This article was downloaded by: [New York University]

On: 20 June 2015, At: 09:36

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Annals of Science
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tasc20

Fire analysis and the elements in the

sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries
a
Allen G. Debus B.S. A.M. Ph.D.
a
Department of History , University of Chicago
Published online: 02 Jun 2006.

To cite this article: Allen G. Debus B.S. A.M. Ph.D. (1967) Fire analysis and the elements
in the sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries, Annals of Science, 23:2, 127-147, DOI:
10.1080/00033796700203246

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00033796700203246

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 F i r e A n a l y s i s a n d the E l e m e n t s i n the 16th a n d 17th Centuries 127

FIRE ANALYSIS AND THE ELEMENTS IN THE SIXTEENTH

AND THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURIES

B y A L L E N G. DEBUS, B . S . , A.M., P h . D . *

T~E rise of modern chemistry has been dependent upon the development
of effective methods of chemical analysis. For this reason considerable
attention has been focused on the investigation of spa waters by Renais-
sance physicians and the assay procedures of contemporary metMlurgists, i
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:36 20 June 2015

Both of these traditions, stemming originally from practical needs, were

t o b e c o m e p a r t o f c h e m i c a l a n a l y t i c a l p r o c e d u r e in t h e c o u r s e o f t h e
s e v e n t e e n t h c e n t u r y . W e find, n e v e r t h e l e s s , t h a t t h e a n a l y t i c a l p r o b l e m
of greatest concern to most sixteenth- and seventeenth- century theoretical
a l c h e m i s t s a n d i a t r o e h e m i s t s w a s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e s e a r c h for t h e
Aristotelian elements and the Paraeelsian principles. This was not an
i n s i g n i f i c a n t p r o b l e m , for on t h e s e s y s t e m s o f e l e m e n t a r y m a t t e r w e r e b a s e d
the Aristotelian and ehemieal eosmologies. 2 In this quest neither the
tomes on mining technology nor the tracts on mineral-wster spas seemed
helpful to the Renaissance chemists. Rather, recourse was had most
often to the traditional alchemical method of separation--the application
of heat either through burning or distillation. The purpose of the present
p a p e r is t o d i s c u s s t h e w i d e r a n g e o f v i e w s e x p r e s s e d in t h e c h e m i c a l
l i t e r a t u r e c o n c e r n i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o f fire a n a l y s i s in t h e s e t w o c e n t u r i e s .
* Associate Professor, Department of History, University of Chicago; for the session
1966-67 Overseas Fellow, Churchill College, Cambridge. This paper was prepared during
the tenure of a Guggenheim Fellowship and with a research grant from the National
Institutes of Health.
1A. G. Debus, 'Solution Analyses Prior to l~obert Boyle,' Chymia, 1962, 8, 41-62.
Gernot Rath, ' Die MinerMquellenanalyse im 17. Jahrhundert,' Sudhoffs Archly, 1957, 41,
1-9; ' Die Anf~.nge der MineralquellenanMyse,' 2gedizinisehe Monatsschr@, 1949, 3~ 539-41.
Cyril Stanley Smith and t¢. J. Forbes, ' Metallurgy and Assaying,' in A History of Techno-
logy, ed. by Charles Singer, E. J. I-Iolmyard, A. t~. Hail and T. I. Williams, vol. iii, New
York/London, Oxford U.P., 1957, p. 59. The reader is also directed 4o ghe critical int.ro-
due~ions and notes of the English translations of Agdeola, Biringueeio, Ereker and the
Bergwerlc- und Probierbi'~ehlein. A discussion of this literature will be found in A. G. Debus,
' The Significance of Early Chemistry,' Cahiers d'Histoire Mondiale, 1965, 9, 39-58.
2 The significance of the elements has been pointed out recently in Walter Bagel's
Paracelsus: An Introduction to Philosophical Medicine in the Era of the Renaissance (Basel,
~arger, 1958) and his Das Medizinisehe Weltbild des Paracelsus, seine Zusammenhdnge mit
Neuplatonismus und Gnosis (Wiesbaden, Franz Steiner Verlag, 1962). The present author
has discussed the problem in The English Paraeelsians (London, Oldbourne Press, 1965,
and New York, Franklin Watts, 1966) and in ' Renaissance Chemistry and the Work of
l~obert Fludd ' in Alchemy and Chemistry in the Seventeenth Century, Papers read by Allen
G. Debus and l~obert B. Multhauf at a Clark Library Seminar, 12 March, 1966 (Willima
Andrews Clark Memorial Library, U.C.L.A., 1966).
 128 A . G . Debus on

An increased questioning of this method of analysis will be shown as an

important source for our understanding of l~obert Boyle's Sceptical
Chymist. At the same time, a study of the reasons why m a n y chemists
found it difficult to reject fire-analysis may help to explain why this
debate had not yet been resolved by the end of this period.

The significance of element-theory in the renaissance

I t has often been pointed out t h a t Aristotelian physics depended on a
tightly knit geocentric cosmology in which the four elements played a
central role as the inner core, the sublunary world. The new physics
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:36 20 June 2015

associated with the heliocentric system contributed to the abandonment

of this cosmology. A second factor of significance in this change was the
contemporary attack on the ancient elements by the chemists of the
Renaissance. Their rejection of Greek authority and their acceptance
of a second system of elementary matter could only contribute to the
eventual collapse of the ancient concept of the universe. Yet, there is a
real difference between the outcome of the two conflicts That they both
weakened the belief in the infallibility of the ancients cannot be denied,
but a new physics of motion based on a moving earth was successfully
developed during the course of the seventeenth century. In contrast,
the conflicting claims of the Aristotelians and the Paraeelsians over the
validity of their respective element-systems was not successfully resolved.
I f the one development culminated in the Principia Mathematica, the
other--in the eyes of most scholars--seems to have lead only to anarchy
and confusion.
Much of the latter problem may be traced to inconsistencies in the
writings of Paracelsus and his followers. The Paracelsians combined a
deep belief in Christian neo-Platonic mysticism with a passion for new
observations and experiments, a For them the Aristotelian-GMenic
corpus represented a heathen or, at best, a heretical literature that must
be avoided by all God-fearing men. Accordingly they connected their
beliefs with a long line of alchemical sages and Old Testament Prophets
and they founded their philosophy on the Mosaic account of the Creation. 4
To this they gave a chemical interpretation. The Lord God was pictured
as the ' Great Artificer ' who had created all things from the prime matter
in a divine alchemical separation. And since the Creation itself was
thought to have been essentially a chemical process, the Paracelsians felt
entitled to interpret all natural phenomena in this fashion. This was
8 The best a c c o u n t of the t h o u g h t of Paracelsus will be f o u n d in W a l t e r Pagel's
Paracelsus. The reader is also referred to the first c h a p t e r of the p r e s e n t a u t h o r ' s English
Paracelslans, pp. 13-48.
a F o r a n example of an alchemical history, see the p r e s e n t a u t h o r ' s ' A n E l i z a b e t h a n
H i s t o r y of Medical Chemistry,' Ann. Sci., 1962, 18, 1-29.
 Fire Analysis and the Elements in the 16th and 17th Centuries 129

t h e i r universal ' C h e m i c a l P h i l o s o p h y ', to which R o b e r t B o y l e r e a c t e d

w i t h alarm.
I n this a p p r o a c h to nature, which is outlined in the Paracelsian work,
The Philosophy to the Athenians, t h e four Aristotelian elements p l a y a
f u n d a m e n t a l role since t h e y are t h e first p r o d u c t of t h e divine alchemical
separation. ~ All m o r e complex f o r m s of m a t t e r are clearly d e p e n d e n t on
t h e m . l~enaissance Aristotelians a n d Galenists generally spoke of earth,
water, air a n d fire as m a t e r i a l substances, each of which was associated
with two of the four qualities: hot, cold, moist, a n d dry. I t was a s y s t e m
of g r e a t a n t i q u i t y which h a d been e x t e n d e d to cosmological a n d p h y s i o -
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:36 20 June 2015

