ebook img

Gehennical Fire: The Lives of George Starkey, an American Alchemist in the Scientific Revolution PDF

193 Pages·1994·9.98 MB·English
Save to my drive
Quick download
Download
Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.

Preview Gehennical Fire: The Lives of George Starkey, an American Alchemist in the Scientific Revolution

Gehennical Fire “This is the true Ignis Gehennae, for it Eclipseth the light of the Bodies, and makes them become black as Pitch; which is a symbol of Hell, and for its Cimmerian darkness is by many of the Wisemen called Hell.” — George Starkey, Ripley Reviv’d A - i f . ^ t y/f-cs- ^ I y^ -^ . ^ V, Gehennical Fire The Lives of George Starkey, ': V .. ‘ an American Alchemist f - - “* ' - . j^- -'v * t ^ p in the Scientific Revolution P-. - '-.: .. / ' 'f* S / '•> : '< \ :rS -' *' ? W i l l i a m R. N e w m a n r l \ = sn i S i » » 8 * :a t . f ,ah- Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts '^nroed.^ fo r T^ U iam Ci>0pe4' a t tfu - F/r,- London, England T5S52Sr75W 1994 Figure 1. The locked door of the alchem ical secret, surrounded by traditional sayings (dicta) relating to the alchem ical magnum opus. From Eirenaeus Philalethes’ collected com m entary on the fifteenth-century George Ripley, Ripley Reviv’d (London, 1 6 7 8 ). Copyright © 1994 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College All rights reserved Printed in the United States o f America To Marleen, Emily, and Ben This book is printed on acid-free paper, and its binding materials have been chosen for strength and durability. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA Newman, William R. Gehennical fire ; the lives of George Starkey, an American alchemist in the scientific revolution / William R. Newman, p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-674-34171-6 (acid-free) 1. Starkey, George, 1627-1665. 2. Alchemists— England— Biography. 3. Alchemy— History. 4. Science— England— History— 17th century. I. Title. QD24.S73N49 1994 540M '12'092— dc20 94-9508 [B] CIP Contents Acknowledgments ix A Note on Terminology XI Introduction 1 1 Starkey in America 14 2 Arcana Maiora; The Hartlib Years (1650-1654) 54 3 The Background to Starkey’s Chymistry 92 4 Revelation and Concealment: The Writings of Philalethes 115 5 A Sonne of Contention: 1655-1665 170 6 Philalethes in Context 209 7 Isaac Newton and Eirenaeus Philalethes 228 Appendix I Starkey’s Addresses in England, 1650-1665 247 Appendix II An Autobiographical Note by George Starkey 248 Appendix III Missing Starkey Manuscripts 252 Appendix IV Robert Boyle’s “Excuses of Philaletha” 254 Appendix V A Bibliography of Starkey’s Writings 256 Abbreviations 275 Notes 277 Index 339 Illustrations 1 Frontispiece of Ripley Reviv’d ii Following page 164: 2 The star regulus of antimony Acknowledgments 3 (A-G) Illustrations from the Opera omnia of Philalethes 4 Frontispiece of Pyrotechnia ofte Vuur-stuck-Kunde 5 The tomb of Lionel Lockyer 6 An advertisement for Lockyer’s Pill 7 Excerpt from Newton’s 1678/9 letter to Boyle 8 Frontispiece of Nathan Lacy’s De podagra First thanks go to I. Bernard Cohen, who suggested that I submit a book on George Starkey to Harvard University Press and who encouraged its pro­ duction in many ways. But the initial project predates my professional involvement with the History of Science. As an undergraduate, I was fortunate enough to work with three outstanding scholars in the fields of literature and science— Harold Jantz, who wrote on Philalethes (Starkey’s alias in alchemical literature), Elizabeth Sewell, and O. T. Benfey— all of whom tolerated my youthful enthusiasm for the subject. The “American philosopher,” as Starkey’s contemporaries referred to his persona, has in­ trigued me ever since. My fascination with this subject stems also from the beautiful treatment of Starkey given by George Lyman Kittredge in a seminal article written three-quarters of a century ago. Kittredge’s unpublished notes, resident in the Harvard University Archives, have proven to be an almost inexhaustible source of Starkeiana. I also owe thanks to more immediate sources, in particular to Lawrence Principe, who offered a number of important alterations to my understanding of Starkey’s chemistry. Chapters 4 and 5 owe a particular debt to Principe’s knowledge and goodwill. Monika Asztalos, Martha Baldwin, Peter Buck, Harold