The Paracelsian Compromise in Elizabethan England
The Paracelsian Compromise in Elizabethan England
The Paracelsian Compromise in Elizabethan England
7
1
THE PARACELSIAN COMPROMISE IN ELIZABETHAN ENGLAND
By ALLEN G. DEBUS*
WHEN .Paracelsus attacked the ancient medical authorities at Basel in 15
2
7,
and had the audacity to throw the Canon of Avicenna into the St. John's day
bonfire, he struck a dramatic blow for a new medicine which was to embroil
the physicians of Europe in controversies for the next century and a half
1
. The
focal point of this struggle was the use of chemical therapy, which was con-
sidered to be the most insidious innovation by most Galenists. However, at
the same time there was disagreement over the comprehensive theories of the
Swiss reformer, and the history of this ideological conflict is a matter of con-
siderable importance in the understanding of the Scientific Revolution, since,
to many observers in the latter years of the r6th century, the work of Paracelsus
seemed more dangerous than that of Copernicus
2
And though the work of Paracelsus and his disciples dicl not yet issue from
the English presses, tomes on chemical remeclies anel methods were available
from the English book dealers. Hieronymus Brunschwig's book of distillation
was Englishecl" by Lawrence Andrewe in 1527, and while it combined the
function of an herbaI with that of a chemical text, it brought to light the view
of the author that distilled remedies wre far more potent than the herbs
themselves
1o
Thomas H.aynalde's C01npentl'iO'l/;s declaration 01 the vertues 0] a
Lateli z'nuented oUe, Venice, !5S!, was an early mOllograph on a chemical remedy,
7 Karl Sudhoff, Vel'S2tch einer Kritik der Echtheit der Pa,yacelsisclum Schrien (2 vols.,
BerUn, 1894, 1899), 1, 217.
8 John Caius, M.D., 1'!Ie Works 0/ ]olm Cai1tS, .MI.D., Second 1"ounder 0/ Gonville
Caius College and lvlastcr of Ihe I.559-I573. With a MCl1zoir 0/ his Li/e l)y ]OkH
Venn, sc.n., cd. E. S. Roberts, Cumbridgtl, 1912, ,5fI.
9 S. V. Larkey, J1Iledical Knowledgc in Tudor England as Displayed in an 0/
Books and J.,fanuscYipts, San Marino, Ca.lif., 1935, 5.
10 Hieronymus Brunschwig, The vertuose of distyllacyon ... , tr. L. Anc1rewe, London,
15
2
7.
74
ALLEN G. DEBUS
but it is not until we reach Gesner's Treasure 0/ Euonymus in 1559 that we have
come to the brink of chemical therapy in England. Gesner wrote that "waters
and oyles secreate by the singular industrie and wit of ChYffiists, are of great
vertues",11 but he explains that some physicians held them rightly in contempt
because they had been incorrectly prepared
12
Those who ascribed the intro-
duction of this art to Brunschwig were in error, according to Gesner, and his
authorities include Dioscorides, Geber, Amold of Villanova, Ramon Lull, and
John of Rupescissa, with the notable omission of Hippocrates and Galen
1S
16 John Caius, against the Sweat in Works already referred ta, p. 26 (separate
pagination). J ohn Halle, A most excellent and learned woorke of Chiru1'gerie ... also against
the beastlye abusers both of chyu1'gerie and Phisicke i1't oure tyme, Londen, 1565, Hif. J ohn
Securis, A detection and querimonie of the daily enormities and abuses committed in Phisicke,
Landon, 1566, passim.
17 William Turner, A Booke ofthe natures and properties-as welt ofthe bathes in England
as of other batkes in Germany and Italy, Collen, 1562, f. iii. In the same year this was also
issued with the secend part of William Turner's Herball.
18 JOhn Jones, Benejit of the Auncient Bathes of Buckstones, Lenden, 1572, "Te the
Reader", fol. .
19 John Jones, Galens Bookes of Elementes . . Confuting as welt the errours of aU them
that went bejore time, as that hath, 01' shal folowe hereafter of the Paracelsians, London, 1574.
20 Jehn Jones, The Arte and Science of preserving Bodie and Saule in Healthe, Wisdome,
and Catholicke Religion, Lenden, 1579, 31. See also Kocher, Journal of the History of Medi-
eine, 457.
ALLEN G. DEBUS
More interesting is a reference to Paracelsus made by the well-known
Elizabethan surgeon, George Baker (r540-r600). In his preface to a tract
which placed side byside his translations of a monograph on a Spanish chemical
oil and the third book of Galen, he compared Paracelsus unfavourably with
Galen and cited Erastus as his source for this. Baker's view is of considerable
importance, for although he was a firm supporter of Galen and the rest of the
ancients, he was at the same time one of the earliest advocates of the use of
chemical therapy. As he later became an ordinary surgeon to Queen Elizabeth,
and President of the' College of Surgeons (r597), his views were to carry a great
'deal of weight. But by taking his cue from the tradition of Gesner who had
no quarrel with the ancients, rather than Paracelsus who seemed to the Eliza-
bethans to want to overturn the whole medical corpus of the past, he outlined
the middle path which was eventually to prevail
21
Thus, by the end of the 1570's, it may be seen that the few works so far
published dealing with chemically prepared medicines were done primarily
under the inspiration of Conrad Gesner. With the exception of William
21 George Baker, The composition or making 01 the moste excellent and pretious Oi! called
Oleum Magist1'ale, Londen, 1574; the reference to Paracelsus is from the nen-paginated
"Te the Reader".