logical as well as chemical problems. Paracelsus in his a t t a c k on a n c i e n t

t h o u g h t h a d no desire to dispose of these t r a d i t i o n a l elements. B u t for
h i m t h e y were generally considered to be spiritual in n a t u r e a n d only crude
a p p r o x i m a t i o n s of the objects we call b y these names. ~
A t the s a m e t i m e P a r a c e l s u s i n t r o d u c e d a second s y s t e m of e l e m e n t a r y
m a t t e r , t h e t r i a p r i m a : Salt, Sulphur a n d Mercury. Basically a n extension
of the old s u l p h u r - m e r c u r y t h e o r y of the metals, this concept was utilized
b y Paracelsians to explain all nature. Speculations on the n a t u r e o f these
principles s e p a r a t e t h e m far f r o m m o d e r n elemental theory. N o t only
were the ' s o p h i c ' m e r c u r y , sulphur a n d salt spiritual r a t h e r t h a n m a t e r i a l ,
b u t also t h e y differed q u a l i t a t i v e l y in all substances. Paracelsus states
t h a t ' t h e r e are as m a n y sulphurs, salts and mercuries as there are objects. 7
F u r t h e r confusion was a d d e d b y the fact t h a t in introducing this second
e l e m e n t a r y s y s t e m Paracelsus failed to m a k e clear the relationship of the
new t r i a d to t h e traditional elements. V a r y i n g between spiritual a n d
m a t e r i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s , t h e elements a n d principles were often p i c t u r e d
as Mmost indefinable aspects of a p r i m a l stuff t h a t h a d to exist as a basis
for the m o r e complex things of this world. Little m o r e a g r e e m e n t existed.
S o m e scholars who p o r e d o v e r his d a r k e r passages felt t h a t Paracelsus
h a d m e a n t t h a t the elements were f o r m e d of t h e principles. Others
insisted t h a t he really m e a n t t h e opposite, s I n reality, the dispute o v e r
the elements posed a p o t e n t i a l t h r e a t to traditional cosmology, b u t little
could be definitely settled w i t h o u t sound analytical evidence. L a t e r

The Philosophy to the Athenians--and the question of its authenticity--is discussed by

Page]~ Paracelsus, pp. 89ff. The original text will be readily found at the beginning of the
second volume of the Opera Bircher and Sehrifften, ed. J. Huser, 2 voIs., Strassburg, 1616,
or in English translation in A. E. Waite's The Hermetic and Alchemical Writings of Paracel-
sus, 2 vols., London, 1894.
BSee Page1, Paracelsus, pp. 93 ft.
7 :Paracelsus, Sdmtliche Werke, ed. Karl Sudhoff and Wilhehn Matthiessen, 15 vols.
Munich and :Berlin, 1922-33: vol. iii, pp. 42 f., from the De Mineralibus. Note should
also be made of ~he fact tha~ an analogy was often drawn between the three members of
the Holy Trinity and the three principles.
s On Paracelsus's meaning of the principles, see Pagel, Paracelsus, pp. 100-4.

A n n . of S e i . - - V o l . 23, No. 2. i
 130 A . G . Debus on

sixteenth- and early s e v e n t e e n t h - c e n t u r y iatrochemists, finding little

convincing proof for either system, felt free to utilize the four elements
and the three principles as t h e y saw fig.9 As early as 1584 a leading
English Paracclsian, T h o m a s Moffett, could complain of the growing
n u m b e r of elemental systems when he wrote t h a t
' Some wish that there should be but one element, while others think
they are many, and some even think they are infinite, innumerable and
immovable: these assert there are two, those three, some others say
four, while others still demand eight. '1°

The role of fire in clement analysis

Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:36 20 June 2015

The ever growing a n a r c h y over the elements in the sixteenth c e n t u r y

was in stark contrast with an earlier era when the four elements d o m i n a t e d
all discussions. B u t how might one resolve the problem? Analysis
immediately became a m a t t e r of considerable concern. B o t h Aristote-
lians and Paracelsians were willing to teach t h r o u g h the use of illustrative
experiments, and the one t h a t is most often repeated in the literature is
the lesson t a u g h t b y the burning of green wood. As Boyle summarized
the Aristotelian position in The Sceptical Chymist:
' The fire discovers it self in the flame by its own light; the smoke by
ascending to the top of the chimney, and there readily vanishing into
air, like a River losing it self in the Sea, sufficiently manifests to what
Element it belongs and gladly returnes. The water in its own form
boyling and hissing at the ends of the burning Wood betrayes it self
to more than one of our senses; and the ashes by their weight, their
firiness, and their dryness, put it past doubt that they belong to the
Element of Earth. 'n
9 I t is not the p u r p o s e of the p r e s e n t p a p e r to discuss the different element-principle
s y s t e m s proposed in the Renaissance. F o r this the reader is referred to H~l~ne Metzger,
Les Doctrines chimiqnes en France du ddbut du X V I I e & la fin du X V I I I e Sidele. Premigre
partie, Paris, P.U.F., 1923. R. H o o y k a a s h a s p o i n t e d o u t t h a t the F r e n c h Paracelsian,
J o s e p h Duchesne (Quercetanus), w a s the first to develop the concept of the ' five principles '
which was so prevalent a m o n g chemists a n d alchemists in the s e v e n t e e n t h century, in his
' D i e Elementenlehre der I a t r o c h e m i k e r , ' Janus, 1937, 41, 26-28.
10 T h o m a s Moffett, De Jure et Praestantia Chemicorum Medicafaentorum, in the Theatrum
Chemlcu~n, ed. L. Zetzner, 6 vols., Argentorati, 1659-61: vol. i, p. 97. A similar, a n d
earlier (1513), complaint will be f o u n d in Pico della Mirandola's De Elementis, I o a n n i s Pici,
Mirandulae Concordiaeque Comitis, Opera quae extant omnia, Basil, S e b a s t i a n u m Henricpetri,
2 vols., 1601: vol. ii, p. 115.
n R o b e r t Boyle, The Sceptical Chymist or Chymico-Physieal Doubts and Paradoxes,
Touching the Spagyrist's Principles Commonly calrd Hypostatical : A s they are wont to be
Propos'd and Defended by the Generality of Alchymists. Whereunto is Premis'd Part of another
Discourse relating to the same Subject, London, J. Cadwell for J. Crooke, 1661: D a w s o n
reprint, London, 1965, pp. 21-2. The question as to w h e t h e r bodies consist of those
s u b s t a n c e s into which t h e y c a n be dissolved finds an early source in Aristotle. Discussing
Empedocles on the elements, Aristotle w e n t on to s t a t e t h a t the principles c a n n o t be t h e
same: ' I f h o w e v e r t h e y are different, one difficulty is w h e t h e r t h e y too are to be
regarded as imperishable or as perishable. F o r if t h e y are perishable, ig is clearly necessary
 Fire A n a l y s i s and the Elements in the 16th and 17th Centuries 131

