Text.Duclo.1602-02.!2r
Back to Authors | Back to Texts by Cornelius Sutor
Source: Gaston Duclo, Apologia argyropoeiae et chrysopoeiae, Nevers: Pierre Roussin, 1592, sig. )?(2r–)?(6r [BP.Duclo.1590-01] [see also BP.Duclo.1598-01]
Summary: Cornelius Sutor, the printer, ponders whether the criticisms and failures attributed to chemistry and alchemy are due to nature's malice or human folly, highlighting the ongoing debate between traditional medicine, represented by figures like Hippocrates and Galen, and the newer chemical practices. He argues that dismissing new knowledge outright in favor of ancient wisdom is unwise, noting that the science of medicine itself evolved from empirical observation, a point supported by Aristotle and Marcus Manilius.
Sutor defends Alchemy, emphasizing that true practitioners do not detract from nature but seek to understand and extend its principles. The criticism of Alchemy and Chemists is attributed to misunderstandings and the actions of impostors rather than the discipline itself. The letter mentions Gaston Duclo's work as a significant defense of Alchemy, showcasing its validity through rigorous argument and experiment. The book, first published in Geneva by Eustache Vignon, found eager readers and is in demand for a reprint, encouraged by notable figures. The author seeks Schefer's support to counter the unwarranted criticism of Alchemy, offering the letter as a gesture of respect and a plea for continued patronage and support. (generated by ChatGPT)
Text
Sæpe-numerò mecum soleo mirari, vir clarissime, unum & unicum nostri æui decus, naturæne malitiâ, an hominum ascitâ petulantiâ fiat, ut nihil tam benè nascatur, quod non sciolorum pipulis ac cauillis subiaceat, nullaq́ue [sig. )?(2v] adeò tam modesta felicitas sit, teste quæ Val. Maximo, dentes malignitatis vitare possit.
Manifestum hoc fit in plerisque disciplinis liberalioribus: cum-primis tamen in Arte Chemica, &, quam ipsa sub se complectitur, Chrysopoeia. Hostiliter illam sectæ Galenicæ impugnant Medici: hanc, ut superstitiosam & deceptoriam, damnant Theologi. Vtramvis etiam unanimi consensu non saltem extra scholas eliminandam sed & urbe & orbe exterminandam clamitant.
Quæ verò hujus sive judicij, sive præjudicii caussæ? Veteres, inquiunt, terminos temerè illîc moveri; præclarorum medicorum, Hippocratis, Galeni, aliorum, au- [sig. )?(3r] ctoritatem in dubium vocari: heîc & Deum contumeliâ affici, dum quod naturæ proprium est, arti vanissimæ falsò tribuitur: & proximum lædi, dum per ejusmodi agyrtas non rarò in fraudes pellicitur, ac opibus & facultatibus suis impunè exsuitur. Magna meherclè facinora, & vel Phalaridis, si res verè ita habet, tauro digna.
At nec ita veteribus inhærendum est, ut novum omninò sit rejiciendum: nec frugibus in ventis adhuc glandibus vescendum. Et cur potiùs credas Hippocrati, quàm Galeno? aut cur huic potiùs quàm nostri sæculi medico? Medicinæ scientiam ex salubrium observatione primùm floruisse, & totam ab ἐμπειρίᾳ ortam esse, auctor est Aristoteles. Et Manilius lib[ro] 1.
[sig. )?(3v] Per varios, inquit, usus artem experientia fecit
Exemplo monstrante viam. —. —.
In hac veteres illos multum exceluisse, ut non infiteor; ità nostræ tempestatis Chemicos aut nihil, aut parùm illis cedere, affirmare haut verebor. Vident hoc ipsi Chemicomastiges, & dolent.
