Delia Georgiana Hedesan ‘Christian Philosophy’: Medical Alchemy and Christian Thought in the Work of Jan Baptista Van Helmont (1579-1644) Submitted by Delia Georgiana Hedesan to the University of Exeter as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History in September 2012 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. Signature:………………………………………………………………………….. 1 Delia Georgiana Hedesan Abstract Today, the Flemish physician, alchemist and philosopher Jan Baptista Van Helmont (1579-1644) is mostly remembered as one of the founders of modern chemistry and medicine. However, Van Helmont saw himself rather differently: he firmly believed he had been called to articulate a ‘Christian Philosophy’ that would bring together Christian thought and natural philosophy in a harmonious synthesis. His ‘Christian Philosophy’ would be purged of the Aristotelian ‘heathenism’ he felt Scholasticism had been tainted with. Instead, it would convey a unitary view of God, Nature and Man that was in accord with Christian doctrine. The main purpose of this thesis is to understand how Van Helmont attempted to construct this new Christian Philosophy. The thesis will argue that the inspiration for this project lay in the medical alchemy developed by Theophrastus Paracelsus (1493- 1541) following medieval precedents. Paracelsus and many of his followers expressed the view that alchemy can act as the Christian key to Nature, and therefore an alliance of alchemical philosophy and Christianity was not only possible, but natural. Van Helmont concurred with this perspective, seeking to ground his Christian Philosophy in both orthodox Christian thought and medical alchemy. His religious ideas drew chiefly upon Biblical and Patristic sources as well as on German medieval mysticism. Van Helmont sought to complement this approach with an alchemical view that emphasised the hidden presence of God in Nature, as well as the role of the alchemist in unveiling this presence in the form of powerful medicine. Indeed, in Van Helmont’s thought Christianity and alchemy were dynamically entwined to such an extent that their discourses were not clearly separate. Van Helmont firmly believed the source of all things was God, and hence both the Book of Grace and the Book of Nature had their common origin in the light of the Holy Spirit. 2 Delia Georgiana Hedesan Table of Contents ‘Christian Philosophy’: Medical Alchemy and Christian Thought in the Work of Jan Baptista Van Helmont (1579-1644) ............................................................. 1 Abstract ................................................................................................................. 2 Table of Contents ................................................................................................. 3 General Introduction ........................................................................................... 6 Chapter 1: Scholarship on J.B. Van Helmont ................................................... 9 1.1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 9 1.2. Classical History of Science Views of Van Helmont (c. 1900–1970) ............. 10 1.3. Paul Nève de Mévergnies, Jean Baptiste Van Helmont, Philosophe par le Feu (1935)………………………………………………………………………………..13 1.4. Walter Pagel, ‘Some Religious and Philosophical Aspects of Van Helmont’s Science and Medicine’ (1944) .................................................................................... 16 1.5. Allen G. Debus, The Chemical Philosophy (1977, reprinted 2002) ................ 18 1.6. Walter Pagel, Joan Baptista Van Helmont, Reformer of Science and Medicine (1982). ........................................................................................................................ 21 1.7. Robert Halleux, ‘Helmontiana’ (articles between 1979-2004) ........................ 26 1.8. Berthold Heinecke, Mystik und Wissenschaft bei Johann Baptista Van Helmont (1579-1644) (1995) .................................................................................................... 27 1.9. Guido Giglioni: Immaginazione e Malattia – Saggio su Jan Baptista Van Helmont (2000) ........................................................................................................... 31 1.10. Other Articles on Van Helmont’s Thought .................................................. 33 1.10.1 Norma Emerton’s ‘Creation in the Thought of J.B. Van Helmont and Fludd’ (1994) ............................................................................................................................................. 33 1.10.2. William Newman, ‘Corpuscular Theory in J.B. Van Helmont and its Medieval Sources’ (1993) ................................................................................................................... 35 1.11. The Contribution of Scholarship on ‘Helmontianism’ ................................. 36 1.11.1. William Newman and Lawrence Principe, Alchemy Tried in the Fire (2002) ........ 