As Boyle notes, Paracelsus was also quite willing to refer t o the same
observation as proof of the existence not of the four elements, b u t the
three principles. I n this case the vaporous fumes indicate m e r c u r y , the
flame corresponds to sulphur, and the ashes represent salt. 1~
I f the Aristotelians were generally willing to rest their case on such
illustrations as well as on broad generalizations, appeals to logic and time
honoured a u t h o r i t y , the Paracelsians as practising physicians a n d chemists
d e m a n d e d more. The three principles were assigned qualities t h a t m a d e
it possible to identify their presence t h r o u g h n o r m a l chemical operations.
Sulphur was considered to be the cause o f combustibility, s t r u c t u r e and
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:36 20 June 2015

substance. Solidity and often colour were due to salt, and the vaporous
quality was always assigned to mercury. H e r e at least was a working
concept. While some might talk and speculate a b o u t the existence of
the various systems, the working chemist saw vaporous, inflammable and
ashy portions e v e r y time he performed an organic distillation. The
difference between the Philosopher of the Schools and the new Chemical
Philosopher seemed clear to R. Bostocke (1585) who gloried t h a t the latter
should
' . . . knowe all things by visible and palpable experience, so that the
true proofe and tryal shal appeare to his eyes & touched with his hands
So shall he have } three Principia, ech of them separated fr5 the other,
in such sort, ~ he may see them, & touch them in their efficacie and
strength, then shal he have eyes, wherewith the phisition ought to looke
and reade with al. Then shal he have that he may taste and not before.
For th5 shall he know, not by his owne braines, nor by reading, or by
reporte, or hearesay of others, but by experience, by dissolution of
Nature, and by examyning and search of the causes, beginnings and
foundations of the properties and vertues of thinges, which he shall
fmde out not to be attributed to colde or heate, but to the properties of
the three substanties of each thing and his Arcanum . . . . Experience is
the maysteries of things, us
1~ Boyle, Sceptical Chymist, p. 266. l)aracelsus, Die 9 B~cher de N a t u r a rerum in t h e
S~imtliehe Werke, vol. xi, p. 348: ' dan alles was im four reucht u n d verreucht ist mereurius,
was brenner a n d verbrermet ist sulphur u n d alles was aschern ist, das ist auch ein sal.'
Paracelsus, N i n e Boolzs Of the Nature of Things in Michael Sendivogius, A N e w Light of
A l c h y m y , trans, g[ohn] F[rench], London, A. Clark for Tho. Williams, 1674, p. 219.
xa R . Bostocke, The difference betwene the auncient Phisicke . . . a n d the latter Phlsleke,
London, R o b e r t Walley, 1585, sig. D v (r).

t h a t t h e y too m u s t be derived from s o m e t h i n g else, since everything passes upon dissolu-

tion into that f r o m which it is derived (my ital. AGD). H e n c e it follows t h a t t h e r e are
o t h e r principles prior to t h e first principles; b u t this is impossible, w h e t h e r t h e series s t o p s
or proceeds to i n f i n i t y ' (The Metaphysics, Books I - I X , trans. H u g h Tredennick, M.A.:
L o n d o n : H e i n e m a n n ; New York: P u t n a m ' s Sons, 1933, pp. 131-33, a n d Book I I I , iv,
21-22). On t h e othor h a n d , h e a t and cold ' are o b s e r v e d to d e t e r m i n e , c o m b i n e and c h a n g e
things b o t h o f t h e s a m e a n d of different k i n d . . . ' (Meteorologica, trans. H. D. P. Lee,
M.A.: L o n d o n : IKeinemann; Cambridge, Mass.: H a r v a r d U. P., 1952, p. 291, Book IV,
chap. 1).
i2
 132 A . G . D e b u s on

T h e Paracelsians m i g h t refer to b o t h t h e four elements a n d t h e t h r e e

principles but, because o f their real interest in actual chemical operations,
t h e y referred m o s t often to t h e l a t t e r since t h e i r w o r k seemed to confirm
the existence of t h e tria prima. I n a n i n f l a m m a t o r y address against t h e
Galenists, B e r n a r d G. P e n o t u s r a n t e d against t h e m in a style r e m i n i s c e n t
of Paracelsus:
' I say, every Paracelsian, which doth but onely carry coals unto
the work, can show you b y eye three principles of Theophrastus Physick.
H a v e you tasted the most sharp Salt, or the most sweet Oil, or the
Balm, that most delicate liquor? All those being hidden in every thing
t h a t is created, you have not once perceived. The metalline spirits, in
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:36 20 June 2015

whom Physick doth consist, b y no means can be found out, neither what
force they have, or fellowship with mans nature, but onely by f i r e . . . , i 4
I n t h e literature of the period t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f fire as a m e a n s o f
analysis is e v e r y w h e r e stressed. Chemical processes in t h e l a b o r a t o r y
were a l m o s t exclusively carried out with the aid of heat, a n d alchemical
t r a d i t i o n affirmed t h a t fire caused a separation, n o t generation. S u m m i n g
up m i d - s i x t e e n t h c e n t u r y t h o u g h t on this point, Conrad Gesner s t a t e d
that
, . . . in destillaci5 we seke ~ separation of the elemgts either for one
or mo of t h e m . . , separation truely can not be don without heate. For
heat uniteth and gathereth together suche thinges as be of one kinde
and nature, and they t h a t do differ and disagree it separateth . . .,15
I t was because of this conviction t h a t the chemists could argue t h a t t h e i r
distilled medicines were b e t t e r t h a n t h e t r a d i t i o n a l Galenic herbs.
Obviously the p u r e medicinal quintessence h a d been s e p a r a t e d f r o m the
gross v e g e t a b l e m a t t e r .
T h e belief t h a t analysis b y fire would duplicate the s e p a r a t i o n o b t a i n e d
b y a slow n a t u r a l p u t r e f a c t i o n was widespread. J e a n Beguin asserted t h a t
' Le Chymiste dolt proceder en tous sos examens, theories, & opera-
tions par cos trois principes autrement sos cognoissances & artifices
seroient sons fondement, & hors de sos principes . . . la corruption qui
est la resolution naturelle des choses, s'arrestoit g cos principes, & ne
los pouvoit plus resoudre en d'autres. 'i~
A n d in his theoretical i n t r o d u c t i o n to the Basilica Chymica, Oswald Croll
insisted t h a t visible e x p e r i m e n t s b y the S p a g y r i s t s p r o v i d e d indisputable
evidence t h a t n a t u r a l bodies c a n n o t be divided into m o r e t h a n t h r e e
substances, ' Mercury or liquor, Sulphur or oil, a n d Salt/iv B o t h Beguin
i4 Mr. :Barnard G. L o n d r a d a A. P o r t u A q u i t a n u s , ' A n Apologeticall P r e f a c e ' to t h e
One Hundred and Fourteen Experi/ments and Cures, Of the Famous Physitian Theophrastus
Paracelsus in L e o n a r d P h i o r a v a n t , Three Exact Pieces, L o n d o n , G. D a w s o n for W i l l i a m
N e a l a n d , 1652, sig. D d 1 (r).
is [Conrad Gesner], The Treasure of Evonymus . . . . trans. Peter Morwyng, London,
J o h n Dale, 1559, p. 67.
i6 J e a n B e g u i n , Les Elemens de Chymie, L y o n , 1666, p. 32.
iT O s w a l d Croll, Basilica Chymiea, F r a n k f o r t , T a m p a e h [1623], p. 18.
 Fire Analysis and the Elements in the 16th and 17th Centuries 133

and Croll felt confident t h a t the illustration of the burning twig was a
valid one that fully confirmed their view. is
Perhaps even more influential was the judgment of the Paracelsian
scholar Peter Severinus (1571). :For Severinus there were three main
classes of bodies, solids, inflammable oils, and ordinary liquors, and these
could be generally classified as Salt, Sulphur and Mercury provided t h a t
the reader did not understand by these words the common substances
designated by them39 He urged all scholars to leave their studies and
burn their books. Instead, they should roam the world seeking samples
and specimens which should then be subjected to analysis by fire for ' in
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:36 20 June 2015

this way and no other, you will arrive at a knowledge of things and their
properties.' 20 Needless to say, this hard-won information could only
confirm Severinus's contention t h a t all such chemical dissections or
' anatomies ' result in the three principles. 21

