopy\ndecline of, 50\u201354, 51nn100\u2013101, 52n106\nIndex\nHayne on, 40\u201343, 49\u201350, 52\u201353\nhealthy-state urine, 42, 42n79, 46\nhistoriography of, 50\u201354, 51nn100\u2013101,\n52n106\nin Paracelsian praxis, xv, 24\u201332, 26\u201327nn20\u2013\n22, 28n25, 41n77, 53\nParacelsus on, 30, 30n31, 45\u201348, 50, 52\npatients\u2019 expectations of, 32n36\nquantitative vs. qualitative, 49, 49n97, 52\nShakespeare\u2019s references to, 51\nUtriusque cosmi (Fludd), 277, 277\u201378, 279, 280\nV\nValles, Francisco de, 134\u201335\nV\u00e1zquez de M\u00e1rmol, Juan, 140\u201341\nVenel, Gabriel Fran\u00e7ois, 122\u201323\nVenus (god), 190, 256, 257, 258\u201359\nVenus (planet), 34\nVid\u00f3s y Mir\u00f3, Juan de, 147\nPrimera parte de medicina y cirugia, 145\u201346\nVilla, Esteban, 143\u201344\nVillacast\u00edn, Andr\u00e9s de, 143\n\u201cThe Vindication of Rubbish\u201d (Pagel), 4\nvirtuosi societies, 82\nvitriolated tartar, 114\u201315, 121, 123\nvitriolic acid, 114\u201315, 119, 121\nVives, Juan Luis: De Institutione foeminae christianae, 149\nVoarchadumia (Pantheus), xix, 192\u201393, 239\u201340\nW\nWallis, Faith, 27n22, 42n79\nWalton, Michael, xviii, xx\u2013xxi\nReading the Book of Nature, xx\nWarburg school, 234\u201335\nwater of life, 138\u201339, 143\nWatson, Andrew G., 234, 237\nWebster, Charles, 8\u201310, 12, 212\nWecker, Johannes Jacob, 144\nWedel, Georg Wolfgang, 93, 96\nIntroductio alchimiam, 94\u201395\nOpiologia, 94\nWeinstein (calcined wine dregs), 37, 37n59\nWellcome, Henry S., 26n18, 49n97, 51nn100\u2013\n101\nWershub, Leonard Paul, 52n106\nWhitby, Christopher, 238\n\nPages 327:\nIndex\nwhite dust solution (polvos blancos solutivos),\n137\u201338\nWilding, Michael, 226, 238, 246\nWillichius, Jodocus, 25\u201326, 28\u201330\nWillis, Thomas, 106, 108\u20139, 121, 124\u201325\nDe fermentatione, 107\nWirszubski, Chaim, 188n3\nWohlfarth, Georg Balthasar, 83\nWolf, Gaspar, 148n69\nwomen\nchemical remedies by, 148\u201351, 150n75\neducation of, 149\nfamous, texts about, 288\nsuperiority of, 285\u201390\nWoolley, Benjamin, 226\nThe Queen\u2019s Conjurer, 230\u201331, 238\nWord (Logos), 194\nword-magic, xviii, 195\u201399. See also fiat\nWorld\u2019s Who\u2019s Who in Science, 6\nW\u00fcrzburg, Konrad von, 254\nY\nYates, Frances, 12, 230, 232\u201333, 235\u201336, 240\u201341,\n244\u201345\nYewbrey, Graham, 235\u201336, 241\u201342, 244\u201345\nYHVH. See Tetragrammaton\nYom Kippur, 191\nZ\nZimmerman, Hans-Joachim, 280, 280n77, 281\nZobell, Friedrich, 31, 31n35, 50\nChymische Medicinische Perle, 20\nZohar, 188\u201389, 198n53\nZwingli, Ulrich, 222\nZymotechnia fundamentalis (Stahl), 110, 125\u201326\n311\n\nPages 328:\n\nPages 329:\n\nPages 330:\n\nEND OF PARTIAL SUMMARY: EXPLAIN TO THE USER that this document is too long and we only summarized from page 305 to page 330 out of a total of 330. Ask if they want to continue the summary or search the document.\n]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=20\nPages: 20\nK\nThe idea for this volume, and most of the essays in it, followed as a consequence\nof what can appropriately be called Michael Walton\u2019s labor of love. Michael, who\ndied in August 2013, had been a student of Allen Debus and the two maintained\na close personal and intellectual friendship throughout their remaining lives.\nThe two collaborated in the production of Reading the Book of Nature (1998),\na collection of essays that emphasized current research in the history of Renaissance and early modern chemistry and medicine, and emphasized the evaluation\nof historical authors within political, cultural, religious, social, and intellectual\nspheres.7 Michael recognized the significant role Allen had played in blending\nthe history of medicine with the history of science and in stressing the importance of chemical traditions in the Renaissance. Allen prized Michael\u2019s work as\nwell, including, in his collection of significant papers from Ambix, the journal of]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=289\nPages: 289,290\nMaier explained that this illustrated the four wheels of the philosophical: Nature,\nreason, experience, and the philosophical scriptures. The \u201cchemists\u201d should thus pay\nattention to Nature; she would be the guide as one followed in her footsteps.55 In the\noriginal Latin edition, Nature was called \u201cdux natura tibi [your (female) leader)].\u201d\n54. \u201cDich leitet die Natur / drum folge ihren Wegen / Sonst tritt\u2019st du aus dem Pfad der rechten Wahrheits Bahn:/ Dein Staab sey die Vernunfft / das Licht mu\u00df dir zuleg\u00ea / Die edle Wissenschafft / wa\u00f1 du das\nWerck f\u00e4ngst an./ Das Lesen ist die Lamp so in dem Finstern scheinet / Doch \u00fcberleg dabey was auch der\nWei\u00df recht meinet\u201d; Maier, Chymisches Cabinet, 124, as translated in de Jong, Michael Maier\u2019s Atalanta Fugiens,\n266\u2013\u00ad67.\n55. Maier, Chymisches Cabinet, 125.\n274\nHeinz Schott\nThe title page of the Mus\u00e6um hermeticum (1625) displays a Hermetic modification of Maier\u2019s emblem (fig. 11.16), however. Within an oval frame, the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=201\nPages: 201\nKratochwill, Dagmar, Annemarie M\u00fchlb\u00f6ck, Peter Wind, and Gerold Hayer. Die\nDeutschen Handschriften des Mittelalters der Erzabtei St. Peter zu Salzburg.\nVienna: Verlag der \u00d6sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1982.\nK\u00fchebacher, Egon. Kirche und Museum des Stiftes Innichen: Begleiter und F\u00fchrer bei der\nBetrachtung der Kulturdenkm\u00e4ler und Kunstwerke des \u00e4ltesten Tiroler Stiftes.\nBozen: Verlagsanstalt Athesia, 1993.\nK\u00fchnel, Harry. \u201cKremser Apotheker und \u00c4rzte des Mittelalters und der Fr\u00fchen Neuzeit.\u201d Mitteilungen des Kremser Stadtarchivs 1 (1961): 9\u2013\u00ad32.\nLehmann, Paul. \u201cEin Deutscher auf der Suche nach Werken des Raymundus Llullus.\u201d\nZentralblatt f\u00fcr Bibliothekswesen 58, no. 7/8 (1941): 233\u2013\u00ad40.\nMartin\u00f3n-\u00adTorres, Marcos. \u201cSome Recent Developments in the Historiography of\nAlchemy.\u201d Ambix 58, no. 3 (2011): 215\u2013\u00ad37.\nMazal, Otto, and Franz Unterkircher. Katalog der abendl\u00e4ndischen Handschriften der\n\u00d6sterreichischen Nationalbibliothek, \u201cSeries nova\u201d (Neuerwerbungen). Vienna:]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=305\nPages: 305,306\nthe medium that linked human beings and all natural things with God, the original creating power. Certain images and metaphors were coined: queen of heavens,\nvirgin, wet nurse, wise woman, guide for naturalists. Consequently, Nature was\nimagined as the real teacher of philosophers and alchemists. They had to follow in\nher footsteps as depicted in the emblem of Michael Maier discussed above.\n114. Petrarca, Petrarchas Griseldis.\n115. Boccaccio, Historien von allen den f\u00fcrnembsten Weibern, 7.\n116. Ibid., 8.\n117. Ibid., 14.\n118. Angenot, Champions des femmes.\n290\nHeinz Schott\nThose imaginings showed Nature personified as a female. She was a divine\nmagician beaming the splendor of God down to the microcosm. All women\nshared her characteristic traits, especially the ability to produce living creatures.\nThere was, however, a clear hierarchy. Nature was inferior to God, but superior\nto man. Analogously, Agrippa\u2019s theory presented woman as superior to man]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=20\nPages: 20,21\nwell, including, in his collection of significant papers from Ambix, the journal of\nthe Society for the History of Alchemy, not one, but two Walton contributions.8\nIn his life and work, Michael bridged several cultural-\u00adreligious traditions and\nsocial roles, taking significant part in the world of scholarship while rising each\nmorning to a \u201cday job\u201d as a successful entrepreneur. He was always a scholar,\nand in the evenings, like Machiavelli, he returned to his house and metaphorically took off the clothes of the day, dressed himself in the robes of learning and\nerudition, and dined in his study on the intellectual food for which he was born.\nThere, he read Renaissance texts and pursued interests in the biblical account of\ncreation, Paracelsian and early modern medicine, and the history of chemistry.\n7. Debus and Walton, Reading the Book of Nature.\n8. Walton, \u201cJohn Dee\u2019s Monas Hieroglyphica\u201d and \u201cBoyle and Newton on the Transmutation of Water\nand Air.\u201d\nIntroduction\nxxi]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=103\nPages: 103\nChymical Curiosities and Trusted Testimonials\n83\nsense that it originally consisted of just four physicians in remote Schweinfurt (a\ncity in Lower Franconia of the German territories). Their ambition was to create\nencyclopedic knowledge on curiosities from A to Z, an endeavor they hoped to\nrealize by organizing a social body of physicians throughout the Holy Roman\nEmpire. The four founding members\u2014\u00adJohann Bausch (1605\u2013\u00ad65), Johann\nMichael Fehr (1610\u2013\u00ad88), Georg Balthasar Metzger (1623\u2013\u00ad87), and Georg\nBalthasar Wohlfarth (1607\u2013\u00ad74)\u2014\u00adbegan this task based upon their own knowledge of medicine, botany, and chymia, with their stated goal of imitating Francis\nBacon\u2019s ideals of collecting and sharing new observationes.8 Despite devastating\ninterruptions during the Thirty Years\u2019 War, each managed to acquire a cosmopolitan medical education by matriculating through a number of universities\nin Germany, Switzerland, and Italy, including the University of Jena, at a time]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=298\nPages: 298,299\nKette aus, daran ein Ring nach dem andern durch unmerkliche Ver\u00e4nderungen abnimmt\u201d; Sulzer, Unterredungen \u00fcber die Sch\u00f6nheit der Natur, 26\u2013\u00ad30 (my translation).\n83. Ibid., 27.\n84. \u201cWenn auch der Winter einen Schleyer \u00fcber die Sch\u00e4ze der Natur ziehet, so habe ich sie bey mir. Das\nReich der Pflanzen bleibt mir in meinen Zimmern immer gr\u00fcn. . . . Ich habe also einen best\u00e4ndigen Sommer\nOn the Imagery of Nature in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Periods\n283\nthat includes so many different peculiarities that everyone will find something\nto enjoy.\u201d85 Divine wisdom constructed the world in such a manner that it would\nplease different minds: \u201cthat everyone perceives almost just that [aspect] of the\nworld, that pleases him, the rest, that displeases him, is hidden to him.\u201d86\nThe title copper engraving of Sulzer\u2019s book Allgemeine Theorie der Sch\u00f6nen\nK\u00fcnste, which was created by Daniel Chodowiecki, is impressive (fig. 11.21). It]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=308\nPages: 308,310\nHeidelberg, 1956.\nOn the Imagery of Nature in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Periods\n293\nSulzer, Johann Georg. Allgemeine Theorie der Sch\u00f6nen K\u00fcnste . . . Leipzig: in der Weidmannischen Buchhandlung, 1793.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Unterredungen \u00fcber die Sch\u00f6nheit der Natur nebst desselben moralischen Betrachtungen \u00fcber besondere Gegenst\u00e4nde der Naturlehre. Berlin: Haude und Spener,\n1770. Reprint, Frankfurt: Athen\u00e4um, 1971.\nW\u00fcrzburg, Konrad [Conrad] von. Die goldene Schmiede: Aus Gothaischen Handschriften\nherausgegeben und erkl\u00e4rt von W. C. Grimm. Frankfurt: K\u00f6rner, 1816.\nW\u00fcseke, Eduard B. Freimaurerische Bez\u00fcge zur barocken Emblematik: Kommunikationszeichen an der Schwelle zur Neuzeit. M\u00fcnster: Bauh\u00fctten Verlag, 1990.\nZimmermann, Hans-\u00adJoachim. Der akademische Affe: Die Geschichte einer Allegorie aus\nCesare Ripas \u2018Iconologia.\u2019 Supplemente der Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger\nAkademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-\u00adHistorische Klasse. Vol. 6.\nWiesbaden: Reichert, 1991.\nAbout the Contributors]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=201\nPages: 201\nH\u00f6ller, Daniela. Neues Licht auf den Kongre\u00df der Goldmacher: Edition und Kommentar\nvon \u00d6NB 5509 (fol. 249r\u2013\u00ad253v). Vienna: Praesens, 2007.\nHorn, Sonia. \u201cExaminiert und Approbiert: Die Wiener medizinische Fakult\u00e4t und\nnicht-\u00adakademische Heilkundige in Sp\u00e4tmittelalter und Fr\u00fcher Neuzeit.\u201d PhD\ndiss., University of Vienna, 2001. Online at http://www.meduniwien.ac.at/\ntypo3/fileadmin/Josephinum/Diss_Horn_UB_pdf.pdf.\nJones, Peter Murray. \u201cMedical Libraries.\u201d In The Cambridge History of Libraries in\nBritain and Ireland, edited by Elisabeth Leedham-\u00adGreen and Teresa Webber,\n1:461\u2013\u00ad71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.\nKeil, Gundolf. \u201cWilhelm von Ghauch (Wilhelmus de Ple[s]e).\u201d W\u00fcrzburger Medizinhistorische Mitteilungen 18 (1999): 535.\nKeil, Gundolf, and Marianne Halbleib. \u201cZwei alchemische Kupferprozesse des Wilhelm von Ghauch.\u201d Nova Acta Paracelsica n.s. 16 (2002): 101\u2013\u00ad5.\nKratochwill, Dagmar, Annemarie M\u00fchlb\u00f6ck, Peter Wind, and Gerold Hayer. Die]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=195\nPages: 195,196\ndevelopment of medical regulations in Krems) are Traninger, \u201cBildgebende Verfahren\u201d; Ottner, \u201cDie Streitbare\nNatur des Doktor Wolfgang Kappler\u201d; and Tenge-\u00adWolf, \u201cNikolaus Pol und die Llull-\u00adHandschriften.\u201d\n53. K\u00fchnel, \u201cKremser Apotheker,\u201d 20.\n178\nAnke Timmermann\nAppendix: Handlist of Pol\u2019s Manuscripts at the\nAustrian National Library\nThis list, taking into account the history and organization of Pol\u2019s library as\ndescribed in the main part of the chapter, consolidates and corrects extant information on the origins, contents, and physical features of all known Pol manuscripts now held at the Austrian National Library.54\nE: MS 5509\nVolume on alchemy. Bavaria or Austria,55 mid-\u00adfifteenth century (prior to Pol\u2019s\nlifetime). 218 x 147 mm, 258 folios. Binding: Vienna, 1755.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=203\nPages: 203,204\nSan Candido.\u201d In Arch\u00e4ologie der Phantasie: Vom \u201cImaginationsraum S\u00fcditrol\u201d\nzur longue dur\u00e9e einer, \u201cKultur de Phantasmen\u201d und ihrer Wiederkehr in der\nKunst de Gegenwart, edited by Elmar Locher and Hans J\u00fcrgen Scheuer, 127\u2013\u00ad\n44. Innsbruck: Studienverlag, 2012.\nUnterkircher, Franz. Die datierten Handschriften der \u00d6sterreichischen Nationalbibliothek.\nVienna: Verlag der \u00d6sterreischischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1969\u2013\u00ad76.\nChapter 8\nThe Chemical\nPhilosophy and\nKabbalah\nA\nPantheus, Khunrath, Croll, and\nthe Treasures of the Oratory and\nthe Laboratory\nMichael T. Walton*\nAlthough the majority of Plato\u2019s works were unavailable in the Latin Christian West prior to the later fifteenth century, his ideas were not completely\nunknown.1 Augustine, Boethius, and Macrobius had transmitted knowledge\nof his doctrines, especially those of the soul and one god, which seemed to\npresage Christian dogma. Plato was regarded as the exemplar of the virtuous]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=179\nPages: 179\nthe time, comprised mostly of craftsmen whose work was closely connected\nwith trading along the Danube. Kappler had received his medical education at\nthe philosophical-\u00admedical Collegium artium liberalum et physicorum in San\nGiovanni/Bragora and in Venice, and subsequently held appointments as municipal physician (Stadtphysicus) in Brno and physician in Znojmo (both now in the\nCzech Republic), about 130 and 90 kilometers north of Vienna, respectively. He\nhad thus gained extensive experience in different parts of Central Europe\u2014\u00adboth\nas a medical practitioner and in the manufacture of remedies\u2014\u00adby the time he\narrived in Krems. There, he soon became an influential physician, held positions\non the town council, and generally showed a forceful disposition reminiscent of\nanother physician born in 1493, Paracelsus. It is Kappler\u2019s personality that has\nlargely determined his historical image.3]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=308\nPages: 308,309\nSch\u00e4fer, Peter. Mirror of His Beauty: Feminine Images of God from the Bible to the Early\nKabbalah. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002.\nSchott, Heinz. Magie der Natur: Historische variationen zu einem Motiv der Heilkunst.\nAachen: Shaker, 2014.\nSpeer, Andreas. Die Entdeckung der Natur: Untersuchungen zur Begr\u00fcndungsversuchen\neiner \u201cScientia naturalis\u201d im 12. Jahrhundert. Studien und Texte zur Geistesgeschichte des mittelalters 45. Leiden: Brill, 1995.\nStemper, Anneliese. \u201cDer Prudentia-\u00adTeppich des Pfalzgrafen Ottheinrich im Kurpf\u00e4lzischen Museum zu Heidelberg.\u201d Heidelberger Jahrb\u00fccher 2 (1958): 68\u2013\u00ad95.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cDie Wandteppiche.\u201d In Ottheinrich: Gedenkschrift zur vierhundertj\u00e4hrigen\nWiederkehr seiner Kurf\u00fcrstenzeit in der Pfalz (1556\u2013\u00ad1559), edited by Georg\nPoensgen, 141\u2013\u00ad71. Heidelberg: Verlag der Studentenschaft der Universit\u00e4t\nHeidelberg, 1956.\nOn the Imagery of Nature in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Periods\n293]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=312\nPages: 312\nScience, Technology, and Medicine at the University of Minnesota. Recent\nscholarship includes the 2013 monograph Northern Light and Northern Times:\nSwedish Leadership in the Foundation of Biological Rhythms Research. His book\nA Philosophical Path for Paracelsian Medicine: The Ideas, Intellectual Context, and\nInfluence of Petrus Severinus (2004) received the George Urdang Medal from the\nAmerican Institute for the History of Pharmacy in 2007.\nAnke Timmermann was EU Marie Curie postdoctoral fellow at the Medical\nUniversity of Vienna, Austria (2011\u2013\u00ad13), and subsequently Munby Fellow\nin bibliography at the University of Cambridge, England. She is the author of\nVerse and Transmutation: A Corpus of Middle English Alchemical Poetry (Critical\nEditions and Studies) (2013); \u201cScientific and Encyclopaedic Verse\u201d in A. S. G.\nEdwards and Julia Boffey, eds., Companion to Fifteenth-\u00adCentury English Poetry\n(2013); \u201cDoctor\u2019s Order: An Early Modern Doctor\u2019s Alchemical Notebooks,\u201d]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=308\nPages: 308\naus wohlmeinender Veneration und Liebe zum zweyten mahl in der Lateinischen\nSprach ausgefertiget / vor jetzo aber zum ersten Mahl in das Hochteutsche \u00fcbersetzet ist . . . Frankfurt: Oehrling, 1708.\nM\u00f6bius, Paul Julius. Ueber den physiologischen Schwachsinn des Weibes. Sammlung\nzwangloser Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der Nerven-\u00adund Geisteskrankheiten 3. Halle: Marhold, 1900.\nModersohn, Mechthild. Natura als G\u00f6ttin im Mittelalter: Ikonographische Studien zu\nDarstellungen der personifizierten Natur. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1997.\nPetrarca, Francesco. Petrarchas Griseldis (Ulm: Johann Zainer, 1473/74). Facsimile edition. Edited by Henirich Steinh\u00f6wel. Potsdam: M\u00fcller, 1921.\nRath, Wilhelm. \u201cEinleitung.\u201d In Alanus ab Insulis, Der Anticlaudian oder Die B\u00fccher von\nder Himmlischen Erschaffung des neuen Menschen, edited by Wilhelm Rath,\n15\u2013\u00ad92. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Mellinger, 1983.\nSch\u00e4fer, Peter. Mirror of His Beauty: Feminine Images of God from the Bible to the Early]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=11\nPages: 11,13\nSch\u00f6nheit der Natur nebst desselben moralischen Betrachtungen \u00fcber\nbesondere Gegenst\u00e4nde der Naturlehre. Von neuem aufgelegt (Berlin:\nHaude und Spener, 1770)............................................................................. 284\nIntroduction\nR\nTwenty men crossing a bridge,\nInto a village,\nAre twenty men crossing twenty bridges,\nInto twenty villages,\nOr one man\nCrossing a single bridge . . .\n\u2014\u00adWallace Stevens, \u201cMetaphors of a Magnifico\u201d\nReference to Wallace Stevens\u2019s early poem \u201cMetaphors of a Magnifico\u201d (1918)\nmay seem an odd way to introduce a collection of essays related to early modern\nscience and medicine and honoring Allen Debus (1926\u2013\u00ad2009). Yet there is a\nlink between the poem and Debus\u2019s historical research, namely, an awareness\nthat in daily\u2014\u00adas well as in historical\u2014\u00adlife, human beings are sometimes both\nin and out of the spheres in which others may perceive them. Debus was particularly concerned about making this distinction in regard to the traditions of]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=283\nPages: 283,284\n32. Speer, Die Entdeckung der Natur.\n33. Ibid., 290.\n268\nHeinz Schott\nFigure 11.12: \u201cTheorie\u201d\nfrom Jean Baptiste Boudard,\nIconologie tir\u00e9e de divers\nauteurs (Parme: Sebstverl.;\n[Drucker]: Carmignani,\n1759), reproduced in Eduard\nB. W\u00fcseke, Freimaurerische\nBez\u00fcge zur barocken Emblematik: Kommunikationszeichen\nan der Schwelle zur Neuzeit\n(M\u00fcnster: Bauh\u00fctten Verl.,\n1990), 121.\nmundi\u201d (philosophy of the world) would search for the \u201ccausae rerum\u201d (the\ncauses of things) and try to reduce them to their basic principles.34 Physics (physica) would become \u201ca science of the mathematical nature of the sensible world\n[mundus sensibilis].\u201d35 When common education flourished in the late Middle\nAges, the \u201cgolden age of magic\u201d flourished as well, with magic being performed\nnot just by a few specialists.36\nOnce again, Alanus ab Insulis in the Anticlaudian provides key insights. In\nhis treatise, he described Natura as a \u201cgreat artist,\u201d a \u201csollers\u201d (from the Latin sol-\n34. Ibid., 291.\n35. Ibid., 293.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=307\nPages: 307,308\nNeuzeit. Bielefeld: transcript, 2004.\n292\nHeinz Schott\nKemp, Wolfgang. \u201cNatura: Ikonographische Studien zur Geschichte und Verbreitung\neiner Allegorie.\u201d PhD diss., T\u00fcbingen University, 1973.\nKieckhefer, Richard. Magie im Mittelalter. Translated by Peter Knecht. M\u00fcnchen: Beck,\n1992.\nKirchweger, Anton Joseph [alleged author]. Aurea catena homeri, oder Eine Beschreibung\nvon dem Ursprung der Natur und nat\u00fcrlichen Dingen . . . Frankfurt: B\u00f6hme,\n1723.\nKolsky, Stephen. The Ghost of Boccaccio: Writings on Famous Women in Renaissance Italy.\nLate Medieval and Early Modern Studies 7. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols,\n2005.\nMaier, Michael. Chymisches Cabinet / Drer grossen Geheimnussen der Natur / Durch\nwohl ersonnene sinnreiche Kupfferstiche und Emblemata . . . : Der Chymischen\nRepublic Und Dero Liebhabern / Zur Speculation, Betracht-\u00adund Unersuchung\naus wohlmeinender Veneration und Liebe zum zweyten mahl in der Lateinischen]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=231\nPages: 231\nincorporating his idiosyncratic, but literal, biblical exegesis. The radical reformer\nwho never left the Catholic Church was clearly influenced by the Reformation\nemphasis on sola scriptura as he created his own theology and Bible-based Weltanschauung.\nTurning to Paracelsus\u2019s specific ideas concerning magic and the sidereal\ncomponents of the universe (macrocosm) and human (microcosm), it is fitting to explore pieces from his analysis of the star powers in his Meisterst\u00fcck,\nthe Astronomia magna, written in 1537 and 1538, and first published by several\nof his followers in the late sixteenth century. Book 1 is called \u201cThe Book of the\nPhilosophy of the Heavenly Firmament.\u201d The first three chapters of this opening\nbook became the most widely reproduced and translated section of the Astronomia magna. There, Paracelsus depicted the ontological basis of his picture of man\nand the cosmos. Indicative of his unique exegesis, he differentiated the natural]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=204\nPages: 204,205\npresage Christian dogma. Plato was regarded as the exemplar of the virtuous\npagan, and medieval philosophers referred to him as Moses Atticus. His ideas\n* Michael Walton died in 2013, before the publication of this volume and his chapter in it could be\nrealized.\n1. This study grows out of the work of Walter Pagel and Allen G. Debus, who demonstrated the need to\nbroaden our understanding of the context of the development of early modern natural philosophy. It is also an\nelaboration of the themes raised in my book, Walton, Genesis and the Chemical Philosophy. I thank Dane Daniel\nfor reading this essay and suggesting improvements.\n186\nThe Chemical Philosophy and Kabbalah\n187\nhad also been developed in the Hellenistic world into the philosophical religion of Neoplatonism. Influenced by the mystery cults, Neoplatonism purported to offer true seekers of wisdom and knowledge a way to move beyond\nthe symbols in the temples of worship to soul-\u00adknowledge of the essence of\nBeing.2]"]}

{"error_message":"The page range provided is invalid: start_page must be between 1 and 330, got 331. Please provide a valid page range."}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=182\nPages: 182\n(such as the wedding of his daughter and the feast provided for the occasion),\nand extensive lists of particular regimens.\nBoth the manuscript in its original form, that is, in the form in which Kappler first encountered it, and the heavily annotated version that has come down\nto us, show Kappler\u2019s ongoing engagement with certain methods, equipment,\nsubstances, and approaches that bridge medicine, alchemy, and pharmacy. Also\nin evidence is Kappler\u2019s knowledge of medical and alchemical literature, both\ntraditional and contemporary. He referenced not only authorities like Arnold\nof Villanova (ca. 1238\u2013\u00adca. 1310) but also local and international colleagues,\nmost of whom have been largely forgotten by historians of science. Title lines\nof individual remedies often purport to be \u201cex alchimico,\u201d occasionally employ\nalchemical symbols for substances such as mercury, and include methods such\nas distillation used in the alchemical laboratory. The manuscript, through its]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=190\nPages: 190\n172\nAnke Timmermann\nalchemical recipes, however, cover the spectrum from medications incorporating metalline substances to chrysopoeia. For example, \u00d6NB MS 5315, a miscellany completed prior to Pol\u2019s acquisition of it, gathers instructions in the space\nof a few folios for the preparation of potable gold, a corrosive water for the separation of gold and precious stones, a metalline water, and \u201cPil[u]le Imperiales\u201d\n(imperial pills).40 Other manuscripts provide instructions for making aquae vitae\nand quintessences, not always medical in their intended application.41 As for the\nmedically relevant recipes, ingredients in the collections of both men would\nhave been at home not just in an alchemical laboratory but also in a kitchen or in\nKappler\u2019s famous garden or apothecary shop.\nWhat role, then, did the texts themselves, alchemical or more traditionally\npharmaceutical, play in the doctors\u2019 approaches to their practice? It seems that]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=100\nPages: 100\npast, Debus insisted that chemistry\u2019s academic acceptance depended upon its\npharmaceutical value to schools of medicine\u2014\u00ada move that established chemistry\u2019s university footing once physicians rejected chemical philosophy as a viable explanatory source for physiology. Pushing Debus\u2019s claim further, I argue\nthat physicians and chemists received far more from alchemy than philosophy\nand pharmaceuticals. The rise of the \u201cexpert chemist\u201d was linked to an earlier\ntransformation of alchemical adept to physician adept, one whose chemical\nexperience was measured by chemical productions. It was the gold-\u00admaking\ntransmutation believers themselves who initiated these efforts to standardize\nlanguage and agree upon procedures and symbols.\nIn late seventeenth-\u00adcentury central Europe, physicians in the Leopoldina\nAcademy of Curiosi illustrated their prominence in more than medical theory\nor pharmaceuticals, portraying additionally their dominance in skills involving]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=192\nPages: 192,193\napplications, however, a dichotomy between them was at odds with the living,\napplied, interacting organizational principles in effect in Pol\u2019s library as well as\nwith Kappler\u2019s concept of remedies.\n46. See, for example, \u201cEx alchimico contra sciatica & omnem dolorem iuncturarum,\u201d \u00d6NB MS 11410,\nfol. 187r. Medications for suppressing impending miscarriage are on fol. 153 and epilepsy features around fol.\n30v.\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n175\nPol\u2019s and Kappler\u2019s manuscripts also illuminate their actual, hands-\u00adon\ninvolvement with alchemy through their forays into the world of equipment\nand objects. The manuscripts of both men not only called for practical measures including distilling processes, putrefaction, and heating by bain marie, but\nthey also contain actual drawings of furnaces and distilling apparatus.47 Two\ninstances, in particular, are noteworthy.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=161\nPages: 161\nearly seventeenth centuries. The practice of alchemy continued well into the\nseventeenth century. For example, Juan Jos\u00e9 de la Calle, knight of the Order of\nSantiago and Oidor at the Chancellery of Granada, was a great connoisseur of\nthe chemical art, while Prince Don Vicente Gonzaga (1602\u2013\u00ad94), member of the\nCouncil of State that governed the destinies of the monarchy, routinely engaged\nin self cures using chemical remedies made in his own laboratory. Accounts of\nthese men have come down to us thanks to Fra Andr\u00e9s de Villacast\u00edn, a Hieronymite monk of the monastery of San Lorenzo de El Escorial, who was also\nan expert artificer and participant in chemical discourse of the late seventeenth-\u00ad\ncentury court in Madrid.47 Villacast\u00edn was one of many Spanish monks who,\nduring the early modern era, read and practiced chemistry. His privileged position in the monastery of San Lorenzo (its Mansion of the Waters continued to]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=115\nPages: 115,116\nthe definitive article \u201cal\u201d to the Greek word \u201cchimia.\u201d49 Further, his text offered\nrecent experimental histories, including famous transmutation events, considerations of vegetables, animals, and minerals, a section on apparati and furnaces,\nand separate chapters on metals like antimony, silver, and mercury. All of these\nsubjects fell under the category of alchimia, including the uses, symbols, and history of the arts. Yet when writing observations for the Miscellanea curiosa that\ninvolved principles of salt, sulphur, and mercury or that concerned the medical\nuses, medicaments, and even metallic transmutations, he used the term chimica.\nPerhaps like Clauder, Wedel used \u201cchymiatria\u201d for the making of medicaments\nsibi licere, arbitrantes nosse ac distinguere\u201d; ibid., 24.\n48. On Libavius\u2019s concerns with regard to chymia, see Moran\u2019s chapter in this volume and his Andreas\nLibavius and the Transformation of Alchemy.\n49. Wedel, Introductio in alchimiam, 15.\n96\nMargaret D. Garber]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=98\nPages: 98,99\nSuchten, Alexander von, Georg Fedro von Rodach, Georg Forberger, and Paracelsus.\nDe secretis antimonii liber unus Editus Germanice quidem anno 1570. Basileae:\nPer Petrum Pernam, 1575.\nChapter 4\nChymical Curiosities and\nTrusted Testimonials\nin the Journal of the\nLeopoldina Academy of\nCuriosi\nA\nMargaret D. Garber*\nAlchemy was once an integral part of medicine. Central European medical practitioners had been infusing bodies with mineral, metal, and curious chemical\nmedicaments since the Middle Ages.1 However, as the standard account goes,\nhistorical actors unfastened alchemy from its medical moorings in the eighteenth century, and chemistry set sail on its own as a discipline based upon manual procedures, standardized language, and useful symbols. The history of this\nconjunction and decoupling gave rise to debates that motivated much of Allen\n*I thank Bruce Moran and Karen Parshall for their helpful comments and suggestions. I am also grateful]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=190\nPages: 190,191\n41. \u00d6NB MS 11410, fols. 211v, 355ff.\n42. Ibid., fol. 59v.\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n173\nments, Kappler added, as proof of efficacy, that they originated at the Medical\nFaculty of Vienna.43 In this context, both his and Pol\u2019s pursuit of knowledge was\ncumulative, connected with the manufacture and application of remedies, and\nmotivated partly by impending epidemics and partly by the medical marketplace. Alchemically informed recipes were part of that picture. And, where Pol\ncreated structure in his library through the organization of books, Kappler fit his\ntextual acquisitions into the received structure of Pol\u2019s manuscript.\nThe motivation for both doctors\u2019 work in the library, in preparation for and\ndevelopment of their daily practice, reveals itself in their personal notes and\nmanuscripts. As a case in point, Pol\u2019s manuscripts\u2014\u00adand especially his cross-\u00ad]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=162\nPages: 162\nare well documented in the five works on pharmacy that he published over\na twenty-\u00adyear period.53 In them, he made it clear that his favored reference\nworks were Ev\u00f3nimo Filiatro\u2019s De remediis secretis, Ulstad\u2019s Coelum philosophorum, Wecker\u2019s Antidotarium, and Diego de Santiago\u2019s Arte separatoria.54 The\nskill, moreover, with which he prepared his glassware and stills as well as his\nflowers and roots for preliminary \u201cdigestions\u201d prior to distillation55 attested\nto his expertise as a practitioner. He devoted much space in his later works to\ndiscussions of alchemical secrets, fully accepting the use of chemical practices\nin medicine as well as the possibility that gold could be obtained by alchemical\ntransmutation.56\nVilla\u2019s successor as regent of the monastic pharmacy, Fra Esteban N\u00fa\u00f1ez,\ncontinued the chemical activity of his teacher, combining the task of medicine\n49. See Directorio, regla y advertencias que se hacen a los abades que ser\u00e1n de este Real Monasterio de San]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=27\nPages: 27\ngold-\u00adseeking alchemists, but rather, by scholars who honestly felt that the\ntrue key to nature\u2019s secrets was to be found in the study of chemistry. Today\nwe can say that many of their explanations were incorrect, but to their contemporaries their work often seemed a stimulating force, moving man ever\ncloser to a true understanding of nature.17\nIn bringing back to light the ideas of the English Paracelsians, Debus\ndemonstrated the extent to which they incorporated Paracelsian ideas into\ntheir chemical and medical views and practice. He argued that there was, in\nfact, an \u201cElizabethan compromise\u201d by which \u201cthe occult aspects of Paracelsian\nthought were rejected while the new remedies were eagerly adopted, provided\nthey proved their worth.\u201d18 This compromise, moreover, was negotiated at what\nwe might see as the interface between chemistry and medicine. It underscored\nnot only the interconnectedness of these two domains but also the Elizabethan]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=160\nPages: 160\nphilosopher who had studied alchemical enigmas.\u201d44 Par\u00eds himself argued along\nsimilar lines in a memorial he wrote in his defense and in which he affirmed that\nhis chemical practices had helped him understand many obscure passages of the\nBible. As he explained, it was for that reason that he had philosophized about\nthe possibility of using knowledge derived from experience to remove the stumbling blocks that separated different Christian nations and to fashion a dialectic\nweapon against the objections raised by Protestants, Jews, and Muslims. Par\u00eds\nthus used alchemy\u2014\u00adan art uniquely able to imitate nature\u2014\u00adas a language of\nmediation between nations and religions.45\nIt might seem that Philip II\u2019s chemical interests were simply mimicked by\ncourtiers and close associates eager to emulate their monarch\u2019s tastes and desires.\nWhat is certain, however, is that similar cases are to be found in circles that\nthrived at other times and functioned in spheres removed from court. Consider,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=178\nPages: 178,179\nlibrary in the case of Pol and a single manuscript reflective of Pol\u2019s influence\nin the case of Kappler\u2014\u00adnot only provide evidence of their practice and experiences as writers, readers, and practitioners of medicine but also inform our\ngrowing knowledge about the relationship between alchemy and medicine in\nthe early modern period.\n2. There has been some recent work on these themes. See, for example, Soukup, Chemie in \u00d6sterreich;\nand Soukup and Mayer, Alchemistisches Gold, Paracelsistische Pharmaka. The history of the Medical Faculty of\nVienna has not been fully realized. See, however, Horn, \u201cExaminiert und Approbiert.