37 1.12. Conclusion .................................................................................................... 38 Chapter 2: The Background to Van Helmont’s Ideas .................................... 41 2.1. The Intellectual Landscape in Van Helmont’s Time (1550 – 1650) ............... 41 2.1.1. The Historical Situation in the Low Countries (1550 – 1650) .................................. 42 2.1.2. The Religious Background ........................................................................................ 45 2.1.3. Natural Philosophy: the Downfall of Scholasticism and the Rise of New Philosophies ............................................................................................................................................. 52 2.1.4. Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 61 2.2. Jan Baptista Van Helmont’s Life and Works .................................................. 62 2.2.1. Van Helmont’s Life .................................................................................................... 62 2.2.2. Van Helmont’s Works and his Project of ‘Christian Philosophy’ ............................ 88 2.3. Conclusions .................................................................................................... 104 Chapter 3: The Christian Alchemical Influences on J.B. Van Helmont’s ‘Christian Philosophy’ ....................................................................................................... 106 3.1. Prisca Sapientia: the ‘Hermetic School’, the ‘Adepts’ and the ‘Cabala’ ...... 107 3.2. The Influence of Paracelsus and his Astronomia magna (1537/8) ................ 114 3.3. Petrus Severinus’s Influence .......................................................................... 117 3.4. Oswald Croll’s Influence ............................................................................... 119 3 Delia Georgiana Hedesan 3.5. Joseph Du Chesne .......................................................................................... 122 3.6. ‘The Waterstone of the Wise’ and Paracelsian Christian Alchemy ............... 124 3.7. The Influence of Christian Medieval Alchemy ............................................. 126 3.8. Conclusions .................................................................................................... 133 Chapter 4: Themes of Helmontian Thought ................................................. 135 4.1 On God ........................................................................................ 136 4.1.1. Apophatic & Cataphatic Theology ............................................................. 137 4.1.2. Voluntarist Theology.................................................................................. 141 4.1.3. God in Nature ............................................................................................. 145 4.1.3.1. Panentheism .................................................................................................. 145 4.1.3.2. Christ’s Role in Creation .............................................................................. 152 4.1.4. God in Man................................................................................................. 156 4.1.4.1. God as Father................................................................................................ 156 4.1.4.2. Christ as Saviour ........................................................................................... 159 4.1.4.3. Alchemy and Christian Theology .................................................................. 165 4.1.4.4. Christ as Wisdom .......................................................................................... 168 4.1.4.5. The Role of the Holy Spirit ............................................................................ 170 4.1.5. Conclusion: The Innerness of God ............................................................. 171 4.2. On Nature .................................................................................................. 173 4.2.1. Van Helmont’s View of Nature ................................................................. 174 4.2.1.1. A Voluntarist Definition of Nature ................................................................ 174 4.2.1.2. Universal Harmony in Nature ....................................................................... 177 4.2.1.3. Dualism of Matter and Principle................................................................... 179 4.2.1.4. The Criticism of Aristotelian Causes............................................................. 182 4.2.2. Physical Nature .......................................................................................... 186 4.2.2.1. Genesis and the Elements .............................................................................. 186 4.2.2.2. The Element of Water .................................................................................... 193 4.2.2.3. The Element of Air ......................................................................................... 