22 Cenrad Gesner, The Newe jewell of Health, London, 1576; Preface and iii f. See
also F. R. ]ohnson, "Thomas Hill: An Elizabethan Huxley", Huntington Library Qua1'terly,
7, 1944, 109-35. Baker's preface to the 1576 edition (the work was reissued in 1599 as
The Practise of the New and Old Phisicke-see Plate I), is also valuable in. showing that
there were chemical practitioners in London at this time, to whom the physician or surgeon
could turn with confidence if he should desire any of the new medicines. Baker recom-
mended "one mayster Kemech an Englishe man. dwelling in Lothburie, another mayster
Geffroy, a French man dwelling in Crouched friers, men of singular lmowledge that waye,
anether named John Hester dwelling on Powle's wharfe, the which is a paynfull traveyler
in those matters, as I by proofe have seene and used of their medicines to the furtheraunce
of my Pacients healthes." Gesner, Newe jewell, iv f. Little is known of Kemech or
Geffroy, but Hester's work will be considered later.
l"
.'
Tlle pradife,
wherein iscontainedthe moft nt
1>hi6,ke and PhUo[ol"hie,deuiacditno faure Inthc rhl
bdt apI'f('lued tonne \'Well inw.lrd:ls oUfward\of Ql
mam bott)': tte.nmg 'lCt}' 3illp!l(: of al diilllhUttill$of of
Q!irm:Hencc$. wh che exu;wirm()lanlfidal! f.dtt$, the"ie30apr
Antim')ny,Iod Gold Gatheredout oE tbe bell Vtproued
11)' tbac excdlcfU Doctor,rlh'uit. tbe P4(mrtl anti.. . [0
lclli,Fum3ccs,aod other Iatlrul:tlCl1ts thertunto
and pubh!hedm G/fJrgt of thc ...
icfiindefeChhurgi .
,
PI.ATE I.
THE
difference bet\vene the aun
erent taught hy thegOI1
Ir forefathers , confifling in vnitie peace ane
concord: and the latter Phificke procec...
from Idolaters, Ethnickcs,and
Heathen:as q411rn,and {heh 0-
ther eonfi!l:ing in dualitie,
difcorde , and con...
trariwe.
And wherein the natura1t Phitorophie of-A.
riflotle doth ditTer from thc tructh of
Gods worde and i,1) iniurious to
and founde
doarine.
'1'&tJlrltnAtNram tont;Rtt & /UperAt, (f{UIt,,1t-
/lsra 14t4tllr & emtndatH.1' J & tiUJ p'"
pinquital4J reJ commifteri & coniJmgiji4filt.
Imprintedat London
[or 7{obert YValley..
J S 5.
[)LA'I"I<: 11.
THE PARACELSIAN COMPROMISE IN ELIZABETHAN ENGLAND 77
Turner's non-committal reference, the citations of Paracelsus had a11 been of
universal distrust, and the reason for this is probably that the chief references
to hirn come from J ohn J ones and George Baker-both of whom seem to have
become acquainted with Paracelsus' work through the refutation of it made by
Erastus in 1572-4.
It was not until 1585 that any Englishman took notice of the comprehensive
Para.celsian theories. At that time one R.B. esquire (possibly R. Bostocke-
see footnote 23) ,vrote his betzvene the auncient Phisicl?'c ... and the
latter Ph'z:siclw
23
The author of this work was interested in the theory of
Paracelsus rather than in the application of the new chemical remeclies. (See
reprocluction of title-page on Plate 11.)
Bostocke relates that one of the reasons he wrote the book was that
I was the last Parliament time before this that is 110W sommoned at
the table of areverend Bishoppe of this land, which was not unskilful
in Physicke, in the companie of a Phisition, which inveying against this
auncient Phisicke, by the name of Paracelsus his Phisicke, ignorantly
attributing to hirn the first invention thereof, pleased hirnself anel some
of his auclience in telling that the same Phisicke hacl no ground nor
foundation, neither any being
24
This, then, was a ne'\v approach in terminology. George Baker, and John
Hester (whose work will be considereel later), had pointed out that the new
chemical remedies had in reality an earlier origin than the carly years of the
current century, hut nevertheless, they had still considerecl this as the new
Hphisicke" in contrast to the old "phisicke" of Galen. Bostocke, on the other
hand, considered it his primary aim to point out that iatrochemistry was
actually the ancient meclicinc which had steadily cleterioratecl after the Fall
of man until it had reached the depraved state in which Galen offered it. The
original chemica.l physicians were to be sought in a line of sages that ran from
$\ll Thi.<; 'Work ()f somCl ninet)H,;ix 'lmnumbered lC<l.ves was attributed to H.. 13ostockc, csq.,
by Andrew MaunseU in. his Tbe parte 0/ the Catalogue 0/ English .p"inted
L<m<:1on, 1595.4. In thc SJuwl Title Cataloglte byPollard anel Hcdgra.ve it was also attributecl
to and while this idtmtifica.tioll ca.mlOt be taken. a8 provcll, thc eady Mannsell
reference wemkl lead (me tu believe tImt thCl a.uthor 01 this trca.tisc was actually this
wise unknown Bostockt.l. There was a. H.obertBostock who was (I, Londoll printer active
in thc second quarter 01 the 17th century. this lOl1.g interval in tinwfrom the
publication (>f the hook to his active participatiem in the trade makos this identifica,ticlll
doubtful, the cmmexion. canuot be entirdy out as an R. Bostock was listed as an
apprentice in. 1,ond011 in the 1580'S.