\u201d\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n161\nWolfgang Kappler (1493\u2013\u00adFebruary 1567)\nAt the age of thirty-\u00adfour, Wolfgang Kappler settled as a physician and apothecary in the town of Krems on the Danube, about fifteen leagues (seventy kilometers) outside of Vienna. Krems had a population of some four thousand at\nthe time, comprised mostly of craftsmen whose work was closely connected]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=192\nPages: 192\nfor example, employs vitriol under the alchemical code word \u201cleo viridis.\u201d Some\nrecipes use common ingredients available at Kappler\u2019s pharmacy and elsewhere,\nwhile others, often not distinguished as alchemical in the title, nevertheless call\nfor ingredients or methods more closely related to the alchemical laboratory.\nSince the phrase \u201cex alchimico\u201d only appears in the main body of Kappler\u2019s manuscript, and not in his or later annotations and additions, it probably stemmed\nfrom Pol\u2019s manuscript, the prototype for Kappler\u2019s text. Pol\u2019s remedy titles thus\nactually reference the origin of the recipes. Those ex alchimico were taken from an\nalchemical manuscript or book; others were referred to by the name of the author\nor compiler. These titles fulfill a function similar to that of Pol\u2019s cross-\u00adreferences;\nthey enable the reader to trace the source of a particular remedy. Pol, then, used\nthe term \u201calchemy\u201d in his library as a reference, but like his shelf marks, it did not]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=119\nPages: 119\nChemical Medicine in the Circle of Moritz of Hessen (1572\u2013\u00ad1632). Stuttgart: F.\nSteiner Verlag, 1991.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Andreas Libavius and the Transformation of Alchemy: Separating Chemical Cultures with Polemical Fire. Sagamore Beach, MA: Science History Publications,\n2007.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Distilling Knowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cA Survey of Chemical Medicine in the 17th Century: Spanning Court, Classroom and Cultures.\u201d Pharmacy in History 38, no. 3 (1996): 121\u2013\u00ad33.\nNewman, William R. Gehennical Fire: The Lives of George Starkey, an American Alchemist\nin the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994.\nNewman, William R., and Lawrence M. Principe. \u201cAlchemy vs. Chemistry: The Etymological Roots of a Historiographic Mistake.\u201d Early Science and Medicine 3\n(1998): 32\u2013\u00ad65.\nNummedal, Tara. Alchemy and Authority in the Holy Roman Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=26\nPages: 26,27\nin Debus, \u201cChemists, Physicians, and Changing Perspectives,\u201d 70.\n14. Hall, in particular, wrote that while \u201cmany have searched\u201d the alchemical literature \u201cfor the beginnings of a chemical attitude,\u201d \u201c[t]here the grain of real knowledge is concealed in a vast deal of esoteric chaff \u201d;\nScientific Revolution 1500\u2013\u00ad1800, 309.\n15. Debus, English Paracelsians.\n16. The name of this figure has been a source of considerable confusion and debate. Debus tended to\nrefer to him simply as \u201cR. Bostocke\u201d; others referred to him as \u201cRobert Bostocke\u201d; still others as \u201cRichard\nBostocke.\u201d More recent research suggests that he was in fact \u201cRichard Bostocke,\u201d otherwise spelled as \u201cRychard\nBostok.\u201d See Harley, \u201cRychard Bostok of Tandridge, Surrey.\u201d\nCrafting the Chemical Interpretation of Nature\n5\nRenaissance chemical literature, and a large portion of it was written not by\ngold-\u00adseeking alchemists, but rather, by scholars who honestly felt that the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=116\nPages: 116,117\nreagents used to make all of the aforementioned. Moreover, the journal provided\na public place to do work that bettered the social standing of the Curiosi. By\ncategorizing certain groups as outsiders\u2014\u00adfraudulent alchemists or outdated,\nbookish philosophers\u2014\u00adthe Curiosi exercised their own social flexibility, propelling themselves into positions that demarcated legitimate from illegitimate,\nat least virtually, at a time when this was not otherwise the case. The traffic in\nchymical matters privileged Curiosi as those who controlled the language, symbols, and principles of the subject, as reliable witnesses of true transmutations\nand as adepts of rare procedures and recipes. In their observations of chymia, the\nCuriosi raised their status to adepti, practitioners who shared a usable language\nand superior chymical knowledge.\nChymical Curiosities and Trusted Testimonials\n97]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=190\nPages: 190\npharmaceutical, play in the doctors\u2019 approaches to their practice? It seems that\nneither Pol nor Kappler changed or questioned the wording or content of either\nmedicinal or alchemical texts in their copies or annotations. Rather, they contributed additions and cross-\u00adreferences to the texts. They viewed their task as\ntextual exegesis (Pol) or the practical realization (Pol and Kappler) of preparations selected from a variety of sources rather than as a critical engagement with\nany individual text. Consider, for example, this alchemically inclined medical\npreparation that was added in the margins of Kappler\u2019s manuscript to a section\non pain medication. Entitled \u201cOleum tartari cum sale nitro\u201d (Oil of tartar with\nsaltpeter), the recipe, Kappler noted, had been obtained from one \u201cP. Neplachio\nIn Brun\u201d (P. Neplachio at Brno).42 Many other remedies added by Kappler to\nthis reference work for his daily practice also testify to his effort to collect and]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=29\nPages: 29\nnowhere in the scriptures was mention made of the creation of fire, it could not\nbe one of the elements out of which all of nature was fashioned. Natural phenomena such as lightning and the growth of metals could be explained in chemical terms. Diseases in man mirrored (al)chemical processes in nature and so\ncould be treated effectively by alchemical means.\nThis chemical philosophy confronted and challenged traditional Aristotelian and Galenic thought most directly in the medical faculties of the universities. If fire was not an element, then the Aristotelian and Galenic philosophies\nof 1652, with a New Introduction by Allen G. Debus (New York: Johnson Reprint, 1967); Debus, Science and\nEducation in the Seventeenth Century: The Webster-\u00adWard Debate (London: Macdonald; New York: American Elsevier, 1970); and John Dee, The Mathematicall Praeface to the Elements of Geometrie of Euclid of Megara (1570)]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=16\nPages: 16,17\nas well as by means of discussing theoretical and practical principles related\nto working with and understanding metals and minerals, the journal brought\nalchemical traditions and experience to bear upon a certain variety of medical\nself-\u00adfashioning. The secretive subject of chymia thus gained public attention\nin large part due to physicians engaged, on the one hand, in projects related\nto pharmaceuticals and, on the other, in processes pertaining to the material\npractices of chrysopoeia.\nBy the early eighteenth century, both the vitalism of Georg Ernst Stahl\n(1659\u2013\u00ad1734) and the mechanistic descriptions of Hermann Boerhaave (1669\u2013\u00ad\n1738) had rejected the broad theoretical claims of Paracelsian and Helmontian\nchemical medicine. Debus emphasized the divergent positions of these two the-\nIntroduction\nxvii\norists in his study of chemistry\u2019s complex relationship to medicine. As he saw\nit, chemical physicians (iatrochemists) and those inspired by the mechanical]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=192\nPages: 192,191\nthis was an ongoing exercise. References in Cod. 5230, fol. 274r, for example,\nwere clearly written at different sittings. His connective, extensive, and dynamic\n43. Ibid., fol. 393v.\n44. \u00d6NB MS 5230, fol. 274.\n45. \u00d6NB MS 5487, fol. 13v.\n174\nAnke Timmermann\nreading of alchemica must therefore have influenced his understanding of medical remedies and their manufacture as well as his book-\u00adcollecting activities over\na long period of time.\nKappler\u2019s manuscript demonstrates how this active research was in turn\napplied in the practical occupation with remedies by both Pol and Kappler. Kappler\u2019s volume exhibits the label \u201cex alchimico\u201d as well as alchemical terminology in\na staggering range of sections, in those on epilepsy and other head-\u00adrelated seizures,\non urine, on miscarriages, on sciatic pain, and elsewhere.46 The cure for seizures,\nfor example, employs vitriol under the alchemical code word \u201cleo viridis.\u201d Some]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=18\nPages: 18\nParts of the German intellectual world, specifically the works of Oswald\nCroll (ca. 1563\u2013\u00ad1609) and Heinrich Khunrath (ca. 1560\u2013\u00ad1605), are also the\nfocus of Michael Walton\u2019s study of alchemy as both a spiritual and material art.\nCrossing boundaries between the textual word-\u00admagic of kabbalah and empirical\ninvestigations of nature, particularly within the milieu of Paracelsian practice,\nthe essay traces the origins of a chemical kabbalah connecting the laboratory\nwith the oratory. Such a tradition emerged from texts that defined an earlier\nkabbalah with a Christian focus and emphasized creation by means of words\nand letters. The merging of kabbalah with traditional alchemy became, on this\naccount, most pronounced in the coincidently intriguing and confounding text,\nVoarchadumia contra alchimiam by Giovanni Agostino Pantheus (fl. 1518), who\nsignified aspects of alchemy and nature by means of Hebrew letters. This was]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=311\nPages: 311\nKnowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry, and the Scientific Revolution (2005) and Andreas\nLibavius and the Transformation of Alchemy: Separating Chemical Cultures with\nPolemical Fire (2007). He has been a Dibner Distinguished Fellow in the history of science and technology at the Huntington Library (2010/11), and, most\nrecently, a Gorden Cain Distinguished Fellow at the Chemical Heritage Foundation (2014).\nKaren Hunger Parshall is professor of history and mathematics at the\nUniversity of Virginia. In addition to numerous articles and chapters, she is the\nauthor, among other books and editions, of James Joseph Sylvester: Jewish Mathematician in a Victorian World (2006), Taming the Unknown: A History of Algebra\nfrom Antiquity to the Early Twentieth Century (with Victor J. Katz, 2014), and]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=161\nPages: 161\nearly seventeenth centuries. The practice of alchemy continued well into the\nseventeenth century. For example, Juan Jos\u00e9 de la Calle, knight of the Order of\nSantiago and Oidor at the Chancellery of Granada, was a great connoisseur of\nthe chemical art, while Prince Don Vicente Gonzaga (1602\u2013\u00ad94), member of the\nCouncil of State that governed the destinies of the monarchy, routinely engaged\nin self cures using chemical remedies made in his own laboratory. Accounts of\nthese men have come down to us thanks to Fra Andr\u00e9s de Villacast\u00edn, a Hieronymite monk of the monastery of San Lorenzo de El Escorial, who was also\nan expert artificer and participant in chemical discourse of the late seventeenth-\u00ad\ncentury court in Madrid.47 Villacast\u00edn was one of many Spanish monks who,\nduring the early modern era, read and practiced chemistry. His privileged position in the monastery of San Lorenzo (its Mansion of the Waters continued to]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=98\nPages: 98,99\nSuchten, Alexander von, Georg Fedro von Rodach, Georg Forberger, and Paracelsus.\nDe secretis antimonii liber unus Editus Germanice quidem anno 1570. Basileae:\nPer Petrum Pernam, 1575.\nChapter 4\nChymical Curiosities and\nTrusted Testimonials\nin the Journal of the\nLeopoldina Academy of\nCuriosi\nA\nMargaret D. Garber*\nAlchemy was once an integral part of medicine. Central European medical practitioners had been infusing bodies with mineral, metal, and curious chemical\nmedicaments since the Middle Ages.1 However, as the standard account goes,\nhistorical actors unfastened alchemy from its medical moorings in the eighteenth century, and chemistry set sail on its own as a discipline based upon manual procedures, standardized language, and useful symbols. The history of this\nconjunction and decoupling gave rise to debates that motivated much of Allen\n*I thank Bruce Moran and Karen Parshall for their helpful comments and suggestions. I am also grateful]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=27\nPages: 27\ngold-\u00adseeking alchemists, but rather, by scholars who honestly felt that the\ntrue key to nature\u2019s secrets was to be found in the study of chemistry. Today\nwe can say that many of their explanations were incorrect, but to their contemporaries their work often seemed a stimulating force, moving man ever\ncloser to a true understanding of nature.17\nIn bringing back to light the ideas of the English Paracelsians, Debus\ndemonstrated the extent to which they incorporated Paracelsian ideas into\ntheir chemical and medical views and practice. He argued that there was, in\nfact, an \u201cElizabethan compromise\u201d by which \u201cthe occult aspects of Paracelsian\nthought were rejected while the new remedies were eagerly adopted, provided\nthey proved their worth.\u201d18 This compromise, moreover, was negotiated at what\nwe might see as the interface between chemistry and medicine. It underscored\nnot only the interconnectedness of these two domains but also the Elizabethan]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=26\nPages: 26,27\nin Debus, \u201cChemists, Physicians, and Changing Perspectives,\u201d 70.\n14. Hall, in particular, wrote that while \u201cmany have searched\u201d the alchemical literature \u201cfor the beginnings of a chemical attitude,\u201d \u201c[t]here the grain of real knowledge is concealed in a vast deal of esoteric chaff \u201d;\nScientific Revolution 1500\u2013\u00ad1800, 309.\n15. Debus, English Paracelsians.\n16. The name of this figure has been a source of considerable confusion and debate. Debus tended to\nrefer to him simply as \u201cR. Bostocke\u201d; others referred to him as \u201cRobert Bostocke\u201d; still others as \u201cRichard\nBostocke.\u201d More recent research suggests that he was in fact \u201cRichard Bostocke,\u201d otherwise spelled as \u201cRychard\nBostok.\u201d See Harley, \u201cRychard Bostok of Tandridge, Surrey.\u201d\nCrafting the Chemical Interpretation of Nature\n5\nRenaissance chemical literature, and a large portion of it was written not by\ngold-\u00adseeking alchemists, but rather, by scholars who honestly felt that the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=215\nPages: 215\noffered a key to the connection of chemistry and kabbalah.\nCroll asserted that adepts in the art had kept secret certain traditional chemical knowledge. He, however, chose to reveal these chemical mysteries, even\nthough it would offend Hermetic philosophers. He believed that chemistry,\nlike Christian doctrine, should be available to all seekers. \u201cCabala, magic, and\nWoarchadumia\u201d were divine truths obtained in the \u201coratory and the laboratory.\u201d51 Croll explained that fiat created prima materia, which in itself is unknowable except through the three principles into which all things are reducible in\nfire. The spagyrical art, or resolution by fire, demonstrates that matter in the\nworld could be reduced to three elements\u2014\u00adfluid (mercury), oil (sulphur), and\nsolid (salt)\u2014\u00adand no further:\nNo body compos\u2019d by Nature can by any dissolving skill be parted into more\nor lesse than Three, viz. Into Mercury or liquor, Sulphur or Oyle, and Salt;]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=119\nPages: 119\nChemical Medicine in the Circle of Moritz of Hessen (1572\u2013\u00ad1632). Stuttgart: F.\nSteiner Verlag, 1991.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Andreas Libavius and the Transformation of Alchemy: Separating Chemical Cultures with Polemical Fire. Sagamore Beach, MA: Science History Publications,\n2007.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Distilling Knowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cA Survey of Chemical Medicine in the 17th Century: Spanning Court, Classroom and Cultures.\u201d Pharmacy in History 38, no. 3 (1996): 121\u2013\u00ad33.\nNewman, William R. Gehennical Fire: The Lives of George Starkey, an American Alchemist\nin the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994.\nNewman, William R., and Lawrence M. Principe. \u201cAlchemy vs. Chemistry: The Etymological Roots of a Historiographic Mistake.\u201d Early Science and Medicine 3\n(1998): 32\u2013\u00ad65.\nNummedal, Tara. Alchemy and Authority in the Holy Roman Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=76\nPages: 76\nNewman, William R., and Lawrence M. Principe. Alchemy Tried in the Fire: Starkey,\nBoyle, and the Fate of Helmontian Chymistry. Chicago: University of Chicago\nPress, 2002.\nNolle, Heinrich. Hermetical Physick: Or, The Right Way to Preserve, and to Restore\nHealth. Translated by Henry Vaughn. London: Moseley, 1655.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Systema medicin\u00e6 hermetic\u00e6 generale in quo I. medicin\u00e6 ver\u00e6 fundamentum, II\nsanitatis conservatio, III morborum cognitio, & curatio methodo explicantur.\nFrankfurt, 1613.\nNummedal, Tara. Alchemy and Authority in the Holy Roman Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.\nPagel, Walter. Das medizinische Weltbild des Paracelsus: Seine Zusammenh\u00e4nge mit Neuplatonismus und Gnosis. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1962.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad. Paracelsus: An Introduction to Philosophical Medicine in the Era of the Renaissance. 2nd rev. ed. Basel: Karger, 1982.\nParacelsus. S\u00e4mtliche Werke I: Medizinische, naturwissenschaftliche und philosophische]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=190\nPages: 190,191\n41. \u00d6NB MS 11410, fols. 211v, 355ff.\n42. Ibid., fol. 59v.\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n173\nments, Kappler added, as proof of efficacy, that they originated at the Medical\nFaculty of Vienna.43 In this context, both his and Pol\u2019s pursuit of knowledge was\ncumulative, connected with the manufacture and application of remedies, and\nmotivated partly by impending epidemics and partly by the medical marketplace. Alchemically informed recipes were part of that picture. And, where Pol\ncreated structure in his library through the organization of books, Kappler fit his\ntextual acquisitions into the received structure of Pol\u2019s manuscript.\nThe motivation for both doctors\u2019 work in the library, in preparation for and\ndevelopment of their daily practice, reveals itself in their personal notes and\nmanuscripts. As a case in point, Pol\u2019s manuscripts\u2014\u00adand especially his cross-\u00ad]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=106\nPages: 106,107\ntraining, was judged sufficiently proficient in chymical matters to become director of the alchemical laboratory\nof the Great Elector of Berlin and minister of mines to Sweden\u2019s King Charles X. Barnett relates their admission\nto authors\u2019 interest in phosphorous; Barnett, \u201cMedical Authority and Princely Patronage,\u201d 228\u2013\u00ad29.\n18. Tylecote, Early History of Metallurgy in Europe, 47.\n19. Faivre, \u201cApproach to the Theme of the Golden Fleece in Alchemy.\u201d\n20. Sachs von Lewenheimb, \u201cAurum chymicum,\u201d 68\u2013\u00ad70.\n21. Ibid., 69. On Kircher\u2019s alchemical interests, see Hirai, \u201cKircher\u2019s Chymical Interpretation of the Creation and Spontaneous Generation.\u201d\nChymical Curiosities and Trusted Testimonials\n87\npast authors, such as Ram\u00f3n Llull (ca. 1232\u2013\u00adca. 1315), Arnold of Villanova (ca.\n1238\u2013\u00adca. 1310), Paracelsus (1493\u2013\u00ad1541), and others, Sachs characterized his\nacademy as cosmopolitan and contemporary, epitomized through a familiarity]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=109\nPages: 109\npraised the blending of older and more recent views: \u201cthe best people stand firm\nwith the supporters of alchemy on the common features of metallurgy. More and\nmore is becoming known in this our century on account of the many favorable\nand fertile causes, methods, and ways by which the earlier supporters changed\nimperfect metals into more noble ones and also divided them into salts.\u201d33 By\nsuggesting that alchemy was progressive, intellectually consistent, and based\nupon past and present practical knowledge, Clauder magnified the Curiosi\u2019s\naccess as contemporary and valuable, while he distanced Kircher\u2019s criticism as\noutdated.\nClauder\u2019s transmutation defense not only posed the question of who could\nassume the role of powerful detractor, it also reformulated the answer to who\ncould assume the role of trusted eyewitness. Whereas in the journal\u2019s first volume Sachs was anxious to rest credibility on trusted eyewitnesses such as an]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=178\nPages: 178,179\nlibrary in the case of Pol and a single manuscript reflective of Pol\u2019s influence\nin the case of Kappler\u2014\u00adnot only provide evidence of their practice and experiences as writers, readers, and practitioners of medicine but also inform our\ngrowing knowledge about the relationship between alchemy and medicine in\nthe early modern period.\n2. There has been some recent work on these themes. See, for example, Soukup, Chemie in \u00d6sterreich;\nand Soukup and Mayer, Alchemistisches Gold, Paracelsistische Pharmaka. The history of the Medical Faculty of\nVienna has not been fully realized. See, however, Horn, \u201cExaminiert und Approbiert.\u201d\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n161\nWolfgang Kappler (1493\u2013\u00adFebruary 1567)\nAt the age of thirty-\u00adfour, Wolfgang Kappler settled as a physician and apothecary in the town of Krems on the Danube, about fifteen leagues (seventy kilometers) outside of Vienna. Krems had a population of some four thousand at\nthe time, comprised mostly of craftsmen whose work was closely connected]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=182\nPages: 182\n(such as the wedding of his daughter and the feast provided for the occasion),\nand extensive lists of particular regimens.\nBoth the manuscript in its original form, that is, in the form in which Kappler first encountered it, and the heavily annotated version that has come down\nto us, show Kappler\u2019s ongoing engagement with certain methods, equipment,\nsubstances, and approaches that bridge medicine, alchemy, and pharmacy. Also\nin evidence is Kappler\u2019s knowledge of medical and alchemical literature, both\ntraditional and contemporary. He referenced not only authorities like Arnold\nof Villanova (ca. 1238\u2013\u00adca. 1310) but also local and international colleagues,\nmost of whom have been largely forgotten by historians of science. Title lines\nof individual remedies often purport to be \u201cex alchimico,\u201d occasionally employ\nalchemical symbols for substances such as mercury, and include methods such\nas distillation used in the alchemical laboratory. The manuscript, through its]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=160\nPages: 160\nthrived at other times and functioned in spheres removed from court. Consider,\nfor example, Manuel Franco de Guzm\u00e1n, a Castilian nobleman and resident of\nValladolid. With important and lucrative properties distributed throughout Burgos, Franco de Guzm\u00e1n spent much of his free time compiling alchemical treatises. A manuscript of his property conserved at the National Library of Spain\nprovides a remarkable optic through which to judge Spanish tastes in alchemy\nduring the second half of the sixteenth century. Next to pseudo-\u00adepigraphic\nmedieval treatises attributed to famous Greek, Arab, or Latin authors, Franco\nde Guzm\u00e1n also recorded aspects of theoretical alchemy and diverse procedures\nfor making therapeutic remedies. Most prominent among the latter were two\nrecipes for making potable gold taken from Philip Ulstadt (fl. 1530), a recipe to\ncure tongue ulcerations, and a fragment of De secretis naturae liber attributed to\nthe author known as Ram\u00f3n Llull (ca. 1232\u2013\u00adca. 1315).46]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=178\nPages: 178\nits highly developed mining industry, sophisticated practical crafts, flourishing\ntrade along the Danube, and active circulation of alchemical knowledge through\nbooks, materials, and equipment. The history of alchemy and medicine in the\narchduchy of Austria and the Habsburg territories thus presents a rich combination of institutional and national factors, academia and craft, experimentation\nand regulation.2\nThis chapter investigates the lives and works of two doctors: Wolfgang Kappler (1493\u2013\u00ad1567), an apothecary doctor at Krems on the Danube in the archduchy of Austria, and Nicolaus Pol (ca. 1470\u2013\u00ad1532), a physician at the imperial\ncourt of Innsbruck in the Tyrol. Both showed a keen interest in alchemy and\nits medical uses. Their surviving books\u2014\u00adsubstantial remnants of an extensive\nlibrary in the case of Pol and a single manuscript reflective of Pol\u2019s influence]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=189\nPages: 189\nchapter will investigate through a consideration of the engagement of both Pol\nand Kappler with alchemical texts.\nCurrent trends in historiography address the divide between manuscripts\nas written evidence and the actual practice of a science or craft.38 In the context of the present chapter, this would suggest two questions: What use did Pol\nand Kappler actually make of their alchemical reading in their daily practice as\ndoctors, that is, in fashioning their prescriptions and producing their remedies?\nWhat did they actually do?39\nThe motivation for their everyday practice is easily inferred from their professional commitments to take care of the sick. Indeed, the recipes for waters\nand salves, pills and powders listed in their manuscripts attest to that. Their\n36. Compare John Dee\u2019s \u201cinternal,\u201d private part of his library. See Sherman, John Dee, 33.\n37. Early modern libraries such as Trinity College Library at Cambridge were in the habit of storing]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=192\nPages: 192,193\napplications, however, a dichotomy between them was at odds with the living,\napplied, interacting organizational principles in effect in Pol\u2019s library as well as\nwith Kappler\u2019s concept of remedies.\n46. See, for example, \u201cEx alchimico contra sciatica & omnem dolorem iuncturarum,\u201d \u00d6NB MS 11410,\nfol. 187r. Medications for suppressing impending miscarriage are on fol. 153 and epilepsy features around fol.\n30v.\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n175\nPol\u2019s and Kappler\u2019s manuscripts also illuminate their actual, hands-\u00adon\ninvolvement with alchemy through their forays into the world of equipment\nand objects. The manuscripts of both men not only called for practical measures including distilling processes, putrefaction, and heating by bain marie, but\nthey also contain actual drawings of furnaces and distilling apparatus.47 Two\ninstances, in particular, are noteworthy.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=218\nPages: 218,219\nand so on the contrary; for he that saith Physick is worth nothing, doth upon the\nmatter affirm that there is no God.\u201d60\nPantheus\u2019s kabbalah of transmutation was a version of traditional alchemy,\nusing Hebrew letters; chemically it looked back to gold-\u00admaking. Croll\u2019s kabbalah,\non the other hand, directed the adept to look for future discoveries. As a Paracelsian, Croll advocated a new chemical interpretation of the creation. Kabbalah\nprovided both theory and methods useful to rethinking nature. Pantheus wanted\nto make noble metals, but Croll and other Paracelsians sought insights into the\nhealing virtues that God had built into nature at the creation. The laboratory was\n58. Ibid.\n59. Ibid., 85.\n60. Ibid., 172.\nThe Chemical Philosophy and Kabbalah\n201\nthe place to study the invisible realm of the \u201cWord of God.\u201d Croll and his fellows\ngrasped that the proper entrance to the laboratory was through the oratory, the\nsite of prayer, contemplation, and illumination.\nHeinrich Khunrath]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=114\nPages: 114\nand effects. In his \u201cChimical Principles,\u201d he laid the groundwork for just such an\neffort. The clarification of symbols, already apparent in Wedel\u2019s 1675 observation, was further promoted in his 1705 textbook entitled Introductio alchimiam.46\nLike many professors of his time who wrote and published their own textbooks,\nWedel focused his propaedeutic interests on simplification. He provided \u201ccorrect\u201d chymical symbols for students to memorize: salt, sulphur, and mercury as\nwell as the elements earth, air, water, fire, and minerals and metals. Alchemy,\nWedel warned, was a peculiar art that attracted people who liked obscure meanings conveyed by means of the hieroglyphics it shared with astrology. Wedel\nproposed that uniformity and consensus of symbol-\u00aduse ought to replace the\nidiosyncrasies that obscure language promotes. Symbols, he suggested, were\nconvenient notations for basic components, yet sometimes symbols were wisely]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=220\nPages: 220\n62. An early anonymous commentary on the figures in the Amphitheatrum was published at the end of\nKhunrath\u2019s De igne magorum (1611). It was reprinted in 1783 and attributed to Johann Arndts. Arndts stressed\nthe kabbalistic nature of the figures. He understood the kabbalah as the power of heaven. The first figure of the\nlaboratory taught the kabbalah, the second natural magic, and the third chemistry.\n63. Croll, Basilica chymica, in Pinnell, Philosophy Reformed and Improved, 9, 72.\n64. \u201cVeris precibus in Spiritu & Veritate factis, ubi in Sancto Sanctorum sit unio Dei & Spiritus, Creati,\nubi Deus interno spiritu, non vi vocabulorum, sed in silentio sacro, absque oris apertione & anhelitu compellatur\u201d; ibid., 72; and Croll, Basilica chymica (1611), 38\u2013\u00ad39.\n65. \u201c[S]iquidem per ardentem dev\u00f2tamaque cum Timore & Tremore invocantis intentionem, Intellectus\nseu Mens religioso amore fl\u00e0grans, jungitur intelligentiis separatis. Oratio enim Interna expiamente ortanimio]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=115\nPages: 115,116\nthe definitive article \u201cal\u201d to the Greek word \u201cchimia.\u201d49 Further, his text offered\nrecent experimental histories, including famous transmutation events, considerations of vegetables, animals, and minerals, a section on apparati and furnaces,\nand separate chapters on metals like antimony, silver, and mercury. All of these\nsubjects fell under the category of alchimia, including the uses, symbols, and history of the arts. Yet when writing observations for the Miscellanea curiosa that\ninvolved principles of salt, sulphur, and mercury or that concerned the medical\nuses, medicaments, and even metallic transmutations, he used the term chimica.\nPerhaps like Clauder, Wedel used \u201cchymiatria\u201d for the making of medicaments\nsibi licere, arbitrantes nosse ac distinguere\u201d; ibid., 24.\n48. On Libavius\u2019s concerns with regard to chymia, see Moran\u2019s chapter in this volume and his Andreas\nLibavius and the Transformation of Alchemy.\n49. Wedel, Introductio in alchimiam, 15.\n96\nMargaret D. Garber]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=98\nPages: 98,99\nSuchten, Alexander von, Georg Fedro von Rodach, Georg Forberger, and Paracelsus.\nDe secretis antimonii liber unus Editus Germanice quidem anno 1570. Basileae:\nPer Petrum Pernam, 1575.\nChapter 4\nChymical Curiosities and\nTrusted Testimonials\nin the Journal of the\nLeopoldina Academy of\nCuriosi\nA\nMargaret D. Garber*\nAlchemy was once an integral part of medicine. Central European medical practitioners had been infusing bodies with mineral, metal, and curious chemical\nmedicaments since the Middle Ages.1 However, as the standard account goes,\nhistorical actors unfastened alchemy from its medical moorings in the eighteenth century, and chemistry set sail on its own as a discipline based upon manual procedures, standardized language, and useful symbols. The history of this\nconjunction and decoupling gave rise to debates that motivated much of Allen\n*I thank Bruce Moran and Karen Parshall for their helpful comments and suggestions. I am also grateful]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=311\nPages: 311\nKnowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry, and the Scientific Revolution (2005) and Andreas\nLibavius and the Transformation of Alchemy: Separating Chemical Cultures with\nPolemical Fire (2007). He has been a Dibner Distinguished Fellow in the history of science and technology at the Huntington Library (2010/11), and, most\nrecently, a Gorden Cain Distinguished Fellow at the Chemical Heritage Foundation (2014).\nKaren Hunger Parshall is professor of history and mathematics at the\nUniversity of Virginia. In addition to numerous articles and chapters, she is the\nauthor, among other books and editions, of James Joseph Sylvester: Jewish Mathematician in a Victorian World (2006), Taming the Unknown: A History of Algebra\nfrom Antiquity to the Early Twentieth Century (with Victor J. Katz, 2014), and]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=191\nPages: 191\nMS 5487 beneath an alchemical recipe\u2014\u00adcomplete with alchemical symbols as\nshorthand for substances\u2014\u00adthat is illustrated with the drawing of a vessel in ashes.45 The recipe opens with a reference to the contemporary Viennese bishop\nJurij Slatkonja (Georg von Slatkonia [1456\u2013\u00ad1522]), which in turn directs the\nreader to a volume with the shelf mark G, fol. 109, perhaps a passage in MS 5485\non the red elixir (fol. 109r) or a marginal note referring to space left for a drawing\n(fol. 109v). The uniformity of the script in these cross-\u00adreferences, their connection with the shelf marks, and their paleographical dating (in connection with\nthe documented times of Pol\u2019s ownership) suggest that it was indeed Pol himself\nwho read these volumes so carefully and with an eye for alchemical content.\nTaken together, Pol\u2019s marginal cross-\u00adreferences also attest to the fact that\nthis was an ongoing exercise. References in Cod. 5230, fol. 274r, for example,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=181\nPages: 181\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n163\nKappler\u2019s Manuscript: \u00d6NB MS 11410\nWhile Kappler\u2019s public image has largely been shaped by the reports of others,\nhis actual activities and interests\u2014\u00adamong them, active engagement with alchemy\nand alchemical remedies\u2014\u00adare recorded in the sole surviving manuscript directly\nattributable to him. Sporting Kappler\u2019s colorful and bold coat of arms as an ex libris,\n\u00d6NB MS 11410 forms part of the collection of the Austrian National Library and\nis entitled Practica pro menbris [sic] corporis humani / a capite usque ad pedes et\nprimo de / capitis ad sectionibus.9 A folio volume of some 438 leaves, it contains\nhundreds of notes on illnesses and their remedies. These, as the copyist\u2019s preface\nexplains, were gathered, tried, and tested during the daily experiences of Kappler,\nwhom he described as a doctor and apothecary (\u201cdealer in spices\u201d) with a strong]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=223\nPages: 223\net sophia: Cum additionibus, proportionibus numeris et figuris opportunis Joannis\nAugustini Panthei, veneti sacerdotis. Venice, 1530.\nParacelsus. The Hermetic and Alchemical Writings of Paracelsus. Vol. 1, Hermetic Chemistry. Edited by Arthur Henry Waite. London: James Eliot and Co., 1894.\n[Paracelsus] Theophrast von Hohenheim. Opus paramirum [1531]. In S\u00e4mtliche Werke\nI: Medizinische, naturwissenschaftliche und philosophische Schriften, edited by\nKarl Sudhoff, pt. 1, vol. 9. Munich: O. W. Barth, 1925.\nPartington, James R. A History of Chemistry. 4 vols. London: Macmillan, 1961.\nPico della Mirandola, Giovanni. 900 Theses. In Syncretism in the West: Pico\u2019s 900 Theses\n(1486): The Evolution of Traditional Religious and Philosophical Systems, edited\nand translated by Stephen A. Farmer. Medieval and Renaissance Texts and\nStudies 167. Tempe: Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies,\n1998.\nPinnell, Henry. Philosophy Reformed and Improved in Four Profound Tractates. London,\n1657.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=120\nPages: 120,119\nPrinceton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998.\n100\nMargaret D. Garber\nPrincipe, Lawrence M., and William R. Newman. \u201cSome Problems with the Historiography of Alchemy.\u201d In Secrets of Nature: Astrology and Alchemy in Early Modern\nEurope, edited by William R. Newman and Anthony Grafton, 385\u2013\u00ad431.\nCambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001.\nSachs von Lewenheimb, Philipp J. \u201cAurum chymicum.