196 4.2.2.4. Van Helmont’s Elements and Alchemy ......................................................... 198 4.2.2.5. The Tria Prima: Critique and Use ................................................................ 199 4.2.3. Spiritual Nature .......................................................................................... 206 4.2.3.1. The Quiddity of Fire ...................................................................................... 206 4.2.3.2. The Formal or Vital Lights ............................................................................ 209 4.2.3.3. Semina ........................................................................................................... 218 4.2.3.4. Ferments, the Rationes Seminales ................................................................. 222 4.2.3.5. The Archeus ................................................................................................... 228 4.2.3.6. Gas ................................................................................................................ 234 4.2.3.7. Magnale ......................................................................................................... 240 4.2.3.8. Blas ................................................................................................................ 243 4.2.4. Conclusions ................................................................................................ 247 4.3. Man .............................................................................................. 249 4.3.1. Four Themes on Man ................................................................................. 250 4.3.1.1. Man as Imago Dei ......................................................................................... 250 4.3.1.2. Inner and Outer Man ..................................................................................... 254 4.3.1.3. Man’s Sacred History: From Original Sin to Regeneration ......................... 259 4.3.1.4. Scientia or the Possibility of Knowledge ....................................................... 262 4.3.2. Duumvirate: the Structure of the Soul........................................................ 265 4.3.2.1. The Mind ....................................................................................................... 265 4.3.2.2. Sensitive Soul................................................................................................. 271 4 Delia Georgiana Hedesan 4.3.3. Mystical Knowledge .................................................................................. 276 4.3.3.1. Mystical Knowledge of the Mind ................................................................... 277 4.3.3.2. The Mystical Knowledge of Nature ............................................................... 285 4.3.3.3. Prophecy........................................................................................................ 289 4.3.4. The Sacred Art of Medical Alchemy ......................................................... 293 4.3.4.1. Christian Charity and Medicine .................................................................... 293 4.3.4.2. Alchemical Medicine ..................................................................................... 296 4.3.4.3. Drif or Lapillus, the Universal Medicine ...................................................... 298 4.3.4.4. The Philosophers’ Stone and Chrysopoeia ................................................... 302 4.3.4.5. The Arbor Vitae and the Alchemical Prolongation of Life............................ 304 4.3.5. Conclusion .................................................................................................. 307 Chapter 5: Conclusions ................................................................................... 309 5.1. The Essence of Van Helmont’s Christian Philosophy ...................................... 309 5.2. Final Considerations and Legacy ...................................................................... 318 Bibliography ..................................................................................................... 322 1. Primary Sources ............................................................................ 322 2. Secondary Sources ......................................................................... 