Were Michael Sendivogius findings in Chemistry considered by him to be Alchemy?

Question

Michael Sendivogius (/ˌsɛndɪˈvoʊdʒiəs/; Polish: Michał Sędziwój; 2 February 1566 – 1636) was a Polish alchemist, philosopher, and medical doctor.

A pioneer of chemistry, he developed ways of purification and creation of various acids, metals and other chemical compounds.

How did Michael Sendivogius think of his own findings at the time? Did he consider them to be "Alchemy", or by that time he saw them as "Chemistry"?

Notes:

According to History of Chemistry

The protoscience of chemistry, alchemy, was unsuccessful in explaining the nature of matter and its transformations. However, by performing experiments and recording the results, alchemists set the stage for modern chemistry. The distinction began to emerge when a clear differentiation was made between chemistry and alchemy by Robert Boyle in his work The Sceptical Chymist (1661).

Alchemy and chemistry share an interest in the composition and properties of matter, and until the 18th century they were not separate disciplines. The term chymistry has been used to describe the blend of alchemy and chemistry that existed before that time.

And

Etymology of Chemistry from Alchemy to Chemistry

Later medieval Latin had alchimia / alchymia "alchemy", alchimicus "alchemical", and alchimista "alchemist". The mineralogist and humanist Georg Agricola (died 1555) was the first to drop the Arabic definite article al-. In his Latin works from 1530 on he exclusively wrote chymia and chymista in describing activity that we today would characterize as chemical or alchemical

Please share the results of your preliminary research into this. To my (certainly limited) knowledge there was no notion of chemistry as separate from alchemy prior to Robert Boyle (1627–1691) and Johann Kunckel (1630–1703). — njuffa, Feb 09 '22 at 15:14
I added some notes. This is interesting because it shows Alchemy had elements of real science, and it wasnt pure mystical or wrongly theorized content — Pablo, Feb 09 '22 at 16:01
Consider also the 1675 publication of "Cours de Chymie" by Nicolas Lemery (1645–1715), who was one of the first to develop an acid-base theory of chemistry. — njuffa, Feb 09 '22 at 16:20
Interestingly enough, Alchemy was definitely not purely mystical, it picked up that connotation (particularly) in the 18th and 19th centuries. It was a diverse field that attracted many types of people (mystics included), but most of the time the materials and preparation methods were quite modern. The theoretical side was lacking, but in the 17th century the distinction between magic and what we now consider "science" was vague at best. Most lab techniques (distillation, recrystallization, reducing things by boiling) were staples of alchemical research going back centuries. — Sam Gallagher, Feb 09 '22 at 18:45
The transition was somewhat gradual. For example, Kunckel, for all his debunking of the charlatanry of alchemists and improvements to evidence-based experimental underpinnings of chemistry, continued to believe in transmutation. Johann Kunckel, "Philosophia Chemica Experimentis Confirmata," Amsterdam: J. Wolters 1694. Boyle can be credited with being the first to draw a sharp line. Robert Boyle, "The Sceptical Chymist: or Chymico-Physical Doubts & Paradoxes," London: J. Cadwell 1661. Lemery introduced the distinction between organic and anorganic chemistry. — njuffa, Feb 09 '22 at 21:47
@njuffa without mention them, nobody sees the parallelism between alchemy / chemistry , and other disciplines of today, which use elements of science, but also a lot of "charlatanry", to claim the whole discipline is science, when they are like in an alchemy stage? — Pablo, Feb 10 '22 at 02:11
@Pablo Note that the concept named science as we know it today likewise did not exist before about 1725. Before that there was natural philosophy, and late-stage alchemy could be considered a protoscience (with portions of pseudoscience mixed in) within that framework of natural philosophy. — njuffa, Feb 10 '22 at 02:22
@njuffa I believe that one notion of science that remains today that comes from 3,000 years ago when the first usage of the word scientia appeared, it's the idea that "science is something that's always true". Depending on the context and / or discussion, this affirmation about science is going to be taken as true or false. For example, when certain people wants to give credit to a theory of them, they say "this is science" (like, this is always true, this is fact, this is confirmed) . Then, if the theory fails, they will say "science isnt always true, it isnt always exact,etc". — Pablo, Feb 10 '22 at 02:34
@Pablo The world is different than it was pre-1600s. In time, people became more interested in what could be observed to be true, and they became more interested in creating a mathematical or theoretical model of the world. This wasn't always the case. For much of history, people did not use experimental evidence as an essential component of knowledge. Philosophy was passed down among intellectuals, craftsmen experimented with strictly practical intention, and that was satisfactory. The search for knowledge did not involve reproducibility, or experimental evidence, or consistent logic. — Sam Gallagher, Feb 13 '22 at 03:36
@Pablo Even the idea that the world and its operation could be modeled was fairly novel. It's not like it never occurred to anyone, but it was not influential enough before things like the mechanistic philosophy took hold. It was simply irrelevant whether you could check if everything was made of the four elements, it was knowledge that had been passed down, and that was enough. The rise of empiricism, skepticism, and rationalism (which are now built in firmly to our own concept of science) was the turning point people call the "scientific revolution." We changed our goals. — Sam Gallagher, Feb 13 '22 at 03:42
@Pablo So no, nothing that meets the scientific standard today is actually "like in an alchemy stage" because alchemy existed in a completely different philosophical world, had different goals and motivations, and was 'extinguished' as soon as the scientific revolution got under way. Anyone that claims science can do more or less than it can simply hasn't studied or has been frustrated because they don't understand. Science is defined, it meets its requirements, we can tell if something is pseudoscience. It is logically sound, which is absolute because it is basically arbitrary. — Sam Gallagher, Feb 13 '22 at 03:47

score 5 · Accepted Answer · answered Feb 09 '22 at 15:39

He referred to his work as alchemy.

Further I liberally do grant and promise you a communication of more Notions than your Patron hath yet imparted to you, concerning as well the theoretical as the practical part of our alchemy.

For therein you shall find displayed and clearly manifested all the secrets of our cabal, and of physick demonstrative with the whole knowledge of alchemical doctrine.

But if you have a desire at they very entrance into this study to have a full knowledge and sincere information in our alchemy they let it suffice our Novum lumen chymicum, with the annexed treatise of Sulphur and the dialogue between Mercury and the Alchemist, for in this book nothing is wanting.

Around the Time of Michael's birth was the first recorded dropping of the al- from alchemy by Georgius Agricola, but this wasn't to make a distinction between the two. Through the 17th century alchemy and chemistry would have been thought of as the same thing. Staring in the early 18th century the two would not be considered synonymous.

Were Michael Sendivogius findings in Chemistry considered by him to be Alchemy?

1 Answers1