Matter-Theory in the Dutch Republic
The work of Steven Blankaart in Context
Name:
Email:
Student Number:
Date:
Course:
Teacher:
Second Reader:
Susanne Mans
[email protected]
5730090
13 July 2012
Master Thesis
Dr. Peter J. Forshaw
Prof. dr. Wouter J. Hanegraaff
-1-
Content
Introduction
3
1. The Field of Matter-Theory in the Dutch Republic
6
§ 1 Matter-Theories in the Seventeenth Century
8
1.1. Aristotelianism
9
1.2. Medieval and Alchemical Influences
13
1.2.1. Minima and Corpuscles
13
1.2.1.1. Minima
13
1.2.1.2. Corpuscles
15
1.2.2. Paracelsianism
18
1.2.2.1. The Academic Debate
19
1.2.2.2. The Helmontian View
21
1.2.2.3. Paracelsianism in the Dutch Republic
23
1.3. Seventeenth Century Matter-Theories
24
1.3.1. Cartesianism
24
1.3.2. The French School of Chemistry
29
1.3.3. The Dutch Chemists
31
§2 Friendship in the Dutch Republic
32
2. Steven Blankaart and Matter-Theory
35
§1 Steven Blankaart (1650-1704)
35
1.1. The Life of Blankaart
35
1.2. The Works of Blankaart
36
§ 2 Blankaart's Matter-Theory
37
2.1. The Three 'Hooft-Stoffen'
37
2.1.1. The Rejected 'Hooft-Stoffen'
38
2.1.2. Blankaart's Views on the Three 'Hooft-Stoffen'
41
2.2. Focus on the Third 'Hooft-Stof'
§ 3 The Developments in Blankaart's Matter-Theory
45
48
3.1. Intellectual Development in his Matter-Theory
48
3.2. Development in his Social Life
52
3. How to Position Blankaart's Matter-Theory in the Historiography of Natural Philosophy
in the Dutch Republic?
54
Bibliography
56
-2-
Introduction
Steven Blankaart (1650-1704), was a Dutch physician, apothecary, poet and painter. He edited and
commented upon many important international books, which were mainly concerned with new
medical developments or new theories of natural philosophy. These included treatises by the French
'Father of Modern Philosophy' René Descartes (1596-1650), the English diplomat, natural
philosopher and 'Magazine of all Arts', Sir Kenelm Digby (1603-1665), the French chymist and
important member of the Academie des Sciences, Nicolas Lémery (1645-1715), the Italian chymist,
Carlo Lancillotti (fl. 1672-1679), and the English physician John Mayow (1641-1679), who did
early research to the composition of air. 1 Blankaart was also one of the first authors to use the Dutch
word for what is now known as "scheikunde" (in English, the "art of separation"). 2 In addition,
Blankaart wrote many books himself. It should be emphasised that Blankaart did not refer to books
that transmit 'old knowledge', such as the works of Aristotle and other books used on the traditional
undergraduate courses at the universities, 3 he chose instead to promote works advocating 'new
knowledge'.
The transference of new knowledge was Blankaart's aim. He saw it as his duty to break away from
the old writers, the ancient authority of Hermes Trismegistus, the 'Arabic' alchemist Geber, whose
work is attributed to the Islamic alchemist Jãbir ibn Hayyãn but was probably the Italian Franciscan
Paulus de Tarento, or the early-modern occult philosophy of Paracelsus, and to present new clearly
written and understandable knowledge to the youth of his day:
I have seen it as my duty, honourable reader, to discuss the most important authors and to describe all the
important methods of preparation that one could wish for in the art of healing, the old and the young
contemporary writers, who write better than the old ones; as they covered their work with dark proverbs and
made it incomprehensible, among whom are mainly Hermes Trismegistus, Geber the Arab, Paracelsus and a
thousand others, of whom some disciples seem to have remained; among them you will find Johannes
1
2
3
Some examples of translations made by Blankaart:
DESCARTES. Nauwkeurige verhandelinge van de scheur-buik en des selfs toevallen, 1684.
DESCARTES. Proeven der Wys-begeerte; ofte Redenering, 1692. In the preface is mentioned that Blankaart
translated an appendix of the book from the original French langauge. (Uit de originele Franse taal vertolkt door den
Heer Stephanus Blankaart).
DIGBY. Appendix: Chymische verborgentheden aangaande de verandering en verbetering der metalen en
gesteenten, 1693.
LANCILLOTTI. De brandende salamander, ofte Ontleedinge der chymicale stoffen, 1680.
LÉMERY. Het Philosoophsche laboratorium of Der chymisten stook-huys, 1725.
Snelders 1993: 3. Snelders gave an overview of Dutch authors who used words that can be related to 'scheikunde'.
Blankaart was the first to use 'scheydeconst' in 1678. It was very common in the seventeenth century in the Dutch
Republic to use words which were related to chymistry (scheikunde).
Tuck 1998: 19.
-3-
Hollandus, Daniel Mylius, some in the Ephemerides Germanicæ, G[oossen van] Vreeswijk and all who write
with veiled words about the art of Gold-making. Those who want to put their pencil to paper, have to make it
understandable and as brief as possible. That is why I see it as my duty to describe all the methods of
preparation as succinctly and comprehensibly as possible, so that the youth, who would otherwise invest their
time less usefully than is necessary, have immediately the right notion of things, as clear as in a mirror. 4
Blankaart was for the most part an advocate for new chemical insights and he was aware of his
place in the scientific milieu, positioning himself as an important physician and philosopher, and
describing himself as the first to develop medicine in a Cartesian way. 5 Not only did he present
himself as an informant of new knowledge, he also contributed to the growing polemic against the
'occult sciences', in particular against alchemy. This polemical position, on the one hand against
alchemy and on the other for the development of chemistry is problematic. In the last two decades
of the seventeenth century both terms, alchemy and chemistry were in use. So how can we speak
accurately and consistently of alchemical theories, texts, or activities, and also of chemical theories,
texts, or activities occurring in the same period? How do we demarcate the boundaries between
them?6 With this in mind, I will use the term 'chymistry' to refer to 'alchemy/chemistry' in the
seventeenth-century, as (re)introduced by the two historians of alchemy William Newman and
Lawrence Principe.7
The context in which I will place this debate on the relation between alchemy and chemistry is,
geographically, the Dutch Republic and, philosophically, the role of matter-theory. According to
Newman, alchemy played a pivotal role in the great disjunction between the common view of
matter-theory before and after the mid-seventeenth century. 8 What is more, the pivotal role that
alchemy played in the development of matter-theory, gained the topic a lot of interest from the field
of natural philosophy. The examination of the material world was one of the main aims of a natural
philosopher such as Blankaart. This analysis was performed by posing three important questions.
4
5
6
7
8
Blankaart 1693: Preface. There are no available English translations of Blankaart's work. So unless otherwise noted,
all translations are my own with corrections of Peter Forshaw.
Ik hebbe dan myn schuldigen pligt geacht, waarde leser, alle de voornaamste autheuren door te wandelen, en uyt te
beschrijven alle de preparatien, die men soude wenschen te hebben in de genees-konst, zoo Oude als Jonge
hedensdaagse Schrijvers, die netter schryven dan oude; alsoo zy hare dingen met duystere spreek-woorden
onverstaanbaar gemaakt hebben, en onder dese sijn voornamentlyck Hermes Trismegistus, Geber Arabs,
Paracelsus, en duisent andere waar van heden nog eenige discipulen overgebleven schynen te zyn; onder dese vind
men Joh. Hollandus, Daniel Milius, sommige in de Ephemerides Germanicæ, G.Vreeswijk en alle die met
verbloemde woorden van de Gout-makerie nog schrijven. Die sijn pen op papier wil setten, moet verstaanbaar en
soo kort als het mogelyck is sig voor doen. Sulx heb ik dan myn pligt geacht alle preparatien kort en verstaanbaar
voor te dragen, op dat de jeugt, welke anders meer tyd onnuttelyck verquist, als noodig is, aanstonds het regte
denkbeeld van sake mag bevatten, en de zelve als in een Spiegel klaar beschouwen
Blankaart 1693: Preface.
Newman & Principe 1998: 32.
Newman & Principe 1998: 33.
Newman 2006: 5.
-4-
First, what is it that makes a thing what it is? Second, what is it that makes a thing a member of a
species or kind? Third, does that which makes a thing what it is and that which accounts for species
membership have a role in the generation of members of a species? 9 The answer to these questions
could often be found in theories of matter. 10 Several important theories were present in Blankaart's
day and many more new theories were to flourish during the period.
In this thesis I will construct the field of seventeenth-century matter-theory, the position of alchemy
within that field, the main players in the field, and in particular Blankaart's concept of matter-theory.
Because of the often vague usage, the concept 'field' is in need of some explanation. I apply the
concept of field as it is defined by Pierre Bourdieu, who defined a field as a social arena within
which struggles or maneuvers take place over specific resources and access to them. Hence, a field
should be understood as:11
a network, or a configuration, of objective relations between positions. These positions are objectively defined,
in their existence and in the determinations they impose upon their occupants, agents or institutions, by their
present and potential situation (situs) in the structure of the distribution of a species of power (or capital)
whose possession commands access to the specific profits that are at stake in the field, as well as by their
objective relations to other positions (domination, homology, etc).12
The most important players in this field are the different concepts of matter which are present in the
seventeenth-century Dutch Republic. Therefore I will focus on the main theories which are present
in Blankaart's time: the hylomorphic view deriving from Aristotelianism, the corpuscularian view
deriving from hylomorphic and alchemical theories, the spagyric influences on iatro-chemistry, the
newly established Cartesian view, and the impact of the French school of chymistry. These different
theories construct the intellectual field, but as is given by the theory of Bourdieu, not only
intellectual elements played an important role. Blankaart's work also needs to be situated in the
social environment (the Dutch Golden Age) in which he lived. These different frameworks will
provide us with new insights into Blankaart's polemical position.
9
10
11
12
Anstey 2011: 13.
The book Late Medieval and Early Modern Corpuscular Matter Theories (2001), the rise of Cartesianism, and the
theory of Locke about substance in the seventeenth century already indicate the importance of matter-theories.
von Stuckrad 2010: 4.
von Stuckrad 2010: 4.
von Stuckrad uses the field theory of Bourdieu. In the work of Bourdieu himself there is a further explanation of the
field and the role of the individual in it. Bourdieu & Wacquant 1992: 21.
-5-
Matter-theory in the Dutch Republic
Blankaart lived in a period which is now known as the Dutch Golden Age. A period in which the
Republic flourished, and Amsterdam was the most prosperous city in the Republic, the Seven
United Provinces were seen as religiously tolerant, the naval forces were the largest of the world
and had a strong transference of knowledge and trade with Asia, and it was the time that the Dutch
painters were producing the masterpieces that would make them world famous. 13 This glorious
image of the United Provinces is a topic of debate. Not only was the republic seen as a tolerant
world power, it was also a strictly Calvinist and fragmented society. 14 These paradoxes make it
difficult to grasp the concept of the Dutch Golden Age, but it is certain that even the people around
1650 were aware of the fact that they lived in a special era 15.
During this prosperous period Blankaart developed his matter-theory which will be placed in the
broader context of the seventeenth century. Before introducing other important matter-theories it is
necessary to realise that these theories were written in the seventeenth century and are therefore part
of a different historical frame of reference.
The development of natural philosophy during the Golden Age is often placed within the concept of
the 'Scientific Revolution'. The concept of the 'Scientific Revolution' as a coherent phenomenon is
mainly celebrated by authors such as Alexandre Koyré, A. Rupert Hall and Herbert Butterfield
during the mid-twentieth century. They have posed the idea of the existence of a real coherent,
cataclysmic, and climatic event that fundamentally and irrevocably changed what people knew
about the natural world and how they secured proper knowledge of that world. It was the moment at
which the world was made modern, it was a good thing, and it happened sometime during the
period from the late sixteenth to the early eighteenth-century. 16 This theory construed a fundamental
reordering of our ways of thinking about the natural world, 17 and about natural philosophy and its
development into 'real science'.
Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer challenged the idea of a coherent movement and emphasised the
importance of the experiment. 18 In Shapin's famous book, The Scientific Revolution, he challenged
13
14
15
16
17
18
Cook 2007: 8.
Janssen 2010: 806.
Frijhoff & Spies 2004: 130.
Shapin 1996: 1.
Shapin 1996: 2.
See Leviathan and the Air-pump. (1985).
-6-
several important historiographical issues. Shapin approached the seventeenth century as if it were a
collectively practised, historically embedded phenomenon. It is necessary to understand all aspects
of science: its ideas, practices institutional forms and social uses. Consequently there is no single
story that could possibly capture all the aspects of science or its changes in which we, in the late
twentieth century, are interested. 19 This will lead us to the idea that there is no essence of the
scientific revolution and that it is possible to tell multiple stories. 20 I will place this historical
research within this view, and therefore focus on the field in which Blankaart should be placed.
With this brief remark on the 'Scientific Revolution' it is possible to start with the creation of the
field in which the main ideas on matter-theory are present. Though, there are several problems
which need to be identified before the field can be reconstructed. First, it is necessary to identify the
actors in the field of seventeenth century matter-theory. Based on Blankaart's books, it is evident
that he was directly influenced by the works of Descartes and Lémery. Besides the direct influences
there were the works to which Blankaart reacted against, such as the Paracelsian influences, the
'alchemical' theories on the alcahest, the theory of water as the prime substance, and the Aristotelian
notion of matter. With these theories, and the individuals which advocated these theories, it is
possible to create the field in which we can position the physician's work.
The second problem derives from modern historiography and the difficult position that Blankaart
has within this historiography. As Kim pointed out, there is a big discrepancy between the historical
theory on corpuscularism and the players in the field itself. Blankaart is influenced by different
sources, both from England and France, which have a different position in the historiography of the
seventeenth century. There is a new cluster of scholarship, mainly focussed on Boyle, that
challenges the long-standing historiographical assumption that modern chemistry had to emancipate
itself from the old, mystical alchemical tradition to become a public science. On the contrary, the
alchemical tradition passed down a well-established material culture of chemical laboratory as well
as corpuscular thought to modern chemistry. 21
The third problem is the social context in which Blankaart was living. The field theory of Bourdieu
already pointed out that it is necessary to relate the intellectual ideas, which derive from the
different matter-theories, to the social context from which they derive. Therefore I would like to
19
20
21
Shapin 1996: 10. It should be noted that Shapin did not argue against the notion of Kuhn, he only focussed on the
concept of the scientific revolution as a coherent movement.
Shapin 1996: 10.
Kim 2001: 363.
-7-
introduce a theory which has been developed by Erna Kok 22 based on the work of Luuk Kooijmans
on the social relations within the Dutch Golden Age. According to Kooijmans the element of
friendship was central in the organization of social life at that time:
Such a notion of friendship is considerably different from the current Western notion. This is in the first place a
question of context: while friendship in the contemporary western world is mainly a private matter, friendship
relations played also a role in the manner in which society was organised in the early-modern period. In a
society in which the institutional structure was insufficient to secure social cohesion, stability depended on a
high degree of personal ties, and friendship was a concept that served to secure those ties. The early-modern
concept of friendship fitted in a tradition that was handed down from ancient times and the middle ages, where
friendship stood for cultivated consensus, peace and unity. 23
Kok adopted this concept of friendship and developed a theory based on it. In this theory it becomes
clear that the whole concept of a free market in the city of Amsterdam is an illusion and that the
main trading relations and social relations are mainly based on the concept of friendship.
This implies that for the reconstruction of seventeenth-century matter-theory it is not only necessary
to reconstruct the theories of matter, but it is also important to analyse Blankaart's social network
and relate this network to the development of his thought. In the first paragraph I will discuss the
matter-theories of the actors in the field while in the second paragraph the social network will be
investigated.
§ 1 Matter-Theories in the Seventeenth Century
To place Blankaart within the field of matter-theory is not easy when it comes down to seventeenthcentury matter-theories. It is not only the case that there are numerous theories present during the
22
23
Erna Kok is currently a PhD student at the University of Amsterdam within the department of Art History. For her
research on the seventeenth century art market and careers of painters, she has developed a theory based on the work
of Luuc Kooijmans Vriendschap en de kunst van het overleven in de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw, on social
relations during the Dutch Golden Age. Her dissertation will be published at the end of 2012, but she presented her
theory during a class on 21 May 2012 within the course New Perspectives of the Dutch Golden Age at the
University of Amsterdam. See also her article on this topic:
KOK. 'Zonder vrienden geen carrière: de succesvolle loopbanen van Govert Flinck en Ferdinand Bol'. De
Zeventiende Eeuw. Cultuur in de Nederlanden in Interdisciplinair Perspectief. Vol. 27. No. 2. (2011): pp. 300-336.
Kooijmans 1997: 14. Een dergelijke opvatting van vriendschap is nogal afwijkend van de huidige westerse
opvatting. Dat is in de eerste plaats een kwestie van context: terwijl vriendschap in de westerse wereld tegenwoordig
vooral een privézaak is, speelden vriendschapsrelaties in de vroegmoderne tijd ook een rol in de manier waarop de
samenleving was georganiseerd. In een maatschappij waarin de institutionele structuur ontoereikend was om sociale
cohesie te waarborgen, was stabiliteit in hoge mate afhankelijk van persoonlijke banden, en vriendschap was een
concept dat diende om die banden te verstevigen. Het vroegmoderne concept van vriendschap paste in een traditie
die was overgeleverd uit oudheid en middeleeuwen, waarin vriendschap stond voor het bevorderen van consensus,
vrede en saamhorigheid.
-8-
Dutch Golden Age, it is also the case that many of these theories change during this period and it
will be rather complicated to gain insight into the exact theories as Blankaart knew them. Therefore
there will be an historical overview of the developments within the field of matter-theory. The
starting point will be the Aristotelian theory, which can be seen as the fundamental theory.
Fundamental in the sense that it was the theory that everybody knew in the seventeenth century and
they either agreed fully, modified, or reacted against it.