327 5 Delia Georgiana Hedesan General Introduction In his posthumous Ortus medicinae (1648), the Flemish philosopher, physician and alchemist Jan Baptista Van Helmont (1579-1644)1 talked on several occasions about the ‘Christian Philosophy’ he was trying to formulate in his work.2 Thus, in the treatise ‘The Birth or Originall of Forms’ (‘Ortus formarum’), he affirms that his theory that forms are infused directly by God is dictated by ‘Christian Philosophy’.3 Later, in chap. 23, ‘Nature is Ignorant of Contraries’ (‘Natura contrariorum nescia’), he similarly claims that, according to ‘Christian Philosophy’, the semina always obey ends known to and directed by God.4 In the next chapter, ‘The Blas of Man’ (‘Blas humanum’), Van Helmont condemns the Aristotelian theory of the unmovable mover as incongruent with ‘Christian Philosophy’.5 In a similar vein, in chap. 91, ‘The Entrance of Death into Humane Nature is the Grace of Virgins’ (‘Mortus introitus in naturam humanam decus virginum’), he argues that Christian Philosophy rejects the Aristotelian concept of final cause.6 It is evident from these quotations that the concept of ‘Christian Philosophy’ is essential to Van Helmont’s worldview, and that it is strongly intertwined with his argument in the Ortus. This study is dedicated to investigating the ideas contained in his framework of ‘Christian Philosophy’. As the title of the thesis suggests, these can be 1 There is no general accepted spelling of Van Helmont’s name. In respect to his first names, some scholars have used the French ‘Jean-Baptiste’, others the Latin ‘Johannes Baptista’; Walter Pagel and J.R. Partington preferred ‘Joan Baptista’. I have employed ‘Jan Baptista’, which is in line with the Flemish origins of the philosopher. In regards to the last name, both ‘van Helmont’ and ‘Van Helmont’ have been used in scholarship. I have adopted the latter spelling which seems relatively more common, for instance Pagel, Halleux and Ducheyne. It must be noted, for the sake of historical accuracy, that Van Helmont did not call himself ‘van’ at all, but ‘de’ in the French style; his letters are signed ‘J.B. de Helmont’ or ‘J.B.D.H.’. However, given the widespread usage of ‘Van’, I thought it was probably advisable not to change this familiar reference. 2 Jan Baptista Van Helmont, Ortus medicinae, id est, Initia physicae inaudita: Progressus medicinae novus in morborum ultionem ad vitam longam (Amsterdam: Ludovic Elzevir, 1648). For the purposes of chapter titles, quotation and page references, I have referred to the English version of the Ortus, Oriatrike or Physick Refined: the Common Errors Therein Refuted and the Whole are Reformed and Rectified, trans. by John Chandler (London: Lodowick Lloyd, 1662). However, since the translation suffers from deficiencies, I included in the footnotes the page references to the edited Latin version of 1652: Ortus medicinae, id est, Initia physicae inaudita: Progressus medicinae novus in morborum ultionem ad vitam longam (Amsterdam: Ludovic Elzevir, 1652), accompanied where appropriate with the original Latin quotation. 3 Van Helmont, chap. 21, ‘The Birth or Originall of Forms’, p. 133, ‘Ortus formarum’, p. 108. 4 Van Helmont, chap. 23, ‘Nature is Ignorant of Contraries’, p. 164, ‘Natura contrariorum nescia’, p. 134. 5 Van Helmont, chap. 24, ‘The Blas of Man’, p. 177, ‘Blas humanum’, p. 145. 6 Van Helmont, chap. 91, ‘The Enterance of Death into Humane Nature is the Grace of Virgins’, p. 648, ‘Mortis introitus naturam humanam decus virginum’, p.513. 6 Delia Georgiana Hedesan roughly subsumed into two main areas: Christian thought and Medical Alchemy. Both terms require brief explanation. Van Helmont’s writings reveal a profoundly devout man, whose faith cannot truly be questioned. His was a religiosity that went beyond private belief; it was imbued in the very substance of his speculations, whether on Man, God, Nature or medicine. Hence this study proposes to analyse Van Helmont’s Christian ideas in the context of his philosophy. The term ‘Christian thought’ encompasses not only Van Helmont’s theology, but also his mystical practices, specific attitudes toward the natural world and theories about the divine status of the physician. While infused with Christian ideas, Van Helmont’s views are also deeply imbued with a philosophy inspired by medical alchemy.7 As is well known, Van Helmont was associated with the medical school of Theophrastus Paracelsus (1493- 1541), even though he later moved away from it. This study will show that many influences on his thought stem from the speculation existing within the Paracelsian current. At the same time, the term ‘medical alchemy’ seemed more appropriate for Van Helmont’s interests than ‘Paracelsianism’. This is particularly so since Van Helmont was strongly attracted to medieval alchemy and was critical of Paracelsus on numerous occasions. The term ‘medical alchemy’ must also be taken to imply a strong philosophical component. For Paracelsians, alchemy was more than a practice, or technē; it was a well-contoured ‘alchemical philosophy’, a scientia that included both a theory and a practical side.8 This view was fully embraced by Van Helmont, who called himself ‘philosopher by fire’ (philosophus per ignem) as well as adept of the ‘Art of the Fire’ (Pyrotechnia). These two terms, ‘medical alchemy’ and ‘Christian thought’ are hence key elements that comprise the framework of Van Helmont’s ‘Christian Philosophy’. Yet the composite term ‘Christian Philosophy’ seems to require further explanation. Unfortunately, despite using it rather extensively, Van Helmont did not offer any definition of the concept. Felicitously, the term ‘Christian Philosophy’ carries a level of 7 By ‘medical alchemy’ I am referring to a wide variety of ideas and practices related to the use of alchemical products or processes for medical purposes. I am subsuming within this framework such terms as spagyrics, chemiatria (or chymiatria), medical chymistry, iatrochemistry etc. Van Helmont tended to refer to this field as ‘spagyria’ or ‘chymia’. 