Didier Kahn, Alchimie Et Paracelsisme En France (1567–1625) (Genève, Librarie Droz, 2007), Pp

Home , Paracelsianism, Paracelsus, Theatrum Chemicum

524 Book Reviews / Early Science and Medicine 13 (2008) 509-530

Didier Kahn, Alchimie et Paracelsisme en France (1567–1625) (Genève, Librarie Droz, 2007), pp. x+806, figs., table, bibls., indexes, €82.00, ISBN 978 2 600 00688 0.

The last three decades have witnessed a proliferation of studies devoted to the philosophical, medical and religious aspects of Paracelsianism, and to the Paracelsian movement in specific geographical contexts. Didier Kahn’s considerable research into alchemy and Paracelsianism in France has resulted in a scholarly work of great value. This lengthy volume (the first of a projected trilogy) deals with the place of alchemy and Paracelsianism on the book market and with the reception of Paracelsus’ works and ideas, paying special attention to the controversies between the academic establish- ment and the chemists. The two forthcoming volumes, as announced in the introduction, deal with patronage and alchemy, and with the relationships of alchemy to science, religion and literature. In the general introduction, the author tackles the vexed question of the signifi- cance of alchemy. By rejecting the symbolic and spiritual interpretation of alchemy, Kahn maintains that the latter is not to be seen as a single monolithic system, but as complex set of practice, theories, and philosophical views. The historian’s task is to locate texts and authors in their specific cultural contexts, so philology is an indispens- able tool in order to get rid of a number of clichés that had long affected the history of alchemy. Though the contribution of alchemy to the emergence of experimental chemistry cannot be denied, the relationship between experiments and theories in alchemy remains problematic. The author endorses Robert Halleux’s lucid interpretation of the role of experiments in alchemy. “L’experientia, c’est à dire la réalisation du procédé au laboratoire, a pour principale utilité de démontrer à l’opérateur qu’il a compris l’art. Mais si l’expérience échoue, il faut la recommencer. Car si la réussite du procédé confirme ‘expérimentalement’ la théorie, l’échec ne l’infirme jamais. On touche ici à la faiblesse majeure de l’expérience alchimique: réduite au rôle d’illustra tion de la théorie, elle ne tranche jamais de sa véracité. Les anciens ont raison quoi qu’il arrive au laboratoire.” ("Pratique de laboratoire et experience de pensee chez les alchimistes." in J.-F. Bergier (ed. ), Zwischen Wahn, Glaube und Wissenschaft [Zurich, 1988], 115-126; 120). Kahn does much to elucidate the relationship of Paracelsian- ism to alchemy, notably in late Renaissance France. It is well known that Paracelsus dismissed transmutational alchemy, but promoted medical alchemy as fundamental to the new medicine. He adopted significant aspects of medieval medical alchemy, notably the views of Roger Bacon, Arnald of Villanova and Johannes of Rupescissa, claiming that the aim of alchemy was the separation of the curative properties latent in natural substances, the pure from the impure, the useful from the useless. Paracel- sus’ followers did not share the master’s rejection of transmutational alchemy and pursued the preparation of both the universal medicine and the philosophers’ stone. This is apparent in the works of the early generation of Paracelsians, such as Gerard Dorn, Leonard Thurneisser, George Forberger, and Adam von Bodenstein. The diffusion of Paracelsian works occurred mainly after the death of the master (1541) and was promoted by his followers. Between 1527 and 1538, 28 works of

Paracelsus were published, whereas, in the six following decades, 192 editions of Paracelsus’ works saw the light. As Kahn points out, the so-called Paracelsian revival was largely the outcome of a distorted interpretation of his views: “le renouveau paracelsien se caractérise quant à lui, a partir de 1550, par la légende d’un Paracelse entièrement alchimiste, ayant su obtenir la pierre philosophale grâce à laquelle il a pu accomplir ses guérisons de maladies réputées incurables” (p. 597). The alliance between alchemy and Paracelsianism was beneficial to both, as an impressive amount of alchem- ical books was printed in the second half of the sixteenth century—mainly in the German states and in Switzerland. This process culminated in the publication of the famous Theatrum Chemicum (1602-1622). The Paracelsian revival reached France around 1567, when Jacques Gohory published his influential Compendium of Para- celsus’ medicine. In fact, Gohory’s work was much more than a synthesis of Paracelsus’ medicine: it dealt with alchemy, magic and philosophy. Gohory’s portrait of Paracel- sus followed the model created by the German and Swiss Paracelsians, namely that of a physician and experienced alchemist pursuing the prolongation of life. Gohory added something new to the representation of Paracelsus. He published Erasmus’ letter to Paracelsus in the preface to the Compendium in order to associate the Swiss iconoclast to the litterae humaniores. Furthermore, Gohory sought to reconcile Paracelsianism and Aristotelianism—a conciliatory position that was not isolated. It was also adopted by Johann Albrecht (De concordia Hippocraticorum et Paracelsistarum, 1569), by Win- ther von Andernach (De medicina veteri et nova, 1571) and later by Daniel Sennert (De chymicorum cum Aristotelicis et Galenicis consensu ac dissensu, 1619). Kahn gives a detailed account of the publication of Paracelsian (and anti-Paracelsian) works in the early 1570s—both in France and in Central Europe—paying special attention to the role played by printers, notably Pietro Perna, an Italian Protestant who settled in Basel, where he published a number of Latin translations of Paracelsus’ works. In the 1570s, Joseph Duchesne (Quercetanus), a Protestant physician, appeared on the scene and was to play a central part in the Paracelsian movement in France and in the rest of Europe. Despite the impact of his works, very little was known about him before Kahn took pain to investigate his life and his role in the Paracelsian debate thoroughly. In France, the reaction against chemical medicines and Paracelsianism started before Thomas Erastus’Disputationes (1571-3) provided the learned world with a storehouse of arguments against the new chemical medicine. In 1564, Loys de Launay of the Montpellier Faculty of Medicine published a work on antimony, which prompted Jacques Grévin’s reply in 1566, rejecting antimony as a poison. In 1566 the Parisian Medical Faculty, where Grévin was a reputed professor, decreed that antimony was a poison and could not be corrected. So its internal use was forbidden. Whereas in the debate on antimony Paracelsianism played but a marginal part, the trial of Roch le Baillif (1578-80) was aimed at preventing the diffusion of Paracelsianism in the medical world. Indeed, as Kahn convincingly argues, the Paracelsian medical heresy had already reached the Paris Medical Faculty, and this explains the Academic doctors’ ruthless attack on Roch le Baillif.