The intellectual and social declines of alchemy and astrology, circa 1650-1720 John Clements PhD University of York History December 2017 Abstract: By the early decades of the eighteenth century alchemy and astrology had ceased to be considered respectable or credible by elite society. Astrology had been removed from university curricula, while alchemy largely ceased to be publicly practised by the educated and respected and became regarded by those of elite status to be little more than a tool for charlatans or quacks. This thesis draws out these twin declines and considers them in parallel, focusing on trying to analyse what changed intellectually and socially within England to so dramatically alter the fates of these arts. There is a scholarly tradition which has discussed the declines of alchemy and astrology as part of a broader notion of a decline in ‘occult practices’ or ‘magic’, an idea which is often twinned with the wider notion of a ‘rise of science’. This thesis will therefore consider alchemy and astrology as connected arts, which nevertheless possessed separate identities, and then analyse these arts’ declines alongside each other. Through this process it will explore to what degree and in what ways one can describe the declines of these arts as part of one unified trend, or if one needs to interpret these declines as purely grounded in their own unique circumstances. By utilising the works of alchemical and astrological practitioners and placing the decline of these arts in a longer historical context this thesis studies what those who practised the arts considered to be their core conceptual components and will therefore analyse how these elements were changed or challenged by intellectual developments that occurred in the second half of the seventeenth century. This is coupled with a wider analysis of academic and literary works which discussed these arts, which will be used to consider their social positions and how the events across the period in question affected and shaped perceptions of alchemy and astrology and their acceptability to early modern people. Page: 2 Contents: Abstract 2 Contents 3 Decleration 4 Introduction: 5 Chapter 1: Historiography of these arts’ declines: 23 Chapter 2: Key alchemical and astrological works of the seventeenth century: 50 Chapter 3: Key alchemical and astrological works of the early eighteenth century: 99 Chapter 4: Links between alchemy, astrology, and other occult practices: 128 Chapter 5: Wider social, literary and satirical treatments of these arts: 172 Conclusion 212 Bibliography 232 Page: 3 Declaration I declare that this thesis is a presentation of original work and I am the sole author. This work has not previously been presented for an award at this, or any other, University. All sources are acknowledged as References. Page: 4 Introduction: Between 1644 and 1666 William Lilly, the most prominent English astrologer of the seventeenth century, had a business in the Strand, London. From his case books we can ascertain that he served in the region of 2000 clients (a fair number of whom were servants, but this number also included a sizable contingent of members of the gentry and members of the aristocracy), and made the sizable sum of £500 each year1. During a similar period, Lilly published an almanac that at its height saw 30,000 copies being sold each year. But if Lilly during these years was the most prominent astrologer in England, he was far from the only practitioner of astrology seeing thousands of clients and maintaining a very visible profile as a public practitioner. Others, such as John Gadbury, at his most astrologically active between about 1648-1690, and John Partridge, also active across the second half of the seventeenth century, provided varied astrological services to a considerable number of people2. During these years astrology was also a central component of certain university curricula to the degree that astrology and astronomy were often not far from interchangeable in those curricula, and the art also continued to maintain an important place within syllabuses teaching the art of the physician3. There is also evidence that even in the 1660s to 1680s, when astrology suffered from a reputation for causing political trouble due to the position Lilly and others had as proponents of the parliamentary cause during the Civil War and Interregnum4, it was still publicly regarded as a useful and was utilised by well-regarded individuals and even members of the Royal Society such as John Aubrey and John Webster5. 1 Derek Parker, Familiar to all: William Lilly and astrology in the seventeenth century, (London, 1975), pp.117-129, where the nature of Lilly’s clientele and the services he offered to them such as the drawing up of nativities and the dealing with questions of health are considered in some detail. 