Verùm nec Chrysopœi, si penitiùs rem inspiciamus, dum artem suam extollunt, naturæ quidquam detrahunt, eámve destruunt. Immò artem naturæ perpetuò subjiciunt, cui velus basi ac fundamento innitatur, quamq́ue imitetur. Non verò ità sunt rudes, ut non videant, imitationem, quæ artis propria est, per se solam sine naturæ vi ac ministerio nunquam tam feliciter naturam expressisse, ut [sig. )?(4r] non aliquid inter hanc & illam discriminis appareat. Sed artem naturâ subnixam & adjutam plus posse, quàm natura sola possit, id est quod constanter affirmant. Et sanè illud inficiari quid, quæso, aliud est, quàm apertis etiam oculis cæcutire, & cum ratione insanire velle?
Impostorum porrò technas & machinationes nec negant, nec apporbant. Fatentur multos hodiè in Chrysopœiæ campo ὥσπερ κύνες ἐν βαλανάιῳ versatos esse, nec umquam artem in opus, spem in rem deduxisse; immò dum perdiu flantibus spes speciesve auri apparuit nulla, à χρυσοτεχνίᾳ ad κακοτεχνίαν relapsos, arti nobilissimæ summo fuisse dedecori. Sed hos nihil morantur. Tractent ipsi artem negligenter; [sig. )?(4v] agant fraudulenter; eos minimè defendunt: pro arte pugnant, non personis. Hæc Aristarchos meminisse, & neglectis ac rejectis circumstantiis rem ipsam intueri oportebat. Verùm præposterè heîc fiunt omnia. Rei veritatem non ex sese, sed ab extra metiuntur: artis efficacitatem ob artificis perversitatem elevant: usumq́ue propter abusum imperitè tollunt. Hunc tantus apud eos Chemiæ contemtus; hinc odium erga Chemicos plus-quam Vatinianum.
Illa igitur importuna judiciola & odia jampridem à veris Chemicis deplorantur, qui etiam toti in eo fuerunt, ut & artis suæ præstantiam contra malevolorum cavillationes assererent, eamq́ue à contumeliis omnibus vindicatam pri- [sig. )?(5r] stino nitori restituerent. Et sanè præclaram heîc operam posuit Gaston Dulco, siue, Claueus, subpræses Nivernensis, in suâ adversus Erastum, professorem Heydelbergensem, Apologiâ: in quâ & disputat copiosè, & refutat nervosè, Chrysopœæq́ue certitudinem tum argumentis, tum experimentis firmissimis ita evidenter probat, ut nemo sanus de eâ inposterum dubitare possit.
Prodiit is liber primum Genevæ, ex officinâ Vignonianâ; &, quod vino vendibili usu venire solet, facilè suum reperit emtorem, adeò ut prototypis omnibus ab eo tempore distractis, multis multorum votis iam desideretur. Hortatores itaque mihi fuerunt magni nominis viri, vt hujus denuò edendi cogitationem susciperem. [sig. )?(5v] Id quod tanto feci libentiùs, quanto majus ex eo emolumentum in Remp[ub]l[icam] literariam redundaturum existimavi.
Et quoniam in politioris literaturæ hominum circo aliquis mihi quærendus fuit, cujus auctoritate eorum, qui artem sugillant immerentem, & hujusmodi editionem scriptorum dente Theonino arrodunt, comprimerem audaciam: unum è multis te selegi, vir clariss[ime] cui quantum in hoc mihi genere gratificandi voluntatis; tantum & facultatis esse probè intelligo. Etenim de voluntate tuâ quid est cur dubitem? cùm, quod ultrò appetendum mihi erat, ultrò superioribus annis mihi obtuleris favorem & amorem, quibus, peream, si quid mihi jucundis contingere potuis- [sig. )?(6r] set à tanto & tam magno viro. Iam quum eruditionis tuæ gloria celso apud doctissimos quosq́ue sit loco posita, potes tu perfectò, si quisquam alius, hoc institutum meum defendere.
Accipe igitur qualecumque hoc chartaceum munus benivolè, meq́ue favore & benivolentiâ tuâ æternùm circumplecti tuaq́ue auctoritate ad majora confirmare velis. Vale. Ursellis ipsis Cal[endis] Ian[uarii] anni cIↄ. Iↄcii.Modern English Raw Translation
I often wonder, most esteemed sir, whether it is nature's malice or the acquired impudence of people that causes nothing of good origin to escape the nitpicking and criticism of fools, nor any modest success to avoid the teeth of malice, as testified by Valerius Maximus.