\u201d Miscellanea curiosa . . . ser. 1.\nvol. 1 (1670): 68\u2013\u00ad70.\nShackelford, Jole. A Philosophical Path for Paracelsian Medicine. Copenhagen: Museum\nTusculanum Press, 2004.\nShapin, Steven. A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-\u00adCentury\nEngland. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.\nSmith, Pamela. The Business of Alchemy: Science and Culture in the Holy Roman Empire.\nPrinceton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.\nThorndike, Lynn. History of Magic and Experimental Science. Vols. 7\u2013\u00ad8. New York:\nColumbia University Press, 1958.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=76\nPages: 76\nNewman, William R., and Lawrence M. Principe. Alchemy Tried in the Fire: Starkey,\nBoyle, and the Fate of Helmontian Chymistry. Chicago: University of Chicago\nPress, 2002.\nNolle, Heinrich. Hermetical Physick: Or, The Right Way to Preserve, and to Restore\nHealth. Translated by Henry Vaughn. London: Moseley, 1655.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Systema medicin\u00e6 hermetic\u00e6 generale in quo I. medicin\u00e6 ver\u00e6 fundamentum, II\nsanitatis conservatio, III morborum cognitio, & curatio methodo explicantur.\nFrankfurt, 1613.\nNummedal, Tara. Alchemy and Authority in the Holy Roman Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.\nPagel, Walter. Das medizinische Weltbild des Paracelsus: Seine Zusammenh\u00e4nge mit Neuplatonismus und Gnosis. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1962.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad. Paracelsus: An Introduction to Philosophical Medicine in the Era of the Renaissance. 2nd rev. ed. Basel: Karger, 1982.\nParacelsus. S\u00e4mtliche Werke I: Medizinische, naturwissenschaftliche und philosophische]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=196\nPages: 196\nlifetime). 218 x 147 mm, 258 folios. Binding: Vienna, 1755.\nTexts authored by or attributed to authorities, ancient (Hermes Trismegistus, Geber) and medieval (Boethius, Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus); to alchemist-\u00adphysician Arnold of Villanova (at least one a unique\ncopy),56 Ram\u00f3n Llull and others, as well as a significant number of anonyma.\nTheoretical alchemy and recipes.\nMS 5509 only shows the letter E on both the upper and lower cut, but\nnot Pol\u2019s ownership note. The letter on the upper cut is missing its vertical stroke due to rebinding. A historical description of the manuscript in a\nprevious binding confirms Pol\u2019s ownership. Some folios cut from MS 5509\ncan now be found in MS 5510.57 Since the manuscript was rebound at the\n54. Unless otherwise noted, information is taken from the Austrian National Library catalogue (\u00d6NB-\u00ad\nHANNA-\u00adKatalog; http://aleph.onb.ac.at/F?func=file&file_name=login&local_base=ONB06, accessed 10]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=81\nPages: 81\n(egcheireseon). Its practices included the extraction of magisteria and essences\nand required proficiency in the use of instruments and procedural know-\u00adhow.6\nIn its entirety, the art of alchymia comprised two parts. One part was manuarius, related to those things belonging to the hand, which were mechanic. The\nother part he called ousiodes, or essential. The former described specific kinds of\nphysical labors, while the latter was both didactic, explanatory, and methodical,\nlaying open to the eyes, and by means of precepts also to the mind, the rationale for special processes, natural powers, and varieties of practice.7 Alchymia\n5. Libavius, Syntagmatis . . . tomus primus, 4.\n6. Ibid., 2. M\u00fcller-\u00adJahncke, \u201cAndreas Libavius im Lichte der Geschichte der Chemie\u201d; Debus, Chemical]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=107\nPages: 107\nV. Baron Moncony, accepted a mysterious powder from another secret adept\nand was able to produce greater than 24-\u00adcarat gold [plusquam 24 carattorum].23\nSachs drew attention to traditional tropes of alchemical literature, in noting such\nthings as a \u201cmysterious powder\u201d and a \u201csecret adept,\u201d and to the almost-\u00adstock\ncharacter of Baron von Chaos, whose transmutation of mercury into gold was\n\u201cwitnessed in 1648 by the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III in Prague.\u201d24\nYet he relied equally on the powerfully normative social operations of trust and\nauthority to counter gold-\u00admaking deniers, who claimed that only frauds practiced these arts.25 In pre-\u00adEnlightenment Europe, fraud and alchemy were not\nexclusively correlated. Tara Nummedal demonstrates this point in her study of\nsixteenth-\u00adcentury criminal trials surrounding alchemical fraud, which reveals\nthat issues of intent to deceive via fraudulent transmutation were the focal point]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=116\nPages: 116,117\nreagents used to make all of the aforementioned. Moreover, the journal provided\na public place to do work that bettered the social standing of the Curiosi. By\ncategorizing certain groups as outsiders\u2014\u00adfraudulent alchemists or outdated,\nbookish philosophers\u2014\u00adthe Curiosi exercised their own social flexibility, propelling themselves into positions that demarcated legitimate from illegitimate,\nat least virtually, at a time when this was not otherwise the case. The traffic in\nchymical matters privileged Curiosi as those who controlled the language, symbols, and principles of the subject, as reliable witnesses of true transmutations\nand as adepts of rare procedures and recipes. In their observations of chymia, the\nCuriosi raised their status to adepti, practitioners who shared a usable language\nand superior chymical knowledge.\nChymical Curiosities and Trusted Testimonials\n97]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=97\nPages: 97\nDorn, Gerhard. \u201cDe artificio supernaturali.\u201d In Schl\u00fcssel der Chimistischen Philosophy:\nmit welchem die heimliche und verborgene Dicta und Spr\u00fcch der Philosophen, by\nGerhard Dorn. Strassburg: Verlegung Lazari Zetzneri, 1602.\nForshaw, Peter. \u201c\u2018Paradoxes, Absurdities, and Madness\u2019: Conflict over Alchemy, Magic,\nand Medicine in the Works of Andreas Libavius and Heinrich Khunrath.\u201d\nEarly Science and Medicine 13 (2008): 53\u2013\u00ad81.\nHannaway, Owen. The Chemists and the Word: The Didactic Origins of Chemistry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975.\nLibavius, Andreas. Rerum chymicarum epistolica forma ad philosophos et medicos . . .\nliber primus, secundus. Francofurti: excudebat Ioannes Saurius, impensis Petri\nKopffij, 1595.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Syntagmatis selectorum undiquaque et perspicue traditorum alchymiae arcanorum,\ntomus primus. Francofurti: excudebat Nicolaus Hoffmannus, impensis Petri\nKopffij, 1611\u2013\u00ad13.\nMcCray, Patrick. Glassmaking in Renaissance Venice: The Fragile Craft. Aldershot, UK:]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=18\nPages: 18\nParts of the German intellectual world, specifically the works of Oswald\nCroll (ca. 1563\u2013\u00ad1609) and Heinrich Khunrath (ca. 1560\u2013\u00ad1605), are also the\nfocus of Michael Walton\u2019s study of alchemy as both a spiritual and material art.\nCrossing boundaries between the textual word-\u00admagic of kabbalah and empirical\ninvestigations of nature, particularly within the milieu of Paracelsian practice,\nthe essay traces the origins of a chemical kabbalah connecting the laboratory\nwith the oratory. Such a tradition emerged from texts that defined an earlier\nkabbalah with a Christian focus and emphasized creation by means of words\nand letters. The merging of kabbalah with traditional alchemy became, on this\naccount, most pronounced in the coincidently intriguing and confounding text,\nVoarchadumia contra alchimiam by Giovanni Agostino Pantheus (fl. 1518), who\nsignified aspects of alchemy and nature by means of Hebrew letters. This was]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=202\nPages: 202,203\nMedizingeschichte, edited by Susanne C. Pils and Sonia Horn, 78\u2013\u00ad85. Vienna:\nVerlagshaus Thaur, 1998.\nPol, Nicolaus. De cura morbi gallici per lignum guaycanum. Venice: G. Paduano and V.\nRuffinelli, 1535.\nPrincipe, Lawrence M. \u201cAlchemy Restored.\u201d Isis 102, no. 2 (2011): 305\u2013\u00ad12.\nPrincipe, Lawrence M., and William R. Newman. \u201cSome Problems with the Historiography of Alchemy.\u201d In Secrets of Nature: Astrology and Alchemy in Early Modern\nEurope, edited by William R. Newman and Anthony Grafton, 385\u2013\u00ad431.\nCambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001.\nSharpe, Richard. \u201cAccession, Classification, Location: Shelfmarks in Medieval Libraries.\u201d Scriptorium 50 (1996): 279\u2013\u00ad87.\nSherman, William Howard. John Dee: The Politics of Reading and Writing in the English\nRenaissance. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1997.\nSoukup, Rudolf Werner. Chemie in \u00d6sterreich: Bergbau, Alchemie und fr\u00fche Chemie. Von\nden Anf\u00e4ngen bis zum Ende des 18. Jahrhundert. Vienna: B\u00f6hlau, 2007.\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n185]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=215\nPages: 215\noffered a key to the connection of chemistry and kabbalah.\nCroll asserted that adepts in the art had kept secret certain traditional chemical knowledge. He, however, chose to reveal these chemical mysteries, even\nthough it would offend Hermetic philosophers. He believed that chemistry,\nlike Christian doctrine, should be available to all seekers. \u201cCabala, magic, and\nWoarchadumia\u201d were divine truths obtained in the \u201coratory and the laboratory.\u201d51 Croll explained that fiat created prima materia, which in itself is unknowable except through the three principles into which all things are reducible in\nfire. The spagyrical art, or resolution by fire, demonstrates that matter in the\nworld could be reduced to three elements\u2014\u00adfluid (mercury), oil (sulphur), and\nsolid (salt)\u2014\u00adand no further:\nNo body compos\u2019d by Nature can by any dissolving skill be parted into more\nor lesse than Three, viz. Into Mercury or liquor, Sulphur or Oyle, and Salt;]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=210\nPages: 210\npriest and alchemist Giovanni Agostino Pantheus.29 Pantheus shared Pico and\nReuchlin\u2019s belief that kabbalah had been revealed to ancient magi, but his interest in the art seems to have lain in more practical applications than theirs.30\nPantheus was inspired by the possibility of transmuting metal by using\nwords. He published a treatise, the Transmutation, on the subject in 1518. In\nthat work, Pantheus used or referred to the Tetragrammaton, Greek and Hebrew\nletters, and traditional alchemical texts such as the Emerald Table and Turba philosophorum.31 At that time, he seems to have viewed alchemy as at least a quasi-\u00ad\nkabbalistic study.\nThe Transmutation was censured by ecclesiastical authorities who opposed\nthe study and practice of alchemy. Pantheus addressed the censure in his\nVoarchadumia, rejecting alchemy as a false art. He distinguished the kabbalah of]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=192\nPages: 192,193\napplications, however, a dichotomy between them was at odds with the living,\napplied, interacting organizational principles in effect in Pol\u2019s library as well as\nwith Kappler\u2019s concept of remedies.\n46. See, for example, \u201cEx alchimico contra sciatica & omnem dolorem iuncturarum,\u201d \u00d6NB MS 11410,\nfol. 187r. Medications for suppressing impending miscarriage are on fol. 153 and epilepsy features around fol.\n30v.\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n175\nPol\u2019s and Kappler\u2019s manuscripts also illuminate their actual, hands-\u00adon\ninvolvement with alchemy through their forays into the world of equipment\nand objects. The manuscripts of both men not only called for practical measures including distilling processes, putrefaction, and heating by bain marie, but\nthey also contain actual drawings of furnaces and distilling apparatus.47 Two\ninstances, in particular, are noteworthy.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=89\nPages: 89\n69\nmankind by means of revelation. . . . Thus God provides the revelation of secret\nunderstanding from his [own] school. From there every man of sound judgment\nwill easily take away [a knowledge of] what true alchimia is and how this is necessary for the physician.\u201d36\nTo Libavius, this sort of view posed a double threat. It violated trusted logic,\nand it promised to demolish the institutions and disciplines that depended upon\nit.37 Roger Bacon had defined alchemy as a knowledge that taught how to make\na medicine called elixir, and some thought of chymia in the same way, not as a\npart of medicine, but as a medicine, that is, as a medicament. To make matters\nworse, this was not the kind of medicine that rested upon the art that the Greeks\ncalled iatrikon. It was a universal medicine that had led to the fashioning of what]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=182\nPages: 182\n(such as the wedding of his daughter and the feast provided for the occasion),\nand extensive lists of particular regimens.\nBoth the manuscript in its original form, that is, in the form in which Kappler first encountered it, and the heavily annotated version that has come down\nto us, show Kappler\u2019s ongoing engagement with certain methods, equipment,\nsubstances, and approaches that bridge medicine, alchemy, and pharmacy. Also\nin evidence is Kappler\u2019s knowledge of medical and alchemical literature, both\ntraditional and contemporary. He referenced not only authorities like Arnold\nof Villanova (ca. 1238\u2013\u00adca. 1310) but also local and international colleagues,\nmost of whom have been largely forgotten by historians of science. Title lines\nof individual remedies often purport to be \u201cex alchimico,\u201d occasionally employ\nalchemical symbols for substances such as mercury, and include methods such\nas distillation used in the alchemical laboratory. The manuscript, through its]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=190\nPages: 190,191\n41. \u00d6NB MS 11410, fols. 211v, 355ff.\n42. Ibid., fol. 59v.\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n173\nments, Kappler added, as proof of efficacy, that they originated at the Medical\nFaculty of Vienna.43 In this context, both his and Pol\u2019s pursuit of knowledge was\ncumulative, connected with the manufacture and application of remedies, and\nmotivated partly by impending epidemics and partly by the medical marketplace. Alchemically informed recipes were part of that picture. And, where Pol\ncreated structure in his library through the organization of books, Kappler fit his\ntextual acquisitions into the received structure of Pol\u2019s manuscript.\nThe motivation for both doctors\u2019 work in the library, in preparation for and\ndevelopment of their daily practice, reveals itself in their personal notes and\nmanuscripts. As a case in point, Pol\u2019s manuscripts\u2014\u00adand especially his cross-\u00ad]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=190\nPages: 190\n172\nAnke Timmermann\nalchemical recipes, however, cover the spectrum from medications incorporating metalline substances to chrysopoeia. For example, \u00d6NB MS 5315, a miscellany completed prior to Pol\u2019s acquisition of it, gathers instructions in the space\nof a few folios for the preparation of potable gold, a corrosive water for the separation of gold and precious stones, a metalline water, and \u201cPil[u]le Imperiales\u201d\n(imperial pills).40 Other manuscripts provide instructions for making aquae vitae\nand quintessences, not always medical in their intended application.41 As for the\nmedically relevant recipes, ingredients in the collections of both men would\nhave been at home not just in an alchemical laboratory but also in a kitchen or in\nKappler\u2019s famous garden or apothecary shop.\nWhat role, then, did the texts themselves, alchemical or more traditionally\npharmaceutical, play in the doctors\u2019 approaches to their practice? It seems that]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=192\nPages: 192,193\napplications, however, a dichotomy between them was at odds with the living,\napplied, interacting organizational principles in effect in Pol\u2019s library as well as\nwith Kappler\u2019s concept of remedies.\n46. See, for example, \u201cEx alchimico contra sciatica & omnem dolorem iuncturarum,\u201d \u00d6NB MS 11410,\nfol. 187r. Medications for suppressing impending miscarriage are on fol. 153 and epilepsy features around fol.\n30v.\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n175\nPol\u2019s and Kappler\u2019s manuscripts also illuminate their actual, hands-\u00adon\ninvolvement with alchemy through their forays into the world of equipment\nand objects. The manuscripts of both men not only called for practical measures including distilling processes, putrefaction, and heating by bain marie, but\nthey also contain actual drawings of furnaces and distilling apparatus.47 Two\ninstances, in particular, are noteworthy.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=194\nPages: 194,195\nConclusion\nWolfgang Kappler\u2019s manuscript and Nicolaus Pol\u2019s library are emblematic of\ntheir times and yet as unique as their owners. Kappler, a doctor and apothecary\nwhose manuscript tells of his everyday practice, seemed to approach remedies\npragmatically. His manuscript presents a mixture of medicine, alchemy, and\nthe knowledge of apothecaries. Pol, whose manuscript served as the basis for\nKappler\u2019s, had an extensive library and lived in a courtly context of scholarly\nexchange. His library is evidence of his structured collecting activities and intensive study of a wide variety of texts and practices\u2014\u00adincluding the alchemical\u2014\u00ad\nfor purposes that extended beyond his work as a doctor. The work in both library\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n177\nand medical practice of Pol and Kappler is marked by a complex interplay of categorization and creativity. Their books both inform and form the development\nof their knowledge, a combination of alchemy and medicine that would become]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=26\nPages: 26,27\nin Debus, \u201cChemists, Physicians, and Changing Perspectives,\u201d 70.\n14. Hall, in particular, wrote that while \u201cmany have searched\u201d the alchemical literature \u201cfor the beginnings of a chemical attitude,\u201d \u201c[t]here the grain of real knowledge is concealed in a vast deal of esoteric chaff \u201d;\nScientific Revolution 1500\u2013\u00ad1800, 309.\n15. Debus, English Paracelsians.\n16. The name of this figure has been a source of considerable confusion and debate. Debus tended to\nrefer to him simply as \u201cR. Bostocke\u201d; others referred to him as \u201cRobert Bostocke\u201d; still others as \u201cRichard\nBostocke.\u201d More recent research suggests that he was in fact \u201cRichard Bostocke,\u201d otherwise spelled as \u201cRychard\nBostok.\u201d See Harley, \u201cRychard Bostok of Tandridge, Surrey.\u201d\nCrafting the Chemical Interpretation of Nature\n5\nRenaissance chemical literature, and a large portion of it was written not by\ngold-\u00adseeking alchemists, but rather, by scholars who honestly felt that the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=162\nPages: 162\nare well documented in the five works on pharmacy that he published over\na twenty-\u00adyear period.53 In them, he made it clear that his favored reference\nworks were Ev\u00f3nimo Filiatro\u2019s De remediis secretis, Ulstad\u2019s Coelum philosophorum, Wecker\u2019s Antidotarium, and Diego de Santiago\u2019s Arte separatoria.54 The\nskill, moreover, with which he prepared his glassware and stills as well as his\nflowers and roots for preliminary \u201cdigestions\u201d prior to distillation55 attested\nto his expertise as a practitioner. He devoted much space in his later works to\ndiscussions of alchemical secrets, fully accepting the use of chemical practices\nin medicine as well as the possibility that gold could be obtained by alchemical\ntransmutation.56\nVilla\u2019s successor as regent of the monastic pharmacy, Fra Esteban N\u00fa\u00f1ez,\ncontinued the chemical activity of his teacher, combining the task of medicine\n49. See Directorio, regla y advertencias que se hacen a los abades que ser\u00e1n de este Real Monasterio de San]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=98\nPages: 98,99\nSuchten, Alexander von, Georg Fedro von Rodach, Georg Forberger, and Paracelsus.\nDe secretis antimonii liber unus Editus Germanice quidem anno 1570. Basileae:\nPer Petrum Pernam, 1575.\nChapter 4\nChymical Curiosities and\nTrusted Testimonials\nin the Journal of the\nLeopoldina Academy of\nCuriosi\nA\nMargaret D. Garber*\nAlchemy was once an integral part of medicine. Central European medical practitioners had been infusing bodies with mineral, metal, and curious chemical\nmedicaments since the Middle Ages.1 However, as the standard account goes,\nhistorical actors unfastened alchemy from its medical moorings in the eighteenth century, and chemistry set sail on its own as a discipline based upon manual procedures, standardized language, and useful symbols. The history of this\nconjunction and decoupling gave rise to debates that motivated much of Allen\n*I thank Bruce Moran and Karen Parshall for their helpful comments and suggestions. I am also grateful]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=312\nPages: 312\n(2013); \u201cDoctor\u2019s Order: An Early Modern Doctor\u2019s Alchemical Notebooks,\u201d\nEarly Science and Medicine (2008), and other articles on manuscript studies\nand the history of the book, the history of science, and especially the history of\nalchemy and medicine.\nMichael Thomson Walton took his PhD at the University of Chicago in\n1979. He coedited, with Allen G. Debus, Reading the Book of Nature: The Other\nSide of the Scientific Revolution (1998). He is the author of Medical Practitioners\nand Law in Fifteenth Century London (with Phyllis J. Walton, 2003); Genesis and\nthe Chemical Philosophy: True Christian Science in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth\nCenturies (2011); and Anthonius Margaritha and the Jewish Faith: Jewish Life\nand Conversion in Sixteenth Century Germany (2012). Two of his articles, \u201cJohn\nDee\u2019s Monas Hieroglyphica: Geometrical Cabala\u201d and \u201cBoyle and Newton on the\nTransmutation of Water and Air,\u201d were reprinted in Alchemy and Early Modern]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=191\nPages: 191\nMS 5487 beneath an alchemical recipe\u2014\u00adcomplete with alchemical symbols as\nshorthand for substances\u2014\u00adthat is illustrated with the drawing of a vessel in ashes.45 The recipe opens with a reference to the contemporary Viennese bishop\nJurij Slatkonja (Georg von Slatkonia [1456\u2013\u00ad1522]), which in turn directs the\nreader to a volume with the shelf mark G, fol. 109, perhaps a passage in MS 5485\non the red elixir (fol. 109r) or a marginal note referring to space left for a drawing\n(fol. 109v). The uniformity of the script in these cross-\u00adreferences, their connection with the shelf marks, and their paleographical dating (in connection with\nthe documented times of Pol\u2019s ownership) suggest that it was indeed Pol himself\nwho read these volumes so carefully and with an eye for alchemical content.\nTaken together, Pol\u2019s marginal cross-\u00adreferences also attest to the fact that\nthis was an ongoing exercise. References in Cod. 5230, fol. 274r, for example,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=119\nPages: 119\nChemical Medicine in the Circle of Moritz of Hessen (1572\u2013\u00ad1632). Stuttgart: F.\nSteiner Verlag, 1991.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Andreas Libavius and the Transformation of Alchemy: Separating Chemical Cultures with Polemical Fire. Sagamore Beach, MA: Science History Publications,\n2007.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Distilling Knowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cA Survey of Chemical Medicine in the 17th Century: Spanning Court, Classroom and Cultures.\u201d Pharmacy in History 38, no. 3 (1996): 121\u2013\u00ad33.\nNewman, William R. Gehennical Fire: The Lives of George Starkey, an American Alchemist\nin the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994.\nNewman, William R., and Lawrence M. Principe. \u201cAlchemy vs. Chemistry: The Etymological Roots of a Historiographic Mistake.\u201d Early Science and Medicine 3\n(1998): 32\u2013\u00ad65.\nNummedal, Tara. Alchemy and Authority in the Holy Roman Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=178\nPages: 178,179\nlibrary in the case of Pol and a single manuscript reflective of Pol\u2019s influence\nin the case of Kappler\u2014\u00adnot only provide evidence of their practice and experiences as writers, readers, and practitioners of medicine but also inform our\ngrowing knowledge about the relationship between alchemy and medicine in\nthe early modern period.\n2. There has been some recent work on these themes. See, for example, Soukup, Chemie in \u00d6sterreich;\nand Soukup and Mayer, Alchemistisches Gold, Paracelsistische Pharmaka. The history of the Medical Faculty of\nVienna has not been fully realized. See, however, Horn, \u201cExaminiert und Approbiert.\u201d\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n161\nWolfgang Kappler (1493\u2013\u00adFebruary 1567)\nAt the age of thirty-\u00adfour, Wolfgang Kappler settled as a physician and apothecary in the town of Krems on the Danube, about fifteen leagues (seventy kilometers) outside of Vienna. Krems had a population of some four thousand at\nthe time, comprised mostly of craftsmen whose work was closely connected]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=189\nPages: 189\nchapter will investigate through a consideration of the engagement of both Pol\nand Kappler with alchemical texts.\nCurrent trends in historiography address the divide between manuscripts\nas written evidence and the actual practice of a science or craft.38 In the context of the present chapter, this would suggest two questions: What use did Pol\nand Kappler actually make of their alchemical reading in their daily practice as\ndoctors, that is, in fashioning their prescriptions and producing their remedies?\nWhat did they actually do?39\nThe motivation for their everyday practice is easily inferred from their professional commitments to take care of the sick. Indeed, the recipes for waters\nand salves, pills and powders listed in their manuscripts attest to that. Their\n36. Compare John Dee\u2019s \u201cinternal,\u201d private part of his library. See Sherman, John Dee, 33.\n37. Early modern libraries such as Trinity College Library at Cambridge were in the habit of storing]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=311\nPages: 311\nKnowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry, and the Scientific Revolution (2005) and Andreas\nLibavius and the Transformation of Alchemy: Separating Chemical Cultures with\nPolemical Fire (2007). He has been a Dibner Distinguished Fellow in the history of science and technology at the Huntington Library (2010/11), and, most\nrecently, a Gorden Cain Distinguished Fellow at the Chemical Heritage Foundation (2014).\nKaren Hunger Parshall is professor of history and mathematics at the\nUniversity of Virginia. In addition to numerous articles and chapters, she is the\nauthor, among other books and editions, of James Joseph Sylvester: Jewish Mathematician in a Victorian World (2006), Taming the Unknown: A History of Algebra\nfrom Antiquity to the Early Twentieth Century (with Victor J. Katz, 2014), and]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=97\nPages: 97\nDorn, Gerhard. \u201cDe artificio supernaturali.\u201d In Schl\u00fcssel der Chimistischen Philosophy:\nmit welchem die heimliche und verborgene Dicta und Spr\u00fcch der Philosophen, by\nGerhard Dorn. Strassburg: Verlegung Lazari Zetzneri, 1602.\nForshaw, Peter. \u201c\u2018Paradoxes, Absurdities, and Madness\u2019: Conflict over Alchemy, Magic,\nand Medicine in the Works of Andreas Libavius and Heinrich Khunrath.\u201d\nEarly Science and Medicine 13 (2008): 53\u2013\u00ad81.\nHannaway, Owen. The Chemists and the Word: The Didactic Origins of Chemistry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1975.\nLibavius, Andreas. Rerum chymicarum epistolica forma ad philosophos et medicos . . .\nliber primus, secundus. Francofurti: excudebat Ioannes Saurius, impensis Petri\nKopffij, 1595.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Syntagmatis selectorum undiquaque et perspicue traditorum alchymiae arcanorum,\ntomus primus. Francofurti: excudebat Nicolaus Hoffmannus, impensis Petri\nKopffij, 1611\u2013\u00ad13.\nMcCray, Patrick. Glassmaking in Renaissance Venice: The Fragile Craft. Aldershot, UK:]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=195\nPages: 195\nof their knowledge, a combination of alchemy and medicine that would become\nsecond nature to doctors and pharmacists of later generations.\nThis description of Pol, Kappler, and their books may appear straightforward\nto modern readers. Both types of Renaissance reader of alchemica are familiar\nto us from existing accounts of early modern libraries, books, manuscripts, and\ntheir users.51 However, the lives and works of Pol and Kappler were conceived\nof differently just a few decades ago. Early scholarship on Pol was motivated by\nthe bibliophilic interests of an Italian and a Spanish researcher, picked up by a\nGerman with similar interests in 1941, and exhausted by the end of the same\ndecade with the publication of a definitive study. Research on Kappler started\nand ended in 1961 as part of a survey of doctors and apothecaries at Krems.52]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=192\nPages: 192\nfor example, employs vitriol under the alchemical code word \u201cleo viridis.\u201d Some\nrecipes use common ingredients available at Kappler\u2019s pharmacy and elsewhere,\nwhile others, often not distinguished as alchemical in the title, nevertheless call\nfor ingredients or methods more closely related to the alchemical laboratory.\nSince the phrase \u201cex alchimico\u201d only appears in the main body of Kappler\u2019s manuscript, and not in his or later annotations and additions, it probably stemmed\nfrom Pol\u2019s manuscript, the prototype for Kappler\u2019s text. Pol\u2019s remedy titles thus\nactually reference the origin of the recipes. Those ex alchimico were taken from an\nalchemical manuscript or book; others were referred to by the name of the author\nor compiler. These titles fulfill a function similar to that of Pol\u2019s cross-\u00adreferences;\nthey enable the reader to trace the source of a particular remedy. Pol, then, used\nthe term \u201calchemy\u201d in his library as a reference, but like his shelf marks, it did not]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=27\nPages: 27\ngold-\u00adseeking alchemists, but rather, by scholars who honestly felt that the\ntrue key to nature\u2019s secrets was to be found in the study of chemistry. Today\nwe can say that many of their explanations were incorrect, but to their contemporaries their work often seemed a stimulating force, moving man ever\ncloser to a true understanding of nature.17\nIn bringing back to light the ideas of the English Paracelsians, Debus\ndemonstrated the extent to which they incorporated Paracelsian ideas into\ntheir chemical and medical views and practice. He argued that there was, in\nfact, an \u201cElizabethan compromise\u201d by which \u201cthe occult aspects of Paracelsian\nthought were rejected while the new remedies were eagerly adopted, provided\nthey proved their worth.\u201d18 This compromise, moreover, was negotiated at what\nwe might see as the interface between chemistry and medicine. It underscored\nnot only the interconnectedness of these two domains but also the Elizabethan]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=181\nPages: 181\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n163\nKappler\u2019s Manuscript: \u00d6NB MS 11410\nWhile Kappler\u2019s public image has largely been shaped by the reports of others,\nhis actual activities and interests\u2014\u00adamong them, active engagement with alchemy\nand alchemical remedies\u2014\u00adare recorded in the sole surviving manuscript directly\nattributable to him. Sporting Kappler\u2019s colorful and bold coat of arms as an ex libris,\n\u00d6NB MS 11410 forms part of the collection of the Austrian National Library and\nis entitled Practica pro menbris [sic] corporis humani / a capite usque ad pedes et\nprimo de / capitis ad sectionibus.9 A folio volume of some 438 leaves, it contains\nhundreds of notes on illnesses and their remedies. These, as the copyist\u2019s preface\nexplains, were gathered, tried, and tested during the daily experiences of Kappler,\nwhom he described as a doctor and apothecary (\u201cdealer in spices\u201d) with a strong]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=190\nPages: 190\npharmaceutical, play in the doctors\u2019 approaches to their practice? It seems that\nneither Pol nor Kappler changed or questioned the wording or content of either\nmedicinal or alchemical texts in their copies or annotations. Rather, they contributed additions and cross-\u00adreferences to the texts. They viewed their task as\ntextual exegesis (Pol) or the practical realization (Pol and Kappler) of preparations selected from a variety of sources rather than as a critical engagement with\nany individual text. Consider, for example, this alchemically inclined medical\npreparation that was added in the margins of Kappler\u2019s manuscript to a section\non pain medication. Entitled \u201cOleum tartari cum sale nitro\u201d (Oil of tartar with\nsaltpeter), the recipe, Kappler noted, had been obtained from one \u201cP. Neplachio\nIn Brun\u201d (P. Neplachio at Brno).42 Many other remedies added by Kappler to\nthis reference work for his daily practice also testify to his effort to collect and]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=182\nPages: 182\n(such as the wedding of his daughter and the feast provided for the occasion),\nand extensive lists of particular regimens.\nBoth the manuscript in its original form, that is, in the form in which Kappler first encountered it, and the heavily annotated version that has come down\nto us, show Kappler\u2019s ongoing engagement with certain methods, equipment,\nsubstances, and approaches that bridge medicine, alchemy, and pharmacy. Also\nin evidence is Kappler\u2019s knowledge of medical and alchemical literature, both\ntraditional and contemporary. He referenced not only authorities like Arnold\nof Villanova (ca. 1238\u2013\u00adca. 1310) but also local and international colleagues,\nmost of whom have been largely forgotten by historians of science. Title lines\nof individual remedies often purport to be \u201cex alchimico,\u201d occasionally employ\nalchemical symbols for substances such as mercury, and include methods such\nas distillation used in the alchemical laboratory. The manuscript, through its]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=161\nPages: 161\nearly seventeenth centuries. The practice of alchemy continued well into the\nseventeenth century. For example, Juan Jos\u00e9 de la Calle, knight of the Order of\nSantiago and Oidor at the Chancellery of Granada, was a great connoisseur of\nthe chemical art, while Prince Don Vicente Gonzaga (1602\u2013\u00ad94), member of the\nCouncil of State that governed the destinies of the monarchy, routinely engaged\nin self cures using chemical remedies made in his own laboratory. Accounts of\nthese men have come down to us thanks to Fra Andr\u00e9s de Villacast\u00edn, a Hieronymite monk of the monastery of San Lorenzo de El Escorial, who was also\nan expert artificer and participant in chemical discourse of the late seventeenth-\u00ad\ncentury court in Madrid.47 Villacast\u00edn was one of many Spanish monks who,\nduring the early modern era, read and practiced chemistry. His privileged position in the monastery of San Lorenzo (its Mansion of the Waters continued to]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=160\nPages: 160\nthrived at other times and functioned in spheres removed from court. Consider,\nfor example, Manuel Franco de Guzm\u00e1n, a Castilian nobleman and resident of\nValladolid. With important and lucrative properties distributed throughout Burgos, Franco de Guzm\u00e1n spent much of his free time compiling alchemical treatises. A manuscript of his property conserved at the National Library of Spain\nprovides a remarkable optic through which to judge Spanish tastes in alchemy\nduring the second half of the sixteenth century. Next to pseudo-\u00adepigraphic\nmedieval treatises attributed to famous Greek, Arab, or Latin authors, Franco\nde Guzm\u00e1n also recorded aspects of theoretical alchemy and diverse procedures\nfor making therapeutic remedies. Most prominent among the latter were two\nrecipes for making potable gold taken from Philip Ulstadt (fl. 1530), a recipe to\ncure tongue ulcerations, and a fragment of De secretis naturae liber attributed to\nthe author known as Ram\u00f3n Llull (ca. 1232\u2013\u00adca. 1315).46]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=115\nPages: 115,116\nthe definitive article \u201cal\u201d to the Greek word \u201cchimia.