M ItB., Esq., The cli;[{erence l)ctwene ehe almcient Phisicka ... amI the latler Phisiehe,
Londou,Is8S. Chap. 7. Thiswork 18 lwt paginated, and hence will be made
elther tochapter numbers or prefatory material.
ALLEN G. DEBUS
Adam through the sons of Seth, Abraham, Moses, Hermes Trismegistus Thales
, ,
Democritus, Pythagoras, and even Hippocrates. Untold secrets were to be
discoverecl in the myths of the ages, but by the time of Plato and Aristotle all
this was changing. Bostocke equated Plato's contempt of Greek physicians
with their lack of chemical kilowledge, anel Aristotle is treated with even more
scorn than Ga1c1l
25
But if
The Chymicall Phisition in his Phisicke first and principally respecteth
the worde of God, and acknowledgeth it to be his gifte, next he is ruled
by experience, that is to say, by the knowledge of the three sustanties,
whereof eche thing in the great world and man also consisteth, that is
to say, by their severall Sal, Sulphur and Mercury, and by their several
properties, vertues, and natures, by palpable and visible experience.
And when he knoweth the three substanties and all their properties in
the great world, then after shall he knowe them in man. For man is
Microcosmus for this cause, that hee might have the good and bad
sicknesse and health of the great world
3G
From this it is evident that Bostocke thoroughly accepted the time honoured
concept of the macrocosm and the microcosm which was a fundamental part of
Paracelsian theory. Also of basic importance was the use of the three principles
and the discarding of the traditional humoral system. He explained that
Humors and qualities, to the which the folowers of the Ethnikes
doe so much cleaue, and in the which they spende their study and
labour, are but onely dead accidents, without power of lyfe. They be
conditions, signes, tokens, and as it were onely fiowers and colours of
diseases and not the very matter, cause, substance, or nature of the
disease, they are caused and not the causes ...31 (However) ech member
hath his proper humour not like to any of the fower, but according to the
c6stitution of the members, and their effect, eche member possesseth
his own humour
32
And again, the chemical surgeon avoids the knife and instead works with
uoyl
es
and Balmes to pacifie nature, and to keep the wounde defended from
accidents, and to leave the eure to nature which is able then to be its own .
surgeon"38.
In regard to the relation of chemistry to medicine, Bostocke i8 unequivocal,
for at the opening of the volume he states that
The true and aUllcient phisicke which consisteth in the searching out
of the Fountaines of Nature, and is collected out of Mathematicall and
supernaturall precepts, the exercise whereof is & to. be
accomplished with labor, is part of Cabala, and 18 called by aunc1ent
name Ars sacra, or magna, & saera scientia, or Chymia, or Chemeia, or
Alchimia, & mystica & by 80lne of late Spagirica ars
39
But those who eomplained that the Spagyrists onIy dealt with mineral remedies
were in the wrong, for Bostocke pointed out that herbs and plants formed a
valuable part of the physicians' eures, just as long as they were treated
ehemically before administering them to the patient
45
The ehemieal physician
40 lbid., Chap. 8.
41 lbid., Chap. 21.
42 lbid., Chap. 3.
43 lbid., Chap. 8, section 15.
44 lbid., Chap. 8, section 12.
45 lbid., Chap. 9.
82 ALLEN G. DEBUS
is also warneel not to experiment on men, but rather, he shoulel learn the cause
of the elisease through the macrocosm anel then apply it to his patient. This
again was one of the chief points of attack on the Paracelsists on the continent,
anel Bostocke stated the matter in these worels:
So in ministering of meelicines, he willeth thern not to minister,
before they know the cause anel nature of the elisease, & what & how
much it wanteth of his proper nature, anel what anel how much it hath
gotten of an other nature. For incognita causa, a casu proceelit cura, to
the knowleelge whereof wee ought to come, as the Alkimistes eloe come
to tbe knowledge of the boely that is to them unknowne, anel not by
trying of the meelicine in man
46
.
Finally, Bostocke took up certain objections which had been specifically
raiseel to Paracelsus anel his works. This was necessary, for beyonel the appeal
first to holy scripture anel then to personal experience, he suggesteel that the
physician who
listeth to leane to Bookes ... (shoulel) ... learne of those Bookes which
Paracelsus hath most Godly and learnedly expressed in his Labyrinth.