J. Cook, Lorraine Daston, Mordechai Feingold, Karin Figala, Peter Galison, Owen Gingerich, Rupert Hall, Robert Halleux, Michael Hunter, John Murdoch, P B. Newman, Katherine Park, A. I. Sabra, Steven Shapin, Alan Shapiro, Pamela Smith, Abha Sur, Richard Westfall, and Walter Woodward all read part or all of the book and provided valuable comments. X • Acknowledgments Others whose contributions helped me include Ulrich Neumann, who located essential German documents; John Young, who helped retrieve valuable material from the Hartlib papers in Sheffield, and Annabel Gregory, who expanded the shorthand of Starkey’s fragmentary diary. I also ac­ knowledge the help of Susanna Akerman, Ann Blair, Allan Brandt, Gerald Beasley, Theresa Bridgeman, Antonio Clericuzio, Anthony Grafton, Anita Guerrini, Steven Harris, Miles Jackson, Lynn Joy, Richard Kennedy, Tzvi Langermann, Dorothy Porter, E M. Rattansi, Timothy Raylor, Sandra Rouja, A Note on Terminology Thomas Siegel, andjohn Symons, from whose advice I benefited in a variety of ways. Among the libraries and archives to whom special thanks are owed I must include the Harvard University Archives, Houghton Library, the British Library, the library of the Royal Society, the Bermuda Archives, the library of the University of Glasgow, the Wellcome Institute, and the Massachusetts Historical Society. The research and writing of this book were underwritten by the following The reader of this book may at first be perplexed by my use of the terms grant-giving organizations (in chronological order): the Warburg Institute, alchemy and chemistry and the now archaic chymistry. But there is good the American Philosophical Society, the National Science Foundation reason to retain all three words. The Latin terms chymia and alchymia (Grant DIR-8808685), Stonehill College, Harvard University, and the Dib- (alternatively chemia and alchemid), from whence we get our modern ner Institute. names, were rigorously synonymous until the seventeenth century, as Robert Halleux, a profound historian of this subject, has asserted.^ Only during the Enlightenment were they severed once and for all, as when the French chemist E. E Geoffroy wrote his blistering Supercheries concemant la pierre philosophale of 1722.^ The two terms were still widely interchangeable throughout the seven­ teenth century. This presents problems to the modern reader, for most of us think we already know what alchemy meant— the transmutation of base metals into gold. Chemistry, too, will have a well-defined sense to most modern readers, and one that has little to do with metallic transmutation. The reader may find it an abrupt shock, then, to consider the definition that George Starkey, the subject of this book, gives to alchemy He derives the term from a fusion of the two Greek words hals, or “salt,” and chemeia, which he took to mean “separation,” for to Starkey, alchemy “is the Art of separating S alts .T h ere is nothing about either transmutation or even gold in Starkey’s definition, though these subjects were seldom far from his thoughts, and if alchemy means the separation of salts, then chemistry to him means “separation” proper. Starkey’s definition is idiosyncratic, but indicative of the interpretive difficulties that arise when we encounter the words of another era. I ask the XI Xll A Note on Terminology A Note on Terminology Xlll reader, therefore, to forget any preconceptions about the meaning of al­ The terms that we have considered so far were all capable of being treated chemy and chemistry, for I will use them interchangeably. In order to ease the either as synonyms for “the art,” alchemy, or its practitioners. But there is a way toward this lethean feat, and to offer a reminder that the next three- peculiar subject of the art that also needs elucidation. I refer to the term hundred-odd pages are set in the seventeenth century rather than our own, philosophical mercury or sophic mercury. In most cases this means the “first I shall occasionally employ the archaic term chymistry. By this I mean the matter” of the philosophers’ stone, the initial ingredient from which the totality of chemical/alchemical technology and theory as it existed in early alchemist must make that summum bonum. As such it need not mean modern Europe. This odd word has the virtue of combining all the conno­ metallic quicksilver at all, for