\u201d49 Further, his text offered\nrecent experimental histories, including famous transmutation events, considerations of vegetables, animals, and minerals, a section on apparati and furnaces,\nand separate chapters on metals like antimony, silver, and mercury. All of these\nsubjects fell under the category of alchimia, including the uses, symbols, and history of the arts. Yet when writing observations for the Miscellanea curiosa that\ninvolved principles of salt, sulphur, and mercury or that concerned the medical\nuses, medicaments, and even metallic transmutations, he used the term chimica.\nPerhaps like Clauder, Wedel used \u201cchymiatria\u201d for the making of medicaments\nsibi licere, arbitrantes nosse ac distinguere\u201d; ibid., 24.\n48. On Libavius\u2019s concerns with regard to chymia, see Moran\u2019s chapter in this volume and his Andreas\nLibavius and the Transformation of Alchemy.\n49. Wedel, Introductio in alchimiam, 15.\n96\nMargaret D. Garber]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=192\nPages: 192,193\napplications, however, a dichotomy between them was at odds with the living,\napplied, interacting organizational principles in effect in Pol\u2019s library as well as\nwith Kappler\u2019s concept of remedies.\n46. See, for example, \u201cEx alchimico contra sciatica & omnem dolorem iuncturarum,\u201d \u00d6NB MS 11410,\nfol. 187r. Medications for suppressing impending miscarriage are on fol. 153 and epilepsy features around fol.\n30v.\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n175\nPol\u2019s and Kappler\u2019s manuscripts also illuminate their actual, hands-\u00adon\ninvolvement with alchemy through their forays into the world of equipment\nand objects. The manuscripts of both men not only called for practical measures including distilling processes, putrefaction, and heating by bain marie, but\nthey also contain actual drawings of furnaces and distilling apparatus.47 Two\ninstances, in particular, are noteworthy.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=27\nPages: 27\ngold-\u00adseeking alchemists, but rather, by scholars who honestly felt that the\ntrue key to nature\u2019s secrets was to be found in the study of chemistry. Today\nwe can say that many of their explanations were incorrect, but to their contemporaries their work often seemed a stimulating force, moving man ever\ncloser to a true understanding of nature.17\nIn bringing back to light the ideas of the English Paracelsians, Debus\ndemonstrated the extent to which they incorporated Paracelsian ideas into\ntheir chemical and medical views and practice. He argued that there was, in\nfact, an \u201cElizabethan compromise\u201d by which \u201cthe occult aspects of Paracelsian\nthought were rejected while the new remedies were eagerly adopted, provided\nthey proved their worth.\u201d18 This compromise, moreover, was negotiated at what\nwe might see as the interface between chemistry and medicine. It underscored\nnot only the interconnectedness of these two domains but also the Elizabethan]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=190\nPages: 190\n172\nAnke Timmermann\nalchemical recipes, however, cover the spectrum from medications incorporating metalline substances to chrysopoeia. For example, \u00d6NB MS 5315, a miscellany completed prior to Pol\u2019s acquisition of it, gathers instructions in the space\nof a few folios for the preparation of potable gold, a corrosive water for the separation of gold and precious stones, a metalline water, and \u201cPil[u]le Imperiales\u201d\n(imperial pills).40 Other manuscripts provide instructions for making aquae vitae\nand quintessences, not always medical in their intended application.41 As for the\nmedically relevant recipes, ingredients in the collections of both men would\nhave been at home not just in an alchemical laboratory but also in a kitchen or in\nKappler\u2019s famous garden or apothecary shop.\nWhat role, then, did the texts themselves, alchemical or more traditionally\npharmaceutical, play in the doctors\u2019 approaches to their practice? It seems that]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=162\nPages: 162\nare well documented in the five works on pharmacy that he published over\na twenty-\u00adyear period.53 In them, he made it clear that his favored reference\nworks were Ev\u00f3nimo Filiatro\u2019s De remediis secretis, Ulstad\u2019s Coelum philosophorum, Wecker\u2019s Antidotarium, and Diego de Santiago\u2019s Arte separatoria.54 The\nskill, moreover, with which he prepared his glassware and stills as well as his\nflowers and roots for preliminary \u201cdigestions\u201d prior to distillation55 attested\nto his expertise as a practitioner. He devoted much space in his later works to\ndiscussions of alchemical secrets, fully accepting the use of chemical practices\nin medicine as well as the possibility that gold could be obtained by alchemical\ntransmutation.56\nVilla\u2019s successor as regent of the monastic pharmacy, Fra Esteban N\u00fa\u00f1ez,\ncontinued the chemical activity of his teacher, combining the task of medicine\n49. See Directorio, regla y advertencias que se hacen a los abades que ser\u00e1n de este Real Monasterio de San]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=311\nPages: 311\nKnowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry, and the Scientific Revolution (2005) and Andreas\nLibavius and the Transformation of Alchemy: Separating Chemical Cultures with\nPolemical Fire (2007). He has been a Dibner Distinguished Fellow in the history of science and technology at the Huntington Library (2010/11), and, most\nrecently, a Gorden Cain Distinguished Fellow at the Chemical Heritage Foundation (2014).\nKaren Hunger Parshall is professor of history and mathematics at the\nUniversity of Virginia. In addition to numerous articles and chapters, she is the\nauthor, among other books and editions, of James Joseph Sylvester: Jewish Mathematician in a Victorian World (2006), Taming the Unknown: A History of Algebra\nfrom Antiquity to the Early Twentieth Century (with Victor J. Katz, 2014), and]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=178\nPages: 178,179\nlibrary in the case of Pol and a single manuscript reflective of Pol\u2019s influence\nin the case of Kappler\u2014\u00adnot only provide evidence of their practice and experiences as writers, readers, and practitioners of medicine but also inform our\ngrowing knowledge about the relationship between alchemy and medicine in\nthe early modern period.\n2. There has been some recent work on these themes. See, for example, Soukup, Chemie in \u00d6sterreich;\nand Soukup and Mayer, Alchemistisches Gold, Paracelsistische Pharmaka. The history of the Medical Faculty of\nVienna has not been fully realized. See, however, Horn, \u201cExaminiert und Approbiert.\u201d\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n161\nWolfgang Kappler (1493\u2013\u00adFebruary 1567)\nAt the age of thirty-\u00adfour, Wolfgang Kappler settled as a physician and apothecary in the town of Krems on the Danube, about fifteen leagues (seventy kilometers) outside of Vienna. Krems had a population of some four thousand at\nthe time, comprised mostly of craftsmen whose work was closely connected]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=190\nPages: 190,191\n41. \u00d6NB MS 11410, fols. 211v, 355ff.\n42. Ibid., fol. 59v.\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n173\nments, Kappler added, as proof of efficacy, that they originated at the Medical\nFaculty of Vienna.43 In this context, both his and Pol\u2019s pursuit of knowledge was\ncumulative, connected with the manufacture and application of remedies, and\nmotivated partly by impending epidemics and partly by the medical marketplace. Alchemically informed recipes were part of that picture. And, where Pol\ncreated structure in his library through the organization of books, Kappler fit his\ntextual acquisitions into the received structure of Pol\u2019s manuscript.\nThe motivation for both doctors\u2019 work in the library, in preparation for and\ndevelopment of their daily practice, reveals itself in their personal notes and\nmanuscripts. As a case in point, Pol\u2019s manuscripts\u2014\u00adand especially his cross-\u00ad]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=160\nPages: 160\nphilosopher who had studied alchemical enigmas.\u201d44 Par\u00eds himself argued along\nsimilar lines in a memorial he wrote in his defense and in which he affirmed that\nhis chemical practices had helped him understand many obscure passages of the\nBible. As he explained, it was for that reason that he had philosophized about\nthe possibility of using knowledge derived from experience to remove the stumbling blocks that separated different Christian nations and to fashion a dialectic\nweapon against the objections raised by Protestants, Jews, and Muslims. Par\u00eds\nthus used alchemy\u2014\u00adan art uniquely able to imitate nature\u2014\u00adas a language of\nmediation between nations and religions.45\nIt might seem that Philip II\u2019s chemical interests were simply mimicked by\ncourtiers and close associates eager to emulate their monarch\u2019s tastes and desires.\nWhat is certain, however, is that similar cases are to be found in circles that\nthrived at other times and functioned in spheres removed from court. Consider,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=98\nPages: 98,99\nSuchten, Alexander von, Georg Fedro von Rodach, Georg Forberger, and Paracelsus.\nDe secretis antimonii liber unus Editus Germanice quidem anno 1570. Basileae:\nPer Petrum Pernam, 1575.\nChapter 4\nChymical Curiosities and\nTrusted Testimonials\nin the Journal of the\nLeopoldina Academy of\nCuriosi\nA\nMargaret D. Garber*\nAlchemy was once an integral part of medicine. Central European medical practitioners had been infusing bodies with mineral, metal, and curious chemical\nmedicaments since the Middle Ages.1 However, as the standard account goes,\nhistorical actors unfastened alchemy from its medical moorings in the eighteenth century, and chemistry set sail on its own as a discipline based upon manual procedures, standardized language, and useful symbols. The history of this\nconjunction and decoupling gave rise to debates that motivated much of Allen\n*I thank Bruce Moran and Karen Parshall for their helpful comments and suggestions. I am also grateful]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=106\nPages: 106,107\ntraining, was judged sufficiently proficient in chymical matters to become director of the alchemical laboratory\nof the Great Elector of Berlin and minister of mines to Sweden\u2019s King Charles X. Barnett relates their admission\nto authors\u2019 interest in phosphorous; Barnett, \u201cMedical Authority and Princely Patronage,\u201d 228\u2013\u00ad29.\n18. Tylecote, Early History of Metallurgy in Europe, 47.\n19. Faivre, \u201cApproach to the Theme of the Golden Fleece in Alchemy.\u201d\n20. Sachs von Lewenheimb, \u201cAurum chymicum,\u201d 68\u2013\u00ad70.\n21. Ibid., 69. On Kircher\u2019s alchemical interests, see Hirai, \u201cKircher\u2019s Chymical Interpretation of the Creation and Spontaneous Generation.\u201d\nChymical Curiosities and Trusted Testimonials\n87\npast authors, such as Ram\u00f3n Llull (ca. 1232\u2013\u00adca. 1315), Arnold of Villanova (ca.\n1238\u2013\u00adca. 1310), Paracelsus (1493\u2013\u00ad1541), and others, Sachs characterized his\nacademy as cosmopolitan and contemporary, epitomized through a familiarity]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=107\nPages: 107\nV. Baron Moncony, accepted a mysterious powder from another secret adept\nand was able to produce greater than 24-\u00adcarat gold [plusquam 24 carattorum].23\nSachs drew attention to traditional tropes of alchemical literature, in noting such\nthings as a \u201cmysterious powder\u201d and a \u201csecret adept,\u201d and to the almost-\u00adstock\ncharacter of Baron von Chaos, whose transmutation of mercury into gold was\n\u201cwitnessed in 1648 by the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III in Prague.\u201d24\nYet he relied equally on the powerfully normative social operations of trust and\nauthority to counter gold-\u00admaking deniers, who claimed that only frauds practiced these arts.25 In pre-\u00adEnlightenment Europe, fraud and alchemy were not\nexclusively correlated. Tara Nummedal demonstrates this point in her study of\nsixteenth-\u00adcentury criminal trials surrounding alchemical fraud, which reveals\nthat issues of intent to deceive via fraudulent transmutation were the focal point]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=191\nPages: 191\nMS 5487 beneath an alchemical recipe\u2014\u00adcomplete with alchemical symbols as\nshorthand for substances\u2014\u00adthat is illustrated with the drawing of a vessel in ashes.45 The recipe opens with a reference to the contemporary Viennese bishop\nJurij Slatkonja (Georg von Slatkonia [1456\u2013\u00ad1522]), which in turn directs the\nreader to a volume with the shelf mark G, fol. 109, perhaps a passage in MS 5485\non the red elixir (fol. 109r) or a marginal note referring to space left for a drawing\n(fol. 109v). The uniformity of the script in these cross-\u00adreferences, their connection with the shelf marks, and their paleographical dating (in connection with\nthe documented times of Pol\u2019s ownership) suggest that it was indeed Pol himself\nwho read these volumes so carefully and with an eye for alchemical content.\nTaken together, Pol\u2019s marginal cross-\u00adreferences also attest to the fact that\nthis was an ongoing exercise. References in Cod. 5230, fol. 274r, for example,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=192\nPages: 192\nfor example, employs vitriol under the alchemical code word \u201cleo viridis.\u201d Some\nrecipes use common ingredients available at Kappler\u2019s pharmacy and elsewhere,\nwhile others, often not distinguished as alchemical in the title, nevertheless call\nfor ingredients or methods more closely related to the alchemical laboratory.\nSince the phrase \u201cex alchimico\u201d only appears in the main body of Kappler\u2019s manuscript, and not in his or later annotations and additions, it probably stemmed\nfrom Pol\u2019s manuscript, the prototype for Kappler\u2019s text. Pol\u2019s remedy titles thus\nactually reference the origin of the recipes. Those ex alchimico were taken from an\nalchemical manuscript or book; others were referred to by the name of the author\nor compiler. These titles fulfill a function similar to that of Pol\u2019s cross-\u00adreferences;\nthey enable the reader to trace the source of a particular remedy. Pol, then, used\nthe term \u201calchemy\u201d in his library as a reference, but like his shelf marks, it did not]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=26\nPages: 26,27\nin Debus, \u201cChemists, Physicians, and Changing Perspectives,\u201d 70.\n14. Hall, in particular, wrote that while \u201cmany have searched\u201d the alchemical literature \u201cfor the beginnings of a chemical attitude,\u201d \u201c[t]here the grain of real knowledge is concealed in a vast deal of esoteric chaff \u201d;\nScientific Revolution 1500\u2013\u00ad1800, 309.\n15. Debus, English Paracelsians.\n16. The name of this figure has been a source of considerable confusion and debate. Debus tended to\nrefer to him simply as \u201cR. Bostocke\u201d; others referred to him as \u201cRobert Bostocke\u201d; still others as \u201cRichard\nBostocke.\u201d More recent research suggests that he was in fact \u201cRichard Bostocke,\u201d otherwise spelled as \u201cRychard\nBostok.\u201d See Harley, \u201cRychard Bostok of Tandridge, Surrey.\u201d\nCrafting the Chemical Interpretation of Nature\n5\nRenaissance chemical literature, and a large portion of it was written not by\ngold-\u00adseeking alchemists, but rather, by scholars who honestly felt that the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=181\nPages: 181\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n163\nKappler\u2019s Manuscript: \u00d6NB MS 11410\nWhile Kappler\u2019s public image has largely been shaped by the reports of others,\nhis actual activities and interests\u2014\u00adamong them, active engagement with alchemy\nand alchemical remedies\u2014\u00adare recorded in the sole surviving manuscript directly\nattributable to him. Sporting Kappler\u2019s colorful and bold coat of arms as an ex libris,\n\u00d6NB MS 11410 forms part of the collection of the Austrian National Library and\nis entitled Practica pro menbris [sic] corporis humani / a capite usque ad pedes et\nprimo de / capitis ad sectionibus.9 A folio volume of some 438 leaves, it contains\nhundreds of notes on illnesses and their remedies. These, as the copyist\u2019s preface\nexplains, were gathered, tried, and tested during the daily experiences of Kappler,\nwhom he described as a doctor and apothecary (\u201cdealer in spices\u201d) with a strong]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=212\nPages: 212\nEuropean Alchemy,\u201d 26.\n39. Kahn, \u201cLes d\u00e9buts de G\u00e9rard Dorn,\u201d 95\u2013\u00ad97. Kahn draws special attention to Dorn\u2019s borrowing of the\nidea of two elements from Pantheus.\n40. Theophrast von Hohenheim [Paracelsus], Opus paramirum (1531), bk. 1, ch. 2, in S\u00e4mtliche Werke\nI, 1.9:48. The passage reads, \u201cdieweil aber prima materia mundi fiat ist gewesen, wer wil sich unterstehen das\nfiat zu erkl\u00e4ren? Nun aber etwas haben wir durch das feur vulcani, dadurch wir die drei ersten erkl\u00e4ren.\u201d Pagel,\n\u201cPrime Matter of Paracelsus,\u201d 118, translated the passage somewhat differently. His understanding and explication of Paracelsus\u2019s fundamental notions continue to inform Paracelsian scholarship, including my own; however, Pagel did not note the relationship of word-\u00adcreation to the kabbalah. I have written on ideas of chemical\ncreation in Walton, \u201cGenesis and Chemistry in the Sixteenth Century.\u201d Forshaw also discussed the topic in\n\u201cAlchemical Exegesis of Genesis.\u201d]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=160\nPages: 160,161\nthe author known as Ram\u00f3n Llull (ca. 1232\u2013\u00adca. 1315).46\n43. For the inquisitorial trial of Giraldo Par\u00eds, see AHN, secci\u00f3n Inquisici\u00f3n, legajo 100/21. See also\nMu\u00f1oz Calvo, Inquisici\u00f3n y ciencia en la Espa\u00f1a moderna, 44\u2013\u00ad57.\n44. Mu\u00f1oz Calvo, Inquisici\u00f3n y ciencia en la Espa\u00f1a moderna, 44\u2013\u00ad57. He was none other than Phelipe de\nCortavilla, a Flemish pharmacist in charge of supplying medicines to royal servants.\n45. I have revisited Par\u00eds\u2019s trial from a new interpretative perspective in \u201cM\u00e1gicos prodigiosos y verdades\nacrisoladas.\u201d\n46. BNE, ms. 7443. One of the most renowned alchemical compendia in the Spanish historical liter-\n\u201cIf they are not pages that cure, they are pages that teach how to cure\u201d\n143\nSpagyric Friars\nChemical practice within the Spanish nobility was not limited\u2014\u00adas the evidence\nwe have just reviewed might suggest\u2014\u00adto the second half of the sixteenth and\nearly seventeenth centuries. The practice of alchemy continued well into the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=162\nPages: 162\nare well documented in the five works on pharmacy that he published over\na twenty-\u00adyear period.53 In them, he made it clear that his favored reference\nworks were Ev\u00f3nimo Filiatro\u2019s De remediis secretis, Ulstad\u2019s Coelum philosophorum, Wecker\u2019s Antidotarium, and Diego de Santiago\u2019s Arte separatoria.54 The\nskill, moreover, with which he prepared his glassware and stills as well as his\nflowers and roots for preliminary \u201cdigestions\u201d prior to distillation55 attested\nto his expertise as a practitioner. He devoted much space in his later works to\ndiscussions of alchemical secrets, fully accepting the use of chemical practices\nin medicine as well as the possibility that gold could be obtained by alchemical\ntransmutation.56\nVilla\u2019s successor as regent of the monastic pharmacy, Fra Esteban N\u00fa\u00f1ez,\ncontinued the chemical activity of his teacher, combining the task of medicine\n49. See Directorio, regla y advertencias que se hacen a los abades que ser\u00e1n de este Real Monasterio de San]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=160\nPages: 160\nthrived at other times and functioned in spheres removed from court. Consider,\nfor example, Manuel Franco de Guzm\u00e1n, a Castilian nobleman and resident of\nValladolid. With important and lucrative properties distributed throughout Burgos, Franco de Guzm\u00e1n spent much of his free time compiling alchemical treatises. A manuscript of his property conserved at the National Library of Spain\nprovides a remarkable optic through which to judge Spanish tastes in alchemy\nduring the second half of the sixteenth century. Next to pseudo-\u00adepigraphic\nmedieval treatises attributed to famous Greek, Arab, or Latin authors, Franco\nde Guzm\u00e1n also recorded aspects of theoretical alchemy and diverse procedures\nfor making therapeutic remedies. Most prominent among the latter were two\nrecipes for making potable gold taken from Philip Ulstadt (fl. 1530), a recipe to\ncure tongue ulcerations, and a fragment of De secretis naturae liber attributed to\nthe author known as Ram\u00f3n Llull (ca. 1232\u2013\u00adca. 1315).46]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=158\nPages: 158\n140\nMar Rey Bueno\nreadings, both diversion and a way to differentiate themselves from their social\npeers. Another gentleman practitioner, the Aragonese Vincencio Juan de Lastanosa (1607\u2013\u00ad81), was described by his contemporaries as learned in alchimia.\nLastanosa\u2019s palace at Huesca reportedly housed \u201cthe miracles of spagyric and\nhermetic chemistry,\u201d31 specifically a cabinet of curiosities, an alchemical laboratory, a garden with plants from both the Old and New Worlds, and a library of\nexemplars of universal knowledge.32 With a true passion for quintessences and\nelixirs, Lastanosa was a virtuoso, curious and fascinated by the wonders of nature,\nwho thus bore the distinguishing marks of power and wealth.33 His patronage of\nseveral alchemists further testifies to his social status. One, the Neapolitan alchemist Nadal Baronio, worked in Lastanosa\u2019s palace for years elaborating a variety\nof chemical remedies, including the mythical potable gold.34 Another, Diego de]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=197\nPages: 197\nVienna, undated.\nLlullian works including the Testamentum and commentaries; John of\nRupescissa on Llull; and some anonymous alchemica, including recipes.\nPol\u2019s ownership note may be found in the manuscript as well as the shelf\nmark F (on the lower cut only). Possibly part of the Fugger library in the sixteenth or early seventeenth century, via humanist Johannes Sch\u00f6ner, who owned\nvarious scientific manuscripts now also kept at the Austrian National Library.59\nG: MS 5485\nVolume of Llull tracts and alchemy. Bavaria or Austria, second half of the fifteenth century (probably contemporary with Pol\u2019s early medical career).\nOctavo, 157 folios. Binding: southwest Germany, predating Pol\u2019s acquisition of\nthe manuscript.60\nLlulliana including the Liber quintae essentiae and tracts on mercury; John of\nRupescissa\u2019s Liber de conderatione quintae essentiae; anonymous vernacular recipes.\nThe ownership note appears in the manuscript, the letter G on the lower]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=161\nPages: 161\nearly seventeenth centuries. The practice of alchemy continued well into the\nseventeenth century. For example, Juan Jos\u00e9 de la Calle, knight of the Order of\nSantiago and Oidor at the Chancellery of Granada, was a great connoisseur of\nthe chemical art, while Prince Don Vicente Gonzaga (1602\u2013\u00ad94), member of the\nCouncil of State that governed the destinies of the monarchy, routinely engaged\nin self cures using chemical remedies made in his own laboratory. Accounts of\nthese men have come down to us thanks to Fra Andr\u00e9s de Villacast\u00edn, a Hieronymite monk of the monastery of San Lorenzo de El Escorial, who was also\nan expert artificer and participant in chemical discourse of the late seventeenth-\u00ad\ncentury court in Madrid.47 Villacast\u00edn was one of many Spanish monks who,\nduring the early modern era, read and practiced chemistry. His privileged position in the monastery of San Lorenzo (its Mansion of the Waters continued to]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=158\nPages: 158\nof chemical remedies, including the mythical potable gold.34 Another, Diego de\nBercebal (d. 1707), a Franciscan nurse interested in learning the chemical art,\njudged Huesca to be the best place to study in light of Lastanosa\u2019s enthusiasm\nfor secrets and exquisite remedies.35 In fact, an analysis of the alchemical content\nof Lastanosa\u2019s library reveals that, in addition to alchemical treatises written by\nartificers from many eras, he had a large selection of treatises exclusively dedicated to the preparation of chemical remedies.36 While it is unknown whether\nLastanosa himself ever elaborated the remedies and alchemical panaceas whose\nrecipes he collected, it is clear that he prized manuscripts of secrets and wrote a\ntranslation into Castilian of Les elemens de chymie by the French pharmacist Jean\nB\u00e9guin (1550\u2013\u00ad1620).37\nJuan V\u00e1zquez de M\u00e1rmol, the general book censor during the reign of Philip\nII, shared Lastanosa\u2019s passion for collecting books of secrets. A prominent figure]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=154\nPages: 154,155\nto making medicines from animals, vegetables, and minerals by separation of the active part. The other was exclusively devoted to the transmutation of metals, also called \u201calchymia,\u201d \u201calchemia,\u201d \u201ccrisopeya,\u201d \u201cmetalurgia,\u201d\n\u201carte aur\u00edfera,\u201d and \u201carte herm\u00e9tica.\u201d For more analysis of this terminology, see Newman and Principe, \u201cAlchemy vs. Chemistry\u201d; and Abbri, \u201cAlchemy and Chemistry.\u201d\n17. On the need to incorporate Spain into the narrative of the Scientific Revolution, see the studies of\n\u201cIf they are not pages that cure, they are pages that teach how to cure\u201d\n137\nPeddlers of Secret Panaceas18\nIn April of 1598, the Royal Court of the Protomedicato, the highest health-\u00ad\nregulatory institution within the Hispanic monarchy, granted permission for the\ncommercial production of what was styled a \u201cwhite dust solution of gold\u2019s quintessence [polvos blancos solutivos de la quinta esencia del oro].\u201d A medicinal remedy made and sold by Alessandro Quintilio, a Roman citizen residing in Madrid,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=161\nPages: 161,162\nlos polvos universales purgantes, 1:60.\n144\nMar Rey Bueno\nunsurpassed.49 He was described in similarly glowing terms by the Mercedarian brother Bernardino de Palacios in his 1729 History of the City of Burgos, Its\nFamilies and Its Holy Church. According to Bernardino, Fra Esteban was a great\nchemical philosopher and an even better administrator of the monastery\u2019s\npharmacy,50 who had learned his art in a Galenic and spagyrical pharmacy\nequipped with a vegetable garden for the cultivation of medicinal herbs and\na laboratory for making distilled waters and quintessences.51 The pharmacy\nultimately became one of the most famous in Castile, owing as much to the\nwealth of the medicinal herbs and drugs it purveyed as to the skill of its pharmacist friars. Both made the pharmacy the point of reference for patients and\nsanadores throughout the kingdom.52 Fra Esteban\u2019s chemical ideas, moreover,\nare well documented in the five works on pharmacy that he published over]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=116\nPages: 116,117\nand superior chymical knowledge.\nChymical Curiosities and Trusted Testimonials\n97\nThe presentation of chymia in many observations of the Miscellanea curiosi, such as those of Sachs and Clauder, attempted a more contemporary spin.\nWhile Sachs relegated such masters as Ram\u00f3n Llull, Arnold of Villanova, and\nParacelsus to texts of the past, he distinguished his own Academy as not being\nas much intrigued by them, as it was informed by witnessed accounts of more\nrecent, contemporaneous transmutation events. Likewise, Clauder defended\nchymia against Kircher\u2019s critique by arguing that combining past knowledge of\nalchemy with contemporary skills in metals and ovens made his own century\nespecially productive. This shift in emphasis from the past to more contemporary knowledge and practice is strikingly unusual. And this shift dovetails with\nthe self-\u00adportrait of Curiosi as being as experienced in chymical matters as they]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=192\nPages: 192\nfor example, employs vitriol under the alchemical code word \u201cleo viridis.\u201d Some\nrecipes use common ingredients available at Kappler\u2019s pharmacy and elsewhere,\nwhile others, often not distinguished as alchemical in the title, nevertheless call\nfor ingredients or methods more closely related to the alchemical laboratory.\nSince the phrase \u201cex alchimico\u201d only appears in the main body of Kappler\u2019s manuscript, and not in his or later annotations and additions, it probably stemmed\nfrom Pol\u2019s manuscript, the prototype for Kappler\u2019s text. Pol\u2019s remedy titles thus\nactually reference the origin of the recipes. Those ex alchimico were taken from an\nalchemical manuscript or book; others were referred to by the name of the author\nor compiler. These titles fulfill a function similar to that of Pol\u2019s cross-\u00adreferences;\nthey enable the reader to trace the source of a particular remedy. Pol, then, used\nthe term \u201calchemy\u201d in his library as a reference, but like his shelf marks, it did not]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=198\nPages: 198\nthe twentieth day of November). Nothing is known about Otto Kappenmayster.\nVarious and diverse texts authored by or attributed to authors, ancient (Avicenna, Geber, Virgil), medieval (for example, Thomas Aquinas, with particular\nemphasis on Ram\u00f3n Llull and Arnold of Villanova), and many others; some\n(such as texts by one Kochperger and Fridericus de N\u00fcremberga) may be contemporary with Pol. Those in the vernacular include recipes by one Petrus of\nPrague and one Wilhelm von Ghauch;62 another, anonymous treatise appears\nto be in Low German.63 In addition to the ten titled anonyma listed in the catalogues, this manuscript contains countless anonymous alchemical tracts on\nalchemical theory and practice, most in Latin.\nPol\u2019s ownership note appears in the manuscript, the letter M on the lower\ncut only, although remainders can be spotted on the upper cut.\n61. The HANNA catalogue mistakes the letter on the cut for an F; see s.v. \u201cSignatur: 5489,\u201d accessed 6]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=320\nPages: 320\nletters to Brendel (the elder), 59\u201360\noverview of, xvi\nParacelsus criticized by, xvi, 195\nSyntagma selectorum undiquaque, 62\non the tria prima, 104\non words, 67, 73, 95\nLiber medicin\u00e6 orinalibus (attrib. Hermogenes),\n27n22\nlibraries, 169, 171n37. See also under alchemical\nmanuscripts\nLiebault, Jean, 148n69\nL\u2019agriculture, 148\u201349\nLinacre, Thomas, 51n101\nLlull, Ram\u00f3n, 86\u201387, 97, 167, 178\u201381\nDe secretis naturae liber, 142, 142\u201343n46\nL\u00f3pez P\u00e9rez, Miguel, 136\u201337, 137n20, 140n31,\n144n51\nL\u00f3pez Pi\u00f1ero, Jos\u00e9 Mar\u00eda, 133\nL\u00f3pez Rodr\u00edquez, Brunilda, 2\nLuke (Bible), 221n41\nIndex\nM\nMacMillan, Kenneth, 237n34\nMacquer, Pierre-Joseph, 123, 127\nElements of the Theory and Practice of Chemistry, 122\nMacrobius, 186\nMadrid, 137\nMagi, 221\nmagia, xvii, 72\nMagia naturalis (della Porta), 251\nMaier, Michael, 86\nAtalanta fugiens, 272\u201374, 273, 289\nMan and Nature in the Renaissance (Debus), 9\u201310\nmanna solutivo, 138\nMark (Bible), 220n35\nMars, 34\nMartinius, Heinrich: The Galeno-Spagyric Anatomy of the Urine, 29\u201331, 53]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=17\nPages: 17,18\nFor chemistry in Spain, see especially L\u00f3pez P\u00e9rez, \u201cNovatores or Alchemists?\u201d\nxviii\nIntroduction\nand avenues of expertise that were not only available within commercial and\ndomestic settings but were also often promoted by the patronage interests of\nprovincial aristocrats. Here domestic pharmacy, books of secrets, and agricultural manuals converged to create local chemical arenas in which the instruction and participation of women, particularly in processes of distillation, played\na prominent role. Reversing a narrative that influenced Debus\u2019s perception of\nSpanish science, Rey Bueno convincingly argues that a resurgence of chemistry\nin Spain was not connected with a delayed reception of Paracelsian doctrines\nand, in terms of practice, entered into numerous dimensions of urban, religious,\nand domestic life, existing far beyond the influence, and aristocratic mimicry, of\ncourt interests.\nIn her essay, Anke Timmermann shifts the regional focus to the Hapsburg]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=220\nPages: 220,221\naffectu, ardentique, desiderio continuata, unit mentem cum Deo, & omnia dificit & cogniscit ex Deo\u201d; Croll,\nBasilica chymica, in Pinnell, Philosophy Reformed and Improved, 74; and Croll, Basilica chymica (1611), 39.\nThe Chemical Philosophy and Kabbalah\n203\ngate of the Heavens into the Oratory or Chappell of Apollo, and get to the top\nof the mount of Chymistry?\u201d66\nBoth Khunrath and Croll knew that without the oratory the laboratory is a\nvain venue. Knowledge comes from God, the Creator. The chemist ultimately\ngains power over nature with the ability to heal from the divine, not from mere\nlaboratory procedures:\nBut that the glorious God and most blessed bestower of all graces hath\nreavealed and made it plaine to his faithfull wise ones, to such as feare and\nhonor him, that they might understand, meditate upon and love his omnipotent goodnesse, and by glorifying him in his wonders and all his power and\nvirtues, serving him without any blemish, vice or sin in his holinesse, and]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=192\nPages: 192,193\napplications, however, a dichotomy between them was at odds with the living,\napplied, interacting organizational principles in effect in Pol\u2019s library as well as\nwith Kappler\u2019s concept of remedies.\n46. See, for example, \u201cEx alchimico contra sciatica & omnem dolorem iuncturarum,\u201d \u00d6NB MS 11410,\nfol. 187r. Medications for suppressing impending miscarriage are on fol. 153 and epilepsy features around fol.\n30v.\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n175\nPol\u2019s and Kappler\u2019s manuscripts also illuminate their actual, hands-\u00adon\ninvolvement with alchemy through their forays into the world of equipment\nand objects. The manuscripts of both men not only called for practical measures including distilling processes, putrefaction, and heating by bain marie, but\nthey also contain actual drawings of furnaces and distilling apparatus.47 Two\ninstances, in particular, are noteworthy.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=161\nPages: 161\noperate throughout the seventeenth century48) and his knowledge of the art\nwere sufficient reasons for Charles II to choose him as the artifice charged with\ncertifying the properties of Alderete\u2019s Water of Life.\nFra Esteban Villa, another outstanding pharmacist of seventeenth-\u00adcentury\nSpain, directed the pharmacy of the Hospital of San Juan de Burgos. Associated with the Benedictine monastery there from 1616 to 1660, Villa was considered by his brethren to be an illustrious son of the order, a philosopher, and\na theologian dedicated to the faculty of espagiria in which, it is said, he was\nature, this text, although discovered in the nineteenth century, has only recently been studied in detail. See\nRodr\u00edguez Guerrero, \u201cManuscrito 7443 de la Biblioteca Nacional de Espa\u00f1a.\u201d\n47. See Villacast\u00edn, Chymica despreciada.\n48. We know this from testimonies offered by both pharmacist Juan del Castillo and the above-\u00adcited]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=156\nPages: 156,157\nmanna distillado; otras, clarificado; otras, Quinta esencia. No hizo poco ruido . . . mas en guardarlo parece que\nguardaba las leyes divinas); Gervasio de Barrionuevo, Tratado sobre el l\u00e1udano opiato de Iosepho Querzetano.\nAfter the death of the last distributor, who settled in Spain, the secret was lost. Nevertheless, Barrionuevo explained that some physicians in Madrid still urged him to experiment in his pharmacy in the hopes of finding\na possible substitute.\n\u201cIf they are not pages that cure, they are pages that teach how to cure\u201d\n139\na creation of Giuseppe Balsam, was somewhat different in that Balsam, unlike\nPolizzi, chose not to put his business in the hands of others. After personally\npeddling his oil in the cities of Granada, Cordova, Seville, and Toledo, he established himself in Valencia, where he obtained sales licenses from the viceroy.26\nSoon after the arrival of these Italian products, the number of Spanish]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=160\nPages: 160,159\n39. BNE, ms. 9226, fol. 249.\n40. Recetarios acado de D. Alejo Piemont\u00e9s y de otros autores, y de otras muchas recetas que me han dado.