The architect in the alembic: Chemistry, neoplatonism, and religion in seventeenth century English generation theory.

摘要

The problem of plant and animal generation represented a significant challenge for the natural philosophers of the late Seventeenth Century. With the rise of the mechanical philosophy and the corresponding decline of Aristotelian notions of substantial form, theorists sought to account for the genesis of complex living structures in purely material terms. Furthermore, the religious significance of generation forced natural philosophers to confront the question of God's involvement in the maintenance of the physical universe.;Strict adherence to the principles of the mechanical philosophy proved wanting in both respects; for example, Cartesian views of generation based upon passive particles of matter and immutable laws of motion were dismissed by many contemporaries as unconvincing and as contradictory to the Christian tradition of divine omnipotence. In their quest to explain the phenomena of reproduction, many theorists departed from pure mechanism and embraced ideas from the alchemical and chemical traditions of the Renaissance.;Renaissance alchemy and chemistry provided natural philosophers with a series of active material principles capable of shaping matter, of driving and guiding the development of complex living structures. During the late seventeenth century, a number of English theorists combined the active matter of alchemy and chemistry with the ideas of the mechanical philosophy to account for the phenomena of generation.;Although they lived at different times, these eclectic figures--Kenelm Digby, Thomas Sherley, Nehemiah Grew--shared a common strategy in confronting the intellectual controversies of late seventeenth century England. All sought compromise between opposing ideological poles, and the chemical tradition provided a useful via media. Alchemical/chemical categories allowed them to explain generation in material terms while transcending the bounds of strict Cartesian mechanism. In addition, such active principles provided a means of preserving divine providence while maintaining naturalistic views of phenomena. Finally, each theorist would use his chemical approach to generation as a tool in the moderation of major sectarian disputes. The analysis of these figures thus illustrates the importance of the alchemical/chemical traditions to the thought of the Scientific Revolution and demonstrates the tremendous influence of sectarian issues on English natural philosophy during the period.