1.1. Aristotle
Aristotelian philosophy was still taught at the universities during the Dutch Golden Age. Although
the term Aristotelian philosophy might sound as a coherent concept, it has no clear essence and
there is no single definition of Aristotelianism. On the contrary, for every case to which it is applied,
this needs to be clarified.24 It becomes even more complex with the anti-Aristotelian doctrines of the
seventeenth century, not only because they took polemical stances against the Aristotelian doctrine
but mainly because some of their doctrines looked more Aristotelian then the doctrines of the earlymodern Aristotelians themselves. 25 Modern scholarship no longer allows us to think of
Aristotelianism as one single philosophical unit and therefore it will be difficult to identify exactly
what Blankaart understood as Aristotelian and how he reacted, as a Cartesian, against it.
Aristotle's work has been influential from antiquity onwards. There was a very extensive
commentary tradition on his works, and the commentary tradition on Aristotle's natural works has
paid considerable attention to the twenty-two lines that make up the first chapter of Physics. There
were many high expectations of this text and it was often expected that Aristotle was going to lay
down the principles of science and define the method of scientific inquiry in these lines. 26
Unfortunately these lines do not seem to live up to these high expectations 27 and therefore the
academic discussion on Aristotelianism, and more specific on matter-theory within the work of
Aristotle, is highly controversial.
Before discussing the specific ideas of Aristotle's matter-theory it is necessary to introduce the
division between the sublunary and superlunary realms which is present in the Aristotelian line of
thought:
24
25
26
27
Lüthy, Leijenhorst & Thijssen 2002: 1.
Lüthy, Leijenhorst & Thijssen 2002: 2.
De Haas. In: Lüthy, Leijenhorst & Thijssen 2002: 31.
De Haas. In: Lüthy, Leijenhorst & Thijssen 2002: 31.
-9-
Aristotle’s world was one of purposeful striving, in which each of the four elements of the sublunary realm –
earth, water, air, and fire – strove to reach its “proper place”: matter strove for form, potentiality for actuality,
and the celestial bodies strove to imitate the perfection of the immaterial Prime Mover. This realm of constant
change from generation to corruption stood in contrast to the superlunary world, where the divine celestial
bodies moved according to the perfect, immutable circular motion characteristic of the fifth element. It is as if
Aristotle retained the idealizing, mathematical approach of his teacher Plato only for the celestial domain. In
contrast, to study the natural or phenomenal world that surrounds us (which Plato barely thought worthy of
study), Aristotle was forced to practically invent the disciplines of physics, biology, and chemistry, among
others.28
This division between superlunary and sublunary realm is fundamental for the understanding of
Aristotelian matter-theory. All the different notions and concepts of matter which can change are
only to be found in the sublunary realm. To identify all these different types and notions of matter it
is necessary to analyse the concept of substance. 29 Justin Broackes, who specialized in the notion of
substance during the seventeenth and eighteenth century, suggested this approach.
Broackes pointed out that there are many uses of the word 'substance' in the work of Aristotle, since
the word stems from the Greek for 'to be'.30 He singled out four main candidates for the word
substance, these forms all four play an important role in the seventeenth century:
1. First Substances, or individuals such as Tibbles the Cat
2. Second Substances; the kinds of which the First Substances are such as cats
3. Essences or Natures; the fundamental property or properties a thing has to have in
order to be, for instance the 'catness' of a cat
4. Matter, either proximate matter (bones, tissue, etc.) or remote matter (the four
elements or prime matter). 31
For this essay it is useful to focus on the third and the fourth conception of substance, i.e., on the
essence or nature, and on matter. Before looking at the actual work (Physics) of Aristotle, I would
like to discuss the summaries of Bostock and Hooykaas first. Bostock introduced the view of
Aristotle briefly and he discussed two main points. First, it is necessary to understand that Aristotle
28
29
30
31
Chase 2011: 513.
Broackes 2006: 133.
Broackes 2006: 133. Substance is a rather difficult term in contemporary philosophy mainly due to the discrepancy
between the ordinary usage and the traditional significance of the word. The word stems from the Greek word
Ousia; being, which comes from the verb einai; to be.
Broackes 2006: 133, 134.
-10-
did not believe in any kind of atomism. Aristotle spoke about the four elements: air, water, fire and
earth. He supposed that they can all change into one another. This could be done because there is a
'prime matter' of which all the four elements exists. Second, there is the concept of change and
generation in a substance. There is no such thing as 'generation ex nihilo'; in every change there is
something to start with, and during the change that thing becomes something which it was not
before. There is always some way of characterizing what is there at the beginning of change, which
allows us to say that that same thing persists all through, and is still there at the end. Not only is
there this something that persists, but also this persistent thing is at the same time a thing that
underlies all things.32
Hooykaas, who was interested in the chemical history of the elements, started with pointing out that
material substances consist of matter and form (hylomorphism):
The form can be compared with the contents of a concept: those features which make the thing what it is. The
coming-to-be of a thing concerns in itself no substance, but only a potential substance. It never exists without
form. […] Aristotle's notion of matter -hyle- is not equivalent to our notion of matter. Modern science does not
know such a notion, for, if it assumes a primary substance, this is not an indefinite one; it is not a potential
body, but a real body. […] speculations about movement among other things lead him to the assumption that
there are four elements: earth, water, air, and fire. […] We know the substances by their properties which are
general, in each body, in order to find out which in particular are due to the elements. He regards the sense of
touch as the most general sense, and the qualities which are perceived by it -moist, dry, hot and cold- as the
most general qualities.33
After these brief introductions, which have already shown the importance of the concept of
substance, the notion of form and the changing process of substance, I would like to discuss books I
and II of the Physics. In these books Aristotle discussed the concept of substance in relation to
matter and essence.
The first step that Aristotle took was to identify substance as the only principle that existed by itself .
After the identification of substance he started talking about different kinds of substances, as
pointed out in the work of Broackes. The focus here will be on his work on matter, the first pillar in
his hylomorphic theory. Aristotle denied that there is only one source for all matter, although it
might be possible that everything is made of the same stuff. The best option for this stuff, was the
32
33
Bostock 2006: 32, 33.
Hooykaas 1933: 6-8.
-11-
existence of some kind of intermediate stuff: 34
186a18 As a matter of fact, it is not even possible for everything to be one in species, because a man is
specifically different from a horse, and opposites are specifically different from one another. But it may be
possible for everything to be made of the same stuff; this, rather than the former alternative, is the sense in
which some natural scientists say that everything is one. 35 [...] 189a34 This is the claim made by those who say
that the whole universe consists only of a single stuff, like water or fire or something intermediate between
them. The most plausible of these ideas is that it is some intermediate stuff, because fire, earth, air, and water
are already intrinsically connected with various oppositions. 36
These oppositions are fundamental in the theory of hylomorphism as we know it today. 37 Apparently
this opposition was also known in antiquity, since Aristotle simply postulated postulated that
everyone regarded the opposites already as principles and he did not elaborate on this part of his
theory.
188a19 It is clear, then, that in one way or another everyone regards the opposites as principles. This is a
reasonable position to hold, because for things to qualify as principles they must not consist of one another or
of other things, and everything must consist of them. Primary opposites fulfil these conditions. Because they
are primary, they do not depend on another.38
In chapter two of Physics Aristotle introduced the concept of form, the second pillar of his
hylomorphic theory.
193b6 Also, form is a more plausible candidate for being nature than matter is because we speak of a thing as
what it actually is at the time, rather than what it then is potentially 39. 194a12 Since 'nature' refers to two things
-that is, both form and matter- our investigation had better imitate an enquiry into what it is to be snubness, or
something else which should not be considered in isolation from matter, but should not be restricted to matter
either.40
With these quotations I have shown that the hylomorphic theory is present in the work of Aristotle. I
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
This might seem contradictory at first sight, because Aristotle first claimed that it is not possible that everything has
the same source and the continues with claiming that everything can be made of the same stuff. But although that
everything can be made out of the same stuff there is still the fundamental difference between the substances and the
nature/essence of the substance (cat, man, tree etc) as introduced by Broackes.
Aristotle 1996: 13, 14.
Aristotle 1996: 23.
Hooykaas 1933: 7.
Aristotle 1996: 20.
Aristotle 1996: 35.
Aristotle 1996: 37.
-12-
would like to point out that this is one interpretation of the concept of substance, and that we cannot
be sure about Blankaart's perception.
1.2 Medieval and Alchemical Influences
During the medieval period two important matter-theories emerged. The first concept, minima and
corpuscles, derived from Aristotelian tradition, which was the most influential and important
tradition of the twelfth and thirteenth century, and underwent a change due to alchemical influences.
The second theory, of semina, was prominent in the work of the Swiss physician Paracelsus and can
be seen as iatrochemical.
1.2.1. Minima and Corpuscles
The late medieval natural philosophers developed the theory about minima and corpuscles. For the
philosophers Aristotle's authority was unrivalled and this has lead to the fact that they tried to
maintain the Aristotelian philosophy although they did have problems with several notions. At first
natural philosophy was nothing above and beyond the study and explanation of Aristotle's libri
naturales, and therefore it was nearly tautologous to speak of Aristotelian natural philosophy. The
strong school formation produced competing Aristotelianisms, in each of which extraneous
religious and Platonist ingredients were forcefully present. 41
From the Aristotelian notion of matter originated two important notions of matter. The first notion is
that of the minimum, which is based on the Aristotelian doctrine that substantial forms are not
preserved beyond a given limit. 42 The second notion, that of corpuscles also derived from the
Aristotelian doctrine of substance, and is concerned with the the problem of mixture. To illustrate
how these two notions came into being I will discuss these two phenomena separately.
1.1.2.1. Minima
The concept of minima is a notion that changed nearly as much as Aristotelianism itself. The
original meaning of the concept is that of limit to the division of a substance, in the Aristotelian
sense.43 The ultimate source for the idea of minima naturalia is Book I, chapter 4, of Aristotle's
41
42
43
Lüthy, Leijenhorst & Thijssen 2002: 1.
Clericuzio 2000: 10.
Clericusio 2000: 10.
-13-
Physics. Aristotle commented upon the understanding of the physical theory of the Greek
philosopher Anaxagoras (5 BCE). The main problem was the fact that Anaxagoras maintained that
there were an infinite number of homeomerous [consisting of the same parts] substances. This was
incorrect according to Aristotle and he introduced the minima to explain that it is impossible for
naturalia [animals, plants] to be indefinitely large or small, so it must be impossible that their parts
[minima] be indefinitely large or small 44. Apart from this argument Aristotle also argued that if
everything is in everything, and if anything comes from anything by segregation, then by the
repeated extraction or segregation of parts from a finite natural body, at some point that extraction
will come to an end, which means that there will be a size than which there will be no smaller
things45.
This theory of minima marked a significant step towards the establishment of corpuscular
philosophy. Not only Aristotle discussed the concept of minima but many dramatis personae, as
Murdoch introduced them, developed the theory of minima. Among them were the Dominican
monk Albertus Magnus (1193/1206-1280) to whom many alchemical treatises were attributed, the
Franciscan friar and English philosopher who was inspired by alchemical theory Roger Bacon
(1214-1294), the famous Aristotelian philosopher Averroes (1126-1198), William of Ockham (12881348), a major figure of medieval thought and is commonly known for Ockham's razor, and
Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274) who managed to unite christian theology with Aristotelian
philosophy46. Although all these men discussed the concept of minima, this does not imply that the
theory of minima can be considered as a corpuscular theory of matter. The main reason is that even
if minima were deemed to be actually existing parts of matter, they were not used as explanans of
natural phenomena47. Furthermore, Anneliese Maier pointed out that the majority of scholastic
philosophers did not see the notion of minima as incompatible with the Aristotelian doctrine of the
infinite divisibility of natural bodies, 48 with as major exception the thirteenth century work of PsGeber which will be discussed in the paragraph on corpuscles.
The transformation of minima into corpuscles happened, according to Clericuzio, two centuries
later. Two important steps take place in the work of Julius Caesar Scaliger (1484-1558) and
Agostino Nifo (1473-1538/1545). Nifo maintained that generation, growth and alteration take place
44
45
46
47
48
Murdoch. In: Lüthy, Murdoch & Newman 2001: 96, 97.
Murdoch. In: Lüthy, Murdoch & Newman 2001: 98.
For the complete list of works on minima discussed in the work of Murdoch see Lüthy, Murdoch & Newman 2001:
99-101.
Clericuzio 2000: 11.
Clericuzio 2000: 11.
-14-
by means of minima. The minima are present as parts in this work and that paves the way to
Scaliger's view. Scaliger presented an influential and innovative view in the Exotericarum
Exercitationum Libri XV. He maintained that minima were not just the limit to division, but were the
actual physical indivisible components of bodies. He explained a wide range of physical and
chemical phenomena by having recourse to the minima, and with this he attributed motion, size and
arrangement to the properties of the minima49.
1.1.2.2. Corpuscularism
The development of Corpuscular theory is attributed to several different influences. As is shown in
the former paragraph, Clericuzio made a strong claim for the fact that the corpuscular theory
emanated from the theory about minima. It rejected the scholastic notion of substantial forms and
explained sensible qualities in terms of motion of corpuscles endowed with purely mechanical
properties, and reduced all natural phenomena to matter and motion. 50 Newman, however, claimed
that the development of these corpuscular theories was mainly due to the pivotal role that alchemy
played. Alchemy caused a great disjunction between the common view of matter-theory before and
after the mid-seventeenth century. 51 He has shown that matter theory underwent a sea of change at
the hands of medieval and early modern alchemists. It was alchemy that provided corpuscular
theorists with the experimental means to debunk scholastic theories of perfect mixture and to
demonstrate the retrievability of material ingredients. 52
The first developments of the corpuscular theory, as is highlighted by Newman (2001, 2006), were
the corpuscular theories of thirteenth-century alchemist Geber and Daniel Sennert (1572-1637). The
main problem that these two men faced were the properties of substance within Aristotelian
philosophy. In the Aristotelian view the substance is irretrievable, once a substance is mixed with
another substance a totally new substance will come into existence and it is impossible to retrieve
the two original substances. As reactions against this, several corpuscular theories were developed
and they exploited the idea that matter could be composed of invisibly small corpuscles having
more or less permanent characteristics. 53
The first concept of the experimental corpuscular theory of medieval and early modern Western
49
50
51
52
53
Clericuzio 2000: 11, 12.
Clericuzio 2000: 1.
Lüthy, Murdoch & Newman 2001: 2.
Lüthy, Murdoch & Newman 2001: 3.
Newman 2006: 4.
-15-
alchemists was largely an elaboration in the textual tradition inaugurated around the end of the
thirteenth century by Geber in the Summa Perfectionis.54 Newman has shown that chapter twentyfour of the Summa express the theory of Geber very clearly:
Each of these [principles] in genere is of very strong composition and uniform substance. This is so because
the particles of earth are united through the smallest particles (per minima) to the aerial, watery, and fiery
particles in such a way that none of them can separate from the other during their resolution. But each is
resolved with the other on account of the strong union that they mutually have received through the smallest
(per minima).55
This does not imply that Geber denied the Aristotelian view. Geber asserted that the four
Aristotelian elements combine the smallest particles to form the compounds of mercury and
sulphur. So he perceived the four elements as minute corpuscles that bind together to form larger
complex corpuscles united in a “very strong composition'. 56 This view is the basis of the work of
Daniel Sennert.57
Daniel Sennert published the Hypomnemata physica in 1637 and introduced his corpuscular theory
of matter. He developed a detailed defence of the notion that matter is composed of insensible
particles that come together to make up bodies at the macro-level and can in turn be redivided into
their original minimal form. 58 Although he also rejected the hylomorphic concept of Aristotle, he
continued to work within the Aristotelian philosophical model and he imagined the minima naturae
or atomi to be the smallest units of the four elements, which in turn compose the prima mixta as the
real, experimentally treatable units of matter. 59
Sennert dismissed mathematical arguments in his matter theory as he was only interested in how
nature in generation and resolution subsists in some kind of small bodies. He was one of the first to
determine these atomic dimensions by means of experiment. 60
The language in which these observations were described abounded with quantitive statements about the
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
Newman 2006: 26. and Newman 1996: 570.
For this essay the identity or the origins of the Summa perfectionis are not relevant, only the perception of this work.
See Newman 1985. New Light on the Identity of Geber and Newman 2006: 16.
Newman 2006: 27. This quotation is taken from Newman's own translation of the Summa.
Newman 2006: 27.
Newman 1996 & Newman 2006.
Newman 1996: 573.
Meinel 1988: 73.
Meinel 1988: 76, 77.
-16-
duration of the experiment, the number of corpuscles, the amount of the product, or the size of the
candlewick. There is not, however, the vaguest idea of a quantitative methodology behind these indications.
The language of the laboratory displays its figurative and rhetorical power, aimed at the imagination of the
reader and his eventual persuasion. In tribute to the new scientific age, arguments needed support from the
rhetoric of the experiment. But to do justice to Sennert, we have to admit that, in this case, even the most
scrupulous quantitative experimenter would not have arrived at any result. 61
Even though it seems that Sennert tried to explain the atomic dimensions by means of experiment,
he also admitted that, given the dimness of human cognition, there was no way of proving the
mechanism by which the unity of parts was brought about and the form of the new compound
generated. So he left this matter untouched and argued that one thing was certain: every mixture
could be resolved into those parts out of which it was originally constituted. 62 He still kept the
Aristotelian notion of form in order to account for the specific properties of the mixture. 63
Even so, this was an important argument in favour of corpuscles, although he preserved certain
elements of Aristotelianism.
The reason for introducing Geber and Sennert is their influence in the seventeenth century via the
works of Robert Boyle (1627-1691). Newman claimed that the corpuscular theories of Boyle did
not derive from figures such as Descartes, Pierre Gassendi (1592–1655) and Francis Bacon (15-611626), for which is argued by Marie Boas Hall,64 but that they derive directly from the work of
Sennert who is inspired by Geber. Not only Boyle was interested in the corpuscular theories, it was
in the seventeenth-century that this doctrine merged with “high theory'' to form the experimentally
based matter-theory.65
Although both men, Clericuzio and Newman, argue that the corpuscular theory played an important
role from the sixteenth century onwards it is Meinel who claimed that the particles were often taken
for granted in the corpuscular theory:
The particles were taken for granted, and their ontological and epistemological status did not even become a
matter of debate. This noncommittal character enabled the resulting notion of corpuscle to assume whatever
requirements future research would find convenient […] In any case, it would be mistaken to describe the steep
rise of atomism as “a triumph of patient experimental research over metaphysical speculation”, unless we
61
62
63
64
65
Meinel 1988: 78.