\nIbid., fols. 145r\u2013\u00ad225r.\n41. With his associate Giovanni Battista Rovelasca, Par\u00eds controlled the monopoly between Malaca and\nAntwerp via Lisbon. An administrative adjudication beginning in 1587 allowed him to live on the proceeds;\nThomas, \u201cFlamencos en la pen\u00ednsula ib\u00e9rica.\u201d\n42. Rey Bueno, \u201cJuntas de herbolarios y tertulias espag\u00edricas.\u201d\n142\nMar Rey Bueno\nthat the charges dealt not with his alchemical activities but rather with his interpretations of various religious tenets\u2014\u00adthe virginity of Mary, the essence of the\nTrinity, the existence of purgatory, and the Israelites crossing the Red Sea\u2014\u00adthat\nhe made from a chemical perspective.43 As one witness put it in Par\u00eds\u2019s defense,\nhowever, he did not offer these interpretations \u201cas a theologian, but as a natural\nphilosopher who had studied alchemical enigmas.\u201d44 Par\u00eds himself argued along]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=196\nPages: 196\nlifetime). 218 x 147 mm, 258 folios. Binding: Vienna, 1755.\nTexts authored by or attributed to authorities, ancient (Hermes Trismegistus, Geber) and medieval (Boethius, Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus); to alchemist-\u00adphysician Arnold of Villanova (at least one a unique\ncopy),56 Ram\u00f3n Llull and others, as well as a significant number of anonyma.\nTheoretical alchemy and recipes.\nMS 5509 only shows the letter E on both the upper and lower cut, but\nnot Pol\u2019s ownership note. The letter on the upper cut is missing its vertical stroke due to rebinding. A historical description of the manuscript in a\nprevious binding confirms Pol\u2019s ownership. Some folios cut from MS 5509\ncan now be found in MS 5510.57 Since the manuscript was rebound at the\n54. Unless otherwise noted, information is taken from the Austrian National Library catalogue (\u00d6NB-\u00ad\nHANNA-\u00adKatalog; http://aleph.onb.ac.at/F?func=file&file_name=login&local_base=ONB06, accessed 10]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=161\nPages: 161\nearly seventeenth centuries. The practice of alchemy continued well into the\nseventeenth century. For example, Juan Jos\u00e9 de la Calle, knight of the Order of\nSantiago and Oidor at the Chancellery of Granada, was a great connoisseur of\nthe chemical art, while Prince Don Vicente Gonzaga (1602\u2013\u00ad94), member of the\nCouncil of State that governed the destinies of the monarchy, routinely engaged\nin self cures using chemical remedies made in his own laboratory. Accounts of\nthese men have come down to us thanks to Fra Andr\u00e9s de Villacast\u00edn, a Hieronymite monk of the monastery of San Lorenzo de El Escorial, who was also\nan expert artificer and participant in chemical discourse of the late seventeenth-\u00ad\ncentury court in Madrid.47 Villacast\u00edn was one of many Spanish monks who,\nduring the early modern era, read and practiced chemistry. His privileged position in the monastery of San Lorenzo (its Mansion of the Waters continued to]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=190\nPages: 190,191\n41. \u00d6NB MS 11410, fols. 211v, 355ff.\n42. Ibid., fol. 59v.\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n173\nments, Kappler added, as proof of efficacy, that they originated at the Medical\nFaculty of Vienna.43 In this context, both his and Pol\u2019s pursuit of knowledge was\ncumulative, connected with the manufacture and application of remedies, and\nmotivated partly by impending epidemics and partly by the medical marketplace. Alchemically informed recipes were part of that picture. And, where Pol\ncreated structure in his library through the organization of books, Kappler fit his\ntextual acquisitions into the received structure of Pol\u2019s manuscript.\nThe motivation for both doctors\u2019 work in the library, in preparation for and\ndevelopment of their daily practice, reveals itself in their personal notes and\nmanuscripts. As a case in point, Pol\u2019s manuscripts\u2014\u00adand especially his cross-\u00ad]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=100\nPages: 100\npast, Debus insisted that chemistry\u2019s academic acceptance depended upon its\npharmaceutical value to schools of medicine\u2014\u00ada move that established chemistry\u2019s university footing once physicians rejected chemical philosophy as a viable explanatory source for physiology. Pushing Debus\u2019s claim further, I argue\nthat physicians and chemists received far more from alchemy than philosophy\nand pharmaceuticals. The rise of the \u201cexpert chemist\u201d was linked to an earlier\ntransformation of alchemical adept to physician adept, one whose chemical\nexperience was measured by chemical productions. It was the gold-\u00admaking\ntransmutation believers themselves who initiated these efforts to standardize\nlanguage and agree upon procedures and symbols.\nIn late seventeenth-\u00adcentury central Europe, physicians in the Leopoldina\nAcademy of Curiosi illustrated their prominence in more than medical theory\nor pharmaceuticals, portraying additionally their dominance in skills involving]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=311\nPages: 311\nKnowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry, and the Scientific Revolution (2005) and Andreas\nLibavius and the Transformation of Alchemy: Separating Chemical Cultures with\nPolemical Fire (2007). He has been a Dibner Distinguished Fellow in the history of science and technology at the Huntington Library (2010/11), and, most\nrecently, a Gorden Cain Distinguished Fellow at the Chemical Heritage Foundation (2014).\nKaren Hunger Parshall is professor of history and mathematics at the\nUniversity of Virginia. In addition to numerous articles and chapters, she is the\nauthor, among other books and editions, of James Joseph Sylvester: Jewish Mathematician in a Victorian World (2006), Taming the Unknown: A History of Algebra\nfrom Antiquity to the Early Twentieth Century (with Victor J. Katz, 2014), and]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=182\nPages: 182\n(such as the wedding of his daughter and the feast provided for the occasion),\nand extensive lists of particular regimens.\nBoth the manuscript in its original form, that is, in the form in which Kappler first encountered it, and the heavily annotated version that has come down\nto us, show Kappler\u2019s ongoing engagement with certain methods, equipment,\nsubstances, and approaches that bridge medicine, alchemy, and pharmacy. Also\nin evidence is Kappler\u2019s knowledge of medical and alchemical literature, both\ntraditional and contemporary. He referenced not only authorities like Arnold\nof Villanova (ca. 1238\u2013\u00adca. 1310) but also local and international colleagues,\nmost of whom have been largely forgotten by historians of science. Title lines\nof individual remedies often purport to be \u201cex alchimico,\u201d occasionally employ\nalchemical symbols for substances such as mercury, and include methods such\nas distillation used in the alchemical laboratory. The manuscript, through its]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=178\nPages: 178,179\nlibrary in the case of Pol and a single manuscript reflective of Pol\u2019s influence\nin the case of Kappler\u2014\u00adnot only provide evidence of their practice and experiences as writers, readers, and practitioners of medicine but also inform our\ngrowing knowledge about the relationship between alchemy and medicine in\nthe early modern period.\n2. There has been some recent work on these themes. See, for example, Soukup, Chemie in \u00d6sterreich;\nand Soukup and Mayer, Alchemistisches Gold, Paracelsistische Pharmaka. The history of the Medical Faculty of\nVienna has not been fully realized. See, however, Horn, \u201cExaminiert und Approbiert.\u201d\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n161\nWolfgang Kappler (1493\u2013\u00adFebruary 1567)\nAt the age of thirty-\u00adfour, Wolfgang Kappler settled as a physician and apothecary in the town of Krems on the Danube, about fifteen leagues (seventy kilometers) outside of Vienna. Krems had a population of some four thousand at\nthe time, comprised mostly of craftsmen whose work was closely connected]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=27\nPages: 27\ngold-\u00adseeking alchemists, but rather, by scholars who honestly felt that the\ntrue key to nature\u2019s secrets was to be found in the study of chemistry. Today\nwe can say that many of their explanations were incorrect, but to their contemporaries their work often seemed a stimulating force, moving man ever\ncloser to a true understanding of nature.17\nIn bringing back to light the ideas of the English Paracelsians, Debus\ndemonstrated the extent to which they incorporated Paracelsian ideas into\ntheir chemical and medical views and practice. He argued that there was, in\nfact, an \u201cElizabethan compromise\u201d by which \u201cthe occult aspects of Paracelsian\nthought were rejected while the new remedies were eagerly adopted, provided\nthey proved their worth.\u201d18 This compromise, moreover, was negotiated at what\nwe might see as the interface between chemistry and medicine. It underscored\nnot only the interconnectedness of these two domains but also the Elizabethan]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=190\nPages: 190\n172\nAnke Timmermann\nalchemical recipes, however, cover the spectrum from medications incorporating metalline substances to chrysopoeia. For example, \u00d6NB MS 5315, a miscellany completed prior to Pol\u2019s acquisition of it, gathers instructions in the space\nof a few folios for the preparation of potable gold, a corrosive water for the separation of gold and precious stones, a metalline water, and \u201cPil[u]le Imperiales\u201d\n(imperial pills).40 Other manuscripts provide instructions for making aquae vitae\nand quintessences, not always medical in their intended application.41 As for the\nmedically relevant recipes, ingredients in the collections of both men would\nhave been at home not just in an alchemical laboratory but also in a kitchen or in\nKappler\u2019s famous garden or apothecary shop.\nWhat role, then, did the texts themselves, alchemical or more traditionally\npharmaceutical, play in the doctors\u2019 approaches to their practice? It seems that]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=192\nPages: 192,193\napplications, however, a dichotomy between them was at odds with the living,\napplied, interacting organizational principles in effect in Pol\u2019s library as well as\nwith Kappler\u2019s concept of remedies.\n46. See, for example, \u201cEx alchimico contra sciatica & omnem dolorem iuncturarum,\u201d \u00d6NB MS 11410,\nfol. 187r. Medications for suppressing impending miscarriage are on fol. 153 and epilepsy features around fol.\n30v.\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n175\nPol\u2019s and Kappler\u2019s manuscripts also illuminate their actual, hands-\u00adon\ninvolvement with alchemy through their forays into the world of equipment\nand objects. The manuscripts of both men not only called for practical measures including distilling processes, putrefaction, and heating by bain marie, but\nthey also contain actual drawings of furnaces and distilling apparatus.47 Two\ninstances, in particular, are noteworthy.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=178\nPages: 178\nits highly developed mining industry, sophisticated practical crafts, flourishing\ntrade along the Danube, and active circulation of alchemical knowledge through\nbooks, materials, and equipment. The history of alchemy and medicine in the\narchduchy of Austria and the Habsburg territories thus presents a rich combination of institutional and national factors, academia and craft, experimentation\nand regulation.2\nThis chapter investigates the lives and works of two doctors: Wolfgang Kappler (1493\u2013\u00ad1567), an apothecary doctor at Krems on the Danube in the archduchy of Austria, and Nicolaus Pol (ca. 1470\u2013\u00ad1532), a physician at the imperial\ncourt of Innsbruck in the Tyrol. Both showed a keen interest in alchemy and\nits medical uses. Their surviving books\u2014\u00adsubstantial remnants of an extensive\nlibrary in the case of Pol and a single manuscript reflective of Pol\u2019s influence]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=98\nPages: 98,99\nSuchten, Alexander von, Georg Fedro von Rodach, Georg Forberger, and Paracelsus.\nDe secretis antimonii liber unus Editus Germanice quidem anno 1570. Basileae:\nPer Petrum Pernam, 1575.\nChapter 4\nChymical Curiosities and\nTrusted Testimonials\nin the Journal of the\nLeopoldina Academy of\nCuriosi\nA\nMargaret D. Garber*\nAlchemy was once an integral part of medicine. Central European medical practitioners had been infusing bodies with mineral, metal, and curious chemical\nmedicaments since the Middle Ages.1 However, as the standard account goes,\nhistorical actors unfastened alchemy from its medical moorings in the eighteenth century, and chemistry set sail on its own as a discipline based upon manual procedures, standardized language, and useful symbols. The history of this\nconjunction and decoupling gave rise to debates that motivated much of Allen\n*I thank Bruce Moran and Karen Parshall for their helpful comments and suggestions. I am also grateful]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=115\nPages: 115,116\nthe definitive article \u201cal\u201d to the Greek word \u201cchimia.\u201d49 Further, his text offered\nrecent experimental histories, including famous transmutation events, considerations of vegetables, animals, and minerals, a section on apparati and furnaces,\nand separate chapters on metals like antimony, silver, and mercury. All of these\nsubjects fell under the category of alchimia, including the uses, symbols, and history of the arts. Yet when writing observations for the Miscellanea curiosa that\ninvolved principles of salt, sulphur, and mercury or that concerned the medical\nuses, medicaments, and even metallic transmutations, he used the term chimica.\nPerhaps like Clauder, Wedel used \u201cchymiatria\u201d for the making of medicaments\nsibi licere, arbitrantes nosse ac distinguere\u201d; ibid., 24.\n48. On Libavius\u2019s concerns with regard to chymia, see Moran\u2019s chapter in this volume and his Andreas\nLibavius and the Transformation of Alchemy.\n49. Wedel, Introductio in alchimiam, 15.\n96\nMargaret D. Garber]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=195\nPages: 195\nof their knowledge, a combination of alchemy and medicine that would become\nsecond nature to doctors and pharmacists of later generations.\nThis description of Pol, Kappler, and their books may appear straightforward\nto modern readers. Both types of Renaissance reader of alchemica are familiar\nto us from existing accounts of early modern libraries, books, manuscripts, and\ntheir users.51 However, the lives and works of Pol and Kappler were conceived\nof differently just a few decades ago. Early scholarship on Pol was motivated by\nthe bibliophilic interests of an Italian and a Spanish researcher, picked up by a\nGerman with similar interests in 1941, and exhausted by the end of the same\ndecade with the publication of a definitive study. Research on Kappler started\nand ended in 1961 as part of a survey of doctors and apothecaries at Krems.52]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=160\nPages: 160\nphilosopher who had studied alchemical enigmas.\u201d44 Par\u00eds himself argued along\nsimilar lines in a memorial he wrote in his defense and in which he affirmed that\nhis chemical practices had helped him understand many obscure passages of the\nBible. As he explained, it was for that reason that he had philosophized about\nthe possibility of using knowledge derived from experience to remove the stumbling blocks that separated different Christian nations and to fashion a dialectic\nweapon against the objections raised by Protestants, Jews, and Muslims. Par\u00eds\nthus used alchemy\u2014\u00adan art uniquely able to imitate nature\u2014\u00adas a language of\nmediation between nations and religions.45\nIt might seem that Philip II\u2019s chemical interests were simply mimicked by\ncourtiers and close associates eager to emulate their monarch\u2019s tastes and desires.\nWhat is certain, however, is that similar cases are to be found in circles that\nthrived at other times and functioned in spheres removed from court. Consider,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=160\nPages: 160\nthrived at other times and functioned in spheres removed from court. Consider,\nfor example, Manuel Franco de Guzm\u00e1n, a Castilian nobleman and resident of\nValladolid. With important and lucrative properties distributed throughout Burgos, Franco de Guzm\u00e1n spent much of his free time compiling alchemical treatises. A manuscript of his property conserved at the National Library of Spain\nprovides a remarkable optic through which to judge Spanish tastes in alchemy\nduring the second half of the sixteenth century. Next to pseudo-\u00adepigraphic\nmedieval treatises attributed to famous Greek, Arab, or Latin authors, Franco\nde Guzm\u00e1n also recorded aspects of theoretical alchemy and diverse procedures\nfor making therapeutic remedies. Most prominent among the latter were two\nrecipes for making potable gold taken from Philip Ulstadt (fl. 1530), a recipe to\ncure tongue ulcerations, and a fragment of De secretis naturae liber attributed to\nthe author known as Ram\u00f3n Llull (ca. 1232\u2013\u00adca. 1315).46]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=89\nPages: 89\n69\nmankind by means of revelation. . . . Thus God provides the revelation of secret\nunderstanding from his [own] school. From there every man of sound judgment\nwill easily take away [a knowledge of] what true alchimia is and how this is necessary for the physician.\u201d36\nTo Libavius, this sort of view posed a double threat. It violated trusted logic,\nand it promised to demolish the institutions and disciplines that depended upon\nit.37 Roger Bacon had defined alchemy as a knowledge that taught how to make\na medicine called elixir, and some thought of chymia in the same way, not as a\npart of medicine, but as a medicine, that is, as a medicament. To make matters\nworse, this was not the kind of medicine that rested upon the art that the Greeks\ncalled iatrikon. It was a universal medicine that had led to the fashioning of what]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=81\nPages: 81\n(egcheireseon). Its practices included the extraction of magisteria and essences\nand required proficiency in the use of instruments and procedural know-\u00adhow.6\nIn its entirety, the art of alchymia comprised two parts. One part was manuarius, related to those things belonging to the hand, which were mechanic. The\nother part he called ousiodes, or essential. The former described specific kinds of\nphysical labors, while the latter was both didactic, explanatory, and methodical,\nlaying open to the eyes, and by means of precepts also to the mind, the rationale for special processes, natural powers, and varieties of practice.7 Alchymia\n5. Libavius, Syntagmatis . . . tomus primus, 4.\n6. Ibid., 2. M\u00fcller-\u00adJahncke, \u201cAndreas Libavius im Lichte der Geschichte der Chemie\u201d; Debus, Chemical]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=119\nPages: 119\nChemical Medicine in the Circle of Moritz of Hessen (1572\u2013\u00ad1632). Stuttgart: F.\nSteiner Verlag, 1991.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Andreas Libavius and the Transformation of Alchemy: Separating Chemical Cultures with Polemical Fire. Sagamore Beach, MA: Science History Publications,\n2007.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Distilling Knowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cA Survey of Chemical Medicine in the 17th Century: Spanning Court, Classroom and Cultures.\u201d Pharmacy in History 38, no. 3 (1996): 121\u2013\u00ad33.\nNewman, William R. Gehennical Fire: The Lives of George Starkey, an American Alchemist\nin the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994.\nNewman, William R., and Lawrence M. Principe. \u201cAlchemy vs. Chemistry: The Etymological Roots of a Historiographic Mistake.\u201d Early Science and Medicine 3\n(1998): 32\u2013\u00ad65.\nNummedal, Tara. Alchemy and Authority in the Holy Roman Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=162\nPages: 162\nare well documented in the five works on pharmacy that he published over\na twenty-\u00adyear period.53 In them, he made it clear that his favored reference\nworks were Ev\u00f3nimo Filiatro\u2019s De remediis secretis, Ulstad\u2019s Coelum philosophorum, Wecker\u2019s Antidotarium, and Diego de Santiago\u2019s Arte separatoria.54 The\nskill, moreover, with which he prepared his glassware and stills as well as his\nflowers and roots for preliminary \u201cdigestions\u201d prior to distillation55 attested\nto his expertise as a practitioner. He devoted much space in his later works to\ndiscussions of alchemical secrets, fully accepting the use of chemical practices\nin medicine as well as the possibility that gold could be obtained by alchemical\ntransmutation.56\nVilla\u2019s successor as regent of the monastic pharmacy, Fra Esteban N\u00fa\u00f1ez,\ncontinued the chemical activity of his teacher, combining the task of medicine\n49. See Directorio, regla y advertencias que se hacen a los abades que ser\u00e1n de este Real Monasterio de San]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=194\nPages: 194,195\nConclusion\nWolfgang Kappler\u2019s manuscript and Nicolaus Pol\u2019s library are emblematic of\ntheir times and yet as unique as their owners. Kappler, a doctor and apothecary\nwhose manuscript tells of his everyday practice, seemed to approach remedies\npragmatically. His manuscript presents a mixture of medicine, alchemy, and\nthe knowledge of apothecaries. Pol, whose manuscript served as the basis for\nKappler\u2019s, had an extensive library and lived in a courtly context of scholarly\nexchange. His library is evidence of his structured collecting activities and intensive study of a wide variety of texts and practices\u2014\u00adincluding the alchemical\u2014\u00ad\nfor purposes that extended beyond his work as a doctor. The work in both library\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n177\nand medical practice of Pol and Kappler is marked by a complex interplay of categorization and creativity. Their books both inform and form the development\nof their knowledge, a combination of alchemy and medicine that would become]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=192\nPages: 192,193\napplications, however, a dichotomy between them was at odds with the living,\napplied, interacting organizational principles in effect in Pol\u2019s library as well as\nwith Kappler\u2019s concept of remedies.\n46. See, for example, \u201cEx alchimico contra sciatica & omnem dolorem iuncturarum,\u201d \u00d6NB MS 11410,\nfol. 187r. Medications for suppressing impending miscarriage are on fol. 153 and epilepsy features around fol.\n30v.\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n175\nPol\u2019s and Kappler\u2019s manuscripts also illuminate their actual, hands-\u00adon\ninvolvement with alchemy through their forays into the world of equipment\nand objects. The manuscripts of both men not only called for practical measures including distilling processes, putrefaction, and heating by bain marie, but\nthey also contain actual drawings of furnaces and distilling apparatus.47 Two\ninstances, in particular, are noteworthy.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=98\nPages: 98,99\nSuchten, Alexander von, Georg Fedro von Rodach, Georg Forberger, and Paracelsus.\nDe secretis antimonii liber unus Editus Germanice quidem anno 1570. Basileae:\nPer Petrum Pernam, 1575.\nChapter 4\nChymical Curiosities and\nTrusted Testimonials\nin the Journal of the\nLeopoldina Academy of\nCuriosi\nA\nMargaret D. Garber*\nAlchemy was once an integral part of medicine. Central European medical practitioners had been infusing bodies with mineral, metal, and curious chemical\nmedicaments since the Middle Ages.1 However, as the standard account goes,\nhistorical actors unfastened alchemy from its medical moorings in the eighteenth century, and chemistry set sail on its own as a discipline based upon manual procedures, standardized language, and useful symbols. The history of this\nconjunction and decoupling gave rise to debates that motivated much of Allen\n*I thank Bruce Moran and Karen Parshall for their helpful comments and suggestions. I am also grateful]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=161\nPages: 161\nearly seventeenth centuries. The practice of alchemy continued well into the\nseventeenth century. For example, Juan Jos\u00e9 de la Calle, knight of the Order of\nSantiago and Oidor at the Chancellery of Granada, was a great connoisseur of\nthe chemical art, while Prince Don Vicente Gonzaga (1602\u2013\u00ad94), member of the\nCouncil of State that governed the destinies of the monarchy, routinely engaged\nin self cures using chemical remedies made in his own laboratory. Accounts of\nthese men have come down to us thanks to Fra Andr\u00e9s de Villacast\u00edn, a Hieronymite monk of the monastery of San Lorenzo de El Escorial, who was also\nan expert artificer and participant in chemical discourse of the late seventeenth-\u00ad\ncentury court in Madrid.47 Villacast\u00edn was one of many Spanish monks who,\nduring the early modern era, read and practiced chemistry. His privileged position in the monastery of San Lorenzo (its Mansion of the Waters continued to]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=190\nPages: 190\n172\nAnke Timmermann\nalchemical recipes, however, cover the spectrum from medications incorporating metalline substances to chrysopoeia. For example, \u00d6NB MS 5315, a miscellany completed prior to Pol\u2019s acquisition of it, gathers instructions in the space\nof a few folios for the preparation of potable gold, a corrosive water for the separation of gold and precious stones, a metalline water, and \u201cPil[u]le Imperiales\u201d\n(imperial pills).40 Other manuscripts provide instructions for making aquae vitae\nand quintessences, not always medical in their intended application.41 As for the\nmedically relevant recipes, ingredients in the collections of both men would\nhave been at home not just in an alchemical laboratory but also in a kitchen or in\nKappler\u2019s famous garden or apothecary shop.\nWhat role, then, did the texts themselves, alchemical or more traditionally\npharmaceutical, play in the doctors\u2019 approaches to their practice? It seems that]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=192\nPages: 192\nfor example, employs vitriol under the alchemical code word \u201cleo viridis.\u201d Some\nrecipes use common ingredients available at Kappler\u2019s pharmacy and elsewhere,\nwhile others, often not distinguished as alchemical in the title, nevertheless call\nfor ingredients or methods more closely related to the alchemical laboratory.\nSince the phrase \u201cex alchimico\u201d only appears in the main body of Kappler\u2019s manuscript, and not in his or later annotations and additions, it probably stemmed\nfrom Pol\u2019s manuscript, the prototype for Kappler\u2019s text. Pol\u2019s remedy titles thus\nactually reference the origin of the recipes. Those ex alchimico were taken from an\nalchemical manuscript or book; others were referred to by the name of the author\nor compiler. These titles fulfill a function similar to that of Pol\u2019s cross-\u00adreferences;\nthey enable the reader to trace the source of a particular remedy. Pol, then, used\nthe term \u201calchemy\u201d in his library as a reference, but like his shelf marks, it did not]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=85\nPages: 85,86\nof Alchemy. For alchemical procedures in the context of an \u201cartisanal epistemology,\u201d see Smith, Body of the\nArtisan.\n21. \u201cEst ille quidem seculorum mos deprauatus, ut de artibus non iudicent nisi inertes\u201d; Libavius, Rerum\nchymicarum . . . liber primus, 51.\n66\nBruce T. Moran\nprinciples that allowed for the extension of general knowledge to a variety of\nspecific undertakings. For principles, he explained, were \u201clike a mother to other\narts, since from her breast come forth things almost innumerable which then\nwithdraw into unique companies,\u201d so that while the bronze worker pursued his\nown study, he had originally received his tenets from chymia. This is the same,\nLibavius continued, in regard to other things as well, so that if the teacher of chymia would wish to change professions and work as an artificer and metallurgist,\nhe could, just as a physician could, following the principles of medicine, practice\nsurgery.22\nThat was not how chymia was encountered on the street by people who]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=27\nPages: 27\ngold-\u00adseeking alchemists, but rather, by scholars who honestly felt that the\ntrue key to nature\u2019s secrets was to be found in the study of chemistry. Today\nwe can say that many of their explanations were incorrect, but to their contemporaries their work often seemed a stimulating force, moving man ever\ncloser to a true understanding of nature.17\nIn bringing back to light the ideas of the English Paracelsians, Debus\ndemonstrated the extent to which they incorporated Paracelsian ideas into\ntheir chemical and medical views and practice. He argued that there was, in\nfact, an \u201cElizabethan compromise\u201d by which \u201cthe occult aspects of Paracelsian\nthought were rejected while the new remedies were eagerly adopted, provided\nthey proved their worth.\u201d18 This compromise, moreover, was negotiated at what\nwe might see as the interface between chemistry and medicine. It underscored\nnot only the interconnectedness of these two domains but also the Elizabethan]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=115\nPages: 115,116\nthe definitive article \u201cal\u201d to the Greek word \u201cchimia.\u201d49 Further, his text offered\nrecent experimental histories, including famous transmutation events, considerations of vegetables, animals, and minerals, a section on apparati and furnaces,\nand separate chapters on metals like antimony, silver, and mercury. All of these\nsubjects fell under the category of alchimia, including the uses, symbols, and history of the arts. Yet when writing observations for the Miscellanea curiosa that\ninvolved principles of salt, sulphur, and mercury or that concerned the medical\nuses, medicaments, and even metallic transmutations, he used the term chimica.\nPerhaps like Clauder, Wedel used \u201cchymiatria\u201d for the making of medicaments\nsibi licere, arbitrantes nosse ac distinguere\u201d; ibid., 24.\n48. On Libavius\u2019s concerns with regard to chymia, see Moran\u2019s chapter in this volume and his Andreas\nLibavius and the Transformation of Alchemy.\n49. Wedel, Introductio in alchimiam, 15.\n96\nMargaret D. Garber]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=160\nPages: 160\nthrived at other times and functioned in spheres removed from court. Consider,\nfor example, Manuel Franco de Guzm\u00e1n, a Castilian nobleman and resident of\nValladolid. With important and lucrative properties distributed throughout Burgos, Franco de Guzm\u00e1n spent much of his free time compiling alchemical treatises. A manuscript of his property conserved at the National Library of Spain\nprovides a remarkable optic through which to judge Spanish tastes in alchemy\nduring the second half of the sixteenth century. Next to pseudo-\u00adepigraphic\nmedieval treatises attributed to famous Greek, Arab, or Latin authors, Franco\nde Guzm\u00e1n also recorded aspects of theoretical alchemy and diverse procedures\nfor making therapeutic remedies. Most prominent among the latter were two\nrecipes for making potable gold taken from Philip Ulstadt (fl. 1530), a recipe to\ncure tongue ulcerations, and a fragment of De secretis naturae liber attributed to\nthe author known as Ram\u00f3n Llull (ca. 1232\u2013\u00adca. 1315).46]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=182\nPages: 182\n(such as the wedding of his daughter and the feast provided for the occasion),\nand extensive lists of particular regimens.\nBoth the manuscript in its original form, that is, in the form in which Kappler first encountered it, and the heavily annotated version that has come down\nto us, show Kappler\u2019s ongoing engagement with certain methods, equipment,\nsubstances, and approaches that bridge medicine, alchemy, and pharmacy. Also\nin evidence is Kappler\u2019s knowledge of medical and alchemical literature, both\ntraditional and contemporary. He referenced not only authorities like Arnold\nof Villanova (ca. 1238\u2013\u00adca. 1310) but also local and international colleagues,\nmost of whom have been largely forgotten by historians of science. Title lines\nof individual remedies often purport to be \u201cex alchimico,\u201d occasionally employ\nalchemical symbols for substances such as mercury, and include methods such\nas distillation used in the alchemical laboratory. The manuscript, through its]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=109\nPages: 109,110\nimperfectiora in nobiliora\u201d; ibid., 374.\n34. On not daring to gainsay men of high status, see Shapin, Social History of Truth.\n90\nMargaret D. Garber\nhe celebrated those who manually brought forward the techniques of the previous generation\u2019s alchemical cultivators, and those contemporary physicians\nwho knew firsthand the characteristics of metals and fires. They were the witnesses who turned that wisdom into fruitful methods for transmuting ignoble\nmetals not only into nobler metals, but also into useful salts such as sale armoniaco, sale tartari, nitre, mercurio sublimato (sublimated mercury), and arsenico. By\nrecasting the role of the witness in accounts of chymia and chrysopoeia, to those\nwho performed chymical procedures, Clauder attempted to transfer chymical\ncredibility to the Curiosi.\nChymia as Firsthand (Autopsia) Material Practice\nFruitful productions of useful salts depended upon mastering methods, causes,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=116\nPages: 116,117\nreagents used to make all of the aforementioned. Moreover, the journal provided\na public place to do work that bettered the social standing of the Curiosi. By\ncategorizing certain groups as outsiders\u2014\u00adfraudulent alchemists or outdated,\nbookish philosophers\u2014\u00adthe Curiosi exercised their own social flexibility, propelling themselves into positions that demarcated legitimate from illegitimate,\nat least virtually, at a time when this was not otherwise the case. The traffic in\nchymical matters privileged Curiosi as those who controlled the language, symbols, and principles of the subject, as reliable witnesses of true transmutations\nand as adepts of rare procedures and recipes. In their observations of chymia, the\nCuriosi raised their status to adepti, practitioners who shared a usable language\nand superior chymical knowledge.\nChymical Curiosities and Trusted Testimonials\n97]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=107\nPages: 107\nV. Baron Moncony, accepted a mysterious powder from another secret adept\nand was able to produce greater than 24-\u00adcarat gold [plusquam 24 carattorum].23\nSachs drew attention to traditional tropes of alchemical literature, in noting such\nthings as a \u201cmysterious powder\u201d and a \u201csecret adept,\u201d and to the almost-\u00adstock\ncharacter of Baron von Chaos, whose transmutation of mercury into gold was\n\u201cwitnessed in 1648 by the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III in Prague.\u201d24\nYet he relied equally on the powerfully normative social operations of trust and\nauthority to counter gold-\u00admaking deniers, who claimed that only frauds practiced these arts.25 In pre-\u00adEnlightenment Europe, fraud and alchemy were not\nexclusively correlated. Tara Nummedal demonstrates this point in her study of\nsixteenth-\u00adcentury criminal trials surrounding alchemical fraud, which reveals\nthat issues of intent to deceive via fraudulent transmutation were the focal point]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=311\nPages: 311\nKnowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry, and the Scientific Revolution (2005) and Andreas\nLibavius and the Transformation of Alchemy: Separating Chemical Cultures with\nPolemical Fire (2007). He has been a Dibner Distinguished Fellow in the history of science and technology at the Huntington Library (2010/11), and, most\nrecently, a Gorden Cain Distinguished Fellow at the Chemical Heritage Foundation (2014).\nKaren Hunger Parshall is professor of history and mathematics at the\nUniversity of Virginia. In addition to numerous articles and chapters, she is the\nauthor, among other books and editions, of James Joseph Sylvester: Jewish Mathematician in a Victorian World (2006), Taming the Unknown: A History of Algebra\nfrom Antiquity to the Early Twentieth Century (with Victor J. Katz, 2014), and]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=26\nPages: 26,27\nin Debus, \u201cChemists, Physicians, and Changing Perspectives,\u201d 70.\n14. Hall, in particular, wrote that while \u201cmany have searched\u201d the alchemical literature \u201cfor the beginnings of a chemical attitude,\u201d \u201c[t]here the grain of real knowledge is concealed in a vast deal of esoteric chaff \u201d;\nScientific Revolution 1500\u2013\u00ad1800, 309.