J. B. van helmont’s attack on aristotle

Annals of Science

Volumn 36, Issue 6, 1979, Pages 575-591

  Browne, Alice ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84925920192     PISSN: 00033790     EISSN: 1464505X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00033797900200391     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. 1 In this paper I have used the first edition of van Helmont’s works, Ortus medicinae (3 vols., 1648, Amsterdam) occasionally referring to the English translation, Oriatrike: or, physick refined, by J[ohn] ("[handler] (1662, London), and the far better German one. Auffgang der Artzney-Kunsl, by Knorr von Rosenroth and F. M. van Helmont (1683. Nulzbaeh) for help in translating. All the treatises that I shall be discussing were first published posthumously in Ortis medicinae. References to van Helmont give the title of the treatise and the section number or numbers, except in the case of treatises not divided into sections, for which I give page-numbers. There is a useful summary of van Helmont ‘s chemical achievements in J. R. Partington, A history of chemistry (4 vols., 1961-70, London and New York), vol. 2, 209-243, which also gives a full bibliography. There is a more general account of him in Walter Pagel, Jo. Bapt. van Helmont: Einf’uhrung in die philosophisc.he Median des Baroclc (1930, Berlin). More recent than the articles cited by Partington are Walter Pagel, ‘The spectre of van Helmont and the idea of continuity in the history of chemistry’, in Mikulas Teich and Robert Young (eds.) Changing perspectives in the history of science (1973, London), 100¬109
2. van Helmont’s disease theory, Peter H. Niebyl, ‘Sennert, van Helmont, and medical ontology’, Bulletin of the history of medicine, 45 (1971), 115-137, and his ‘The Helmontian thorn’, Ibid., 570-595. Van Helmont’s influence in England is discussed in P. M. Rattansi, ‘The Helmontian-Galenist controversy in Restorition England’, Ambix, 12 (1964), 1-23; and in Charles Webster, The Great Instaura ion: science, medicine and reform 1626-1660 (1975, London).
3. 2 For van Helmont’s accounts of his own education, see Studia authoris and the introduction to Tumulus pestis.
4. 3 See Francois Camerlynckx, ‘L’Universite de Louvain dcpuis le dernier quart du XVIe siecle jusqu’a la “visite” des archiducs Albert et Isabelle (1575-1617)’, L’Universite de Louvain a travers cinq siecles: Etudes Historiques, (ed. Leon van der Essen: 1927, Brussels), 31-64; and Leon van der Essen, L’universite de Louvain (1425-1940) (1945, Brussels).
5. 4 Van Helmont uses allegory in the introduction to Tumulus pestis, in Arbor vitae, and in Potestas medicaminum; this last is discussed at length in J. H. Cohausen Helmontius ecstaticus (1731, Amsterdam).
6. 5 There is a useful guide to these in Sister Patricia Reif, ‘The textbook tradition in natural philosophy, 1600-1650’, Journal of the history of ideas, 30 (1969), 17-32.
7. 6 Van Helmont gives observational proof of the existence of a vacuum at Vacuum naturae, 19, and cites Pliny on earthquakes (Natural history 11.81) at Terrae tremor, 28.
8. 7 Van Helmont’s discussion of the rainbow appears in Meteoron anomalum 1-16.
9. 8 Formarum ortus, 22.
10. 9 There are general attacks on Aristotle, and claims to have disproved Aristotelianism, at Physica Aristotelis et Galeni ignara, 1; Causae et initio naturalium, 38—39; Venatio scientiarum, 60; Mortis introitus in naturam humanam decus virginum, 2; and Demonstratur thesis, 14 (referring back to Formarum ortus). Van Helmont says that Galen was even more ignorant than Aristotle at Physica Aristotelis et Galeni ignara, 20, and argues (at Vita longa, ars brevis, 8 and Physica Aristotelis et Galeni ignara, 22) that the lack of commentaries on Galen’s De sanitate tuenda shows the work’s worthlessness, an argument not easily compatible with complete contempt for Aristotle.