Meinel 1988: 92.
Meinel 1988: 93.
C. Lüthy, J.E. Murdoch & W.R. Newman. (2001). 15.
C. Lüthy, J.E. Murdoch & W.R. Newman. (2001). 14.
-17-
admit that science proceeds by inferring correct theories from inadequate experiment. 66
1.2.2. Paracelsianism
A new current that came into being during the medieval period or early renaissance was
Paracelsianism. For some, this represented a radical break with medical authority, for others, it
stood as an attack upon the intellectual jurisdiction of Aristotelian philosophy, and especially
Aristotelian logic.67
Reconstructing the Paracelsian influence is an obscure task. The life, theories and influence of
Paracelsus, whose real name was Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim
(1493-1541), are difficult to reconstruct. Although there are many books bearing his name, it is not
even certain what the meaning of the name Paracelsus is. 68 The historical figure covers by no means
the ideas that we now have about Paracelsus. Any concept of Paracelsianism is going to be
manufactured, its tradition of Paracelsians constructed, and its members selected by the historian.
Cunningham introduced the concept of the thin and the fat Paracelsus based on two images: an
etching by Augustin Hirschvogel (1538) and an engraving by W. Marshall (1528). The first image
shows Paracelsus as thin, hatless, bald, simply dressed, and with an expression which is neither
smile nor scowl, while the second image shows him as fat, hatted, with hair showing below the hat,
richly appareled, and with an expression which might be a smile. 69 These two images represent,
according to Cunningham, the little knowledge the historians have about the historical Paracelsus
and the huge amount of properties they attribute to Paracelsus.
Of course it does not feel as though we are creating new fat Paracelsus-es as we labour to read and understand
the writings of Paracelsus and his contemporaries. Indeed, the act of reading Paracelsus's own writings and of
deploying them in our writings about him, make us feel that the opposite is true: that we are reading and thus
listening to the true Paracelsus, and in our writings we are revealing the true, thin, Paracelsus to our audiences.
Yet always there is the problem of the selectivity we unwittingly practice: our eagerness to see in what
Paracelsus wrote what we want to find, plus our willingness to believe that Paracelsus must have meant what
we want him to have meant.70
This historiography makes it clear that it will be impossible to give an objective account of
66
67
68
69
70
Meinel, C. (1988). 103.
Buntz 2005.
Benzenhöfer 2005.
Cunningham. In: Grell 1998: 57.
Cunningham. In: Grell. 1998: 61.
-18-
Paracelsus's own concept of the tria prima, and already illustrates the transformation and the
different conceptions of the theory of matter, not only in modern scholarly work but also in the
perception of seventeenth-century physicians in the Dutch Republic. The concept of matter-theory
is not described by Paracelsus as such. In fact, there are several academic discussions about the
concepts of matter in the Paracelcian works at this moment, and there were many more
interpretations in the seventeenth-century. Both discussions can be placed within the 'fat Paracelsus'
description, but this is probably the only description that is possible.
1.2.2.1. The Academic Debate
Although there are still many discussions on the Paracelsian matter-theory it is clear that the notion
of semina is central to the works of Paracelsus and of the Paracelsians. This does not imply that it
originated within this tradition. The concept of seeds can be traced back to Anaxagoras, who
maintained that all natural bodies are generated from specific steeds. Throughout history, from the
Greek philosophy onwards, the notion of semina played an important role in several mattertheories: the Stoics tradition, Plotinus, Augustine, Albertus Magnus and several other alchemical
theories. In the Renaissance philosophy the concept of semina re-surfaced in philosophy and
medicine. Not only in the Paracelsian tradition but also in the works of philosophers Marsilio Ficino
(1433-1499) and Girolamo Fracastoro (1478-1553).71
There are several important historians of science/natural philosophy who discussed the Paracelsian
theory. Among them is the Dutch historian of science Reijer Hooykaas. In 1933 he published his
influential dissertation Het begrip element, in which he explained his interpretation of the
Paracelsian theory. According to the Dutch philosopher of science, is the matter-theory centred
around the the tria prima: sulphur, mercury, and salt. All bodies consist of these elements, not only
metals but even man. Human health depends on these principles, mainly on their proportions: 72
Notwithstanding the fact that the theory of three principia is essentially a qualitative theory, the principles thus
being carriers of properties. Paracelsus' approach was less naïve than that of Scholasticism. In Paracelsus'
opinion the principles are demonstrated not by directly observed qualities but by chemical analysis by fire: <<
Das feur bewehrt die dray Substanzen unnd stellt sie lauter und klaar für, rein und sauber: das ist, diewell das
Feur nit gebraucht wirdt, dieweil ist nicht bewehrdt do>>. Thus no carriers are invented to correspond in a
superficial way with an observed quality: only preparation reveals the carriers and the properties that these give
71
72
Clericuzio 2000. 16-18.
Hooykaas 1933: 77.
-19-
to the substances. The quantitive proportion of the three principles will influence the properties of the whole. 73
Hooykaas introduced the theory of properties from the scholastic ideas and he identified the
principles with the carriers of properties, but he pointed out that Paracelsus did not use them in the
same way. Paracelsus abandoned the unity of substance in the Aristotelian way. He implied that the
apparent homogeneity of the compound is not a substantial form, but an archeus, the vital principle.
The vital principle of a substance or compound meant that we could not see the three substances as
long as something lives, but the three substances manifest themselves through death and chemical
decomposition.74
Another important medical historian, Walter Pagel, who is one of the first generation Paracelsus
scholars, touched also upon the theory of matter. He discussed the relationship between the four
Aristotelian elements (air, earth, fire and water) and the principles (tria prima) in a more direct
manner. The elements are not the last and irreducible components of matter, they owe their
admixture to the principles. The tria prima are the three principles of which all bodies consist. 75
In all objects of nature there is something that makes them more or less combustible and gives them “body,
substance and structure” (“aedificium”) -this is their “Sulphur”. There is also something which makes them
solid and gives them “colour, balsam and solidity” (“coagulation”)- this is their “Salt”. Finally something in
their constitution makes them fluid or vaporous, conferring upon them “virtues, power and arcana” - this is
their “Mercury”.76
Although all bodies consist of mercury, sulphur, and salt, it is not possible to see them as loose
components which build all the matter. The three components stand for principles conferring on
matter some faculty or condition such as structure, corporality and function. The nearest approach is
through the concept of semina. The semina contain soul-like impulses and are built out of the tria
prima. This leads us to the idea that the world is created from primal matter (the 'Semina') which
already contain the soul: 77
Paracelsus leaves no uncertainty as to what really matters concerning the essential difference between natural
73
74
75
76
77
Hooykaas 1933: 80. Translation of the German in the quotation that is given by Hooykaas: 'The fire reinforces the
three substances and poses them plain and clear, pure and clean: that means, while the fire is not used, the
substances are not reinforced'.
Hooykaas 1933: 82. 'In the Aristotelian theory of matter, it is not possible to retrieve the original substances once a
new compound is formed. A new compound is a complete new substance. It is Daniel Sennert, via Geber, who
introduced the retrieval of the original substances out of a new compound'.
Pagel 1958: 82.
Pagel 1958: 101.
Pagel 1958: 103.
-20-
objects, i.e. their specificity as individuals and members of a species. The decisive factor is the immanent,
specific, soul-like force rather than the -visible- chemical components of an object. The substances which we
handle in daily life are but crude covers that envelop and disguise a pattern of spiritual forces. It is this pattern
and not the corporeal cover which is responsible for the composition of matter. Among the coarse visible
substances, it is in earth, water, air, fire, and sulphur, salt, mercury that the pattern of spiritual forces is least
disguised and comparatively easy to recognise. 78
This leads to the idea that not the composition of matter, but the spiritual forces which direct bodies
to assume certain qualities are the true elements and principles, whereas the elements of the ancients
and the tria prima crystallized deposits.79 Pagel described matter as composed of elements and
principles, but the composition must be understood in a fluid and dynamic, rather than in a chemical
and material, sense.80
This academic discussion already illustrates that understanding and interpreting the work on matter
of Paracelsus is rather difficult and that it is very likely that we end up with an image of the fat
Paracelsus. At least, the academic debate gives us insight in the main Paracelsian ideas about
matter-theory; the theories about the tria prima, semina and the relation with the four Aristotelian
elements.
In the seventeenth century it was not the matter-theory which was the most important element of the
Paracelsian tradition, but the iatrochemistry that originated from this tradition. This tradition
developed mainly during the seventeenth century in the writings of Jan Baptista van Helmont
(1579-1644), Franciscus de le Boë Sylvius (1614-1672), Raymond Vieussens (ca. 1635-1715) and
many others.81 This tradition not only connected Paracelsus to an explanation of disease as specific
entities with specific etiologies, rejecting thereby the ancient doctrine of humours, but annexed
Paracelsian notions to explications of physiological processes in the idiom of chemistry. 82
1.2.2.2. The Helmontian View
One of the most influential iatrochemists is the Flemish chemist Van Helmont. With his work he
inspired several Dutch physicians such as Sylvius, and therefore his theory will be discussed briefly
as well. Van Helmont also used the concept of semina in his work. Water and semina are the two
78
79
80
81
82
Pagel 1958: 83.
Pagel 1958: 84.
Pagel 1958: 84.
Buntz 2005.
Buntz 2005.
-21-
principles of natural bodies, the former being the material one, while the seeds are the spiritual
principles.83 The idea of seeds as spiritual principles already indicates that they have an antimaterialistic character, the main agents in nature being spiritual, non-corporeal entities. 84
With the willow tree experiment, which is published posthumously in the Ortus Medicinæ (first
edition 1648), Van Helmont illustrated the important role that water played:
"But I have learned by this handicraft-operation that all Vegetables do immediately, and materially proceed out
of the Element of water onely. For I took an Earthen vessel, in which I put 200 pounds of Earth that had been
dried in a Furnace, which I moystened with Rainwater, and I implanted therein the Trunk or Stem of a Willow
Tree, weighing five pounds; and at length, five years being finished, the Tree sprung from thence, did weigh
169 pounds, and about three ounces: But I moystened the Earthen Vessel with Rain-water, or distilled water
(alwayes when there was need) and it was large, and implanted into the Earth, and least the dust that flew about
should be co-mingled with the Earth, I covered the lip or mouth of theVessel with an Iron-Plate covered with
Tin, and easily passable with many holes. I computed not the weight of the leaves that fell off in the four
Autumnes. At length, I again dried the Earth of the Vessell, and there were found the same two hundred
pounds, wanting about two ounces. Therefore 164 pounds of Wood, Barks, and Roots, arose out of water
onely." (Helmont,1662).85
Also the concept of semina also played a central role:
It was through perfect knowledge (scientia adepta) that the “bolts” behind which truth “had hidden itself from
him” were removed, by virtue of the “art of fire”, that is, chemistry. This study is concerned with analysis, the
dismantling of composite bodies down to the invisible semina of things; and with the knowledge of how the
semina mature and how the complex is formed from the simple (synthesis). […] The seeker of truth should
therefore purchase coal and phials. 86
The semina are the primordia from which all things were to develop. Generation and development
are not the work of seminal matter, but of the operative and formative “images that are struck,
impressed and sealed in the semina”87. So this implies that it is not only the spiritual principle of the
semina, but that the semina contain blue-prints of the images and these make the semina fertile.
With this theory he rejected Aristotelianism, mainly because the chemist believed that the object is
83
84
85
86
87
Clericuzio 2000: 19.
Clericuzio 2000: 56.
This quotation is cited from the work of Hershey 2003: 80.
Pagel 1982: 21.
Pagel 1982: 24.
-22-
not composed of form superadded to matter, but that form is the force intrinsic to and inseparable
from matter.
1.2.2.3. Paracelsianism in the Dutch Republic
Not only the Helmontian theory became influential during the seventeenth century, there was also a
strong Paracelsian influence in the Republic as well.
Many of Paracelsus's works found their way into the Dutch vernacular language and there were
several Dutch practitioners. During the sixteenth century several (attributed) treatises of Paracelsus
were translated. Pieter Volck Holst, a surgeon from Delft, translated the book Die groote chirurgie88
(1555) and in the preface of the book he avidly supported iatrochemistry. A smaller work was
translated by Martin Everaerts Die cleyne chirurgie ende 't gasthuys boeck 89 (1568) and several of
his works on medicines and the three principles were translated by Jan Pauwelsz. as Theophrastus
des ervarenene vorsten alier medicyns, van den eersten dry principiis overgheest 90 (1588).
The most influential figures of that belonged to the Paracelsian tradition were Isaac and Johan Isaac
Hollandus, probably father and son, who are still seen as shadowy fifteenth-century figures. They
developed and improved alchemical furnace and experimented with metals, stones, vegetables, and
fluids of the human body such as urine and blood, and there are also speculations that father and son
Hollandus introduced the important theory that natural things were composed of three states: the
fluid (mercurial), the combustible (sulfurous), and the fixed (salt) into the Dutch Republic. 91 Harold
Cook also suggested that they had a more ambitious goal: to work with substances in such a way
that the essential stuff that lay behind all things could be materialized in its pure form, the
philosopher's stone, commonly thought to look like a yellowish or reddish powder and it contained
powers of life and transformation.92
88
89
90
91
92
The Great Book of Surgery (translated by Cook).
The Little Book of Surgery and Hospital Practice (translated by Cook).
Theophrastus, the Experienced Prince of Doctors, from the First Three Spiritual Principles (translated by Cook).
Cook 2007: 138-141.
Cook 2007: 139.
-23-
1.3. Seventeenth Century Matter-Theories
The Dutch Republic in the seventeenth century was a hotbed for scientists. Not only was the
Republic a place which many important scientist visited during their Grand Tour, but also many
important books were published there, and several different matter-theories were present. The
theories which are discussed in the former paragraphs were present in the Republic around 1650,
the year that Blankaart was born, but many more started to flourish from the turn of the seventeenth
century onwards.
1.3.1. Cartesianism
One of the most influential theories which flourished during the seventeenth century was the mattertheory of Descartes. Although Descartes was born in France, he spent twenty years of his life in the
Republic and had an enormous influence on the philosophical climate. The University of Franeker
became a hotbed for Cartesianism from 1660 onwards, 93 and it was during that time that Blankaart
studied in Franeker. It is an interesting similarity that Descartes himself was also enrolled at the
University of Franeker. On 16 April 1629 the French philosopher entered at the university where he
stayed for a couple of months. There are several possible explanation for his short enrolment. Cook
suggested that his matriculation gained him access to the university library or provided him with the
possibility to attend Mass safely, but the most logical explanation is the philosophical debates at
Franeker. At the time when Descartes arrived there was a dispute between the professors of the
university in the Frisian. Johannes Maccovius (1588-1644) joined the university and attacked the
anti-Aristotelian character of the other professors and attempted to fend off theological heterodoxy.
He valued the new Aristotelian teachings which tried to built up Counter-Remonstrant theology. 94
Although Descartes has an extensive oeuvre, with the world famous mind-body distinction and the
quotation cogito ergo sum (“I think, therefore I am”) as the renowned expression, the main focus of
this essay will be the matter-theory that he developed. Certainly because Blankaart acknowledged
that his theories were primarily built on Cartesian grounds.
Decartes' matter-theory is developed from within his philosophy, is one of the examples of
corpuscular theories outside the Aristotelian framework and can be placed in the reactions against
Aristotelianism that were still present in the universities at the start of the seventeenth century. With
93
94
Land 1878: 90.
Cook 2007: 229-231.
-24-
his famous expression cogito ergo sum Descartes envisioned a method of establishing that his
intellect, at least, existed, and that from this finding it was possible to proceed by logical steps to
proof of the existence of God, basic aspects of the rules God had established for the world, and the
existence of material nature. 95 Unfortunately he did not finish this ambitious project but by the
autumn of 1629 he started an even more ambitious project. In a letter to Mersenne he wrote “I have
resolved to explain all the phenomena in nature” and this was a reference to his book Du mundo or
Le monde (“The world”).96 These ambitious works have led to new foundations within the field of
philosophy and the matter-theory of Descartes was part of this field. This implied that his mattertheory is imbedded in his philosophy and that it is very likely that Blankaart was not only inspired
by his matter-theory but by his philosophical framework.
To compose the view of Descartes on matter I used one of his main works, the Principles of
Philosophy. The main reason for using the Principles is that Descartes used this book to rewrite his
philosophy in Scholastic terms, and this presented the total philosophy of Descartes. 97 The start of
the concept of matter and substance can be found in his theory of God. God was the only one who
could have created the world. Besides God there is no other substance which can be totally
independent.
I.51. By substance we can understand nothing other than a thing which exists in such a way as to depend on no
other thing of existence. And there is only one substance which can be understood to depend on no other thing
than whatsoever, namely God. In the case of all other substances, we perceive that they can only exist with the
help of God's concurrence. 98 […] II.1. For we have a clear understanding of this matter as something that is
quite different from God and from ourselves or our mind; and we appear to see clearly that the idea of it comes
to us from things located outside ourselves, which it wholly resembles. And we have already noted that it is
quite inconsistent with the nature of God that he should be a deceiver. The unavoidable conclusion, then, is that
there exists something extended in length, breadth and depth and possessing all the properties which we clearly
perceive to belong to an extended thing. And it is this extended thing that we call 'body' or 'matter'. 99
Although there is no other substance which existed fully independent, there were two other
important substances in the work of Descartes: the mind and the body. The mind has thought as its
principle attribute which constitutes its nature and essence, the body has extension as principle
95
96
97
98
99
Cook 2007: 230.
Cook 2007: 231.
Gaukroger 2002: 34.
