is no diabolic influence, no necromancy. He drew attention to the
overwhelming effects which might result from a cause which was so minute
that it could not be perceived by the senses. We cannot here go into the
theoretical background which underlay van Helmont's conceptions, but we
must mention at least briefly his idea of a basic mechanism. Van Helmont
considered the action to be that of a ferment, where an extremely minute
quantity can produce a tremendous effect. He gives the analogy of the
tooth of a mad dog, which, although any saliva has been carefully wiped
off, can nevertheless sometimes induce madness. The effect of the stone
seems to be comparable. Its power becomes manifest even in enormous
dilution and can multiply, for it can import its remedial virtue to a
vast quantity of oil. Moreover, the stone had a sort of universal power
against all diseases. Such a virtue could not be vegetable in its
nature, but was, he thought, connected with metals. He pointed to the
well-accepted medicinal virtues which inhered in gems. Metals also had
great medicinal potency. Antimony, lead, iron, mercury, were well known,
and of special importance was copper, the _Venus_ of the early chemists.
The medicinal virtue which inhered in Butler's stone and in other
powerful fermental remedies, van Helmont designated as "drif," which he
said means, in the vernacular, virgin sand or earth. This virtue
requires a metallic body in which to inhere. The general concept is not
unfamiliar, of a virtue or power or ferment which was attached to a
material object, and it is this type of explanation which was so
preponderant in, for example, Porta's _Natural Magick_. Van Helmont
speaks of the "first being," which translates the Latin _Ens_, of Venus
or copper. Vitriol is the basic substance, and for purification of the
virtue we require a "sequestration of its Venus from the dregs of the
vitriol."[62]
This was the background from which Boyle set about to secure a potent
remedy. Van Helmont had discussed his experiments whereby he tried to
create a medicine which would have the virtues of Butler's stone. Boyle
attempted to improve on van Helmont's technique. Copper--Venus--was the
basic metal, and Boyle started with vitriol or copper sulfate. He gave
fairly explicit directions for the preparation, including calcination,
boiling, drying, adding sal armoniack, subliming twice. The resulting
chemical represented a purified medicine which he prescribed in variable
dosage, from two or three grains, up to twenty or thirty at the maximum.
He declared it to be a "potent specifick for the rickets," since he, and
others to whom he had given it for use, had "cured" a hundred or more
children of that disease. The medicine he also prescribed in fevers and
headache, and he thought it "hath done wonders" in obstinate
suppressions of the menses. It also improved the appetite. It worked, he
declared, through the sweat and, to some extent, the urine.[63] It is
noteworthy that Boyle did not claim to have cured the same illnesses
than van Helmont reports as having been cured by Butler's stone.
As another example, he gave directions for preparing essence of
hartshorn--prepared, literally, from the horn itself. The preparation,
strongly alkaline, he prescribed in small doses of eight to ten drops.
The medicine "resists malignity, putrefaction, and acid humours," for
it destroys the acidity. He used it "in fevers, coughs, pleurisies,
obstructions of the spleen, liver, or womb, and principally in
affections of the brain...."[64]
While Boyle was a far more skillful chemist than van Helmont, he did not
have any greater diagnostic acumen. And clearly, from the standpoint of
scientific method, he lacked any sharp criterion of cure. Various
patients were ill with various diseases; he gave them one or another
preparation; the patients recovered. Controls there were none. Boyle,
with great enthusiasm, believed that through natural philosophy we would
eventually discover "the true causes and seats of diseases" and also
find out effective remedies which would quickly free the patient from
the disease.[65] But faith and enthusiasm did not compensate for the
_post hoc propter hoc_ attitude.
According to Galenic concepts, if diseases are due to alterations of
humors either in their quality or in their proportions, then the
suitable remedy will restore the appropriate quality or proportion. In
Galenic doctrine, the disturbance of the humors should be perceptible,
and a sound Galenic remedy should work by perceptibly changing the
nature and proportion of the humors back to normal. However, side by
side with the Galenic medical doctrines, there were the other prevalent
doctrines, among which I can mention the idea of "specifics." I can
emphasize three features: the specific remedy was active against a
particular disease, in a quite specific fashion, in the same way that an
antidote acted against a specific poison; second, the effectiveness was
a matter of direct experience, based on empirical observation; and
third, the mode of action remained relatively obscure, but nevertheless
the medicines did not seem to behave as did the so-called "Galenicals."