In comparison of which al other Aucthorities in those matters are small
or none
47
.
Thus Erastus hael accuseel hirn of "Heresie, conjurations, lacke of learning, as
also hurt anel elanger of mynerall rneelicines anel obscuritie of writing"48. The
reasons for the obscurity anel the true explanation of mineral remeelies have
alreaely been dealt with, and as for the connection with the magical arts,
Paraeelsus excludeth from the true, pure, anel auncient Magicke, and
from his coelestiall medicine, all Nigromancie, Sorcery, Ceremonies,
Coniurations, anel all maner of invocations of elevilles, Denlones & evill
spirits: Anel he giveth an especiall charge tImt this Arte be onely used
to eloe gooel, anel not to the prejuclice nor hurt of any bodie and that it
be done without Ceremonies, Coniurations, invocations, Consecrations,
Blessinges, and all maner superstytion whereby it becometh ungodly49.
This is a not unusual elefence of natural magie.
To those who complained that the works of Paracelsus laeked any logical
method, Bostocke replied that this was a He in most cases, but that a lack of
method was intentional in some other eases in which the great master had
planneel to withholel his choicest seerets only for the initiated
50
Anel to those
4(1 Ibid., Chap. 8, section 19.
47 Ibid., Chap. 8, section 6.
48 Ibid., Chap. 20.
40 Ibid., Chap. 24.
50 Ibid., Chap. 24.
THE PARACELSIAN COMPROMISE IN ELIZABETHAN ENGLAND 83
who complained that Paracelsus wrote only in German and knew no Latin, he
answered that this too was an untruth as some of his works were in Latin
51
.
Although all other objections could be swept away, Paracelsus' reputation as a
drunkard remained to trouble Bostocke's essentially Puritan mind. <;:om-
promising by attributing this fault less to the man than to the habit of his
country, he suggested that "the doctrine bee tried by the worke and successe,
not by their fault es in their lives"52.
And in a bid for arevision of the medical curriculum in the universities he
complained that
in the scholes nothing may be received nor allowed that savoreth not
of Aristotle, Gallen, Avicen, and other Ethnikes, whereby the yong
beginners are either not acquainted with this doctrine, or eIs it is brought
into hatred with them ... likewise the Galenists be so armed and
defended by the protection, priviledges and authoritie of Princes, that
nothing can be allowed that they disalowe, and nothing may bee received
that agreeth not with their pleasures and doctrine
53
.
He conc1udes that if it were lawful for men to study both sides of the question,
the Paracelsian doctrines would triumph.
Bostocke was the only English author in the 16th century who was more
interested in Paracelsian theory than its practice. Others might use Para-
celsian backing for the introduction of chemical remedies, but even here the
trend was more to seek precedent in the redpe books of Gesner and Fioravanti
such as George Baker:, and later John Hester, edited. But with Bostocke we
find a small compendium of Paracelsian doctrine much as the Swiss reformer
oiiginally presented it, a mixture of grandiose theory and valuable reform.
However, there is no indication that anyone was impressed or eveninterested
in his work. In the following year (1586) Bostocke's work was referred to by
the equally unknown LW. in a short defence of chemical medicines. This work
too is an apology for the Paracelsists, but on a much lower level. LW. states
that his only desire is to convert the reader to the Paracelsian medical prepara-
tions and he implies that a discussion of the deeper aspects of their theory and
their relation to the macrocosm and the microcosm will be offered in the author's
forthcoming Anatomy 01 Death. I have been unable to find any reference to the
existence of this laUer work. He passes over the question of the antiquity of
the "new sect" and merely refers the reader to the recent work of "Master B."
He insists on the need of chemistry to separate the pure from the gross parts
51 Ibicl., Chap. 24.
52 Ibicl., Chap. 24.
53 Ibicl., Chap. 9.
ALLEN G. DEBUS
of the medicines and explains that the Galenic remedies often cause harmful
results because the impure parts of the medicine gain control of the body. In
his defence of Paracelsus he shows that he did write in Latin as weH as German,
and in regard to his supposed heresy and conjury he refers the reader to his
De occulta Philosophia and De M agia. . The excessive drinking of his idol
remained to trouble hirn and he decided that he had to spend so much time at
his hot furnaces distilling and subliming that he had to drink to cool off. Many
pages of this tract deal with a discussion of speciftc remedies, but the author's
failure to discuss Paracelsian theory in detail is to be regretted
54
.
There were no other treatises of English authorship devoted to Paracelsian
theory in the 16th century except the work of Thomas MoffeU which will be
mentioned later. Early in the next century, several works on mystical alchemy
,and iatrochemical theory were written by Thomas Tymme and Timothy
Willis, and there were as weIl the voluminous writings of Robert Fludd, but
these were all without exception ignored in England. Fludd alone gained
recognition for his work, but only in Germany55. There was little interest in
England in mystical or occult works in medicine or alchemy in the 16th century
or even weIl into the 17th century.