\n15. Debus, English Paracelsians.\n16. The name of this figure has been a source of considerable confusion and debate. Debus tended to\nrefer to him simply as \u201cR. Bostocke\u201d; others referred to him as \u201cRobert Bostocke\u201d; still others as \u201cRichard\nBostocke.\u201d More recent research suggests that he was in fact \u201cRichard Bostocke,\u201d otherwise spelled as \u201cRychard\nBostok.\u201d See Harley, \u201cRychard Bostok of Tandridge, Surrey.\u201d\nCrafting the Chemical Interpretation of Nature\n5\nRenaissance chemical literature, and a large portion of it was written not by\ngold-\u00adseeking alchemists, but rather, by scholars who honestly felt that the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=76\nPages: 76\nNewman, William R., and Lawrence M. Principe. Alchemy Tried in the Fire: Starkey,\nBoyle, and the Fate of Helmontian Chymistry. Chicago: University of Chicago\nPress, 2002.\nNolle, Heinrich. Hermetical Physick: Or, The Right Way to Preserve, and to Restore\nHealth. Translated by Henry Vaughn. London: Moseley, 1655.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Systema medicin\u00e6 hermetic\u00e6 generale in quo I. medicin\u00e6 ver\u00e6 fundamentum, II\nsanitatis conservatio, III morborum cognitio, & curatio methodo explicantur.\nFrankfurt, 1613.\nNummedal, Tara. Alchemy and Authority in the Holy Roman Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.\nPagel, Walter. Das medizinische Weltbild des Paracelsus: Seine Zusammenh\u00e4nge mit Neuplatonismus und Gnosis. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1962.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad. Paracelsus: An Introduction to Philosophical Medicine in the Era of the Renaissance. 2nd rev. ed. Basel: Karger, 1982.\nParacelsus. S\u00e4mtliche Werke I: Medizinische, naturwissenschaftliche und philosophische]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=160\nPages: 160\nphilosopher who had studied alchemical enigmas.\u201d44 Par\u00eds himself argued along\nsimilar lines in a memorial he wrote in his defense and in which he affirmed that\nhis chemical practices had helped him understand many obscure passages of the\nBible. As he explained, it was for that reason that he had philosophized about\nthe possibility of using knowledge derived from experience to remove the stumbling blocks that separated different Christian nations and to fashion a dialectic\nweapon against the objections raised by Protestants, Jews, and Muslims. Par\u00eds\nthus used alchemy\u2014\u00adan art uniquely able to imitate nature\u2014\u00adas a language of\nmediation between nations and religions.45\nIt might seem that Philip II\u2019s chemical interests were simply mimicked by\ncourtiers and close associates eager to emulate their monarch\u2019s tastes and desires.\nWhat is certain, however, is that similar cases are to be found in circles that\nthrived at other times and functioned in spheres removed from court. Consider,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=29\nPages: 29\nnowhere in the scriptures was mention made of the creation of fire, it could not\nbe one of the elements out of which all of nature was fashioned. Natural phenomena such as lightning and the growth of metals could be explained in chemical terms. Diseases in man mirrored (al)chemical processes in nature and so\ncould be treated effectively by alchemical means.\nThis chemical philosophy confronted and challenged traditional Aristotelian and Galenic thought most directly in the medical faculties of the universities. If fire was not an element, then the Aristotelian and Galenic philosophies\nof 1652, with a New Introduction by Allen G. Debus (New York: Johnson Reprint, 1967); Debus, Science and\nEducation in the Seventeenth Century: The Webster-\u00adWard Debate (London: Macdonald; New York: American Elsevier, 1970); and John Dee, The Mathematicall Praeface to the Elements of Geometrie of Euclid of Megara (1570)]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=100\nPages: 100\npast, Debus insisted that chemistry\u2019s academic acceptance depended upon its\npharmaceutical value to schools of medicine\u2014\u00ada move that established chemistry\u2019s university footing once physicians rejected chemical philosophy as a viable explanatory source for physiology. Pushing Debus\u2019s claim further, I argue\nthat physicians and chemists received far more from alchemy than philosophy\nand pharmaceuticals. The rise of the \u201cexpert chemist\u201d was linked to an earlier\ntransformation of alchemical adept to physician adept, one whose chemical\nexperience was measured by chemical productions. It was the gold-\u00admaking\ntransmutation believers themselves who initiated these efforts to standardize\nlanguage and agree upon procedures and symbols.\nIn late seventeenth-\u00adcentury central Europe, physicians in the Leopoldina\nAcademy of Curiosi illustrated their prominence in more than medical theory\nor pharmaceuticals, portraying additionally their dominance in skills involving]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=106\nPages: 106,107\ntraining, was judged sufficiently proficient in chymical matters to become director of the alchemical laboratory\nof the Great Elector of Berlin and minister of mines to Sweden\u2019s King Charles X. Barnett relates their admission\nto authors\u2019 interest in phosphorous; Barnett, \u201cMedical Authority and Princely Patronage,\u201d 228\u2013\u00ad29.\n18. Tylecote, Early History of Metallurgy in Europe, 47.\n19. Faivre, \u201cApproach to the Theme of the Golden Fleece in Alchemy.\u201d\n20. Sachs von Lewenheimb, \u201cAurum chymicum,\u201d 68\u2013\u00ad70.\n21. Ibid., 69. On Kircher\u2019s alchemical interests, see Hirai, \u201cKircher\u2019s Chymical Interpretation of the Creation and Spontaneous Generation.\u201d\nChymical Curiosities and Trusted Testimonials\n87\npast authors, such as Ram\u00f3n Llull (ca. 1232\u2013\u00adca. 1315), Arnold of Villanova (ca.\n1238\u2013\u00adca. 1310), Paracelsus (1493\u2013\u00ad1541), and others, Sachs characterized his\nacademy as cosmopolitan and contemporary, epitomized through a familiarity]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=182\nPages: 182\n(such as the wedding of his daughter and the feast provided for the occasion),\nand extensive lists of particular regimens.\nBoth the manuscript in its original form, that is, in the form in which Kappler first encountered it, and the heavily annotated version that has come down\nto us, show Kappler\u2019s ongoing engagement with certain methods, equipment,\nsubstances, and approaches that bridge medicine, alchemy, and pharmacy. Also\nin evidence is Kappler\u2019s knowledge of medical and alchemical literature, both\ntraditional and contemporary. He referenced not only authorities like Arnold\nof Villanova (ca. 1238\u2013\u00adca. 1310) but also local and international colleagues,\nmost of whom have been largely forgotten by historians of science. Title lines\nof individual remedies often purport to be \u201cex alchimico,\u201d occasionally employ\nalchemical symbols for substances such as mercury, and include methods such\nas distillation used in the alchemical laboratory. The manuscript, through its]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=98\nPages: 98,99\nSuchten, Alexander von, Georg Fedro von Rodach, Georg Forberger, and Paracelsus.\nDe secretis antimonii liber unus Editus Germanice quidem anno 1570. Basileae:\nPer Petrum Pernam, 1575.\nChapter 4\nChymical Curiosities and\nTrusted Testimonials\nin the Journal of the\nLeopoldina Academy of\nCuriosi\nA\nMargaret D. Garber*\nAlchemy was once an integral part of medicine. Central European medical practitioners had been infusing bodies with mineral, metal, and curious chemical\nmedicaments since the Middle Ages.1 However, as the standard account goes,\nhistorical actors unfastened alchemy from its medical moorings in the eighteenth century, and chemistry set sail on its own as a discipline based upon manual procedures, standardized language, and useful symbols. The history of this\nconjunction and decoupling gave rise to debates that motivated much of Allen\n*I thank Bruce Moran and Karen Parshall for their helpful comments and suggestions. I am also grateful]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=161\nPages: 161\nearly seventeenth centuries. The practice of alchemy continued well into the\nseventeenth century. For example, Juan Jos\u00e9 de la Calle, knight of the Order of\nSantiago and Oidor at the Chancellery of Granada, was a great connoisseur of\nthe chemical art, while Prince Don Vicente Gonzaga (1602\u2013\u00ad94), member of the\nCouncil of State that governed the destinies of the monarchy, routinely engaged\nin self cures using chemical remedies made in his own laboratory. Accounts of\nthese men have come down to us thanks to Fra Andr\u00e9s de Villacast\u00edn, a Hieronymite monk of the monastery of San Lorenzo de El Escorial, who was also\nan expert artificer and participant in chemical discourse of the late seventeenth-\u00ad\ncentury court in Madrid.47 Villacast\u00edn was one of many Spanish monks who,\nduring the early modern era, read and practiced chemistry. His privileged position in the monastery of San Lorenzo (its Mansion of the Waters continued to]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=190\nPages: 190\n172\nAnke Timmermann\nalchemical recipes, however, cover the spectrum from medications incorporating metalline substances to chrysopoeia. For example, \u00d6NB MS 5315, a miscellany completed prior to Pol\u2019s acquisition of it, gathers instructions in the space\nof a few folios for the preparation of potable gold, a corrosive water for the separation of gold and precious stones, a metalline water, and \u201cPil[u]le Imperiales\u201d\n(imperial pills).40 Other manuscripts provide instructions for making aquae vitae\nand quintessences, not always medical in their intended application.41 As for the\nmedically relevant recipes, ingredients in the collections of both men would\nhave been at home not just in an alchemical laboratory but also in a kitchen or in\nKappler\u2019s famous garden or apothecary shop.\nWhat role, then, did the texts themselves, alchemical or more traditionally\npharmaceutical, play in the doctors\u2019 approaches to their practice? It seems that]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=192\nPages: 192,193\napplications, however, a dichotomy between them was at odds with the living,\napplied, interacting organizational principles in effect in Pol\u2019s library as well as\nwith Kappler\u2019s concept of remedies.\n46. See, for example, \u201cEx alchimico contra sciatica & omnem dolorem iuncturarum,\u201d \u00d6NB MS 11410,\nfol. 187r. Medications for suppressing impending miscarriage are on fol. 153 and epilepsy features around fol.\n30v.\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n175\nPol\u2019s and Kappler\u2019s manuscripts also illuminate their actual, hands-\u00adon\ninvolvement with alchemy through their forays into the world of equipment\nand objects. The manuscripts of both men not only called for practical measures including distilling processes, putrefaction, and heating by bain marie, but\nthey also contain actual drawings of furnaces and distilling apparatus.47 Two\ninstances, in particular, are noteworthy.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=27\nPages: 27\ngold-\u00adseeking alchemists, but rather, by scholars who honestly felt that the\ntrue key to nature\u2019s secrets was to be found in the study of chemistry. Today\nwe can say that many of their explanations were incorrect, but to their contemporaries their work often seemed a stimulating force, moving man ever\ncloser to a true understanding of nature.17\nIn bringing back to light the ideas of the English Paracelsians, Debus\ndemonstrated the extent to which they incorporated Paracelsian ideas into\ntheir chemical and medical views and practice. He argued that there was, in\nfact, an \u201cElizabethan compromise\u201d by which \u201cthe occult aspects of Paracelsian\nthought were rejected while the new remedies were eagerly adopted, provided\nthey proved their worth.\u201d18 This compromise, moreover, was negotiated at what\nwe might see as the interface between chemistry and medicine. It underscored\nnot only the interconnectedness of these two domains but also the Elizabethan]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=107\nPages: 107\nV. Baron Moncony, accepted a mysterious powder from another secret adept\nand was able to produce greater than 24-\u00adcarat gold [plusquam 24 carattorum].23\nSachs drew attention to traditional tropes of alchemical literature, in noting such\nthings as a \u201cmysterious powder\u201d and a \u201csecret adept,\u201d and to the almost-\u00adstock\ncharacter of Baron von Chaos, whose transmutation of mercury into gold was\n\u201cwitnessed in 1648 by the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III in Prague.\u201d24\nYet he relied equally on the powerfully normative social operations of trust and\nauthority to counter gold-\u00admaking deniers, who claimed that only frauds practiced these arts.25 In pre-\u00adEnlightenment Europe, fraud and alchemy were not\nexclusively correlated. Tara Nummedal demonstrates this point in her study of\nsixteenth-\u00adcentury criminal trials surrounding alchemical fraud, which reveals\nthat issues of intent to deceive via fraudulent transmutation were the focal point]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=178\nPages: 178,179\nlibrary in the case of Pol and a single manuscript reflective of Pol\u2019s influence\nin the case of Kappler\u2014\u00adnot only provide evidence of their practice and experiences as writers, readers, and practitioners of medicine but also inform our\ngrowing knowledge about the relationship between alchemy and medicine in\nthe early modern period.\n2. There has been some recent work on these themes. See, for example, Soukup, Chemie in \u00d6sterreich;\nand Soukup and Mayer, Alchemistisches Gold, Paracelsistische Pharmaka. The history of the Medical Faculty of\nVienna has not been fully realized. See, however, Horn, \u201cExaminiert und Approbiert.\u201d\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n161\nWolfgang Kappler (1493\u2013\u00adFebruary 1567)\nAt the age of thirty-\u00adfour, Wolfgang Kappler settled as a physician and apothecary in the town of Krems on the Danube, about fifteen leagues (seventy kilometers) outside of Vienna. Krems had a population of some four thousand at\nthe time, comprised mostly of craftsmen whose work was closely connected]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=192\nPages: 192\nfor example, employs vitriol under the alchemical code word \u201cleo viridis.\u201d Some\nrecipes use common ingredients available at Kappler\u2019s pharmacy and elsewhere,\nwhile others, often not distinguished as alchemical in the title, nevertheless call\nfor ingredients or methods more closely related to the alchemical laboratory.\nSince the phrase \u201cex alchimico\u201d only appears in the main body of Kappler\u2019s manuscript, and not in his or later annotations and additions, it probably stemmed\nfrom Pol\u2019s manuscript, the prototype for Kappler\u2019s text. Pol\u2019s remedy titles thus\nactually reference the origin of the recipes. Those ex alchimico were taken from an\nalchemical manuscript or book; others were referred to by the name of the author\nor compiler. These titles fulfill a function similar to that of Pol\u2019s cross-\u00adreferences;\nthey enable the reader to trace the source of a particular remedy. Pol, then, used\nthe term \u201calchemy\u201d in his library as a reference, but like his shelf marks, it did not]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=160\nPages: 160\nthrived at other times and functioned in spheres removed from court. Consider,\nfor example, Manuel Franco de Guzm\u00e1n, a Castilian nobleman and resident of\nValladolid. With important and lucrative properties distributed throughout Burgos, Franco de Guzm\u00e1n spent much of his free time compiling alchemical treatises. A manuscript of his property conserved at the National Library of Spain\nprovides a remarkable optic through which to judge Spanish tastes in alchemy\nduring the second half of the sixteenth century. Next to pseudo-\u00adepigraphic\nmedieval treatises attributed to famous Greek, Arab, or Latin authors, Franco\nde Guzm\u00e1n also recorded aspects of theoretical alchemy and diverse procedures\nfor making therapeutic remedies. Most prominent among the latter were two\nrecipes for making potable gold taken from Philip Ulstadt (fl. 1530), a recipe to\ncure tongue ulcerations, and a fragment of De secretis naturae liber attributed to\nthe author known as Ram\u00f3n Llull (ca. 1232\u2013\u00adca. 1315).46]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=311\nPages: 311\nKnowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry, and the Scientific Revolution (2005) and Andreas\nLibavius and the Transformation of Alchemy: Separating Chemical Cultures with\nPolemical Fire (2007). He has been a Dibner Distinguished Fellow in the history of science and technology at the Huntington Library (2010/11), and, most\nrecently, a Gorden Cain Distinguished Fellow at the Chemical Heritage Foundation (2014).\nKaren Hunger Parshall is professor of history and mathematics at the\nUniversity of Virginia. In addition to numerous articles and chapters, she is the\nauthor, among other books and editions, of James Joseph Sylvester: Jewish Mathematician in a Victorian World (2006), Taming the Unknown: A History of Algebra\nfrom Antiquity to the Early Twentieth Century (with Victor J. Katz, 2014), and]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=100\nPages: 100\npast, Debus insisted that chemistry\u2019s academic acceptance depended upon its\npharmaceutical value to schools of medicine\u2014\u00ada move that established chemistry\u2019s university footing once physicians rejected chemical philosophy as a viable explanatory source for physiology. Pushing Debus\u2019s claim further, I argue\nthat physicians and chemists received far more from alchemy than philosophy\nand pharmaceuticals. The rise of the \u201cexpert chemist\u201d was linked to an earlier\ntransformation of alchemical adept to physician adept, one whose chemical\nexperience was measured by chemical productions. It was the gold-\u00admaking\ntransmutation believers themselves who initiated these efforts to standardize\nlanguage and agree upon procedures and symbols.\nIn late seventeenth-\u00adcentury central Europe, physicians in the Leopoldina\nAcademy of Curiosi illustrated their prominence in more than medical theory\nor pharmaceuticals, portraying additionally their dominance in skills involving]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=4\nPages: 4\nAll rights reserved\ntsup.truman.edu\nCover art: \u201cThe master and assistant distilling alcohol, a primitive form of reflex condenser,\u201d\nfrom Conrad Gesner, The newe jewell of health, translated by George Baker (London: H. Denham,\n1576). M0012934, Wellcome Library, London.\nCover design: Teresa Wheeler\nLibrary of Congress Cataloging-\u00adin-\u00adPublication Data\nBridging traditions : alchemy, chemistry, and Paracelsian practices in the early modern era :\nessays in honor of Allen G. Debus / edited by Karen Hunger Parshall, Michael T. Walton, and\nBruce T. Moran.\npages cm.\u2014(Early modern studies ; vol. 15)\nIncludes bibliographical references and index.\nISBN 978-1-61248-134-0 (library binding : alk. paper)\u2014ISBN 978-1-61248-135-7 (e-book)\n1. Chemistry--History. 2. Debus, Allen G. 3. Paracelsus, 1493-1541. I. Parshall, Karen Hunger,\n1955- II. Walton, Michael Thomson, 1945-2013 III. Moran, Bruce T. IV. Title: Alchemy, chemistry, and Paracelsian practices in the early modern era.\nQD14.B84 2015]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=190\nPages: 190,191\n41. \u00d6NB MS 11410, fols. 211v, 355ff.\n42. Ibid., fol. 59v.\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n173\nments, Kappler added, as proof of efficacy, that they originated at the Medical\nFaculty of Vienna.43 In this context, both his and Pol\u2019s pursuit of knowledge was\ncumulative, connected with the manufacture and application of remedies, and\nmotivated partly by impending epidemics and partly by the medical marketplace. Alchemically informed recipes were part of that picture. And, where Pol\ncreated structure in his library through the organization of books, Kappler fit his\ntextual acquisitions into the received structure of Pol\u2019s manuscript.\nThe motivation for both doctors\u2019 work in the library, in preparation for and\ndevelopment of their daily practice, reveals itself in their personal notes and\nmanuscripts. As a case in point, Pol\u2019s manuscripts\u2014\u00adand especially his cross-\u00ad]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=109\nPages: 109,110\nimperfectiora in nobiliora\u201d; ibid., 374.\n34. On not daring to gainsay men of high status, see Shapin, Social History of Truth.\n90\nMargaret D. Garber\nhe celebrated those who manually brought forward the techniques of the previous generation\u2019s alchemical cultivators, and those contemporary physicians\nwho knew firsthand the characteristics of metals and fires. They were the witnesses who turned that wisdom into fruitful methods for transmuting ignoble\nmetals not only into nobler metals, but also into useful salts such as sale armoniaco, sale tartari, nitre, mercurio sublimato (sublimated mercury), and arsenico. By\nrecasting the role of the witness in accounts of chymia and chrysopoeia, to those\nwho performed chymical procedures, Clauder attempted to transfer chymical\ncredibility to the Curiosi.\nChymia as Firsthand (Autopsia) Material Practice\nFruitful productions of useful salts depended upon mastering methods, causes,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=115\nPages: 115,116\nthe definitive article \u201cal\u201d to the Greek word \u201cchimia.\u201d49 Further, his text offered\nrecent experimental histories, including famous transmutation events, considerations of vegetables, animals, and minerals, a section on apparati and furnaces,\nand separate chapters on metals like antimony, silver, and mercury. All of these\nsubjects fell under the category of alchimia, including the uses, symbols, and history of the arts. Yet when writing observations for the Miscellanea curiosa that\ninvolved principles of salt, sulphur, and mercury or that concerned the medical\nuses, medicaments, and even metallic transmutations, he used the term chimica.\nPerhaps like Clauder, Wedel used \u201cchymiatria\u201d for the making of medicaments\nsibi licere, arbitrantes nosse ac distinguere\u201d; ibid., 24.\n48. On Libavius\u2019s concerns with regard to chymia, see Moran\u2019s chapter in this volume and his Andreas\nLibavius and the Transformation of Alchemy.\n49. Wedel, Introductio in alchimiam, 15.\n96\nMargaret D. Garber]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=106\nPages: 106,107\ntraining, was judged sufficiently proficient in chymical matters to become director of the alchemical laboratory\nof the Great Elector of Berlin and minister of mines to Sweden\u2019s King Charles X. Barnett relates their admission\nto authors\u2019 interest in phosphorous; Barnett, \u201cMedical Authority and Princely Patronage,\u201d 228\u2013\u00ad29.\n18. Tylecote, Early History of Metallurgy in Europe, 47.\n19. Faivre, \u201cApproach to the Theme of the Golden Fleece in Alchemy.\u201d\n20. Sachs von Lewenheimb, \u201cAurum chymicum,\u201d 68\u2013\u00ad70.\n21. Ibid., 69. On Kircher\u2019s alchemical interests, see Hirai, \u201cKircher\u2019s Chymical Interpretation of the Creation and Spontaneous Generation.\u201d\nChymical Curiosities and Trusted Testimonials\n87\npast authors, such as Ram\u00f3n Llull (ca. 1232\u2013\u00adca. 1315), Arnold of Villanova (ca.\n1238\u2013\u00adca. 1310), Paracelsus (1493\u2013\u00ad1541), and others, Sachs characterized his\nacademy as cosmopolitan and contemporary, epitomized through a familiarity]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=29\nPages: 29\nnowhere in the scriptures was mention made of the creation of fire, it could not\nbe one of the elements out of which all of nature was fashioned. Natural phenomena such as lightning and the growth of metals could be explained in chemical terms. Diseases in man mirrored (al)chemical processes in nature and so\ncould be treated effectively by alchemical means.\nThis chemical philosophy confronted and challenged traditional Aristotelian and Galenic thought most directly in the medical faculties of the universities. If fire was not an element, then the Aristotelian and Galenic philosophies\nof 1652, with a New Introduction by Allen G. Debus (New York: Johnson Reprint, 1967); Debus, Science and\nEducation in the Seventeenth Century: The Webster-\u00adWard Debate (London: Macdonald; New York: American Elsevier, 1970); and John Dee, The Mathematicall Praeface to the Elements of Geometrie of Euclid of Megara (1570)]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=76\nPages: 76\nNewman, William R., and Lawrence M. Principe. Alchemy Tried in the Fire: Starkey,\nBoyle, and the Fate of Helmontian Chymistry. Chicago: University of Chicago\nPress, 2002.\nNolle, Heinrich. Hermetical Physick: Or, The Right Way to Preserve, and to Restore\nHealth. Translated by Henry Vaughn. London: Moseley, 1655.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Systema medicin\u00e6 hermetic\u00e6 generale in quo I. medicin\u00e6 ver\u00e6 fundamentum, II\nsanitatis conservatio, III morborum cognitio, & curatio methodo explicantur.\nFrankfurt, 1613.\nNummedal, Tara. Alchemy and Authority in the Holy Roman Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.\nPagel, Walter. Das medizinische Weltbild des Paracelsus: Seine Zusammenh\u00e4nge mit Neuplatonismus und Gnosis. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1962.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014\u00ad. Paracelsus: An Introduction to Philosophical Medicine in the Era of the Renaissance. 2nd rev. ed. Basel: Karger, 1982.\nParacelsus. S\u00e4mtliche Werke I: Medizinische, naturwissenschaftliche und philosophische]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=162\nPages: 162\nare well documented in the five works on pharmacy that he published over\na twenty-\u00adyear period.53 In them, he made it clear that his favored reference\nworks were Ev\u00f3nimo Filiatro\u2019s De remediis secretis, Ulstad\u2019s Coelum philosophorum, Wecker\u2019s Antidotarium, and Diego de Santiago\u2019s Arte separatoria.54 The\nskill, moreover, with which he prepared his glassware and stills as well as his\nflowers and roots for preliminary \u201cdigestions\u201d prior to distillation55 attested\nto his expertise as a practitioner. He devoted much space in his later works to\ndiscussions of alchemical secrets, fully accepting the use of chemical practices\nin medicine as well as the possibility that gold could be obtained by alchemical\ntransmutation.56\nVilla\u2019s successor as regent of the monastic pharmacy, Fra Esteban N\u00fa\u00f1ez,\ncontinued the chemical activity of his teacher, combining the task of medicine\n49. See Directorio, regla y advertencias que se hacen a los abades que ser\u00e1n de este Real Monasterio de San]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=190\nPages: 190\n172\nAnke Timmermann\nalchemical recipes, however, cover the spectrum from medications incorporating metalline substances to chrysopoeia. For example, \u00d6NB MS 5315, a miscellany completed prior to Pol\u2019s acquisition of it, gathers instructions in the space\nof a few folios for the preparation of potable gold, a corrosive water for the separation of gold and precious stones, a metalline water, and \u201cPil[u]le Imperiales\u201d\n(imperial pills).40 Other manuscripts provide instructions for making aquae vitae\nand quintessences, not always medical in their intended application.41 As for the\nmedically relevant recipes, ingredients in the collections of both men would\nhave been at home not just in an alchemical laboratory but also in a kitchen or in\nKappler\u2019s famous garden or apothecary shop.\nWhat role, then, did the texts themselves, alchemical or more traditionally\npharmaceutical, play in the doctors\u2019 approaches to their practice? It seems that]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=161\nPages: 161\nearly seventeenth centuries. The practice of alchemy continued well into the\nseventeenth century. For example, Juan Jos\u00e9 de la Calle, knight of the Order of\nSantiago and Oidor at the Chancellery of Granada, was a great connoisseur of\nthe chemical art, while Prince Don Vicente Gonzaga (1602\u2013\u00ad94), member of the\nCouncil of State that governed the destinies of the monarchy, routinely engaged\nin self cures using chemical remedies made in his own laboratory. Accounts of\nthese men have come down to us thanks to Fra Andr\u00e9s de Villacast\u00edn, a Hieronymite monk of the monastery of San Lorenzo de El Escorial, who was also\nan expert artificer and participant in chemical discourse of the late seventeenth-\u00ad\ncentury court in Madrid.47 Villacast\u00edn was one of many Spanish monks who,\nduring the early modern era, read and practiced chemistry. His privileged position in the monastery of San Lorenzo (its Mansion of the Waters continued to]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=192\nPages: 192,193\napplications, however, a dichotomy between them was at odds with the living,\napplied, interacting organizational principles in effect in Pol\u2019s library as well as\nwith Kappler\u2019s concept of remedies.\n46. See, for example, \u201cEx alchimico contra sciatica & omnem dolorem iuncturarum,\u201d \u00d6NB MS 11410,\nfol. 187r. Medications for suppressing impending miscarriage are on fol. 153 and epilepsy features around fol.\n30v.\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n175\nPol\u2019s and Kappler\u2019s manuscripts also illuminate their actual, hands-\u00adon\ninvolvement with alchemy through their forays into the world of equipment\nand objects. The manuscripts of both men not only called for practical measures including distilling processes, putrefaction, and heating by bain marie, but\nthey also contain actual drawings of furnaces and distilling apparatus.47 Two\ninstances, in particular, are noteworthy.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=182\nPages: 182\n(such as the wedding of his daughter and the feast provided for the occasion),\nand extensive lists of particular regimens.\nBoth the manuscript in its original form, that is, in the form in which Kappler first encountered it, and the heavily annotated version that has come down\nto us, show Kappler\u2019s ongoing engagement with certain methods, equipment,\nsubstances, and approaches that bridge medicine, alchemy, and pharmacy. Also\nin evidence is Kappler\u2019s knowledge of medical and alchemical literature, both\ntraditional and contemporary. He referenced not only authorities like Arnold\nof Villanova (ca. 1238\u2013\u00adca. 1310) but also local and international colleagues,\nmost of whom have been largely forgotten by historians of science. Title lines\nof individual remedies often purport to be \u201cex alchimico,\u201d occasionally employ\nalchemical symbols for substances such as mercury, and include methods such\nas distillation used in the alchemical laboratory. The manuscript, through its]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=178\nPages: 178,179\nlibrary in the case of Pol and a single manuscript reflective of Pol\u2019s influence\nin the case of Kappler\u2014\u00adnot only provide evidence of their practice and experiences as writers, readers, and practitioners of medicine but also inform our\ngrowing knowledge about the relationship between alchemy and medicine in\nthe early modern period.\n2. There has been some recent work on these themes. See, for example, Soukup, Chemie in \u00d6sterreich;\nand Soukup and Mayer, Alchemistisches Gold, Paracelsistische Pharmaka. The history of the Medical Faculty of\nVienna has not been fully realized. See, however, Horn, \u201cExaminiert und Approbiert.\u201d\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n161\nWolfgang Kappler (1493\u2013\u00adFebruary 1567)\nAt the age of thirty-\u00adfour, Wolfgang Kappler settled as a physician and apothecary in the town of Krems on the Danube, about fifteen leagues (seventy kilometers) outside of Vienna. Krems had a population of some four thousand at\nthe time, comprised mostly of craftsmen whose work was closely connected]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=311\nPages: 311\nKnowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry, and the Scientific Revolution (2005) and Andreas\nLibavius and the Transformation of Alchemy: Separating Chemical Cultures with\nPolemical Fire (2007). He has been a Dibner Distinguished Fellow in the history of science and technology at the Huntington Library (2010/11), and, most\nrecently, a Gorden Cain Distinguished Fellow at the Chemical Heritage Foundation (2014).\nKaren Hunger Parshall is professor of history and mathematics at the\nUniversity of Virginia. In addition to numerous articles and chapters, she is the\nauthor, among other books and editions, of James Joseph Sylvester: Jewish Mathematician in a Victorian World (2006), Taming the Unknown: A History of Algebra\nfrom Antiquity to the Early Twentieth Century (with Victor J. Katz, 2014), and]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=160\nPages: 160\nthrived at other times and functioned in spheres removed from court. Consider,\nfor example, Manuel Franco de Guzm\u00e1n, a Castilian nobleman and resident of\nValladolid. With important and lucrative properties distributed throughout Burgos, Franco de Guzm\u00e1n spent much of his free time compiling alchemical treatises. A manuscript of his property conserved at the National Library of Spain\nprovides a remarkable optic through which to judge Spanish tastes in alchemy\nduring the second half of the sixteenth century. Next to pseudo-\u00adepigraphic\nmedieval treatises attributed to famous Greek, Arab, or Latin authors, Franco\nde Guzm\u00e1n also recorded aspects of theoretical alchemy and diverse procedures\nfor making therapeutic remedies. Most prominent among the latter were two\nrecipes for making potable gold taken from Philip Ulstadt (fl. 1530), a recipe to\ncure tongue ulcerations, and a fragment of De secretis naturae liber attributed to\nthe author known as Ram\u00f3n Llull (ca. 1232\u2013\u00adca. 1315).46]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=181\nPages: 181\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n163\nKappler\u2019s Manuscript: \u00d6NB MS 11410\nWhile Kappler\u2019s public image has largely been shaped by the reports of others,\nhis actual activities and interests\u2014\u00adamong them, active engagement with alchemy\nand alchemical remedies\u2014\u00adare recorded in the sole surviving manuscript directly\nattributable to him. Sporting Kappler\u2019s colorful and bold coat of arms as an ex libris,\n\u00d6NB MS 11410 forms part of the collection of the Austrian National Library and\nis entitled Practica pro menbris [sic] corporis humani / a capite usque ad pedes et\nprimo de / capitis ad sectionibus.9 A folio volume of some 438 leaves, it contains\nhundreds of notes on illnesses and their remedies. These, as the copyist\u2019s preface\nexplains, were gathered, tried, and tested during the daily experiences of Kappler,\nwhom he described as a doctor and apothecary (\u201cdealer in spices\u201d) with a strong]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=154\nPages: 154,155\nto making medicines from animals, vegetables, and minerals by separation of the active part. The other was exclusively devoted to the transmutation of metals, also called \u201calchymia,\u201d \u201calchemia,\u201d \u201ccrisopeya,\u201d \u201cmetalurgia,\u201d\n\u201carte aur\u00edfera,\u201d and \u201carte herm\u00e9tica.\u201d For more analysis of this terminology, see Newman and Principe, \u201cAlchemy vs. Chemistry\u201d; and Abbri, \u201cAlchemy and Chemistry.\u201d\n17. On the need to incorporate Spain into the narrative of the Scientific Revolution, see the studies of\n\u201cIf they are not pages that cure, they are pages that teach how to cure\u201d\n137\nPeddlers of Secret Panaceas18\nIn April of 1598, the Royal Court of the Protomedicato, the highest health-\u00ad\nregulatory institution within the Hispanic monarchy, granted permission for the\ncommercial production of what was styled a \u201cwhite dust solution of gold\u2019s quintessence [polvos blancos solutivos de la quinta esencia del oro].\u201d A medicinal remedy made and sold by Alessandro Quintilio, a Roman citizen residing in Madrid,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=98\nPages: 98,99\nSuchten, Alexander von, Georg Fedro von Rodach, Georg Forberger, and Paracelsus.\nDe secretis antimonii liber unus Editus Germanice quidem anno 1570. Basileae:\nPer Petrum Pernam, 1575.