Thus, whether they acted by "sympathy," or by a special hidden virtue,
or by a peculiar microcosmic energy, we cannot say. But the _fact_
remains that many people asserted the specific effectiveness[66] of this
or that remedy against a specific disease--e.g., that snakeweed was an
effective cure for the bite of a serpent.
Learned physicians, unfortunately, refused in large part to accept the
validity of these alleged cures. Their hesitancy rested not on
statistical evidence or on niceties of scientific method, but on the
grounds that the alleged mode of operation was quite unintelligible and
not at all in accord with accepted doctrine.
Boyle, as a chemist, insisted on keeping an open mind in regard to
so-called specifics. He objected strongly to the argument that simply
because we cannot account for their mode of action, we should conclude
that they were not effective. In a passage of great importance, he
declared, "Why should we hastily conclude against the efficacy of
specificks, taken into the body, upon the bare account of their not
operating by any obvious quality, if they be recommended unto us upon
their own experience by sober and faithful persons?" Thus, his chain of
reasoning is, first of all, these remedies work, as attested by direct
experience; we are not able to explain why or how they work; we must
not, however, fly in the face of experience and deny their effectiveness
simply because of our inability to explain the workings. He gives the
example of a "leaven," which in minute amounts is able to "turn the
greatest lump of dow [dough] into leaven."[67]
Boyle strongly supported the well-known quotation of Celsus, that the
important thing is not what causes the disease but what removes it. In
strong terms he criticized "many learned physicians" who rejected
specifics on the ground "that they cannot clearly conceive the distinct
manner of the specificks working; and think it utterly improbable, that
such a medicine, which must pass through digestions in the body, and be
whirled about with the mass of blood to all the parts, should,
neglecting the rest, shew it self friendly to the brain (for instance)
or the kidneys, and fall upon this or that juice or humour rather than
any other."[68] Boyle then went into considerable detail to show how
this can take place through the action of ferments, combined with a
theoretical exposition of atomistic philosophy, which we do not have
time to go into at present. He gave in great detail an exposition of how
these specifics _may_ operate, but did not in any way produce cogent
evidence that they do in fact operate in such fashion.
As a physician, Boyle insisted on facts over theory. He was constantly
pleading for physicians to enlarge their experience, to try new
medicines, even though these were not based on traditional doctrine.
Where observed fact conflicts with theory, the fact cannot be ignored.
Credulity of physicians, he indicated, may do the world "more mischief"
than any other profession, but nevertheless he condemned those who would
try to "circumscribe, or confine the operations of nature, and not so
much as allow themselves or others to try, whether it be possible for
nature, excited and managed by art, to perform divers things, which they
never yet saw done, or work by divers ways, differing from any, which by
the common principles, that are taught in the schools, they are able to
give a satisfactory account of."[69] Surely, this is not a model of
elegant English style, but the message is clear. Boyle was emphasizing
the message taught earlier in the century by Francis Bacon, that we must
judge the theory by the fact, and not the facts by the theory. It is the
same philosophy that Hamlet expounded, that there are more things in
heaven and earth than are dreamed of in our philosophy.
We see, thus, that Boyle had taken a mighty step toward modern
scientific medicine, but he covered only a small part of the total
distance. He insisted that we should accept facts, but he did not
realize the difficulties attendant on defining a fact and making it
credible. He indicated that when strange results are alleged, "these
need good proof to make a wary man believe so strange a thing,"[70] but
what constitutes proof was a problem which he was not able to wrestle
with and, indeed, a problem which he did not clearly perceive.
I would emphasize that Boyle was in essence a man of great faith. He had
great faith in religion, and was a deeply religious man. He was a great
supporter of so-called "natural religion" and tried to reconcile the
doctrines of natural philosophy with those of traditional religion.