The reaction against fire-analysis: Erastus to van Helmont

Galenic and Aristotelian reaction against the often vindictive Paracel-
sian diatribes was inevitable. The first detailed critique of the Paracel-
sian position was made by Thomas Erastus (1572-73). In his rejection
of the three principles, Erastus turned to the evidence offered by analysis
and the whole problem of the validity of analysis by fire. He argued t h a t
things need not consist of the substances from which they are generated,
and he illustrated this by stating that products of generation such as
worms are not necessarily the constituents of the decaying body from
which they have developed. ~ :But above all, he asserted, heat should
not be considered the universal agent of separation which the alchemists
thought it to be. Rather, heat changes bodies into substances t h a t are
not constituents of the original bodies. He argued further t h a t the degree
of decomposition of a body varies in direct proportion with the degree
of heat applied, and he complained t h a t the actual substances, salt,
sulphur and mercury, are never found as the products of a decomposition
performed by heat. 2a These arguments, which were to be incorporated
in The Sceptical Chymist, were marred by Erastus's insistence t h a t the
chemical art reduces bodies not to the three principles, but to the
traditional four elements. 2~
is Ibid., p. 18. :Beguin, op. cit., p. 42.
19 P e t r u s Severinus, Idea Medicinae Philosophicae, 3rd edn., g a g a e - C o m i t i s , 1660, p. 36.
so Ibid., p. 39.
~1 Ibid., p. 40.
2~ T h o m a s E r a s t u s , Disputationes de Medicina Nova Paraeelsi. Pars Altera in qua
Philosophiae Paracelsicae Principia et Elementa explorantur, s. 1., 1572, pp. 42-3.
23 Ibid., p. 72.
~4 Ibid., p. 73. ' Ultim~ in elementa resolvi cernimus omnia: in salem, sulphur, &
m e r c u r i u m , solvi nullus h o m o v e r a x cons~anter defender.'
 134 A . G . Debus on

The validity of analysis by fire henceforth became a widespread subject

of discussion, but the arguments of Erastus were clearly not convincing
to all iatrochemists. Joseph Duchesne (Quercetanus), one of the most
important French Paracelsists, felt compelled to state t h a t the three
principles are clearly made manifest by a chemical analysis by fire which
separates without corruption. 25 Disturbed by the difficulty of altering
gold and silver in the fire, Duchesne felt certain, nevertheless, t h a t these
'noble and perfect' metals are also composed of the three principles, us
The equality and purity of their mixture makes it seem t h a t ' they are
one substance, not three, or consisting of three.' 27 The case of gold was
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:36 20 June 2015

one of Boyle's main examples in The Sceptical Chymist against the existence
of the three principles, but for Duchesne there was no serious problem
since the noble metals could be explained as an extension of the like-like
principle which had been applied to generally by Paracelsians in medicine:
' . . . in Golde, the sulphur which is fixed and incombustible, of a
fiery nature, bringeth to passe that it standeth invincible against all
force of tier, and looseth not the least waite thereof, because like wil
never oppresse his like, but contrariwise do cherish and preserve one
the other: whereby it commeth to passe that it ioyeth in the tier, and
alwaies commeth out of the same, more pure and noble then it went
in.'2s

Daniel Sennert, whom Boyle referred to as ' the Learnedst Champion

for the Hypostatical Principles,'29 was clearly troubled by the problem of
the elements and the validity of fire analysis (1619). Quoting Beguin,
Duchesne and other recent authors, Sennert affirmed his belief in the
existence of the tria prima which for him were real substances, mixed in
themselves, but comparatively simple and largely defined by distillation
analysis, a° Like other chemists he would not accept the possibility of
qualities such as colour, odour and taste deriving from the four elements, al
In his attempt to establish the principles, Sennert specifically took up the
problem ' w h e t h e r the chemical principles are produced by an artificial
resolution from the mixed? ,a~ For him, tire can produce nothing but
tire, and therefore its role can only be one of dissolving a compounded

25 J o s e p h D u c h e s n e (Quereetanus), The Practise of Chymicall, and Hermeticall Physicke,

for the preservation of health, t r a n s . T h o m a s T y m m e , L o n d o n , T h o m a s Creede, 1605, sig.
G3 (r).
26 Ibid., sig. H 4 (r).
2~ Ibid.
2s Ibid.
29 Boyle, Sceptical Chymist, p. 268.
a0 O n Sermert see Pagel, Paracelsus, pp. 333-44. Daniel Sennert, De Chymicorum cure
Aristotelieis et Galenicis Concensu ac Dissensu Liber, 3rd edn., Paris, 1633, p. 128.
al Ibid., p. 144.
as Ibid., p. 156.
 Fire Analysis and the Elements in the 16th and 17th Centuries 135

body. a3 The action of fire may be seen in several different ways. The
actual burning of wood, which was so often referred to by other authors,
was given by Sennert as an example of a violent natural resolution and
difficult to interpret correctly. The fumes and flame so often alleged to
be air and fire are nothing of the sort. Such fumes in reality are composed
of an innumerable number of very small corpuscles, aa The sublimation
of mercury or sal ammoniac shows that the fumes observed are simply
the vapours of these substances, not air. a5 Similarly one should judge
the case of burning wood. As for the ashes remaining after combustion,
they are obviously neither salt nor earth, for they can be shown to be
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:36 20 June 2015

composed of a variety of substances, at

Violent natural resolutions (burning) are therefore difficult to judge
and should be avoided. Chemical resolutions (analysis by distillation)
are far more satisfactory since the operator--if he is careful--may collect
all fractions and is thereby enabled to form a better estimate of the
ingredients.a7 Thus, although most vapours look the same, actually they
vary greatly. A good example is the difference between the spirit of wine
and the condensed spirit obtained from distilled rose petals. Similarly
oils and residuous matter m a y be examined properly only after a distilla-
tion analysis, as Sennert notes t h a t there are some who hold t h a t the
three principles are not separated, but formed through the action of fire.
In support of this position he quotes Schegkius and Riolanus for their
belief t h a t fire acts on earth to form salt. a9 Senncrt, however, cannot
accept these views. Surely we know even before a distillation t h a t the
principles exist. We may observe salt in excrement, we note the inflam-
mable property of tree resin, and everywhere we are aware of odours.
These are properties that belong only to the principles. And what
might be said of metallurgical assays if we reject fire as a means of
analysis? 4° Are we to assume t h a t the pure metals are made by the
analytical process? Surely only one conclusion is possible. Chemical
analyses made with the aid of heat result only in separation, not genera-
tion. The natural philosopher m a y safely assume t h a t the 'chemical
principles are separated from mixed substances. Therefore they are
present in them. ''41

aa I b i d . , pp. 153 ft.

84 I b i d . , p. 160.
35 l b i d ,
as I b l d . , p. 161.
aT I b i d .
as I b i d . , p. 162.
a9 I b i d .
40 I b i d .
41 I b i d . , p. 163.
 136 A . G . Debus on

The d e b a t e over analysis b y fire took a different t u r n in the writings

of Francis Bacon. F o r him the views of the chemists were a mixed
blessing. On the one h a n d he spoke of the value of their experiments
while on the o t h e r he complained of the error of those ' w h o r e c e n t l y
have tried to found a system of n a t u r a l philosophy on the first chapter of
Genesis, on the book of Job, and other p a r t s of the sacred writings. '42
I n general, he felt t h a t a true knowledge of n a t u r e would be impeded b y
too great a reliance on a n y of the three great sects of his time, the
Aristotelians, the N a t u r a l Magicians and the Chemists. 43 The s t u d y of
n a t u r e should be based primarily on an e x a m i n a t i o n of motion, for we
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:36 20 June 2015

m u s t know this, and of the forces t h a t cause bodies to react, r a t h e r t h a n

simply on debate a b o u t the substances themselves. 44 W h y is it t h e n t h a t
' . men's speculations are principally occupied in investigating
. .

and examining these dead principles; as if a man should make it his

object to inspect the anatomy of the corpse of nature, instead of inquiring
into her living faculties and powers? ,45

And even those chemists who did call upon observation and e x p e r i m e n t
as a guide to n a t u r a l philosophy seemed of little value to Bacon. In
reality he felt t h a t t h e y did little b u t build a vast n e t w o r k of t h e o r y upon
relatively few distillation experiments.46 Accordingly it is interesting to
note t h a t he planned a ' history of Sulphur, Mercury, and Salt '. 47 Of this
projected work he completed only the ' E n t r a n c e ' or preface. H e r e
he suggested t h a t the tria p r i m a are not useless to the philosopher if he
accepts the terms only as generalities. Sulphur and Mercury m a y be
viewed as the two great classes of flammable and non-flammable m a t t e r .
The problem of salt was more complex, and Bacon was not convinced
t h a t he k n e w exactly w h a t the chemists m e a n t b y the term. His own
comments on salt as the ' s p i r i t of l i f e ' would indicate t h a t he had a
thorough acquaintance with the writings of the Paracelsians.
Bacon was acutely aware of the importance of analysis for ' no one
can endow a given b o d y with a new nature, or successfully and a p t l y
t r a n s m u t e it into a new body, unless he has attained a c o m p e t e n t know-
ledge of the b o d y so to be altered or t r a n s f o r m e d ,.4s Commenting t h a t
' some pains have been well bestowed and with good effect . . . upon the