11. 10 ‘Aristotelis doctiina est summa Veritas, quoniam eius intellectus fuit finis humani intellectus, quare bene dicitur de illo quod ipse fuit creatus et datus nobis divina providentia, ut non ignoremus possibilia sciri’ (Averroes, Destructioniim III in sol. dub. 13: cited from Benedictus Pererius, De rommii n Unix omnium rerum naturalium principiis et affectionibus libri quindtcim (1579, Paris), 276).
12. 11 Walter Pagel, ‘The reaction to Aristotle in seventeenth-century biological thought: Campanella, van Helmont, Glanvill, Charleton, Harvey, Glisson, Descartes’, in E. Ashworth Underwood (cd.), Science, medicine and history: essays on the evolution of scientific thought and medical practice (2 vols., 1953, Oxford), vol. 1, 489-509 (p. 489).
13. 12 The four-cause theory is attacked in.’ansae, et initio, naturalium, as is the four-element theory, which is denied in Natura contrariorum nescia and elsewhere. This text also denies the concepts of privation and form, which again are attacked at Physica Aristotelis et Galeni ignara, 18.
14. 13 Natura contrariorum nescia, 24.
15. 14 Natura contrariorum nescia., 38.
16. 15 ’Nam Scholae, propriam sentientes disputandi thymosin, meditatae sunt, et reliqua seminum producta, pariter non nisi per Iram, actionem nimirum majoris ad minus, victoris ad victum, robustiorisque ad debilius, propter contrarietatis relationes coneitarr (ibid., 22).
17. 16 Natura contrariorum nescia., 40-44
18. 17 This experiment is described at Complexionvm atque mistionum elementalium figmentum, 30. For articles on it. see footnote 30 below.
19. 18 Formarum, ortus, 1-17. The relationship between this theory of van Helmont’s and earlier light metaphysics is not clear. On earlier theories
20. see A. C. Crombie, Robert Grosseteste and experimental science, 1100-1700 (1953, Oxford), 128-34
21. David C. Lindberg, Theories of vision from Al-Kindi to Kepler (1976, Chicago and London), 94-103.
22. 19 Formarum ortus, 68.
23. 20 Formarum ortus., 26.
24. 21 ‘mors artificialis, positiva. non autem privativa’ (Formarum ortus., 30)
25. Formarum ortus., 31 and 26.
26. 23 Van Helmont mentions the prayer of silence at Nexus sensitivae et mentis, 5; Demens idea 13; and Venatio scientiarum, 16, where he explicitly describes what is involved in it as stripping himself of ratio. He describes his dreams and visions at Venatio scientiarum, 17; Imago mentis, 13-15 (Imago dei, though printed as if it were an independent treatise, is the same work, with only minor variations); Butler, 594; Arbor vitae, 796; Praefatio to lgnolus hospes morbus. 9—15; Confessio authoris, 4-14; and Studia Autfwris. 19. He also uses dream narratives as explicitly literary, allegorical frames in Potestas medicaminum, Fluxus ad generationem, and in the introduction to Tumulus pestis.
27. 24 For example: ‘Tandem mens rogavit, quam Scientiam Ratio dare posset? cui mox ilia respondit, se posse per artem magnam Lullii efficere, ut de quoquo scibili, homo, tanquam omnisciens discurrere possit, cum totius mundi admiratione. Turn indignata est mens, ac dixit Rationi: Apage, garrula nequam, sermoeinalia enim inpi’imis detestor’ ( Venatio srientianim. 15). Again. ‘Dies diei eructat verbum, et nox nocti indicat scientiam’ (Dementi idea, 17).
28. 25 Demens idea, 12.
29. 26 ‘Et licet ante nata Euclidis elementa Mathesis rudior esset, tamen Aristoteles in hac, quam in natura, longe peritior, naturam subter illius scientiae Regulas, subigere annisus est. Noverat enim circulum, figurarum in piano capacissimam. Subito igitur in axioma cogit universale, etiam ulcera, ac vulnera rotunda, caeteris quibusque, in extentione paribus, esse curato difiiciliora’ (Causae et initia naturalium, 40).