Although works dealing primarily with Paracelsian theory found little
popularity until the mid-17th century in England, treatises devoted to the
promotion of chemical medicines continued to be published in ever increasing
numbers. The man chiefly responsible for this was a distiller by the name of
John Hester whose shop was on Paul's Wharf in London. George Baker
referred to hirn as a reputable purveyor of the new medicines in his preface to the
Newe]ewell
56
, and as Thomas Hill had bequeathed to Baker the manuscript of
that work, so too he had bequeathed to Hester the manuscript of a second work.
This was a translation from the I talian chemieal physician, Leonardo Fioravanti,
titled A IoyjuU Iewell (1579). From then until his death (c. 1593) Hester con-
tinued to pour out a flood of translations. First he decided to concentrate on
54 LW., The copie oj a letter sent by a learnecl Physician to his jriencl, wherein are cletectecl
the manijold errors used hitherto 0/ the A pothecaries, London, 1586. This short tract is eom-
posed of some 15-201eaves and is non-paginateel.
55 The works of Robert Fludel are too numerous to be mentioned here. Other early
17th-century works of English authorship incluele the following: Thomas Tymme, A
Dialogue Philosophieall, London, 1612. Tymme's views are also set fortIl in his prefaee to his
translation of Joseph Duchesne's Tne Practise oj Chymicall, and Hermeticall Physicke, jor
the p,'eseruation oj health, London, 1605. Timothy Willis wrote two alchemieal works, the
Praepositiones Tentationum, London, 1615; and The Search jor Causes, London, 1616.
Finally it might be mentioned that the bishop of Worcester, John Thornborough, com-
posed an alchemical tract, the At8ofJ,'WptI<.6s, London, 1621.
56 See footnote 2:2.
THE P ARACELSIAN COMPROMISE IN ELIZABETHAN ENGLAND 85
Fioravanti's works and later he turned to other authors such as DuChesne
,
Hermann, spurious works by Paracelsus and others.
Relatively uninterested in the deeper aspects of Paracelsism, he normally
chose works to translate which were short on theory and long on lists of recipes.
As long as the tracts had these recipe collections attached to them he cared
little what other theoretical views they put forth. Actually his authors agreed
on HUle more than two specific points in medical reform; the importance of
chemical remedies and the need for experimentation. But aside from this, his
translations put forth all sides of the views being expressed at that time by the
eontinental spagyrists. For instanee, Duchesne praised both Paraeelsus and
Galen
57
while Fioravanti praised hardly anyone but hirnself
58
Another author,
G. A. Portu Aquitans, in his preface to the Hundred and Fourteen Experim,ents
01 Paracelsus showed the bitter hatred of some continental Paraeelsians for the
Galenists
59
As Hester was no theorist, he made no mention of the three
principles of Paracelsus hirnself, and his prefaees note no alarm when Duchesne
and Fioravanti continue to use the old system of the four elements and their
eorresponding humours. Duehesne had worked out an independent system in
regard to the interrelation of the elements and the principles which was to be
offered to English readers in a translation by Thomas Tymme in 1605, but
there was no hint of this theory in Hester's translations
6o
In his bid for the new medicines, Hester partieularly stressed the fact that
there were now new diseases which the aneient medieine had no eure for-and
the most notorious of these were the venereal diseases
61
Here his translations
stressed the use of guaiac wood (actually opposed by Paraeelsus) and mereury
compounds.
57 Josephus Quercetanus (Duchesne), A Breefe Aunswere of joseph Quereetanus ... to
the exposition of Iaeobus Aubertus Vindonis, eoneerning the original, and eauses of Metalles,
set forth against the Chimists, tr. J ohn Hester, London, 1591, 2, 4.
58 Leonardo Phioravanti, A Short Discourse uppon Chirurgerie, tr. J ohn Hester, London,
1580, Aiv. On Fioravanti's very few references to the "divino" Paracelsus see Davide
Giordano, Leonardo Fioravanti Bolognese, Bologna, 1919, 14, note I.
59 Leonardo Phioravant, Three Exact Pieces (including) One Hundred and Fourteen
Experiments and Cures of the Famous Physition Theophrastus Paracelsus. Whereunto is
added certain e%cellent Works by B.G. (Londrada) A. Portu Aquitans ... , tr. John Hester,
London, 1652; Preface.
60 Josephus Quercetanus (Duchesne), The Practise of Chymicall, and Hermeticall Physieke,
tr. Thomas Tymme, London, 1605. For an excellent modern appraisal of Duchesne's
views on the principles and elements see R. Hooykaas, "Die Elementenlehre der iatro-
chemiker", janus, 41, 1937, 1-28.
61 Phillippus Herrnanus, An excellent Treatise teaehing howe to eure the Freneh-Pockes ...
Dr.awen out oi the Bookes of that learned Doctor and Prince of Phisitions, Theophrastus
Paracelsus, tt. J ohn Hester, London, 1590; Preface.