42 F r a n c i s B a c o n , The Worlcs of Hrancis Bacon, collected a n d edited b y J a m e s S p e d d i n g ,

M.A., R o b e r t Leslie, M.A., a n d D o u g l a s D e n o n H e a t h , n e w edition, 7 vols., L o n d o n , 1870:
vol. iv, p. 66. N o v u m Organum, B o o k l, A p h . 65.
43 Ibid., vol. iii, p. 605, f r o m t h e Cogitata et Visa.
44 Ibid., vol. v, p. 424, f r o m t h e Cogitationes de Natura Return.
~5 Ibid.
46 Ibid., vol. iii, p. 605, f r o m t h e Cogitata et Visa.
4~ Ibid., vol. v, pp. 205-6.
~8 Ibid., vol. iv, p. 124, N o v u m Organum, B o o k 2, A p h . 7.
 Fire Analysis and the Elements in the 16th and 17th Centuries 137

a n a t o m y o f organised bodies,' he a d d e d t h a t this was t h e v e r y thing a i m e d

a t in the distillation procedures of the chemists.
'And this is of use too, and conduces to the object we are seeking;
although too often fallacious in its results, because m a n y natures which
are in fact newly brought out and superinduced b y fire and heat and
other modes of solution are taken to be the effect of separation merely,
and to have subsisted ia the compound before. And after all, this is
but a small part of the work of discovering the true configuration in the
compound body; which configuration is a thing far more subtle and
exact, and such as the operation of fire rather confounds than brings
out and makes distinct. '49
R a t h e r t h a n rely on distillation processes alone, we m u s t t u r n to reason
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:36 20 June 2015

a n d i n d u c t i o n - - a i d e d c o n s t a n t l y b y e x p e r i m e n t a l evidence. ' I n a word

we m u s t pass f r o m Vulcan to Minerva, if we intend to bring to light the
t r u e t e x t u r e s a n d configuration of bodies. '5° I n rejecting t h e m e t h o d s
relied u p o n b y m o s t chemists, he a d d e d t h a t , if his advice were followed,
we would not
' . . . be led to the doctrine of atoms, which implies the hypothesis of a
vacuum and t h a t of the unchangeableness of m a t t e r (both false assump-
tions); we shall be led only to real particles, such as really exist. T M
A final e x a m p l e of the p r e - B o y l e a n s e v e n t e e n t h - c e n t u r y u n c e r t a i n t y
towards t r a d i t i o n a l a n a l y t i c a l m e t h o d s m a y be t a k e n f r o m the w o r k of
v a n H e l m o n t whose well-known willow-tree e x p e r i m e n t illustrates his
belief t h a t the o n l y t r u e e l e m e n t is water. 52 This f u n d a m e n t a l stuff plus
a m u l t i t u d e of seminal agents could produce a n y t h i n g and it is because
of this t h a t neither the words principle n o r element were quite p r o p e r for
a n y other substance. V a n H e l m o n t felt t h a t t h e old four elements are
really quite useless. Man will find an indisputable account of the origin
o f the world in Genesis. 5a H e r e no reference is m a d e to a q u a t e r n a r y
s y s t e m of e l e m e n t s - - t h e r e f o r e m o d e r n philosophers can safely ignore
them.
T h e t h r e e principles m a y not be t r e a t e d in such a cavalier fashion,
a n d here a careful s t u d y of t h e effect of fire a n d h e a t on analysis h a d to
be made. I t is t r u e t h a t fire separates bodies into t h e t h r e e fractions
which are c o m m o n l y called salt, s u l p h u r a n d m e r c u r y . 54 V a n H e l m o n t
~ Ibid., vo]. iv, p. 125.
5o 1bid.
sl Ibid., vol. iv, p. 126.
51 The m o s t recent discussion of t h e b a c k g r o u n d to this f a m o u s e x p e r i m e n t will be found
in H e r b e r t M. H o w e ' s 'A l%oot of v a n I-Ielmont's Tree,' Isis, 1965, 56, 408-19. The use of
this e x p e r i m e n t t h r o u g h t h e influence of the w o r k of v a n H e l m o n t a n d Sharrock is discussed
in C. W e b s t e r ' s ' W a t e r as the U l t i m a t e Principle of N a t u r e : The B a c k g r o u n d to Boyle's
Sceptical Chymist,' Ambix, 1966, 13, 96-107.
~s J o h a n n B a p t i s t a v a n H e l m o n t , Oriatrike or Physick Refined, trans. J o h n Chandler,
London, 1662, p. 48.
64 Ibid., pp. 196, 403.
 138 A . G . Debus on

did not give Paracelsus credit for having originated the tria prima.
Rather, he had learned of Basil Valentine ' t h a t Water, Oyle, and Salt,
were to be separated by Distillation from most Bodies,' so he began to call
them ' t h e first universal beginnings of corporal beings. '~5 I t was a
concept t h a t quickly caught on because of its usefulness, but van Helmont
was quick to point out t h a t Paracelsus in m a n y places gives contradictory
views on the elements and principles. In general van Helmont concludes
that, although the tria prima are useful because t h e y are obtained b y
distillation from so m a n y things, t h e y are in t r u t h ' a late Invention,
contrary to the t r u t h of Nature. '56 The apparent separation by the fire
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:36 20 June 2015

is actually a delusion since these three things do not exist in substances

prior to the application of heat. Instead, ' as by a Transmutation made
by the Fire, they are there generated, as it were new Beings, and there
is made that, which was not before? a: Analyses show t h a t there are
variable proportions of oil and ashes in vegetable m a t t e r at different
times. F r o m this we m a y conclude that t h e y were not in the substance
from the beginning and cannot be primary principles, but formed at a
later date. ss Then again, we m a y observe t h a t analyses show t h a t there
are some substances from which only one or two fractions m a y be distilled,
others from which three things are never separated, and a few which are
completely unchangeable in the fire. 59 The similarity of these arguments
with those of Boyle is striking.
The constancy of gold is explained by van Helmont by the predomin-
ance of mercury within the metal. The mercury of metals derives from
the truly elementary water and the mercurial seed from which neither
salt nor sulphur m a y be extracted. 6° Sand is a similar case from which
neither sulphur nor mercury m a y be obtained by the fire. Here the seed
is ' content with a stonyfying coagulation of water, without an appoint-
ment of fatnesses, or Mercuries. '61 B u t the chemist need only turn to the
example of t a r t a r to show the complex action of fire. I n the distillation
of sixteen ounces of this substance thirteen ounces of oil are obtained.
Yet, t a r t a r does not have an oily nature and, if one attempts to recon-
stitute t a r t a r from its distilled oil and the residuous salt, only a soap will
be obtained. 62 Again, this is an experiment specifically repeated in
The Sceptical Chymist.