2 Paul Kleber Monod, Solomon's secret arts: the occult in the age of Enlightenment, (New Haven and London, 2013), pp.55-60, which considers both the details of the practice of both men, such as Gadbury’s speciality in cases concerning witchcraft, and the conflicts and feuds that emerged between these two practitioners, conflicts that this thesis argues played a small role in astrology’s inability to adapt to the challenges that faced it. 3 Steven Vanden Broecke, The limits of influence: Pico, Louvain, and the crisis of renaissance astrology, (Boston, 2003), which traces from the medieval period the presence of astrology in university courses related to the practice of medicine. 4Patrick Curry, ‘Astrology in early modern England, The making of vulgar knowledge’, in Stephen Pumfrey, Paolo L. Rossi, and Maurice Slainski (eds.), Science culture, and popular belief in Renaissance Europe, (Manchester, 1991). 5 Patrick Curry, Prophecy and power, astrology in early modern England, (Cambridge, 1989), p.59, where Curry details the statements of these two founding members of the society supporting astrology. Elias Ashmole, another member of the society, was a practising astrologer, and a keen advocate of the art. However, it does need to be noted (as Curry does), that the Royal Society itself Page: 5 While never possessing the public profile of astrology, alchemy during the years of 1650- 1680 showed signs of being very intellectually active, with there being more evidence of alchemical work being done, and alchemical treatises being published in these years than at any other time6. There is also evidence of alchemy being respected by influential figures during these years. When Charles II returned from exile he was accompanied by Nicholas Le Fèvre, a practising alchemist7, and recent scholarship has demonstrated the serious and thoughtful interest both Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton had in the alchemical arts8. Thus while compelling evidence can be presented demonstrating that the positions of both arts were in some ways quite problematic, it is clear enough that in 1650 and the years immediately following astrology and alchemy were thriving and were respected by a significant number of educated and socially important individuals. By 1700-1720 this had ceased to be the case. It is impossible to state categorically what people believed during these two decades, and there is evidence that during these years a fair number of educated people still had some respect at the very least for the art of astrology9. Yet it is demonstrable that by 1720 neither of these arts was favourably regarded in elite public spheres in a manner that was in anyway comparable with their status in 1650. The number of alchemical tracts published by authors under their own names had been dropping since the 1680s, and by the early eighteenth-century even those well-regarded individuals, such as Newton, who were still interested in the art of alchemy, did not feel able to acknowledge this interest publicly10. It is also clear that by 1720 cannot be viewed as generally supportive of astrology. Indeed, certain prominent works linked to the society, particularly Thomas Sprat’s A History of the Royal Society (London, 1667), were entirely hostile to judicial astrology, and can hardly be said to have been positively inclined to the art as a whole. 6 Lawrence M. Principe, Chymists and chymistry: Studies in the history of alchemy and early modern chemistry, (Sagamore Beach, 2007). 7 J. Andrew Mendelsohn, ‘Alchemy and politics in England 1649-1665’, Past & Present, 135 (May, 1992), pp. 30-78. 8 For Newton see: Patricia Fara, Newton: the making of genius, (London 2002), p.XV, which argues that Newton: ‘wrote far more on alchemy, theology and ancient chronology than on either gravity or optics’. There has also been recent evidence that indicates that Newton’s interest in alchemy was much longer lived that previously indicated. In the past it has been alleged that Newton’s interest in the art waned after his move to London in 1692, however his later correspondence with the alchemist William Yworth now throws this assertion very much into doubt. For Boyle see: Lawrence M. Principe, The aspiring adept, Robert Boyle, and his alchemical quest (Princeton, 1998). 9 For a case that is indicative of this see that of John Flamsteed, who wrote extensively regarding the failures of astrology yet still made use of the art when deciding when the first stone should be laid in Royal Greenwich Hospital: as discussed in Frances Willmoth (ed.), Flamsteed's stars: new perspectives on the life and work of the first Astronomer Royal, 1646-1719, (London, 1999). 10The issue of the very private way Newton practised alchemy later in his life as opposed to his earlier efforts is considered in: Karin Figala, and Ulrich Petzold, ‘Alchemy in Newtonian circles, Page: 6 alchemy had become widely synonymous in literary works with trickery: for example after the collapse of the South Sea Bubble in 1720 a common metaphor used for those who falsely claimed to be able to conjure wealth out of nothing was a comparison with the art of alchemy11.