Descartes 1988: 177.
Descartes 1988: 189.
-25-
attribute.100 This body is something outside of our mind and God, and it is possible for the human
mind to conclude that there is something extended in length, breadth and depth and possessing all
the properties that we perceive as belonging to an extended thing. This thing we can call matter. 101
Now that this distinction is fully explained and matter is defined, it is possible to focus only on his
theory of matter. As mentioned previously, to know the true nature of substance, it is necessary to
find the fundamental set of qualities and set aside the other/secondary set of qualities. In the
Cartesian work the fundamental quality is motion. All the varieties in matter, all the diversity of its
forms, depend on motion.102 In the part of the Principles on the visible universe, Descartes started to
explain how that it is possible that there are different types of matter:
III. 48. Since all the matter of which the world is composed was in the beginning divided into many equal
parts, these could not at first have been spherical; for several spheres joined together do not {form a completely
solid and continuous body, like this universe, in which, as I demonstrated earlier, there can be no void}.
However, no matter what shape these parts may have had at that time, it was impossible for them not to
become spherical with the passing of time because of their various circular motions. […] 49. However,
inasmuch as there cannot be any empty space anywhere {in the universe}, and because the parts of matter,
being spherical, cannot unite closely enough to avoid leaving certain little intervals {or spaces} around
themselves: these spaces must be filled by certain other scrapings of matter which must be extremely tiny and
able to change their shapes at any moment in order to conform to those of the places they enter. […] 50. The
particles of this more subtle matter are very easily divided. 103
Different types matter emanated from one source of matter. He identified three kinds of matter.
First, the heavenly matter which is spherical. Second, the subtle matter which is divided into
particles of indefinite smallness. These particles adapt their shapes to fill all the narrow parts of the
little angles left by the others. Third, earthly matter of which the earth, planets and comets are
composed. The form of the third matter is either bulkier or has shapes less suited to movement. 104 In
Principles part IV: of the Earth, Descartes elaborated on the creation of the earth. Then it becomes
clear that the third type of matter came into being because the subtle and heavenly matter
transformed into this new type of matter. 105 Once this third matter was formed the creation of the
earth was possible.
100
101
102
103
104
105
Descartes 1988: 177.
Descartes 1988: 177.
Descartes 1988: 198. see claim 22 + 23 for a further elaboration.
Descartes 1983: 109.
Descartes 1983: 110. see claim 52. In this point Descartes did not elaborate on his theory, but he needed to invoke
subtle matter because he did not believe in a vacuum.
Descartes 1983: 181, 182.
-26-
It is a rather complex procedure but it comes down to the fact that the earth, which consists of the
third type of matter, is still surrounded by the two other forms of matter. Between the three forms of
matter there is still interaction, and this caused the emanation of many different forms of bodies.
There are three principle species of terrestrial particles which are present on earth: 106
IV.33. D, must have subsequently been created between these two. For indeed, the figures of the particles of
the third element, of which bodies B and C are composed, are extremely varied, as we noted above, and we can
here distinguish these particles into three principal kinds. Some of these particles are assuredly made up of
various arm-like parts, which extend this way and that, as do the branches of trees and other things of that sort;
and these particles are the principal ones which having been driven down by the matter of the heaven, begin to
adhere to one another and to form body C. Others are more solid, and have figures, not indeed all spheres or
cubes, but rather as angular as any crushed stones. […] Finally, the last kind are rather long and branchless,
like staffs: and these also intermingle with the particles of the first kind, when they find sufficiently large
intervals between them, but are not easily joined them. 107
These three different types of bodies: the arm-like types which are as branches of trees, the angular
body types which are as crushed stones, and the long and branchless types which are as staffs
derived from complex interactions between bodies B, C and D. With these three different types of
terrestrial bodies, and types E and F, he was able to explain many important questions of natural
philosophy at his time; such as the nature of the Earth's interior, the causes of tides, and the
existence of oceans.
Since this essay is focused on the work of Steven Blankaart, who is mainly interested in chemistry
and medicine, I will briefly point out paragraphs 61-63 in which Descartes focussed on acids, oils
and the elements of Chemists. The elements of the Chemists, salt, sulphur and mercury, are the
same ones as Paracelsus identified. Only the explanation and function of these three substances is
different.
IV.63. And thus we have here three things which are closely related to and can be taken to be the three
customary elements of Chemists: salt, sulphur, and Mercury. That is, one may take the acrid juice to be their
salt, the softest small branches of oily matter to be their sulphur, and quicksilver itself to be their Mercury. And
it can be believed that all metals reach us only because of acrid juices, flowing through the pores of body C,
separate certain of its particles from these pores. Then, after these particles have become developed by and
106
107
Descartes 1983: 196 – 219. Descartes did not name them but he just attributed letters to the different kinds of
bodies.
Descartes 1983: 196, 197.
-27-
covered with oily matter, they are easily carried upward by quicksilver which has been rarefied by heat; and
they form various metals according to their diverse magnitudes and figures. 108
Descartes identified the salt as the arcid/acid juice. This juice, which he perceived as an acid are
probably of the long and branchless type of matter and they become sharpened as swords.
IV.61. Concerning the acrid and acid juices which are formed vitriol, alum, and other such metals. […] They
become sharpened like swords, and thus are transformed into certain acrid, acid, corroding juices. These juices,
subsequently uniting with metallic matter, form vitriol; with stony matter, alum; and form many other
substances in the same way; depending on whether they mingle, as they congeal, with metals, stones, or other
materials.109
The mercury is not further identified by Descartes, he simply referred to it as quicksilver which is
the same substance, but the oily matter which came from the branching arm like type of matter is
further discussed by Descartes:
IV.62. Concerning the formation of oily matter of bitumen, sulphur etc. However, the softer particles become
so thin, after having been thoroughly crushed in these pores, that they are torn to pieces by the movement of
matter of the first element, and are divided into many extremely thin and very flexible branching particles. 110
On the whole, it is possible to identify different types of matter. One type of particles, the acid like
particles, are sharpened as swords and depending on whether they mingle they will form different
substances. Another type of particle, the oily matter, are divided into extremely thin and flexible
branching particles. This has lead, according to Descartes, to the three types of particles which are
known at that time. Still, Descartes' main assumption was that all matter emanated from one source.
If we relate this back to the matter-theories which were present at his time there are some
interesting observations to make. First of all is the position that Descartes has taken in relation to
the elements of the Chemist interesting. In Discourse de la Methode he was rather disapproving of
chemistry and alchemy111 and therefore it is striking that he identified the same three kinds of
substances, salt, sulphur and mercury, as Paracelsus did in his work. Secondly is the relation to the
Aristotelian work even more important. He developed a whole new frame of reference and there are
two main differences. The first main difference is the notion Descartes has about the universe. He
108
109
110
111
Descartes 1983: 213.
Descartes 1983: 211.
Descartes 1983: 212.
Joly 1992: 25.
-28-
claimed that the heaven and earth are composed of one and the same kind of matter, so there is no
difference between the sublunar and the superlunar realm. The second difference is the whole
perception of a substance. In Descartes his theory movement is the fundamental principle of
substance, and all the different substances can be identified by their shape, size and movement.
While there are different types of substance, such as the first and second substances, the essences
and the hylomorphic theory of matter, in Aristotelianism.
1.3.2. The French School of Chemistry
Besides the enormous influence of Descartes on the work of Blankaart, he also drew inspiration
from the French textbook tradition. In the last decades of the seventeenth century several French
chemists adopted corpuscular ideas and adopted these principles as 'working tools', not as the
ultimate constituents of all bodies. 112 This is apparent in many textbooks which were produced at
that time. The book of the Lémery, Cours de chymie, belonged to the French tradition and is
translated by Blankaart as The Philosophical Laboratory. This translation is part of a bigger picture.
The rise of chemical textbook was a primarily French phenomenon and they were translated into
other languages and provided a model for chemical courses produced in other countries 113.
The roots of this theory and their books can be traced back to an odd mix of Aristotelian elements
and the Paracelsian principles. With the appearance of the Paracelsian physicians and apothecaries
in the French system, the two views got mixed in a very inventive way. 114 The main explanation for
this peculiar mix is the way in which the chemists wanted to discern themselves from the ordinary
druggists. They started their own discourse of elements and principles which served a rhetorical
function to secure the superiority of the chemist. 115 In this way the chemists tried to bridge the gap
between chemical philosophies and operations of iatrochemistry. To do so they claimed that a good
physician should have knowledge of the three different types of chemistry – chemical philosophy,
which was concerned with knowledge of the nature of the heavens and stars, and the source and
origin of the elements, iatrochemistry which had the goal of operation, but guided by contemplative
and scientifical chemistry, and pharmaceutical chemistry. 116
Etienne de Clave, who was a predecessor of Lémery, introduced the five principles as a polemical
112
113
114
115
116
Clericuzio 2000: 163.
Clericuzio 2000: 166.
Kim 2001: 367.
Kim 2001: 368.
Kim 2001: 366.
-29-
force against the Aristotelian and Paracelsian notions. With this polemical response he secured the
empirical foundation of the doctrine of principles and elements. He adopted five principles based on
the chemical experience of fire analysis.
Fire acting against mixts artificially disposed, resolve them so happily into five elements or first principles
which were actually included and hidden in them, that is water or phlegm, spirit or mercury, sulphur or oil, salt
and earth.117
Not only did de Clave introduce the five principles he also defined the chemical elements:
The element is a simple body which actually enters into the mixture of composed bodies and to which they can
be finally resolved.118
Although Lémery is placed within this French textbook tradition, he was also influenced by the
work of Robert Boyle and therefore he developed a slightly different view from his predecessor. He
became the primary figure in the replacement of Paracelsian analogies, similitudes, and sympathies
with the mechanical and, thus, conceptionally-superior Cartesian philosophy 119. He defined
chemistry as “an Art that teaches how to separate the different substances which are found in Mixt
Bodies”.120 He kept the same view about the separation of substances but he did not define fire as
the separating tool.
Whereas the Chymists in making the analysis of Mixt bodys have met with five sorts of substances, they
therefore concluded that there were five Principles of Natural things, Water, Spirit, Oil, Salt, and Earth. Of
these Five, Three of them are Active, the Spirit, Oil and Salt, and tow passive, Water and Earth. 121
Lémery was besides his prominent role in the development of chymistry also one of the initiators of
the demise of alchemy in France. In the fourth edition of Cours de chymie (1681) he limited the
definition of alchemy to gold-making and he portrayed 'the alchemist' as a greed-driven fanatic
whose moral failings led him to fantastical speculation and charlatanry. This depiction of the
alchemist as a fraud highlighted Lémery's chemical practices, mainly the moral and methodological
strengths of it and undermined the authority of alchemy at the same time. 122
117
118
119
120
121
122
Kim 2001: 369.
Kim 2001: 370.
Powers 1998: 163.
Kim 2001: 385.
Kim 2001: 385.
Powers 1998: 164.
-30-
When Lémery began his chemical career during the 1660s, 'chymie' was a controversial subject among the
French scientific establishment. Leading French natural philosophers say the philosophy of the 'chymists' as a
rival to their own Cartesian mechanical philosophy and, thus, portrayed chemical research methods as shoddy
and inconclusive123.
1.3.3. The Dutch Chemists
As a citizen of the Dutch Republic Blankaart was part of the development within the Republic
itself. Since 1660 chemical laboratories and courses had spread in various Dutch cities, and at the
end of the seventeenth century most Dutch physicians were iatrochemists. 124 It is not the case that
there were many new theories developed within the Seven United Provinces, but several theories
were fused together, mainly iatrochemistry, Cartesianism, several other corpuscular theories, and
were taught at the universities.
The fusion of corpuscular theories and chemistry was very common among Dutch chemists, and
although they adopted several aspects of Cartesian natural philosophy, the Cartesian system and his
methodology were not adopted. The Dutch chemists stressed the importance of chemical practice
and paid special attention to the teaching of chemistry. Their works retained the chemical principles,
but they were often reinterpreted in corpuscular terms. 125
The most important leading figures in the field were situated at the University of Leiden. Sylvius
built his own theories on the chemical principles and gave prominence to the acid/alkali reactions
(were disease was attributed to an excess of either acid or alkali), though he did not refer to motion
or any other topic that can be related to corpuscularism. 126 He also founded the the first chemical
laboratory at the University of Leiden (1669) and although Sylvius was the instigator of the chair,
Carel Maets (1640-1690) became the first university teacher of chemistry. Both Maets and his
successor Jacob le Mort (1650-1718) received training by the chemist Johann Glauber (1604-1670)
who had his own laboratory in Amsterdam and is still known for the Glauber's salt. 127
Sylvius, like other chemists of the seventeenth century, rejected the idea the the ancients should be
123
124
125
126
127
Powers 1998: 166.
Clericuzio 2000: 187.
Clericuzio 2000: 181.
Clericuzio 2000: 188.
Clericuzio 2000: 188.
-31-
followed blindly. He believed that the views of the medical authorities of antiquity were faulty and
that they could not be relied upon. Rather, we must turn to experience, and the key was to be found
in chemistry:
an Art produceth things admirable and stupendious every day, and is certainly of principal use in the discovery
of natural Mutations, and in some Particulars, if I may speak it, exceeding Nature her self; the most profitable
and only necessary Means, for the constituting of Natural Science, and a solid Body of Physick (Sylvius,
1670).128
Besides his interest in chemistry, Sylvius also believed in the value of anatomical studies, which he
sought to combine with each other. Therefore he played an important part in uniting anatomical
studies with chemical explanations, but it was rejected by some because it posed a problem for the
Helmontians who rejected the study of the human anatomy as a waste of time and effort. 129
Le Mort did not follow Sylvius, instead he based his chemistry on mechanical philosophy. With that
he followed Descartes and stated that matter is extended and divisible. The fundamental principle of
matter is motion, and although he followed the Cartesian line of thought he did not reject the
chemical principles. He reinterpreted them in corpuscular terms and the so called principles were
not to be thought of as simple substances. All bodies are composed of particles which are in
movement or at rest.130 The chemical principles which le Mort used in his work were salt, water,
earth, and a spiritual substance which he identified with the chemists' mercury. It is interesting to
see that the principles, which derive from the French textbook tradition, were not the same. In the
French tradition they often speak about the five principles, and in this case the oil is missing.
Now that all the important figures have been introduced, the intellectual discussion of matter-theory
in the seventeenth century has been completed. The main theories, views on alchemy, polemical
positions and definitions of chemistry resemble the field of matter-theory.
§2 Social life in the Dutch Republic
With the construction of the field of seventeenth century matter-theory it is not only necessary to
illustrate the intellectual debate, but also the social context in which the field should be situated.
128
129
130
This quotation is cited from the work of Debus 2001: 61.
Debus 2001: 64.
Clericuzio 2000: 189.
-32-
Since Blankaart was a physician in Amsterdam the primary focus will be on the social relations and
the position of physicians in Amsterdam.
As is already discussed the Dutch Golden Age is a rather confusing and contradictory term. There
are several problems with the notion of the concept of Golden Age. Not only on a social level, but
also economical research131 indicates that not everybody was as wealthy during this flourishing
period as we now assume. Although there are strong indications that life in the wealthiest city of
Holland was favourable enough.
One of the indicators that this was the case is the fact that most people could afford to get medical
help when they needed it.132 In fact, Cook suggested that there was a medical marketplace where
even patients with small resources had an enormous range of practitioners from whom to choose.
There were the 'kwakzalvers' (quacksalver), the 'piskijkers' (piss inspectors), and the free masters,
who needed a certificate from the town council and an examination by a committee of the surgeons'
guild, who were affordable for the lay public. Higher in the hierarchy were the apothecaries, which
rested on their claim to know about the often exotic substances in which they dealt, the surgeons,
and the iatrochemists, which used various methods to apply heat to dissolve and alter substances,
breaking them down to their component parts. The most common process was to extract the essence
of substances through distillation. Cook suggested that using distillation and similar methods of
preparations, medicines could be made in large quantities relatively cheaply yet last for long periods
without obvious loss of potency. At the same time, the method of preparation itself disguised the
ingredients, helping to keep the secret remedies private. 133 Highest in the hierarchy were the
physicians. They had a medical doctorate obtained after a university education in their subject. Even
the word physician implied one who had studies physic, a word derived from the Greek word for
nature. From his knowledge of nature, a physician could advise how best to retain or recover health
by working in accordance with nature's dictates. 134
131
132
133
134
Recent research from van Bavel en Luiten van Zanden (2004) and Luiten van Zanden (2002) has shown that it is not
the Golden Age that caused an increase of wealth but the change in Dutch economy before 1500 caused a radical
transformation. Besides the fact that there is a change, it is an illusion that the wealth increased for everybody only
certain groups of people gained more wealth.
For further reading:
van BAVEL & LUITEN van ZANDEN. 'The Jump-Start of the Holland Economy During the Late-Medieval crisis
c.1350-c.1500.' Economic History Review. Vol. 7. No. 3. (2004): pp. 503-532.
LUITEN van ZANDEN. 'Revolt of the Early Modernists.' Economic History Review. Vol. 5. No. 4. (2002): pp. 619641.
Cook 2007: 135.
Cook 2007: 139.
Cook 2007: 145.
-33-
This medical marketplace, as is illustrated in the work of Cook stands in contrast with the theory
about social ties during the Dutch Golden Age. Based on the work of Erna Kok and Luuc
Kooijmans is this marketplace an illusion. According to Kok and Kooijmans are the social ties
secured by the concept of friendship, there was no social system that protected the individual before
the industrial revolution. The governments did not take care for the personal well-being of its
citizens during the early-modern period. Compared to our modern government the Dutch citizens
were living in poor conditions. People needed to take care of their own medical expenses, could
only get mortgages by individuals and the concept of a pension was unheard of. This was not only
the case in the Dutch Republic, but it implied that the people in the seventeenth century were
dependent on their own social network.135
Their network was actually the basis of their well-being. Everybody was depending on family ties
and friendship. Not friendship as we know it today, but friendship as a mandatory relationship.