5s I b i d . , 402-3.
~8 1 b i d . , p. 408.
6~ I b i d .
68 I b i d .
~9 I b i d '
60 I b i d . , p. 409.
61 I b i d .
~2 I b i d .
 Fire Analysis and the Elements in the ] 6th and 17th Centuries 139

In short, for van Helmont--as it was also to be for Boyle--it is

permissible to speak generally of mercury, sulphur and salt, since they
are so commonly obtained from distillation processes. The chemist,
however, must always keep in mind the fact that these classes of substance
originated in reality from the application of heat. 6a
Robert Boyle and ' The Sceptical Chymist'
Even these few examples will perhaps suffice to show the range of the
debate over fire analysis in the century prior to Boyle's publication of
The Sceptical Chymist. The arguments of Erastus against the hard-line
Paracelsist assertions that fire and distillation methods revealed the
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:36 20 June 2015

principles were clearly not convincing to the early seventeenth-century

authors Oswald Croll and Joseph Duchesne. And Daniel Sennert,
disturbed by the suggestion t h a t fire and heat might form new substances,
felt it necessary to include a lengthy section in his De Chymicorum cure
Artistotelicis et Galenicis Consensu ac Dissensu vindicating the traditional
analytical system. For Bacon and van Helmont, on the other hand,
there was no question that this major analytical tool was more likely to
form new substances through an internal rearrangement.
This debate was a current one at a time when Robert Boyle was young
and, further, it was recognized as a fundamental problem since connected
with it was the acceptance or the rejection of the elements and the
principles. Boyle's decision to write The Sceptical Chymist m a y be
understood better if we also take into account the fact t h a t mid-seven-
teenth-century science in England was n o t - - i n our terms--as progressive
as it has often been made out to be. I t is true that there was an ever
increasing interest in experimental science. Further, it was a period
that witnessed the revival of the atomic theory and the rapid spread of
the work of Galileo, Bacon and Descartes. But these interests which we
would classify as 'modern' were paralleled by the revived growth of
interest in astrology, alchemy and natural magic. These subjects were
considered by many to be as legitimate paths to truth as the study of
motion and the new astronomy. 64 In addition to the fact that the
chemists constantly appealed for a new observational approach to nature,
the publication of the collected writings of van IIelmont in 1648 gave a
new respectability to the chemical philosophy because of his many
experiments and his sharp renunciation of the inconsistencies and mystical
fancies of Paracelsus. The decade of the fifties witnessed the publication
and translation of a host of chemical treatises that had not been readily
available in England earlier. Chemistry as a general system of nature
was clearly riding a new wave of popularity.
83 Ibid.
8~ R a t t a n s i h a s recently pointed to the sociological origins of this new interest: ' Paracel-
sus a n d the P u r i t a n Revolution,' A m b i x , 1963, 11, 24-32, a n d ' The Helmontian-Galenist
C o n t r o v e r s y in R e s t o r a t i o n E n g l a n d , ' A m b i x , 1964, 12, 1-23.
 140 A . G . Debus on

The text of The Sceptical Chymist shows that Robert Boyle was well
aware of this: ' o f late Chymistry begins, as indeed it deserves, to be
cultivated b y Learned Men who before despis'd it; and to be pretended
to b y many who never cultivated it, that they may be thought not to
ignore it. '65 Boyle found no fault with this, for he had early come to the
conclusion that chemistry was the key to experimental philosophy. 66
But the writings of the chemists then being referred to left much to be
desired. Already a convinced corpuscularian b y 1661, Boyle felt that,
as currently defined, there were many phenomena that could not be
explained satisfactorily by the tria prima ' w i t h o u t taking much more
notice than they are wont to d o . . . of motion of small parts of matter. '67
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:36 20 June 2015

He was anxious, however, not to alienate those chemical philosophers who

based their philosophy on the Creation account in Genesis, and he carefully
pointed out that the atomic hypothesis did not conflict with the Mosaic
Philosophy. 6s
B y his criticism Boyle hoped to bring forth abler chemists who ' will
be oblig'd to speak plainer than hitherto has been done, and maintain it
by better Experiments and Arguments then those Carneades hath
examin'd. '69 Yet, Boyle believed in the existence of an dlite few who had
a knowledge of great secrets. Thus he distinguished between the ' Cheats
or b u t Laborants, and the true Adepti; b y whom, could I enjoy their
Conversation, I would both willingly and thankfully be instructed;
especially concerning the Nature and Generation of Metals '. 7° And while
Boyle attacked the mystical and occult nature of most alchemical texts,
he carefully limited this attack to their unnecessary obscurity when
describing the first principles of the art. He was quite willing to ' Excuse
the Chymists when they write Darkly and Aenigmatically, about the
Preparation of their Elixir, and Some few other grand Arcana, the
divulging of which they m a y upon grounds Plausible enough esteem
unfit.'71
Boyle was aware that the most effective attack on the Aristotelians
and the Chemists would be through their favoured systems of elemental
65 I n a d d i t i o n to t h e p u b l i s h e d t e x t of The Sceptical Chymist a l r e a d y referred to, n o t e
s h o u l d be t a k e n of Marie B o a s ' s ~An E a r l y v e r s i o n of ~ o y l e ' s Sceptical Chymist,' 1sis,
1954, 45, 153-68. All references to The Sceptical Chymist in t h i s p a p e r will be to t h e D a w s o n
reprin~ cited in f o o t - n o t e 11. :Boyle, Sceptical Chyqnlst, sig. A2 (r).
6~ L e t t e r f r o m B o y l e to L o r d Broghill, 19 J u n e 1952 f r o m t h e Wor~s of Boyle as cited
b y J o h n J . O':Brien, ' S a m u e l H a r t l i b ' s I n f l u e n c e on R o b e r t :Boyle's Scientific D e v e l o p m e n t , '
Ann. Sci., 1965 (published 1966), 21, 2.
6~ Boyle, Sceptical Chymist, sig. A2 (v).
66 Ibid., p. 38.
86 Ibid., sig. A5 (v).
ToIbid., sig. A7 (r).
71 Ibid., p. 203.
 F i r e A n a l y s i s a n d the E l e m e n t s i n the 16th a n d 17th C e n t u r i e s 141

matter. He was able to deal with the four elements in a summary

fashion. He complained t h a t the Aristotelians generally had v e r y little
experimental knowledge of this subject and t h a t they employed ' Experi-
ments rather to illustrate then to demonstrate their Doctrines ,.72 The
only example brought forth in support of the. four elements, the burning
twig, is quickly rejected as invalid, but in the ensuing discussion Boyle
questions whether it m a y be accepted t h a t 'fire separates something
t h a t was pre-existent in it ,.Ta The suggestion is made t h a t fire alters
substances as well as separates them. 74
The views of the chemical philosophers were of far more concern since
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:36 20 June 2015

their ' doctrine about the Elements is more applauded by the Moderns,
as pretending highly to be grounded upon Experience ,.75 As we have
noted, the basic observations supporting the chemical principles were
dependent on analysis by fire and Boyle immediately turned to this
problem b y asking ' how far, and in what sence, Fire ought to be esteem'd
the genuine and universal instrument of analyzing mixt Bodies. 'Ts Here
his arguments clearly reflect the literature of the previous ninety years.
The analyst obtains far different results through burning and distillation,
and it m a y be shown also t h a t different degrees of heat give quite different
results in distillation as well. 77 In any ease it is certainly n o t true t h a t
all substances can be analyzed into three fractions. 7s There are some
things, and above all, the precious metals, from which one cannot
separate salt, sulphur or mercury, and one might well ask how glass
should be classified since it is not destroyed, but produced, b y the action
of fire. 79 Since nothing m a y be separated from it perhaps it should be
considered to be a new element. Again, there are other substances t h a t
m a y be separated b y the fire into more than three fractions, s° Most
organic substances m a y be separated into five portions, but Boyle cannot
accept this as a true analysis since it assumes t h a t fire actually separates
the elements from a body.S1
Boyle then proceeds to question the general belief' t h a t every Distinct
Substance t h a t is separated from a Body by the Help of the Fire, was
Pre existent in it as a Principle or element of it ,.s2 Here too a wealth

7~ Ibid., sig. A5 (r), p. 20.