86 ALLEN G. DEBUS
Although he denied the possibility of transmutation and insisted that the
purpose of alchemy was to serve as a handmaiden to medicine
62
, he had no
qualms about offering Duchesne's twelve steps leading to transmutation to the
reader
63
. Hester's occasional referenees to theoretical problems are often
contradietory since they are from other authors and he certainly did not
consider thern the most important part of his translations. His emphasis was
always placed on the actual eompositions, and he usually closed eaeh work
with a notation that any of the remedies eould be purchased "at Paule's Wharfe,
by one John Hester practisioner in the Art of distillation, at the signe of the
Furnaises"64.
No other apothecaries or distillers were as voeal in their praise of chemistry
as Hester, but the early and non-controversial aeeeptance of chemical remedies
may be seen in the works of the English surgeons and physicians
65
. George
Baker, president of the College of Surgeons in 1597, had been one of the first to
promote such rernedies in the 1570's, and although he had no love for Para-
celsus, many of his colleagues borrowed freely from the specifically Paracelsian
remedies. One of the most notable instanees of this is the Antidotarie of the
famous English surgeon John Banister (1589). In this collection of eures for
variol1s wounds, Banister cited Paraeelsl1s and his disciples Duehesne and
Thurneisser no less than thirty-five times
66
.
William Clowes was another noted. Elizabethan surgeon. In a work
published by hirn in 1579, he lashed out against empiries of all sorts, but he did
not make any reference to Paracelsus or the Paracelsians
67
. Only 'a few years
62 Jolm Hester (tr.), The Seerets of Physick and Philosophy ... First written in the German
Tongue by ... Theophrastus Paracelsus and now published in the English Tongue by john
Hester, Practitioner in the Art of Distillation, London, 1633, 107.
B3 Quereetanus, B1'eefe Aunswere, fols. 17f.
64 Hester (tr.), Secrets of Physick, from the non-paginated "ta the Reader".
65 Prof. Kocher has followed in considerable detail the referenees to Paraeelsian remedies
in the works of the main surgical authors of this period, Clowes, Banister, Baker, ete., and
he has shown that there was a gradual aeceptance of chemical therapy by all of these men
whom he calls "the most enterprising and enlightened group of surgeons, or indeed, medical
praetieioners of any kind in England at that time" (Kocher, journal of the History of
Medieine, 458). This reeonciliation of the English surgeons with chemical remedies
eventually led them to even look on Paracelsus Idndly, but none of themever pretended to
understand deeper Paracelsian thought. See Kocher, journal of the History of Medieine,
466-80 passim.
BB For a fuller deseription of this work see Kocher, journal of the History of Medieine,
466-7. For speeifie references to Paracelsus see John Banester, An Antidotarie Chyrurgicall,
London, 1589; 20,97-9, 103, 107, 135, 136, 296-9,
67 William Clowes, A Shot't and profitable Treatise touching the eure of the disease caUed
l\1orb'tts Gallicus by Unetions, London, 1579; Cir.
THE PARACELSIAN COMPROMISE IN ELIZABETHAN ENGLAND 87
later when he first took notice of the works of Paracelsus in his writings he was
most careful to distinguish between the "proud prattling Paracelsian" and "the
good workes of the right Paracelsian"68. In his last published work (1602), he
complained that although he could not understand the theories of the Para-
celsians, that he found many of their pIasters, balms and distilled waters of
great surgical value. He wrote that
if I finde (eyther by reason or experience) any thing that may be to the
good of the Patients, and better increase of my knowledge & skil in the
Arte of Chirurgery, be it eyther in Galen or Paraceisus; yea, Turke,
Ieue, or any ether Infidell: I will not refuse it, but be thankfull to God
for the same
69
One might hardly expect that there would have been any real enthusiasm
for the chemical remedies among the members of the Royal College of
Physicians, since most of these men had been brought up in the traditional
training based on the ancients, but here, too, a surprising moderation is evident.
In 1585 the members proposed to publish an official Pharmacopoeia, and one
of the sections of the work was to be devoted to chemical medicines. Although
this work was never printed, it is interesting that four years later separate
committees were set up to prepare the various sections
70
Among the three
physicians put in charge of the section on chemical medicines was Thomas
Moffett, whose opinions on chemistry had been aired by him in a tract entitled
De Jure et Praestantia Chemicorum Medicamentorum (1584). Thomas Moffett
(1553-1604) had studied under John Caius and Thomas Lorkin at Caius College,
and then went abroad where he studied medicine under Felix Plater and
Zwinger at Basel, and obtained his M.D. in 1578. During these years when he
studied at Basel, and in the following four years when he travelled through
Italy and Germany, he adopted the Paracelsian system of medicine. On his
return to England in 1582 he received an M.D. at Cambridge, and in the
Summer of that year he journeyed to Denmark where he became acquainted
with Peter Severinus and Tycho Brahe. He became a candidate of the Royal
College of Physicians in December, 1585, and was elected a fellow and censor
of that organizationin 1588. He was a man who moved in the highest court
circles, and among his friends and patients were numbered such Elizabethan
worthies as Sir Francis Drake, Sir Francis Walsingham, and the Earl of Essex
71
He is credited with several other works, but the one which concems us here is
his De Jure et Praestantia Chemicorum M edicamentorum which 'was completed
in 1584 in London, and published first at Frankfort in the same year. Although
no English edition appears to have been printed, it seems to have been fairly
popular on the continent where it was reprinted at Nassau in 1602, and then
included in the first volume of Zetzner's Theatrum Chemicum of 1613 which was
reprinted in 1659.