People had to make sure that they had friends on whom they could count in times of need. To
establish these relations you had to make sure that you built up credit and that you had to offer them
something in return. It was necessary to have a trustworthy reputation, and cultivating goodwill was
a common zeal. Maintaining a relation happened mainly due to the exchange of gifts, compliments,
pleasantries and invitations to parties. Once a good relationship was established it was essential to
preserve this relation. So the mutual benefit from friendship was the basis of the social network in
the seventeenth-century.136
135
136
Kooijmans 1997: 326.
Kooijmans 1997: 327.
-34-
1. Steven Blankaart and Matter-Theory
§1 Steven Blankaart (1650-1704)
1.1. The Life of Blankaart
As already stated, Steven Blankaart was a physician in the city of Amsterdam, the wealthiest city of
the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands. In 1648, two years before Blankaart's birth, the
Treaty of Münster had officially recognized the independence of these provinces from their former
ruler, the king of Spain.137 In this historical context Blankaart was born on 24 October 1650 in
Middelburg, one of seven children of Nicolaas Blankaart and Maria Eversdijck.
Blankaart's education started in Middelburg where he went to Latin school and began working with
an apothecary who taught him chymistry and herbal medicine. It is not exactly known when he
finished Latin school and left for Franeker, but he graduated on 18 December 1674 as a doctor of
philosophy and medicine. The likely suggestion is that Blankaart left, maybe together with his
father, for Franeker sometime between 1666 and 1669. His father, Nicolaas was appointed as
professor in Greek Language and Culture at the University of Franeker in 1669, and the closure of
the 'Illustere School' at Middelburg in 1666 might be an explanation for their departure. Soon after
finishing his studies he left Franeker and went to Amsterdam, where he started to practice medicine
and became well-known for contributing to important books on medicine and other related sciences.
138
Blankaart was married on 3 March 1682 in Amsterdam to Isabella de Carpentier and they had two
sons, Nicolaus Casparus and Willem Guilielmus. Nicolaus, his elder son died at the age of 4 of
smallpox, his second son studied in Utrecht and became a doctor in law. 139 Blankaart died at the age
of 54, on the 23 February 1704 and was buried in the Westerkerk in Amsterdam. He had dedicated
his relatively short life to science and art and although his art work is lost, at the time he was known
as a poet, painter and as somebody who had mastered ‘knipselkunst’, the art of paper cutting! 140
137
138
139
140
Brooks 1986: 158.
Vandevelde 1925: 455.
Ibdem. 456.
Ibdem. 457.
-35-
1.2. The Works of Blankaart
Blankaart has left an impressive repertoire of works, often reprinted into eighth or ninth editions,
concerned with up-to-date medical theory, child education, incontinence, and the modern disease of
syphilis.141 He proved the existence of the capillary system and developed on a practical level
techniques for injection. Blankaart also edited the first Dutch medical yearbook ‘Hollands JaarRegister’ (1680), containing articles about interesting medical cases from home and abroad and
compiled one of the first English dictionaries of medicine, The Physical Dictionary (1684).142 Most
of the works of Blankaart, together with treatises of other Dutch Cartesian followers like the 'teadoctor' Cornelis Bontekoe, alias Cornelius Dekker (1647-1685), were translated into German. In
that way, Blankaart had a large impact on German medical reform, involving the rejection of
traditional Galenic-Aristotelian theory and practice. Especially controversial was his advocating of
the virtual abolition of blood-letting and purging and promoting the new life-style issues of tea and
coffee drinking and tobacco-smoking.143 Blankaart pointed out that there was no gout in China,
because of the use of tea, and he appears to have been a teetotaller, for he declared that paradise
would come with the prohibition of alcohol. 144
Vandevelde, who was a founding member of the Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Art and
Science, chemist and historian of science, was the first scholar to give an overview of Blankaart's
works. Vandevelde’s work dates from 1925 and is neither complete nor totally adequate. His list of
Blankaart's works can be found in Contribution to the Study of the Work of Stephanus Blankaart, 145
containing more than twenty treatises.146
The treatises that are mainly relevant for this thesis are those on chymistry and matter-theory, which
are mostly written in relation to medicine. These are titled: The New Practice of Medicine, Together
with a Discourse of Contemporary Chymie – mostly based on the grounds of Cartesius and that of
the Alkali and Acidium,147 The Burning Salamander; or the Compositional Analysis of Chemical
Substances: being a Guide, or an Institution to Practice all the Operations of Chemistry,148 The
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
Vandevelde 1925: 502.
Cunningham 1938: 119.
Munt 2007.
Beukers 2002: 73.
Bijdrage tot de studie der werken van Stephanus Blankaart.
Vandevelde 1925: 456 t/m 461. This is the complete list that Vandevelde gives, although it does not contain all the
works that Blankaart has written. This work is one of the few articles or books that was written about Blankaart.
Nieuw-ligtende praktyk der medicynen: Nevens een verhandeling van de hedendaagze chymie – meest op de
gronden van Cartesius en die van het Alkali en Acidum gesondeert
De brandende Salamander, ofte ontleedinge der Chymicale Stoffen: zijnde een Weg-wijzer, oft Institutie om sich in
-36-
Philosophical Laboratory or the Chymist's Laboratory,149 Exact Discussion of Scurvy and Similar
Accidents, as well as a Factual Discourse on Fermentation or the Inner Movements of the Body,
mostly based on Descartes' Principles,150 and the Theatrum Chymicum or the Opened Doors to all
Chemical Secrets,151 It is ironic that the name Theatrum Chymicum is also used for the famous
collection of alchemical treatises published by the Elias Ashmole, whose manuscript collection is
the basis of the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford.
§ 2 Blankaart's Matter-Theory
2.1. The Three 'Hooft-Stoffen'
Blankaart described his view of matter in two books: an appendix to Exact Discussion of Scurvy:
Factual Discourse on Fermentation and the Theatrum Chymicum. With these two books it is
possible to reconstruct the view that the Dutch physician held on matter. It is interesting to see that
Blankaart built his discourse on fermentation on the grounds of Descartes while he published
another book on chemistry, based on the work of Lémery, in which he expands his view. The best
explanation for using two books to describe his matter-theory is the seventeenth-century perception
of matter. Until the eighteenth century the vast majority of chemists classified substances according
to the three natural kingdoms rather than according to chemical composition. Historical analysis
reveals that chemists did not consider knowledge of composition a reliable precondition ordering all
of the kinds of materials with which they were dealing, 152 although Cartesianism did use
composition, based on movement, to order the world. This leads to the problem that in theory these
two positions are incompatible, so it will be interesting to see how Blankaart reconciled them in his
work.
The appendix of the book on Scurvy, Factual Discourse on Fermentation, can be seen as the
starting point for Blankaart's matter-theory. In this book Blankaart provides us with his most
extensive view of the general concept of matter or as he named it, the 'hooft-stoffen' (primary
substances). The terminology, 'hooft-stoffen', is introduced by Blankaart without any explanation
alle operatien der schey-konst te oeffenen.
Het philosoophische laboratorium, of Der chymisten stook-huis.
In the Dutch language there are two words for laboratory; laboratorium and Stook-huis and Blankaart used them
both.
150
Nauwkeurige verhandelinge van de scheur-buik en des selfs toevallen; als ook een naakt vertoog wegens de
fermentatie oft innerlijke bewegingen der lighamen, meest op de gronden van Des-Cartes gebouw
151
Theatrum Chymicum ofte geopende deure der chymische verborgentheden
152
Klein 2005: 269.
149
-37-
concerning the plurality of the word, but the terminology is also present in the seventeenth-century
Dutch translation of Descartes' Principles,153 and it seems that Blankaart assumed from the start that
there are several primary substances present, although he did imply that there is one universal
starting point:154
That there is a certain inner movement of bodies, there is no reason to doubt, because the changes that we
perceive in bodies on a daily basis make this undoubtable, but how these changes are born, on that the
philosophers do not agree; that is why we have the intention to clarify these changes. To do that we will start
with the primal matters. […] The Principles or Primary substances are only those that are singular, and which
do not exist out of other bodies, because otherwise they would not be principles, but composed bodies. All
bodies must exist from these Primary substances.155
This demarcation of his scope of matter-theory is important for the reconstruction of his view.
Blankaart assumed that there is a certain inner movement of bodies but he also pointed out that
there are several views, which are incompatible with each other, present in seventeenth-century
natural philosophy156.
2.1.1. The Rejected 'Hooft-Stoffen'
Before elaborating on his own concept of matter, Blankaart discussed four other theories that he
considered to be important at his time. With this discussion it becomes clear how Blankaart
positions himself in the field, and whom he identified as players in the field of matter-theory. The
four theories were:
1. The universal solvent or alkahest
2. The ancient idea of water as a primary substance, as introduced by the sixth-century
BC philosopher Thales157
3. The four Aristotelian elements
4. The Paracelsian principles of salt, mercury and sulphur which are introduced by
153
154
155
156
157
Descartes 1657: 248.
Blankaart 1684: Appendix. 5, X.
Blankaart 1684: Appendix.1, I: Dat er een sekere innerlyke beweginge der lighamen is, daar is geensins aan 't
twyffelen, wijl de veranderingen die we dagelijks in de lighamen gewaar werden, sulx genoegsaam ontwyffelbaar
stellen maar hoe de nu dese veranderingen geboren werden, daar van zyn de wijs-gerige noch niet eens; zo is ons
voornemen dan om d' ontleding der zelve op het aldernaakste verklaren, en eerst mijn begin van de hooft-stoffen te
maken. […] De Beginselen dan oft Hooft-stoffen sijn alleen die gene welke zeer enkel zijn, en niet uit andere
lighamen bestaan, want anders waren sy geen beginzels, maar te samen gestelde lighamen. Ut dese Hooft-stoffen,
moeten alle lighamen bestaan.
Blankaart 1684: Appendix. 2, II.
Blankaart related the theory of water only to the work of Thales, not to the Van Helmontian theory.
-38-
Blankaart simply as the principles of 'the chymists'.
Blankaart did not explain the reason for choosing these four concepts, but it is clear that he
considered them to be influential in his time.
Firstly, he discussed the idea of the alkahest, which was very important at that time. In the Factual
Discourse on Fermentation Blankaart pointed out that it is unclear what the alkahest was, as he had
never seen it, so it is impossible to say anything about it:
About the alcahest, because I have never seen it, I cannot offer any assurance concerning it, and since I cannot
clearly grasp the idea that it exists, I cannot accept that it exists: because if this was the case, in which bottle or
barrel should we keep it?158
In the Physical Dictionary (1684), Blankaart did define the alkahest:
signifies an universal Menstruum or liquor, which resolves Bodies into their first matter, still preserving the
virtues of their seeds and essential form: a thing of great fame, if of equal virtue, which every one estimates
according to his success in the Operation. Some take it for prepared Mercury, other for Tartar 159.
It is fascinating to see that in the dictionaries, which were published after his death (1708, 1726),
there was doubt about the existence of the Alkahest while in the dictionary which was published in
the same year as the Factual Discourse on Fermentation Blankaart did not:
Alcahest, or Alkahest 'tis sayed to be the General Resolvent, Everlasting and Immutable, which reduces every
visible Body into a Liquor of its one Concrete, preserving the Power of its Seeds, and its natural essential
form: this is very Great, if the Effect be answerable, and yet every one attributes the frame to his own
form: Some take it for Mercury prepared, others for Tartar: but whether there were ever such a Liquor, or such
an Universal Menstruum, I much doubt160.
Secondly, he identified the concept of water as the 'hooft-stof', an idea of the ancient Greek
158
159
160
Ibdem: 3, VI: Wat belangt den Alkahest, dewijl ik die nog nooit gezien heb, kan ik daar geen versekeringe van
geven, en dewijl ik niet klaarlijk kan bevatten dat sy der is, kan ik noch niet aannemen dat s'er is: want soo s'er was,
in wat voor een glas of vat, zou men ze bewaren?
Blankaart 1684: 10.
Blankaart 1708: 9 or Blankaart 1726: 13.
The definition of Blankaart differed from the definition which can be found in the Lexicon Alchemiæ (1612) by
Martin Ruland the Younger. In the A.E. Waite translation the alkahest is defined as:
The alkahest is prepared Mercury; some will have that it is tartar; but the special meaning of any writer may be
judged easily by the description of his preparation.
-39-
philosopher Thales [of Miletus], who saw water as the fundamental element from which all other
materials sprang. The idea that water was the only 'hooft-stof' seemed plausible to Blankaart at first,
but then he identified a problem. The willow tree experiment did not prove that the tree grew only
out of water; it also used other substances in the air, such as alkalis and acids:
Concerning the growth of willows and pumpkins in the earth, without any noticeable decrease, the reason is
this: the vegetation is indeed fed by the water, but that this water is not a primary substance is sure too: because
the water is sprinkled continually, it has taken all the alkali and acids with it, which penetrate the vegetation via
the air.161
For Blankaart this quotation was evidence enough to dismiss the theory of water as a primary
substance. A remarkable fact about the dismissal of this theory is the strong relation with the work
of Van Helmont and his description of the willow tree experiment.
Thirdly, Blankaart discussed the foursome 162 of fire, air, water, and earth, which derived from
Aristotle and his followers. Although Blankaart saw a possibility of relating the Aristotelian notion
to his own matter-theory, he dismissed it in the end because Aristotle and his followers did not
interpret it in the same way:
Another sort of Philosophers have kept themselves pleased with the foursome of fire, air, water and earth,
which come fairly close, because with fire they could understand the first or subtle matter which is shining.
The air and water could be the second, that is the substance that is transparent. The earth for the third, which
reflects all light; but while the Philosophers did not take it in this way, that turns sufficiently out of the theory
of Aristotle and his followers, so actually we cannot permit it 163.
With this interpretation Blankaart related the foursome of Aristotle to the matter-theory of
Descartes. The three substances (heavenly matter, subtle matter and third matter) have light
properties in the Cartesian work and I would like to suggest that Blankaart related the foursome to
the different light properties as they were discussed by Descartes.
Blankaart 1684: Appendix. 3, 4, IV: Wat aangaat het groeyen der wilgen en pompoenen in de aarde, zonder
merkelyke verminderinge, daar van is de reden dese: dat wel het gewas door water gevoed werd, maar dat dit water
geen enkele hooft-stof was is mede zeker: want het water daar geduurig opgegoten werdende, sleepte al het alcali en
het acidum met zich, 't welk in het gewas door de logt wierde in gedrongen.
162
Blankaart used the Dutch word vierspan, which translates literally as four-in-hand or carriage-and-four but I will use
the word foursome in English.
163
Blankaart 1684: Appendix. 4, VIII. Een ander zoort van Philosophen, hebben zich te vrede gehouden met de vierspan van vuur, logt water en aarde, welke vry nader komen, want door het vuur soude men konnen verstaan, de
eerste oft subtyle materie die lichtend is. De locht en water voor de tweede, welke de stoffe doorschynig is. De
aarde nu voor de derde, die alle licht wederom kaats; maar dewijl die Philosophen het in zulken zin niet genomen
hebben, dat genoegsaam uit Aristoteles en sijn navolgers blijkt, soo konnen wij eigentlijk haar niet toestemmen.
161
-40-
Fourthly, Blankaart considered salt, sulphur and mercury (the Paracelsian tria prima) as the 'hooftstoffen'.164 He argued that these elements are so different from each other that it would not be likely
that they could create other elements:
The chymists come as well with their salt, sulphur and mercury, but all considered individually they exist out
of particles of a different shape, such that it is not possible that they create elements . Others give us still other
[substances] such as Spirit, Salt, Acid, Sulphur, Water, Earth: they are not the most suitable, but while some
others still exist out of other particles, and all appearances cannot be solved by the same, therefore they are not
to be fully rejected, nor to be fully accepted 165.
It is interesting to see that Blankaart neither expanded on the list that he gave (spirit, salt, acid,
sulphur, water and earth) nor related the salt, sulphur and mercury to the works of Paracelsus. Not
only did he not refer to Paracelsus' work, but he also misinterpreted it. He claimed that the
Paracelsians argue that the tria prima can be seen as prima materia, but this is not the case as is
illustrated in the former chapter.
These four concepts are all rejected by Blankaart, based on the argument that it is not plausible or
possible that these substances are the primary substances. In this way he identified his opponents,
such as the followers of the Aristotelian and Paracelsian view, but also the theories of the alcahest
and water as primary substances are dismissed. This is very interesting because Blankaart did not
refer to van Helmont, who is an advocate for the latter two theories. With this information it is
possible to position Blankaart within the field of seventeenth-century matter-theory.
2.1.2. Blankaart's Views on the Three 'Hooft-Stoffen'
Now that his opponents are identified, it is possible to reconstruct Blankaart's theory and then place
it within the field. The theory of Blankaart is mainly built on Cartesian grounds, at least that is how
Blankaart positioned himself. He suggested, like Descartes, that there is one kind of substance in the
whole of creation and it only varies in appearance. From this one kind of substance emanated three
164
165
Blankaart claimed that the Paracelcians argue that the tria prima can be seen as prima materia. This is a mistake. See
Pagel 1982: 83.
Blankaart 1684: Appendix. 4, IX.
De chymisten komen ons mede met haar sal, sulphur en mercurius, maar elk in 't byzonder geconfidereert, bestaan
sy uit deeltjes van verscheiden figuur, soo dat se voor geen elementen konnen gaan. Andere geven ons noch andere
als Spiritus, Sal, Acidum, Sulphur, Aqua, Terra: dese sijn noch al de gevoegelijkste, maar wijl sommige noch al uit
andere deeltjes bestaan, en alle verschijnsles door de zelve alleen niet konnen opgelost werden, zoo zyn se wel niet
t'eenemaal te verwerpen, maar ook daar niet ganschelijk voor aan te nemen
-41-
primary substances due to the fact that there are different movements.