\nChapter 4\nChymical Curiosities and\nTrusted Testimonials\nin the Journal of the\nLeopoldina Academy of\nCuriosi\nA\nMargaret D. Garber*\nAlchemy was once an integral part of medicine. Central European medical practitioners had been infusing bodies with mineral, metal, and curious chemical\nmedicaments since the Middle Ages.1 However, as the standard account goes,\nhistorical actors unfastened alchemy from its medical moorings in the eighteenth century, and chemistry set sail on its own as a discipline based upon manual procedures, standardized language, and useful symbols. The history of this\nconjunction and decoupling gave rise to debates that motivated much of Allen\n*I thank Bruce Moran and Karen Parshall for their helpful comments and suggestions. I am also grateful]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=4\nPages: 4\nAll rights reserved\ntsup.truman.edu\nCover art: \u201cThe master and assistant distilling alcohol, a primitive form of reflex condenser,\u201d\nfrom Conrad Gesner, The newe jewell of health, translated by George Baker (London: H. Denham,\n1576). M0012934, Wellcome Library, London.\nCover design: Teresa Wheeler\nLibrary of Congress Cataloging-\u00adin-\u00adPublication Data\nBridging traditions : alchemy, chemistry, and Paracelsian practices in the early modern era :\nessays in honor of Allen G. Debus / edited by Karen Hunger Parshall, Michael T. Walton, and\nBruce T. Moran.\npages cm.\u2014(Early modern studies ; vol. 15)\nIncludes bibliographical references and index.\nISBN 978-1-61248-134-0 (library binding : alk. paper)\u2014ISBN 978-1-61248-135-7 (e-book)\n1. Chemistry--History. 2. Debus, Allen G. 3. Paracelsus, 1493-1541. I. Parshall, Karen Hunger,\n1955- II. Walton, Michael Thomson, 1945-2013 III. Moran, Bruce T. IV. Title: Alchemy, chemistry, and Paracelsian practices in the early modern era.\nQD14.B84 2015]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=192\nPages: 192\nfor example, employs vitriol under the alchemical code word \u201cleo viridis.\u201d Some\nrecipes use common ingredients available at Kappler\u2019s pharmacy and elsewhere,\nwhile others, often not distinguished as alchemical in the title, nevertheless call\nfor ingredients or methods more closely related to the alchemical laboratory.\nSince the phrase \u201cex alchimico\u201d only appears in the main body of Kappler\u2019s manuscript, and not in his or later annotations and additions, it probably stemmed\nfrom Pol\u2019s manuscript, the prototype for Kappler\u2019s text. Pol\u2019s remedy titles thus\nactually reference the origin of the recipes. Those ex alchimico were taken from an\nalchemical manuscript or book; others were referred to by the name of the author\nor compiler. These titles fulfill a function similar to that of Pol\u2019s cross-\u00adreferences;\nthey enable the reader to trace the source of a particular remedy. Pol, then, used\nthe term \u201calchemy\u201d in his library as a reference, but like his shelf marks, it did not]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=194\nPages: 194\nresearch stage of his work, Pol investigated alchemy seriously, in isolation from\nits immediate intersections with medicine and together with its practical applications. He was neither an \u201carmchair alchemist\u201d nor a physician pragmatically\nand unquestioningly adopting alchemically relevant methods in his production\nof remedies. His thoroughness, already apparent in the magnitude of his library,\nalso extended to his exploration of alchemy as a subject and practice.\nIt should now be clear why Pol\u2019s manuscript was so valuable to Kappler that\nhe used forceful persuasion to gain access to it. Pol\u2019s lost original of Kappler\u2019s\nmanuscript was a record of Pol\u2019s personal reading notes. As an extraction of useful remedies from the medical and alchemical collections of his library, and written by a physician in possession of extensive knowledge of alchemy, Pol\u2019s digest\nof recipes certainly would have been more beneficial to Kappler and his practice]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=190\nPages: 190,191\n41. \u00d6NB MS 11410, fols. 211v, 355ff.\n42. Ibid., fol. 59v.\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n173\nments, Kappler added, as proof of efficacy, that they originated at the Medical\nFaculty of Vienna.43 In this context, both his and Pol\u2019s pursuit of knowledge was\ncumulative, connected with the manufacture and application of remedies, and\nmotivated partly by impending epidemics and partly by the medical marketplace. Alchemically informed recipes were part of that picture. And, where Pol\ncreated structure in his library through the organization of books, Kappler fit his\ntextual acquisitions into the received structure of Pol\u2019s manuscript.\nThe motivation for both doctors\u2019 work in the library, in preparation for and\ndevelopment of their daily practice, reveals itself in their personal notes and\nmanuscripts. As a case in point, Pol\u2019s manuscripts\u2014\u00adand especially his cross-\u00ad]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=27\nPages: 27\ngold-\u00adseeking alchemists, but rather, by scholars who honestly felt that the\ntrue key to nature\u2019s secrets was to be found in the study of chemistry. Today\nwe can say that many of their explanations were incorrect, but to their contemporaries their work often seemed a stimulating force, moving man ever\ncloser to a true understanding of nature.17\nIn bringing back to light the ideas of the English Paracelsians, Debus\ndemonstrated the extent to which they incorporated Paracelsian ideas into\ntheir chemical and medical views and practice. He argued that there was, in\nfact, an \u201cElizabethan compromise\u201d by which \u201cthe occult aspects of Paracelsian\nthought were rejected while the new remedies were eagerly adopted, provided\nthey proved their worth.\u201d18 This compromise, moreover, was negotiated at what\nwe might see as the interface between chemistry and medicine. It underscored\nnot only the interconnectedness of these two domains but also the Elizabethan]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=101\nPages: 101\noccult/open (where alchemy occupies the former of the dualisms and chemistry the latter), leading to a positivistic terminus ad quem, pseudo-\u00adscience/\nscience.4 Deploying such dichotomies retroactively onto the respective Latin\nderivations (namely, alchymia/chemia) distorts seventeenth-\u00adcentury authors\u2019\nuses of these terms. As Lawrence Principe and William Newman have demonstrated, such divisions emerged partly as the result of an error that unreflectively continued to be cited and partly as useful metaphors for Enlightenment\nauthors who portrayed chemistry as the illuminated path out of the darkness\nof alchemy.5 Since late sixteenth-\u00adand seventeenth-\u00adcentury historical actors\nused the terms \u201calchymia\u201d and \u201cchymia\u201d interchangeably, historians employ\nthe term \u201cchymistry\u201d to prevent importing false binaries between alchemy and\nchemistry that have been enshrined in the historical literature of this science,\nespecially that of the so-\u00adcalled \u201cdelayed scientific revolution.\u201d6 Despite the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=115\nPages: 115,116\nthe definitive article \u201cal\u201d to the Greek word \u201cchimia.\u201d49 Further, his text offered\nrecent experimental histories, including famous transmutation events, considerations of vegetables, animals, and minerals, a section on apparati and furnaces,\nand separate chapters on metals like antimony, silver, and mercury. All of these\nsubjects fell under the category of alchimia, including the uses, symbols, and history of the arts. Yet when writing observations for the Miscellanea curiosa that\ninvolved principles of salt, sulphur, and mercury or that concerned the medical\nuses, medicaments, and even metallic transmutations, he used the term chimica.\nPerhaps like Clauder, Wedel used \u201cchymiatria\u201d for the making of medicaments\nsibi licere, arbitrantes nosse ac distinguere\u201d; ibid., 24.\n48. On Libavius\u2019s concerns with regard to chymia, see Moran\u2019s chapter in this volume and his Andreas\nLibavius and the Transformation of Alchemy.\n49. Wedel, Introductio in alchimiam, 15.\n96\nMargaret D. Garber]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=100\nPages: 100\npast, Debus insisted that chemistry\u2019s academic acceptance depended upon its\npharmaceutical value to schools of medicine\u2014\u00ada move that established chemistry\u2019s university footing once physicians rejected chemical philosophy as a viable explanatory source for physiology. Pushing Debus\u2019s claim further, I argue\nthat physicians and chemists received far more from alchemy than philosophy\nand pharmaceuticals. The rise of the \u201cexpert chemist\u201d was linked to an earlier\ntransformation of alchemical adept to physician adept, one whose chemical\nexperience was measured by chemical productions. It was the gold-\u00admaking\ntransmutation believers themselves who initiated these efforts to standardize\nlanguage and agree upon procedures and symbols.\nIn late seventeenth-\u00adcentury central Europe, physicians in the Leopoldina\nAcademy of Curiosi illustrated their prominence in more than medical theory\nor pharmaceuticals, portraying additionally their dominance in skills involving]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=107\nPages: 107\nV. Baron Moncony, accepted a mysterious powder from another secret adept\nand was able to produce greater than 24-\u00adcarat gold [plusquam 24 carattorum].23\nSachs drew attention to traditional tropes of alchemical literature, in noting such\nthings as a \u201cmysterious powder\u201d and a \u201csecret adept,\u201d and to the almost-\u00adstock\ncharacter of Baron von Chaos, whose transmutation of mercury into gold was\n\u201cwitnessed in 1648 by the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III in Prague.\u201d24\nYet he relied equally on the powerfully normative social operations of trust and\nauthority to counter gold-\u00admaking deniers, who claimed that only frauds practiced these arts.25 In pre-\u00adEnlightenment Europe, fraud and alchemy were not\nexclusively correlated. Tara Nummedal demonstrates this point in her study of\nsixteenth-\u00adcentury criminal trials surrounding alchemical fraud, which reveals\nthat issues of intent to deceive via fraudulent transmutation were the focal point]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=189\nPages: 189,190\nalchemica with medica, the latter a term used for scientific books in general. Gaskell, Trinity College Library,\nesp. 9, 23, 86\u2013\u00ad90, 128.\n38. For example, Principe and Newman discussed early approaches to the history of alchemy and their\nlimits, desiderata, and future perspectives in \u201cSome Problems with the Historiography of Alchemy.\u201d More\nrecent developments include a focus on the history of alchemy in Isis, including, among others, Newman\u2019s\n\u201cWhat Have We Learned from the Recent Historiography of Alchemy?\u201d See also Martin\u00f3n-\u00adTorres, \u201cSome\nRecent Developments in the Historiography of Alchemy.\u201d Interdisciplinary approaches to a joint history of\nalchemy and medicine have also been presented at various conferences such as the meeting on \u201cAlchemy and\nMedicine from Antiquity to the Enlightenment\u201d held in Cambridge (UK) on 22\u201324 September 2011.\n39. This very question was recently asked for the general history of alchemy in Principe, \u201cAlchemy Restored,\u201d 310.\n172\nAnke Timmermann]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=21\nPages: 21\nboth the history of science and the history of medicine. It should be no surprise\nthat the actors who now perform on that stage are no longer limited to a few\nwell-\u00adknown figures, but amount to a cast of thousands.\nContributors to this volume have made individual attempts to reengage and\nrecombine the crosscurrents of natural knowledge in the early modern era. In\nthat regard, many participate in examining parts of the \u201cchemical philosophy\u201d\narticulated by Allen Debus a half century ago. At the same time, however, like\nWallace\u2019s twenty men on a bridge, they step in and out (sometimes critically,\nsometimes by pressing further) of that \u201cchemical philosophy\u201d as a category of\nhistorical interpretation. Taken collectively, these essays both widen and deepen\nour understanding of a type of natural knowledge that embraces the macrocosm\nas well as the microcosm and that intersects at the boundaries of alchemy, chemistry, and Paracelsian medical philosophy. Exploring varieties of that knowledge]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=311\nPages: 311\nKnowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry, and the Scientific Revolution (2005) and Andreas\nLibavius and the Transformation of Alchemy: Separating Chemical Cultures with\nPolemical Fire (2007). He has been a Dibner Distinguished Fellow in the history of science and technology at the Huntington Library (2010/11), and, most\nrecently, a Gorden Cain Distinguished Fellow at the Chemical Heritage Foundation (2014).\nKaren Hunger Parshall is professor of history and mathematics at the\nUniversity of Virginia. In addition to numerous articles and chapters, she is the\nauthor, among other books and editions, of James Joseph Sylvester: Jewish Mathematician in a Victorian World (2006), Taming the Unknown: A History of Algebra\nfrom Antiquity to the Early Twentieth Century (with Victor J. Katz, 2014), and]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=20\nPages: 20,21\nand Air.\u201d\nIntroduction\nxxi\nThe fruit of some of that labor appeared most recently as Genesis and the Chemical Philosophy (2011) and continues into the present volume.\nThe essays here illustrate recent and new directions in the history of science\nand medicine, as well as in early modern cultural history. They also represent\na depth of analysis attainable only through engagement with manuscript and\nprinted sources previously left unread and consequently unexamined or through\nbroad historiographic expertise. Some essays relate to well-\u00adknown figures and\ntexts and argue for influence in novel ways. Others bring to light evidence for the\npresence of alchemy and chemical medicine in unfamiliar social sites and professional locations. The stage of alchemy, chemistry, and Paracelsian medicine has\nconsiderably expanded since Allen Debus began to recognize its importance for\nboth the history of science and the history of medicine. It should be no surprise]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=27\nPages: 27\ngold-\u00adseeking alchemists, but rather, by scholars who honestly felt that the\ntrue key to nature\u2019s secrets was to be found in the study of chemistry. Today\nwe can say that many of their explanations were incorrect, but to their contemporaries their work often seemed a stimulating force, moving man ever\ncloser to a true understanding of nature.17\nIn bringing back to light the ideas of the English Paracelsians, Debus\ndemonstrated the extent to which they incorporated Paracelsian ideas into\ntheir chemical and medical views and practice. He argued that there was, in\nfact, an \u201cElizabethan compromise\u201d by which \u201cthe occult aspects of Paracelsian\nthought were rejected while the new remedies were eagerly adopted, provided\nthey proved their worth.\u201d18 This compromise, moreover, was negotiated at what\nwe might see as the interface between chemistry and medicine. It underscored\nnot only the interconnectedness of these two domains but also the Elizabethan]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=189\nPages: 189,190\nalchemica with medica, the latter a term used for scientific books in general. Gaskell, Trinity College Library,\nesp. 9, 23, 86\u2013\u00ad90, 128.\n38. For example, Principe and Newman discussed early approaches to the history of alchemy and their\nlimits, desiderata, and future perspectives in \u201cSome Problems with the Historiography of Alchemy.\u201d More\nrecent developments include a focus on the history of alchemy in Isis, including, among others, Newman\u2019s\n\u201cWhat Have We Learned from the Recent Historiography of Alchemy?\u201d See also Martin\u00f3n-\u00adTorres, \u201cSome\nRecent Developments in the Historiography of Alchemy.\u201d Interdisciplinary approaches to a joint history of\nalchemy and medicine have also been presented at various conferences such as the meeting on \u201cAlchemy and\nMedicine from Antiquity to the Enlightenment\u201d held in Cambridge (UK) on 22\u201324 September 2011.\n39. This very question was recently asked for the general history of alchemy in Principe, \u201cAlchemy Restored,\u201d 310.\n172\nAnke Timmermann]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=115\nPages: 115,116\nthe definitive article \u201cal\u201d to the Greek word \u201cchimia.\u201d49 Further, his text offered\nrecent experimental histories, including famous transmutation events, considerations of vegetables, animals, and minerals, a section on apparati and furnaces,\nand separate chapters on metals like antimony, silver, and mercury. All of these\nsubjects fell under the category of alchimia, including the uses, symbols, and history of the arts. Yet when writing observations for the Miscellanea curiosa that\ninvolved principles of salt, sulphur, and mercury or that concerned the medical\nuses, medicaments, and even metallic transmutations, he used the term chimica.\nPerhaps like Clauder, Wedel used \u201cchymiatria\u201d for the making of medicaments\nsibi licere, arbitrantes nosse ac distinguere\u201d; ibid., 24.\n48. On Libavius\u2019s concerns with regard to chymia, see Moran\u2019s chapter in this volume and his Andreas\nLibavius and the Transformation of Alchemy.\n49. Wedel, Introductio in alchimiam, 15.\n96\nMargaret D. Garber]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=190\nPages: 190,191\n41. \u00d6NB MS 11410, fols. 211v, 355ff.\n42. Ibid., fol. 59v.\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n173\nments, Kappler added, as proof of efficacy, that they originated at the Medical\nFaculty of Vienna.43 In this context, both his and Pol\u2019s pursuit of knowledge was\ncumulative, connected with the manufacture and application of remedies, and\nmotivated partly by impending epidemics and partly by the medical marketplace. Alchemically informed recipes were part of that picture. And, where Pol\ncreated structure in his library through the organization of books, Kappler fit his\ntextual acquisitions into the received structure of Pol\u2019s manuscript.\nThe motivation for both doctors\u2019 work in the library, in preparation for and\ndevelopment of their daily practice, reveals itself in their personal notes and\nmanuscripts. As a case in point, Pol\u2019s manuscripts\u2014\u00adand especially his cross-\u00ad]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=120\nPages: 120,119\nPrinceton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998.\n100\nMargaret D. Garber\nPrincipe, Lawrence M., and William R. Newman. \u201cSome Problems with the Historiography of Alchemy.\u201d In Secrets of Nature: Astrology and Alchemy in Early Modern\nEurope, edited by William R. Newman and Anthony Grafton, 385\u2013\u00ad431.\nCambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001.\nSachs von Lewenheimb, Philipp J. \u201cAurum chymicum.\u201d Miscellanea curiosa . . . ser. 1.\nvol. 1 (1670): 68\u2013\u00ad70.\nShackelford, Jole. A Philosophical Path for Paracelsian Medicine. Copenhagen: Museum\nTusculanum Press, 2004.\nShapin, Steven. A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-\u00adCentury\nEngland. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994.\nSmith, Pamela. The Business of Alchemy: Science and Culture in the Holy Roman Empire.\nPrinceton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.\nThorndike, Lynn. History of Magic and Experimental Science. Vols. 7\u2013\u00ad8. New York:\nColumbia University Press, 1958.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=98\nPages: 98,99\nSuchten, Alexander von, Georg Fedro von Rodach, Georg Forberger, and Paracelsus.\nDe secretis antimonii liber unus Editus Germanice quidem anno 1570. Basileae:\nPer Petrum Pernam, 1575.\nChapter 4\nChymical Curiosities and\nTrusted Testimonials\nin the Journal of the\nLeopoldina Academy of\nCuriosi\nA\nMargaret D. Garber*\nAlchemy was once an integral part of medicine. Central European medical practitioners had been infusing bodies with mineral, metal, and curious chemical\nmedicaments since the Middle Ages.1 However, as the standard account goes,\nhistorical actors unfastened alchemy from its medical moorings in the eighteenth century, and chemistry set sail on its own as a discipline based upon manual procedures, standardized language, and useful symbols. The history of this\nconjunction and decoupling gave rise to debates that motivated much of Allen\n*I thank Bruce Moran and Karen Parshall for their helpful comments and suggestions. I am also grateful]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=119\nPages: 119\nChemical Medicine in the Circle of Moritz of Hessen (1572\u2013\u00ad1632). Stuttgart: F.\nSteiner Verlag, 1991.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Andreas Libavius and the Transformation of Alchemy: Separating Chemical Cultures with Polemical Fire. Sagamore Beach, MA: Science History Publications,\n2007.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Distilling Knowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry and the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cA Survey of Chemical Medicine in the 17th Century: Spanning Court, Classroom and Cultures.\u201d Pharmacy in History 38, no. 3 (1996): 121\u2013\u00ad33.\nNewman, William R. Gehennical Fire: The Lives of George Starkey, an American Alchemist\nin the Scientific Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994.\nNewman, William R., and Lawrence M. Principe. \u201cAlchemy vs. Chemistry: The Etymological Roots of a Historiographic Mistake.\u201d Early Science and Medicine 3\n(1998): 32\u2013\u00ad65.\nNummedal, Tara. Alchemy and Authority in the Holy Roman Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=29\nPages: 29\nnowhere in the scriptures was mention made of the creation of fire, it could not\nbe one of the elements out of which all of nature was fashioned. Natural phenomena such as lightning and the growth of metals could be explained in chemical terms. Diseases in man mirrored (al)chemical processes in nature and so\ncould be treated effectively by alchemical means.\nThis chemical philosophy confronted and challenged traditional Aristotelian and Galenic thought most directly in the medical faculties of the universities. If fire was not an element, then the Aristotelian and Galenic philosophies\nof 1652, with a New Introduction by Allen G. Debus (New York: Johnson Reprint, 1967); Debus, Science and\nEducation in the Seventeenth Century: The Webster-\u00adWard Debate (London: Macdonald; New York: American Elsevier, 1970); and John Dee, The Mathematicall Praeface to the Elements of Geometrie of Euclid of Megara (1570)]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=310\nPages: 310,311\nMargaret D. Garber is associate professor of history of science at California\nState University, Fullerton. She has published articles on intersections of optics,\nmedicine, and alchemy (chymia) and is currently working on a manuscript of\n294\nContributors\n295\nthe medico-\u00adchymical correspondences of physician members of the Academia\nNaturae Curiosorum (also known as the Leopoldina Academy). She was a Dibner Research Fellow at the Huntington Library in 2010/11.\nBruce Moran is professor of history at the University of Nevada, Reno, where\nhe teaches courses in the history of science and early medicine. His general\nresearch interest is in the intersection of cultures, learned and lay, scribal and\nartisanal, Latinate and vernacular as they relate to the investigation of nature and\nthe body in early modern Europe. Among many articles and books are Distilling\nKnowledge: Alchemy, Chemistry, and the Scientific Revolution (2005) and Andreas]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=98\nPages: 98\nEmpire.\u201d In Merchants and Marvels: Commerce, Science, and Art in Early\nModern Europe, edited by Pamela H. Smith and Paula Findlen , 202\u2013\u00ad22. New\nYork: Routledge, 2002.\nPark, Katherine, and Lorraine Daston. \u201cIntroduction: The Age of the New.\u201d In The\nCambridge History of Science, vol. 3, Early Modern Science, edited by Katherine\nPark and Lorraine Daston, 1\u2013\u00ad18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,\n2006.\nPrincipe, Lawrence, and William R. Newman. \u201cSome Problems with the Historiography of Alchemy.\u201d In Secrets of Nature: Astrology and Alchemy in Early Modern\nEurope, edited by William Newman and Anthony Grafton, 385\u2013\u00ad431. Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2001.\nSmith, Pamela H. The Body of the Artisan: Art and Experience in the Scientific Revolution.\nChicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The Business of Alchemy: Science and Culture in the Holy Roman Empire. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.\nSuchten, Alexander von, Georg Fedro von Rodach, Georg Forberger, and Paracelsus.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=25\nPages: 25\nof view of a history of ideas as opposed to a history in which the development of\nscience was grounded in some broader social context. It was the then-\u00adneglected\nhistory of chemistry and this kind of broader contextualization that Debus, the\ntrained chemist, resolved to pursue in his doctoral research. He was not, however, encouraged in this objective. In his words, his \u201cfellow students in the graduate program warned [him] against this, pointing to the fact that the study of\nthe Scientific Revolution was firmly anchored in the physics of local motion\nand the acceptance of the heliocentric system\u201d and that \u201c[a]ny study of chemistry would necessarily be of lesser interest.\u201d9 Undaunted, Debus launched what\nwould become a lifelong research program with a paper in Jordan\u2019s Tudor-\u00adStuart\nseminar on the English Paracelsians and shortly thereafter decided to embark on\na \u201cdissertation on the work of the Paracelsians and the rise of chemical medicine]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=182\nPages: 182\n(such as the wedding of his daughter and the feast provided for the occasion),\nand extensive lists of particular regimens.\nBoth the manuscript in its original form, that is, in the form in which Kappler first encountered it, and the heavily annotated version that has come down\nto us, show Kappler\u2019s ongoing engagement with certain methods, equipment,\nsubstances, and approaches that bridge medicine, alchemy, and pharmacy. Also\nin evidence is Kappler\u2019s knowledge of medical and alchemical literature, both\ntraditional and contemporary. He referenced not only authorities like Arnold\nof Villanova (ca. 1238\u2013\u00adca. 1310) but also local and international colleagues,\nmost of whom have been largely forgotten by historians of science. Title lines\nof individual remedies often purport to be \u201cex alchimico,\u201d occasionally employ\nalchemical symbols for substances such as mercury, and include methods such\nas distillation used in the alchemical laboratory. The manuscript, through its]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=118\nPages: 118\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. The Chemical Philosophy: Paracelsian Science and Medicine in the Sixteenth and\nSeventeenth Centuries. 2 vols. New York: Science History Publications, 1977.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. Chemistry and Medical Debate: van Helmont to Boerhaave. Canton, MA: Science History Publications, 2001.\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cIatrochemistry and the Chemical Revolution.\u201d In Alchemy Revisited: Proceedings of the International Conference on the History of Alchemy at the University of\nGroningen, 17\u2013\u00ad19 April 1989, edited by Zweder R. W. M. von Martels, 51\u2013\u00ad66.\nLeiden: E. J. Brill, 1990.\nEamon, William. Science and the Secrets of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University\nPress, 1994.\nEmerton, Norma. The Scientific Reinterpretation of Forms. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984.\nEvans, Robert J. W. The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy, 1550\u2013\u00ad1700. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.\nFaivre, Antoine. \u201cAn Approach to the Theme of the Golden Fleece in Alchemy.\u201d In]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=100\nPages: 100\npast, Debus insisted that chemistry\u2019s academic acceptance depended upon its\npharmaceutical value to schools of medicine\u2014\u00ada move that established chemistry\u2019s university footing once physicians rejected chemical philosophy as a viable explanatory source for physiology. Pushing Debus\u2019s claim further, I argue\nthat physicians and chemists received far more from alchemy than philosophy\nand pharmaceuticals. The rise of the \u201cexpert chemist\u201d was linked to an earlier\ntransformation of alchemical adept to physician adept, one whose chemical\nexperience was measured by chemical productions. It was the gold-\u00admaking\ntransmutation believers themselves who initiated these efforts to standardize\nlanguage and agree upon procedures and symbols.\nIn late seventeenth-\u00adcentury central Europe, physicians in the Leopoldina\nAcademy of Curiosi illustrated their prominence in more than medical theory\nor pharmaceuticals, portraying additionally their dominance in skills involving]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=34\nPages: 34,35\nin the citation he read when the Sarton Medal, the highest honor in the history\nof science, was awarded to Allen Debus in 1994. \u201cNo sea change, historiographic\nor otherwise,\u201d he wrote, \u201cis the work of one person, but Allen Debus can claim\na place in this one as an early and constant proponent of the need to give the\nsciences of organic nature a place of importance in our histories alongside the\nmathematical and mechanistic study of physical nature.\u201d47\nIt is fair to say that Allen Debus did not consciously strive to produce an\n\u201cindustry\u201d in the history of early modern chemistry and alchemy. As a graduate student, he had encountered a historical narrative of the Scientific Revolution\u2014\u00adas crystallized in, for example, Butterfield\u2019s The Origins of Modern\n44. Mauskopf, Review of Chemistry and Medical Debate, 96.\n45. Cohen, Scientific Revolution, 174.\n46. Ibid., 170.\n47. Clulee, \u201cNews of the Profession,\u201d 284\u2013\u00ad85.\nCrafting the Chemical Interpretation of Nature\n13]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=161\nPages: 161\nearly seventeenth centuries. The practice of alchemy continued well into the\nseventeenth century. For example, Juan Jos\u00e9 de la Calle, knight of the Order of\nSantiago and Oidor at the Chancellery of Granada, was a great connoisseur of\nthe chemical art, while Prince Don Vicente Gonzaga (1602\u2013\u00ad94), member of the\nCouncil of State that governed the destinies of the monarchy, routinely engaged\nin self cures using chemical remedies made in his own laboratory. Accounts of\nthese men have come down to us thanks to Fra Andr\u00e9s de Villacast\u00edn, a Hieronymite monk of the monastery of San Lorenzo de El Escorial, who was also\nan expert artificer and participant in chemical discourse of the late seventeenth-\u00ad\ncentury court in Madrid.47 Villacast\u00edn was one of many Spanish monks who,\nduring the early modern era, read and practiced chemistry. His privileged position in the monastery of San Lorenzo (its Mansion of the Waters continued to]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=77\nPages: 77\nSmith, Pamela. The Business of Alchemy: Science and Culture in the Holy Roman Empire.\nPrinceton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994.\nSoukup, R. Werner. \u201cCrucibles, Cupels, Cucurbits: Recent Results of Research on\nParacelsian Alchemy in Austria around 1600.\u201d In Chymists and Chymistry:\nStudies in the History of Alchemy and Early Modern Chemistry, edited by\nLawrence M. Principe, 165\u2013\u00ad72. Sagamore Beach, MA: Chemical Heritage\nFoundation and Science History Publications, 2007.\nSprengel, Kurt Polycarp Joachim. Versuch einer pragmatischen Geschichte der Arzneikunde. Vol. 3. Halle: Johann Jacob Gebauer, 1794.\nStein, Claudia L\u2019Engle. \u201cThe Meaning of Signs: Diagnosing the French Pox in Early\nModern Augsburg.\u201d Bulletin of the History of Medicine 80 (2006): 617\u2013\u00ad48.\nStolberg, Michael. \u201cThe Decline of Uroscopy in Early Modern Learned Medicine\n(1500\u2013\u00ad1650).\u201d Early Science and Medicine 12 (2007): 313\u2013\u00ad36.\nThurneisser, Leonhard. Bebaiosis agonismou. Das ist Confirmatio Concertationis oder ein]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=190\nPages: 190\n172\nAnke Timmermann\nalchemical recipes, however, cover the spectrum from medications incorporating metalline substances to chrysopoeia. For example, \u00d6NB MS 5315, a miscellany completed prior to Pol\u2019s acquisition of it, gathers instructions in the space\nof a few folios for the preparation of potable gold, a corrosive water for the separation of gold and precious stones, a metalline water, and \u201cPil[u]le Imperiales\u201d\n(imperial pills).40 Other manuscripts provide instructions for making aquae vitae\nand quintessences, not always medical in their intended application.41 As for the\nmedically relevant recipes, ingredients in the collections of both men would\nhave been at home not just in an alchemical laboratory but also in a kitchen or in\nKappler\u2019s famous garden or apothecary shop.\nWhat role, then, did the texts themselves, alchemical or more traditionally\npharmaceutical, play in the doctors\u2019 approaches to their practice? It seems that]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=182\nPages: 182\n(such as the wedding of his daughter and the feast provided for the occasion),\nand extensive lists of particular regimens.\nBoth the manuscript in its original form, that is, in the form in which Kappler first encountered it, and the heavily annotated version that has come down\nto us, show Kappler\u2019s ongoing engagement with certain methods, equipment,\nsubstances, and approaches that bridge medicine, alchemy, and pharmacy. Also\nin evidence is Kappler\u2019s knowledge of medical and alchemical literature, both\ntraditional and contemporary. He referenced not only authorities like Arnold\nof Villanova (ca. 1238\u2013\u00adca. 1310) but also local and international colleagues,\nmost of whom have been largely forgotten by historians of science. Title lines\nof individual remedies often purport to be \u201cex alchimico,\u201d occasionally employ\nalchemical symbols for substances such as mercury, and include methods such\nas distillation used in the alchemical laboratory. The manuscript, through its]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=49\nPages: 49,50\nsubject to study in recent years by historians, for example, Smith, Business of Alchemy; and Nummedal, Alchemy\nand Authority in the Holy Roman Empire, as well as by archaeologists, for example, Martin\u00f3n-\u00adTorres, \u201cTools of\nthe Chymist\u201d; and Soukup, \u201cCrucibles, Cupels, Cucurbits.\u201d The latter article specifically notes that analysis\nof chemical residues indicates that the laboratory was used for the production of Paracelsian-\u00adstyle chemical\nmedicines.\n27. Martinius, Anatomia Urin\u00e6 Galeno-\u00adSpagyrica.\n28. \u201cCaput XV Exercitatio ex urinis triplex: Rationalis, Mechanica & Experimentalis; artem pronuntiandi ex urina breviter adumbrat. Et operis conclusio\u201d; ibid., 267.\n29. \u201cMechanicam ex urinis pronuntiandi rationem primus repr\u00e6sentavit Thurnheiserus, eamque aliquot\nluculentis exemplis expressit in sua Procatalepsi sive Pr\u00e6occupatione contra Uroscopos Vulgares. Ex cujus &\nParacelsi sententia Hier. Reusnerus universam rationem breviter ita complexus est\u201d; ibid., 285\u2013\u00ad86.\n30\nJole Shackelford]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=192\nPages: 192,193\napplications, however, a dichotomy between them was at odds with the living,\napplied, interacting organizational principles in effect in Pol\u2019s library as well as\nwith Kappler\u2019s concept of remedies.\n46. See, for example, \u201cEx alchimico contra sciatica & omnem dolorem iuncturarum,\u201d \u00d6NB MS 11410,\nfol. 187r. Medications for suppressing impending miscarriage are on fol. 153 and epilepsy features around fol.\n30v.\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n175\nPol\u2019s and Kappler\u2019s manuscripts also illuminate their actual, hands-\u00adon\ninvolvement with alchemy through their forays into the world of equipment\nand objects. The manuscripts of both men not only called for practical measures including distilling processes, putrefaction, and heating by bain marie, but\nthey also contain actual drawings of furnaces and distilling apparatus.47 Two\ninstances, in particular, are noteworthy.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=193\nPages: 193,194\ncollecting efforts and intricate knowledge were not confined to books and manuscripts. Equipment and skills were additions, now lost, to his comprehensive\nliterary approach to medicine, pharmacy, and alchemy.\n47. \u00d6NB MS 11410, fol. 40r. Sketches of apparatus appear in ibid. fols. 249v, 300r, 377v\u2013\u00ad378r, 434r,\nand elsewhere.\n48. Ibid., fol. 434r.\n49. \u00d6NB MS 5487, fol. 11v, \u201cFurnus Faul Hayntz.\u201d This manuscript also contains texts attributed to\nRam\u00f3n Llull and John of Rupescissa.\n50. Unfortunately, Pol\u2019s own hand cannot be identified with any certainty. Tenge-\u00adWolf and K\u00fchebacher,\n\u201cNikolaus Pol und die Stiftsbibliothek von Innichen,\u201d 54, present a hand they consider likely to be Pol\u2019s.