Westfall[71] has considered in detail the religious attitudes of late
seventeenth-century writers, Robert Boyle in particular. The "proofs"
alleged by the proponents of natural religion have, of course, little
cogency. As Westfall points out, they examined nature in order to find
what they already believed.
Nevertheless, religious faith was only one part of the total faith which
Boyle exhibited. He had as much faith in the capabilities, the future
progress, and the promise of science as he did in traditional religion.
Throughout all his works we see great evidence of his religious piety.
But his faith in science, particularly as it affected medicine, we see
with utmost clarity in the essay "The Usefulness of Natural Philosophy."
He had great vision of the benefits that science would eventually bring
to the healing arts. Unlike many of his contemporaries, particularly
persons such as Glanvill or Spratt, he realized that many anatomical
discoveries, for example, were of little practical value, but he felt
that such discoveries would, "in process of time (when the _historia
facti_ shall be fully and indisputably made out, and the theories
thereby suggested clearly established) highly conduce to the improvement
of the therapeutical part of physick...."[72] And with extraordinary
perceptiveness he indicated the different ways in which he expected
progress to be made through the proper application of mechanical
philosophy. He was clear-sighted enough to realize that the discoveries
made hitherto were not of great practical value but that the future was
indeed bright, and he provided a remarkable blueprint of progress to
come.
The measure of progress is, perhaps, the quantity of faith which moves
mankind. The study of Robert Boyle emphasizes some divisions among
mankind. Some are content to look backward, to be satisfied with the
achievements of the past, to rely on accepted systematization, doctrine,
and explanation. Others, while dissatisfied with the past, have no guide
to lead them anywhere. Still others, however, have a strong faith in the
new course which they are pursuing, a faith which can guide them over
great difficulties. Boyle was such a man of faith--a word which is
really synonymous with "attitude." He marked the transition between the
old and the new, and pointed up the difficulties which transition always
involves.
_Notes_
[37] Thomas Birch, _The Life of the Honourable Robert Boyle_, in Robert
Boyle, _The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle_, ed. Thomas Birch,
London; 1772, I, liv, reprinted Hildesheim, 1965, I, Introduction,
viii-ix; Marie Boas Hall, _Robert Boyle on Natural Philosophy: An Essay
with Selections from His Writings_, Bloomington, Indiana, 1965, p. 16.
[38] John F. Fulton, _A Bibliography of the Honourable Robert Boyle_,
2nd ed., Oxford, 1961, p. 37.
[39] Hall, _op. cit._, p. 47.
[40] Margaret E. Rowbottom, "The Earliest Published Writing of Robert
Boyle," _Annals of Science_, VI (1950), 376-389; R. E. W. Maddison, "The
Earliest Published Writing of Robert Boyle," _Annals of Science_, XVII
(1961), 165-173.
[41] Lazarus Riverius, _The Universal Body of Physick, in five books,...
Exactly translated into English by William Carr_, London, 1657.
[42] Lazari Riverii, _Opera Medica Universa_, Geneva, 1727.
[43] J.-H. Reveillé-Parise, ed., _Lettres de Gui Patin_, Paris, 1846.
[44] Jean Baptiste van Helmont, _Oriatrike or Physick Refined ...
faithfully rendered into English by J. C._, London, 1662, and _Ortus
Medicinae_, Editio Quarta, Lugduni, 1667.
[45] Giovanni Battista della Porta, _Natural Magick_, London, 1658,
reprinted New York, 1957, and _Magiae Naturalis Libri Viginti_,
Rothomagi, 1650.
[46] Richard F. Jones, _Ancients and Moderns: A Study of the Rise of the
Scientific Movement in Seventeenth-Century England_, 2nd ed., St. Louis,
1961; Richard S. Westfall, _Science and Religion in Seventeenth-Century
England_, New Haven, 1958; Marjorie Hope Nicolson, _Pepys' Diary and the
New Science_, Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1965;
Walter E. Houghton, "The English Virtuoso in the Seventeenth Century,"
_Journal of the History of Ideas_, III (1942), 51-73, 190-219; and
Dorothy Stimson, _Scientists and Amateurs: A History of the Royal
Society_, New York, 1948. See also, for an entertaining primary source,
Thomas Shadwell, _The Virtuoso_, ed., Marjorie Hope Nicolson and David
Stuart Rodes, London, 1966.