To which substance should they turn themselves if these former are not primary substances? But the famous
Descartes left us in his writings, that there is one kind of substance in the whole of creation, which is only
known through its extensiveness, and only varies in appearance, through which the different movements were
being made. Because all that God has created is matter and movement, the one cannot be understood without
the other: from this general substance there emanated, due to the movement, three kinds of primary substances
or principles: the first Primary substance is only light, which constantly lightened the whole universe from the
one Vortex or whirlpool to the other. The second is transparent as Air, through which the first constantly flies
back and forth. The third is all darkness, or the one which sends all the light back, instantly there is the earth
and everything that originates from it: all these substances differ in nothing more that in figure, size and as a
result in movement. […] These three primary principles lay at the start entangled, as a ferocious chunk, which
could not stay long this way due to the different movements, but these substances were placed differently
because of their different movements 166.
The first 'hooft-stof' is subtle matter; matter that is created by God, is of the finest kind and is in a
constant motion. These particles do not have a rigid form and they can fill the holes which cannot
be filled by other bigger particles. The second 'hooft-stof' is what he called 'vloeybare hemelbolletjes' or fluid heaven-globules, which have different sizes and are less movable than the first
'hooft-stof'. The third 'hooft-stof' is the largest, differs in nature and size from the first two. They are
heavier and more solid and are capable of reflecting the light. The third 'hooft-stof' are the only
particles from which earthly matter emanates.
The smallest kind of primal matter is the subtle or the first substance, created by God in such way that it is in a
constant motion, and this is the cause of all movements which are created. The particles do not have a certain
shape but are different in appearance to move the shapes of other bodies, to fill the spaces that the other
particles leave.[...] The second primal substance is less movable then the first, they exist out of very small fluid
heaven-globules, which differ from each other in size, and the biggest of the subtle matter makes larger
movements then the smallest. These are capable of leaving the light through the particles of the first substance
because there are open spaces between them. […] The third element exists out of bigger particles, which also
166
Blankaart 1684: Appendix. 5, 6, X. Waar toe zal men dan zich zelven keeren indien dese vorige geen hooft-stoffen
zyn? Maar dien vermaarden Kartesius heeft ons in zyn schriften nagelaten, dat 'er eenderlei stoffe is in de gansche
geschapentheid, welke alleen door hare uitgebreidentheid bekend is, en in gedaante alleen verschilt, waar door de
verscheidene beweginge gemaakt werd. Want al wat God geschapen heeft, is stoffe en beweginge, die d'eene zonder
d'andere niet konnen begrepen werden: uit dese generale stoffe, sproten door die beweginge driederlei hooftstoffen
oft beginstels: de eerste Hooft-stof is dan alleen licht, 't welke het gansche heel al van de eene Vortex oft draay-kolk
in de andere geduuring blixemt. De tweede is het doorschynige als de Locht, door welke de eerste geduurig gins en
weder door vliegt. De derde is al het duistere, of het gene dat alle licht wederom steut, gelijk daar is de aarde en al
wat daar uit voort komt: al dese stoffe schelen nergens meerder in dan in figuur, groote, en bygevolg beweginge.
[…] Dese drie Hooft-begisels lagen in 't begin onder een verwart, en als een woeste klomp, 't welk om de
verscheidene beweginge soo niet lange kon blyven, maar dese stoffen wierden om hare verscheidene beweginge ook
verscheidentlijk geplaatst.
-42-
differ in size, which after its different shape and size, have been moved and pressed differently from the first
and the second substance. All these particles are heavier, more solid and bulkier than the other because they
reflect the light and are dark. After the different movements and pressings that these bodies suffer, rise all the
different appearances, because after that the particles are round, long, branching, rigid, unbending, slippy,
bendable, polished, flat and such, emanate the different certainties and uncertainties of the substances 167.
Although Blankaart did refer to the Cartesian work, he did not cite Descartes literally. The Dutch
physician did use the concept of the three types of matter (heavenly, subtle and third), he even gave
them nearly the same names. Also the properties of the substances depend on motion and from that
the different size and shape of the particles comes into being. This implies a rather mechanistic view
of the world.
Blankaart's terminology sheds more light on his perception of matter. Once he discussed the
properties of the 'hooft-stoffen' individually, he perceived them as particles: the subtle matter, the
heaven-globules and the third 'hooft-stof'. Blankaart briefly discussed the agglomeration of the
subtle matter and the heaven-globules, which lead to the third 'hooft-stof'. The agglomeration
occurred as a result of two different processes. Firstly there is the fusion of particles by pressure,
due to pressure from outside several particles are pressed together they will form new substances 168.
The second process occurs only with branching particles, which clasp together and form new
substances169. This agglomeration leads to the third 'hooft-stof' which emanated in several different
substances on earth. This can be related to the Cartesian work as well. Descartes described in his
Principles that only particles of the third matter were present on earth and the French philosopher
discussed how the different kinds of matter came into being by agglomeration of the heavenly and
subtle matter.
From this third 'hooft-stof' emanated several different terrestrial substances: salts, acids, watery, and
oily substances. Salt consists of long, solid and unbendable particles which have the form of chisels.
167
168
169
Blankaart 1684: Appendix. 6, X t/m XII. De allerfijnste van de hooft-stoffen is de subtyle oft eerste stoffe, soodanig
van God geschapen datse in een geduurige beweginge is, en oorzaak is van alle de bewegingen die der in de
geschapentheid sijn. Welkers deeltjes geen sekere figuur hebben, maar sijn met een onbepaalyke verscheidentheid
om de figuuren van andere lighamen te bewegen bekwaam gemaakt, vervullende de ruimten die van de andere
deeltjes sijn ledig gelaten. […] de tweede seder hooft-stoffen sijn van een mindere beweginge dan de eerste,
bestaande uit seer fijne en vloeybare hemel-bolletjes, welke van malkanderen in groote verschelen, waar van de
grootste van de subtyle materie grooter beweginge hebben als de kleine. Dese zyn bekwaam om door hare ledige
openingen, het licht der eeste stoffe door te laten. […] Het derde element betaat uit vele grovere deeltjes, in figuur
zeer van malkanderen verschelende, welke na hare verscheidene figuur en groote, van de eerste en tweede stoffe
verscheidentlijk werden bewogen en geperst. Alle dese deeltje zyn lyviger, vaster en swaarder als die van de vorige
en om datse het licht doen afkaastsen synse duister. Na de verscheidene beweginge en persinge die dese lighaamtjes
lyden, ryzen alle de verscheidene gedaante, want na dat de deeltjes rond, lang, takachtig, stijf, taey, glibberig,
buigsaam, gepolyst, plat en diergelyke zijn, alsoo spruiten daar vescheidene vastigheden en lossigheden der dingen.
Blankaart 1684: 7.
Blankaart 1684: 8.
-43-
Acids are also long, solid and unbendable particles, but they have the form of a sword because they
have cutting edges and have sharp points. Oily substances are like branches of a tree; this is the
reason that oil sticks to the other substances. The last substance is the watery substance, whose
particles are long, slippery and light. This is the reason that they do not stick to oily substances, they
are too light and slide from these substances 170.
The distinction that Blankaart made in the three different kind of 'hooft-stoffen' is fundamental for
his view on matter. In the Theatrum Chymicum he continued with his elaboration on the third 'hooftstof. Only the particles which are present on earth are subject to 'chymie'. The other two 'hooftstoffen' have divine origins and Blankaart does not discuss them any further in his work:
The object of chemistry are all the things which have been present on our planet earth, and to which the
single and compound bodies belong. Among the single bodies are all the substances which do not exist out
of other parts as single substances, like a pure salt, which only exists out of solid particles, or like a pure water
etcetera. The compound bodies, which exist out of more than one part, are normally reduced to three species;
minerals, plants and animals.171
This theory, with the three different kinds of 'hooft-stoffen' already shows many similarities with the
Cartesian notion of matter, 172 although there are two significant differences. The first difference is
the introduction of the substances. Blankaart introduced subtle matter first (which is the smallest in
size) and after that the heaven-globules, while Descartes introduced the heaven globules first
(particles which emanated first). The second difference is even more interesting. Descartes
acknowledges the fact that the 'customary elements of Chemists'; salt, sulphur and mercury, were
closely related and that they could be composed out of each other. While Blankaart is rather
contradictory on these terms. In the Theatrum Chymicum he first argued that these elements were
very different from each, and in his discussion on the six substances on earth he did mention salt,
sulphur and mercury as one of the six substances which are present on earth.
In the Theatrum Chymicum Blankaart implemented his theory on the 'hooft-stoffen' within his
framework of chymistry (scheydekonst) as is predominantly presented by the work of Lémery. This
170
171
172
Blankaart 1684: Appendix. 10.
Blankaart 1684: Appendix. 5. Het voorwerp der Chymie zijn alle de dingen die op onsen Aardkloot sijn, en werden,
onder welke soo de enkele als de samengestelde Lichamen behoorden. Onder de enkele zijn alle die stoffen die uit
geen andere deele bestaan als uit eenderlei stoffe, gelijk als een suiver sout, die alleen maar uit styve deeltjes
bestaen, of als een suiver water en diergelyke etc. de samengestelde lichamen zijn, welke uit meer als eenderlei
deeltjes bestaan, en men brengt die gemeenlijk tot driederlei soorten, als daar zijn de Mineralen, de Planten en
gedierten.
Blankaart mentioned in the Philosophische laboratiorium (4) the starting point of the elements. He referred to the
Cartesian thesis and how in the Cartesian works all the elements can be traced back to one starting point.
-44-
lead to a rather eclectic matter-theory. To shed light on this complex development I will focus on
Blankaart's discussion of the third 'hooft-stof'.
2.2. Focus on the Third 'Hooft-Stof'
Blankaart extensively discussed the third 'hooft-stof', mainly because this was the cause of all the
substances on earth. In his chymical work, the Theatrum Chymicum, he elaborated on the properties
of the different substances. Not only the focus on the third 'hooft-stof' made the Theatrum
Chymicum an interesting book, there are several reasons. Firstly Blankaart defined the field of
chemistry in the book and gave, more than in other books, an extensively developed view on the
matter which is present on earth. Secondly, the book contained numerous recipes, which Blankaart
divided into recipes for the seven metals and those for the other minerals. Thirdly, the book has two
appendices: Concerning the Hermetic Prophesying Tripod Revealing the miracles of Chymia 173 by
Johannes Joachim Becher (1635-1682) and The Most Important Chemical Secrets; about the
Changing and Improvement of Metals and Stones,174 a collection of chemical and alchemical
experiments and recipes, attributed to Digby.
In the book Blankaart defined ‘Chemie’ as the decomposition of bodies by fire. The word Chemia is
an Arabic word, which was written as Chamâ, and stems from the word Zymiâ, which means
hidden or hiding. So Chymie is the hidden or occult art, which is kept hidden by the masters of the
art so that they could profit from this. After defining chemistry and discussing the etymology of the
word, Blankaart continued to define the subject of chemistry. 175
In the definition of the subject of chemistry Blankaart made a distinction between 'Chemia' and
'Chymie'. Chemia is about all bodies: single ones and the composed bodies. Subject to 'Chymie' are
only the composed and mixed bodies which are present on earth. Blankaart identified three main
categories in Chymie. These are the Subject ('Onderwerp'), Species ('Geslagt') and the Objective
('Oogmerck'). The subject contained the composed and mixed bodies which can be divided into
173
174
175
Behelsende de Hermetische Voorseggende Drie-Voet. Openbarende de chymische Mirakulen.
Snelders 1993: 23.
Johan Joachim Becher (1635-1682). Becher became a professor of medicine at the University of Mainz in 1663. He
had a chemical laboratory for manufacturing pigments in Vienna. Becher had a lifelong interest in making gold. He
believed in the process of transmutation. In 1678 he persuaded the authorities of Haarlem (the Netherlands) to buy a
process for turning silver into gold by means of coastal sand. Becher is regarded important for the development of
chemistry because his theory about the prima materia, water and earth was subsequently developed by Stahl (16591734), who, by means of the principle of phlogiston, explained not only the calcinations of metals, but the
phenomena of combustion in general.
De voornaamste Chymicale verborgentheden, Ontrent De verandering en verbetering der Metalen, en Gesteenten
Blankaart 1693: 1.
-45-
three realms: animals, vegetables and minerals. The realm of minerals contained metals, stones, 176
or soil:
I. The subject of Chemia were all bodies, single and composed. The composed and mixed substances are the
subject of Chymie; the Chymie can be divided in three realms: the minerals, the vegetation and the animals.
II. The realms of the minerals contains the metals, stones and soil
III. Metals are the minerals which can be melted and forged. There are seven metals, named after the number
of the planets, Gold is called Sol, Silver is Luna, Iron is Mars, Copper is Venus, Tin is Jupiter, Lead is Saturn
and Quicksilver is Mercury.177
After the demarcation of the scope of chymistry, Blankaart continued to demarcate the scope of
species. By species he means 'dissection' or 'anatomy,' which is nothing else than a separation of the
composed bodies into their principles. These principles are water, earth, spirit, salt, sour, and oil. 178
All the lists and etymologies that Blankaart presented in his work are probably borrowed and will
therefore be useful to reconstruct the field in which Blankaart positioned himself. The demarcation
of the scope and the list of principles can be traced back to A course of chymistry: containing an
easy method of preparing those chymical medicines which are used in physick 179 of Lémery,
translated by Blankaart. Although he did add another principle, sour, to the five principles which
were introduced by the French chemist. Therefore it is very likely that Blankaart fused the
philosophical requirement that elements should be the building blocks of the universe with the act
of chemical analysis as is done by Lémery.180
In the Factual Discourse on Fermentation Blankaart described salt, acids, watery, and oily
Bosman-Jelgersma 1992: 17. Stones were in the Seventeenth Century very important for medical use, their
appearance and origin was of interest. Apothecaries had to follow strict rules for the right treatment of these stones.
177
Blankaart 1693: 2.
I. Het onderwerp der Chemiæ sijn alle lighamen, so enkelde als gecomponeerde; deze voor zo veel daar enkele
substantien uitgetrokken werden; en gene voor zoo veel sy gecomponeerde lighamen uitmaken: de gecomponeerde
en gemengde zaken nogtans sijn het onderwerp der Chymie, en dat deilt men in drie ryken, als het minerale, het
vegetabele, en het animale.
II. Het rijk der mineralen behelft de metalen, steenen, en aarden.
III. Metalen werden genoemt minerale, welke konne gesmolte en gesmeed werde, welke men seven noemt, na het
getal der planete, want het gout noemt men Sol, het silver Luna; het yser Mars; het koper Venus; het tin Jupiter; het
loot Saturnus, het quiksilver Mercurius.
178
Ibdem. 4. Het geslagt-woord der Chymie is d'ontleding ofte anatomie, die niet anders is dan een scheidinge der
gecomponeerde lighamen tot hare beginsels, en dese zyn dan water, aarde, geest, sout, suur, olie &c.
179
The original work of Lémery is published in French Cours de chymie: contenant la manière de faire les opérations
qui sont en usage dans la médecine, par une méthode facile. Avec des raisonnemens sur chaque opération, pour
l’instruction de ceux qui veulent s’appliquer à cette science. The translation that Blankaart made of this book has a
different title in Dutch: Het Philosophische Laboratorium of der Chymisten Stook-huis. Leerende op een korte en
ligte wyse alle de gebruikelyke Medicamenten op de Chymische wyse bereiden; te gelyk met aanmerkignen en
nauwkeurige redeneringen over yder preparatie in 't besonder. He did not explain the change of title.
180
Kim 2001: 369, 370.
176
-46-
substances as emerging from the third 'hooft-stof'. In the Theatrum Chymicum he introduced six
different kinds of substances and he described their properties:
The water, differently named Phlegm, is the watery fluid that is repulsive, being not too fast, unless it is
ignited with a mediocre fire. The earth is a bulky and dry body, which normally is called caput mortuum or
Terra Damnata181 after the distillation: and from this the bodies attain their solidity. […] The spirit is called,
because of the similarity in volatility, Mercurius of the Chymists, being very pervasive and dynamic, like
alcohol, wine, spirit, absinth, frumenti, rosarum. Being made out of fermented and digested things. […] The
salt is a solid substance, though in liquid meltable: it has two features, being solid and volatile, named fixed
and volatile. Both are named in relation to the fire; because the solid can survive fully the second, third and
fourth degree of the fire, without being evaporated or condensed; but the other salt will evaporate with the first
degree of fire, and disappear, that is why they cannot catch it with any appropriate tool.
[…] The acid is a
substance which always reacts and ferments with salt, is liquid, and if it is on its own, it has a sharp and
corrosive of taste, as the spiritus nitri, salis sulphuris etc. These are called spiritus by the Chymists, but are not
actually. […] Hereby comes the oil, which they call sulphur being everything that is burnable; after they are
mixed in different ways, they also have different tastes and smells, as bitter, sweet, foul or pleasant smelling. 182
Now that the properties of the substances are identified, Blankaart's overview of the 'hooft-stoffen'
is completed. The properties of the substances give us insight into his view. He identified water as
being fluid, earth as solid and bulky, spirit volatile, salt as solid but meltable, acid as a corrosive
substance and oil as combustable sulphur. These insights not only help us to understand his view,
they also raise the question of how he came to this view. Fortunately Blankaart's works were not
static, but rather a dynamic process of progress. It is possible to trace several developments in his
181
182
The sources for the references to caput mortuum and terra damnata still need to be traced. In Martin Ruland's
Lexicon Alchemiae (1612) are several references to caput mortuum and none to terra damnata. One reference to the
caput mortuum is related to the Conversion of the Elements. A strand of thought in which the elements are separate
things which must be extracted from one matter and the earth is called caput mortuum. It is very unlikely that
Blankaart is directly inspired by these alchemical sources, but it is interesting that the composite substances which
are extracted are Spirit, Phlegmatic Water, Oil and Earth (called caput mortuum) and that some others named this
Salt, Sulphur, Mercury.