8 This was already recognised by the ground-breaking work of Allen Debus, The Chemical Philosophy: Paracelsian Science and Medicine in the 16th and 17th Centuries, 2nd edition (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 2002). Students of Paracelsianism and medical alchemy owe Debus a debt of gratitude for reconstructing the late sixteenth- and seventeenth-century current for the modern world. At the same time, as I will further note, recognition of the important philosophical and theological contributions of Paracelsians now demands that their ideas be investigated beyond the modern framework of chemistry and medicine. 7 Delia Georgiana Hedesan intelligibility in itself. The juxtaposition of ‘Christian’ and ‘philosophy’implies that Christian thought can be reconciled and compatible with philosophy.9 Undoubtedly, Van Helmont was aware that Christian thinkers since the time of St Paul, St Augustine (354-430) and Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (fl 400-500) had attempted to reconcile Christian faith with Greek thought; closer to his times, this synthesis had been carried out by St Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) and the Scholastic movement of the Middle Ages.10 However, in the era of the Renaissance, Scholasticism was no longer as popular as it used to be, and new perspectives were sought out. Perhaps one of the most promising alternatives that emerged in the early modern period was alchemical philosophy, which already had a tradition of merging alchemical theory and practice with Christian belief.11 Following in medieval footsteps, Paracelsus and his followers developed their own versions of a religiously grounded natural philosophy in which alchemy was seen as the natural theoretical and practical foundation. The history of this endeavour is yet to be written. In his turn, Van Helmont followed the path laid out by other alchemical philosophers and Paracelsians to affirm the profound complementarity of Christianity and alchemy. Yet raising alchemical thought to the status of Aristotelian philosophy required profound insight and analysis of the natural world. In his undertaking Van Helmont could partially rely on previous Paracelsians. On the other hand, it also required thorough knowledge of Christian sources and philosophical debates, as well as an all-encompassing and coherent vision that could rival, at least to some extent, the authority of Aristotle. The main purpose of the study, then, is to understand how Van Helmont attempted to construct this new Christian Philosophy as a synthesis that could rival and even replace Scholasticism. I will try to equally disentangle, in the best possible manner, the ways alchemy and Christian thought interacted in his mind. It is one of the contentions of this study that religion and alchemy were dynamically entwined in his thought to such extent that their discourses were not clearly separate. This juxtaposition 9 It must be clarified from the start that I am not drawing here on the modern definition of ‘Christian Philosophy’; instead, I am investigating what Van Helmont thought a ‘Christian Philosophy’ was. On the topic of ‘Christian Philosophy’ as a modern scholarly construct, see the useful review of Jorge J.E. Garcia, ‘Does Philosophy Tolerate Christening? Thomas Aquinas and the Notion of Christian Philosophy’, in Philosophy of Religion for a New Century: Essays in Honor of Eugene Thomas Long, ed. by Jeremiah Hackett and Jerald Vallulis (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2004), pp. 37-63 (especially 37-41). As Garcia points out, the modern concept was introduced chiefly by the historian Etienne Gilson and his mostly Catholic Thomist supporters. 10 Hence Etienne Gilson’s branding of Thomism as ‘Christian Philosophy’, despite the fact that St Thomas never called it by that name; see Garcia, ‘Does Philosophy Tolerate Christening?’, in Philosophy of Religion, ed. by Jeremiah Hackett and Jerald Vallulis, p. 38. 11 This is further explored in chapter 3. 