73 Ibid., p. 27.
v a Ibid., p. 29.
7 5 Ibid., p. 349. See also p. 36.
~6 Ibid., p. 48.
77 Ibld., pp. 49-51.
~s Ibid., pp. 55 ft. and passim.
79 Ibid., pp. 53, 224.
so Ibid., p. 187.
sl Ibid., pp. 286 L
s~ Ibid., p. 103.
 142 A . G . Debus on

of arguments from the earlier literature were drawn upon. Above all,
he turned to van Helmont's willow-tree experiment. This had shown
almost conclusively t h a t vegetable matter is composed largely of water.
Yet, if we here accept the results of a normal distillation analysis, there
will be found ' Phlegme, a little Empyreumaticall Spirit, a small quantity
of adust Oyl, and a Caput mortuum ,.8a The caput mortuum must consist
of salt and earth, s4 Therefore,' (as we have seen) out of fair Water alone,
not only Spirit, but Oyle, and Salt, and Earth may be Produced; I t will
follow t h a t Salt and Sulphur are not Primogeneal Bodies, and principles,
since they are every Day made out of plain Water by the Texture which
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:36 20 June 2015

the Seed or Seminal principle of plants puts it into ,.a0 Van Helmont's
soap experiment gives us further information. Water and a seminal
principle result in vegetable matter. Then a reaction of the oil (or
sulphur) of plants plus lixiviate salts yields soap, which in turn m a y be
distilled back to water, s6 Even the widely accepted belief in the growth
of metals in the earth presents a close parallel with the concept of a
water-seminal principle, s7 I t is true that Boyle had serious reservations
about the water hypothesis, ss but his high regard for van Helmont, as
' an Author more considerable for his Experiments than many Learned
men are pleas'd to think him ,,89 made it a concept that, he felt required
weighty consideration.
The Paracelsian attempts to base the three principles on qualities
seemed just as tenuous to Boyle. Some say the cause of colour is mercury,
but Paracelsus states t h a t salt is the origin of colour while Sennert
ascribes the cause to sulphur. Boyle notes t h a t colours result from the
passage of light through a prism and here the principles play no part at
all. 90 The principles do not explain magnetism, the generation of chicks
or plants, motion or gravity. How then do these chemists presume to
call them the basis for a new and universal philosophy? 9:t At best they
should be considered to be one useful concept among m a n y others for the
scientist. 9z
Boyle's final summary returns to the problem of fire2 a He felt t h a t
heJ had shown conclusively t h a t fire does not analyze substances into their

s8 I b i d . , p. 111.
s4 I b i d .
ss I b i d . , p. 162.
ss I b i d . , pp. 131,382.
8~ I b i d . , p. 364.
ss I b l d . , pp. 385 ft.
s9 I b i d . , p. 112.
9o I b i d . , pp. 327 f.
91 I b i d . , pp. 301-13.
92 I b i d . , p. 305.
9~ I b i d . , pp. 431-36.
 Fire Analysis and the Elements in the 16th and 17th Centuries 143

elements or into any determinate number of things. On the other hand,

Eleutherius, the moderator of the discussion, urges Carneades to accept
the fact t h a t most mineral bodies m a y be separated into three parts and
most vegetable substances into five. And, although these substances
might be mixed, there should be no harm in calling them elements and
letting them ' b e a r the Names of those Substances which they most
Resemble ,.94 Above all, in the future Chemists should depend more on
experiments and rely far less than in the past on the fire as the method for
their analyses, s5 Through the final statement by Carneades, it becomes
clear that Boyle was not so determined to destroy the elements and the
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:36 20 June 2015

principles as he was to weaken the unwarranted confidence in the current

analytical methods to demonstrate them. Indeed, the reader m a y feel
somewhat shocked after surviving a four-hundred page attack on these
systems to find that the final opinion of Carneades is t h a t either system
' may be much more probably maintain'd than it hitherto seems to have
been ,.9s In short, although Boyle objected to analysis by fire, he did
think t h a t the three principles might be more firmly established through
newly devised experiments.
Conclusion
In the same way t h a t a study of the problem of analysis by fire in
iatrochemieal texts of the early seventeenth-century helps us to understand
the relation of The Sceptical Chymist to the Paracelsian background,
chemical works more nearly contemporary with it show t h a t the same
facts did not necessarily lead later authors to Boyle's conclusions. A few
selected examples may suffice to indicate this.
Nicholas Le F6vre's popular text, the Traictg de la Chymie, was first
published only one year prior to Boyle's volume and it went through a
great number of editions in many languages in the late seventeenth and
early eighteenth centuries. The views expressed here were far removed
from the opinions of Boyle. As a traditional chemical philosopher, Le
F@vre insisted that this subject quite properly made the examination of
all nature its proper objectY How superior it is in comparison with the
studies of the Schools [ The Schoolman will argue and discourse with few
facts, but the chemist
' will endeavour to bring his demonstrations under your sight, and
satisfie also your Other senses, by making you to touch, smell, and taste
the very parts which enter'd in the composition of the body in question,
knowing very well that what remains after the resolution of the mixt,
according to the rules of Art, was that very substance that constituted
it.'98
94 Ibid., p. 433.
95 Ibid., p. 434.
96 Ibid., p. 435.
97 Nicasius le Febure, A Complsat Body of Chymistry, trans. P.D.C. Esq., London,
O. Pulleyn for J o h n Wright, 1670, p. 8.
s s Ibld., p. 9.
 144 A . G . Debus on

Those who wish to conjecture on the actions of the smallest parts of bodies
should n o t be listened to since ' C h y m i s t r y d o t h reject such airy and
notional Arguments, to stick close to visible and palpable things ,.99
F a r more satisfying to Le F~vre is the old concept of a universal spirit
which is changed in each substance to its proper form of salt, sulphur and
mercury. 100
F o r Le Fbvre, chemical resolutions b y fire readily show five fractions,
b u t it is a question ' of no small difficulty, viz. W h e t h e r these five Sub-
stances, are N a t u r a l or Artificial Principles, and not r a t h e r Principles
of Disunion a n d destructive, t h a n of Composition and Mixture? ,~0i i t
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:36 20 June 2015

is true t h a t these substances are obtained b y artificial means, b u t he

insists t h a t t h e y are n a t u r a l ' since Art d o t h contribute nothing else b u t
the Vessels to contain and receive t h e m ,.102 The existence of the
principles becomes quite clear if we examine the case of a normal corrup-
tion or p u t r e f a c t i o n where u n p l e a s a n t odours b e t r a y the existence of
saline and sulphureous spirits. This m a y only satisfactorily be explained
if we assume t h a t the salt has been dissolved b y the internal phlegm.
Salt, however, is the b o n d t h a t holds together m e r c u r y and sulphur, and,
when it is dissolved, these two are released. And since heat accompanies
all putrefactions, all four of these principles are carried away in the air,
leaving behind only the e a r t h l y residue. 1°3 This evidence confirmed Le
F~vre's belief in the validity of analysis b y fire, and he concluded t h a t
' these substances are not extracted from the Mixt by transmutation,
but by a meer natural separation, assisted by the heat of the Vessels
and the hand of the Artist: for all things calmot indifferently- be trans-
formed in the like and same things. T M
Perhaps an even b e t t e r example m a y be found in Nicholas L e m e r y ' s
Cours de Chymie (1675), which m a i n t a i n e d its p o p u l a r i t y for over three-
quarters of a century. There are some similarities between Boyle and
L e m e r y for the l a t t e r favoured an a t o m i c explanation of m a t t e r and
a t t a c k e d the current view of the meaning of ' principle ':
' T h e word Principle in Chymistry must not be understood in too
nice a sense: for the substances which are so called, are only Principles
in respect to us, and as we can advance no farther in the division of
bodies; but we well know that they may be still divided into abundance
of other parts which may more justly claim, in propriety of speech,
the name of Principles: wherefore such substances are to be understood
by Chymical Principles, as are separated and divided~ so f,~r as we are
capable of doing it by our weak imperfect powers. '1°~
99 I b i d . , p. 10.
ioo tb~d°, pp. t 7 - i g .
~o~ I b i d , , p. 20,
1o~ I b i d . , p. 21.
to~ I b i d .
!o4 t b i &
105 Nicholas L e m e r y , M.D., A C o u r s e o f C h y m i s t r y , t r a n s . Wal~er I~arris, ~{.D., 2rid
E n g l i s h e d n f r o m t h e 5 t h F r e n c h edn, L o n d o n , I~,N, for W M t e r K e t t i t b y , t686, p. 5~
 Fire Analysis and the Elements in the 16th and 17th Centuries 145