30. 27 The example of the circular wound does not in fact fit in well with other aspects of the Posterior analytics; see on this Aristotle (trans, and ed. Jonathan Barnes), Posterior analytics (1975, Oxford), 153.
31. 28 ‘Ego enim in marito et Ohirurgo, latrones: In monialibus levitatem sic], in rustico Samaritanum, et in muliere, Jo bum admiratus, cognovi Deum Job, eundem esse universi, et perpetuum Rectorem omnipotentem. A quo, licet homo sit suffuratus titulos Majestatis, Celsitudinis, excellentiae, clementiae. et dominationis, unicum saltern sibi perpetuum reservaverit. Quod est, aeternitatis. Cujus respectu, homo est fungus unius noctis. eras putridus. Sciant ergo Scholae. Regulas Mathescos male naturae quadrare. Homo enim non naturam mctitur; sed ipsa se’ Causae et initio, naturalium, 40.
32. 29 Van Helmont uses this distinction at, for example Causae et initio, naturalium, 4, 12; and Mortis introitus in naturam humanam decus virginum. 3.
33. 30 The history and sense of this distinction is a vast subject; the articles under the relevant words in Rudolf Eisler, Worterburh der philosophischen Begriffe (3 vols., 1927-30, Berlin) or the Enciclopediu filosofica (2nd. ed., 1967, Florence), indicate its scope. It occurs in mystics such as Tauler, whom van Helmont mentions with approval at Studia authoris, 7, and is expounded more philosophically in Cusanus’s Idiota, a work that van Helmont may have known, as he derived his experiment with the willow-tree from its fourth book. However, the fourth book, De staticis experiments, was sometimes printed separately with editions of Vitruvius, so knowledge of it does not necessarily entail knowledge of the rest of the work. On the willow-tree experiments
34. see Hebbel E. Hoff, ‘Nicolaus of Cusa, van Helmont, and Boyle: the tirst experiment of the Renaissance in quantitative biology and medicine’, Journal of the history of medicine and allied sciences, 19 (1964), 99-117
35. C. Webster, ‘Water as the ultimate principle of nature: the background to Boyle’s Sceptical Chymist’, Ambix, 13 (1966), 96-107
36. Herbert M. Howe ‘A root of van Helmont’s tree’, Isis, 56 (1965), 408-419 argues, to ray mind unconvincingly. for an alternative source for the experiment in the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions.
37. 31 ‘Quod cum a multo taedio. et animi fatigatione. intense orassem. forte in somnium deductus sum. et vidi totum universuni. in conspcetu veritatis. tanquam aliquod informe chaos, quod merum paene nihil esset. Et hausi inde conceptum unius verbi. qui significabat mihi, quae sequuntur: Ecce tit. et quae rides, sunt nil, quidquid urges, minus quam ipsttm nihilum, in conspectn Altissimi. Ipse scit fines omnes rerum, agendarum; tu, tuae saluti saltern intendas. Tmo in isto conceptu, erat praeceptum intrinsecum, quod fierem Medicus. et quod mihi daretur quandoque ipsum Raphael’ (Stttdia authoris. 20). Raphael is the angel of healing in the Book of Tobit.
38. 32 ‘Principium motus et quietis, in corporibus, quibus per se, et non per aceidens inest’ (Physica Aristotelis et Galeni ignara, 2). This follows the definition of Physics, 192b, 20-23; compare De anima, 412b 16—17; which uses the same formula as a definition of living bodies.
39. 33 For representative discussions’of the definition, see Rdericus de Arriaga, Gursus philosophicus (1669, Lugduni), 369f; and Francisco de Oviedo, Cursusphilosophicus (2 vols., 1640, Lugduni), vol. 1,224. For examples of disputations dealing wholly or partly with this definition, see Georgius Geltnerus, Disputatio IV ex libra 2 dxpoaaeotg, de natura, de causis tarn per se, quam per aceidens (1609, Wittenberg); Hermannus Riisbergius, Disputatio physica de naturae definitions (1625, Marpurgi Cattorum); Michael Lembach, Disputatio tertia, de natura et causis (1626, Lipsiae); and Ambrosius Wiltens, De natura, causa ejficiente et fine rerum naturalium, which is the fourth disputation in Franco Burgersdijck, Collegium Physicum (1632, Lugduni Batavorum).