8 Delia Georgiana Hedesan originated from a belief that the source of all knowledge (scientia) was God, and hence both the Book of Grace and the Book of Nature were intimately related, being inspired by the Holy Spirit. Chapter 1: Scholarship on J.B. Van Helmont 1.1. Introduction An overview of scholarly work on Van Helmont shows that it has been drawn almost exclusively from the field of history of science, particularly biology, medicine and chemistry. Consequently, most contributions have been intent on illuminating some aspect of Van Helmont’s approach to science or his unclear standing in respect to the paradigm of the Scientific Revolution. However, in the past few decades the positivistic tone of the history of science has diminished, leaving room for more nuanced and historically sensitive approaches to the work of Van Helmont. This is also due to the fact that the grand narrative of the Scientific Revolution has itself come under question, even though it has by no means gone away.12 For the purpose of this literature review, I have focussed on those post-1900 works that have made a significant contribution to the understanding of Van Helmont’s work. Particular attention has been paid to monographs, and in particular the landmark book of Walter Pagel, Joan Baptista Van Helmont: Reformer of Science and Medicine (1982). My main criterion of selection has been to identify those scholarly works that have enlarged our comprehension of the substance of the Helmontian opus. Hence I have dropped, in the interest of scope and space, the typical encyclopaedia entry on Van Helmont, with the exception of the fundamental one of J. R. Partington. I have also omitted those works where discussion of Van Helmont had a too narrow a focus; however, I have touched on such specific contributions elsewhere in the body of my analysis, where the scope of the study granted it. 12 For a discussion of the Scientific Revolution and the questioning of the paradigm, see Rethinking the Scientific Revolution, ed. by Margaret Osler (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), particularly the pro- argument of Richard S. Westfall, ‘The Scientific Revolution Reasserted’ (pp. 41-59) and the counter-argument of Betty Jo T. Dobbs, ‘Newton as Final Cause and First Mover’ (pp. 25-41). The ambiguity of modern scholars in relationship with the grand narrative is well summed up by Steven Shapin who begins his aptly titled book The Scientific Revolution (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996), p. 1 with the affirmation: ‘There was no such thing as the Scientific Revolution, and this is a book about it.’ 9 Delia Georgiana Hedesan Before proceeding with the analysis, it is important to acknowledge that the beginnings of modern scholarship on Van Helmont are intimately tied with the nationalist concerns of Belgian intellectuals in the second part of the nineteenth century. A number of distinguished Belgian scholars were involved in the attempt to revive Van Helmont for the modern world. Their most important contributions were to carry out detailed research into the life of Van Helmont and to publish some of his manuscripts resting in the Archives of the Archbishopric of Mechelen (Malines).13 1.2. Classical History of Science Views of Van Helmont (c. 1900–1970) The classical history of science approach was positivistic, taking modern science as the standard of truth and judging previous ideas and figures in comparison to it. Invariably, the same historical characters emerged as heroes (in the seventeenth century chiefly Galileo, Descartes, Newton and Boyle), while others had to be content with being second or third tier ‘scientists’, if not cast out as ‘pseudo-scientists’, ‘quacks’, ‘fanatics’, ‘fools’ or worse.14 Few in the seventeenth century were more suspect than the Paracelsians, whose ideas of natural philosophy appeared strange or dubious in comparison with modern science. Amongst the suspect Paracelsian followers, however, Van Helmont usually occupied an enviable position, since his ideas were deemed less ‘occult’ than those of others. As James R. Partington observed in his painstaking survey of the history of medicine and science, references to Van Helmont between 1710 and 1950 tended to be positive, although rarely enthusiastic.15 Of course, Van Helmont’s ideas could not match those of the accepted heroes of the Scientific Revolution, but when contrasted with Paracelsus the Flemish thinker always emerged as the more ‘scientific’ man. Thus the chief editor of Van Helmont’s unpublished works, Corneille Broeckx, affirmed that 13 Corneille Broeckx, ‘Notice sur le manuscrit Causa J. B. Helmontii, déposé aux archives archiépiscopales de Malines,’ Annales de l’Académie d'archéologie de Belgique, 9 (1852), 277-327 & 341-367 and subsequent publications; Henri Masson, ‘Essai sur la vie et les ouvrages de Jean-Baptiste van Helmont,’ Revue Trimestrielle, 17 (1858), 5-33; G. Desmarez, ‘L'État civil de J.-B. Van Helmont,’ Annales de la societé d'archéologie de Bruxelles, 21 (1907), 107-123, A. J. J. Van de Velde, ‘Helmontiana,’ Verslagen en mededeelingen der Koninklijke Vlaamsche Academie voor Taalen Letterkunde, 1929, 453-476, 715-737, 857-879 & 1932, 109-122. 14 As an anecdote, the nineteenth-century biographer David Brewster described the alchemical writings found in Newton’s collection as the products of ‘fools’ and ‘knaves’; Memoirs of the Life, Writings, and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: 1855), II, 374–375. 15 J.R. Partington, A History of Chemistry, 4 vols (London: Macmillan, 1961), II, 209-242 (p. 209). 10