[47] Sir George Clark, _A History of the Royal College of Physicians of
London_, Oxford, Volume I, 1964, Volume II, 1966.
[48] Boyle, "Memoirs for the Natural History of Human Blood," _Works_,
IV, 637.
[49] Boyle, "On the Usefulness of Natural Philosophy," _Works_, II, 169.
[50] Stephen Paget, _John Hunter_, London, 1897, p. 126.
[51] Riverius, _Opera_, trans. Lester S. King, p. 1.
[52] Boyle, "Usefulness," pp. 74-75. See also pp. 115-116.
[53] _Ibid._, p. 87.
[54] _Ibid._, p. 97.
[55] _Ibid._, p. 98. See also "Of the Reconcileableness of Specific
Medicines to the Corpuscular Philosophy," _Works_, V, 85-86.
[56] Lester S. King, "The Road to Scientific Therapy: 'Signatures,'
'Sympathy,' and Controlled Experiment," _Journal of the American Medical
Association_, CXCVII (1966), 250-256.
[57] Boyle, "Usefulness," p. 115.
[58] _Ibid._, p. 127.
[59] _Ibid._, p. 130.
[60] _Ibid._, p. 131.
[61] Van Helmont, "Butler," _Ortus Medicinae_, pp. 358-365, and
_Oriatrike_, pp. 585-596. See also Boyle, "Usefulness," p. 102.
[62] Van Helmont, _Ortus_, p. 365; _Oriatrike_, p. 596.
[63] Boyle, "Usefulness," pp. 135-136.
[64] _Ibid._, p. 138.
[65] _Ibid._, p. 144.
[66] Boyle, "Reconcileableness of Specific Medicines," pp. 80-81.
[67] Boyle, "Usefulness," p. 183.
[68] _Ibid._, p. 190.
[69] _Ibid._, p. 194.
[70] _Ibid._, p. 195.
[71] Westfall, _op. cit._
[72] Boyle, "Usefulness," pp. 163-164.
_Members of the Seminar_
L. R. C. Agnew
Theodore Alexander
M. Peter Amacher
Lawrence Badash
Stephen Dow Beckham
Charles S. Bodemer
Hilda Boheme
John G. Burke
Seymour L. Chapin
Jack H. Clark
William E. Conway
Louise Darling
Edna C. Davis
Dr. & Mrs. John Field
Waldo H. Furgason
Martha Gnudi
Doris Haglund
Karl Hufbauer
Samisa Jadon
Dieter Jetter
Roy Kidman
Irving J. King
Lester S. King
Leslie Koepplin
Elizabeth Lomax
Patrick McCloskey
Nancy McNeil
Edgar Mauer
David S. Maxwell
Robert Moes
C. D. O'Malley
Ynez O'Neill
Marilyn Paul
Ladislao Reti
Sally Rutherford
Edward Shapiro
Hans H. Simmer
Ingrid Simmer
John E. Smith
Joan Starkweather
Betsey Starr
John M. Steadman
Annette Terzian
Lelde Trapans
Richard F. Trucken
Frances Valadez
Virginia Weiser
Fred N. White
Maxine White
Virginia Wong
Jacob Zeitlin
_William Andrews Clark
Memorial Library
Seminar Papers_
_Editing Donne and Pope._ 1952.
Problems in the Editing of Donne's Sermons, by George R. Potter.
Editorial Problems in Eighteenth-Century Poetry, by John Butt.
_Music and Literature in England in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth
Centuries._ 1953.
Poetry and Music in the Seventeenth Century, by James E. Phillips.
Some Aspects of Music and Literature in the Eighteenth Century, by
Bertrand H. Bronson.
