The Sacrificial Body and the Day of Doom: Alchemy and Apocalyptic Discourse in the Protestant Reformation (review)
context by Paul of Taranto (Geber of the Summa Perfectionis). This posited a corpuscular concept of matter in which components of a compound retain their identity as demonstrated experimentally by their recovery through chymical procedures resulting in “reductions to the pristine state” (24, 41–43). The process of recovering original constituents through chymical analysis was an important strand in Paracelsus and Renaissance alchemy, and was also vigorously attacked from the stance traditional Aristotelian theory by figures such as Erastus. This stimulated efforts by figures such as Andreas Libavius and Daniel Sennert to draw on the corpuscular Aristotelianism of Geberian alchemy to support an understanding of chymical analysis and synthesis. Although he does not fully abandon substantial forms, Sennert most fully develops a corpuscular theory of matter based on chymical experiments to undermine the Aristotelian theory of mixtures as ruling out the persistence of atoms or other particulate structures. His recovery of silver from solution in aqua fortis showed the persistence of unchanged silver and supported its microparticulate structure. This process is nicely illustrated in the plates showing the stages of Newman’s replication of this experiment. Robert Boyle was aware of Sennert’s work and reductions to the pristine state inspired by Sennert were Boyle’s “most important experimental evidence for the persistence of micro level corpuscles and for the mechanical character of the accidental qualities induced upon and removed from those corpuscles” (217) by which Boyle replaced substantial forms with the mechanical origin of qualities. Newman’s recovery of this heritage that was not acknowledged by Boyle and has been given little consideration by historians is a tour-de-force that nonetheless also precisely delineates the revolutionary contribution Boyle does make as well as the integral role of experimental chymistry in the Scientific Revolution. Newman has also launched something of a methodological manifesto. Contra the claims of newer historiographical approaches to yield new insights, Newman argues that they have merely repackaged the established grand narrative. He strongly asserts, and recommends by example, the value of the close reading of original primary texts, the need to attend to the philosophy part of natural philosophy, and the existence of important continuities between medieval and early modern natural philosophy. NICHOLAS H. CLULEE Frostburg State University