40. 34 ‘Ego vero credo, Xaturam jussum Dei, quo res est id quod est, et agit, quod agere jussa est’ (Physica Aristotelis, 3). This definition of nature is repeated at Natura contrariorum nescia. 39.
41. 35 ‘Ego vero credo, Xaturam jussum Dei, quo res est id quod est, et agit, quod agere jussa est’., 2-3. These criticisms are discussed in Walter Pagel
42. J. B. van Helmont, ‘De tempore, and biological time’, Osiris, 8 (1948), 346-417 (pp. 382-384).
43. 36 ‘De tempore, and biological time’, Osiris., 3, objection 12. There is a useful discussion of Aristotle’s precepts on how to define in J. D. G. Evans, Aristotle’s concept of dialectic (1977, Cambridge), 18-20.
44. 37 This question is raised in Hermannus Riisbergius, Disputatio physica de naturae definitions (1625, Marpurgi Cattorum), thesis 32: ‘Quaeritur igitur. 1. An haec naturae definitio sit bona, cum sit copulativa? non enim particulae copulativae debent poni in definitiombus, ut colligitur ex Aristotele 2. poster, t. 30. ubi dicit: hominem esse animal pedestre, non animal ET pedestre’. Franeiscus Toletus, Commentaria, una cum quaestionibus, in octo libros Aristotelis de physica auscultatione (1585, Coloniae Agrippinae), 45 verso
45. 46 recto, raises objections to the form as well as the content of the definition.
46. 38 Toletus This question is raised in Hermannus Riisbergius, Disputatio physica de naturae definitions., 46 recto.
47. 39 John Webster, Aeademiarum examen, or the examination of academies (1653, London), 78f.; facsimile reprint in Allen G. Debus, Science and education in the seventeenth century: the Webster- Ward debate (1970, London and New York).
48. 40 For example, the problems of whether the words causa and quietis are superfluous are discussed in Arriaga (footnote 33), 369; and Oviedo (footnote 33), 224.
49. 41 ‘Scientias autem, sola dat sapientia, fllius sempiterni Patris luminum. Media autem acquirendi scientias, sunt duntaxat orare, quaerere, et pulsare’ (Logica inutilis, 24).
50. 42 ‘Inprimis, definitionem eonstare docent genere definiti, et differentia constitutiva. At, cum vix alia differentia, speciei constitutiva, nota sit, praeter rationale, et irrationale, quae sit specifica, et individuis proxima, harumque duarum altera adhuc sit negativa: priorem vero quandoque frivolam probavero: Quare uno pede sublato abs tripode, necesse est ruat Logicus, tali sedi confisus’ iliiil. (i).
51. 43 These are the four kinds oidivisio per se listed in Franco Burgersdijck, Institutionum logicarum libri duo (2nd. ed., 1634, Lugduni Batavorum), 244. Burgersdijck also lists four kinds oidivisio per aceidens (245): ‘nimirum vel causae pereffecta, vel effecti per causam efficientem, materialem, aut finalem, vel subjecti per adjuneta, vel adjuncti per subjeeta’.
52. 44 ‘Dixit nempe Athens in cordesuo: si videremDeum, Angelum, vel Cacodaemonem. imo vel spiritum hominis: crederem utique illos esse. Sed nolo credere, quae non video, vel audio, quaeque mihi insueta, ideoque incredibilia, videntur. Sed sentio cum Aristotele, quod omnis scientia, omnisque doctrina intellectiva, tantum e praeexistente sensuum cognitione fiat. Cui respondet Diabolus: Bonum est se sic manere’ (De amimae nostrae immortalitate, 6).
53. 45 Aristotle recognises this throughout the Posterior analytics, and argues against claims that this invalidates demonstration in A.3.
54. 46 Logica inutilis, 23.