Blankaart 1693: 5. Het water, anders plegma genaamt, is het waterige vocht dat onsmakelijk is, sijnde niet al te
vlug, tensy het met matig veel vuurs werd aangeset. […] d'Aarde is een dik en droog lighaam, werdende na de
destillatie gemeenlijk caput mortuum genoemt, ofte Terra Damnata: en hier uit hebben de lighamen meest hare
soliditeyt. […] De geest werd om de gelijkenisse van sijne vluggigheid Mercurius van de Chymisten genoemt,
zynde zeer doordringelijk en beweeglijk, gelijk den alcoholvini, spiritus, absinthii, frumenti, rosarum &c. Sijnde
gemaakt uit gegiste en gewerkte dingen. […] Het sout is een solide dog in vogt ligt smeltbare stoffe: en is
tweederlei, namentlijk vast en vlug, fixum en volatile gezegt; beyde werden sy ten opsigte van het vuur aldus
genaamt: want het vaste kan de tweede derde en vierde graat des vuurs volstandig uitstaan, zonder te vervliegen ofte
opgelicht te werden; maar het andere sal met de eerste graad des vuurs opvliegen, en verdwijnen, zoo men het met
geen behoorlijke werktuigen komt te vangen.[...] Het suur is een substantie op het sout altyd werkende en
fermenterende, vloeybaar, zoo het op zyn selven staat, scherp en bytende van smaak, als daar de spiritus nitri, salis
sulphuris &c. Die van de Chymisten spiritus genoemt werden, maar sijnse eigentlijk niet. […] Hier by komt d'olie,
die men sulphur ofte swavel noemt, sijnde alle het gene verbrandelijke is: dese heeft na sijn verscheide vermenginge
ook verscheyde smaken en reuken, als bitter, soet, stinkend, aangenaam &c.als de crystalli tartari, vitriolum, sal
commune &c. Dese haalt men uit de mineralen en planten.
-47-
works, mainly because the Theatrum Chymicum, which is written by Blankaart himself, can be seen
as his master piece. Several translations, mainly those of Descartes, Lémery, Lancillotti and Digby
show a development in his view.
§ 3 The Developments in Blankaart's Work
3.1. Intellectual Development in his Matter-Theory
To reconstruct developments in Blankaart's view is a rather obscure task. It is indeed possible to
identify certain changes and rectifications in his work, but the main question is: where to start?
Blankaart has left an extensive oeuvre and it is not possible to discuss all his works in great depth.
Therefore I will focus only on those works which are concerned with chymie, and more in
particular with the definition of chymie and the relation it has to matter-theory. This leads to three
books: The New Contemporary Art of Separation or Chymia (1678), which was written by
Blankaart himself and The Burning Salamander (1680), and The Philosophical Laboratory (1683)
which were only annotated by Blankaart. The former book was written by Lancillotti, while the
latter was written by Lémery. The fact that Blankaart only annotated the books is problematic in
itself, mainly because the scope of the books, and the approach the authors have used had been
dismissed in the Theatrum Chymicum.
Besides the problems with the scope of the book, the focus of Blankaart is interesting as well. The
comments which Blankaart made in The Burning Salamander and The Philosophical Laboratory
vary widely from each other. In the first book Blankaart only annotated recipes. The first part of the
book, which is concerned with the scope of chymie, does not have a single foot-note made by
Blankaart, even though the definition of chymie includes the old wisdom of Hermetica and
Spagyrica as the most beautiful and highest operation of chymie. 183 It might be the case that
Blankaart was satisfied with the idea that Lancillotti considered chymie as the art of separation, but
there is a huge contrast between Lancillotti's opinion and his own polemical position against the
obscure art of alchemy and the old writers such as Paracelsus, Hermes and Geber. 184
If we compare this former book with The Philosophical Laboratory, which is published four years
later, it becomes clear that Blankaart started to focus on the relation of matter-theory and chymie.
183
184
Lancillotti 1680: 2.
J.N.L.N has written a poem in the book as well. This poem is actually a paean for the alchemy of Geber, Hermes,
Paracelsus and Basil.
-48-
Although he gave extensive comments upon the different passages it is interesting to see that he did
not make a remark on the etymology of the word chymie. Lémery however, defined chymie as:
The word Chymie stems from the Greek word Chymus, which means as much as juice; or as others think of the
word Chyein, that means the same as melting; because it treats in the same way how the most pure creatures
needs to be extracted from mingled bodies. These have sometimes been called juices; it also teaches how the
most stone-hard things can be melted. The Chymists have added the Arabic word Al; while they understood it
to be the most important part, which is equal to the changing of metals. While Alchymia is nothing other than
chymica, they also give it the name of Spagyria, that means as much as to tear apart, and collect, because they
were taught to separate in the same way the pure parts from the impure parts of the mingled bodies, and to fuse
them together again. […] Chymie or the Art of Separation is an art to separate different entities, which are in
mingled bodies: by mingled bodies we understand things that grow in nature, which are Metals, Plants and
Animals. Under the Metals they count the seven metals, Minerals, Stones and Earth. 185
If we compare this to his view in the Theatrum Chymicum there are two important observations to
be made. First, there is a similarity of categorisation between the two definitions. Both men classify
chymie into three kindoms (metals, plants and animals), but the classification of Lémery did not
make the subtle distinction between Chemie en Chymie, which is a nuance of Blankaart to
distinguish between all the bodies and the composed and mixed bodies which are present on earth.
Secondly, there is a different etymology of the word chymie. Lémery traced the origin of chymie
back to the Greek word Chymus, while Blankaart refered back to the hidden art of chemia, which
derived from the Arabic word Zymiâ.
The relation between the matter-theory of Lémery and Blankaart is elucidated in the second chapter
of The Philosophical Laboratory: 'The origin of Chymie'. In a comment on Lémery's matter-theory
Blankaart tried to reconcile the French division into the three realms with his own Cartesian views.
Lémery identified spirit as the primary substance, from which all the compound bodies are
composed. According to him, all the chymists 186 identified five different primary substances: Water,
185
186
Lémery 1683: 2,3. Het woord Chymie is afkomstig van het Grieksche woord Chymus, 't welk soo veel bedied als
een sap; of als andere meinen van het woord Chyein, dat soo veel te seggen is als smelten; om dat de selve een wijse
verhandelt om d' aldersuiverste wesens uit gemengelde lighamen te trekken. Die somwijls sappen genoemt werden;
ook leert de selve een konst om d'alderhardste saken te smelten. De Chymisten hebben daar nog het Arabische
woordje Al by gevoegt: dewijl sy daar door verstonden des selfs voornaamste deel, gelijk als is de veranderinge der
Metalen. Alhoewel Alchymia niets anders te seggen is, als chymica, ook geeft ment het de naam van Spagyria, dat
soo veel te seggen is als van een scheuren, en by een samelen; om dat in de selve een wijse geleert werd van te
scheiden de suivre deelen van d'onsuivre der gemengelde lichamen, en wederom hoedanig die te samen gevoegt
werden. […] De chymie of Schei-konst is een konst om verscheide wesens te scheiden, die in de gemengelde
lighamen sijn: door de gemengelde lighamen verstaen wy die dingen welke natuurlijk groyen, als daer sijn Metalen,
Planten en Dieren. Onder Metalen rekent men de seven metalen, Mineralen, Steenen en Aarde.
The Dutch word stof-scheiders is used for the word that I translated as chymist.
H.A.M. Snelders. (1993). 3. The term 'scheider' is used for somebody who purifies silver and gold. Simon Stevin
-49-
Spirit, Oil, Salt and Earth. Three of them (spirit, oil and salt) are moving bodies while the other two
are passive bodies (water and earth). Blankaart commented upon this:
All these elements or primary substances, have been united by the Cartesian thesis, those which they called
earthly matter, are everything of the kind that reflects light, because the diversity of the bodies only depends
upon the shape, place, coherence, pressing of air etc. so that according to the diversity of these, many
substances show immediately another appearance. 187
This quotation shows that Blankaart is trying to reconcile the different approaches from 1683
onwards. Therefore it is even more interesting to compare the view in the Theatrum Chymicum to
the view which he held in 1678, in The New Contemporary Art of Separation or Chymia. If this
polemical position against the obscure art of alchemy is kept in mind, this approach is very
surprising. Blankaart wrote this work from a medical point of view and positioned medicine in the
sublunary realm of physics and chymistry in his introduction:
As medical science increases on a daily basis, and they base it fully on reason, which does not only stay
within the realm of chymistry, but its knowledge is extending over the whole of the natural sciences,
because as much as we perceive, that is the way in which all sublunar things go, through fermentation, melting,
separation, turning sour, crystals, ice, and petrification; that makes substance-separation one of the most
important arts and sciences.188
Not only did he position medicine within the sublunary realm, he also referred back to the Ars
Hermetica, claimed that the origin can be found with Mercury, who is known as the Greek Hermes.
189
As in all his books, Blankaart started with definitions. He determined the Object ('Voor-werp') of
chymia and he illustrated the five 'hooft-stoffen':
The object of the art of separation are all naturally mingled bodies, which are separated and have been
brought to their five primary substances by it, and the same can be composed again. 190
187
188
189
190
also used this word in the book De Wysentyt, and there is an engraving from Jan Luyken (1694) which is called 'De
Scheider'.
Lémery 1683: 4. Alle dese elementen oft beginselen, werden door de Cartesiaanse stellinge tot een gebragt, die sy
de aarde stoffe noemen, sijde alles van 't geene het ligt wederom steut, want de verscheidentheid der lighamen hangt
aleenig af van de figuur, plaatsing, t'samen-hang, persing des logts etc. soo dat na de verscheidentheid deser,
menigte stoffen ons meteen andere gedaante vertoonen.
Blankaart 1678: A2. Gelijk de medicijne dagelijks meer en meer toe-neemt, en men die ganschelijk op reden
fondeert, die niet alleen binnen de palen van de schei-konst blijft, maar haar tot kennisse van de geheele natuurkunde uitstrekt, want soo veel as wy merken, soo vergaan en werden alle onder-maansche dingen door gisteingen,
smeltingen, scheidingen, schiftingen, crystal, ys en steen-makingen; soo dat de stof-scheiding onder de voornaamste
Konsten en wetenschappen.
Blankaart 1678: A2.
Blankaart 1678: 7. Het voor-werp der schei-konst zijn alle Natuurlijke gemengelde lichamen, welke door haar
-50-
The five 'hooft-stoffen' as they were identified by Blankaart in 1678 were different from the 'hooftstoffen' which he distinguished in his Cartesian work Factual Discourse on Fermentation. I would
like to emphasise this, because this is the part where his work is in development, or maybe even
inconsistent, and therefore difficult to analyze. Blankaart determined three different types of 'hooftstoffen' in his Cartesian work and from the third 'hooft-stof' emanate five or six substances which
are the principles from which all the bodies on earth are composed. These principles were water,
earth, spirit, salt, sour, and oil, while in his earlier work he only singled out a few of these
substances as 'hooft-stoffen'.
In 1678 he suggested that spirit, sulphur, salt, water and earth were the five 'hooft-stoffen':
Spirit is the most volatile entity, above all the other primary substances, and it appears to be a part of the
heavenly substance, so that it would be in everything as an instrument to do the same, living, moving, feeling.
Mostly, it can be found in animals, mainly those who are warm [blooded], then in trees, plants, and fruits.
Only a little or nothing can be found in stones or metals. […] The second primary substance is sulphur which is
heavier than spirit, and therefore not as volatile because it was better enchained by the other primary
substances. From it emanate nearly all the heath of the bodies, nice taste, smells and colours […] The third
primary substance is salt, and it is more solid than spirit and sulphur, that is why it does not condense as easily,
it makes bodies dense, heavy, solid and durable. […] The fourth primary substance is water, being the most
accomplished chair for spirit and sulphur, and as a remedy to unite itself with salt. The fifth primary substance
is earth, which just as water in fluid, and also in solid bodies, fills the holes between the other primary
substances, and prevents the others from touching each other. 191
If the properties of the five 'hooft-stoffen' in the this work are compared to the properties Blankaart
attributed to them in the Theatrum Chymicum and the Factual Discourse on Fermentation it
becomes clear that there has been a shift in his thought. Not only is this shift important, but as is
indicated in a quotation from the Factual Discourse on Fermentation (see page 44), also his attitude
towards the substances had changed. In this work he referred to the list of the chymists (I would
191
ontdaan en tot hare vijf hooft-stoffen gebracht werden, en de selve wederom t'samen stelt.
Blankaart 1678: 7-9. De Geest is de vlugtigste selfstandigheit, boven d'andere Hooft-stoffen, en schijnt een gedeelte
van de Hemelse stoffe te zijn, op datse in yeder ding soude zijn als een werk-tuig om het selfde te doen leven,
bewegen en gevoelen. Sy wert meest gevonden in de dieren, voornamentlijk die warm zijn, daarna in de bomen,
planten, en vrugten. In de steenen of metalen wort sy seer weinigh of niet gevonden. […] De tweede Hooft-stof is de
Swavel wat dikker dan de geest, en daarom soo vlughtigh niet om dat hy van de andere Hooft-stoffen beter
beknevelt wert. Uyt haar ontstaan de meeste warmte der lighamen, aangenaame smaken, reuken, en koleuren […]
De derde Hooft-stof, is het sout, en is vaster dan de geest en swavel, daarom vervliegt sy so licht niet, maakt de
lichamen dicht, swaar, vast, en duursaam. […] de vierde Hooft-stof is het Water, sijnde de bekwaamste setel voor de
geest en swavel, en als een middel om de selve onderlingh, en ook met het sout te doen vereenigen. […] De vijfde
Hooft-stof is de Aarde, die gelijk 't water in de vloejende, even so in de vaste lichamen, de ruimte tusschen de
andere Hooft-stoffen vervult, en belet, datse den anderen niet konnen raken. […]
-51-
like to suggest that this is the list that came from the French textbook tradition, probably borrowed
from the work of Lémery) which contained spirit, salt, acid, sulphur, water, and earth. These
substances were not the most suitable because some of them still exist out of other particles while in
his first work he listed five of these substances; spirit, sulphur, salt, water, and earth as the five
'hooft-stoffen'.
Besides the change in thought, Blankaart attributed different properties to the five 'hooft-stoffen'
and the five substances which emanated from the third 'hooft-stof'. The most crucial change
concerns the role of spirit. In his earlier work, he kept the Aristotelian notion of the sublunary and
superlunary realms and he positioned the spirit as the one substance which formed a bridge between
the two realms, while in his later work he did not believe in a distinction between sublunar and
superlunar realms. As well as the function of the spirit, the arrangement and the role of the five
'hooft-stoffen' underwent a metamorphosis. From the substances that were responsible for the
properties of the nature of matter (spirit as the substance which was accountable for living, moving
and feeling and sulphur as a substance which was the cause of smell, taste and heat of bodies) they
became substances to which Blankaart only attributed several properties (water as a fluid that was
not so fast, the earth as a dry and bulky body). He also listed different substances in his two works.
In the former work he made a list which contained spirit, sulphur, salt, water and earth, while in his
latter work his list was composed of water, earth, spirit, salt, acid and oil.
3.2. Development in his Social Life
To place Blankaart's matter-theory within the field of matter-theory in the Dutch Republic it is not
only necessary to illustrate the intellectual work of the Dutch Physician, but also his social relations.
When Blankaart left Middelburg, and Franeker, he needed to establish a whole new life in
Amsterdam. Maybe he saw Amsterdam as the city of opportunities, or his wife had good
connections in the richest city of Holland, but it becomes clear from his work that he tried to launch
himself as an important physician in Amsterdam who had up-to-date medical knowledge and was
known for translating many important works into the vernacular language.
The main question is, did he succeed in establishing a new network? The fact that his books have
been published into eight and ninth editions already illustrate that he was a widely read author in his
time. But what else can we learn from his books? The first element is the publisher of his books.
-52-
Almost all his books, which are written in the Dutch language, were published by Jan ten Hoorn or
by his son Nicolaas ten Hoorn. This already illustrates that there is a long-standing relationship
between the two men. The second element, which might be an explanation for the shift in his
thought, was the preface in the books. His first book, The New Contemporary Art of Separation or
Chymia, is dedicated to sovereign Henrik Casimier, by Gods grace Prince to Nassau, landgrave to
Catzenelleboge, Vianen, Dietz, Spiegel-berg, Baron to Liesvelt, Stadholder Friesland and captain
general of the militia. His titles already show that he was an important man within the ruling classes
of the society. In fact, his position as landgrave and prince to Nassau are the same titles that Willem
of Orange also had. While all the other books, which are discussed in this essay, were dedicated to
famous physicians in Amsterdam.
Blankaart's masterpiece, the Theatrum Chymicum, is dedicated to J. Roman, philosopher and doctor,
in Amsterdam. Besides the shift in dedication he also used this work to position himself within the
field of medicine in the Republic. In the preface he referred to the book the Acta Leidensia, written
by sir Morley, who was connected to the University of Leiden. Blankaart claimed that he saw it as
his noble duty to serve the Dutch country and to present the works of these important men in the
vernacular language so that everybody could read them.
These social ties illustrate how Blankaart tried to position himself within the medical field of his
time. It was very common to dedicate a book to a certain influential figure, but in the case of
Blankaart this gives us insight in how he tried to establish his reputation as an important physician.
There was a shift from a high raking figure within the ruling class of the Republic to the smaller
circle of Amsterdam physicians. This can either indicate that the social bond that he tried to
establish failed and therefore focussed on another social group, that of the physicians in Amsterdam,
or that his social ties were strong enough. Since there was also a change in thought in his work it
seems that this might have been more than a coincidence, but since nearly all the correspondence
that Blankaart maintained is lost therefore it is impossible to draw strong conclusions.
-53-
3. How to Position Blankaart's Matter-Theory in the Historiography of
Natural Philosophy in the Dutch Republic?
Blankaart's work on matter-theory is a fascinating and highly eclectic theory, which was in constant
development and was probably a source of inspiration for his readers. From the developments in his
work it is possible to draw several interesting conclusions and to identify his position within the
field of matter-theory.
The developments in his work show that his position in the field changed over time. At first he did
not take a polemical stance against alchemy; he traced the origins of chymistry back to the Ars
Hermetica and claimed that the origin could be found with Mercury, who is known as the Greek
God Hermes. His first work on matter-theory, The New Contemporary Art of Separation or Chymia
(1678), was still influenced by the Aristotelian concept of the sub-lunar and super-lunar realm,
which is refuted in the work of Descartes. Although he identified five substances in his first book,
these substances are fundamentally different from the ones that he identified in his later work. The
five substances were five primary principles with three active and two passive principles, with the
spirit as the substance that was active between the two realms.