alchemists were recommending the most tations of alchemy and chemistry into one convenient package, at once varied substances to make their marvelous agent of transmutation. Dew, exotic, crude, and a bit ungainly, which is exactly as most early modem humus, urine, and a host of other substances formed the basis of many a readers found it. recipe for the “great elixir,” and so any of these could be viewed as either a A related problem occurs in the word iatrochemistry, literally “medical “philosophical mercury” or as the source thereof. But the complications do chemistry.” This term is derived from the Latin iatrochymia (or iatrochemia) not end here. Many early modern alchemists had adopted the view of the or the more common chymiatria (or chemiatria), which were probably thirteenth-century writer Geber (or pseudo-Geber), whose Summa perjec- coined either by the Swiss physician Paracelsus von Hohenheim or his tionis asserts that the philosophers’ stone must be fabricated from the very sixteenth-century followers."^ Paracelsus pioneered a reform of medicine substance that nature herself uses in making metals. The term philosophical that shifted the therapeutic emphasis away from botanical cures to miner­ mercury, then, could designate not merely the “first matter” of the elixir but als. Since he employed the gamut of alchemical technology as a means of the prima materia or basic ingredient of metals in general. If one also purifying his medicaments, his reform was viewed rightly as an incorpora­ believed, as many did, that all things derive their origin from a “uniform tion of alchemy with medicine. The reader should be forewarned that the catholic matter,” the philosophical mercury could even be the fundamental majority of iatrochemical physicians inherited from alchemy not only the “chaos” out of which all things are made. simple technologies of distillation and refining but also an enduring belief To make matters even more confusing, early modern alchemical writers in the agent of metallic transmutation, the philosophers’ stone or elixir. not only employed an obscure terminology but also used a variety of Indeed, it was a common early modern belief that the philosophers’ stone graphic symbols for their substances and apparatus. Taken in part from the was a cure not only for base metals but for the ailing body of man. When signs for the planets, these symbols varied somewhat in meaning and form the term iatrochemistry appears in this book, therefore, let no one assume among different authors and over time. The following list defines only those that it refers simply to the disinterested production of pharmaceuticals. As symbols used in this book, which are a small subset of a greater whole. a chemical physician one could be— and usually was— an alchemist in every sense. aaa Amalgam, amalgamate 0 Regulus of antimony (men antimony) Another term requiring explanation is pyrotechny. During the seven­ Antimony trisulfide (Sb2S3) 5 teenth century, this word did not necessarily mean the art of making 0 Salt (NaCl) ? Copper fireworks. It had a specific meaning popularized by the famous Belgian C Silver X Crucible interpreter of Paracelsus, J. B. Van Helmont. To Van Helmont, pyrotechny Spiritus vini, ethyl alcohol A Fire meant the manipulation of matter by means of fire. Since most alchemical * Star regulus of antimony techniques employed heating, Helmontian pyrotechny was in effect a syno­ G Gold (crystalline Sb) or sal nym for alchemy. And since alchemy itself was more or less synonymous d Iron ammoniac (NH4CI) with chymiatria, by virtue of the curative quality of the philosophers’ stone, Lead Sulfur the “philosopher by fire” or pyrotechnist was also perforce an iatrochemist. ? Mercury Tartar (KHC4H4O6) “Philosopher by fire,” with its strong experimental connotations, was an intentionally polemical epithet directed against academic learning. As such 0 Niter (KNO3) Tin it became the favorite by-line of that arch-invectivist George Starkey. 5 Ounce V Water XIV A Note on Terminology A final term that we must introduce is the word alchahest, as Starkey spelled it, or alkahest, in its more usual form. The alchahest was an alchemi­ cal desideratum of dubious etymology popularized, though not invented, by Van Helmont. Paracelsus had already been seeking a substance that could reduce matter into its ultimate constituents, and his De renovatione et restoratione asserts that there is a sal circulatum— a term used also by Van Helmont as a synonym for the alchahest— which can return substances to their primum ens or primordial substance.