This tract, which comprises only forty-four pages in the 1659 edition, is
composed of some prefatory remarks, a dialogue between two physicians
identified only as Philerastus (Phil-Erastus) and Chemista, and five appended
letters dealing with various aspects of the new medicine. The work con-
centrates on the defence of chemical remedies, but the author's knowledge of
Paracelsian dogma is evident throughout. Evidently inspired to write it after
his trip to Denmark, he dedicated it to his new-found friend Peter Severinus,
the chief physician to King Frederick of Denmark and one of the most important
of the continental Paracelsians. In the dedicatory letter he also sent his
regards to Tycho Brahe.
He begins by admitting that
Many are beginning to hold chemistry in such distaste that they are
horrified by the very name itself, ... while others praise chemical
remedies loudly, but so often by their own negligence has Vulcan per-
n1itted faults, that they must call forth the art anew or dishonour the
demonstrator
73
78 Ibid., IOO. Hinc dicimus hominis corpus ex solo sulphure, Mercurio atque sale
constare, non quia tam perfecte id noscimus atque Adamus, sed quia tarn naturalis quam
artificiosa corporum omnigenorum resolutio, rem ita se habere ostendit. For a similar
passage see also Ibid., 95.
79 Ibid., 101. Paracelsus contra aliique insignes Chemici, cum a Deo tantum luminis
hausissent, materialia hominis principia in terra unde provenerat abscondi; continuo
atque improbo labore venas ejus dissecuerunt, viscera apuerunt, ossa fregerunt, medullam
colliquarunt, nullum non lapidem moverunt, ut quae illic habentur corpora diligenter
examinarent. Tandem vero Pyrotechniae Alchemiaeque beneficio, longisque suis & plus
quam Herculeis laboribus, nihil simplex in terra deprehenderunt, praeter vaporosum,
inflammabile, fixum: nihil mixtum, quod non ex iisdem simplicibus componeretur. Quare
hominis quoque principium duplex esse eonstituunt, alterum volatile, alterum vero fixum.
Volatile vicissim duplex est: primum vapord'sum, quod Mercurius dicitur, secundum
inflammabile, quod sulphuris nomen obtinuit. Mereurius est corporls principium vaporo-
sum: per se ipsum illterminabile, humidum, liquidum, naturalis balsami vehiculum:
sulphur cum sale, ceu aqua eum arena caleemineorporans. Sulphur est corporis principium
inflammabile, pingue, leve, aequale, vitalis balsami fomentum. Sal vero est fixum corporis
principium, pondus, solidatatem, roburque maximum coneilians, neque ferro neque igni
cedellS per se.
The Paracelsian three principles playaprominent role in Moffett's tract,
and he appeals for their acceptance not through blind belief, but rather through
experiment, for
Henceforth let us say that the body of man consists of sulphur,
mercury, and salt alone, not because we know this as perfectly as Adam,
but because the resolution of all kinds of natural as wen as artificial
bodies shows it to be S078.
The theory of the principles is gone into in far more detail when Moffett avers
that:
THE PARACELSIAN COMPROMISE IN ELIZABETHAN ENGLAND 9
1
At the end of this dialogue Philerastus admitted bis defeat and Chemista
christened hirn Philalethes. The final part of the tract consists of five letters
from Chemista, four of which are to his disciple Philalethes the German in
which he takes up various aspects of the new medicine in somewhat more
detail. The one of most interest to us is the letter to Philalethes dated from
London on the 4th Cal. of February, 1583, in which he refers to a letter from
his imaginary (?) friend complaining about the arguments which were being
raised against hirn by a certain Galenist and his cronies. He is asked for help
in replying to these charges, and he is glad to be helpful. As this letter inc1udes
specific attacks on Paracelsus it is perhaps worth while to quote it at some
length. He begins by quoting Philalethes' antagonist to the effect that
"Chemists depart completely from the authority of the medical
fathers:" but I say that if they should do this in some things, I judge it
to be a fair charge: but if truly in all things (as he imagines perfidiously)
I consider it to be very unfair....
And he says that chemists are ignorant of all the more refined
remedies: that they have not chosen from the Greek authors, that they
have scarcely respected the Arabs, but that they have chosen from
Paracelsus alone, a drunkard, magician, impostor, beggar, market
attender, worker of the hidden arts of heaven and earth, in short, a man
hated to the learned ... I call forth that braggart (the least of all the
chemists) into their own arena, and I should fear not at all to debate
with hirn on the subject of the Greeks or Arabs ... in regard to the
faults of Paracelsus ... Natural cabala, pYrotechny, the exaltation of
medicines, the contemplation of physical matters, miraeulous invention,
the singular ingenuity of Paraeelsus; these things delight, eaptivate,
allure and attract ehemists; non-natural magie, drunkenness, abusive
language, eontempt of method, all these things are repudiated by
chemists not only in those Greeks and Ethnics, but also in that same
Paraeelsus....