This is particularly evident in many of the liberal arts, especially in the field of Chemistry and its subset, Alchemy. Physicians of the Galenic school attack the former, while Theologians condemn the latter as superstitious and deceptive. Both are unanimously declared not just to be expelled from academic circles but also to be eradicated from the city and the world.
What causes this judgment or prejudice? They say that the ancient boundaries are being recklessly moved; the authority of eminent doctors like Hippocrates and Galen is questioned; this insults God by falsely attributing to a vain art what belongs to nature; and it harms our neighbor, as people are often lured into fraud and stripped of their wealth and resources with impunity. Indeed, great crimes, worthy of Phalaris's bull if things truly are as they say.
But we should not cling so tightly to the past as to reject everything new, nor should we continue to eat acorns when we have grain. And why believe Hippocrates over Galen, or him over a doctor of our own time? Aristotle states that the science of medicine first flourished from the observation of what is healthy, and its entire foundation is experiential. As Marcus Manilius says in his first book,
"Through varied practice, experience made the art, A guiding example showing the way."
While I concede that the ancients excelled in this art, I will not hesitate to affirm that the alchemists of our time yield little or nothing to them. The Chemists themselves see this and are pained by it.
Yet, upon closer inspection, the Alchemists, even as they extol their art, do not detract from nature nor destroy it. Instead, they continually submit their art to nature, upon which it is based and which it imitates. They are not so naive as to fail to see that imitation, the hallmark of art, can never replicate nature so exactly that no difference is discernible without the force and aid of nature itself. But they consistently affirm that art, supported and aided by nature, can achieve more than nature alone. To deny this is, I ask, what else but to be blind even with open eyes, and to wish to be mad with reason?
They neither deny nor approve of the tricks and machinations of impostors. They admit that many today in the field of Alchemy behave like dogs in a manger, never turning their art into reality, their hopes into substance; instead, as long hoped-for appearances of gold have produced nothing, they have fallen from the noble art of gold-making to base craftsmanship, to the great dishonor of a most noble art. But they pay these no mind. Let them handle the art carelessly, act fraudulently; they do not defend these individuals: they fight for the art, not for the people. Critics should have remembered this, looking at the matter itself rather than getting distracted by circumstances. But everything here is done backwards. The truth of the matter is measured not on its own merits but from external factors; the efficacy of the art is diminished due to the perversity of the practitioner: and the use is foolishly abolished because of misuse. Such is their contempt for Chemistry; hence their more-than-Vatinian hatred for Chemists.
Therefore, these tiresome judgments and hatreds have long been lamented by true Chemists, who have also dedicated themselves to asserting the excellence of their art against the cavils of the malicious and vindicating it from all slanders to restore its former luster. And indeed, Gaston Duclo, or Cleves, the deputy of Nevers, performed a remarkable service in his Apology against Thomas Erastus, a professor from Heidelberg, in which he argues at length and refutes forcefully, so clearly proving the certainty of Alchemy through both arguments and most solid experiments that no sane person could doubt it henceforth.
This book first appeared in Geneva, from the press of Eustache Vignon, and, as is usual with marketable wine, easily found its buyer, so that after all the original copies were sold, it is now greatly missed by many. Therefore, men of great name have encouraged me to consider republishing it. I did so all the more willingly, believing that it would bring great benefit to the literary public.
And since I needed to find someone in the circle of refined literature, whose authority could suppress the audacity of those who unjustly criticize the art and gnaw at this kind of publication with the tooth of Theon, I chose you from many, most illustrious sir, knowing well both your willingness and ability to gratify in this regard. For why should I doubt your willingness when, in previous years, you offered me your favor and love unsolicited, gifts which, I swear, could not have been more delightful coming from so great and noble a man. Now, as the glory of your learning is placed in a high position among the most learned, you are perfectly capable, if anyone is, of defending my undertaking.
Therefore, accept this humble paper gift with kindness, and please continue to embrace me with your favor and goodwill and strengthen me with your authority for greater tasks. Farewell. From Oberursel, on the first day of January in the year 1602.