_Restoration and Augustan Prose._ 1956.
Restoration Prose, by James R. Sutherland.
The Ironic Tradition in Augustan Prose from Swift to Johnson, by Ian
Watt.
_Anglo-American Cultural Relations in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth
Centuries._ 1958.
The Puritans in Old and New England, by Leon Howard.
William Byrd: Citizen of the Enlightenment, by Louis B. Wright.
_The Beginnings of Autobiography in England_, by James M. Osborn. 1959.
_Scientific Literature in Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century England._
1961.
English Medical Literature in the Sixteenth Century, by C. D. O'Malley.
English Scientific Literature in the Seventeenth Century, by Rupert
Hall.
_Francis Bacon's Intellectual Milieu._ A Paper delivered by Virgil K.
Whitaker at a meeting at the Clark Library, 18 November 1961,
celebrating the 400th anniversary of Bacon's birth.
_Methods of Textual Editing_, by Vinton A. Dearing. 1962.
_The Dolphin in History._ 1963.
The History of the Dolphin, by Ashley Montagu.
Modern Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises, as Challenges to Our
Intelligence, by John C. Lilly.
_Thomas Willis as a Physician_, by Kenneth Dewhurst. 1964.
_History of Botany._ 1965.
Herbals, Their History and Significance, by George H. M. Lawrence.
A Plant Pathogen Views History, by Kenneth F. Baker.
_Neo-Latin Poetry of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries._ 1965.
Daniel Rogers: A Neo-Latin Link between the Pléiade and Sidney's
'Areopagus,' by James E. Phillips.
Milton as a Latin Poet, by Don Cameron Allen.
_Milton and Clarendon: Papers on Seventeenth-Century English
Historiography._ 1965.
Milton as Historian, by French R. Fogle.
Clarendon and the Practice of History, by H. R. Trevor-Roper.
_Some Aspects of Seventeenth Century English Printing with Special
Reference to Joseph Moxon_, by Carey S. Bliss. 1965.
_Homage to Yeats, 1865-1965._ 1966.
Yeats and the Abbey Theatre, by Walter Starkie.
Women in Yeats's Poetry, by A. Norman Jeffares.
_Alchemy and Chemistry in the Seventeenth Century._ 1966.
Renaissance Chemistry and the Work of Robert Fludd, by Allen G. Debus.
Some Nonexistent Chemists of the Seventeenth Century, by Robert P.
Multhauf.
_The Uses of Irony._ 1966.
Daniel Defoe, by Maximillian E. Novak.
Jonathan Swift, by Herbert J. Davis.
_Bibliography._ 1966.
Bibliography and Restoration Drama, by Fredson Bowers.
In Pursuit of American Fiction, by Lyle Wright.
_Words to Music._ 1967.
English Song and the Challenge of Italian Monody, by Vincent Duckles.
Sound and Sense in Purcell's 'Single Songs,' by Franklin B. Zimmerman.
_John Dryden._ 1967.
Challenges to Dryden's Biographer, by Charles E. Ward.
Challenges to Dryden's Editor, by H. T. Swedenberg.
_Atoms, Blacksmiths, and Crystals._ 1967.
The Texture of Matter as Viewed by Artisan, Philosopher, and Scientist
in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries, by Cyril Stanley Smith.
Snowflakes and the Constitution of Crystalline Matter,
by John G. Burke.
_Laplace as a Newtonian Scientist_, by Roger Hahn. 1967.
_Modern Fine Printing._ 1967.
The Private Press: Its Essence and Recrudescence, by H. Richard Archer.
Tradition and Southern California Printers, by Ward Ritchie.
Transcriber's Notes:
Passages in italics are indicated by _underscore_.
Additional spacing after some of the quotes is intentional to indicate
both the end of a quotation and the beginning of a new paragraph as
presented in the original text.
The following misprints have been corrected:
"acessible" corrected to "accessible" (page 10)
"Futhermore" corrected to "Furthermore" (page 10)
"histroy" corrected to "history" (page 14)
"wordly" corrected to "worldly" (page 32)