^ Van Helmont, moreover, drew a Gehennical Fire parallel between the analytical abilities of the alchahest and the purgative powers of hellfire. As a result, the alchahest acquired the cognomen of ignis gehennae, “Gehennical fire,” from the Old Testament name for Hell, Ge­ henna.^ By extension of this conceit, Gehennical fire could refer to the philosophical mercury that was supposed to be the first ingredient in the quest for the philosophers’ stone, since alchemists often maintained that the philosophers’ mercury began its work by decomposing gold into its first principles. The fact that George Starkey spent most of his adult life in a quest for the alchahest and its cousin, the true philosophical mercury, has supplied me with the title of this book: nor is hellfire an inappropriate trope for Starkey’s life. The reader will encounter other “terms of art” throughout this book. But as these are of less general use, we shall restrict our explanations of them to their actual occurrence. Introduction Why should anyone choose to write a book about George Starkey? To judge by the work of contemporary historians, he was an obscure figure indeed. Despite his having been a colonial American scientist, Starkey receives no entry at all in the Biographical Dictionary of American Science, which pur­ ports to cover the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries, nor is he found in the Dictionary of American Biography.^ While R. P. Stearns’s authoritative Science in the British Colonies of America does mention Starkey, it limits his representation to four lines out of seven-hundred-odd pages.^ As Stearns notes, Starkey was a native of Bermuda who received his A.B. from Harvard College in 1646. He immigrated to London in 1650 and became a prominent physician there, only to die in the great plague of 1665. During these years in England Starkey wrote several influential medical works that continued to arouse interest into the eighteenth century. But this is only a small part of his extraordinary story, for Stearns and other historians of American science have failed to realize that Starkey in fact led two lives. Thanks to the researches of George Lyman Kittredge at the beginning of this century, and to later work by Harold Jantz and R. S. Wilkinson, it has long been suspected that Starkey secretly penned a number of influential works on alchemy, printed under the name of Eirenaeus Philalethes— liter­ ally, “A Peaceful Lover of Truth.” ^ What had hitherto seemed probable is now a matter of fact, for an analysis of Starkey’s letters has recently allowed me to prove that Starkey and Eirenaeus Philalethes were indeed one."^ But Eirenaeus Philalethes was more than a mere pseudonym, at least in the usual sense. Not content merely to adopt the name of Philalethes, Introduction Gehennical Fire Starkey went so far as to spread elaborate stories of his alter ego, claiming fitting that the reader first encounter the fabulous Philalethes in his chosen that Philalethes was a friend of his, still living in New England, whose name milieu, in the company of the great adepts of the seventeenth century. Starkey was under oath not to reveal. The secretive Philalethes went by the cognomen philosophus Americanus, but his identity remained unknown Elias Artista, Alexander Seton, and the Transmutation History even to Starkey’s closest friends.^ This “American philosopher” was reputed to have performed miraculous feats in New England, such as restoring the Between 1652 and 1658 the radical Fifth Monarchist Mary Rand predicted hair and teeth of an aged lady and bringing a withered peach tree to produce that “the philosophers stone” would become “speedily vulgar” in the com­ new fruit.^ Most important of all, however, Starkey broadcast the rumor ing reign of Christ on earth. It was thus that an idea bom of late Hellenism that Philalethes was an adept— a possessor of the alchemical philosophers’ and elaborated in the shadowy enclaves of Ismaili alchemy came to be stone, the agent of metallic transmutation. In this way Starkey managed to appropriated by the millenarians of seventeenth-century England. But this create a mythological persona of such charisma that long after his creator’s reference to the promise of alchemical riches was not an isolated instance. death many believed him still to be alive and performing transmutations in Although alchemy had been a relatively marginal discipline in the occiden­ the “English Islands or Plantations” in America.