Editing Andreas Libavius (section)

==Views on alchemy ==
Libavius was a staunch believer in [[chrysopoeia]], or the ability to transmute a base metal into gold. This viewpoint was a matter of much debate for alchemists of the time, and he defended it in several of his writings. Though he did discover several new chemical processes, he tended to be more of a theoretician, and he leaned toward traditional Aristotelianism rather than Paracelsian alchemy.

He was an opponent of Paracelsus on the grounds of Paracelsus' disrespect for ancient thought, magnification of personal experience above others' experience, overstatement of the didactic function of nature, use of magical words and symbols in natural philosophy, confusion of natural and supernatural causes, interjection of seeds into the creation of the universe, and postulation of astral influences.<ref name="annals1">{{cite journal|last=Benbow|first=Peter K.|title=Theory and Action in the Works of Andreas Libavius and Other Alchemists|journal=Annals of Science|year=2009|volume=66|issue=1|pages=135–139|doi=10.1080/00033790802136421|s2cid=218636935}}</ref> Despite this, he did not entirely reject all Paracelsian methods.
In ''The Rosicrucian Enlightenment,'' [[Frances Yates]] states:

<blockquote>Andrea Libavius was one of those ''chymists'' who was influenced up to a point by the new teachings of Paracelsus in that he accepted the use of the new chemical remedies in medicine advocated by Paracelsus, whilst adhering theoretically to the traditional Aristotelian and Galenist teachings and rejecting Paracelsist mysticism. [[Aristotle]] and Galen appear, honourably placed, on the title-page of Libavius's main work, the ''Alchymia'', published at Frankfurt in 1596 ... Libavius criticized the [[Rosicrucian]] ''Fama'' and ''Confessio'' in several works. Basing himself on the texts of the two manifestos, Libavius raises serious objections to them on scientific, political, and religious grounds. Libavius is strongly against theories of macro-microcosmic harmony, against ''Magia and Cabala'', against [[Hermes Trismegistus]] (from whose supposed writings he makes many quotations), against [[Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa|Agrippa]] and [[Trithemius]]—in short he is against the Renaissance tradition.</blockquote>

[[File:ALCHEMIA. ANDREAE LIBAVII.png|thumb]]

He accepted the Paracelsian principle of using occult properties to explain phenomena with no apparent cause but rejected the conclusion that a thing possessing these properties must have an astral connection to the divine.

He was also critical of alchemists who claimed to have produced a [[panacea (medicine)|panacea]], or cure-all, not because he didn't believe that a panacea was possible, but because these alchemists invariably refused to disclose their formulas. He believed that anyone who managed to create a panacea was duty bound to teach the process to as many other people as possible, so that it could benefit mankind.<ref name="annals1" /> He was particularly critical of Georgius am Wald (also called Georgius an und von Wald), an alchemist who wrote a book in which he claimed to have made a panacea. Libavius considered am Wald to be a fraud and declared that am Wald's panacea was no more than sulfur and mercury, not gold as am Wald claimed. Between 1595 and 1596 he dedicated four volumes, ''Neoparacelsica'', ''Tractatus duo physici'', ''Gegenbericht von der Panacea Amwaldina'', and ''Panacea Amwaldina victa'' to exposing am Wald as a quack.<ref name="dictionarybio1">"Libavius (or Libau), Andreas."  Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography. 2008. Encyclopedia.com.</ref>