Chemistry Reference
In-Depth Information
his corpuscular conception of matter. In fact, van Helmont develops an interesting
hybrid theory by combining corpuscular and physicalistic explanations of many
chemical phenomena with certain aspects of Paracelsian vitalism.
7
Pre-Helmontian natural philosophy had tended to distinguish between the notion
of
minima naturalia
and that of
semina rerum
. This distinction, which dates at
least as far back as late antiquity, conceives of
minima naturalia
as the smallest
particles of nature that are not further reducible to other particles. By interpreting
the notion of
minima naturalia
as the minimum-sized particles of reagents, many
Medieval and Renaissance alchemists had developed their own type of corpuscu-
larianism or particulate matter theory, called
'
alchemical atomism
'
, as a qualitative
version of classical atomism. The Neoplatonic notion of
semina rerum
, on the other
hand, was interpreted as referring to spiritual archetypes in nature. Augustine
referred to these as
(
logoi spermatikoi
). In general, natural
philosophers tended to embrace either one or the other of these notions but not
both, since one was entirely physicalistic while the other was spiritualistic.
Unlike his predecessors, however, van Helmont embraces both the concept of
minima naturalia
and of
semina rerum
, since each concept plays a distinct role in
his chemical philosophy. Van Helmont follows Paracelsus in interpreting
semina
rerum
as “the main agent in nature [and as] spiritual non-corporeal entities.”
8
He believes that
semina rerum
account for non-mechanical properties in nature,
while the
minima naturalia
are regarded in strictly physical terms as corpuscles.
In fact, “Helmontian atoms are identical with the
minima naturalia
, i.e., the
smallest particles into which a substance may be divided. There is little doubt
that for van Helmont
minima naturalia
are actual physical units. [However it]
is also apparent that they have qualitative determinations, not mechanical proper-
ties.”
9
According to him, the
semina
work together with the
minima
to bring
about changes in nature by providing the spiritual force of action that brings
about qualitative chemical alterations.
Van Helmont rejects the explanatory value of strictly mechanical explanations.
He claims that in order to provide a mechanical explanation for chemical alterations
such as, for example, the mixture of substances, one would have to restrict
oneself to considering only the mechanical properties of shape, size, and motion.
Under such a mechanistic model, a mixture of substances would have to be
explained as the juxtaposition of physical parts. Van Helmont
seminal reasons
'
'
s understanding of
what is entailed by mechanical explanations describes precisely the kind of struc-
tural chemistry later developed by Boyle to account for analysis and synthesis in
strictly mechanical terms. According to van Helmont, however, a “purely mechan-
ical juxtaposition of [physical] parts does not bring about a real mixture
[of substances]”,
10
because a physical juxtaposition does not bring about a true
'
7
Banchetti-Robino (
2011
), pp. 173-186.
8
Clericuzio (
2000
), p. 56.
9
Ibid
.
10
Ibid
, pp. 58-59.