With this understanding, Lemery points out t h a t a normal 'Anatomy of

a mixt b o d y ' yields the five principles, Water, Spirit, Oil, Salt, and
Earth.:06
I t is clear t h a t Lcmery was quite willing to accept the evidence obtained
from distillation analyses, but he went on to refer to 'some modern
philosophers ' who seemed uncertain whether the substances so separated
actually existed earlier in the body or were changed by the fire during
distillation.:~7 I t is true, he grants, that fire seems to change subsSanees,
but surely fire ' does not make those Principles; for we see them and smell
them in many bodies, before ever we bring them to undergo the Fire ,.:0s
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:36 20 June 2015

Thus we perceive oil to be in olives, almonds and nuts, while the salt in
plant juices is readily obtained by pressing and subsequent evaporation.
The five principles are to be found in animal and vegetable matter, but
even Lemery is willing to admit t h a t they are not obtained readily from
minerals ':°9 Still, we may be confident t h a t these principles are present
even in gold and silver, but here they are ' so strictly involved with one
another ' that they are inseparable. ::° In Lemery we find a corpuscularian
and an experimentalist arguing in much the same fashion as the Paraeel-
sian Duchesne at the beginning of the century. 11:
A final example of the value of the evidence given to us by fire might
be taken from the writings of Daniel Georg Morhof, who speei~eally
referred to The Sceptical Chymist in the second volume of his widely read
Polyhistor (1692). Morhof states t h a t Boyle's arguments arc quite clever

lo6 I b i d . , p. 3.
:o7 I b i d . , p. 6.
los I b i d . , p. 7.
:o9 i b i d . , p. 9.
H~) i b i d .
1:: An interesting c o m m e n t on the views of L e m e r y m a y be f o u n d in t h e work of the
P y t h a g o r e a n , Whitlocke Bulstrode (1692). l i e suggested t h a t the F r e n c h a u t h o r ' s argu-
m e n t {'or five principles was n o t conclusive, for ' he h o n e s t l y confesseth, t h a t this is effect ed
b y the Mteration the Fire m a k e s on :Bodies; n o t b y a n a t u r a l Analysis into first Pri::ciples°'
I n agreement w i t h L e m e r y t h a t fire m a y change the t e x t u r e of substances, b u t n o t destroy
them, t3ulstrode practically s t a t e d t h e law of conservation of m a t t e r :
' Fire indeed m a y separate the P a r t s of a m i x ' d Body, change the Figure. a n d
so alter its appearance, as to puzzle the best Meehanick to reduce it to its primitive
state; yet this is no Annihilation, b u t Division. The b u r n i n g of Wood or a n y Fuel,
is a D e s t r u c t i o n of it, I confess, as to the Propriet, or; but u o t wit.h respect. ~.~) ~.he
Universe, no more t h a n there is less Money in the World b y the Profuseness of a
Prodigal; as the one d o t h b u t change H a n d s , so the other alters only the situation
of its Par~s.'
Bulstrode argued t h a t in t r u t h ' there are no other Principles, hut the moist v a p o r imprc~'-
h a t e d w i t h vital heat; for these t w o alone c o n s t i t u t e all "Bodies ' (clearly ~ reference to
earlier concepts of p r i m e m a t t e r ) . See ~Vhitloeko ]3ulstrode, A D i s c o u r s e o f 2~'¢~lu)'a[
P h i l o s o p h y W h e r e i n the P.ythagorean D o c t r i n e I s set i n a true L i g h t , a n d vindie(ited (2ud
edn.. London, J o n a s Brewne~ 1717, pp. I21. 137, 139).

Ann. o f S d , Vo]. 23, No. 2. k

 146 A . G . Debus on

and ingenious-but, he adds, ' I choose to dissent ,.112 His line of argument
is quite similar to t h a t of Sennert. For Morhof the three principles should
not be taken as prime matter, but rather as a first stage of compound
matter. In turn, they form the base of more complex bodies) 13 As for
the fire problem, Boyle was quite right in pointing out t h a t different
applications of heat give rise to apparently different analytical results.
H o w e v e r , this m a y be simply explained. In the case of a violent or
destructive fire, the most mobile parts of the substance fly away if the
combustion takes place in the open. Even within a closed system, such
an analysis is spoiled by the force of propulsion which mixes the more fixed
with the more volatile portions. On the other hand, with a gentle fire
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:36 20 June 2015

t h a t is increased in temperature only gradually, there is a selective

division of the substance in which ' nothing new is generated, and only
those things which were unknown before are discovered. T M Basing his
opinion on such evidence as was available to him, he could only conclude
t h a t analysis by fire does result in a demonstration of the three principles
in mixed bodies, and further, t h a t fire does not seem to produce new
species. ~5

In short, it would seem. from these few examples that there was no
real consensus of opinion on the validity of fire analysis either before or
immediately after the publication of The Sceptical Chymist in 1661~ even
although the importance of the subject was appree[a.ted. Boy~e's
approach shows a close acquaintance with the earlier literature and the
arguments of Erastus, Bacon, Sennert and van Helmont are found once
again within his pages. Indeed, this work may be considered the major
summary of seventeenth-century chemical literature on this subject.
Still the defenders of the principles as well as their opponents had been
able to use the results of fire-analysis to advance their views. In ~hc
closing years of the century chemists continued to debate how the results
of fire-analysis might best be interpreted as in 1673 when the members
of the French Academy discussed the problem. They hopefully conch~ded
t h a t the earlier criticisms of distillation-analysis might be overcome with
due caution and effort on the part of chemists) 1G Indeed, there were few
late seventeenth-century chemists who would not have agreed with John

11~ D a n i e l Goorg ~[orhof, P o l y h i s t o r , 45h edn,, 2 vols,, Lubeek~ Po~er ]3oeckrn~,~, 1747:
vol. ii, pp. 252-53, 333-34.
11"~Jbido. I'. 252_
114 f b i d , , p. 2 5 3
x15 I b i d , p. 252,
11~ I a m i n d e b t e d for t h i s reference to F. L. H o l m e s , Hialoirc de L" A c a d d ~ i c J~',Jgalc dc~
Sciences, voI. i, D e p u i s son dtablisseraen~ en 1666 j u s q u ' a 1686, Paris, ]~fartin, Coigna,rd ~nd
Guerin, 1733, pp. 161-67. P r o p o n e n t s of t r a d i t i o n a l fire a n d distillafion ana,!yses cov_ld
 Fire Analysis and the Elements in the 16th and 17th Centuries 147

Ray (1693) that this w a s the proper way to carry out the ' Chymical
Anatomy of mix'd Bodies ,.117 Only gradually did the advantages of
other methods of analysis convince chemists to change their procedures,
and as late as 1778 Macquer thought it necessary to begin a discussion
of analysis with an attack on the futility of the use of fire and heat. ns

117 J o h n R a y , Three Physico-Theological Discourses, 2 n d edn., L o n d o n , S a m . Smith

1693, p. 325.
11s p. j . M a s q u e r , Dictionnaire de Chymie, 2nd edn., 4 vols., Paris, Didot, 1778: vol. i,
pp. 169 f. T h e b a c k g r o u n d to B o y l e ' s w o r k in s o l u t i o n a n a l y s e s h a s been t o u c h e d on by
t h e p r e s e n t a u t h o r in h i s ' Solution A n a l y s i s P r i o r to l~obert Boyle,' Chymia, 1962, 8, 41-61.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 09:36 20 June 2015

find s u p p o r t in p h l o g i s t o n c h e m i s t r y . J . J . iBecher a r g u e d t h a t c o m b u s t i o n is a d e s t r u c t i o n
or a dissolution of t h e c o m b u s t i b l e s u b s t a n c e into its c o m p o n e n t s . A l t h o u g h h e rejected
t h e ~raditional e l e m e n t s ~ n d principles, his t h r e e ' e a r t h s ' h a v e a recognizable s h n i l ~ r i t y
to salt, s u l p h u r a n d m e r c u r y .