\n176\nAnke Timmermann\nIsolated in a single manuscript, Pol\u2019s notes also provide evidence of a categorization of alchemical items not apparent from his library organization. At the\nresearch stage of his work, Pol investigated alchemy seriously, in isolation from]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=98\nPages: 98,99\nSuchten, Alexander von, Georg Fedro von Rodach, Georg Forberger, and Paracelsus.\nDe secretis antimonii liber unus Editus Germanice quidem anno 1570. Basileae:\nPer Petrum Pernam, 1575.\nChapter 4\nChymical Curiosities and\nTrusted Testimonials\nin the Journal of the\nLeopoldina Academy of\nCuriosi\nA\nMargaret D. Garber*\nAlchemy was once an integral part of medicine. Central European medical practitioners had been infusing bodies with mineral, metal, and curious chemical\nmedicaments since the Middle Ages.1 However, as the standard account goes,\nhistorical actors unfastened alchemy from its medical moorings in the eighteenth century, and chemistry set sail on its own as a discipline based upon manual procedures, standardized language, and useful symbols. The history of this\nconjunction and decoupling gave rise to debates that motivated much of Allen\n*I thank Bruce Moran and Karen Parshall for their helpful comments and suggestions. I am also grateful]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=190\nPages: 190,191\n41. \u00d6NB MS 11410, fols. 211v, 355ff.\n42. Ibid., fol. 59v.\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n173\nments, Kappler added, as proof of efficacy, that they originated at the Medical\nFaculty of Vienna.43 In this context, both his and Pol\u2019s pursuit of knowledge was\ncumulative, connected with the manufacture and application of remedies, and\nmotivated partly by impending epidemics and partly by the medical marketplace. Alchemically informed recipes were part of that picture. And, where Pol\ncreated structure in his library through the organization of books, Kappler fit his\ntextual acquisitions into the received structure of Pol\u2019s manuscript.\nThe motivation for both doctors\u2019 work in the library, in preparation for and\ndevelopment of their daily practice, reveals itself in their personal notes and\nmanuscripts. As a case in point, Pol\u2019s manuscripts\u2014\u00adand especially his cross-\u00ad]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=115\nPages: 115,116\nthe definitive article \u201cal\u201d to the Greek word \u201cchimia.\u201d49 Further, his text offered\nrecent experimental histories, including famous transmutation events, considerations of vegetables, animals, and minerals, a section on apparati and furnaces,\nand separate chapters on metals like antimony, silver, and mercury. All of these\nsubjects fell under the category of alchimia, including the uses, symbols, and history of the arts. Yet when writing observations for the Miscellanea curiosa that\ninvolved principles of salt, sulphur, and mercury or that concerned the medical\nuses, medicaments, and even metallic transmutations, he used the term chimica.\nPerhaps like Clauder, Wedel used \u201cchymiatria\u201d for the making of medicaments\nsibi licere, arbitrantes nosse ac distinguere\u201d; ibid., 24.\n48. On Libavius\u2019s concerns with regard to chymia, see Moran\u2019s chapter in this volume and his Andreas\nLibavius and the Transformation of Alchemy.\n49. Wedel, Introductio in alchimiam, 15.\n96\nMargaret D. Garber]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=116\nPages: 116,117\nreagents used to make all of the aforementioned. Moreover, the journal provided\na public place to do work that bettered the social standing of the Curiosi. By\ncategorizing certain groups as outsiders\u2014\u00adfraudulent alchemists or outdated,\nbookish philosophers\u2014\u00adthe Curiosi exercised their own social flexibility, propelling themselves into positions that demarcated legitimate from illegitimate,\nat least virtually, at a time when this was not otherwise the case. The traffic in\nchymical matters privileged Curiosi as those who controlled the language, symbols, and principles of the subject, as reliable witnesses of true transmutations\nand as adepts of rare procedures and recipes. In their observations of chymia, the\nCuriosi raised their status to adepti, practitioners who shared a usable language\nand superior chymical knowledge.\nChymical Curiosities and Trusted Testimonials\n97]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=161\nPages: 161\nearly seventeenth centuries. The practice of alchemy continued well into the\nseventeenth century. For example, Juan Jos\u00e9 de la Calle, knight of the Order of\nSantiago and Oidor at the Chancellery of Granada, was a great connoisseur of\nthe chemical art, while Prince Don Vicente Gonzaga (1602\u2013\u00ad94), member of the\nCouncil of State that governed the destinies of the monarchy, routinely engaged\nin self cures using chemical remedies made in his own laboratory. Accounts of\nthese men have come down to us thanks to Fra Andr\u00e9s de Villacast\u00edn, a Hieronymite monk of the monastery of San Lorenzo de El Escorial, who was also\nan expert artificer and participant in chemical discourse of the late seventeenth-\u00ad\ncentury court in Madrid.47 Villacast\u00edn was one of many Spanish monks who,\nduring the early modern era, read and practiced chemistry. His privileged position in the monastery of San Lorenzo (its Mansion of the Waters continued to]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=4\nPages: 4\nAll rights reserved\ntsup.truman.edu\nCover art: \u201cThe master and assistant distilling alcohol, a primitive form of reflex condenser,\u201d\nfrom Conrad Gesner, The newe jewell of health, translated by George Baker (London: H. Denham,\n1576). M0012934, Wellcome Library, London.\nCover design: Teresa Wheeler\nLibrary of Congress Cataloging-\u00adin-\u00adPublication Data\nBridging traditions : alchemy, chemistry, and Paracelsian practices in the early modern era :\nessays in honor of Allen G. Debus / edited by Karen Hunger Parshall, Michael T. Walton, and\nBruce T. Moran.\npages cm.\u2014(Early modern studies ; vol. 15)\nIncludes bibliographical references and index.\nISBN 978-1-61248-134-0 (library binding : alk. paper)\u2014ISBN 978-1-61248-135-7 (e-book)\n1. Chemistry--History. 2. Debus, Allen G. 3. Paracelsus, 1493-1541. I. Parshall, Karen Hunger,\n1955- II. Walton, Michael Thomson, 1945-2013 III. Moran, Bruce T. IV. Title: Alchemy, chemistry, and Paracelsian practices in the early modern era.\nQD14.B84 2015]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=191\nPages: 191\nMS 5487 beneath an alchemical recipe\u2014\u00adcomplete with alchemical symbols as\nshorthand for substances\u2014\u00adthat is illustrated with the drawing of a vessel in ashes.45 The recipe opens with a reference to the contemporary Viennese bishop\nJurij Slatkonja (Georg von Slatkonia [1456\u2013\u00ad1522]), which in turn directs the\nreader to a volume with the shelf mark G, fol. 109, perhaps a passage in MS 5485\non the red elixir (fol. 109r) or a marginal note referring to space left for a drawing\n(fol. 109v). The uniformity of the script in these cross-\u00adreferences, their connection with the shelf marks, and their paleographical dating (in connection with\nthe documented times of Pol\u2019s ownership) suggest that it was indeed Pol himself\nwho read these volumes so carefully and with an eye for alchemical content.\nTaken together, Pol\u2019s marginal cross-\u00adreferences also attest to the fact that\nthis was an ongoing exercise. References in Cod. 5230, fol. 274r, for example,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=181\nPages: 181\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n163\nKappler\u2019s Manuscript: \u00d6NB MS 11410\nWhile Kappler\u2019s public image has largely been shaped by the reports of others,\nhis actual activities and interests\u2014\u00adamong them, active engagement with alchemy\nand alchemical remedies\u2014\u00adare recorded in the sole surviving manuscript directly\nattributable to him. Sporting Kappler\u2019s colorful and bold coat of arms as an ex libris,\n\u00d6NB MS 11410 forms part of the collection of the Austrian National Library and\nis entitled Practica pro menbris [sic] corporis humani / a capite usque ad pedes et\nprimo de / capitis ad sectionibus.9 A folio volume of some 438 leaves, it contains\nhundreds of notes on illnesses and their remedies. These, as the copyist\u2019s preface\nexplains, were gathered, tried, and tested during the daily experiences of Kappler,\nwhom he described as a doctor and apothecary (\u201cdealer in spices\u201d) with a strong]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=106\nPages: 106,107\ntraining, was judged sufficiently proficient in chymical matters to become director of the alchemical laboratory\nof the Great Elector of Berlin and minister of mines to Sweden\u2019s King Charles X. Barnett relates their admission\nto authors\u2019 interest in phosphorous; Barnett, \u201cMedical Authority and Princely Patronage,\u201d 228\u2013\u00ad29.\n18. Tylecote, Early History of Metallurgy in Europe, 47.\n19. Faivre, \u201cApproach to the Theme of the Golden Fleece in Alchemy.\u201d\n20. Sachs von Lewenheimb, \u201cAurum chymicum,\u201d 68\u2013\u00ad70.\n21. Ibid., 69. On Kircher\u2019s alchemical interests, see Hirai, \u201cKircher\u2019s Chymical Interpretation of the Creation and Spontaneous Generation.\u201d\nChymical Curiosities and Trusted Testimonials\n87\npast authors, such as Ram\u00f3n Llull (ca. 1232\u2013\u00adca. 1315), Arnold of Villanova (ca.\n1238\u2013\u00adca. 1310), Paracelsus (1493\u2013\u00ad1541), and others, Sachs characterized his\nacademy as cosmopolitan and contemporary, epitomized through a familiarity]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=192\nPages: 192\nfor example, employs vitriol under the alchemical code word \u201cleo viridis.\u201d Some\nrecipes use common ingredients available at Kappler\u2019s pharmacy and elsewhere,\nwhile others, often not distinguished as alchemical in the title, nevertheless call\nfor ingredients or methods more closely related to the alchemical laboratory.\nSince the phrase \u201cex alchimico\u201d only appears in the main body of Kappler\u2019s manuscript, and not in his or later annotations and additions, it probably stemmed\nfrom Pol\u2019s manuscript, the prototype for Kappler\u2019s text. Pol\u2019s remedy titles thus\nactually reference the origin of the recipes. Those ex alchimico were taken from an\nalchemical manuscript or book; others were referred to by the name of the author\nor compiler. These titles fulfill a function similar to that of Pol\u2019s cross-\u00adreferences;\nthey enable the reader to trace the source of a particular remedy. Pol, then, used\nthe term \u201calchemy\u201d in his library as a reference, but like his shelf marks, it did not]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=215\nPages: 215\noffered a key to the connection of chemistry and kabbalah.\nCroll asserted that adepts in the art had kept secret certain traditional chemical knowledge. He, however, chose to reveal these chemical mysteries, even\nthough it would offend Hermetic philosophers. He believed that chemistry,\nlike Christian doctrine, should be available to all seekers. \u201cCabala, magic, and\nWoarchadumia\u201d were divine truths obtained in the \u201coratory and the laboratory.\u201d51 Croll explained that fiat created prima materia, which in itself is unknowable except through the three principles into which all things are reducible in\nfire. The spagyrical art, or resolution by fire, demonstrates that matter in the\nworld could be reduced to three elements\u2014\u00adfluid (mercury), oil (sulphur), and\nsolid (salt)\u2014\u00adand no further:\nNo body compos\u2019d by Nature can by any dissolving skill be parted into more\nor lesse than Three, viz. Into Mercury or liquor, Sulphur or Oyle, and Salt;]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=113\nPages: 113\nmedicaments (chymiatrica) to include the making of mineral and metal salts and\nto transmutations of gold and/or silver. At the same time, it suggests that while\nthe Curiosi felt indebted to alchemical traditions, their use of \u201cchymia\u201d stopped\nshort of the practices of alchemy broadly construed: artisanal productions of\nthings such as paints, gems, or glass.\nThe Curiosi exchanged firsthand observations of recipes and procedures\nunder the title of chymia (or chymica) that constituted a dual material and social\npractice; engagement with chymical materials nurtured the social transformation of physician into artifex, an experienced creator of chymical things. Crucial\nto this transformation were observations that fostered curiosity about specific\nagents, such as recipes for the universal solvent, an elixir of longevity known as\nthe alkahest, and procedures for metallic transmutation. Practical advice, helpful\nhints, and warnings may have enabled a reader familiar with chymical practice]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=110\nPages: 110\nFruitful productions of useful salts depended upon mastering methods, causes,\nand practical knowledge of chemicals and powerful foundry fires through the\narts of chymia that, according to Clauder, consisted of both chemical knowledge and enchirises.35 Clauder\u2019s term enchirises is interesting on two levels. On\nthe one hand, it indicated a procedure done manually, using apparati, and one\nthat included understanding operations of fire. On the other, it gestured to a\ndivision within alchemy, traceable to Libavius, of which encheria and chemia (the\nmaking of chemicals) were subsets.36 True knowledge, for Clauder, depended\nupon firsthand manual experience. In his conclusion to \u201cPossibilities of Transmutation,\u201d Clauder ranked the knowledge that resulted from hands-\u00adon practical\nexperience with chymical arts and those tests witnessed with one\u2019s own eyes as\nepistemically higher than philosophical book knowledge: \u201cWhether it is the]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=16\nPages: 16\nof combining social and artisanal practices with philosophical precepts within a\nuniversity discipline that would both reform and refine the art of chymia.\nReflecting further upon the material and social practices at play in defining the purview of chymia, Margaret Garber, in a richly textured study of chemical curiosities published in the journal Curiosi of the Leopoldina Academy,\nnotes occasions in which the Academy\u2019s physician members sought status as\nadepts not only through material practices related to making chemical medicines but also through participation in projects of metallic transmutation. The\nAcademy, and especially its journal, operated as a vehicle of social legitimacy\namong physician members who pronounced authoritatively upon medical\nmatters. At the same time, these physicians transmitted curiosities in the journal\u2019s pages based upon a knowledge of alchemical procedures. Through witnessed histories of transmutation and the description of material practices,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=16\nPages: 16,17\nas well as by means of discussing theoretical and practical principles related\nto working with and understanding metals and minerals, the journal brought\nalchemical traditions and experience to bear upon a certain variety of medical\nself-\u00adfashioning. The secretive subject of chymia thus gained public attention\nin large part due to physicians engaged, on the one hand, in projects related\nto pharmaceuticals and, on the other, in processes pertaining to the material\npractices of chrysopoeia.\nBy the early eighteenth century, both the vitalism of Georg Ernst Stahl\n(1659\u2013\u00ad1734) and the mechanistic descriptions of Hermann Boerhaave (1669\u2013\u00ad\n1738) had rejected the broad theoretical claims of Paracelsian and Helmontian\nchemical medicine. Debus emphasized the divergent positions of these two the-\nIntroduction\nxvii\norists in his study of chemistry\u2019s complex relationship to medicine. As he saw\nit, chemical physicians (iatrochemists) and those inspired by the mechanical]"]}

{"result":["[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=190\nPages: 190\n172\nAnke Timmermann\nalchemical recipes, however, cover the spectrum from medications incorporating metalline substances to chrysopoeia. For example, \u00d6NB MS 5315, a miscellany completed prior to Pol\u2019s acquisition of it, gathers instructions in the space\nof a few folios for the preparation of potable gold, a corrosive water for the separation of gold and precious stones, a metalline water, and \u201cPil[u]le Imperiales\u201d\n(imperial pills).40 Other manuscripts provide instructions for making aquae vitae\nand quintessences, not always medical in their intended application.41 As for the\nmedically relevant recipes, ingredients in the collections of both men would\nhave been at home not just in an alchemical laboratory but also in a kitchen or in\nKappler\u2019s famous garden or apothecary shop.\nWhat role, then, did the texts themselves, alchemical or more traditionally\npharmaceutical, play in the doctors\u2019 approaches to their practice? It seems that]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=182\nPages: 182\n(such as the wedding of his daughter and the feast provided for the occasion),\nand extensive lists of particular regimens.\nBoth the manuscript in its original form, that is, in the form in which Kappler first encountered it, and the heavily annotated version that has come down\nto us, show Kappler\u2019s ongoing engagement with certain methods, equipment,\nsubstances, and approaches that bridge medicine, alchemy, and pharmacy. Also\nin evidence is Kappler\u2019s knowledge of medical and alchemical literature, both\ntraditional and contemporary. He referenced not only authorities like Arnold\nof Villanova (ca. 1238\u2013\u00adca. 1310) but also local and international colleagues,\nmost of whom have been largely forgotten by historians of science. Title lines\nof individual remedies often purport to be \u201cex alchimico,\u201d occasionally employ\nalchemical symbols for substances such as mercury, and include methods such\nas distillation used in the alchemical laboratory. The manuscript, through its]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=193\nPages: 193,194\ncollecting efforts and intricate knowledge were not confined to books and manuscripts. Equipment and skills were additions, now lost, to his comprehensive\nliterary approach to medicine, pharmacy, and alchemy.\n47. \u00d6NB MS 11410, fol. 40r. Sketches of apparatus appear in ibid. fols. 249v, 300r, 377v\u2013\u00ad378r, 434r,\nand elsewhere.\n48. Ibid., fol. 434r.\n49. \u00d6NB MS 5487, fol. 11v, \u201cFurnus Faul Hayntz.\u201d This manuscript also contains texts attributed to\nRam\u00f3n Llull and John of Rupescissa.\n50. Unfortunately, Pol\u2019s own hand cannot be identified with any certainty. Tenge-\u00adWolf and K\u00fchebacher,\n\u201cNikolaus Pol und die Stiftsbibliothek von Innichen,\u201d 54, present a hand they consider likely to be Pol\u2019s.\n176\nAnke Timmermann\nIsolated in a single manuscript, Pol\u2019s notes also provide evidence of a categorization of alchemical items not apparent from his library organization. At the\nresearch stage of his work, Pol investigated alchemy seriously, in isolation from]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=192\nPages: 192,193\napplications, however, a dichotomy between them was at odds with the living,\napplied, interacting organizational principles in effect in Pol\u2019s library as well as\nwith Kappler\u2019s concept of remedies.\n46. See, for example, \u201cEx alchimico contra sciatica & omnem dolorem iuncturarum,\u201d \u00d6NB MS 11410,\nfol. 187r. Medications for suppressing impending miscarriage are on fol. 153 and epilepsy features around fol.\n30v.\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n175\nPol\u2019s and Kappler\u2019s manuscripts also illuminate their actual, hands-\u00adon\ninvolvement with alchemy through their forays into the world of equipment\nand objects. The manuscripts of both men not only called for practical measures including distilling processes, putrefaction, and heating by bain marie, but\nthey also contain actual drawings of furnaces and distilling apparatus.47 Two\ninstances, in particular, are noteworthy.]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=192\nPages: 192\nfor example, employs vitriol under the alchemical code word \u201cleo viridis.\u201d Some\nrecipes use common ingredients available at Kappler\u2019s pharmacy and elsewhere,\nwhile others, often not distinguished as alchemical in the title, nevertheless call\nfor ingredients or methods more closely related to the alchemical laboratory.\nSince the phrase \u201cex alchimico\u201d only appears in the main body of Kappler\u2019s manuscript, and not in his or later annotations and additions, it probably stemmed\nfrom Pol\u2019s manuscript, the prototype for Kappler\u2019s text. Pol\u2019s remedy titles thus\nactually reference the origin of the recipes. Those ex alchimico were taken from an\nalchemical manuscript or book; others were referred to by the name of the author\nor compiler. These titles fulfill a function similar to that of Pol\u2019s cross-\u00adreferences;\nthey enable the reader to trace the source of a particular remedy. Pol, then, used\nthe term \u201calchemy\u201d in his library as a reference, but like his shelf marks, it did not]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=191\nPages: 191\nMS 5487 beneath an alchemical recipe\u2014\u00adcomplete with alchemical symbols as\nshorthand for substances\u2014\u00adthat is illustrated with the drawing of a vessel in ashes.45 The recipe opens with a reference to the contemporary Viennese bishop\nJurij Slatkonja (Georg von Slatkonia [1456\u2013\u00ad1522]), which in turn directs the\nreader to a volume with the shelf mark G, fol. 109, perhaps a passage in MS 5485\non the red elixir (fol. 109r) or a marginal note referring to space left for a drawing\n(fol. 109v). The uniformity of the script in these cross-\u00adreferences, their connection with the shelf marks, and their paleographical dating (in connection with\nthe documented times of Pol\u2019s ownership) suggest that it was indeed Pol himself\nwho read these volumes so carefully and with an eye for alchemical content.\nTaken together, Pol\u2019s marginal cross-\u00adreferences also attest to the fact that\nthis was an ongoing exercise. References in Cod. 5230, fol. 274r, for example,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=190\nPages: 190,191\n41. \u00d6NB MS 11410, fols. 211v, 355ff.\n42. Ibid., fol. 59v.\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n173\nments, Kappler added, as proof of efficacy, that they originated at the Medical\nFaculty of Vienna.43 In this context, both his and Pol\u2019s pursuit of knowledge was\ncumulative, connected with the manufacture and application of remedies, and\nmotivated partly by impending epidemics and partly by the medical marketplace. Alchemically informed recipes were part of that picture. And, where Pol\ncreated structure in his library through the organization of books, Kappler fit his\ntextual acquisitions into the received structure of Pol\u2019s manuscript.\nThe motivation for both doctors\u2019 work in the library, in preparation for and\ndevelopment of their daily practice, reveals itself in their personal notes and\nmanuscripts. As a case in point, Pol\u2019s manuscripts\u2014\u00adand especially his cross-\u00ad]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=116\nPages: 116,117\nreagents used to make all of the aforementioned. Moreover, the journal provided\na public place to do work that bettered the social standing of the Curiosi. By\ncategorizing certain groups as outsiders\u2014\u00adfraudulent alchemists or outdated,\nbookish philosophers\u2014\u00adthe Curiosi exercised their own social flexibility, propelling themselves into positions that demarcated legitimate from illegitimate,\nat least virtually, at a time when this was not otherwise the case. The traffic in\nchymical matters privileged Curiosi as those who controlled the language, symbols, and principles of the subject, as reliable witnesses of true transmutations\nand as adepts of rare procedures and recipes. In their observations of chymia, the\nCuriosi raised their status to adepti, practitioners who shared a usable language\nand superior chymical knowledge.\nChymical Curiosities and Trusted Testimonials\n97]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=181\nPages: 181\nPrescriptions of Alchemy\n163\nKappler\u2019s Manuscript: \u00d6NB MS 11410\nWhile Kappler\u2019s public image has largely been shaped by the reports of others,\nhis actual activities and interests\u2014\u00adamong them, active engagement with alchemy\nand alchemical remedies\u2014\u00adare recorded in the sole surviving manuscript directly\nattributable to him. Sporting Kappler\u2019s colorful and bold coat of arms as an ex libris,\n\u00d6NB MS 11410 forms part of the collection of the Austrian National Library and\nis entitled Practica pro menbris [sic] corporis humani / a capite usque ad pedes et\nprimo de / capitis ad sectionibus.9 A folio volume of some 438 leaves, it contains\nhundreds of notes on illnesses and their remedies. These, as the copyist\u2019s preface\nexplains, were gathered, tried, and tested during the daily experiences of Kappler,\nwhom he described as a doctor and apothecary (\u201cdealer in spices\u201d) with a strong]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=4\nPages: 4\nAll rights reserved\ntsup.truman.edu\nCover art: \u201cThe master and assistant distilling alcohol, a primitive form of reflex condenser,\u201d\nfrom Conrad Gesner, The newe jewell of health, translated by George Baker (London: H. Denham,\n1576). M0012934, Wellcome Library, London.\nCover design: Teresa Wheeler\nLibrary of Congress Cataloging-\u00adin-\u00adPublication Data\nBridging traditions : alchemy, chemistry, and Paracelsian practices in the early modern era :\nessays in honor of Allen G. Debus / edited by Karen Hunger Parshall, Michael T. Walton, and\nBruce T. Moran.\npages cm.\u2014(Early modern studies ; vol. 15)\nIncludes bibliographical references and index.\nISBN 978-1-61248-134-0 (library binding : alk. paper)\u2014ISBN 978-1-61248-135-7 (e-book)\n1. Chemistry--History. 2. Debus, Allen G. 3. Paracelsus, 1493-1541. I. Parshall, Karen Hunger,\n1955- II. Walton, Michael Thomson, 1945-2013 III. Moran, Bruce T. IV. Title: Alchemy, chemistry, and Paracelsian practices in the early modern era.\nQD14.B84 2015]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=98\nPages: 98,99\nSuchten, Alexander von, Georg Fedro von Rodach, Georg Forberger, and Paracelsus.\nDe secretis antimonii liber unus Editus Germanice quidem anno 1570. Basileae:\nPer Petrum Pernam, 1575.\nChapter 4\nChymical Curiosities and\nTrusted Testimonials\nin the Journal of the\nLeopoldina Academy of\nCuriosi\nA\nMargaret D. Garber*\nAlchemy was once an integral part of medicine. Central European medical practitioners had been infusing bodies with mineral, metal, and curious chemical\nmedicaments since the Middle Ages.1 However, as the standard account goes,\nhistorical actors unfastened alchemy from its medical moorings in the eighteenth century, and chemistry set sail on its own as a discipline based upon manual procedures, standardized language, and useful symbols. The history of this\nconjunction and decoupling gave rise to debates that motivated much of Allen\n*I thank Bruce Moran and Karen Parshall for their helpful comments and suggestions. I am also grateful]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=115\nPages: 115,116\nthe definitive article \u201cal\u201d to the Greek word \u201cchimia.\u201d49 Further, his text offered\nrecent experimental histories, including famous transmutation events, considerations of vegetables, animals, and minerals, a section on apparati and furnaces,\nand separate chapters on metals like antimony, silver, and mercury. All of these\nsubjects fell under the category of alchimia, including the uses, symbols, and history of the arts. Yet when writing observations for the Miscellanea curiosa that\ninvolved principles of salt, sulphur, and mercury or that concerned the medical\nuses, medicaments, and even metallic transmutations, he used the term chimica.\nPerhaps like Clauder, Wedel used \u201cchymiatria\u201d for the making of medicaments\nsibi licere, arbitrantes nosse ac distinguere\u201d; ibid., 24.\n48. On Libavius\u2019s concerns with regard to chymia, see Moran\u2019s chapter in this volume and his Andreas\nLibavius and the Transformation of Alchemy.\n49. Wedel, Introductio in alchimiam, 15.\n96\nMargaret D. Garber]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=49\nPages: 49,50\nsubject to study in recent years by historians, for example, Smith, Business of Alchemy; and Nummedal, Alchemy\nand Authority in the Holy Roman Empire, as well as by archaeologists, for example, Martin\u00f3n-\u00adTorres, \u201cTools of\nthe Chymist\u201d; and Soukup, \u201cCrucibles, Cupels, Cucurbits.\u201d The latter article specifically notes that analysis\nof chemical residues indicates that the laboratory was used for the production of Paracelsian-\u00adstyle chemical\nmedicines.\n27. Martinius, Anatomia Urin\u00e6 Galeno-\u00adSpagyrica.\n28. \u201cCaput XV Exercitatio ex urinis triplex: Rationalis, Mechanica & Experimentalis; artem pronuntiandi ex urina breviter adumbrat. Et operis conclusio\u201d; ibid., 267.\n29. \u201cMechanicam ex urinis pronuntiandi rationem primus repr\u00e6sentavit Thurnheiserus, eamque aliquot\nluculentis exemplis expressit in sua Procatalepsi sive Pr\u00e6occupatione contra Uroscopos Vulgares. Ex cujus &\nParacelsi sententia Hier. Reusnerus universam rationem breviter ita complexus est\u201d; ibid., 285\u2013\u00ad86.\n30\nJole Shackelford]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=113\nPages: 113\nmedicaments (chymiatrica) to include the making of mineral and metal salts and\nto transmutations of gold and/or silver. At the same time, it suggests that while\nthe Curiosi felt indebted to alchemical traditions, their use of \u201cchymia\u201d stopped\nshort of the practices of alchemy broadly construed: artisanal productions of\nthings such as paints, gems, or glass.\nThe Curiosi exchanged firsthand observations of recipes and procedures\nunder the title of chymia (or chymica) that constituted a dual material and social\npractice; engagement with chymical materials nurtured the social transformation of physician into artifex, an experienced creator of chymical things. Crucial\nto this transformation were observations that fostered curiosity about specific\nagents, such as recipes for the universal solvent, an elixir of longevity known as\nthe alkahest, and procedures for metallic transmutation. Practical advice, helpful\nhints, and warnings may have enabled a reader familiar with chymical practice]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=215\nPages: 215\noffered a key to the connection of chemistry and kabbalah.\nCroll asserted that adepts in the art had kept secret certain traditional chemical knowledge. He, however, chose to reveal these chemical mysteries, even\nthough it would offend Hermetic philosophers. He believed that chemistry,\nlike Christian doctrine, should be available to all seekers. \u201cCabala, magic, and\nWoarchadumia\u201d were divine truths obtained in the \u201coratory and the laboratory.\u201d51 Croll explained that fiat created prima materia, which in itself is unknowable except through the three principles into which all things are reducible in\nfire. The spagyrical art, or resolution by fire, demonstrates that matter in the\nworld could be reduced to three elements\u2014\u00adfluid (mercury), oil (sulphur), and\nsolid (salt)\u2014\u00adand no further:\nNo body compos\u2019d by Nature can by any dissolving skill be parted into more\nor lesse than Three, viz. Into Mercury or liquor, Sulphur or Oyle, and Salt;]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=154\nPages: 154,155\nto making medicines from animals, vegetables, and minerals by separation of the active part. The other was exclusively devoted to the transmutation of metals, also called \u201calchymia,\u201d \u201calchemia,\u201d \u201ccrisopeya,\u201d \u201cmetalurgia,\u201d\n\u201carte aur\u00edfera,\u201d and \u201carte herm\u00e9tica.\u201d For more analysis of this terminology, see Newman and Principe, \u201cAlchemy vs. Chemistry\u201d; and Abbri, \u201cAlchemy and Chemistry.\u201d\n17. On the need to incorporate Spain into the narrative of the Scientific Revolution, see the studies of\n\u201cIf they are not pages that cure, they are pages that teach how to cure\u201d\n137\nPeddlers of Secret Panaceas18\nIn April of 1598, the Royal Court of the Protomedicato, the highest health-\u00ad\nregulatory institution within the Hispanic monarchy, granted permission for the\ncommercial production of what was styled a \u201cwhite dust solution of gold\u2019s quintessence [polvos blancos solutivos de la quinta esencia del oro].\u201d A medicinal remedy made and sold by Alessandro Quintilio, a Roman citizen residing in Madrid,]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=194\nPages: 194\nresearch stage of his work, Pol investigated alchemy seriously, in isolation from\nits immediate intersections with medicine and together with its practical applications. He was neither an \u201carmchair alchemist\u201d nor a physician pragmatically\nand unquestioningly adopting alchemically relevant methods in his production\nof remedies. His thoroughness, already apparent in the magnitude of his library,\nalso extended to his exploration of alchemy as a subject and practice.\nIt should now be clear why Pol\u2019s manuscript was so valuable to Kappler that\nhe used forceful persuasion to gain access to it. Pol\u2019s lost original of Kappler\u2019s\nmanuscript was a record of Pol\u2019s personal reading notes. As an extraction of useful remedies from the medical and alchemical collections of his library, and written by a physician in possession of extensive knowledge of alchemy, Pol\u2019s digest\nof recipes certainly would have been more beneficial to Kappler and his practice]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=162\nPages: 162\nare well documented in the five works on pharmacy that he published over\na twenty-\u00adyear period.53 In them, he made it clear that his favored reference\nworks were Ev\u00f3nimo Filiatro\u2019s De remediis secretis, Ulstad\u2019s Coelum philosophorum, Wecker\u2019s Antidotarium, and Diego de Santiago\u2019s Arte separatoria.54 The\nskill, moreover, with which he prepared his glassware and stills as well as his\nflowers and roots for preliminary \u201cdigestions\u201d prior to distillation55 attested\nto his expertise as a practitioner. He devoted much space in his later works to\ndiscussions of alchemical secrets, fully accepting the use of chemical practices\nin medicine as well as the possibility that gold could be obtained by alchemical\ntransmutation.56\nVilla\u2019s successor as regent of the monastic pharmacy, Fra Esteban N\u00fa\u00f1ez,\ncontinued the chemical activity of his teacher, combining the task of medicine\n49. See Directorio, regla y advertencias que se hacen a los abades que ser\u00e1n de este Real Monasterio de San]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=107\nPages: 107\nV. Baron Moncony, accepted a mysterious powder from another secret adept\nand was able to produce greater than 24-\u00adcarat gold [plusquam 24 carattorum].23\nSachs drew attention to traditional tropes of alchemical literature, in noting such\nthings as a \u201cmysterious powder\u201d and a \u201csecret adept,\u201d and to the almost-\u00adstock\ncharacter of Baron von Chaos, whose transmutation of mercury into gold was\n\u201cwitnessed in 1648 by the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III in Prague.\u201d24\nYet he relied equally on the powerfully normative social operations of trust and\nauthority to counter gold-\u00admaking deniers, who claimed that only frauds practiced these arts.25 In pre-\u00adEnlightenment Europe, fraud and alchemy were not\nexclusively correlated. Tara Nummedal demonstrates this point in her study of\nsixteenth-\u00adcentury criminal trials surrounding alchemical fraud, which reveals\nthat issues of intent to deceive via fraudulent transmutation were the focal point]","[url_for_citation: https://myaidrive.com/3aePGf6LfBcyr6Es7igbih/_Early-Moder.pdf?pdfPage=110\nPages: 110\nFruitful productions of useful salts depended upon mastering methods, causes,\nand practical knowledge of chemicals and powerful foundry fires through the\narts of chymia that, according to Clauder, consisted of both chemical knowledge and enchirises.35 Clauder\u2019s term enchirises is interesting on two levels. On\nthe one hand, it indicated a procedure done manually, using apparati, and one\nthat included understanding operations of fire. On the other, it gestured to a\ndivision within alchemy, traceable to Libavius, of which encheria and chemia (the\nmaking of chemicals) were subsets.36 True knowledge, for Clauder, depended\nupon firsthand manual experience. In his conclusion to \u201cPossibilities of Transmutation,\u201d Clauder ranked the knowledge that resulted from hands-\u00adon practical\nexperience with chymical arts and those tests witnessed with one\u2019s own eyes as\nepistemically higher than philosophical book knowledge: \u201cWhether it is the]"]}