^ tal Middle Ages, it exploded into the mainstream of early modern Europe The works written by Starkey under the pseudonymous epithet of with a catastrophic v io len ce .T h e philosophers’ stone, an agent of trans­ Eirenaeus Philalethes were spectacularly successful. His most popular mutation promising to “perfect” ten times, one hundred times, even a work, the Introitus apertus ad occlusum regis palatium (An open entrance to thousand times its own weight of base metal, became the cause cdehre of the the closed palace of the king), went through at least nine Latin editions, not age of gold.^^ to mention its many translations into vernacular languages.^ Collected into But the medieval sages who had discovered this marvelous instrument of Philalethes’ Opera omnia (Complete works) in 1695, the Introitus was God’s beneficence had also learned of His stinginess in bestowing it. Indeed, reprinted as late as 1749.^ Philalethes’ works were known to G. W. Leib- the thirteenth-century Summa perfectionis of pseudo-Geber asserts that the niz,^*^ commented by Robert B o y le ,a n d esteemed by Isaac Newton. In­ philosophers’ stone is a donum dei— a gift of God— which He “extends to deed, on the basis of the latter’s attentions, Philalethes has been called by and withdraws from whom He wishes.”^® Suddenly, in the seventeenth one Newton scholar “the last great philosophical alchemist. It is highly century, it seemed that the Father of Lights was about to raise His veil of likely that Starkey’s output under the guise of Philalethes makes him the mystery and illumine not only his chosen, the “sons of wisdom,” but even most widely read American scientist before Benjamin Franklin. the enthusiastic followers of Mary Rand. How can it be that a man of Starkey’s humble origins and provincial How is it that alchemy acquired its association with prophecy? There are background achieved such success? Clearly the answer to this question strong medieval precedents for the connection, but for us the story begins cannot be had without a serious revision both of contemporary views about with Paracelsus von Hohenheim (1493-1541), an iconoclastic Swiss physi­ the role of alchemy in the scientific revolution and about the provinciality cian who is famous for fusing the techniques of alchemy with the aims of of colonial American science. In the present work we can only make a first medicine to arrive at the discipline of chemiatria— medical chemistry or, as step toward those goals, but without laying the foundations we shall it is usually called, iatrochemistry.^^ Paracelsus had predicted that sometime achieve nothing. Let us therefore proceed into the world of rumor and after his death “Helias” or “Elias the Artist” would come and reveal the intrigue that surrounded successful alchemists of the early modern period. hidden secrets of nature. This “Elias” was of course the prophet Elijah, A foray into the realm of alchemy will demonstrate the degree to which whose second coming had already been predicted by the Bible. The the philosophers’ stone had become the idee fixe of the age. Here the reader prophetical tradition of medieval Europe had made Elias a cornerstone of its will meet Eirenaeus Philalethes in his own environment, a literary world of predictions: hence the twelfth-century prophet Joachim of Fiore had longed anonymous adepts and their desperate followers, the roiling masses in for his arrival as the opening to an age of renovatioA^ But to Paracelsus, Elias quest of the philosophers’ stone. A stark contrast exists between this glitter­ was more than a prophet— he was a magus and alchemist who would ing and artificial world and that of Starkey’s upbringing, the barely hewn perform miracles of transmutation.^^ In his work Von den naturlichen Din- wilderness of Bermuda and New England, discussed in Chapter 1. It is only gen, Paraclesus says the following:

See more

The list of books you might like

Most books are stored in the elastic cloud where traffic is expensive. For this reason, we have a limit on daily download.