"Paraeelsus was obscure." I confess this and for the sake of it
rejoice. But Hippocrates was also most obscure, nor was there ever
understanding from Galen unless it was only partly from the words and
the rest from feeling.
"He did not know the method." But Hippocrates also did not know
it, or at least spurned it. . . . .
"Paraeelsus often placed eontraries as principles and Proteus himself
did not differ from hirnself as mueh as Paracelsus does from Paracelsus."
Aetually, unless indulgenee be given to this mistaken recollection we
shall be foreed to admit that Hippocrates differed from hirnself an
infinite number of times. I eall to aceount Cardanus and Rorarius,
and even Erastus, who have notieed various contradictions of his.
"But Paracelsus was also a magieian and an impostor who had
dealings with demons. He so indulged in drunkenness that he drank
for whole days and nights with farmers, porters and the lowest type of
hangrnen." Which things I might concede to be all true: however, the
9
2 ALLEN G. DEBUS
defenders of Galenic Inedicine have similar faults and even worse ones
by far ... (atthis point he goes into the details of an abortion Hippocrates
performed on a dancing girl and the impiety of Galen). . .. Now I
come to the ignorance of Paracelsus in learned and humane letters: and
although I might stain him somewhat, stilll cannot concede as much as
this man wishes. For he knew the Galenic doctrine, he has commented
on Hippocrates: he examined the Arabs, he delivered a book on tartar
with a surgery to some schools in Latin letters, and he lectured publicly
in the Academy at Basel. 1t is true that "Paracelsus spoke a great deal
in German", but in the same manner Hippocrates spoke Greek as
naturally both of them spoke their native tongues. Is this worthy of
reprehension in Paracelsus and to be passed over in Hippocrates, Aetius,
Actuarius, Galen and Moschion ? ...
"Paracelsus was ignorant of Logic, Physics, Astrology, and Geo-
metry." And what might I say of those Galenic sectarians of whom
no one could define their art so that either it might satisfy others or
themselves? For this one contends it to be an art, that one a science:
a third, both of these and neither: the fourth defines it from its end:
the fifth from the work: the sixth from the occurrences: the seventh
says that Medicine is an art of curing and bringing health": but he
adds to it "in the human body", as if truly the nature and name of
medicine was more fitting to this end than to the curing of plants, or
even cattle . . . (he concludes by ridiculing the predictions of the
astrologers and the) ... ignorance of the Geometers is so marked that
they assert their defence of the revolution of the earth and seas with
preciseness, however, as to how much distance separates London from
the Httle town of Iselinus, they know equally as Httle. But although
that Galenist was not ashamed to call Paracelsus the objeet of hatred
of heaven and earth, it would now seem that the shame has lept across
from one party to the other
BO
There was, then, no sincere attempt among English medical men to prevent
the application of chemistry to medicine. Fe\v if any of them would have
approved of Bostocke's assertion that true medicine is nothing but chemistry,
but most of them were willing to accept anything valuable which might come
from the use of this art. Nothing shows this intensified interest better than the
increased knowledge displayed in the works on mineral water analysis. As
far as the chemical medicines were concerned, they were accepted by surgeons
and physicians alike with no significant Galenist opposition.
Adefinite compromise had been reached in England in regard to this new
medicine. The occult aspects of Paracelsian theory were rejected, while the
new remedies were eagerIy accepted provided that they proved their worth.
This was the compromise position set forth by William CIO\ves and most other
surgeons. It is seen also in the London physician Stephen Bredwell who
fought the "pernicious impostures and sophistications" of the Paracelsians, but
who at the same time wanted to establish a chemicallectureship at the Royal
College of Physicians
90
. Another member of the College, Francis Herring, was
willing to commend Paracelsus as "a skilfull Chymicall writer and worker",
but, he continued,
88 Anon., ABriefe Discourse of the Hypostasis, or substance of the water of Spaw (tr. from
the French by G.T., London, c. 1600), 3
89 On the analyses to the Yorkshire spa at Knaresborough (Harrogate), see Michael
Stanhope, Newes out of York-Shire: Or, An Account of a Journey in the True Discovery of a
Souveraigne Minerall, MedicinaU Water, London, 1626,6; Michael Stanhope,
Gare or a Summons to aU Such Who Find Little or no helpe by the use of ordznary Physzck
to to the N ortherne Spaw, London, 1632, "To the Reader". For the tests at Bath see
Edward Jorden, A Discourse of NaturaU Bathes, and Minerall Waters, London,
16
3
1
, 73-6
90 John Gerarde The Herball or Generall Historie of Plantes, London, 1597, introductory
non-paginated leaf' entitled "To the weil affected Reader and peruser of this booke" by
Stephen Bredweil.
9
6 ALLEN G. DEBUS
I have often marvelled how any man of wisdome and modestie, seeing
the incredible insolencie and impudencie, the intolerable vanitie and
follie, the ridiculous and childish crakings and vantings of Paracelsus
should once commend him without noting his contrary vices, and giving
him a dash with a blacke coale0
1