After this first publication his work started to develop fast. In The Burning Salamander he only
annotated the recipes and did not comment upon the references to alchemical works while in The
Philosophical Laboratory he started to comment upon the origins of 'chymie' and he tried to
reconcile the theory of Lémery with the Cartesian view. He claimed that all the elements and
principles are reconciled with the Cartesian thesis.
The union between these two theories is problematic from a modern historical point of view.
Descartes has a strict mechanistic view and tried to differentiate between the different substances on
his matter-theory while in the work of Lémery the separation into the three different realms, as is
based on experiments and derives from the French textbook tradition. Apparently it was possible to
reconcile these two views in the seventeenth century, as is done with several other matter-theories.
The main explanation for this is probably the fact that they take the particles for granted as is
suggested by Meinel; the ontological and epistemological status was not a topic of discussion, and
the identification of the particles is often based on experiments as is evident in the theory of
Lémery.
-54-
Still there are several important questions to be asked in relation to the development in his work.
Why is there a distinction between the sub-lunar and super-lunar realm in his first book? This is
even more problematic because he was trained at the University of Franker, which was a hotbed for
Cartesianism from 1660 onwards. Therefore Blankaart must have been familiar with the Cartesian
theory, certainly because he claimed to be presenting medicine in a Cartesian way, and it remains
unclear why he decided to use the Aristotelian worldview. I would like to suggest that this might be
related to the social sphere instead of the intellectual sphere, and that there was a non-intellectual
reason such as patronage or the publication of his first book, to use the Aristotelian view. This
suggestion is supported by the fact that only his first book is dedicated to a prominent political
figure instead of a physician in Amsterdam, but this is only a suggestion since there is no
correspondence about this topic.
Another question is related to his polemical position in the field. In the Factual Discourse on
Fermentation Blankaart positioned himself against alchemy, and took a very radical stance against
the Paracelsian tradition, but he did not attack van Helmont. From the four theories which he
rejected, three are problematic. Firstly he refuted the Aristotelian ideas, while he defended a part of
that theory in his first book. Also his rejection of the Paracelsian way can be seen as a very
polemical stance. In the work of Lémery he tried to unite several principles although they were very
different from each other and in his rejection of Paracelsianism he only claimed that these particles
differ to much from each other to be primary substances. So on an intellectual basis this argument is
not very strong. Once we put this in the perspective of a polemic and his position agains alchemy it
is fully understandable that he rejected the Paracelsian principles. The third theory which he
rejected is water as a primary substance. The argument that Blankaart used, the growth of the
willow tree, derived directly from the Helmontian work. Van Helmont claimed that this experiment
showed that water was a primary substance, while Blankaart used this same experiment to illustrate
that water was not a primary substance. It is even more important that Blankaart did not refer to the
work of Van Helmont, but only to the theory of water as a primary substance by Thales.
This leads to the position of Blankaart in the field. Once he fully developed his view, it is possible
to place him within the mechanistic worldview based on the Cartesian work, but with the French
textbook tradition as another source of inspiration.
-55-
Bibliography
Primary Sources
BLANKAART, Steven. De Kartesiaanse Academie ofte Institutie Der Medicyne. Behelsde de
gansche Medicyne, bestaande in de leere der gesondheid en des selfs bewaringe, als ook der
ongesondheid en haar herstellinge. Alles op de waaragtige gronden, volgens de meining van
den Heer Cartesius gebouwt. Amsterdam: Johannes ten Hoorn, 1684.
BLANKAART, Steven. Nauwkeurige verhandlinge van de scheur-buik. En des selfs toevallen als
ook een naakt vertoog wegens de fermentatie oft innerlijke bewegingen der lighamen. Meest
op gronden van Des-cartes gebouwt. Amsterdam: Jan ten Hoorn, 1684.
BLANKAART, Steven. Theatrum chimicum, ofte Geopende deure der chymische verborgentheden:
Ontsloten van de vermaartse autheuren. Met groote vlyd door en Liefhebber der chymie
byeen versamelt. Appendix: K. Digby Met een vervolg over de Chymische verborgentheden
aangaande de verandering en verbetering der metalen en gesteente. Amsterdam: Jan ten
Hoorn, 1693.
BLANKAART, Steven. Opera Medica Theoretica, practica et chirurgica, quae omnia variis
observationibus, experimentis, tam ex corporibus valetudinariis, cadaveribus, quam ex
Mechanicis. Leiden: Cornelium Boutenstein en Jordanum Lugtmans, 1701.
BLANKAART, Steven.The Physical Dictionary: Wherein the terms of Anatomy, the Names and
Causes of Diseases are accurately described. As also the Names and Vitues of Medicinal
Plants. 5th edition. London: John and Benjamin Sprint and Edward Symon, 1708.
BLANKAART, Steven. The Physical Dictionary: Wherein the terms of Anatomy, the Names and
Causes of Diseases are accurately described. As also the Names and Vitues of Medicinal
Plants. 7th edition. London: John and Benjamin Sprint and Edward Symon, 1726.
BLANKAART, Steven. Lexicon Medicum Renovatum. In quo totius artis medicae termini, in
Anatome, Chirurgia, Pharmacia, Chymia, reBotanica etc. Usitati, dilucide & breviter
exponuntur, juxta Neotericorum tum Practicorum tum Mechanicorum placita &vere
demonstrata principia. Leiden: Samuelem & Johannem Luchtmans, 1756.
DIGBY, Kenelm. In: PAPINIUS, N. & KIRCHERUS, A. (transl.). Theatrum Sympatheticum ofte
wonder toneel der Natuirs Verborgentheden. 3rd edition. Amsterdam: Jan ten Hoorn, 1709.
LÉMERY, Nicolas.In: BLANKAART, S. (transl.). Het philosoophische laboratorium, of der
chymisten stook-huis. Leerende op een korte en ligte wyse alle de gebruikelykste
medicamenten op de chymische wyse bereiden; tegelyk met aanmerkingen en nauwkeurige
redeneringen over yder preparatie in 't besonder. Amsterdam: Jan ten Hoorn, 1683.
LÉMERY, Nicolas. In: HARRIS, W. A course of chymistry: containing the easiest manner of
performing those operations that are in use in physick: illustrated with many curious
remarks and useful discourses upon each operation. London: printed for Walter Kettibly,
1677.
-56-
Secondary Sources
ANSTEY, Peter R. 'Essences and Kinds'. In: CLARCK, D.M. & WILSON, C. (eds.). The Oxford
Handbook of Philosophy in Early Modern Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011:
pp. 11- 31.
AQUINAS, Thomas. In: ROWAN, J.P. (transl.). Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle.
Chicago: H. Regnery Co, 1961.
ARISTOTLE. In: LAWSON-TANCRED, H. (transl. & intro.). Metaphysics. London: Penguin
Books, 1998.
ARISTOTLE. In: WATERFIELD, R. (transl.) & BOSTOCK, D. (intro. & notes). Physics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1996.
BENZENHÖFER, Udo. (2005). 'Paracelsus'. In: HANEGRAAFF, W.J. Dictionary of Gnosis and
Western Esotericism. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Accessed: 21 November 2011.
<http://www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/entry?entry=dgwe_DGWE-275>.
BLOCH, E. 'Die chemischen Theorien bei Descartes und den Cartesianern.' Isis Vol.1 No.4. (1913):
pp. 599-636.
BOSTOCK, David. Space, Time, Matter and Form: Essays on Aristotle's Physics. Oxford: Claredon
Press, 2006.
BROACKES, Justin. 'Substance'. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. Vol. 106. No.1. (2006):
pp. 133-168.
BROOKS, Lynn M. 'Dancing at a Dutch University, Part I, The Franeker Dancing Mater, 1682'.
Dance Chronicle. Vol. 9. No. 2. (1986): pp. 158-176.
BUNGE, Wiep. (ed.). The Early Enlightenment in the Dutch Republic 1650-1750. Leiden:
Brill, 2003.
BUNTZ, Herwig. 'Alchemy III: 12th/13th-15th Century.' In: HANEGRAAFF, W.J. Dictionary of
Gnosis and Western Esotericism. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Accessed: 10 July 2012.
<http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/dictionary-of-gnosis-and-westernesotiricism/alchemy-DGWE_008?s.num=0&s.rows=20&s.f.s2_parent=s.f.book.dictionaryof-gnosis-and-western-esotiricism&s.q=alchemy >.
CHASE, Michael. 'Teleology and Final Causation in Aristotle and in Contemporary Science'.
Dialogue. Vol. 50. No. 3. (2011): pp. 511-536.
CISLO, Amy E. 'Paracelsus's Conception of Seeds: Rethinking Paracelsus's Ideas of Body and
Matter'. Ambix. Vol. 55. No. 3. (2008): pp. 274 – 282.
CLERICUZIO, Antonio.Elements, Principles and Corpuscles. A Study of Atomism and Chemistry
in the Seventeenth Century. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.
COOK, Harold J. Matters of Exchange. Commerce, Medicine, and Science in the Dutch Golden
-57-
Age. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007.
CUNNINGHAM, Eileen R. 'Reference Works in Medicine'. Bulletin of the Medical Library
Association. Vol. 27. No. 2. (1938): pp. 118 – 132.
DANIEL, Dane T. 'Invisible Wombs: Rethinking Paracelsus's Concept of Body and Matter'. Ambix.
Vol. 53. No. 2. (2006): pp. 129 – 142.
DEBUS, Allen G. The Chemical Philosophy. Paracelsian Science and Medicine in the Sixteenth
and Seventeenth Centuries. Vol. 1. New York: Science History Publications, 1977.
DESCARTES, Rene. In: COTTINGHAM, J., STOOTHOFF, R. & MURDOCH, D. (transl.)
Descartes Selected Philosophical Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
DESCARTES, Rene. In: MILLER V.R. & MILLER R.P. (transl.). Principles of Philosophy.
Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1983.
FRIJHOFF, Willem. & Spies, Marijke. Dutch Culture in a European Perspective. 1650: Hard-Won
Unity. Vol. 1. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
GAUKROGER, Stephen. Descartes' System of Natural Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2002.
GRELL, Ole P. (ed.). Paracelsus. The Man and his Reputation. His Ideas and their Transformation.
Leiden: Brill, 1998.
GRENDLER, Paul F. 'The Universities of the Renaissance and Reformation.' Renaissance
Quarterly. Vol. 57. No. 1. (2004): pp. 1-42.
HERSHEY, David. 'Misconceptions about van Helmont's Willow Experiment.' Plant Science
Bulletin. Vol. 49. No. 3. (2003): pp. 78-84.
HOMBURG, Ernst. 'Chemistry in the Low Countries: A Comparison Between North and South,
1600-1900'. In: BERTOMEU-SÁNCHEZ, J.R., THORBURN, D.B & VAN TIGGELEN, B.
(eds.). Neighbours and Territories: The Evolving Identity of Chemistry. The 6 th International
Conference on the History of Chemistry. Louvain-la-Neuve: Memosciences, 2007: pp. 65 –
88.
HOOYKAAS, Reijer. The Concept of Element. Its Historical-Philosophical Development. Utrecht:
Drukkerij Fa. Schotanus & Jens, 1933.
ISAACS, Alan. A Dictionary of Physics. 4th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
JANSSEN, Geert H. 'The Dutchness of the Dutch Golden Age.' The Historical Journal. Vol. 53. No.
3. (2010): pp. 805-817.
JARCHO, Saul. 'Blankaart’s Dictionary. An index to 17th Century Medicine.' Bulletin of New York
Academic of Medicine. Vol.58. No.6. (1982): pp. 568-577.
JOLY, Bernard. La rationalité de l'alchimie au XVII siècle. Paris: Vrin, 1992.
-58-
KIM, Mi Gyung. 'Chemical Analysis and the Domains of Reality: Wilhelm Homberg's Essais De
Chimie. 1702-1709'. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science. Vol. 31. No. 1.
(2000): pp. 37-69.
KIM, Mi Gyung. 'The Analytical Ideal of Chemical Elements: Robert Boyle and the French
Didactic Tradition of Chemistry.' Science in Context. Vol. 14. No. 3. (2001): pp. 361-395.
KLEIN, Ursula. 'Shifting ontologies, changing classifications: plant materials from 1700 to 1830.'
Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science. Vol. 36. No. 4. (2005): pp. 261-329.
KLEIN, Ursula. 'Styles of Experimentation and Alchemical Matter Theory in the Scientific
Revolution.' Metascience. Vol. 16. No. 2. (2007): pp. 247-256.
KOOIJMANS, Luuk. Vriendschap. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij Bert Bakker, 1997.
LAND, J. P. N. 'Philosophy in the Dutch Universities.' Mind. Vol. 3. No. 9. (1878): pp. 87-104.
LEIJENHORST, Cees., LÜTHY, Christoph. & THIJSSEN, Johannes M.M.H. The Dynamics of
Aristotelian Natural Philosophy from Antiquity to the Seventeenth Century. Leiden: Brill,
2002.
LINDEBOOM, Gerrit A. Geschiedenis van de medische wetenschap in Nederland. 2nd edition.
Haarlem: Fibula-Van Dishoeck, 1981.
LÜTHY, Christoph., MURDOCH, John E. & Newman, William R. Late Medieval and Early
Modern Corpuscular Matter Theories. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
MEINEL, Christoph. 'Early Seventeenth-Century Atomism: Theory, Epistemology, and the
Insufficiency of Experiment.' Isis. Vol. 79. No. 1. (1988): pp. 68-103.
MOLHUYSEN, Philipp C. & BLOK, Petrus J. 'Nicolaas Blankaart.' In: MOLHUYSEN, P.C. &
BLOK, P.J. (eds.). Nieuw Nederlandsch Biografisch Woordenboek. Deel 4. Leiden: A.W.
Sijthoff, 1918: pp. 155-156.
MORAN, Bruce T. 'Paracelsianism.' In: HANEGRAAFF, W.J. Dictionary of Gnosis and Western
Esotericism. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Accessed: 10 July 2012.
<http://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/dictionary-of-gnosis-and-westernesotiricism/paracelsianism-DGWE_274?s.num=>.
NADLER, S. 'Chapter 17: Doctrines of Explanation in Late Scholasticism and in the
Mechanical
Philosophy'. In: GARBER, D. & AYERS, M. (eds). The Cambridge History of SeventeenthCentury Philosophy. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998: pp. 513-552.
NEWMAN, William R. 'What have we Learned from the Recent Historiography of Alchemy?.' Isis.
Vol. 102. No. 2. (2011): pp. 313-321.
NEWMAN, William R. 'Alchemical Atoms or Artisanal “Building Blocks”? A Response to
Klein.' Perspectives on Science. Vol. 17. No. 2. (2009): pp. 212-231.
-59-
NEWMAN, William R. Atoms and Alchemy. Chymistry and the Experimental Origins of the
Scientific Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.
NEWMAN, William R. 'The Alchemical Sources of Robert Boyle's Corpuscular Philosophy.'
Annals of Science. Vol. 53. No. 6. (1996): pp. 567-585.
NEWMAN, William. R. & PRINCIPE, Lawrence.M. Alchemy tried in the fire. Starkey, Boyle, and
the Fate of Helmontian Chymistry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.
NEWMAN, William. R. & PRINCIPE, Lawrence. M. 'Alchemy vs. Chemistry: The
Etymological Origins of a Historiographic Mistake.' Early Science and Medicine, Vol. 3. No
1. (1998): pp. 32-65.
PRINCIPE, Lawrence M. 'Boyle, Robert.' In: HANEGRAAFF, W.J. Dictionary of Gnosis and
Western Esotericism. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Accessed: 06 February 2012.
<http://www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/uid=1393/entry?entry=dgwe_DGWE-052>.
PAGEL, Walter. Paracelsus. An Introduction to Philosophical Medicin in the Era of the
Renaissance. Basel: S. Krager, 1958.
PAGEL, Walter. Joan Baptista Van Helmont. Reformer of Science and Medicine.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
PARACELSUS. In: A. WEEKS, A. (ed. and transl.). Paracelsus Theophrastus Bombastus von
Hohenheim, 1493-1541. Essential Theoretical Writings. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
ROBERTS, Lissa. 'The Death of the Sensuous Chemist: The 'New' Chemistry and the
Transformation of Sensuous Technology.' Studies in the History and Philosophy of
Science. Vol. 26. No. 4. (1995): pp. 503-529.
ROODNAT, Albert. 'Helmont, Joan Baptista van.' In: HANEGRAAFF, W.J. Dictionary of
Gnosis and Western Esotericism. Leiden: Brill, 2005. Accessed: 06 February 2012.
<http://www.brillonline.nl/subscriber/uid=1393/entry?entry=dgwe_DGWE-158>.
SHAPIN, Steven & SCHAFFER, Simon. Leviathan and the Air-Pump. Hobbes, Boyle, and the
Experimental Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985.
SHAPIN, Steven. The Scientific Revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1996.
SNELDERS, Harry A.M. De geschiedenis van de scheikunde in Nederland. Deel 1: Van alchemie
tot chemie en chemische industrie rond 1900. Delft: Delftse Universitaire Pers, 1993.
SPIES, Marijke. 'Helicon and Hills of Sand: Pagan Gods in Early Modern Dutch and European
Poetry'. In: SPIES, M. (ed.). Rethoric, Rhetoricians and Poets. Studies in Renaissance
Poetry and Poetics. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 1999: pp. 69-77.
THIJSSEN-SCHOUTE, Caroline L. Nederlands Cartesianisme. Utrecht: Hes Uitgevers BV, 1989.
TUCK, Richard. 'Chapter 1: The Institutional Setting.' In: D. GARBER, D. & AYERS, M. (eds).
The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge
-60-
University Press, 1998: pp. 9-32.
VANDEVELDE, Albert. J.J. Bijdrage tot de studie der werken van Stephanus Blankaart.
Gent, 1924.
-61-