55. 47 ‘Nulla autem negatio unquam scientiam peperit, cum aliquid privative contineat, nihilque doceat esse, quod negat aliquid esse. Scientia vero, positiva sit necesse, cum sit positivi, et de positivo duntaxat’ (11).
56. 48 ‘Itaque prout in mendacio non continetur, aut latet Veritas, ejusque cognitio: Ita consequens est, quod in praemissis non claudatur necessario conclusionis cognitio. Vel enim falsum est. quod nulla arbor mendacii facit bonum fructum veritatis: vel falsum est. quod ex praemissis falsis, ut principiis, nascatur conclusio vera’ (14).
57. 49 This is discussed in Posterior analytics, A. 13, and is described as the deduction of the reason why. Aristotle also recognises another type of scientific syllogism, deduction of the fact, which runs as follows: ‘The planets do not twinkle; that which does not twinkle is near; the planets are near’. The question of these syllogisms is closely involved with that of medical method, because commentaries on Galen’s Ars parva identify these two types of syllogism with the methods of resolution and composition mentioned there, though without unanimous agreement on which is which. The most useful guide to the ramifications of this is Neal W. Gilbert, Renaissance concepts of method (1960, New York).
58. 50 It is possible to argue that this type of scientific syllogism, proving effect from cause, resembles the order of nature, and van Helmont may have this sort of argument in mind. For an example, see Thomas Hall, Histrio-mastix: a whip for Webster (1654, London), 222; reprinted in Debus (footnote 39).
59. 51 ‘Etenim dum quis mihi ostendit lapidem calaminarem, Cadmiae preparationem, contentum, Cupri miscellam, et Aurichalci usus, quae antea nesciebam, is docet, demonstrat, datque scientiam ejus, quod ante ignorabatur. Similia vero nunquam docuit Logica’ (Logica inutilin. 22).
60. 52 Physica Aristotelis et Galeni ignara, 9-10:’Discerent nempe inutili isto triennio, totoque septennio. Arithmeticam, Algebram, Euclidis elementa, Geographiam deinceps, cum circumstanths marium. fluminum, fontium, montium, Provineiarum, et Mineralium. Itemque proprietates, et consuetudine.s nationum, aquarum, plantarum, animalium, mineralium. et locorum. Insuper usum annuli et Aatrolabii. Deinde accedant ad naturae studium, discant prima corporum initia noscere, et separare. Fixitatem. inquam, volatilitatem, cum separatione, vita, morte, alteritate, defectibus, alteratione, infirmitate, corruptione, transplantatione, solutione, coagulatione, resolutione, operando novisse. Historia addatur extractionum, divisionum, connexionum, maturitatum, promotionum, impedimentorum, eonsequen- tiarum, damni denique, atque utilitatis. Doceantur simul seminum, fermentorum, spirituum, ac tinturarum primordia, cum omni fluxu, digestione, commutatione, motu, et perturbatione alterabilium. Eaque omnia, non quidem nuda Logismi descriptione, sed demonstratione ignis mechanica. Natura siquidem, sua opera metiturdistallando, irrigando, siccando, caleinando, resolvendo, iisdem plane mediis. quibus vitra. ejusmodi operationes absolvunt. Adeoque Artifex, naturae operationes mutando, ejusdem proprietates. et scientiam nanciscitur. Nam utut naturalc ingenium, et acumen judicii, Philosophus habeat; nunquam tamcn ad rerum naturalium radicem, ant radicalem scientiam admittitur, sine igne’.
61. 53 For example: ‘ Fuit Aristoteles auctor, et princeps disciplinac Peripateticae, quae longe praeferenda est aliis sectis Philosophorum: non solum quia est propior veritati, et ab errorum sordibus purior atque remotior, sed quia est uberior, ornatior, nervosior, magisque aecommodata ad erudiendos homines, vitamque civilem instruendam’ (Pererius (footnote 10), 274).
62. 54 See Pagel The four-cause theory is attacked in.’ansae, et initio, naturalium, as is the four-element theory, which is denied in Natura contrariorum nescia and elsewhere. This text also denies the concepts of privation and form, which again are attacked at Physica Aristotelis et Galeni ignara, 18.